Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carcharoth (talk | contribs) at 21:30, 19 December 2009 (→Separation of powers: clarify). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

cs interwiki request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove cs interwiki cs:Wikipedie:Arbitrážní výbor from the header for WP:RFARB subpage to not connect Wikipedie:Arbitrážní výbor with WP:RFARB here.

There is mess in interwikis in between languages - they are not matching procedural steps in arbitration. Not just english wikipedia has different pages and subpages for individual procedural steps.

This particular header Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Header implements interwikis for request subpage. There is request subpage counterpart in czech Misplaced Pages (see), but this header (and so the WP:Arbitration/Requests page display it) is now containing interwiki for the main arbitration site (czech counterpart of WP:Arbitration). The interwiki for czech request arbitration page would be suitable here (cs:Wikipedie:Žádost o arbitráž) , however that interwiki is already present at the end of page body of WP:RFARB. It results in two different cs: interwikis being generated in the interwikis list in WP:Arbitration/Requests. From those two iws, the one in header (here) is the wrong one.

Sumed: I ask to remove cs:Wikipedie:Arbitrážní výbor interwiki from here. Or optionally to replace it here with cs:Wikipedie:Žádost o arbitráž (and clean then the ":cs:Wikipedie:Žádost o arbitráž" from WP:RFARB)

Note: It seems to me that the another interwikis here have the same problem, for they all go to the main arbitration sites of respective wikis, but I am not familiar with their overall procedural structure there (they may or may not discriminate between WP:RFARB and WP:ARB like cs and en wikis do). --Reo 10:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done, your latter option. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Thank You Martin. So I did follow You and did remove the remaining cs:Wikipedie:Žádost o arbitráž interwiki from WP:RFARB body.

Now I am sure that the :es: interwikis are in the same situation like the cs interwikis were. Here in the header is interwiki pointing to WP:ARB, at the same time the correct one for WP:RFARB is simultaneously at the bottom of the WP:RFARB.

Moreover there are two more iws, the azerbaijany and Russian iw's. They should be here in the header as well. Sorry for bothering again. And thank You. (I just came to solve the cs, but, seeing this, it's better fix all)

So the es: should be replaced here, and other two moved from WP:RFARB to WP:RFARB/Header --Reo 14:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You're confusing me. There is already an ru interwiki in the header. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Ha, ha, ha, yes, it is confusing ;) But now it is still much better then before, thank you. Basically the confusion is why we are here. There was quite a mess. The only remaining part, where I can navigate are those two :ru: interwikis. Of those two - the ] does not belong here, it belongs to WP:ARB.

After some time, it will need some update, becouse we will see what the interwiki robots will do with it on the other sites (as it was this way, there was bot confusion cross-languages, confusion between wp:ARB and wp:RFARB in all languages) Reo 18:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I've lowered the protection so you should be able to maintain these interwikis yourself now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I will do just few languages per day. It is quite difficult. Going through googletranslate (with and without translations) and I need to follow rather more links coming fromthose pages to verify that I interpreted the meaning of those pages pretty well.

• One note to slowenian case. It seems that they had one before, but due to their internal processes they modified it to mediation process - they renamed the page and deleted the link. Google translation of the deletion log. Reo 11:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Notice of WP:ARBSCI on article talk pages

WP:ARBSCI#Editors instructed instructs that a notice shall be placed on the talkpage of each of the affected articles, which was apparently done by adding a very large box to {{WikiProject Scientology}}. After a complaint at Template talk:WikiProjectBannerShell, the message was adjusted to hide inside banner shells. It was brought up earlier today that this causes the banner to no longer be visible on these pages, in violation of the ArbCom instruction.

As a compromise between the need for giving notice of the ArbCom decision and the desire to not overload the banner shell, I have made an edit to display the warning in a "collapsed" format when inside banner shells. An example may be seen at Talk:Karen Black.

Is this acceptable? Anomie⚔ 20:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, thanks for coding it. MBisanz 20:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Formalities

In the case concerning the Audit Subcomittee I notice that a couple of arbitrators have recused "as a formal matter". What does that mean? Is this typical language when recusing that I've just never picked up on before or does it denote some special characteristic of the recusal? 80.65.247.36 (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Special: Risker and Newyorkbrad sit on the Audit Subcommittee. Mackensen (talk) 03:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

urgent clerk action required.

Durova has clearly breached the 500 word limit. Could a clerk please refactor the picture - I don't mind whether you cut off the top half, or the left side. Privatemusings (talk) 06:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

tough crowd. Or more accurately, no crowd.....;-) Privatemusings (talk) 09:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

This page is rarely looked at, PM. For what it's worth, you gave me a good chuckle once I "got" it (which, admittedly, took several seconds longer than it should rightly have).  :-) — Coren  14:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

;) Durova 16:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

(Excellent!) Proofreader77 (talk) 03:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Suppressed some edits

Hi all,

I'm really sorry for the disruption, but I just suppressed some text from the current request. An editor posted some private email they were sent, then immediately requested redaction. I've notified the rest of the oversight team on this matter. Nobody else's comments were modified in any way, so if you posted something, it's not been touched in any way. Sorry about the mess - Alison 18:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

ABUSE! Thatcher 18:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Now I'm in trouble!!! :-O - Alison 19:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Nah. I was too smart to run for in the election. I'll just stand in the back of the room and throw spitballs when teacher's back is turned. Thatcher 19:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I've indeffed Thatcher for disruption. That should help minimize drama. Jehochman 19:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

lol - Alison 19:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• It came up in my watchlist, I pointed my mouse at the diff and could read the removed content in a pop-up. DuncanHill (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably a caching or syncing issue. There are a lot of web servers and they don't always sync up immediately. Try again now. Thatcher 20:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) I think that might be because you just happened to see it pop up between the time she removed the content and saved the page, and the time she memory-holed the intervening versions. But I'm unsure enough about it that I'm not even really sure why I commented. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought at the time that Alison had just blanked the comment instead of suppressing it. I refreshed my watchlist three or four times and it was still there, only disappearing when another edit was made to the page. DuncanHill (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

What Floquenbeam said is accurate. –xeno 20:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

May I ask how this suppression feature works? When you suppress the bad edit and subsequent revisions, content of the subsequent revisions remains, but it is impossible to link to their diffs. Is that so? When I look in the page history a bunch of diffs are struck through and grayed out, and I can't link to them. That sort of sucks for obvious reasons. Is there any way to improve this suppression feature? If not, maybe we should rename it "oppression". Jehochman 20:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

No, because those same diffs would contain the offending material that lead to the oversighting. Since a diff is just the software's way of showing you the difference between revisions, and those revisions are the problem. –xeno 20:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm somewhat familiar with RCS, CVS, Subversion (software), Git (software) and the idea of diffs. What I am suggesting is a better implementation of suppression would be more like Oversight, which wipes out a diff, but leaves subsequent diffs unharmed. This better implementation might be costly because it would necessitate recompiling all the subsequent diffs when suppression was enabled or disabled. The current implementation of suppression makes a terrible mess of the edit history, rendering innocuous diffs inaccessible. This is a bad thing. Jehochman 20:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Oversight doesn't work that way either. The wikimedia database does not store differences between edits, it stores the entire text of each page revision. Whether you use the oversight tool or the suppression tool, if you want to remove offending content, you have to remove every revision that contains the content. With the old oversight tool, those edits would simply be gone, and the text added by intervening editors would have no attribution at all. At least with suppression we can see who edited the page and when, although the text of the revision itself is missing. Thatcher 20:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Aha, I'm glad to learn that. Jehochman 21:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• Use of a technical means (gadget that displays a diff in a popup) to circumvent a measure whose purpose was the prevention of access to copyrighted material.
• Public explanation of how the circumvention works.
• Inciting other editors to engage in legal threats instead of improving articles.

I am afraid that per this rationale I will have to set my lawyers in Bratislava and San Franciso loose on DuncanHill. Hans Adler 20:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Is your real name Randy by any chance? DuncanHill (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The pop-up should not work. Although only 2 minutes elapsed between when Alison redacted the post and when she suppressed the intervening revisions, I too saw it unsuppressed for longer than 2 minutes. Misplaced Pages is served by many web servers, and it may have taken a few minutes for the suppression (enacted at the server Alison happened to be connected to) to propagate to the other servers. On the oversight list we sometimes see similar reports of suppressed information being visible to some people for a few minutes after the suppression was enacted. It's basically a server glitch that happens some times for a few minutes at most. It is likely that Duncan was reading wikipedia through a server that was not quite in sync, and was able to see the suppressed content for a few extra minutes. It should be completely invisible now by any means. Thatcher 21:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• The initial statement regarding the suppression leaves me unclear on a point: was suppression requested "immediately" by the posting party or by someone else? —Amelioration 03:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• To be quite clear. I asked Alison to remove it. It was an email containing a spurious, unfounded and evil allegation sent to me by an Arb. I was horrified to receive it and posted it to show some of the things I have to contend with, but then realised, as elsewhere in the world, when you have an totalitarian regime anyone who attempts to enure the underdogs have a fair hearing becomes persecuted by lies themselves. Remember it was my trying to ensure Vintagekits had a fair hearing that caused this current fiasco. In fact most of the allagations against me start because I have objected to an over zelous authority. So please no trouble for Alison,she was only doing (legally) what I requested.  Giano  10:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

GiacomoReturned / Carcharoth

I appreciate I'm a nobody and I apologise if this has already been addressed elsewhere but I can't help noticing recent parallels to the current Giano case. Another arbitrator recently threatened Giano with a block over issues so closely related that... let's face it, it's the same topic and same concerns exactly. In relation to John Vandenberg's comments about arbitrators appearing to act in an official capacity, it's perhaps worth noticing that that arbitrator was acting on behalf of a group (referred to as "us") that at least might reasonably have been taken to mean the committee. "If you continue with this sort of behaviour, the only thing you are likely to force us to do is block or ban you for your behaviour."

Some questions:

• Was Carcharoth acting on behalf of the committee? If so then would best practice have been to give details of a committee motion supporting his threats?
• Was Carcharoth acting on behalf of some other group when he mentioned "us" - if so then did that group include Coren?
• If Carcharoth wasn't acting on behalf of the committee then did his choice of words wittingly or unwittingly give the impression that he was, and would it be advisable to be more careful in creating such impressions?
• Having threatened Giano with a block for pretty much the same issues, can Carcharoth really justify non-recusal in a case over just such a block being applied and reversed?

217.28.2.130 (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You might find it surprising what can be justified by Carcharoth. UA 20:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but in the past he's struck me as a pretty decent sort of guy. I suspect his non-recusal here arises more from not thinking it through than any deception (of others or of self) 217.28.2.130 (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I was aware of that post I had made to Giano's talk page (though some of my subsequent comments may only be in the page history because Giano removed some of my subsequent posts there). I was, in fact, surprised that Giano hadn't pointed out that I had warned him about this. Anyway, earlier today, during discussions on the secondary arbitration mailing list (set up for discussions about this request), I pointed out two things: (1) That I had earlier warned Giano (in the post you link to); and (2) That there was another point where I was involved in what happened here (I participated in the oversight-l mailing list thread about the incident that prompted the AUSC report). I said that I would disclose both these points when I next commented on the request. I am now going to read the request and see where it has got to, and post some more thoughts on all this (based mostly on what was discussed today), including a response to what you have said here about possible recusal. Carcharoth (talk) 02:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC) I seem to have ended up answering the recusal question in a response elsewhere - see here for why I think this prior warning is not grounds for recusal. Carcharoth (talk) 04:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Separation of powers

Three arbitrators have recused from a proposed case with perhaps a fourth recusal in the offing. If the trend continues there may be a shortage of arbitrators to actually weigh the case. This dilemma was predictable and likely to recur unless changes are implemented. Fortunately it is also preventable.

A solution
Convert the Audit Subcommittee into a fully independent Audit Committee. While you're at it, convert the Ban Appeals Subcommittee into a fully independent Appeals Board.

Too many people wearing too few hats is a recipe for trouble; balance of powers is a good thing. Durova 03:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem here is not membership of the subcommittees, but getting too involved in disputes. I don't think that Risker or Brad needed to recuse because they are on the audit subcommittee, but they may well have recused for other reasons as well (Brad has explicitly made that clear). Rlevse's recusal relates to the AUSC report. Coren is recused because he carried out the block of Giano and filed a case. It has been suggested that I recuse because I warned Giano. In that warning, I referred to "we" - I was not speaking on behalf of the committee, but was referring (as an arbitrator) to possible action by the committee as a whole. Coren's block actions, in contrast, were as an individual and as an admin. I personally strongly disagree with the concept that an arb should be able to take off their arb hat and "act as an admin" in cases like this (i.e. I agree with what John Vandenberg said about that). So, to sum up, my warning was effectively saying to Giano, that if he didn't stop his pre-AUSC report disruption (not being willing to wait for the report), then I would be proposing that ArbCom do something about it (whether my fellow arbs would have agreed with me or not, we will never know). What we got later was post-AUSC report disruption by Giano (strident and unbridled criticism of the report). My response to that would have been to dispassionately explain where Giano was wrong (Tznkai's suggested approach), but matters moved too fast for that, and Coren took his approach instead (take off arb hat and take a hardline approach as an admin). I explicitly avoid crossing that line between arbitrator and admin actions, and limit my individual actions to warnings, explanations and persuasion (which is why I think my warning is not grounds for recusal). Any action that is more than that needs a full vote by the committee. The difference is between unilateral action by individuals, and (sometimes much slower) action as a committee. There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches, but here I think the disadvantages of the unilateral approach outweighed the committee approach. This was meant to be part of what I was writing to go on the request itself, so I'll get back to that now. Carcharoth (talk) 04:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Carcharoth, it might be helpful in future when you issue such warnings to say more explicitely in the warning that you speak as an individul arbitrator rather than on behalf of the committee as a hole. English personal pronouns, particularly "we" and "you" are notoriously imprecise and their use can give rise to avoidable misunderstanding. DuncanHill (talk) 13:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• I have read some rubbish in my time Carcharoth, but to say "What we got later was post-AUSC report disruption by Giano" is more than rubbish; it is utter rubbish. This is half the problem - Arbs think that any criticism of them is disrupting the project - it is not. I spend most of my time here defending other editors, and I am certainly not going to stoop to defending myself, but we now have a position where Arbs feel themselves to be so in the heavens that intimidating editors into silence (per Coren) oversighting valid edits (per RLevse) and producing whitewashing reports to save said Arbs(per NewYorkBrad and Risker) is acceptable behaviour. It is not. It is far more disruptive launching halk baked Arbcom cases to save an Arb's face when intimidating blocks have failed. The problem here is that the Arbcom has allowed it's own members far too much leeway and lack of effective sanction, what on earth was Coren thiking of blocking me the other day - I can't imagine - and neither privately can any of the other Arbs, yet here they are wasting time trying to save his face and make some sense of a clearly flawed report while justifying RLevse's stupid actions because he did not like being compared to a Randy from Boisse. It's fooling very few and looking at the millions of words written here far more disruptive than I have ever been, So go and think on that Carcharoth and consider that if the Arbs behave sensibly most disruption would be avoided and I would have nothing to compain about, and while here - I will point out that I am also less than thrilled about the latest posonous emailed drivel from an Arb acusing me of feeding information to a well known "Outer" for use on hivemind or whatever it is called. You lot need to start communincating with each other.  Giano  14:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Giano, I will be posting my formal thoughts at the request at some point today, but for the record: (1) I disagree with Coren's block - if Coren had said at any point that he intended to block you, I would have told him not to. (2) The AUSC report did a good job of balancing the need to say some things and not over-emphasise other things, but didn't say all it could have done. I (and the other arbitrators who checked their e-mail at the time) saw the report before it was published, and I said that in my view it was OK. (3) You are free to criticise the report, but the way you do goes too far. It should not be difficult for you (and others as well, to be fair) to tone down what you say and make the same points in a calmer manner (if you can't do that, then you should, as I've said before, communicate your thoughts to someone who can express them calmly for you). (4) I was the first person to respond on the oversight mailing list to the oversight request (12 minutes after it arrived), and my response was to send an e-mail pointing out what "Randy in Boise" meant, and I then (about half an hour later) sent another e-mail explicitly stating that the suppression (which had since been done) should be reversed. Why it took so long for the suppression to then be reversed is something that does still need to be sorted out. The AUSC report does touch on that, but you are bringing more heat than light to this. Read what others have said at the request thread about your actions here, and consider what they are saying. Carcharoth (talk) 14:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I shall be making no further comment on this case. My views are widely known. They remain unchanged.  Giano  14:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, my response above was written as Giano wrote the above, and I edit conflicted with him. I hope he does read what I said and considers it, as it makes clear what I think about what happened here, and my views are not what others have presumed them to be. Carcharoth (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think the Audit Committee has enough cases or institutional history under its belt to succeed on its own at this time. But the idea is worth considering for the Appeals Board. The main problem would be that anyone denied by the Appeals Board would still want to Appeal to Arbcom.--BirgitteSB 18:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Carcharoth, your comments raise one big question for me... once you saw that suppression had occurred, and having already explained the meaning of Randy to the oversight list, why did you not act to reverse the suppression? You knew there was positively no outing, you knew the suppression was wrong and would inevitably be reversed, and you certainly should have expected that the longer it took for the reversal to occur the bigger the controversy would grow. Given those surrounding factors I am wondering what led you to wait for / want consensus on the oversight list as a pre-requisite for acting. EdChem (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

PS: how you can type that the AUSC report did a "good job" of anything with apparently straight fingers is prompting other questions, but I'm letting those go through to the keeper.

At the time I e-mailed the oversight mailing list to point out that the suppression should probably be reversed, I was at a computer where I'm not logged in to Misplaced Pages, and hence did not have access to my account and the associated oversight tools (other arbs are sometimes in a similar position). Even if I had had access to the oversight tools, I would probably have still deferred to what was decided by discussion among oversighters on the mailing list, and those able to check the full details of what had been suppressed would have been better placed to make a final decision (I also have an election pledge to only use the tools in relation to evidence and looking at conduct of checkusers and oversighters, but that is less important here). On suppression reversal in general, it is normally better to wait a bit and be sure that a suppression should be reversed, rather than to reverse a suppression and then have it suppressed again (suppression-warring, if you like - we've never had that yet, as far as I know, thank goodness). One of the lessons (hopefully) learned from all this is that waiting to revert a suppression can be counter-productive, as it can (as happened here) end up drawing more attention to something (though it was probably the initial suppression that drew the most attention, rather than the delay before reverting the suppression). What a quick reversal of the suppression might have achieved is calming people who were getting all upset about it, but we emphatically don't want to be in a situation where those responsible for suppression are being assailed on one side by those demanding suppression, and on the other side by those demanding reversal of the suppression, and for the oversighters to "give in" to pressure from either side. They (the oversighters) need the space to calmly exercise the judgment for which they were elected and appointed. What that requires (and it is this that the AUSC report did not say) is for the person who files a request for suppression to not be privy to, and take part in, the subsequent discussion. I share some of the blame for that for not, in hindsight, asking the person who made the oversight request (and was understandably upset about what he thought had happened) to stay out of the subsequent discussion on the mailing list. If such a situation arises in future, and a member of the oversight mailing list makes a request for suppression, and I am around, I will ask the person making the request to not get involved in the subsequent discussion (it needs to be emphasised here again that the standard when there is doubt is to suppress first, then discuss, and then, if needed, to reverse the suppression). On a personal level, I do regret not being more emphatic and insisting that this suppression be undone quicker, but what is done is done. I hope at some point people can move on from this. Carcharoth (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Lack of arbcom oversight at enforcement requests

I would like to see more arbcom members chime in at the enforcement sections like they used to. Right now, a topic banned editor who is a self proclaimed single purpose account (updating his userpage to look less ominous) has been permitted to resume editing (albeit on a 30 day trial) in the topic he was banned from and this was done after only one day of discussion and with only a few people chiming in. We should see more involvement from arbcom in this area.--MONGO 03:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Speaking personally, I simply don't have time to get involved there. I trust the admins that take action there to show judgment, and my view is that ArbCom only need to get involved when/if things are appealed at the clarifications or amendments page, or sometimes by an appeal via e-mail to ArbCom (depending on the nature of the sanction and what is being appealed or what we are being asked to review). Most times, I would defer to a reasonable decision made at arbitration enforcement, only intervening if something really egregiously wrong was decided (or if arbitration enforcement was the wrong venue for what was decided), and only if a formal complaint/appeal to ArbCom was made. Carcharoth (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)