Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:56, 16 March 2014

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Follow up on Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kafziel closed case

In the wake of the Kafziel case, some concerning BATTLEGROUND nature has been exhibited by Hasteur, and I'm not the only one to have noticed. I've been struggling with this issue since his 19:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC) comment on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation of So help me, if a drive does move forward I'm inclined to adopt Kafziel-style tactics.... The next comment that concerned me was I don't care any more... Since any editor can lead a consensus of one and rampage through anything I'll do AFC reviewing how I please and we can find ourselves in whatever pickle we do down the road. on the same day... The reason I didn't come here then requesting a review is because Hasteur and I have been going back and forth about this a little, and I've been holding firm my ground. As such, I felt that it would be unfair for me to be the one to come here and ask for a review. I was hoping Hasteur would come to his senses and/or would just drop his issue, this is not the case and it was brought to my attention today that he has exhibited that he has every intent of being POINTy and disruptive in an attempt to make his point and make the project cave to what he wants. He was asked about this by and administrator on his talk page, and his response was If I have to do ~200 supremely low quality reviews a day just to keep the quantity of pending reviews at a stable level because no other reviewers are doing anything.... The relevant discussions that may be of interest to you in reviewing this are:

• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2014 5#A drive in March? - Starting point of the escalation that has brought me here. My view of the situation are as follow:

  Fremantle99 created a page for a March BackLog-Drive (an internal process for reviewing a larger scale of pending submissions)

  Chris troutman asked if there was consensus for a drive, of which Fremantle99 replied they were not aware one was needed.

  I responded that a consensus was not required as it is a volunteer process that members could choose to participate in or not.

  Hasteur objected to there being a drive, in which consensus is not required.

  Due to a request to hold release of a new version of the script in the Dec/Jan drive (by me or that I at least supported as I remember), I stipulated that before this drive is started it will need to clearly be declared that this drive will not, and can not, hold up production and release of new versions of the script as they are badly needed nor can this drive hold up discussion or development of what we want/expect to be able to make the new Draft: namespace do for the project.

  • Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Conclusion 1

    Josve05a asked if there will be a drive or not because the above discussion was unclear to them.

    I responded there will indeed be a drive, and re-stipulated that the drive alone would not be allowed to be cause to hold up any development of Draft: or releases of the AFCH.

    Hasteur left a very frustrated response worried about things that had already been stipulated would not be allowed to be an issue, of which I responded in that manner.

  • Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Conclusion 2

    Josve05a asked if there will be a drive again because the above discussion did not clear it up for them.

    Hasteur accused them of forum shopping (for asking over and over in the same discussion thread, this is hardly forum shopping)

• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2014 5#Template-protected edit request on 24 February 2014

  Hasteur requested an edit to {{AFC submission/tools}} to disallow pages to be moved to WT:Articles for creation/ project space and only allow them to be moved to ]

  I felt this was a POINTy request and declined it stating that "Draft:" was not the preferred location for submissions at this time but saying some of the other incidental requests I would add to the template for him when I had a moment (as I remember I was heading to class).

  Hasteur did not find this acceptable and called for another  Template editor to answer the request, of which Jackmcbarn obliged him and declined his request.

  Three and a half hours later, I kept my promise and completed the parts of his edit request that there was agreeance on (diff)

• Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2014 5#Helper tools feature request - copyvio scan - separate disagreement where Hasteur is claiming that offering a link to allow reviewers to scan for copyvios shouldn't be allowed because it takes up to two minutes for those scans to run and that is a waste of time and I countered with a rhetorical question of so you would rather them waste four minutes waiting for an edit page to load where they can get to the existing link/button anyways which seemed to elude him.
• User talk:Hasteur#Strange review - Huon asking about the following POINTy draft review.
  • Review of Devyani Khobragade
• User talk:Hasteur#Draft:Ken Block (businessman) - DESiegel asking about a POINTy draft declining as fails to meet GNG when the draft does meet the second point.

Until the committee decides an appropriate course of action, I'm done discussing anything with Hasteur related to WP:WikiProject Articles for Creation. Note, I've intentionally not pinged Hasteur here at this time because I'm unsure of what protocol is in these cases, feel that a notification from me specifically would cause a more defensive stand on Hasteur's part, and expect an ArbCom committee member will be able to inform him in a much more calming and appropriate manner than I can at this point. Thank you for your time. — {{U|Technical 13}} 03:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the protocol here, but as there are no sanctions against him AE can't be used. If this has been going on for a long time and has been extremely disruptive to the AfC project it may warrant a case of its own. That being said, perhaps the Kafziel case shouldn't have been only about Kafziel. KonveyorBelt 20:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Konveyor Belt, admonishment from ArbCom for this exact behavior isn't considered a sanction? — {{U|Technical 13}} 23:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• I meant long term sanctions like topic bans, a 1RR limit, or discretionary sanctions. Admonishments aren't restrictions and don't have any real long term effect except the informal provision that some might keep it in mind when dealing with other problems, and are not really eligible for AE. KonveyorBelt 23:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Fair enough I suppose. What do you suggest the proper course of action from here would be? This behavior simply can't go on, and I want to make sure I follow proper process in getting the disruptive behavior stopped. Thanks for any input you can offer, Konveyor Belt. — {{U|Technical 13}} 00:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• If it's really that bad and very disruptive to AfC then a full case might be warranted. KonveyorBelt 00:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• I can only see it getting worse, but due to the editor conflict between him and I, I don't want to be the one to say that is necessary. Perhaps Huon, DESiegel, one of the other involved editors, or another arbitrators opinion would be best here. — {{U|Technical 13}} 02:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• I have not been very active on AfC over the past month or more, and while I have been active in the past, and was fairly active at the time of the events that led to this Arb case, I have never been as active as Hastur, Ann Delong, or other AfC regulars. Most of my exchanges with Hastur have been positive. The exchange over the Ken Block draft, mentioned above, was not, but was in no way disruptive. Hastur reviewed the draft, and declined it as not sufficiently demonstrating notability, a very common decline reason at AfC. The drafter came to the help desk to ask what more was needed, and I responded with this and a bit later with this I then left a message for Hastur and got this response. I disagree with that response, and said so, and acted on my views (I approved the draft and nominated it for a DYK slot) I did not find his response or indeed his action "disruptive". I do fear that Hastur is feeling oppressed by the backlog at AfC, and the very limited effort other editors are making, and is perhaps acting too rapidly to give drafts optimal attention. But not without reason. I have seen what seems to me a similar sort of backlog-inspired rush at NPP and SDC-CAT in the past. On the other issues mentioned above, i do think the AfC process should move to the Draft namespace as soon as is reasonably feasible, but i have no opnion on whether the various scripts and tools are ready for that and if not when they would be, nor on the other matters mentioned above. Disagreement and drama are always unfortunate, but if there have been actions needing arbcom intervention, i am not aware of them. If I am being asked to convey concerns to Hastur, i am willing to formulate a message, but i would like a clearer indication of what concerns i am being asked to raise and who is aking or endorsing the request. @Technical 13 and Konveyor Belt:DES 14:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you DES for your response and thoughts on the matter (or at least the part of the matter to which you were referred). This is exactly the reason that I don't want to say if it should be pursued or not as an issue.

I think that a great many of the AfC reviewers are feeling overburdened and oppressed by the backlog and the changes, and I am not sure that is a valid reason for his POINTy and disruptive behavior. I think that reviewers feeling this pressure as well as the number of editors that have been focusing on CSD:G13 assessments are the primary reasons they are not reviewing pending submissions. This being the case, since the backlog is all but dealt with, I think that a backlog drive is exactly what is needed to get the submission backlog to a less scary place so that more reviewers feel comfortable with reviewing submissions.

I am not entirely in concurrence that the move to Draft: needs to happen in a rushed manner. I believe the rushed creation of the namespace was a horrible start and is greatly to blame for many of the issues that have happened since then. There had been no Draft: namespace on this wiki for over a decade, and to bring up the idea and create it in a matter of months left way too much undiscussed and unprepared. The process in which to use this namespace and the tools should have been developed and the entire thing should have been introduced to the wiki in one big package. I digress on that issue as this is not the place for that discussion, and I only bring it up because I do believe that it is one of the greater factors in the emotions driving Hasteur's actions. I could of course be completely wrong about that, but I choose to AGF and believe that is what is happening.

I think that the best course of action here is to draft up an WP:ARCA request as Beeblebrox indicated below and inform Hasteur at the time of its submission. I would be grateful to any contributions you would be willing to offer to this draft if you are interested. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} 15:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• If you are presenting evidence to the committee, diffs are always preferred, as opposed to links to numerous conversations. As the adminishment was already part of a full case, WP:ARCA would probably be the appropriate place to present this material to the committee. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you. I will work on that draft and make sure that everyone involved is notified upon its submission. — {{U|Technical 13}} 15:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Hasteur personal attacks are not a good idea, you're very luck not to be blocked. Technical 13 maybe just ignoring it or reporting it would have been a better idea. It stops here, and right now! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)}}

Callanecc, as the discussion has resumed on a less personal level, I have taken the liberty of unhatting. If you disagree, please figure out how to rearrange this so the acceptable portions are visible DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

@Technical 13: Thanks for being an unmitigated Bureaucrat and only working on technical problems rather than solving the issues we currently have on the plate. Thanks for being an unmitigated sneak and try to canvas a consensus to sanction me. Thanks for missing the point that the Draft Namespace was agreed to and that AFC had agreed to move to the draft space before another drive was commenced. Thanks for missing the point that it was promised by several people, including yourself, that we would not modify the AFCH tool to include support for the draft namespace until we were out of a backlog drive. Thanks for requiring a change at the very last minute to have the draft support monkey patched in at the last minute before the drive commenced so as to not break another promise that AFCH would have support for the Draft namespace prior to the next backlog drive. Thanks for being a WP:DICK. Hasteur (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• Apparently, Hasteur, I have a few things to thank you for as well.

First, I'll start by thanking you for misunderstanding my comments and being unwilling to discuss it in a calm and civil tone.

Secondly, thank you for accusing me of being a canvassing sneak in an attempt to sanction you, were I've repeatedly said above that I don't feel neutral enough to decide if there is an issue here.

Then, I'll thank you for being unwilling to accept that since the Draft: namespace was rushed into creation as just another namespace without making any preparations for its use, the move that AFC had agreed to make may take months to happen if not longer, and the project can't afford to wait for the move to be completed to hold backlog drives to keep the backlog down.

Next, I'd like to thank you for missing the point that the AFCH tool modification to support this namespace, which isn't ready for use, didn't happen while in a backlog drive, the version has already been bumped one so that it is now in beta (instead of develop), which won't be ready to be bumped again until April anyways (I believe there is a timeline of a month set for each beta release on GitHub, at least that was what I set it at months ago as it was agreed that was a good plan by the developers that contributed to the discussion).

Finally, I have no idea what your last thanking me refers to about "draft support monkey patched"... Makes no sense whatsoever.

As far as you calling me a DICK goes, all I can say is, "you're welcome". I quite frankly feel the same way about how have been acting towards everyone in the project since this case was originally closed. Ever since that admonishment, you've been different towards the project. I'm wondering if a wikibreak may be a good idea for you, as you've done a lot of good work for the project, but seem to be taking some of it too personally. That is at least my belief, and I may be way off, and if so, I apologize. — {{U|Technical 13}} 14:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Technical 13, although you have the ability and skill to deal with the template, who appointed you to be in the position of deciding what changes ought or ought not to be made in it (assuming they are technically feasible) The original case was in considerable part over whether Hasteur should have control over the process. ArbCom properly decided he did not, but I doubt it was the ArbCom intent to replace him by you. No one individual control a WP process--or project. My own understanding was that the conclusion of the AfC was that Draft namespace was to be implemented as a replacement for AfC in WPtalk space as soon as possible. Is it for you alone to decide when that point is reached? DGG ( talk ) 17:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I do not feel that any one editor has "control" over what changes ought (not) be made in any template or process. As far as the move to Draft: goes, I agree that it should happen as soon as reasonably possible; however, since no-one is discussing it, and it is something that will require a majority approval by the members of the project, I don't foresee that happening any time soon. The developers of the reviewer script have already stated that this will be something included in the re-write script, and that the current script should be abandoned in the interest of developing the re-write script. It has also been stated that the re-write script will not be available for use for at least the next two months. Hasteur is trying to push this to make it happen now, and making a move to place all submissions in a namespace that can't be reviewed by those using the production script. This will drive away many of the few reviewers that we have left and in the process create a backlog of tens of thousands of unreviewed drafts, which will be overwhelming and drive away new editors and even more reviewers. These are my concerns. Until there is a consensus that this is what the project wants to do, I'm going to personally make every attempt to preserve the status quo. I realize the current system is inadequate and somewhat broken; however, replacing it with an unsupported system which has never been functional, and is in no position to be functional not going to be helpful or fix anything. Theopolisme, perhaps you could say a few words on the status of the re-write script and the project's ability to review drafts in the Draft: namespace? — {{U|Technical 13}} 17:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi -- I'm a developer of the helper script. First of all, as far as I know, the old (current) helper script should work in the Draft namespace. This functionality was requested shortly after the new namespace was created, and it was trivial to implement.

However, I'm currently not working on the old helper script -- I've shifted my focus to a new, rewritten helper script with a redesigned interface, snappier performance, etc., etc. This was done primarily of course to make the reviewing process easier (the old script was extraordinarily clunky and essentially spaghetti code; the new one is being written with very high code quality standards) but also as an exercise for myself, which I really enjoyed (kind of beside the point, but that should help explain my reasoning). Some more rationale is on the linked page. This new script fully supports the Draft namespace, but obviously we don't want all reviewers to switch over until it's been well tested. Since I'm its only developer, I initially gave a 2 month estimate before release, but that could probably be revised to more like one depending on how quickly folks can test and it can be rolled out. I don't want to rush anything, of course (...anyone reading this is invited to try out the beta of the new script and give feedback, which would be very helpful!). Hope this helps make the process from the AFCH angle clearer. Theopolisme (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• • (edit conflict) Perhaps if, you know, we focused on the promises we already made rather than go on a multi-month oddyssey in re-designing the tool I'd be more ameniable to delays. Under any reasonable timeframe we would have not had yet annother backlog drive after the Spring, August, October, and December through January backlog drives. I could have sworn that the consensus was to convert over to using the draft namespace for AFC prior to annother backlog drive hapening, but that consensus was promptly ignored by those who wanted annother cookie and pat on the head for participating in a busywork-drive. Each time we came out of the drive I had to ask the same questions: Why is it that we can't stay stable in our backlog without the incentive of a backlog drive? Why is it that our backlog drives at best are making 50% progress to the goal of a clean backlog? Why is it that we end the backlog with the Very Old, 4 weeks unreviewed, and 3 weeks unreviewed categories with submissions still in them? If anything it shows that the prime actors in the project have drifted away from the central purpose: To review pending submissions. TemplateFu does not review submissions. Changes to the reviewing script does not review submissions. Deciding where the submissions should live does not review submissions. Reviewing submissions is what reviews submissions. Frankly all this thread has shown is that you still think your efforts in the WP project are helpful when others clearly do not see them as such. Hasteur (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

February 2014 functionary changes

Original announcement

• The removals have been implemented through meta. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

change to block of User:Will Beback

The user had been blocked in an Arbcom decision; recently he tried to use his talk page to appeal the block, whereupon an Arbcom member deleted the appeal and revoked the editor's talk page privileges . The Arbcom decision was offered as the reason for the revocation of talk page access, but the new block was not logged at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy_ban_appeal#Log_of_blocks.2C_bans.2C_and_restrictions. Queries on the Arbcom member's talk page have not yet been answered after 17 hours, so I'm asking here:

1. did the committee decide to take these actions, or were they unilateral?
2. are these actions the result of the arbitration case, and if so shouldn't the change to the block settings be logged there?
3. was the unblock request deemed inappropriate purely because it was posted to his talk page, or for some other reason such as its content or timing?
4. has the committee decided that, in general, it will accept unblock requests only via e-mail?
5. if the committee now prefers to accept unblock requests only via e-mail, would it care to explain why? —rybec 20:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that arbcom only deals with these sorts of things via email.--MONGO 21:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that ArbCom doesn't deal with them at all, simply turns them down as a matter of course. Eric Corbett 21:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

That understanding appears to differ from the edit comment on the revert: "rv, per Misplaced Pages:ARBPOL#Forms_of_proceeding; as always, we will hear this appeal by email only" --Guy Macon (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't differ from it all, simply a different method of delivery. Eric Corbett 22:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as someone from the inside - I do wonder and regret that we didn't reply to some emails sooner. We didn't turn down unblock/unban requests as a matter of course...but concede a low proportion were reversed. At least that is my impression. Be good to get some percentages on that actually. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I've seen several supposedly one-year bans that seem to get automatically rejected on appeal after the year is up and become de facto permanent bans. I guess you have too. Eric Corbett 23:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixed terms ban aren't really much use as they assume that problems will magically be fixed by the end of them. What the committee is looking for is evidence that the user has moved on from the behaviour that was responsible for the ban in the first place.  Roger Davies 00:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with that and am aware that many people don't recognize past mistakes. Sometimes though I wasn't so sure...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If fixed-terms bans aren't much use then why issue them, when we all know that appeals will be rejected? What kind of evidence can a banned editor possibly produce to convince a committee with that mindset? Eric Corbett 00:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The committee rarely issues fixed term bans. They're usually of the "can be appealed after twelve months" variety. What mindset are you talking about? On the sunstantive point, it's not usually difficult to tell from correspondence with the editor whether they're still dwelling on old stuff, still old nursing old grudges etc.  Roger Davies 00:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

There are an extremely tiny number of former editors that don't deserve a second chance....in this case, arbcom should definitely lift this ban and allow this editor to return. Its understandable that you want examples of good behavior...not always easy to find unless you look at Commons (if they participate there) or some other wiki...but seems Will has acknowledged past mistakes and made overtures to avoid repeating them. Its not like Will won't have a bunch of editors watching his every move. Arbcom allowed Rootology to come back for heavens sake...and he later went on to become an admin.--MONGO 00:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

What about the situation where an editor has, over the years, had second chance after second chance after second chance? Not all of it immediately apparent to the casual observer? How many occasions do you continue to give the benefit of the doubt when experience?  Roger Davies 00:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how many chances Will has been given...if we're permitted to discuss that publically then that would help as I am not aware of everything involving that editor. If he has been given multiple second chances then his appeal would indeed need to be convincing.--MONGO 00:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes so Will has offered apologies to all involved and stated that he will not do it again. Not sure what more is demanded of him? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

That's inaccurate. He has not apologised to all involved. But perhaps more to the point, it's difficult to know what weight, if any, to attach to an apology when it comes in close proximity to a denial that very much was done wrong in the first place.  Roger Davies 09:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

All he posted to his talk page that pertained to 2014 was an apology which can be seen here I guess he may have sent more to arbcom. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

That's not accurate either. He posted 1100 words of which only fifty relate to the current appeal.  Roger Davies 06:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes the first bit was his appeal from more than 6 months ago. It is fairly clearly delineated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree entirely with MONGO, it's time to unblock Will, and I also hope arbitrators stop blanking his appeal on his page. To the jaundiced eye, those blankings don't only bring the message "as always, we will hear this appeal by email only", they also say "and we don't want outsiders and plebeians to be able to read you appeal, either, because it's none of their business." But I look at it like this: no, it's not the community's business to hear the appeal — "hear" used in the sense of assess and respond — it's arbcom's, via e-mail. But I refuse to believe Will hasn't also submitted his appeal by e-mail, or soon will. What harm can the double posting do? Is it really not of any use to arbcom to get some community input, for instance in this thread here? You don't have to acknowledge it or respond or anything, I can see how that could be awkward. Keep your own discussions in camera by all means. But it's really disappointing if the committee's mindset is that we don't want no stinking commentary. Are you by any chance confusing yourselves with a jury, which needs to remain unpolluted by input from the outside? If that's it, just get over yourselves, please. Bishonen | talk 00:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC).

Yes it does sort of give the appearance that arbcom wishes to operate in secrecy and without community input or oversight. Per here it appears that Will emailed Arbcom Jan 16th,2014. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic here at all. In this instance, it was the banned user who compiled a secret dossier on another editor, circulated it by email, and sent it to Jimmy who applied a secret ban. Such transparency as exists was provided entirely by ArbCom in opening a case about it, and handling as much of it as policy permits in public.  Roger Davies 09:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• The only purpose of indefinite bans of content creators is bullying. There's no need in indefinite bans. They do not help the project. They even harm the project. In the worst case scenario reblock takes only a minute. Indefinite bans create endless dramas, and take lot's of time. Just think about that:Will submitted his latest request somewhere in January. Now is the March, and he still got no response. Besides many banned users are not interested in ever again editing this site. They simply want to leave, but for whatever reason leave unbanned. I know at least three such persons, but the arbcom and a few anonymous bullies who call themselves "the community" do not let them to leave. It is not only inhumane,not only sick, it is insane.76.126.140.150 (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that indefinite bans are always inappropriate. Sometimes it really is the only reasonable answer. However, if we really have a case of an overzealous ArbCom ban, it definitely needs to be reviewed. Still, there is a difference in reviewing a single case, and undermining the entire purpose of the ArbCom. The Committee is called in when no other methods provide an answer. I have no opinion on this specific case, as I have had no involvement in it whatsoever. I would surely hope that whoever reviews this case takes everyone's opinion into consideration. At the end, however, there is a form of bureaucracy governing here. Decisions can obviously be challenged, but in the end someone's decision must eventually be respected. —Josh3580_talk/hist 07:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I did not say always. Of course pedophiles, vandals, hackers of private email accounts and their cronies should be banned indefinitely, but the problem is that vandals don't get banned, it is content creators who usually get banned, and banning indefinitely somebody who contributed to wikipedia for a few years, wrote many articles is wrong. Indefinite banning of content creators is bullying, and the way of the arbcom to grab more power. Reblock takes only a minute. 76.126.140.150 (talk) 07:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I hear you, and I completely agree (with one exception). You did say that the "only purpose" of indefinite bans was "bullying." That is where I disagree. I respect the ArbComm, they play a vital role here. And, again, their decisions are always subject to review. I only hope that whoever reviews this case looks at it from a neutral point of view. From this thread, it appears that an individual may (or may not) have been overzealous. I really don't know, I'm speaking from a general point of view. If that's true, it isn't the entire ArbComm's fault. I was just trying to draw that distinction. I (personally) really do appreciate your very well considered comments. —Josh3580_talk/hist 07:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

With respect to "And, again, their decisions are always subject to review." Review by whom? The entire reason why we are here is the appearance that involvement of the community in a review was not desired? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The community asked the committee "to resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons" and "where significant privacy, harassment or legal issues are involved hold a hearing in private". In this context, as they have no access to emails between the parties, evidence about non-publicly disclosed private information, or oversight history and suppression logs, individual editors are rarely, if ever, in position to assess such the situation or to make an informed opinion in, for instance, outing and harassment cases.  Roger Davies 09:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Most of the case had none of the issues you mention and thus the community is perfectly able to provide oversight / review much of the case in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

That's not really accurate either. The crucial parts of the case can't be easily reviewed.  Roger Davies 06:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure it is. But then you drafted the case. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

If the committee's position is / was that Will Beback should not have any more so-called second chances, they should have simply site banned him. The actual "remedy," to wit, "After six months, he may appeal his ban to the Arbitration Committee, provided he is able to demonstrate to the Arbitration Committee that his history of disruptive conduct will not continue." is a Wiki 22 worthy of the Joseph Heller novel; to demonstrate anything, a person must edit, but editing while banned is sockpuppetry, thereby making the person demonstrate they are not worthy to be unbanned. But they can't be unbanned because they haven't demonstrated they won't be disruptive. Fairly absurd.

Remedy. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. NE Ent 19:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Nah. People often get obsessive and develop bees in their bonnet; this is often completely uncharacteristic and the dispute ends up dominating their every waking moment. A site ban is an enforced disengagement and gives people an opportunity to find other ways to fill their time, perhaps rediscover things elsewhere, and leave their entrenched behaviour behind. This doesn't work for everyone; some people are so consumed by a dispute that it's with them for a very long time. The regular reviews are intended to ensure that people aren't banned for longer than nis necessary.  Roger Davies 06:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree completely. I think a lot of people have a lot invested in this decisions / ruling. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Should "provided he is able to demonstrate to the Arbitration Committee" be changed to "provided he is able to convince the Arbitration Committee"?

"Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You blocked my account. Prepare to be talked to death." --Guy Macon (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes ;)  Roger Davies 06:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with those who say that Will should be given another chance. Give him the chance to prove that he can avoid his past mistakes - he made some valuable contributions to the encyclopedia and in the areas I generally edit was a valuable asset. Dougweller (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I'd also like him back providing his entire focus is quality content work in non-problematic areas.  Roger Davies 06:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I want him back in problematic areas because he was doing good and necessary work there, but without his overzealousness and outing. Andries (talk) 08:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Most of my Misplaced Pages interaction with Will was that of conflict with them. And my understanding was that the reason for the finding was of harm to a user, which is the area where I unabashedly "see red". I think that the main rationale for continuing their ban is deterrence. The arguments to the reverse are many. One quandary is that the strength/impact of Misplaced Pages sanctions is proportional to the amount that they value their presence (particularly by that user name, which inherently includes scrutiny and accountability) on Misplaced Pages. The fact that they have been trying to come back indicates that they value that, and that potential future review of their actions will be influential on their behavior. Also, the operation/deliberation of ArBcom in secret I think has been one of the main contributors to the bad decisions they have been making. This tends to forment two of the worst problems...."group think / group dynamics" and a lack of a requirement to provide a rationale for individual's decisions. Of course, where there are privacy issues, the ability to deliberate those in secret needs to be maintained. Perhaps it's time to give Will a chance. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Nobody who has spent even a day on the committee, or looked at the way votes split and deadlock, will conclude that group dynamics are at play. The make up of the committee is so diverse that the problem is not group think but finding sufficient common ground to reach a reasonable and timely decisions.  Roger Davies 06:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It is interesting as it is nearly impossible to figure out what the positions are on the committee. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

This issue has been brought before three very different Arbitration Committees. Fifteen arbs voted in the 2012 case which created the ban. The 2013 appeal was rejected by another committee of fifteen that included 40% new members who were not involved in the original decision. The issue is now under consideration by a committee of 14 members, 80% of whom were not involved in the 2012 case. I don't know what the outcome will be of this new appeal but it seems to me that the issue has been examined by a large number of some of our most respected members of the community. It is an ever changing group elected by the community that performs mostly arduous and thankless tasks. I don't see repeated criticisms and drama over routine actions to be either supportive or productive. If the community wishes to change the guidelines under which Arbcom functions and would like to require that ban appeals be conducted in a public forum then a community wide RfC would be the vehicle for such a change not shouts of outrage over a single case each time it comes up.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't that there is a request to "change" the guidelines so much as follow them. Somehow the actual appeals policy of "usually" being heard by email is being morphed by assertion into "always," which is obviously has a different meaning. ("The sun usually rises in the East" sounds a bit odd, doesn't it?) It would be helpful for the committee or representation to address the criteria by which whether an appeal will be by email / not by email is determined. NE Ent 22:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The only criteria I know of is "does the committee wish to consult the community about the appeal?" If yes, discuss the appeal on-wiki. If not, keep it on e-mail. In a case like this one, where some the evidence was heard privately, I see no reason to break long-standing practice. AGK 22:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Why does it matter, other than so that political pressure can be applied to individual arbitrators? AGK 22:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It matters because

• Ya'll Y'all are supposed to represent, not replace the committee community
• Transparency is policy
• Research has shown ensuring participation and transparency is crucial for maintaining the stability of self-governing communities.| NE Ent 23:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Then maybe an RfC is needed to clarify what are the criteria for hearing appeals in private via email vs. hearing them in a public forum. I'm new to the ban appeal topic. Can someone point me to recent examples of BASC/Arbcom discussing and voting on a ban appeal publicly?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The big issue here is we can't release all the information regarding the case. I'd be more than willing to post a summary of my thought process in regards to this case but ultimately there is a lot here that should not, or due to privacy concerns cannot be public. Making a ban appeal public without being able to bring those considerations into play would probably cause more community division and pressure than simply leaving these details private. NativeForeigner 17:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

References

1. Schroeder, A., Wagner, C. (2012). Governance of open content creation: A conceptualization and analysis of control and guiding mechanisms in the open content domain. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63(10):1947–59 DOI

Timing

It appears that Will Beback's post to his talkpage resulted from frustration at the lack of response to his emailed appeal (suggested to have been as long ago as January). Would it be possible for ArbCom to confirm when the ban appeal was received by email? Has Will Beback been kept updated as to the progress of his ban appeal? When do you anticipate being able to notify him of the outcome?
Out of wider interest, it would also be helpful to know whether the timeline for dealing with this unban request is typical (i.e. how long does it usually take to process such requests and are users kept updated whilst they are being considered?). Is ArbCom satisfied that unban requests are being processed as efficiently and expeditiously as possible and, if not, what is proposed to improve the position? WJBscribe (talk) 11:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

We received the substantive appeal on 25 January 2014 and have kept the appellant updated. The appeal should be decided by the month-end. Yes, it is normal for appeals to take many weeks or several months. Appeals basically require us to re-litigate the whole case in miniature, so it would be impractical to hear them more quickly than we currently do. AGK 20:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Is that fact stated anywhere on policy/guideline/information pages? If not, could it be added to one or mroe? I had no clue that appeals would take so long, let alone that such detailed consideration would be given. If a policy/guideline/information page said basically "Arbcom sometimes examines the original case in detail, so some appeals will take several weeks or more", you might prevent confusion and/or anger over the time that you're taking by linking it whenever you contact an appealant to say "We got your appeal and are reviewing it". I note that you say that it's normal to take this long, but I suppose the vagueness of "sometimes" would explain a weeks-long process without giving an appealant reason to object that his case is different from most. Nyttend (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Nyttend. There are lots of different types of appeals. The overwhelming majority of appeals we hear are community bans and de facto bans. These are handled by email by the Ban appeals sub-committee but are occasionally referred back to the community or elsewhere. They typically take a couple of weeks. Appeals of ArbCom site-bans are rare, because we issue very few of them; these are by email to the full committee and can take up to a couple of months. Appeals of AE topic bans are handled publicly at WP:ARCA; appeals of AE site-bans are handled by the committee by email. Appeals about desysopping are effectively made to the community via a new RFA. Any appeal with a significant privacy element (outing, harassment, etc) is heard by email. We've started getting the appropriate information in the right places. But some of the details may change once the current discretionary sanctions review is over.  Roger Davies 10:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Admittedly his posting occurred after he did not recieve an (in my opinion) adequately timely response from the committee. I should have sent some sort of response, but as we had made progress assumed something substantive would be sent out to him soon, which it was not. NativeForeigner 17:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I've been thinking for some time about raising, with the new Committee membership, User:Risker/Mailing list draft. (By the way, every one of you who was elected or reelected in the most recent vote expressed some amount of support for something like it, in your responses to my question.) Anyway, the discussion here, about it not being clear to the community how the ban appeals process is managed within the Committee, strikes me as being a related issue: what needs to be kept confidential, and what does not, and how the Committee can best deal with transparency. I encourage you to work on something like Risker's draft, that could communicate to the rest of us more clearly how information moves around. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I just sent two e-mails to Will Beback. One acknowledging receipt of an e-mail he sent to us today (11 March going by UTC timings) and another e-mail updating him on the appeal. I would be more than happy to maintain a timeline of how such appeals are handled, but the level of detail I would include may need further discussion. A short version would be: initial appeal received 16 January; acknowledgement sent the same day. Substantive appeal received 25 January (addendum sent on 27 January); some subsequent back-and-forth discussion included Will Beback but most discussion was internal. Request for an update received from Will Beback on 10 February (and acknowledged the same day). A preliminary response sent to Will Beback on 15 February, and he responded the same day (and his response was acknowledged). Another request for an update was received on 25 February (this appears to be the one that no-one got round to acknowledging). Another request for an update received on 6 March (I replied to this one the same day). Further communications sent on 6 March and Will Beback replies the same day. Will Beback writes again on 11 March (acknowledgement sent the same day). The further e-mail I mentioned above is sent. And that is where things now stand. This level of responsiveness (including sometimes failing to acknowledge an e-mail or two) is fairly typical given the volume of e-mails received. Taking time (weeks and months) to deal with something can either indicate that it is a complex matter resulting in extensive internal discussions, or it can indicate being busy with other things. In this case, probably a bit of both. Tryptofish (and others) is this the level of transparency you want, or is it something different you want? Carcharoth (talk) 07:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for asking me, Carcharoth. Personally, yes, I find what you said here very helpful, so thanks for that too. FYI, Roger Davies left me a message on my user talk, stating that the Committee regards Risker's draft as being non-controversial (which comes to me as a pleasant surprise, given past discussions). Because you ask me what I am looking for, I'll remind everyone that I originally raised the issue a long time ago (in a galaxy far, far, oh never mind), at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 13#Thinking about the mailing list, in the wake of a dispute between some previous Arbitrators, out of my belief that the Committee would benefit from further transparency. (Risker's draft also includes material about routing messages to other venues outside of ArbCom.) So, when I saw here that other editors were pointing out how little the broader community understands about how the Committee deals with appeals, that jogged my memory about transparency. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration Request/Clarification request: BLP special enforcement Motion Passed

Original announcement