Scott MacDonald (talk | contribs) |
→Most statements in a request for arbitration?: no to WP:100 |
||
Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
:::: Though we're not strictly speaking at the level of 100 statements in "support" of something, this is probably still worth listing at [[WP:100]]. --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 01:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC) |
:::: Though we're not strictly speaking at the level of 100 statements in "support" of something, this is probably still worth listing at [[WP:100]]. --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 01:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::::Well, it would be not less "worth" doing that any other listing there - which is not much on a worth-less page. (Although that page is about 100 Wikipedians "supporting" something, whereas here there are 99 users with very disparate views.--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac]] 01:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC) |
:::::Well, it would be not less "worth" doing that any other listing there - which is not much on a worth-less page. (Although that page is about 100 Wikipedians "supporting" something, whereas here there are 99 users with very disparate views.--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac]] 01:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::::Let's not; it would be in bad taste to add infamous editors to the list, and a violation of [[WP:DENY]]. Those of us who have watched numerous ArbCom cases know very well that Malleus will be banned as a result of this proceeding. There is zero chance that ArbCom will tolerate editors calling colleagues "cunts" repeatedly and without remorse. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 02:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Citing supporting diffs where... appropriate, necessary, or possible? == |
== Citing supporting diffs where... appropriate, necessary, or possible? == |
Revision as of 02:05, 27 December 2011
Arbitration talk page archives |
---|
WT:RFAR archives (2004–2009) |
Various archives (2004–2011) |
Ongoing WT:A/R archives (2009–) |
WT:RFAR subpages |
Archive of prior proceedings |
Perhaps off-topic
First allow me to apologize if this post presents a difficult situation. I am reminded of the AC email leaks via the current Malleus Fatuorum request for case, and as a private email between he and another arb. was the first to be leaked. Have there been any explanations posted publicly? If so, may I ask where? If the current case request results in the loss of a 120k+ editor, will the AC provide said editor of any explanations?
Note: I understand that I may get a "canned" response to this. I also understand that there are times that information can not be made public due to the need to respect other's privacy. Still, the "we're looking into it" aka "we'll just let it die" approach actually does undermine the credibility of our project. Having a background in network and Internet security, I have no doubt that at least a couple folks know what happened here. I'm not demanding anything, and I honestly do understand the need to be prudent in these matters. I'm simply asking that some honest "we messed up here" integrity be displayed. My apologies to a couple of you that I KNOW to be of the highest caliber (hi Risker, Roger, etc.), but much of the disgust and mistrust of our project lies in the "What the hell is going on" venue. My best holiday wishes to you all. — Ched : ? 05:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Ched, to be honest, there's so many avenues of how it could have been leaked (someone's mail account being hacked, someone accessing the Mailman software etcetera, or deliberate leak). We've covered every possible method we can try to determine the exact cause, with assistance requests to the WMF (for access logs on who accessed the archives, etcetera) and hit a dead end on every single one of them so far. We continue to try to come up with theories on how/why and to find out exactly how it was done, but at this point, the trail has gone cold. We'd love to know how it was done, to make sure it doesn't happen again, and we've made strides on that (requiring a proven identity via PGP request to the WMF developers to get an access password to the archive, but we do not have anything to report on the root cause, and may not at all SirFozzie (talk) 00:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- I've only just read your post above, Ched, and much of it puzzles me. You say "Having a background in network and Internet security, I have no doubt that at least a couple folks know what happened here" (how does that make sense? I can think of several ways that logic can be shot down) and "much of the disgust and mistrust of our project" (this is hyperbole - you can't blame everything wrong with the project on the fact that ArbCom use a closed mailing list). Both of those statements strike me as wrong-headed - seeing things the wrong way. Also, the bland "etc" fails to hide the implication that you mistrust some sitting arbitrators. You can't post blanket criticisms like that and then apologise to some vague and partially defined portion of the body you are criticising. What I think you are asking for is an update on whether anything more is going to be said about those leaks. In that sense, SirFozzie has simply told you that nothing is known for sure and nothing more is likely to be said. That's not an update. That's more a 'nothing known and nothing more to be said' final word, which is where I thought the matter had been left months ago. I have a personal interest in this, as the leaks included posts I made to the mailing list when I was an arbitrator, but I've long since concluded that nothing more is likely to be done, and I've almost forgotten about the leaks now. I certainly wouldn't expect any further updates (it is some six months now), and certainly not in the context of this request involving Malleus, which is about as unrelated as you can get (unless someone is spreading wild conspiracy theories). And even if an explanation is posted at some future point, I don't think it would be possible to provide proof that would satisfy everyone, and people would still carry on believing their own theories about what happened. Carcharoth (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Most statements in a request for arbitration?
Out of curiousity, does anyone know the record for most statements in a request for arbitration? The request regarding MF is currently at 90 statements. That's the most I've seen in recent memory. Just curious. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- sure plenty for them to read huh? :) — Ched : ? 23:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Most I recall seeing, too. Jclemens (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- One more comment and it'll be 100. (Jayen466 was 99.) Maybe we should give them a toaster or something. A lot of people have a lot to say about this guy. Thats for sure. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 10:29, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- I thought I'd seen more, but a brief look through the archives of declined requests didn't bring up anything among those requests I remembered being very long. Possibly some of the accepted cases have lots of statements at the request stage, though those will be harder to identify as: (a) I don't think a diff is kept at the point a case is opened; and (b) the statements by parties and others are split up once a case opens. Possibly the large number of statements here is due to a combinations of: (i) timing (holiday season for many); (ii) the peaking of a divisive issue within the community; (iii) actions over the last few months by some of those involved keeping the issue 'hot' and oft-discussed (this is subtly different from an issue which is naturally divisive - the difference between genuine controversy and manufactured controversy). Or it could be simply because it involves a very active editor who comes into contact with a large number of other editors. Finally, there is the relatively slow response by arbitrators at a time of transition/holidays for ArbCom. Requests that get a quick response from arbitrators tend to get less statements. If arbitrators bide their time and wait before saying something, a snowball effect can occur. Carcharoth (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Though we're not strictly speaking at the level of 100 statements in "support" of something, this is probably still worth listing at WP:100. --Elonka 01:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well, it would be not less "worth" doing that any other listing there - which is not much on a worth-less page. (Although that page is about 100 Wikipedians "supporting" something, whereas here there are 99 users with very disparate views.--Scott Mac 01:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Let's not; it would be in bad taste to add infamous editors to the list, and a violation of WP:DENY. Those of us who have watched numerous ArbCom cases know very well that Malleus will be banned as a result of this proceeding. There is zero chance that ArbCom will tolerate editors calling colleagues "cunts" repeatedly and without remorse. Jehochman Talk 02:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Though we're not strictly speaking at the level of 100 statements in "support" of something, this is probably still worth listing at WP:100. --Elonka 01:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- I thought I'd seen more, but a brief look through the archives of declined requests didn't bring up anything among those requests I remembered being very long. Possibly some of the accepted cases have lots of statements at the request stage, though those will be harder to identify as: (a) I don't think a diff is kept at the point a case is opened; and (b) the statements by parties and others are split up once a case opens. Possibly the large number of statements here is due to a combinations of: (i) timing (holiday season for many); (ii) the peaking of a divisive issue within the community; (iii) actions over the last few months by some of those involved keeping the issue 'hot' and oft-discussed (this is subtly different from an issue which is naturally divisive - the difference between genuine controversy and manufactured controversy). Or it could be simply because it involves a very active editor who comes into contact with a large number of other editors. Finally, there is the relatively slow response by arbitrators at a time of transition/holidays for ArbCom. Requests that get a quick response from arbitrators tend to get less statements. If arbitrators bide their time and wait before saying something, a snowball effect can occur. Carcharoth (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- One more comment and it'll be 100. (Jayen466 was 99.) Maybe we should give them a toaster or something. A lot of people have a lot to say about this guy. Thats for sure. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 10:29, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Citing supporting diffs where... appropriate, necessary, or possible?
This thread leads on from a minor procedural argument between Fram and me during the (unsuccessful) request for an arbitration case concerning Rich Farmbrough. The original discussion can be found via this permalink.
Let's compare the wording in the red box above the requests (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header) and the Arbitration Guide.
- Red box, step 3: "State your request in 500 words or fewer, citing supporting diffs where necessary."
- Red box, bullet 3: "to 500 words or fewer, citing supporting diffs where possible."
- Arbitration guide, section 3.3: "A short and factual statement of 500 words or fewer should be written, including diffs where appropriate"
My question is, which one do we actually want? Possible, appropriate or necessary? Personally I think we should standardise all instances as "appropriate" as a middle-ground and to leave the interpretation open to the party making the statement. Deryck C. 15:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well I just decided to be bold and make the change. Deryck C. 17:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds reasonable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Malleus case
AFAICS this can now not be heard, according to the voting numbers. Merry Christmas! Rich Farmbrough, 02:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC).
- Where on earth do you get THAT impression? Jclemens (talk) 03:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- It is still mathematically possible to reach the net four votes required to open a case. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 23:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)