Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 17

message: :Since this was a more general discussion of case naming, I have moved it from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Workshop. Thatcher131 21:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally if the case relates to a specific article or issue we use the article or issue name (or we should, barring ocassional lapses).  Many cases do focus on a specific editor, however, and unless we adopt some kind of numerical or date-based system, we're pretty much stuck with naming some cases after editors.  (It's a heckuva lot easier to remember and find Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zer0faults, which I'm dealing with now elsewhere, than Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/26 July 2006.)  If anyone has concerns about a current case, contact the clerk listed for the case; moving to a new name is trivial if the original name is a problem.  The Giano case was exceptional in many ways and a better name could probably have been chosen, but I'm not sure changing it now would be a good idea, I suspect there are a lot of bookmarked links that would get messed up.
*I'd say, don't use usernames period (unless the case clearly centres around one distinct user). If there's an article, subject, or issue involved fine - but on the odd case where there isn't, use something neutral: e.g. 'Case of 2nd Jan07' or even 'admin shitstorm dispute of Oct 2006' - it would not be hard to be creative, and if in doubt use the date the case was filed.--Docg 21:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking back over the last few months, there a few with personal names that probably could have been given issue or article names.  Like I said, if you are concerned, contact a clerk. Thatcher131 21:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: A bit hard on the fingers, but it sure as hell won't be called /Giano 2, if it ever happens. Thatcher131 21:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or /Giano II, as it were.  --Cyde Weys 23:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about Snide Wars? Giano 18:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or Snark Trek? Thatcher131 18:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ex accuso lucellum?--Mackensen (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I tend to agree with this. The only time Clerks should use individual usernames is when we have a situation like a Husnuck or a Deltabeignet, which were about that one user only. Currently, surveying the list of cases, the only other one to include usernames is Piotrus-Ghirla, which is probably a good naming idea also given what the dispute was about. Naming that one Piotrus or Ghirla would have been bad, and exactly the things clerks should try to avoid. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 03:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If every case should be renamed for an article, perhaps the earlier so-called "Giano" case would become Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/War of all against all. Newyorkbrad 05:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No, that's a terrible idea for a name of the case.  We stopped using "v." for a reason.  --Cyde Weys 18:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Hbdragon88 was making a serious suggestion, any more than I was. Newyorkbrad 18:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Case names

message: There are currently two reports at Arbitration enforcement of users who are banned from certain pages seeking to collaborate with other editors to continue to work on the articles.
* is banned from Plasma cosmology and its talk page for three weeks under the terms of his probation.  He posted some comments to User talk:Ionized, which Ionized posted verbatim to Talk:Plasma cosmology  .  Ian and Ionized argue that even if verbatim reposting is a problem, Ian can provide "information" which Ionized can use to edit the article.
*, who is permanently banned from Sex tourism and related articles and their talk pages, has been advised that he can collaborate with another editor on article changes so long as he does not edit directly himself , and he is seeking to do so .
Of course, this is only a problem in cases where an editor is banned from article talk pages as well as the articles themselves.  Still, some response needs to be devised, as article bans (either direct or imposed per probation) are part of many arbitration cases.  I see a couple of equally logical responses.
#The policy regarding banned users should be extended to users under temporary or permanent page bans.  Proxy editing is prohibited.  Editors who collaborate with a banned editor, either by verbatim reposting or by using their suggestions, get the same page bans imposed on them.
#Page bans are issued for disruptive behavior, not for providing particular content. The banned editor may offer his suggestions to other editors, who, at their own discretion, may choose to make verbatim edits, partial edits, or ignore the advice.  If these third party edits are seen by uninvolved admins as carrying on the disruption, the third party editors may be appropriately blocked or banned.  If the third party editors behave responsibly, the edits are treated like any other edit the user may make, even though they were suggested by a banned user.
I think either response can be justified with reference to various policies.  What is the arbitration committee's intent here? Thatcher131 04:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A user who does a forbidden act for another user steps into the shoes of the other and is fully responsible. The penalty which would have applied to the other user applies to the user who acts in their stead. Fred Bauder 05:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should they be warned first? The page-banned user knows they are doing wrong, but the other user might be an innocent party until told about the history of the case. Carcharoth 02:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not an Arbitrator, so this isn't binding by any stretch of the imagination; but WP:AGF would say so. A final warning would be appropriate, with a link to the remedies and this statement by Fred B. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 05:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, they are responsible for their disruptive acts, but equal amounts of disruption from new users and established users are treated differently with good reason. We should react to the disruption, but not in the same way as with the banned user unless the new user become persistent as well. Dmcdevit·t 07:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not an Arbitrator (and I reported the KyndFellow issue above). Disruptive acts aren't the issue here. If a page-banned user edits their banned page, even in a non-disruptive fashion, they are subject to being blocked. However, a third party may be believe it is okay (helpful even) to edit on behalf of the banned user. There needs to be a routine warning for the third party in this situation, per Carcharoth's suggestion. Only then could the third-party editor reasonably be subject to the banned user's penalties, per Fred Bauder. / edgarde 07:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fred's statement is either misleading and trivial (of course if someone reproduces the behaviour that lead to the banning of a user, he or she will be in trouble) or, in my opinion, neither fair nor useful. If someone is banned from a store for shoplifting, we don't forbid others to shop for him. Likewise, if someone has been banned from an article, we ban the offending behaviour, not necessarily (all of) the content. Otherwise we would open up a huge can of worms. What is "collaboration"? Is some piece of information tainted forever because a banned user told me about it? Or even just broadcasted it to the world? How do we detect off-wiki collaboration? I would certainly like to hear some other arbitors opinion, and/or a more detailed answer from Fred.  --Stephan Schulz 14:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Not at all.  In many jurisdictions, an accomplice to a crime is just as culpable as the primary party.  Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: There are instances where an individuals judgement is suspect, to the extent that their contributions are a net negative, even though some of the contributions would be good.  Filtering the contributions through a third party can mean that overall contribution is positive.  So I wouldn't like to see the option of using third parties eliminated outright.  Regards, Ben Aveling 21:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *Certainly some discretion should be applied when judging the edit.  Someone should not be condemned simply by association if they have done nothing questionable, but making edits requested by a banned user in that user's stead is something that will be more looked at with more discrimination, at the very least.  Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaborations involving page-banned users 

message: Amid the discussion of all the possible permutations of options for ArbCom acceptance mechanisms, it occured to me that one particular facet hasn't been discussed much... at the risk of sounding dense, what was the intended purpose of the change?  Was it to alleviate type I and/or type II errors?  Why did it occur, and did it have the intended result?  Might be useful in trying to find a better solution.  /Blaxthos 23:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Before the reject votes really did not matter expect they were not an accept vote. The same as not voting at all. This made them matter more. FloNight 00:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a little leery of the 'matter more' argument.  I mean, I assume that Arbs aren't sitting around alone at night, drinking rye straight from the bottle, quietly weeping to themselves because their votes don't matter enough.  (At least, I hope that they aren't....)  I am concerned that the large 'net' margin makes reject votes matter more—more in fact than an accept vote, in that substantially more accept votes are required than reject votes to determine whether or not a case is accepted.  If we're up to a fifteen-member ArbCom, a case can be rejected even if as many as nine of the fifteen Arbs think it has merit.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My preferred beverage is Merlot. And since I've been an arbitrator for less that a month, I still manage to use a wine glass most of the time. ;-) Your question has some merit but it is important to remember that this matters in very few cases. Many cases are rejected as being premature with the hope that some type of resolution will occur without ArbCom involvement. If the situation is not resolved then the situation can be revisited. FloNight 19:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Exactly my point.  In essence, one reject vote vetos four members who believe the case warrants acceptance -- the balance of power, so to speak, has been completely tilted (not to mention if one factors in the fact that the full ArbCom rarely participates).  Far too much power in one vote, if you ask me... I like the model based on the SCOTUS procedure, personally.  However, this still begets the question... what was the purpose of the change?  /Blaxthos 03:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Purpose?

message: Surely some here know me for being an AMA advocate that from time to time appears in the halls of ArbCom defending people. This time, I have a doubt. What status have formal or informal advocate during a case? Are we "parties" or just "others"? If we are "parties", then, can we make motions, endorse them, object, request in the workshop or just comment as an uninvolved user? My opinion is that advocates should be considered a party, as we're involved (indirectly, yes) in the case... but, in the other hand, no arbitrator has ever thought on ruling on an advocate... It's quite confusing to me and that's why I request this clarification. Thanks in advance! --Neigel von Teighen 19:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:AMA|AMA advocates]]' status in cases 

message: Amid the discussion of all the possible permutations of options for ArbCom acceptance mechanisms, it occured to me that one particular facet hasn't been discussed much... at the risk of sounding dense, what was the intended purpose of the change?  Was it to alleviate type I and/or type II errors?  Why did it occur, and did it have the intended result?  Might be useful in trying to find a better solution.  /Blaxthos 23:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Before the reject votes really did not matter expect they were not an accept vote. The same as not voting at all. This made them matter more. FloNight 00:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a little leery of the 'matter more' argument.  I mean, I assume that Arbs aren't sitting around alone at night, drinking rye straight from the bottle, quietly weeping to themselves because their votes don't matter enough.  (At least, I hope that they aren't....)  I am concerned that the large 'net' margin makes reject votes matter more—more in fact than an accept vote, in that substantially more accept votes are required than reject votes to determine whether or not a case is accepted.  If we're up to a fifteen-member ArbCom, a case can be rejected even if as many as nine of the fifteen Arbs think it has merit.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My preferred beverage is Merlot. And since I've been an arbitrator for less that a month, I still manage to use a wine glass most of the time. ;-) Your question has some merit but it is important to remember that this matters in very few cases. Many cases are rejected as being premature with the hope that some type of resolution will occur without ArbCom involvement. If the situation is not resolved then the situation can be revisited. FloNight 19:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Exactly my point.  In essence, one reject vote vetos four members who believe the case warrants acceptance -- the balance of power, so to speak, has been completely tilted (not to mention if one factors in the fact that the full ArbCom rarely participates).  Far too much power in one vote, if you ask me... I like the model based on the SCOTUS procedure, personally.  However, this still begets the question... what was the purpose of the change?  /Blaxthos 03:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Purpose?

message: This page is rather long even if there's only one topic - right now there's four, and there have been more. I'd like to propose splitting off the topmatter/frontmatter/whatever you call it into a subpage, like Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Header is for Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Are there any reasons why not? If not, I'll go ahead. Picaroon 02:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why not. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Page size is now down 3.4 kilobytes. Picaroon 20:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for doing so. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting the lead off into a subpage to be transcluded 

message: Doesn't it seem kind of unfair that the person who this case is being filed against isn't allowed to participate? ♥ Fredil 01:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He is able to participate by sending an e-mail to the Arbitration Committee mailing list. Newyorkbrad 01:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: (An email to any one of us will also suffice, and if requested, we can forward it to the entire list.) Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nathanrdotcom 

message: :: Most of the people in the channel are admins, people chosen specifically for their trustworthiness and dedication to the project.  If admins are as irreformable as you suggest, then Wikipedia has far worse problems than a single side channel.  --Interiot 20:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Admins placed in the medium that by design encourages behind the scenes dealmaking and cabalism have their worst instincts bred and nurtured. Not all admins are at IRC. Not all who are at IRC are abusers but there is clearly a correlation. The medium is the problem. Some people are incorruptible, true enough. We cannot be sure that all our admins are such (we no for a fact that this is not so, btw) and we need to pull the plug from the place that appeals to the weak sides of the human nature and gradually turn otherwise good people into power freaks. --Irpen 20:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The admin channel and IRC are necessary for matters that swiftly need oversight. It is the preferred medium as it takes much longer for e-mails to be addressed, while in many oversighters are in the admin channel for immediate access. There's your answer. Cowman109Talk 23:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Matters that swiftly need oversight (personal information, children's privacy, etc.) are usually matters of such sensitivity, that they can only be discussed within a very restricted circle of truly trusted users. #Wikipedia-en-admins simply does not qualify to be the appropriate forum as it has a notorious presence of certain individuals with the history of abuse pertaining to specifically the most sensitive info (checkuser abuse) and to whom the community has demonstrated a total lack of trust. There may be a need for a Checkuser/Oversight IRC channel with an access to only those who community entrusted with the keys to such tools but it would be a grave breach of security to discuss such issues at the channel where access and even sysop privileges are arbitrary given based on personal friendships and whose logs occasionally pop up at Wikitruth, ED, WR and other malicious web-sites. --Irpen 01:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please explain the need of confidentiality if you make a statement in support of Admin IRC (2nd section break)