Update?
Not to be rude, or pushy, and I know we're all busy people and this is a hobby, but can we get updated expectations as to when a proposed decision might come down the pike? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 12:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps the appropriate sanction for all the melee participants is to make them wait indefinitely (not infinitely) for the proposed decision to be rendered. Jehochman Talk 14:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think there's a prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, although perhaps that doesn't apply here. On a serious note, while I can quite sympathetic to the complexity of the case, and the need to take the time to get it right, the last we heard (IIRC) is a notice on the 19th that it would be 48 hours. Surely an update is warranted, even if only to say we don't know.--SPhilbrickT 14:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- 48 hours minimum. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Fair point, but I don't think it is an unreasonable request to have someone say A. We are close - we hope within a day or so but no promises or B - this is tough, it will be several days at least. --SPhilbrickT 15:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- 48 hours minimum. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think there's a prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, although perhaps that doesn't apply here. On a serious note, while I can quite sympathetic to the complexity of the case, and the need to take the time to get it right, the last we heard (IIRC) is a notice on the 19th that it would be 48 hours. Surely an update is warranted, even if only to say we don't know.--SPhilbrickT 14:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Leaving a contentious area in limbo is potentially harmful. There was a recent incident where some well-meaning Arbs (including one of the drafters of the PD) started making unilateral proposals for some pretty sweeping sanctions and remedies on one of the case talk pages, and a recused Arb started suggesting out-of-scope directives to case clerks. An Arb declared that "The Climate Change Topic board, AN/I, etcetera, no matter their original intent, have been co-opted by the various members of these disputes to be battlegrounds", so we're really running out of venues in which to seek any sort of dispute resolution at all. Obviously, this is a problem. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Arbcom will decide when arbcom decides. I suspect that behind the scenes they're negotiating and arm-twisting on, um, a "certain issue." Anyway, don't get too invested in this stuff -- it's only a website. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- But I'm not sure why that "certain issue" (and I know what you're talking about) prevents them from posting a proposed decision. If the whole thing is just going to be a presented as a fait accompli, there's no point to having a PD — we should just go straight to voting. Getting some community input might be helpful; it could tell them what points they've missed (this is a big and complex case). Finally, it would give us an idea of what the Arbs think this case is about. There's been a great deal of reluctance to limit or even describe the case's scope. Meanwhile, strict evidence length limits have left large gaps as editors try to guess what the Arbs will decide to look at. Once the Arbs actually tell us what is important to them, we might be able to address their concerns or present relevant evidence. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- I always thought that it would take ArbCom of the order of 90 days to carefully examine all the facts, deliberate, and draft proposed decisions. When I saw the 48 hours notice, I was very surprised. Count Iblis (talk) 16:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I suspect they're stalling intentionally, waiting for the ice caps to melt and make this whole conflict moot. ;-) ATren (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Isn't that Global Warming Arbcom Decision Denial?--Cube lurker (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Stop the presses. ArbCom's e-mails have just been leaked on the Internet. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Link? Jehochman Talk 20:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- They're up on Wikileaks.org. MastCell Talk 20:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm, Encyclopedia Dramatica which is the most reliable source on such matters, has not yet reported anything yet.... Count Iblis (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, owing to circumstances not under their lack of control they are still sober and unable to find any aspect that can be tenuously linked to anal sex; or they are now off school for the summer and do not have anonymous internet access... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- I thought I saw them here, but maybe they've been oversighted or reverted or something. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Anybody up for a beer and a plate of onion rings? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- No alcohol here.. but make it some fried clams and a soda, I'm in :) SirFozzie (talk) 21:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- that would really hit the spot. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oh man, I can't believe MastCell rickrolled me! May the flees of a thousand camels infest your armpits! :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, the best such line I've ever heard is: "May you bite the southbound end of a northbound Camel". SirFozzie (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- I just lost my appetite. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Anybody up for a beer and a plate of onion rings? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- I thought I saw them here, but maybe they've been oversighted or reverted or something. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, owing to circumstances not under their lack of control they are still sober and unable to find any aspect that can be tenuously linked to anal sex; or they are now off school for the summer and do not have anonymous internet access... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm, Encyclopedia Dramatica which is the most reliable source on such matters, has not yet reported anything yet.... Count Iblis (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- They're up on Wikileaks.org. MastCell Talk 20:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Link? Jehochman Talk 20:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm really impressed with the parties' (with one glaring exception) willingness and dedication to observing the voluntary topic ban until the PD is posted. Cla68 (talk) 22:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think you are either not very observant or easily impressed. On the other hand, given that the "voluntary topic ban" has been invented in some remote corner of some remote talk page somewhere I don't remember, and has been communicated at best using some variant of Chinese whispers, any level of observance is surprising. ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Stop the presses. ArbCom's e-mails have just been leaked on the Internet. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Decision timing
Finalization and posting of the proposed decision has been somewhat delayed because I have been on vacation for the past 10 days. I had understood that I would have ready internet access during this time period and had planned to work on my portion of the decision, but this turned out not to be the case.
I am sorry for this delay and especially that I did not anticipate it beforehand, as it appears that there is some inaccurate speculation going on about reasons for the hold-up. I am now back home and anticipate that I will be finalizing my portion of the proposed decision and consulting with the other drafting arbitrators over this coming weekend, so I hope that proposals will be on-wiki soon after that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Re-Up
Not to be rude, or pushy, and I know we're all busy people and this is a hobby, but can we get updated expectations as to when a proposed decision might come down the pike? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 14:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Que sera sera. Jimbo gave the broad outlines of the decision a couple months before the case opened, so it's no great mystery. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Link? Jehochman Talk 14:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- [1] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- That was posted on April 1. Jehochman Talk 15:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't believe Jimbo has advocated anything about this case in public or private, and this is the first time I've seen that diff (which, incidentally, does not mention climate change). Cool Hand Luke 15:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Just a couple of posts later in the same thread, Jimbo explicitly states "climate change as a subject area was very much on my mind as I was writing that."[2] This is the reason I offered almost no evidence in the case and made only a few workshop proposals: why bother, when the outcome appears to be preordained? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- What was that "extremely unpleasant experience" Jimbo is referring to there? Count Iblis (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Probably the time that he waded into Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy declaring that the "-gate" name was his personal preference for the article title, despite specific WP:NPOV reasons why Wikipedia articles generally avoid "-gate" namings. Some editors heralded this as the gospel come forth, while others (rightly) simply considered it the same as any other editor's opinion on the matter, counting no more or no less. Tarc (talk) 16:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- His edits to the above mentioned page were late March so I'd agree that that was clearly the experience he was refering too.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Uh, because it's not at all preordained to the arbitrators? Several arbitrators are working on this decision; if it were preordained, I imagine the decision would have been written in advance, at least in principle. It is not. Your conspiratorial theory is news to me, and I'm in a better position to know what's on the arbitrators' minds than you. Cool Hand Luke 16:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps you are correct and I am reading more into Jimbo's comments than he intended. Time will tell. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- What was that "extremely unpleasant experience" Jimbo is referring to there? Count Iblis (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Just a couple of posts later in the same thread, Jimbo explicitly states "climate change as a subject area was very much on my mind as I was writing that."[2] This is the reason I offered almost no evidence in the case and made only a few workshop proposals: why bother, when the outcome appears to be preordained? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- That's nice. But would you consider addressing the original question? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- I wouldn't know. I'm recused on this case. Cool Hand Luke 16:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting. Just a couple of posts above, you said "I'm in a better position to know what's on the arbitrators' minds than you," and now you're saying "I wouldn't know, I'm recused." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- The arbcom mailing list is open to all arbs, regardless of whether they are recused or not. I suspect that the mailing list is not being used for specific discussion for individual cases, which would nicely explain why CHL has a good idea of the general state of mind of the arbs without knowing exactly when they will put up a proposed decision. Horologium (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for resolving the apparent contradiction. I did not realize this was how the mailing list worked.Yeah you did know, you liar. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Several of the arbitrators are a sort of drafting task force for this case. I don't know what they're up to, or what their plans are (although it's plainly obvious that the decision is not written yet, let alone preordained). As for Jimbo emailing arbcom-l about AGW or this case, it hasn't happened. I suppose you couldn't rule out covert individual lobbying, if you really insist on assuming bad faith, but I haven't seen any evidence of it whatsoever. Cool Hand Luke 16:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for resolving the apparent contradiction. I did not realize this was how the mailing list worked.Yeah you did know, you liar. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- The arbcom mailing list is open to all arbs, regardless of whether they are recused or not. I suspect that the mailing list is not being used for specific discussion for individual cases, which would nicely explain why CHL has a good idea of the general state of mind of the arbs without knowing exactly when they will put up a proposed decision. Horologium (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Jimbo did make a ruling relevant to climate change and the editing of Wikipedia see here. Count Iblis (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- snort Well Played, sir Iblis. Though I agree with SBHB, the proposed decision will be lots of year long topic bans, a couple of instructions for the type of probation and monitoring of it, and perhaps a special review panel for 'scibaby' issues. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- I wonder how large ClimateGate's carbon footprint is.--*Kat* (talk) 08:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- [1] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Link? Jehochman Talk 14:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
It is unfortunate that more Arbs haven't had first hand experience in the area like Jimbo. I had half a mind to suggest they sock in the area for a bit to get some first hand experience on what it is like and I would've provided a few suggested edits so they could see the reaction they'd get. TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, several arbs have first-hand experience. I think we're recused. Cool Hand Luke 14:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- At editing the articles? No you don't. Unless you really were socking (which would indeed be a good idea) William M. Connolley (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- As much as Jimbo has. Cool Hand Luke 16:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- That was somewhat cryptic. Let me be clearer: neither you nor any other arb has experience in the area, as far as I'm aware, to the extent of making recusal plausible. By contrast, Franamax, who is claiming to be an "uninvolved admin" over at Wikipedia_talk:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Franamax_Involved. Do you think any of the recused arbs here have more involvement that Franamax has? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- As much as Jimbo has. Cool Hand Luke 16:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- At editing the articles? No you don't. Unless you really were socking (which would indeed be a good idea) William M. Connolley (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oh for crying out loud, you and Vsmith have blocked people you were edit warring with - on articles about themselves! [3] And you think Frannamax is "involved?" TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Request for comment from arbitors - please review
Not to be rude, or pushy, and I know we're all busy people and this is a hobby, and I know I've asked this three times, but each time keeps getting hijacked by people asking something else, but can we get updated expectations as to when a proposed decision might come down the pike? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by others:
- Can an arb please provide a response to Hipocrite's question which was asked 3 days ago? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Since they rarely have in the past on questions of proposed decision timing, I do not expect they will now. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Can an arb please provide a response to Hipocrite's question which was asked 3 days ago? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
Discussion cannot be stopped, merely redirected
It would appear that the prohibitions on new workshop items, new discussion on the workshop page, new evidence, and new discussion on the evidence page are not having the desired effect of stopping discussion. We are a talkative bunch, and we will talk. The thread just above this one is probably more properly placed somewhere else, but as those are blocked, it squirts out here. I have suggested to Risker that with the continued delay, that those prohibitions be amended or removed. Note also that there is a robust and wide ranging discussion on my own talk as well. ++Lar: t/c 12:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- That's what I've been thinking as well. The discussions haven't stopped, but are simply being redirected to different venues. It's not helping that editors continue to keep editing these articles (even to the point of creating brand new articles). Everyone should just chill out and wait for the PD, methinks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Lar. People are not going to sit waiting for an undefined period waiting for the voices from On High. particularlry when it has been delayed several times already. As for editing the articles: there is no reason not to, if we have productive things to do. I;m baffled as to why you think adding refs [6] isn't a good idea William M. Connolley (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
The longer this delays, the worse it gets. The unfounded accusations, personal slurs and bad faith overreaction are spiraling out of control. Post the proposed decision already, whether you're done with it or not. Or lift the restriction so that the discussion occurs in venues where your clerk has a mandate to maintain order. He exceeds his mandate if he intervenes in unrelated topic areas. So bring them back in. ++Lar: t/c 14:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't understand the problem. ArbCom may topic ban a few editors and issue a ruling along the lines of "We instruct editors to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, engage in normal editorial processes and behave according to expected standards of decorum". So, we may then just as well start to behave in such a way right now, instead of waiting for ArbCom to tell us to do so. Count Iblis (talk) 15:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- Agree. Though it would be nice to get some sort of comment from Arb about the progress so far. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't have any special insight into when the proposed decision will be ready, but I can predict that even when it arrives it will only be the prelude to yet more intense discussion, so a break of a week or so is not that bad an idea. I've also commented in a section below to the effect that I'd be willing to carry on commenting on the workshop if that was opened up again, or propose injunctions if things boil over again in any of the various venues where things happen. Please also remember that some arbs make most progress with their tasks at the weekends, so please allow at least a week between asking for updates. Carcharoth (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- Agree. Though it would be nice to get some sort of comment from Arb about the progress so far. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- Carcharoth: Open up the W and E pages (and talk pages) again. Then we all can steer discussions there if they start elsewhere. Amory will have a mandate to maintain order there, let Amory exercise it. If the arbs don't like that new parties are pointed to, new evidence is presented and new proposals are being made, well too bad. They have an easy fix for that, get something out into the proposed decision instead of waiting... If NYB doesn't have his part done, post what you've got with caveats, but get this moving. ++Lar: t/c 19:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm still waiting to hear what the other arbitrators think about this. Need to do something else tonight (it's still arbitration work, just not this case) so it will have to wait at least one more day. Carcharoth (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Are you still waiting after several days? See the discussion about vandalism, below. Open up the W and E pages (and talk pages) again, please, or post the decision. This case is like the ArbCom of 3 years ago except at least they left the workshop pages open. You guys made massive strides in the last few years but you're backsliding. ++Lar: t/c 04:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sadly, yes, I am still waiting. I can say, though, that progress has been made on the proposed decision. I'll leave the drafting arbitrators to give more details on that if they chose to do so. Currently, the voluntary agreement signed up to by various people is the status quo. I'm not going to disturb that by opening up the case pages, not at least without other arbitrators agreeing to it and clerks being ready to handle the opened pages. Carcharoth (talk) 09:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Are you still waiting after several days? See the discussion about vandalism, below. Open up the W and E pages (and talk pages) again, please, or post the decision. This case is like the ArbCom of 3 years ago except at least they left the workshop pages open. You guys made massive strides in the last few years but you're backsliding. ++Lar: t/c 04:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm still waiting to hear what the other arbitrators think about this. Need to do something else tonight (it's still arbitration work, just not this case) so it will have to wait at least one more day. Carcharoth (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Something to keep in mind
Not everybody has a wide screen monitor. Please out-dent on a regular basis. Thank you! --*Kat* (talk) 08:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not a big fan of outdenting at random spots. It's better to try to find a logical break point if at all possible as otherwise it throws off who is responding to which comment unless folk use the "@*KAT*" construction to show it. But ya. ++Lar: t/c 12:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Interim restriction
Please to prevent any more drama can the arbcom make an interim ban on all admins who are heavily involved in this case from acting as uninvolved on Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. Polargeo (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think an interim motion is needed as well but something a bit more precise might be better suited. I suggested ( at my talk )something about eligibility criteria, and something naming specific names as "heavily involved" is too subject to misinterpretation. I think an interim motion is needed because this page appears broken... it seems to only have three edits. ++Lar: t/c 18:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with Lar. Something is needed Polargeo (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- I could propose some interim injunctions, but they are likely to be broad and sweeping and very restrictive and may include restrictions on editing not just admin actions (and will last until the case ends). It will also require rounding up arbs to vote on the injunctions, including the arbs who are currently trying to get the proposed decision ready. We would prefer that the parties to the case play nice while they are waiting, but a few more episodes like the one above and it will be time for injunctions. The alternative is to open up the workshop again and allow discussion to resume there. I could commit to resuming my comments there (I was really the only arbitrator commenting there to any great extent, and I had intended to continue before it got shut down), but only if that would help. Remember that an individual arbitrator's comments may not reflect what the final decision will end up as. Carcharoth (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with Lar. Something is needed Polargeo (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
What is needed (not the whole solution but it would help a lot) is what was asked for back in May... A motion that settles the uninvolved/involved question so we don't have Stephan Schulz repeatedly violating WP:POINT. If ArbCom ends up deciding I'm involved, overriding the consensus of the uninvolved admins that exists now, so be it. But surely they will revalidate Stephan and Polargeo as inextricably involved in this and without standing to pretend otherwise or I much miss the many hints given already. ++Lar: t/c 19:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- While I agree that such a motion might be useful, I do not agree with Lar's other claims. We do have a definition of involvement at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation, although that has been largely ignored in particular by Lar, who seems to use a completely orthogonal one based only on lack of contributions to the topic area. I stand by my edits on the probation pages, both in content and place. I have only commented as an uninvolved admin in cases where I am uninvolved per the probation definition (and, of course, by the more general definition of not holding a strong prior opinion on the substance of the issue). I strongly reject Lar's claim that there is a consensus of uninvolved admins that support his uninvolvement. What is there is his forceful announcement of his opinion and a general resignation of going against it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- Stephan, didn't you just try to participate again as an uninvolved admin on the enforcement page and complained when Lar stopped you? Cla68 (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I did participate as an uninvolved admin. Lar disagrees and take it upon himself to force his view of the situation on the rest of us. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- You were reverted. It stuck. That's our "rough consensus" in action. You need to drop the stick and back away from the horse, slowly. Apparently nothing but a motion will suit?
And maybe not even that, you're not willing to assert that you'll try to abide by it. ++Lar: t/c 00:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- You were reverted. It stuck. That's our "rough consensus" in action. You need to drop the stick and back away from the horse, slowly. Apparently nothing but a motion will suit?
- Actually, I did participate as an uninvolved admin. Lar disagrees and take it upon himself to force his view of the situation on the rest of us. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- Stephan, didn't you just try to participate again as an uninvolved admin on the enforcement page and complained when Lar stopped you? Cla68 (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
@Carcharoth -- Please open the workshop pages and continue your comments. Tension is very very high. Relief is needed. Minor4th 02:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- See: WP:50kg ban-hammer. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Interim restriction discussion has been divertedPlease can an arb or arb clerk remove all judgements and detailled discussion of evidence from this section. This section is purely for calling for an interim restriction until the proposed decision is made. Unfortunately this is now being used to discuss evidence. Polargeo (talk) 08:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC) |
Voluntary conflict reduction
We've had six editors thus far voluntarily pledge not to edit any CC pages until a decision is posted. See Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Sign up for the CC restriction. Habits are formed by practice. This is not a silver bullet solution, but if we can get people to practice disengaging when things get overheated, maybe they will apply that tactic in the future. Jehochman Talk 22:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, thanks for pushing this. The science isn't going to change in a hurry, the various "interesting times" that started last Autumn seemed to die down in early Spring and show no signs of rebirth. Most of the articles are stable so there's every reason for regular editors to step back a bit. The banned trolls might give it a go but they can be reverted and blocked without serious effort, as we've been doing for a long time now. --TS 22:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- (ec) Excellent news. Thanks, Jehochman for starting this off. Carcharoth (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I hope we'll be seeing more editors from all "sides" signing up. Cla68 (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- And that should especially include any editors mentioned in the evidence or on the workshop page. They know who they are. Cla68 (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that those who have been active in this case should be made aware of this voluntary restriction that people are signing up for. However, no-one should be pressured into signing up. If there are disagreements over the sign-up list, please bring them here. On another matter, do you think you could possibly use preview next time you have trouble deciding on terminology? Carcharoth (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- LOL. Nice use of external links. --*Kat* (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- It wasn't meant to be funny. There was a serious point in there somewhere. Carcharoth (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- LOL. Nice use of external links. --*Kat* (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that those who have been active in this case should be made aware of this voluntary restriction that people are signing up for. However, no-one should be pressured into signing up. If there are disagreements over the sign-up list, please bring them here. On another matter, do you think you could possibly use preview next time you have trouble deciding on terminology? Carcharoth (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- And that should especially include any editors mentioned in the evidence or on the workshop page. They know who they are. Cla68 (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I hope we'll be seeing more editors from all "sides" signing up. Cla68 (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, let's try not to make this any more bloody than it need be. We all should remember that if we're really busy doing something in real life the encyclopedia will still get written. And that's what it's all about. --TS 23:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- I just notified everyone I could think of who is a party to this case about the voluntary CC restriction. Cla68 (talk) 01:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
For reference, these are the editors I notified, all of whom, to varying degrees, IMO, should be considered as parties to this case or otherwise heavily involved editors in the CC articles:
- ChrisO
- JohnWBarber
- Tony Sidaway
- Hipocrite
- Stephan Schulz
- ZuluPapa5
- Count Iblis
- Heyitspeter
- Short Brigade Harvester Boris
- ScottyBerg
- Dave Souza
- A Quest For Knowledge
- Marknutley
- Atmoz
- Guettarda
Cla68 (talk) 07:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Concern about the vandalism at the Workshop talk
I noticed the now-reverted and protected vandalism at the talk page for the Workshop, by the now-blocked User:Amonggasside. It smells a little odd that an account would have done that as the first edit. I wonder if Checkuser should be run, in case it might have some bearing on any of the parties to this case. Sorry if that sounds suspicious. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- If I could hazard a guess, it's probably someone involved (or at least watching) the case expressing their frustation that it's been almost 3 weeks since ArbCom accounced they were a couple days from posting their PD. As vandalism goes, it was quickly reverted and the account has been blocked. Who ever it was, they have made their WP:POINT. Unless it becomes a recurring issue, I don't think it's worth getting an editor in trouble. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, sockpuppetry, vandalizing, and calling for others to vandalize [7] would be worth getting an editor in trouble. Cardamon (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, sockpuppetry, vandalizing, and calling for others to vandalize [7] would be worth getting an editor in trouble. Cardamon (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- I read that as sarcasm, but with a grain of truth. Since enforcement requests haven't been going anywhere it seems to have encouraged the natural tendencies of some. For instance, Mark Nutley recently showed a diff on the RfE talk page of ScienceApologist adding twitter and a comment on a blog (not even a blog post) as sources to slam a skeptic. Unfortunately, this sort of behavior won't be solved by a few topic bans since activists will always show up to engage in this kind of behavior. There needs to be a system, perhaps a 3-strike system, with clearly defined (i.e. not subjective) rules and if you get three strikes then you are indefinitely topic banned from the area and checkusered to prevent you from socking. If someone uses blog comments as a source then that's a strike. If someone uses twitter as a source then that is a strike. If someone is afraid something they want to do may break a rule then they should take it to talk first. The hard part will be coming up with these rules, but they need to be as clear as possible to prevent activist admins from gaming the system. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- @Arb Clerks. Please remove the above post. This is presentation of both evidence and new workshop proposals, as such it should not be here. Polargeo (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- Why is your side so afraid of information/questions? You are all have a habit of deleting other's posts or trying to get others to do it for you. I can't believe I once defended you, but I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt until I know their character. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry you feel that way. Nothing personal. I don't think the introduction of new evidence helps in any way from either side (also I reject the notion that I am on a particular side). Polargeo (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- It wasn't the introduction of new evidence. If I wanted to add new evidence I would've asked to add it on the evidence talk page or emailed an arb. I simply stated my opinion and then showed why I hold that opinion. I suppose I could've just said, "I agree" (disagree), like Tryptofish, but I like to base my opinions on fact rather than creating an argumentum ad populum.TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- Facepalm --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- It wasn't the introduction of new evidence. If I wanted to add new evidence I would've asked to add it on the evidence talk page or emailed an arb. I simply stated my opinion and then showed why I hold that opinion. I suppose I could've just said, "I agree" (disagree), like Tryptofish, but I like to base my opinions on fact rather than creating an argumentum ad populum.TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry you feel that way. Nothing personal. I don't think the introduction of new evidence helps in any way from either side (also I reject the notion that I am on a particular side). Polargeo (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- Why is your side so afraid of information/questions? You are all have a habit of deleting other's posts or trying to get others to do it for you. I can't believe I once defended you, but I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt until I know their character. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- @Arb Clerks. Please remove the above post. This is presentation of both evidence and new workshop proposals, as such it should not be here. Polargeo (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- I read that as sarcasm, but with a grain of truth. Since enforcement requests haven't been going anywhere it seems to have encouraged the natural tendencies of some. For instance, Mark Nutley recently showed a diff on the RfE talk page of ScienceApologist adding twitter and a comment on a blog (not even a blog post) as sources to slam a skeptic. Unfortunately, this sort of behavior won't be solved by a few topic bans since activists will always show up to engage in this kind of behavior. There needs to be a system, perhaps a 3-strike system, with clearly defined (i.e. not subjective) rules and if you get three strikes then you are indefinitely topic banned from the area and checkusered to prevent you from socking. If someone uses blog comments as a source then that's a strike. If someone uses twitter as a source then that is a strike. If someone is afraid something they want to do may break a rule then they should take it to talk first. The hard part will be coming up with these rules, but they need to be as clear as possible to prevent activist admins from gaming the system. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- That was about as helpful as "I agree." And to be clear, if it wasn't before, I think it is pretty obvious that the statement you think should get someone in trouble was not a cry for vandalism like Cardamon stated but simply sarcasm. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- "[Encouraging] the natural tendencies of some" is not a valid excuse for either sarcasm or vandalism. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- I never said it was. I was specifically responding to the charge that Cardamon italicized since he felt it was his strongest point, which was that the editor was trying to encourage vandalism, when, in fact, it was clearly sarcasm designed to highlight the fact that vandalism would occur in the current environment and in highlighting the environment hopefully fight vandalism. In fact, it sounds like the person was trying to fight fire with fire. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- Amonggasside's unblock request does not fill me with confidence that his or her purpose here was constructive. Cardamon (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- I never said it was. I was specifically responding to the charge that Cardamon italicized since he felt it was his strongest point, which was that the editor was trying to encourage vandalism, when, in fact, it was clearly sarcasm designed to highlight the fact that vandalism would occur in the current environment and in highlighting the environment hopefully fight vandalism. In fact, it sounds like the person was trying to fight fire with fire. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- "[Encouraging] the natural tendencies of some" is not a valid excuse for either sarcasm or vandalism. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- That was about as helpful as "I agree." And to be clear, if it wasn't before, I think it is pretty obvious that the statement you think should get someone in trouble was not a cry for vandalism like Cardamon stated but simply sarcasm. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's called satire which even the blocking admin found funny.[8] Look it's been a few days - Amonggasside hasn't repeated the offense and no one has followed in their footsteps. This account has been blocked and his unblock request denied. It sounds like all the appropriate steps have been taken. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- I guess I raised this because there are better ways to express concern about the time elapsed, and, therefore, I tend to disagree with your (AQFK's) last sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Tryptofish: Of course, there are better ways to express frustration. What they did was wrong, but harmless. Unless it's a recurring issue, I don't see a problem. Let's wait and find out if it happens again. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't mind what Lar did, because it was transparent—not, in effect, hiding behind a sock account, and wasn't incivil. Anyway, I've expressed my opinion. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- I enjoyed Lar's little joke. I'll take this opportunity to thank him for the chuckle. Thank you, Bill Huffman (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Tryptofish: Of course, there are better ways to express frustration. What they did was wrong, but harmless. Unless it's a recurring issue, I don't see a problem. Let's wait and find out if it happens again. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
fish and funstuff
Extended content
| |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
See also
Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-08-09/Arbitration_report which readers of this page may find of interest. ++Lar: t/c 12:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Suggestion
There's going to be a storm of activity whenever you post something. Why don't you post whatever work has been completed to date, and then the rest as you have time to finish it. It is not necessary to have all the arbitrators lined up in agreement to rubber stand the proposals. We are strong enough to handle real, public debate. Jehochman Talk 13:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Rubber stand? :) I can't stand rubber stamping! Take a stand against it. Something like that? ++Lar: t/c 14:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think a rubber stand is where you try to actually take a stand on something but you're realy, really flexible about it. --Absit invidia II (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Rubber stand? :) I can't stand rubber stamping! Take a stand against it. Something like that? ++Lar: t/c 14:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- In fact, it's my opinion that ArbCom decision hashed out internally and then voted on without more than (at best) token community input are less accepted than proposals that have had real discussion. After all, what we are doing here is supposed to be arbitration. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Token Input Section
- How do you propose to improve the "token community input"? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 13:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
not a new suggestion...
(for the record, others have suggested this too) ... but it's a good one. This case's innovations so far are mostly not positive, in my view. ++Lar: t/c 14:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting comment, it's like innovation has attempted to avoid the behavior root cause of disruption. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
more an observation than a suggestion
For those who are impatient, perhaps it has escaped your notice but the recent cease fire and the attendant cessation of hostilities until such time as a decision has been rendered would seem to have removed all incentive for Arbcom to actually close this case. By proving that you can actually go for more than a day without the puerile jabs and hyperbolic posturing you would seem to have muddied the Arbcom waters and thus forced a delay.
If you desire a quick decision the best course of action to effect that result would appear to be an all out resumption of hostilities. :) --Absit invidia II (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Note: I am not seriously suggesting this.
- My guess is that the arbitrators' discussion of climate change resembles Wikipedia's discussion of climate change. Therefore, each side takes "are we there yet are we there yet" as an additional reason to be frustrated at the other side's refusal to be reasonable, resulting in even more entrenched positions. Art LaPella (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- My guess is that they are going to permanently topic ban the last two people that post on this page. I guess that means us? Bill Huffman (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Note: I am not seriously suggesting this.
- Somehow I don't see that as a problem, since nobody who has posted in this section has any history of editing the articles in question. Horologium (talk) 23:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Note: I am seriously suggesting this.
- Hey Guys! What's happening in this thread? 198.161.174.222 (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC) Note: Everyone else was doing it and I just wanted to be cool.
I'm posting from the future. The ArbCom ruling, for me about 7 years ago, took a very long time and it wasn't all that important, because the climate sceptics changed their view on the topic. Count Iblis (talk) 18:52, 11 Februari 2018 (UTC)
- I'm tempted to ask if the decision took 6 years. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm tempted to ask for a copy of the decision... In all seriousness, I'm posting here by way of an update to say that work on the proposed decision is progressing, but it will likely be a few more days to a week before anything is ready for posting. I'm not saying this as a drafting arbitrator, but as an arbitrator looking over the shoulder of those working on the proposed decision (i.e. if a drafting arbitrator posts something that contradicts this, then ignore what I said). Having said that, my proposal to re-open the workshop still stands, but I'll post about that below. Carcharoth (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the update. While the delay is frustrating, and unclear timelines are frustrating, lack of information is even more frustrating (at least to me). Even this limited information means I can plan to work on something this weekend that I might not otherwise have wanted to start. --SPhilbrickT 23:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm tempted to ask for a copy of the decision... In all seriousness, I'm posting here by way of an update to say that work on the proposed decision is progressing, but it will likely be a few more days to a week before anything is ready for posting. I'm not saying this as a drafting arbitrator, but as an arbitrator looking over the shoulder of those working on the proposed decision (i.e. if a drafting arbitrator posts something that contradicts this, then ignore what I said). Having said that, my proposal to re-open the workshop still stands, but I'll post about that below. Carcharoth (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Carcharoth: Yesterday, Rlevse said they "should (hope ;-) ) to have have a PD up this week."[9] and Risker said "I expect we're looking at Friday night or Saturday for posting"[10] Has something changed since then? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing those diffs out (I hadn't seen them). Updates are better posted here than on arbitrator talk pages (I was posting here on the assumption that updates hadn't been posted elsewhere). From what I've seen, my estimate still stands, but if you want a definitive answer, get a drafting arbitrator to post to this page. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Proposal to reopen the workshop pages over the weekend
I'm posting here to propose re-opening the workshop pages over the coming weekend (partly in preparation for discussion of the proposed decision). What is needed for this to happen is for people to propose how they would use the workshop in a constructive way prior to the proposed decision being posted. Please note that the evidence page will not be reopened - instead, proposals for new evidence would need to make clear why new evidence is needed. Please post below if you would use the workshop page if reopened, but please, please keep comments brief and don't reply to comments made by others. If anyone has problems loading the current workshop page, please state that as well (it can be archived or split if needed). If there are good reasons to reopen the workshop page, I will do so and ask several clerks to keep an eye on things. Carcharoth (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I have a few things to add constructively. Looking forward to the ArbCom PD. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- I have a good argument for the usefulness of involved Admins keeping an eye on science articles that I didn't think of at the time. Count Iblis (talk) 00:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- I would add some proposed findings of fact and modify some proposed remedies. However, I disagree with my learned colleague StS that reopening the workshop pages would have ONLY a safety valve effect. I think there are considerably more proposals to make. I am nevertheless happy to have my talk page used as a safety valve though before and during, as needed. It's a pretty wide open page, with certain limited restrictions. ++Lar: t/c 19:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- I would add recent evidence of attempts at CC article content influence by Lar and further actions he has made as an "uninvolved" admin. I would also add several pieces of evidence of LessHeard vanU throwing his weight behind Lar both before and during this case. I would also add some more evidence on the aggressive blocking policy of LessHeard vanU. I would personally prefer the page to stay closed but if you want to open up the floodgates then fair enough. Polargeo (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Without an indication of how the proposed decision will look like it is difficult to make concrete assertions on how the page is to be used; it seems that per the above there are further area's that parties wish to add to the main body of evidence and proposals. I would suggest that any re-opened page should be clerked vigorously. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that about the only effect of reopening the pages without any proposals is to take over the safety valve function currently occupied (mostly) by Lar's talk page. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- I probably wouldn't edit the workshop page further. I have plenty more evidence for the subcategories of my evidence section but I don't want to propose adding it unless arbitrators say/write that they don't believe the evidence I've presented is sufficient to demonstrate actionable behavior by the editors discussed (in each section I meant the evidence presented to be one example of consistent disrespect for WP policy, so as to conserve space). It doesn't seem to me that the workshop page would be the place for this to go down, though this is the first arb case I've looked at and I'm happy to be corrected on that count.--Heyitspeter (talk) 04:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- I would refine my findings and proposed remedies and add proposed enforcement. Plus, I would like a place for general
ventingdiscussion. Minor4th 20:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC) - If the drafting arbitrators have been paying attention to everything that has happened or documented on this talk page, then I don't think it is necessary for me to add anything new to the workshop page if it is reopened. Cla68 (talk) 05:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Before the page was closed, I was about to write up proposed findings of fact, etc. related to my evidence on Jehochman and Franamax. If arbitrators have already made up their minds about what to do (if anything) about those two, then it would be nice if arbs would tell me, or suggest I wait to see the proposed decision, which would save a lot of time, effort and irritation. Otherwise, I'll start. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please, keep it closed. There already is far more material here than the arbitrators can be expected to read carefully and critically. Adding still more for them to digest will not be helpful. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Interim comment
From reviewing the above (as of 09:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)), I'm not persuaded that opening the workshop page before the proposed decision is ready would be productive. Possibly the best course of action is to archive the existing workshop and start a new workshop when the proposed decision is posted, both to allow comments on the proposed decision and to allow alternative proposals to be made at the same time. Regarding a "safety valve", I would suggest that the parties to the case ask the case clerk to open up a "general discussion" page to allow more vigorous discussion to take place, or to identify a place where such discussions can take place, as I agree that it is not sustainable to have such discussions taking place on individual editor talk pages. Please feel free to continue to add views above (if you have not done so already) or add new comments below, but as before, please limit it to just comments and not threaded discussion. I'll try and look at this again early next week. Carcharoth (talk) 09:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Either way, would be good to let folks have another say. Really looking for arbcom feedback. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Unacceptable
Arbitration appears to have failled. The workshop page was closed 4 weeks ago today by a drafting arbiter, Risker the workshop and workshop talk pages are closed for posting, and will not reopen until the drafting arbitrators post proposals; this will be at minimum 48 hours from now. 4 weeks, not 48 hours, have passed. I and other editors understand some delay to the process because of Newyorkbrad being out of action but this should be dealt with by other arbs and obviously has not been. I feel some review may be needed of the arbitration process. Polargeo (talk) 10:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- I have poseted this at User talk:Jimbo Wales I am contemplating whether community action is needed. Polargeo (talk)
- Polargeo, although I agree that awaiting a decision is frustrating, you need to keep things in perspective here. This is a volunteer project. The arbitrators are volunteers like us. They have more responsibilities than just deciding this case. I really doubt that the delay in this decision is because the arbitrators are blowing it off. You're signed up for the voluntary topic ban like I am, right? OK, now why don't you get busy with another topic that you find fascinating. If you look at my recent contributions, you'll see that for me it is Imperial Japanese Navy fighter aces. As you can see from this list, I still have a ways to go. Cla68 (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- @Cla. You and I both contribute to the project in our own ways. I have been continuing with speedy deletions whilst this case is going on. I know I should do more article building as I did a few months ago and I will hopefully increase this once this case is over and my baby has been born (my wife is 37 weeks pregnant right now). Polargeo (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- The Climate Change pages are at peace. Folks may be healing with time off. Arbitration is working. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Everybody just keep cool. We don't know what's going on behind the scenes (there's a very common assumption as to what that is, but we don't really know). (And why is everyone bulleting their comments?) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- So don't bullet your comment then. I am very chilled but I think chilled has gone so far and this needs next level solutions. Polargeo (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- [11]...--Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- So don't bullet your comment then. I am very chilled but I think chilled has gone so far and this needs next level solutions. Polargeo (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- In the "bad old days" (2 or 3 years ago :) ) sometimes cases would go for many months from the start of posting workshop stuff to the end. Way longer than this one has. However in the "bad old days" we never had the working set pages locked down. I can imagine why some folk are happy with no decision... they are the folk who are going to be reined in so of course they're in no rush. Me, the Proposed Decision can't come soon enough and I think, as I have said multiple times already, and perhaps will say multiple times again, the arbs should post what they have so far, and they should drop the stifle. ++Lar: t/c 14:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Concur with Lar please post the decision and we can all get to sorting out the issues. A month is too long. Polargeo (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- the arbs should post what they have so far. I've thought about that but can see some potential problems. Suppose the arbs are in agreement that three editors (all skeptics) should be banned for three months. But they are deadlocked regarding three editors who are not in the skeptic group. Some think those editors should be banned for a year, others think those editors should be applauded for persevering the face of pressure. (I hope this is unrealistic, but just trying to make a point). If they simply post the proposed ban for skeptic editors and are silent about other editors, it may be difficult to react appropriately. --SPhilbrickT 16:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Concur with Lar please post the decision and we can all get to sorting out the issues. A month is too long. Polargeo (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree, these delays are outrageous. Surely this will come up in the arbs' annual performance reviews and I suspect they will be penalized with a significant loss in pay. ATren (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think we are all anxious, but my concern isn't directed at the length of time it takes to analyze this mess. If it takes 90 days, then it takes 90 days. However, one takes a different approach when you expect 90 days rather than 90 hours:
- If it is 90 hours, you ignore the open question about Lar's status and work on the decision. If it is going to be 90 days, take a couple hours out and make a decision, even if it is temporary - "until the decision is rendered, Lar is/is not to be considered an uninvolved admin."
- If it is 90 hours, don't sweat the open enforcement requests. If it is 90 days, then they should be addressed as if there were no arb case.
- If it is 90 hours, then a voluntary break from editing CC articles is an admirable step, even if some choose not to include themselves. Make it 90 days, and you're opening yourselves up for trouble.
- If it is going to be 90 days, for goodness sake, let us know, so we can plan accordingly.--SPhilbrickT 16:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm very sympathetic to the desire to find out what is coming, and I agree that it would be helpful if arbiters would post some of what they have and/or provide more information on what to expect about the revised time frame. But, that said, I think the complaining here appears strident, and insensitive to the fact that the drafters are three volunteers, one of whom has had a death in the family, and all of whom are human beings with multiple demands on their time. It would be a good idea to follow the advice of some editors above, and find something else to do, instead of demanding that heads roll. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sympathy yes. I am blaming nobody individually however, that does not mean we should just hang about. There are serious concerns, several decisions have been put to one side pending the arb case outcome. Several edit wars have occured and several editors are holding back on editing articles whilst others are not. Wikipedia CC is currently not running correctly and needs an arbcom decision to put it right. Polargeo (talk) 17:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Do I need to get some kind of Wikipedia "restraining order" against Polargeo?
Not content with causing a ruckus at CC-related articles, Polargeo (whose bad behavior I suggested ArbCom sanction) is now stalking me in order to make harassing edits -- these two [13] at a new article I just created. Perhaps ArbCom could consider this his desperate cry for "help" and give him the "help" he so clearly needs. Alternately, just consider it a desperate cry for help from me. Or do I need to go to AN/I for this? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Neat article, I was certainly dazzled, but try not to get frazzled. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. Not a day goes by when I'm not either dazzled or frazzled or both by Wikipedians. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'd be interested to hear how Polargeo found this article. It wasn't through the recent changes section. Horologium (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- You may wish to find an uninvolved - not CC Probation Amendment Enforcement uninvolved, but uninvolved as in not having ever sysopped or edited AGW related article and talkpage space - admin or editor in good standing and discuss the issue with them, with a view to them approaching Polargeo with your concerns. You may also consider withdrawing from editing, in the short term, any article where you are uncomfortable with Polargeo's input until ArbCom publishes their deliberations - and then review the situation. Regardless of how very long ArbCom take to come to a decision, the project will still be here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- LhVU, you might want to take a look at the article in question--it is not one dealing in any way with the subject of this arbitration, and it was created by JWB; it is entirely unreasonable to expect him to stop editing an article which he created. Horologium (talk) 20:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- I was aware that it was not an AGW related subject (otherwise I would not have suggested an uninvolved party that had not edited AGW space - since I didn't want to revisit the discussion on whether some admins or editors are involved or not in regard to CC subjects) for a truly "outside" opinion, although I was not aware that JWB was to creator editor. Further, I was only making suggestions regarding temporarily withdrawing, which is a fairly standard means of lowering tensions within content disputes. These are alternatives to taking the issue to ANI, and without bringing out the usual commentators (and that would include thee and mee). Nobody died and made me judge, as far as I am aware... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- LhVU, you might want to take a look at the article in question--it is not one dealing in any way with the subject of this arbitration, and it was created by JWB; it is entirely unreasonable to expect him to stop editing an article which he created. Horologium (talk) 20:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Let's not waste precious bureaucratonium on a simple matter like this. How about blocking Polaregeo for 24 hours and then see if they can figure out how to behave appropriately? Jehochman Talk 20:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- I thought bureaucratonium was something that WP was well supplied with. At least I've seen no previous signs of shortage. :) ++Lar: t/c 21:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- I understand that its half-life is about the estimated lifespan of the earth. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm working on a reactor that converts bureaucratonium into unobtanium, a zero-carbon power source. Jehochman Talk 23:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- I understand that its half-life is about the estimated lifespan of the earth. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) There's no need to jump down or at anyone's throat. I've asked Polargeo to comment here, as he does not appear to have been made aware of this outside of edit summaries. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- I thought bureaucratonium was something that WP was well supplied with. At least I've seen no previous signs of shortage. :) ++Lar: t/c 21:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Let's not waste precious bureaucratonium on a simple matter like this. How about blocking Polaregeo for 24 hours and then see if they can figure out how to behave appropriately? Jehochman Talk 20:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Polargeo's edit here amounted to vandalism because it left the article in an odd state. Add that he did it because he's following someone he's in a dispute with. Then add that he's an admin. So yes, a 24-hour block at a minimum, but Polar really needs to stop this kind of thing, or face desysopping or banning. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm appalled that you believe the mindreader someone sold you works reliably over the internet. Or do you have other sources of absolute WP:TRUTH like "he did it because he's following someone he's in a dispute with" (which literally makes not sense, and under reasonable interpretation shows a bad failure to assume good faith)? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- That I appall you notwithstanding, he followed John there because of a dispute that's currently before ArbCom, and he made a disruptive edit, which has led to this discussion, and it's all a bit childish, so he should quit it. And you should quit defending it. Not to mention that that mindreader was one of my more sensible purchases. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not defending it, I'm reserving judgement until PG has had a chance to comment. I think you should do the same and not call for
stoningblocking before you have more than one sided speculations. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)- You aren't defending it? I'm surprised. WMC has also followed me around to several esoteric non-CC related articles to either revert me or take the opposite position. This seems like more of the same, but a rather clear-cut example. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not defending it, I'm reserving judgement until PG has had a chance to comment. I think you should do the same and not call for
- That I appall you notwithstanding, he followed John there because of a dispute that's currently before ArbCom, and he made a disruptive edit, which has led to this discussion, and it's all a bit childish, so he should quit it. And you should quit defending it. Not to mention that that mindreader was one of my more sensible purchases. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm appalled that you believe the mindreader someone sold you works reliably over the internet. Or do you have other sources of absolute WP:TRUTH like "he did it because he's following someone he's in a dispute with" (which literally makes not sense, and under reasonable interpretation shows a bad failure to assume good faith)? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Polargeo's edit here amounted to vandalism because it left the article in an odd state. Add that he did it because he's following someone he's in a dispute with. Then add that he's an admin. So yes, a 24-hour block at a minimum, but Polar really needs to stop this kind of thing, or face desysopping or banning. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
<-- The slap on the wrist by Jimbo may not resolve all the issues, but it's a start.--SPhilbrickT 23:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Or more likely, just an odd coincidence.--SPhilbrickT 00:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- He asked for it. [14] And he's askin' for it in this case. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry I genuinely felt that my edit was legitimate. The section was a completely unreferenced dicdef it looked very like original research to me. However, as there has been a complaint I will happily leave the article alone and be extremely careful not to have contact with JohnWBarber. I would like to add that I had no contact with him that I know of before he popped up in this case and started asking for me to be desysopped, blocked and banned with some venom. He obviously has some personal hatred of me and I really don't understand where he got it from. Polargeo (talk) 12:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Page about to be archived
I'm about to archive this page. Active discussions will be moved to the new 'general discussion' page, but may end up archived first - please be patient while the locations get sorted out. Could anyone intending to edit this page please wait 5 minutes or so. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 00:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)