From: (Stephen Bain)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:42:13 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Opinions on what ArbCom have done so far (January to
mid-February 2009)
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Roger Davies wrote:
>
> I've got the principles and FOF for Scientology in advanced draft state.
> I was waiting for the evidence questions that Durova raised to be resolved.
If you have substantial parts drafted already you should put them on
the case's workshop. If further issues do arise from the community
looking at that, you'll be able to deal with them at the same time as
waiting for Durova.
--
Stephen Bain
-----------
From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 01:14:01 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Opinions on what ArbCom have done so far (January to
mid-February 2009)
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 11:45 PM, Cool Hand Luke wrote:
> I wish some of our pending cases would get resolved before moving on to
> introspection.
Yes. I do try to finish up other business before doing that sort of
stuff. I'll wait a bit anyway. Still trying to find the time to work
out what happened in that Eastern European scuffle, without just
agreeing with everyone else.
> I know people are signed up for Scientology and date linking, but I'm pretty
> well-acquainted with those. Maybe I could jointly write one of them with
> the assignees them to speed up the process. Me and Randy did that with PHG,
> and I liked the results.
I offered to do this for Ayn Rand, but that's the only pending case
I'm not recused or inactive on. To be frank, SemBubenny shouldn't be a
long case, but I do worry about date delinking and Scientology. What I
will try and aim to do is be active on the workshop page for the Ayn
Rand case, and help with the proposed decision - whoever is doing
that. Where is that list anyway?
Carcharoth
----------
From: (Cas Liber)
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 12:44:05 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [arbcom-l] updae on Justallofthem
I see YM has posted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=201977929and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...nban_conditionsdo folks more familiar with this one think its time for a ban yet? Just thought I'd give folks a heads up as there is stuff flying everywhere.
Cas
----------
From: (Wizardman)
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 19:59:32 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] updae on Justallofthem
well, he's a major party in the scientology case, so if Roger wants to throw
that in as an FoF/remedy, then that's fine.
~W
----------
From: (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 21:06:58 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] updae on Justallofthem
I agree that this is best addressed as part of Rfar/Scientology, which
is hopefully moving to a proposed decision pretty soon. (ALL the
pending cases are hopefully moving to proposed decisions pretty soon.)
Note that Bishonen states on the evidence page that she is discussing
the checkuser result with YellowMonkey; not sure if that will lead to
any new info, but I'm keeping an eye on the evidence page.
Newyorkbrad
-----------
From: (Durova)
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 18:45:25 -0800
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology: clerking, Bishonen, and Justallofthem
Hi,
A shortage of clerking at the Scientology case has made the evidence and
workshop pages very hard to follow. I have posted three requests for
assistance to the clerks' noticeboard in the last few weeks, and Coren
supported the request, but nothing has actually been done to fix the
problems.
A disruptive sockpuppeteer John254/Kristen Eriksen has recently been
community sitebanned. He posted extensively to the case workshop playing
both sides of the fence with his two accounts. At the case evidence page,
some of the participants have been posting evidence about editors who are
not named parties to the case. Also, some editors have posted commentary
about the evidence to the evidence page itself; a fair amount of that could
be moved to the talk page.
So it's understandable that Bishonen overlooked my description of
Justallofthem's brief community siteban.
*This is not an isolated incident, but the latest manifestation of a
longstanding pattern of behavior. In March 2008 Justallofthem (as
Justanother) was nearly sitebanned for confirmed
sockpuppetry<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Justanother>,
block evasion, gross personal attacks, and cross-project wikihounding of
Cirt. Consensus at AN was to siteban, and he was actually indeffed with a
ban template added to his user talk, until a single administrator unblocked.
*
Relevant links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=270511171http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...ser:Justanotherhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm..._checkuser_caseBishonen's statement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=201925997The wisdom of using broken English and a joke account to discuss a siteban
is dubious, but Bishonen clearly did impose a limit of one account upon this
editor when she unblocked him. Her assertion that a group of partisan
editors tried to force a ban is mistaken: after the ban proposal was already
on the table I suggested a milder remedy, and a variety of uninvolved
editors and admins weighed in on the discussion including Jpgordon, a former
arbitrator.
Bishonen was the sole dissenter two and a half days after the indef was
implemented, and might have been better off posting her objections and
recusing from direct use of the tools. Her own prior involvement with this
editor arguably raises more serious doubts about her objectivity than about
most of the people who weighed in at the community ban discussion.
Justanother and Bishonen had extensive prior interaction: he had made 72
edits to her user talk:
http://toolserver.org/~interiot/cgi-bin/To...n.wikipedia.orgThen he created the JustaHulk account originally to banter with her, in
imitation of Bishzilla. The account's first edit outside his own userspace
was to her user talk. She responded in the same bantering vein and he
posted there more often than to any other administrator's user space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=113585490http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=..._at_wrong_Justahttp://toolserver.org/~interiot/cgi-bin/To...n.wikipedia.orghttp://toolserver.org/~interiot/cgi-bin/To...n.wikipedia.orgAdministrators are welcome to submit evidence regarding editors they know,
of course, but it is unseemly to use the tools to overturn an otherwise
unanimous siteban after this degree of familiarity. As mentioned last
month, I saw serious problems with her use of the Bishzilla account. This
particular concern was one of them.
I will gladly respond to any questions or concerns regarding this matter.
Very respectfully,
Lise
-----------
From: (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 22:15:57 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology: clerking, Bishonen, and Justallofthem
This case needs to get to a decision soon. It was opened at the
beginning of December. Fortunately, some of the original issues (e.g.
Jossi's editing of Scientology related pages) have dropped away.
Newyorkbrad
----------
From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 03:36:14 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology: clerking, Bishonen, and Justallofthem
Dear Durova,
Thank-you for your e-mail. We are considering the points you have made
(or rather, my colleagues are, as I am not active on this case). I
will try and chase up the clerking requests and see what has happened
there.
Regarding the other points you make, it would help us if you could say
what you are asking us to do, and whether this is a formal submission
of evidence for the case, something to be dealt with outside the case,
or something else again.
Best wishes,
Carcharoth
----------
From: (Durova)
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 20:16:58 -0800
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology: clerking, Bishonen, and Justallofthem
Thanks for your reply, Carcharoth.
Partly I was afraid of my evidence getting lost in the unclerked case.
Since Bishonen challenges the integrity of the ban discussion it became
relevant to point out that she doesn't arrive with a clean slate. She's
retired the Bishzilla account, though, so that isn't likely to remain a
continuing problem. I am not asking the Committee to add her to the case,
just providing background that became relevant when she posted and which I
hope will never need to be mentioned again. Due to the potential for drama
etc., email seemed to be the best option. She does a lot of good for
Wikipedia and I wish her well.
I have posted a siteban proposal to the workshop regarding Justallofthem, on
the basis of the checkuser finding a new recent sock and the unblock
condition restricting him to one account. Continuing disruption also
weighed as a factor.
Trusting the checkuser was correct, and willing to revise other checkusers
disagree about the strength of the finding. Justallofthem disputes the
result.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...nking_this_overAs a working premise, I regard the report as correct. His responses look a
bit dodgy.
Best regards,
Lise
-----------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 13:10:55 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology: clerking, Bishonen, and Justallofthem
As I mentioned, I'm currently working on writing this up. It is a
complicated case, with for example 70 A4 pages of evidence. I have a
sprawling draft which I am concentrating on reducing it to its
essentials so that will hopefully it will pass without too many hiccups.
Roger
----------
From: (Cas Liber)
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 05:53:10 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology: clerking, Bishonen, and Justallofthem
Much appreciated Roger
Cas
-----------
From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 19:58:04 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology: clerking, Bishonen, and Justallofthem
If you post to the Workshop page explaining this, and promising some
drafted bits for discussion fairly soon, that would probably go down
well. Just don't tie yourself down to an arbitrary deadline. For
complex cases, sometimes taking the time needed is best.
Carcharoth
-----------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 19:49:20 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] multiple account notification
Thank you for the message.
I don't yet know what my colleagues on this list will say but, from the
briefest glance, I am curious to know why you need so many. For example,
Voxpopulis and Spandextrous are both posting on Scientology-related topics.
Roger Davies
semi transgenic wrote:
> In the interests of partial transparency please note that users:
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Semitransgenic>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Measles>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Voxpopulis>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Spandexterous>
> are one and the same.
>
> None of these accounts have been used in a manner that violates sock
> puppet guidelines and this is how it shall remain.
>
> Thanks
>
> ST
----------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 20:13:56 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] multiple account notification
Thanks. I've circulated your explanation to the list and we will be in
touch shortly.
Roger Davies
semi transgenic wrote:
> Hi Roger
>
> Spandexterous is dead.
>
> Voxpopulis is new, and it is precisely because I am posting on a
> Scientology related article that I opened the account.
>
> Measles is a secondary account I opened mainly for grunt work such as
> tagging, as can be seen by the edit history.
>
> Semitransgenic is my main account, which I have not been using of
> late, because I got in trouble with my girlfriend for wasting time on
> wiki, so she no monitors it now.
>
> I hope this clarifies my position.
>
> thanks.
----------
From: (YellowMonkey)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 12:08:43 +1030
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology: clerking, Bishonen, and Justallofthem
I got Nishkid to have another look and he said that it was pretty obvious
that Truthtell=Justallofthem
----------
From: (Durova)
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 17:47:36 -0800
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology: clerking, Bishonen, and Justallofthem
Thank you very much for double checking.
-Lise
-----------
From: (Wizardman)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 02:43:59 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] multiple account notification
The use of more then two accounts, whether okay or not, always raises a red
flag to me. Even if the one is dead, are three accounts necessary?
~W
----------
From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 05:50:26 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] multiple account notification
That many accounts is suspicious, agreed on that.
r/
Randy Everette
------------
From: (Sam Blacketer)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 11:30:59 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] multiple account notification
On 2/16/09, Randy Everette wrote:
>
> That many accounts is suspicious, agreed on that.
>
Plus the editing in scientology related topics. I would guess that he
notified us because of the frequent edit-warring on scientology making a
checkuser more likely.
--
Sam Blacketer
-----------
From:(Roger Davies)
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 11:35:44 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] multiple account notification
He has provided an explanation.
I suggest we tell him to
1. mark Spandexterous as retired and link it to Voxpopulis
2. mark Measles as an alias of Semtransgenic and vice versa
Roger
----------
From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 13:49:03 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] multiple account notification
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Peter Casey wrote:
> I think a reply for more information would be appropriate here. We could
> note that Measles seems to be a similar account to Semitransgenic, and the
> same for Spandexterous and Voxpopulis. Then, ask why the socks are needed.
> It may also be wise to ask if he has any other sockpuppets and why he has
> decided to disclose these socks to ArbCom.
The email he sent to Roger explains this sufficiently I think
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 6:35 AM, Roger Davies wrote:
>>
>> He has provided an explanation.
>>
>> I suggest we tell him to
>> 1. mark Spandexterous as retired and link it to Voxpopulis
>> 2. mark Measles as an alias of Semtransgenic and vice versa
This looks reasonable.
Due to the COFS aspect, and the unusual creation of Voxpopulis to
participate in the "Scientology in Germany" GA, I have done a
Checkuser.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...2170222&limit=2He is on a single very static IP at <redacted>, and all
edits are accounted for on that one IP address.
<redact more speculation about where this person lives/works>
--
John Vandenberg
----------
From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 00:10:26 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Prem Rawat 2
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 11:32 PM, Risker wrote:
> For the record, one of Will Beback's allegations about Jossi is that he
> is/was using socks; this is a recurrent allegation (it was made in El Reg in
> early 2008) and FT2 carried out a checkuser in February 2008 looking at
> Jossi, 65.74.227.127, 66.92.51.106, and 75.82.196.239. I did not re-run the
> CU on any of these. I'm inclined to ask him if he found anything
> noteworthy. Should a new CU be run on Jossi now?
I didnt see that post before I emailed the list.
I've also heard of it before, and Cirt told me that Will was building
evidence of it in relation to the Scientology case.
It is a serious allegation, and since it is public, it requires
investigation. Will really should have evidence before he posts that.
I think one of us should ask him if he has evidence he intends to
present if we open a case.
I'd like to hear FT2's opinion on it, or perhaps it is in the mailing
list archives.
--
John Vandenberg
------------
From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 01:09:46 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology: clerking, Bishonen, and Justallofthem
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 12:38 PM, YellowMonkey wrote:
> I got Nishkid to have another look and he said that it was pretty obvious
> that Truthtell=Justallofthem
Hi guys,
Could you describe the links between the accounts. Are we talking
100% confident; if not .. how confident?
Also, are these the only results used?
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w...wMonkey&limit=1https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w...wMonkey&limit=8--
John Vandenberg
-------------
From: (Risker)
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:23:53 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Prem Rawat 2
I've commented and asked Will Beback to submit the sockpuppetry evidence to
the committee using the list email. I'd like to get an experienced
non-committee checkuser to carry out a fresh CU; Alison comes to mind, but
Avi has several months under his belt, and Versageek has been doing CU and
#cvn work for some time. Suggestions?
Risker
------------
From: (Risker)
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 08:42:43 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Date delinking injunction
You know, the sad part of it is that not a one of them would tolerate such
bloat and flights of fancy in any article they edit. If I didn't know
better, I'd say the lot of them were deliberately being obtuse.
John, please let's move your proposals along over onto the main wiki.
Resolving this case, and the Scientology one, should be our top two
priorities. Indeed, we should have *all* of our current open cases resolved
before the end of the month.
Risker
------------
From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:19:20 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Prem Rawat 2
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 4:55 AM, Stephen Bain wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 11:20 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
>>
>> We have a RFAR for Prem Rawat.
>
> I might as well mention now that, should this request be accepted, I'd
> like to draft the decision in it, having drafted the decision in the
> first case, unless of course another one of the newbies would like to
> cut their teeth on it.
Not really. You are welcome to this one! I should say that I struggle
to engage with the topics in cases like Ayn Rand and Prem Rawat and
Scientology, or indeed any cases where the editors in question are
really persistent.
What am I saying? All arbitration cases involve "persistent" editors.
Anyway, my view is to try and identify the reasonable editors and to
kick everyone else out, while trying not to turn the editing
population at the article(s) into a wasteland or a population of one
(or too few).
Carcharoth
-----------
From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:51:38 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology: clerking, Bishonen, and Justallofthem
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 1:09 AM, John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 12:38 PM, YellowMonkey wrote:
>> I got Nishkid to have another look and he said that it was pretty obvious
>> that Truthtell=Justallofthem
>
> Hi guys,
>
> Could you describe the links between the accounts. Are we talking
> 100% confident; if not .. how confident?
>
> Also, are these the only results used?
>
>
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w...wMonkey&limit=1>
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w...wMonkey&limit=8Ping!?
--
John Vandenberg
------------
From: (Nishkid)
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:50:27 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology: clerking, Bishonen, and Justallofthem
I can't speak for the editing behavior, but on the technical side, both
users were editing from the same ISP in the same city (Ft. Lauderdale,
Florida). Coupled with suspicions that both editors were pushing the same
type of POV, I concluded that it was highly likely that they were in fact
the same person.
~Nishkid64
----------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 02:41:27 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] multiple account notification
There's been some discussion so if no one objects in the next 24 hours
or so, I'll write and tell him to link the accounts as described below.
Which may get him into trouble with his girlfriend but hey ..... (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)
Roger
Roger Davies wrote:
> He has provided an explanation.
>
> I suggest we tell him to
> 1. mark Spandexterous as retired and link it to Voxpopulis
> 2. mark Measles as an alias of Semtransgenic and vice versa
>
> Roger
-----------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 02:47:28 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] scientology case
I'll post the draft principles on the arbwiki shortly. Eyes would be
appreciated. I'm trying to keep this simple as it's very complicated.
The FoF will take some time to support with diffs etc.
The problem with this case is that it's like the fringe science one but
more so. The remedies might be difficult to get consensus on. The
essential difficulty is that Wikipedia has long tolerated people editing
on religious topics close to their hearts but the only solution for
scientology is to topic-ban everyone except the dispassionate. Thoughts?
Roger
-----------
From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 21:51:14 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] scientology case
If they can't behave, whatever their passionate topic is, ban them. WE're
not here to coddle the ill-behaved, we're here to build a harmonious
encyclopedia building environment.
r/
Randy Everette
----------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:59:11 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case: Proposed decision/Principles
I've posted this:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/arbc...oposed_decisionI've worked very hard to keep it short and straightforward so it
concentrates on only the core issues. Have I overdone it?
Roger
-----------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:31:11 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case: Proposed decision/Principles
Does anyone object if I ask Will Beback to post a suitable digest of the
Jossi socking evidence as part of his Scientology evidence?
Roger
-----------
From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 10:08:19 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case: Proposed decision/Principles
I don't see why it's necessary. If he *was* socking, my sanction for Jossi
would be desysop, which is the same thing that we should have already
applied to him (that is, require him to run for RFA if he comes back).
I have said several times that we should have a clerk add footnote 1 to this
page <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Former_administrators> and move
on. I don't think we even need a finding in the Scientology case, but I
wish we had done this almost two months ago so that Will Beback and others
wouldn't continue to gather evidence (which seems questionable in any case).
I don't think Jossi fits well into either Scientology or Prem 2, and the
remedy is already decided. Lets not clutter these cases; let's drop a
footnote and move on.
Frank
----------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:28:02 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case: Proposed decision/Principles
Yep, that's another solution.
Roger
----------
From: (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:01:05 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case: Proposed decision/Principles
An alternative would be to adopt this finding in one of the cases
{{Admin|Jossi}} voluntarily resigned his adminship on [date], when he stated
he was retiring from Wikipedia. At that time, this arbitration case in
which he is named as a party was pending, and allegations of administrator
misconduct had been made against him. Accordingly, should Jossi return to
editing and wish to regain adminship, he may do so only by appeal to this
committee or a new request for adminship. See, [[Wikipedia:Requests for
arbitration/Philwelch]].
This simply restates the rule without embroiling us in the details of the
underlying allegations.
Newyorkbrad
-----------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:06:11 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case: Proposed decision/Principles
That's a very good way of doing it. Thank you for the suggestion.
Roger
----------
From: (Cool Hand Luke)
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:15:11 -0600
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case: Proposed decision/Principles
Yeah, this finding is good. It would also put Will Beback and others on
notice that this is resolved. Looking into socks from three years ago
strikes me as an unfortunate use of volunteer time.
Frank
-----------
From: (Cas Liber)
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:49:15 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case: Proposed decision/Principles
But then again, serious funny business influencing these types of articles on (whatever we wish to classify Prem and Scientology as) over years and the numbers of people that read them, makes me think this is way more important than some of the focus on civility.
I think of this all the time when I walk around hospitals I work at and see nurses etc. reading wikipedia pages here and there on medications and things (i.e. the info wp has on pages which can actually have an impact on the way people live)
Cas
----------
From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:16:35 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case: Proposed decision/Principles
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 7:49 PM, Cas Liber wrote:
<snip>
> I think of this all the time when I walk around hospitals I work at and see
> nurses etc. reading wikipedia pages here and there on medications and things
> (i.e. the info wp has on pages which can actually have an impact on the way
> people live)
If any nurse or doctor treating me turns up with a Wikipedia page
printout, I'm booting them out of the door before they can even open
their mouth! I want them to use medical manuals and textbooks! I'm
having some dental work done tomorrow, so I'll keep an eye out for the
Wikipedia screen in the corner...
Carcharoth
----------
From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:37:22 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case: Proposed decision/Principles
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 4:15 AM, Cool Hand Luke wrote:
> Yeah, this finding is good.? It would also put Will Beback and others on
> notice that this is resolved.? Looking into socks from three years ago
> strikes me as an unfortunate use of volunteer time.
I also like NYB's suggestion, but I doubt that it will cause Will to
stop looking for a Prem Rawat 2 ruling that Jossi was socking. I
think we will need to tell him more explicitly that the matter is
closed, or being investigated by the committee.
--
John Vandenberg
-----------
From: (Randy Everette)
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:22:15 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Sembubenny
Can whoever hasn't voted here:
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/SemBubenny/Proposed_decision#Enforcement_
by_desysop
Go vote so we'll know which way this on the fence ruling will go?
Then we can close this and move on to Scientology and Date delinking.
Scientology is the only one left from LAST year.
r/
Randy Everette
------------
From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 14:00:34 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] SemBubenny recusal
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Wizardman wrote:
> I'd be reluctant to do it, personally. I understand the rationale
> completely, it's just that un-recusing this late in the game might look like
> a behind-the-scenes political move to one party or another. That's just my
> reasoning though, other arbs may disagree.
> ~W
Likewise.
I only needed to recuse on the Fringe science case due to SA, and
could have joined in except on the aspects that relate to him, but it
isnt worth the drama.
For the Scientology case, I have not decided yet, as I did offer to
nominate Cirt for adminship on Wikisource and do work closely with
Cirt .. so that has been on my mind.
I was unsure whether to recuse on the E&C3 case, because DGG and
Dstretch were listed as parties and my recusal promise did roughly
require me to recuse in that case, but that wasnt my intention. CHL
suggested I recuse and adjust my recusal promise, which I did two days
ago.
For the West Bank case, I offered for any party to ask me to recuse.
--
John Vandenberg
------------
From: (Risker)
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 15:15:18 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] New cases - drafting arbs needed?
Stephen Bain has volunteered for the Prem Rewat case. As to the
others...well, I don't mind riding herd on the arb pages themselves and
working with the clerks.
As to drafting, for the record I'd prefer that people only be signed up for
one at a time if possible, so that they aren't distracted by new cases when
trying to wrap up old ones. I note neither Newyorkbrad nor Kirill have
written a decision in three months - maybe it's time to bring them back in?
We really need to get Scientology and Date Delinking on-wiki now.
Scientology is now 11 weeks since acceptance, and Date delinking is 7
weeks. Pete mentioned that he will have Ayn Rand done this weekend, but we
may need to pick that ball up on his behalf should he resign.
Risker
----------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 08:28:39 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] /Evidence & /Workshop page formatting
Can we it part of the standing orders/instructions that headers in cases
*aren't* linked and that links in headers will be automatically removed
by clerks? As it stands, it's very difficult linking to evidence. I'm
going to ask them to do this in Scientology anyway ...
Roger
-----------
From: (John Vandenberg)
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 19:42:13 +1100
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] /Evidence & /Workshop page formatting
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 7:28 PM, Roger Davies wrote:
>
> Can we it part of the standing orders/instructions that headers in cases
> *aren't* linked and that links in headers will be automatically removed
> by clerks? As it stands, it's very difficult linking to evidence. I'm
> going to ask them to do this in Scientology anyway ...
I would like a lot more formatting type clerking going on.
removing "User:" from RFAR statements
changing special:undelete link to use {{SERVER}}{{SCRIPTPATH}} (whatever it is)
shortening section names
etc
--
John Vandenberg
------------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 08:47:41 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] /Evidence & /Workshop page formatting
I wouldn't argue with any of that.
Incidentally, I think decisions would be a lot easier to read if they
didn't have {{user|XXX}} within the actual text. Identifying the editor
could go between the header and the text, like a hatnote.
Roger
------------
From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 11:03:32 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] [Arbcom-l] /Evidence & /Workshop page formatting
By all means make a list of things like that and pass them to the
clerks. I don't think anyone will object. But it won't get done unless
someone tells the clerks that they are being expected to do this
(though some of it is done already).
When linking to evidence pages, beware of later changes that may be
made, including courtesy blankings and header changes. Diffs are good,
but linking to sections of page versions at the time the proposed
decision is posted is even better - those links are unlikely to
change.
Carcharoth
----------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 17:21:28 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case - practical advice sought
I'm struggling with this. The problem is this: the warring is
essentially constant bickering between pro- and anti-Scientology
editors, with radicalised but neutral editors piling in on both sides,
apparently on a personal like/dislike basis.
Although the evidence runs to 100+ pages of quarto, and both sides think
their diffs support all of sort of heinous things, having been through
it in detail three times and checked most of the diffs, the reality is
it's pretty thin stuff.
Most of the arguing is about sources, with few diffs that are really
actionable. There's not even any real incivility, apart from the
occasional snipe.
The solution is to ban/topic ban a significant number of them but the
evidence doesn't really justify this. I can produce a case for banning
maybe three editors, and topic banning another three, but this isn't
really going to fix the underlying problems and I suspect it will come
back in a year.
Thoughts?
Roger
-----------
From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 17:25:53 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case - practical advice sought
Does topic area probation work in cases like this?
Carcharoth
-----------
From: (Roger Davies)
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 17:34:56 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case - practical advice sought
Dunno. The thing is there are about a dozen editors that probably need
taking out of the frame: it's similar to date delinking, people have got
entrenched and can't/won't really move on. (I think the basic problem is
that after a while editors start getting off on the arguing: it's more
challenging/stimulating than article writing.)
Roger
----------
From: (Marc A. Pelletier)
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 12:41:34 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case - practical advice sought
Roger Davies wrote:
> The solution is to ban/topic ban a significant number of them but the
> evidence doesn't really justify this. I can produce a case for banning
> maybe three editors, and topic banning another three, but this isn't
> really going to fix the underlying problems and I suspect it will come
> back in a year.
>
I think that topic bans can, and indeed should, be used liberally. I'd
support a "You're not helping - go do something else for a while" ban
that is applied liberally to most participants even if the disruption is
low level *because* low level disruption over long periods of time and
by many participants is just as bad as the stuff that readily lends
itself to spectacular diffs.
-- Coren / Marc
-----------
From: (Carcharoth)
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 17:48:14 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Scientology case - practical advice sought
Is there a way to identify editors who are trying to make progress at
writing the articles and being stymied by others? Are there some that
just argue, and are there some that argue and write stuff as well? And
by "write" I mean substantial contributions. Of course, this does mean
that those who write are writing *well*, but at least they are doing
more than arguing. Or are the articles at the stage where people are
picking around the edges?
Carcharoth
ARBSCI case
MaliceAforethought ARBSCI case 
