| Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back. |
On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog
Stats for pending changes trial
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases
Category:Wikipedia semi-protected pages
Useful things for me to remember or I will never find them again, plus archive links
|
Column-generating template families
The templates listed here are not interchangeable. For example, using {{col-float}} with {{col-end}} instead of {{col-float-end}} would leave a <div>...</div> open, potentially harming any subsequent formatting.
† Can template handle the basic wiki markup {| | || |- |} used to create tables? If not, special templates that produce these elements (such as {{(!}}, {{!}}, {{!!}}, {{!-}}, {{!)}})—or HTML tags (<table>...</table> , <tr>...</tr> , etc.)—need to be used instead.
|
Notes
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
{{subst:User:Alison/c}}
{{subst:W-screen}}
Wikipedia:SPI/CLERK
Note to self: Research Laura Muntz Lyall (or persuade one of the Riggrs to do so), consider writing an article about the Forster Family Dollhouse in the Canadian Museum of Civilization. Some day.
Emergency desysops
|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
|
Other note to self re "emergency" desysops:
- Spencer195, Marskell, Cool3 - Level 1
- Hemanshu - committee motion, mischaracterized as "emergency desysop" on noticeboard, desysop occurred minutes before the motion passed.
- Sade - to check "involuntary per arbcom", Feb 09
- RickK/Zoe - July 08. Long dormant admin accounts, shared compromised password.
- Eye of the Mind - Dec 07. Main page deletion.
- Shreshth91 - done at request of single arbitrator, Aug 07.
- Vancouverguy - Jun 07. Long dorman admin account, apparent compromise.
- Yanksox - Mar 07 - Jimbo desysop, confirmed by Arbcom in full case (DB deletion wheel war)
- Robdurbar - Apr 07 - mass blocking, self unblocking, deletion. Wonderfool.
- Husnock - Dec 06. Admitted shared password, desysop confirmed by Arbcom in full case.
|
Messages below please
[6] Yet another editor has questioned Ohconfucius' script use. He has edited since without replying. Discussion with him seems to get nowhere. Please review his editing in light of the date delinking arbitration, WP:DATERET, and the last few RFCs. I believe censures and blocks of Ohconfucius would fall under the AC.
I am also aware the AC has been discussing Jack, though the AC did not formally approach me for my input. I am troubled by that. Will I be informed of any result by email from an AC representative, if the result is not posted in public? Gimmetoo (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The script OhConfucius created (& is using) is designed not to allow changing accessdates to YYYY-MM-DD and to permit only 1) changing them all to DMY, or 2) changing them all to MDY, or 3) leave them alone. OhConfucius has stated on his talk page that he dislikes YYYY-MM-DD format & that he considers any instance of lack of alignment "fair game" to remove YYYY-MM-DD (that statement since removed from his talk page). OhConfucius has been aligning the format (NEVER to YYYY-MM-DD) any time he notices they are not aligned - with no regard for WP:DATERET - resulting in the gradual removal, and potentially the eventual eradication, of YYYY-MM-DD from wikipedia. He has been notified several times that this is in violation of WP:DATERET -- and for some time pretty much ceased his behaviour & has said he does not do that anymore. Recently, we have seeen repeated cases where he is removing YYYY-MM-DD again, with no regard for WP:DATERET -- several times in cases where all the accessdates were already aligned as YYYY-MM-DD, and often where there were only a few (recent ones) not in that format. Other users have also been using his script to eliminate YYYY-MM-DD. Proposals to remove YYYY-MM-DD from accessdates have repeatedly failed, but OhC continues to ignore that. I submit that OhC's script must either 1>include the possibility of changing accessdates to YYYY-MM-DD, or 2> be stricken from WP space, or 3> be modified so that only he can use it and thus he alone will be directly responsible for its usage--JimWae (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I see your time is limited. I think Ohconfucius' editing violates WP:FAITACCOMPLI, and I think it needs to stop. I would like a recommendation from you on how to proceed. Is this something WP:AE should handle? An AC motiion? or should we initiate a WP:RFC/U first? I would also appreciate some information about the other proceeding I mentioned. Gimmetoo (talk) 06:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm suspicious of the status of this complaint, given that Gimmetoo is leaping in and changing WP:MOSNUM at the rate of knots. Tony (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's quite a way to describe things, Tony. "knots"? What is Ohconfucius then? Gimmetoo (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the quick response from you and the arbitration committee, Risker. Gimmetoo (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well. I don't know, folks. I kind of expected that experienced editors all knew where arbitration enforcement was, and that it did not involve my talk page. I am sorry that I wasn't responsive to you earlier, Gimmetoo. However, given the fact that there's a pretty good chance if this matter gets enforced, that it will wind up at an appeal to Arbcom, I'm not really in a position to take hands-on action in these kinds of situations. Generally speaking, arbitrators don't directly enforce Arbcom decisions. Risker (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You've just been defending an arbitrator using CU to check for possible violations of arbcom remedies. Has AC been scanning for possible socking by serial sockmasters? Would you or another CU do so? Gimmetoo (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, mostly I've been saying that the use of checkuser tools was appropriate to confirm the fairly obvious suspicion that automated tools were used. That the investigation was done by an arbitrator is sort of secondary; I don't think the subject of the checkuser could have waved a red flag at the Committee any more obviously than he did. Which serial sockmaster are you talking about? Several arbcom members participate at SPI, although I do so only rarely. Risker (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Jack, of course. He's used about 18 known socks in the last year. Or is that not a "red flag"? Gimmetoo (talk) 00:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, Gimmetoo, you've got a point there. I've long said that Arbcom has no business enforcing its own decisions, and I am not particularly happy that some of my colleagues decided that Arbcom should be enforcing the Rich Farmbrough decision. I feel the same way about trying to enforce anything related to Jack. Besides, at this point, it is so distant from the initial case, and so unrelated to it, that I think anything dealing with Jack probably needs a new case. I have to admit I'm pretty darn tired of all his serial socks. Risker (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And I'm sure you know that AC has left this case bollocksed. He's under a restriction to edit from one account, which he has violated repeatedly for a year. That would usually mean a ban, but AC prevents that. Why? Gimmetoo (talk) 02:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Risker,
I sent you an email yesterday. Sometimes WP email goes into my spam box so just wanted to drop you a note. SÆdontalk 07:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Saedon, I did get your email and (interestingly) another one similar to it. I've also received other emails that disagree with the perspective you've put forward. I'm keeping an eye out, but I'm not seeing any lines being crossed here behaviourally, which was the hallmark for which I blocked previously, so though there are similarities, it's not an exact match at this point. I'm continuing to watch, though. Thanks for the heads up. Risker (talk) 02:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is important that we are open about the nature of governance on Wikipedia. If someone holds multiple roles it should be clearly stated. I was not aware that the ArbCom appointed their own watchdogs, mainly from their own number. Of course like many organisations the pool of appropriate volunteers for these types of role is often small, so we should not be over-excited to to see the same names cropping up again and again. But if we conceal this, whether from slight embarrassment, or simply because we hadn't thought to make it public we invite criticism, and rightly so. Rich Farmbrough, 21:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Rich, for heaven's sake. This is not concealed in any way, shape or form. That you've not paid attention to it in the past does not mean it is concealed. We don't appoint "our own watchdogs", we appoint the Audit Subcommittee, which investigates concerns about the use of checkuser and oversight permissions. There's nothing to be embarrassed about here; only frustration that several years after the fact you're showing up and complaining that nobody told you something that had been as well publicised as we could make it.
The Arbitration Committee has a fiduciary duty to the WMF to grant access to checkuser and oversight permissions only to those who meet WMF and community standards. As well, the Committee has a duty to the community to do its best to ensure that these roles are filled by individuals who are capable, available and are able to communicate their actions appropriately: in the case of checkusers, without violation of the privacy policy, and in the case of oversighters, to confirm what action has been taken (if any) to the requesting party. If the community-based CUs and OSs fall behind, it is usually arbitrators who will step in and fill in the gaps, so that the community continues to receive responses to their requests. For the record, as recently as 4 years ago, oversight requests often took days if not weeks to respond to, and SPIs were frequently weeks behind. Now we're more likely to get complaints because an oversight request has taken more than an hour to be addressed, or an SPI took more than a day. It's darn tough to meet these expectations given the staffing we currently have, which is why we are about to seek out more community members willing to share the workload. Risker (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Words have meanings. Are you sure you mean "fiduciary duty?" This is highly relevant to my interests. Hipocrite (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Where I come from, "fiduciary duty" means a duty assigned in trust and confidence. The WMF Board trusts Arbcom to put forward only candidates who meet WMF requirements, will follow the m:Privacy policy and will serve the community effectively. "Fiduciary" does not specifically refer to financial responsibility, although in many cases there is a financial element. There is no such element in this situation. Risker (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed I would have said the fiduciary duty is to to the community, who appoint and trust the Arbitrators. Rich Farmbrough, 16:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Well, access to the permissions are granted only through the processes approved by the WMF Board of Trustees, who have the over-arching responsibility for access to private information. The community has no responsibility in that regard. Risker (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The WMF is there because the community needs it, to serve the projects. A fact they forgot a few times last year, and were salutarily reminded of. Rich Farmbrough, 23:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- "as well publicised as we could make it." Well, I have made Avraham's multiple roles better publicised in a few seconds than you could make it after "several years", yet you object. There seems to be a feeling that by asking these questions I am attacking members of the committee. Nothing could be further from the truth, I am, I think, quite entitled to ask these questions, and to express my dismay at some of the answers. Most of the items that I am taking issue with were not decided by the current arbitrators, so there is no need to feel threatened by the questions. Rich Farmbrough, 16:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- All of his permissions on all projects are posted on his user page. They are not particularly relevant to his appointment to the AUSC, except that they reflect someone who understands the use of these permissions. The nomination and appointment processes for checkusers, oversighters and AUSC members has been consistently published on multiple pages for several years; while nobody is obligated to pay attention to them, your insinuation that the Committee has kept everyone in the dark about this process is, bluntly put, nonsense. Indeed, one of the bigger challenges has been persuading those who specialize in determining what notices go on watchlists that these nomination cycles are important enough to justify watchlist notices. Can I count on you to support a watchlist notice for the next round of applications, which will occur in the very near future? Risker (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not insinuating any such thing, and I am mystified that you could draw such a conclusion. If you were not aware there is a public misconception that actually only some 900 people are allowed to edit Wikipedia. There is also a wide belief among many peripherally involved with Wikipedia that power is "all a stitch up", that Admins "circle wagons" - there is "no point arguing with an admin" etc. etc. People have gone to great lengths to create the structures the govern Wikipedia, and to ensure that as much as possible is done in the full light of day. The majority of Wikipedia scandals I am aware of, consequently result from attempts to keep things hidden. (One can only speculate how many successful attempts there have been.) For that reason I would think additional clarity is to be welcomed. People interested in the AUSC are entitled to know without having to research it that a majority of AUSC have other functionary roles. The names on their own are meaningless to a random reader.
- As to watchlist notices I was not aware there was such a thing, but I did see the site wide message on a number of arbitrator elections, and I believe I voted for Elen and Hersfold. A case of casting ones bread on the waters I feel. I would think that it would depend what other watchlist notices they are competing against.
- Rich Farmbrough, 23:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- The current watchlist notice is interesting, (an event I would go to if I were well enough) but I would support functionary nominations over that. Rich Farmbrough, 23:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Note that the m:Ombudsman_commission is not appointed by Arbcom and less than half its membership are en: regulars. --Dweller (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/F%C3%A6&diff=495048453&oldid=495036371 – Why was the ED link removed? It was simply a link to a log entry; it wasn't a link to the article itself. The article doesn't even contain statements or assertions. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not needed, and through your own admission it only exists to punish the person who uploaded the images in the first place. Risker (talk) 03:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, but it wasn't personal. At the time, Fæ and I never interacted. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 04:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One doesn't need to have interacted with someone for it to be "personal". That was pretty obviously personal. Risker (talk) 04:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just saying that the article wasn't created as a result of a grudge between Fæ and me. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 04:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's ED. Prior grudges don't seem to be required. Risker (talk) 04:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My edits post ArbCom are completely different than pre. Firstly I make many less edits, secondly I edit largely in talk space, and thirdly the articles I edit are almost exclusively turtles. Your, as ever, mystified. Rich Farmbrough, 18:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- It concerns me that you cannot see the similiarities in at least a portion of your content edits. They're blindingly obvious to anyone who has ever looked at your edits before. It took me less than 3 minutes to figure out that you were somehow or other using a form of AWB. Risker (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course I can see the similarities. I didn't realise that I was supposed to be denying my identity and disguising me edits as if they were those of someone who cares or knows nothing about anything deeper than a typo. Easily done of course. I have dumped out my .js, and the Wiki will as a result run less efficiently, newbies will be more confused, extra edits will be made, pages will be more inconsistent. But it's all good I guess. Rich Farmbrough, 21:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks for your email. I've replied. I'm not expecting an instant response from you but I'm posting here in case the email ended up in your junk folder. Pine✉ 21:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Pine - email received, but I probably won't be able to reply until sometime tomorrow. Thanks for your comments. Risker (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Risker, did you reply to this? I haven't seen an email from you. Pine✉ 23:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I did, I thought, copying in the Functionaries mailing list. Let me check my "sent" mail. Risker (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Replying here or on your talk page is ok with me. Pine✉ 00:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Pine; I appreciate the opportunity to be a bit more transparent, now that we aren't talking about a specific suppression request. I replied to your first message via email, but not your one of June 1; I wanted to see if there was some additional feedback from functionaries before responding. There was a bit of discussion about improving the WP:RFO page, and I have asked for an oversighter volunteer or two to take on the responsibility of making that page more streamlined and useful. In a few hours, we will be announcing a recruitment campaign for new Checkusers and Oversighters. (You might want to consider applying: candidates who have a genuine interest in this area are always welcome. Candidates do not need to be administrators, the suppression permission contains all the tools needed to carry out the task.) In the interim, I have also reinforced to the functionary team the importance and value of everyone on the team making an effort to participate more regularly/consistently in responding to suppression requests, especially those that come in via email.
As to the suggestion of redirecting people to the Stewards IRC channel for suppression, Stewards will not generally carry out suppressions on projects with appointed oversighters unless it is so time-sensitive it cannot wait for that project's oversighters to address; there's a long and complicated history behind that policy, but it's not really our place to challenge how stewards use their tools, as they have to respect the needs of hundreds of projects, not just ours. On the other hand, there are often Enwp admins idling in the channel who can revdelete the edit in question whilst awaiting suppression. I've been reviewing suppression requests for almost four years now, and I don't think I've seen more than 3 or 4 genuinely time-sensitive requests a year; the key to reducing harm is to ensure that the information is not in a visible version of an article so it won't wind up on Google, so reverting or revision deletion is almost always the best first step. I do understand your frustration at having to wait a much longer time than usual for the edit you identified to be suppressed, and agree that the turnaround on that particular request was suboptimal. Risker (talk) 00:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. I will be watching to see what changes are made to the OS pages. Regarding the the CU/OS applications, if there is a sitenotice, may I suggest that the sitenotice also announce the discussion about BASC and ask for BASC volunteers in case the proposed reform is approved? Pine✉ 00:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the BASC discussion is still ongoing, and it will probably be a couple of weeks before it concludes; by that time, the nominations for CU/OS should be closed. But I do want to try for a watchlist notice. Risker (talk) 00:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a female or male name in Canada? PumpkinSky talk 02:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's one of those names used by both sexes (like Lesley and Ashley), although most of the Guylaines I know are women. It's pronounced Gee-LIN. Risker (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I came across a highly technical geological writing by a Guylaine Gauthier. PumpkinSky talk 02:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like this one is a "she".[7] - search for her name. Risker (talk) 02:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a GG in New Brunswick, female, but I don't know if the same person or not.PumpkinSky talk 03:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect it is the same one; my guess would be that she was in British Columbia for education, but the East Coast is "home". Nice to see a woman scientist doing well. :-) Risker (talk) 03:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey all :)
Just a quick update on what we've been working on:
- The centralised feedback page is now live! Feel free to use it and all other feedback pages; there's no prohibition on playing around, dealing with the comments or letting others know about it, although the full release comes much later. Let me know if you find any bugs; we know it's a bit odd in Monobook, but that should be fixed in our deployment this week.
- On Thursday, 7th June we'll be holding an office hours session at 20:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office. We'll be discussing all the latest developments, as well as what's coming up next; hope to see you all there!
- Those of you who hand-coded feedback; I believe I contacted you all about t-shirts. If I didn't, drop me a line and I'll get it sorted out :).
Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What, again? Hi Okeyes, it amazes me how you always find the worst possible day or time for me to attend office hours. :-) I'll try to poke around on the page over the next few days if I have a chance, although I have a rather major project about to launch. Risker (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. Your comments were correct, and you did an excellent job. It is an honor for me to meet you (even in this virtual world). Please always keep up your clerkship, we need you. Just to you know, ahead is a list of more blasted articles apparently within that same case; I already forwarded it to our friend Timotheus, but may be it can be useful to you too.
(^) –means written in other interwiki
(^^^) –means written in several interwikis
“tagged”, refers to merge
And (for instance) these articles, but not only, that user deleted and used to create a new one:
All best, KenneBar81 (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|