m Signing comment by 62.25.109.195 - "→Enquiry into the Rlevse Affair: cmt." |
This page is for discussion of official ARBCOM announcements only |
||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
__TOC__ |
__TOC__ |
||
== Resignation == |
|||
Resignations from the ArbCom are usually announced and discussed here. It's my understanding that [[user:Rlevse]] has resigned from the ArbCom. Is that official? <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]] [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]] </b> 22:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:Yes. Rlevse has been removed (by his request) from the various mailing lists, arbitrator tools, etcetera. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 22:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:Confirmed per SirFozzie. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 02:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Then it's appropriate to thank him for his long service on the committee and to the project. <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]] [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]] </b> 09:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::Seconded. [[User:LessHeard vanU|LessHeard vanU]] ([[User talk:LessHeard vanU|talk]]) 14:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
What exactly is Arbitration Committee's position on this affair? [[User:Loosmark|<span style="background:#acf;padding:2px;color:black; 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em"> '''Dr. Loosmark''' </span>]] 15:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:On a scale of one to ten, how likely do you reckon you are to get any sort of clear response to that question? <font color="#00ACF4">╟─[[User:TreasuryTag|Treasury]][[User talk:TreasuryTag|Tag]]►[[Special:Contributions/TreasuryTag|<span style="cursor:help;">Counsellor of State</span>]]─╢</font> 15:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::For most issues, I would say -½. However, given that this situation is much less cryptic and personal to them, as well as a positive moment (thanking him for his service, not the fact he's leaving)...I'd say about 4.2±√3. =) [[w:User:Ks0stm|<font color="009900" ><b>Ks0stm</b></font>]] <sup>([[User talk:Ks0stm|T]]•[[Special:Contributions/Ks0stm|C]]•[[User:Ks0stm/Guestbook|G]])</sup> 15:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:: TreasuryTag, I have no idea how likely is I get any sort of clear response but I do hope that they will address the issue. [[User:Loosmark|<span style="background:#acf;padding:2px;color:black; 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em"> '''Dr. Loosmark''' </span>]] 16:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::The Arbitration Committee, as a committee, has not adopted a "position on this affair." This individual arbitrator is sad about virtually every aspect of the matter. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 16:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::Told you, Loosmark <tt>:P</tt> <font color="#C4112F">╟─[[User:TreasuryTag|Treasury]][[User talk:TreasuryTag|Tag]]►[[Special:Contributions/TreasuryTag|<span style="cursor:help;">prorogation</span>]]─╢</font> 16:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::Indeed, I don't even think that the issue is even relevant to the committee as a committee. So √-1. — [[User:Coren|Coren]] <sup>[[User Talk:Coren|(talk)]]</sup> 16:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::When I brought it up elsewhere, Rlevse indicated that an expression of our thanks for his service wasn't necessary (although as you can see from the statements above, that we do thank him for serving, and will miss having him around) [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 16:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Not relevant to the committee? Really, Coren? From what I have gathered from various talk pages about this incident, Rlevse was accused of plagiarism, am I correct? Now, you might think this "''isn't even relevant for the committee''", I on the other hand think this is very relevant for the committee. Rlevse is as far as I know an '''arbitrator, checkuser''' and '''bureaucrat''' so I think the community deserves to know what happened and what's ArbCom position on that. So far, the ArbCom seems to be playing the "let's pretend nothing really happened" game. [[User:Loosmark|<span style="background:#acf;padding:2px;color:black; 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em"> '''Dr. Loosmark''' </span>]] 16:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
: His user rights no longer show anything beyond "editor" which appears to confirm the resignation. Now, there ''is'' a question about whether or not he should reclaim such rights if/when he returns. I would argue that he should not be so-allowed, and if you start a discussion about that somewhere, I'll chime in. If he does return, some sort of mentoring will probably be needed for a while to see if the plagiarizing problem has been sorted.[[User:Bali ultimate|Bali ultimate]] ([[User talk:Bali ultimate|talk]]) 16:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
: Rlevse has resigned all of his positions and retired from the project, so ultimately nothing would be gained from proverbially sticking a knife in his back by means of a "We think that for Rlevse to do X, Y, or Z was wrong" <small>NB: I am unfamiliar with the intimate details of this whole affair and so hold no position on it in that respect</small>. Precisely why you are, Loosmark, so determinedly pursuing such a denouncement of Rlevse does, I admit, baffle me. [[User talk:AGK|<font color="black">'''AGK'''</font>]] 16:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ec}} Issues were raised about an aspect of Rlevse's mainspace editing; in the ensuing back-and-forth, he elected to retire as an editor and from all positions he held. None of this involved the Arbitration Committee or Rlevse's role therein; it occurred on-wiki within the editing community, on project pages and user talk pages. If you feel you deserve to know what happened, I would suggest you start reading [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Plagiarism and copyright concerns on the main page|here]]. |
|||
:Perhaps the retirement ought to have been announced as a formality, but it is neither reasonable or desirable to expect arbitrators to stand in judgement over every incident that comes to pass on the project. I'd rather they concentrated on what we elected them for. [[user talk:Skomorokh|<span style="color: black;"><font face="New York">Skomorokh</font></span>]] 16:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::...and further reading here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Copyrights_and_plagiarism] including this comment by Jimbo Wales (bold is Jimbo's) As a note: Rlevse's work was attributed. While this isn't the place to discuss this, this situation is not clear cut. So I'd suggest reading the pages where its being discussed.([[User:Littleolive oil|olive]] ([[User talk:Littleolive oil|talk]]) 16:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)) |
|||
::"''When someone claims that text, fully attributed to a source that anyone can look up, is plagiarized, that's just wrong, and it obscures the very real moral problem of people trying to pass off other people's work as their own. '''Even in cases where the attribution is done poorly, as long as there is attribution, there is no plagiarism - just bad style or bad writing'''. It is the moral crime of pretending that someone else's work is your own which amounts to plagiarism.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)"'' |
|||
::: I personally wouldn't consider Wales competent to understand what's going on here or evaluate plagairism. He's an internet entrepreneur. What was going on was the unattributed cutting and pasting of others work. If you're quoting something you do "this."[[User:Bali ultimate|Bali ultimate]] ([[User talk:Bali ultimate|talk]]) 16:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::The text was attributed.([[User:Littleolive oil|olive]] ([[User talk:Littleolive oil|talk]]) 17:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)) |
|||
::: It seems to me that neither Rlevse nor Jimbo are aware that what happened was indeed a case plagiarism. Quite shocking. [[User:Loosmark|<span style="background:#acf;padding:2px;color:black; 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em"> '''Dr. Loosmark''' </span>]] 17:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::Huh? "Wales" is an admin and has been an editor here for longer than most if not all.([[User:Littleolive oil|olive]] ([[User talk:Littleolive oil|talk]]) 17:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)) |
|||
::::: If Wales said the simple use of citation at the end of a long cut and pasted sentence, that is neither directly attributed nor in quotes, as was the case with a couple of the rlevse offerings that I and others looked at, made it kosher, then he doesn't know what he's talking about. I'll leave it there.[[User:Bali ultimate|Bali ultimate]] ([[User talk:Bali ultimate|talk]]) 17:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Jimbo didn't comment on this case specifically, and my comment and link was for those who don't know what the situation is, giving them a place to look should they want to think more deeply about it. No need to turn this into personal attacks of anyone. Thanks([[User:Littleolive oil|olive]] ([[User talk:Littleolive oil|talk]]) 17:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)) |
|||
::::::Jimmy is quite clearly wrong here. There is a difference between sourcing and attribution. Sourcing implies "this information came from" and attribution states "this text was written by". Sourcing says "the research is not my own" and ought to be the default position of any Wikipedia article - attribution says "the text was not written by me" and (unless the text comes from another GFDL source) ought to be rare on wikipedia and made explicit by quotation marking. There ought seldom to be any confusion between the two.--[[User talk:Scott MacDonald|Scott Mac]] 17:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Sadly, I inadvertently started this. I apologize and suggest the discussion be taken elsewhere.([[User:Littleolive oil|olive]] ([[User talk:Littleolive oil|talk]]) 17:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)) |
|||
::::Except it was not plagiarism but potential copyright infringement. [[User:MLauba|MLauba]] ''<sup>'''('''[[User talk:MLauba|Talk]]''')'''</sup>'' 12:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
What the hell happened!? Has the account [[user:Rlevse]] been deleted? [[User:Loosmark|<span style="background:#acf;padding:2px;color:black; 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em"> '''Dr. Loosmark''' </span>]] 10:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:No, user accounts cannot be deleted. However, user pages and user talk pages can be deleted, most often simply by user request, and sometimes by admin, arbcom, or other administrative decision. This case appears to have been a simple case of user request. The deleted revisions are visible to those with appropriate system rights. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">[[User:Frank|<span style="color:cyan;background:blue"> Frank </span>]] | [[user_talk:Frank|<span style="color:blue;background:cyan"> talk </span>]]</span></small> 11:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::But not able to be seen by nasty common ordinary editors who just might want to know what the hell an Arb has been up to. When he rematerialises having attempted to escape some people are going to have an awful lot of egg on their faces - or will his identitiy be known only to the Arbcom?<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 11:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::"Nasty common ordinary editors", to use your words (which I realize are sarcastic), are what make this project work in the first place, and to think that ARBCOM and other functionaries are unaware of this is to ignore the reality of how things are run around here. But that doesn't mean that every last detail of the technical aspects of running it are (or should be) available to everyone - "nasty common ordinary" or "sweet special extraordinary". A user - yes, a former functionary - was found to have edited in ways that are inconsistent with how the project works and is now gone. Since the ''project'' is the primary reason we're all here, that should be the end of it, IMO. When (and if) more needs to be done, the discussion can (and certainly will) continue, but there is no need to borrow trouble in the meantime. A user who ignores policies does so at their own peril, regardless of what position(s) they may have held in the past. <small><span style="padding:2px;border:1px solid #000000">[[User:Frank|<span style="color:cyan;background:blue"> Frank </span>]] | [[user_talk:Frank|<span style="color:blue;background:cyan"> talk </span>]]</span></small> 14:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::If the user in question is truly gone, that's one thing. But if a "vanished" user comes back under another guise, that can spell trouble. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 11:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
====Enquiry into the Rlevse Affair==== |
|||
In the absence of anything other, I am holding an enquiry into the last few days at the appropriatly named [[User talk:GiacomoReturned/Enquiry into the Rlevse Affair]]. All are welcome to comment. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GiacomoReturned|<span style="color:White;background:Black;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Giacomo '''</span>]]</span></small> 15:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:Every time Giano pulls one of his drama-fuelled stunt, a little piece of Wikipedia dies. And Giano's currency is devalued further. It's very sad to see such a decline. Laura <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/62.25.109.195|62.25.109.195]] ([[User talk:62.25.109.195|talk]]) 14:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== Arbitration motions regarding [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG]] == |
== Arbitration motions regarding [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG]] == |
Revision as of 15:50, 11 November 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. |
Arbitration motions regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG
- This motion is unecessarily broad. I would like to ask for a narrowing of restrictions to simply the relations between the Mongols and the Crusaders. I do a lot of work on the Middle-Ages, the Renaissance and Asian subjects (literally 100s of articles [1]), and often the simple appearance of the word "Crusade" or "Mongol" in an article blocks me from contributing to it (like... History of Japan, History of China etc...). I feel it would be legitimate to adjust the restrictions to precisely "articles related to interraction between the Crusaders and the Mongols", which is really the crux of the matter we've been discussing. Thank you Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 21:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking
Climate change case amendment
3.1) Editors topic-banned by the Committee under this remedy are prohibited from (i) editing articles about Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (ii) editing biographies of living people associated with Climate Change broadly construed and their talk pages; (iii) participating in any process broadly construed on Wikipedia particularly affecting these articles; and (iv) initiating or participating in any discussion substantially relating to these articles anywhere on Wikipedia, even if the discussion also involves another issue or issues.
The bolded part makes this a problem by bringing this in conflict with WP:IAR. There always has to be a safety valve allowing compromized articles to be repaired. There has been an issue with the monitoring of all the CC articles by the non-topic banned editors. It was precisely one of William's notifications of an unnoticed problem that led to him being blocked. Count Iblis (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, Mister WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, apparently you missed point. This modification was made make it clear that the back door is not open. In case you didn't notice, that block was upheld. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- Dense? What happend to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- Keeping the back door locked is a violation of WP:IAR. The issue is simply that if a page is vandalized and it hasn't been noticed in a reasonable time, a topic banned editor should at least be allowed to notify someone. In fact, the Wikipedia rules on topic ban allow topic banned editors to correct vandalism themselves. But that isn't necessary to maintain Wikipedia, a mere notification suffices.
- Having some experience in the CC area, I really do not see how this could lead to trouble. Let me do my best and imagine an editor who I typically disagree with on CC, say Cla68. Suppose he notifies me about a problem on an article, e.g. suppose that on a BLP article an edit is made labeling a sceptic to be a "kook" and that this edit has gone unnoticed. Then even if I agree that this person is a indeed "kook", I can still see that this is a BLP violation that needs to be corrected. Leaving such an edit uncorrected is not good for Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- Again, you are deliberately ignoring the message here. These users have been told repeatedly that they are a net negative in the CC area and that their contributions in that area are not welcome regardless of their merit. If we are violating IAR with that then we can invoke IAR and ignore it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think he is ignoring the message. He is pointing out that the message is inconsistent with normal Wikipedia processes, not to mention antiproductive and unwise. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- That may be what you two think, but it is not what ArbCom or the community at large has said. Those who violate the topic ban will be blocked. Most of them have accepted this and moved on. Those who cannot or will not do so can expect to longer and harsher blocks. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- "The community at large" does not even know of this case. ArbCom has made bad decisions before. Sometimes they were wise enough to correct them,sometimes not. And replacing civilised decision with robot-like repetition of block threats really is helping consensus. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- That may be what you two think, but it is not what ArbCom or the community at large has said. Those who violate the topic ban will be blocked. Most of them have accepted this and moved on. Those who cannot or will not do so can expect to longer and harsher blocks. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think he is ignoring the message. He is pointing out that the message is inconsistent with normal Wikipedia processes, not to mention antiproductive and unwise. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- Again, you are deliberately ignoring the message here. These users have been told repeatedly that they are a net negative in the CC area and that their contributions in that area are not welcome regardless of their merit. If we are violating IAR with that then we can invoke IAR and ignore it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- Having some experience in the CC area, I really do not see how this could lead to trouble. Let me do my best and imagine an editor who I typically disagree with on CC, say Cla68. Suppose he notifies me about a problem on an article, e.g. suppose that on a BLP article an edit is made labeling a sceptic to be a "kook" and that this edit has gone unnoticed. Then even if I agree that this person is a indeed "kook", I can still see that this is a BLP violation that needs to be corrected. Leaving such an edit uncorrected is not good for Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's not a threat, it is an accurate interpretation of the meaning of this decision. If you want to appeal for yet another amendment that reflects what you and the count want, be my guest. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- The banning policy recognizes exception to topic bans for reversions of obvious vandalism or obvious BLP violations (obvious as in something no reasonable person would disagree with) unless they are explicitly included in the ban, and I personally would not block for those (again, unless they are explicitly included within the ban). That said, banned users perform those edits at their own peril: often their perception of obviousness is different from that of a user not involved in the topic area, which is why it may not be a good idea. There's your safety valve. T. Canens (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- The best thing would be for topic banned editors to remove the relevant pages from their watchlists. They don't need to be looking for vandalism to repair. Will Beback talk 23:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- I've been beating that drum for a while, but certain involved persons have relentless advocates who believe that those certain persons are too important to these topics to be subject to the full breadth and scope of the ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- Admins should really follow best practices. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not doing climate change for the moment, but I've noticed with some dismay that people are still claiming or implying that only the topic banned editors can possibly patrol the climate change articles. This is nonsense; I'm not topic banned and I used to do it myself without much effort.
Just pop the articles into your watchlist or use my list at User:Tony Sidaway/Articles under climate change probation. The talk pages are also listed so using related changes on the list gives something very similar to a watchlist. Remember to set the option "Enhanced recent changes (requires JavaScript)" in the Recent changes tab of your preferences.
Add articles (and their talk pages) to the list as desired. As long as you keep the list up to date you won't miss a single edit. --TS 13:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- "I've noticed with some dismay that people are still claiming or implying that only the topic banned editors can possibly patrol the climate change articles." - to help your dismay, I don't think that that is correct. I don't think anybody is claiming or implying that - I'm certainly not. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well I must have misunderstood the following sentence: There has been an issue with the monitoring of all the CC articles by the non-topic banned editors. (Count Iblis (talk) on 10 November)
- This was, I thought, the reason why the strong topic ban was held by some editors to be bad for Wikipedia. If no such issue exists then I don't see what problem remains. --TS 13:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
- I certainly do believe that over-aggressive topic bans and enforcement are bad for Wikipedia. However, I believe this on general principles of reducing friction and drama, enabling efficient communication, and reducing friction. Also, of course, there is a big difference between "only the topic banned editors can possibly patrol" something and "every article is patrolled as effectively as possible". In particular, it's perverse if any editor is prevented from listing factual errors and vandalism in a non-disruptive way. As CI correctly pointed out, one of our five pillars explicitly says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)