Abd and JzG case Options

[MaliceAforethought]

From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Tue Apr 21 11:04:54 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:04:54 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG - case name and other issues
Message-ID: <206791b10904210404o77afc5ecxada7936e983e216e@mail.gmail.com>

Anyone have any idea what the case name should be for the "Abd and
JzG" request? I'll ask on clerks-l as well. I'll do that separately
and discussion of that should probably be there, because I want to
raise a couple of points here.

1) I was re-reading Jehochman's statement (which I had skimmed this
morning when deciding whether to accept or not), and wondered what he
meant by "diff connoisseurs". I was more than a bit taken aback to
find that he had put in an Easter Egg link to my user page. I'm not
sure if that is a backhanded compliment or something, but I do wish
that if people want to mention me (or anyone) by name, they do so
openly and not hide the name behind a link.

2) Jehochman also says "The committee, especially you newcomers,
should read through Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman
and try to avoid repeating those blunders. At present, the opinions at
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG 3 seem to favor JzG's
interpretation of matters. The committee should respect community
opinions. If we, the community, have gotten it wrong, don't take this
out on JzG. Use the opportunity to set down clearer standards." -
putting aside the tone of that request from Jehochman, I agree that we
should examine the RfC closely, but the general point of whether we
should go with our judgment or that expressed at the RfC, should be
addressed. My view is that we can agree or disagree with opinions
expressed at the RfC, but need to be very clear *why* we agree or
disagree.

3) The discussion Jehochman refers to was part of a clarification
request, archived here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...larification.29

In his statement, JzG (Guy) says: "I was criticised by one arbitrator
for asking for review of something as obvious as a topic ban on Jed
Rothwell". I believe he is referring to my comments at that
clarification request, but he may have misunderstood what I meant
there. I may try and clarify that with Guy at some point.

Noting here that I've talked with Abd in the past (in various places,
including my talk pages) - more so than I've interacted with Guy. But
have interacted with both to some extent, so hopefully that
perspective will be helpful (not sure how aware people are here of
Abd's style and approach).

Carcharoth
----------
From kirill.lokshin at gmail.com Tue Apr 21 12:23:47 2009
From: kirill.lokshin at gmail.com (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 08:23:47 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Durova
In-Reply-To: <OF2EC7643F.62168782-ON8025759F.0042BE7E-8025759F.0042BE89@chapmancentral.co.uk>
References: <OF2EC7643F.62168782-ON8025759F.0042BE7E-8025759F.0042BE89@chapmancentral.co.uk>
Message-ID: <3f797b9a0904210523t6c62e1d3kd64f216aaf828aee@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 8:09 AM, <Guy.Chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:

> I don't want to say this in the open, but I have looked back in my email
> archives for reasons why Durova seems to have decided to become involved in
> Abd's crusade against me.
>
> I found a couple of very odd emails I had long forgotten basically asking
> me to come out in the open and admit that I hate her. I don't, I never
> did. This was, of course, about the incident that led to her resigning the
> sysop bit over the block of !!, plus a mailing list which I was persuaded to
> "own" but dropped when it turned into a slanging match between her and
> Sarah. I suspect she thinks I was taking Sarah's side in what was obviously
> a long-standing and acrimonious dispute, but I wasn't.
>
> Jimmy will probably remember the problems on the private mailing list. I
> think Durova felt as if some of us had hung her out to dry. This was, to
> put it mildly, not a happy time for her, and there is no doubt that the
> trolls had a field day.
>
> Anyway, for what it's worth (not a lot) there is the history; you can have
> the full detail if you want but you probably don't. I've had pretty close
> to nothing to do with her since, not deliberately, it's just worked out that
> way.
>
> Guy (JzG)


This is to confirm that we've received your note.

Regards,
Kirill
----------
From stephen.bain at gmail.com Tue Apr 21 13:43:02 2009
From: stephen.bain at gmail.com (Stephen Bain)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 23:43:02 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG - case name and other issues
In-Reply-To: <206791b10904210404o77afc5ecxada7936e983e216e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <206791b10904210404o77afc5ecxada7936e983e216e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f30e42de0904210643g4bc04ee3n928c90df1773baa0@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 9:04 PM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Anyone have any idea what the case name should be for the "Abd and
> JzG" request? I'll ask on clerks-l as well.

Commented there.

On a related note, presuming the request is accepted, I'd like to do
the drafting on this one.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Tue Apr 21 13:54:22 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:54:22 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG - case name and other issues
In-Reply-To: <f30e42de0904210643g4bc04ee3n928c90df1773baa0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <206791b10904210404o77afc5ecxada7936e983e216e@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0904210643g4bc04ee3n928c90df1773baa0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10904210654h64ab4a9bre6909c5c42d25ba7@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 9:04 PM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Anyone have any idea what the case name should be for the "Abd and
>> JzG" request? I'll ask on clerks-l as well.
>
> Commented there.
>
> On a related note, presuming the request is accepted, I'd like to do
> the drafting on this one.

That's OK with me. I was never going to volunteer for this one anyway.
I'm still waiting for a little tiddler of a case to come along that is
ripe for arbitration, but not too overwhelming. I will let the big
fishes of Abd and JzG and ARBMAC2 carry on downstream. :-)

Would it be possible to briefly review how Prem Rawat 2 went? Stuff
like how long it took, whether concerns on talk pages were addressed,
and any immediate aftermath or effects? Including Vassyana's e-mail on
that topic, of course.

I realise we need to close cases, and not review how the process went,
but at least one item of discussion on the mailing list a week or so
after the close of each case would be good, IMO.

Carcharoth
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Tue Apr 21 16:05:26 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:05:26 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG - case name and other issues
In-Reply-To: <206791b10904210404o77afc5ecxada7936e983e216e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <206791b10904210404o77afc5ecxada7936e983e216e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10904210905q12d28f8cxaa79eb7a98079e18@mail.gmail.com>

Was checking on the WP:RFAR thread and noticed FloNight's acceptance comment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=285250175

"Accept to look at all involved parties, if you commented about this
request, this means you. FloNight??? 16:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)"

That will have some people scratching their heads. Flo, do you mind if
I ask if that comment is aimed at any of those commenting in
particular?

Carcharoth
----------
From sydney.poore at gmail.com Tue Apr 21 16:27:51 2009
From: sydney.poore at gmail.com (FloNight)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:27:51 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG - case name and other issues
In-Reply-To: <206791b10904210905q12d28f8cxaa79eb7a98079e18@mail.gmail.com>
References: <206791b10904210404o77afc5ecxada7936e983e216e@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10904210905q12d28f8cxaa79eb7a98079e18@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <16032ea0904210927i4b39c093wf81f23f7f133f464@mail.gmail.com>

I want to make it clear that we look at everyone as needed to resolve
the dispute. I'm not going to pre-judge who is involved and who isn't
especially with the comments still trickling in.

Sydney
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Tue Apr 21 17:05:48 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:05:48 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG - case name and other issues
In-Reply-To: <206791b10904210654h64ab4a9bre6909c5c42d25ba7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <206791b10904210404o77afc5ecxada7936e983e216e@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0904210643g4bc04ee3n928c90df1773baa0@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10904210654h64ab4a9bre6909c5c42d25ba7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30904211005o11dcababg4e54727a16a0bf4d@mail.gmail.com>

I'd be glad to see a post-mortem on our recent cases. I had tried one
earlier this year on the cases I've drafted since I joined the committee,
but it didn't get much feedback, so I'm not sure how productive others think
that type of reflection might be.

I'm glad to let Steve B. do the drafting in Abd-JzG, but in general I feel
underutilized and that I should be taking on more cases, so I hope I'll be
in a position to do another decision at some point soonish.

Newyorkbrad
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Tue Apr 21 17:14:52 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:14:52 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG - case name and other issues
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30904211005o11dcababg4e54727a16a0bf4d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <206791b10904210404o77afc5ecxada7936e983e216e@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0904210643g4bc04ee3n928c90df1773baa0@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10904210654h64ab4a9bre6909c5c42d25ba7@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30904211005o11dcababg4e54727a16a0bf4d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10904211014p6ce098c9u3fa23a12ecdaa38c@mail.gmail.com>

Well, you could always politely sidle up to one of the arbs with two
cases pending, point to something in the background, grab one of their
cases and run...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...sks&action=view

Currently, that would be Wizardman (though he has said he might have
Aitas ready soon).

You could also offer to help with one of the cases. And we could make
the doubling up of arbs more official. Currently it is only Roger and
CHL listed together for Scientology. I offered to help Fayssal with
the Ryulong case, but have been absconding to the Aitias case instead.
I also offered to help Coren with the Tang Dynasty case, but haven't
got round to that yet. I know Vassyana has been helping John with
diffs in date delinking. Not sure how Kirill is doing with West Bank.

Carcharoth
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Tue Apr 21 23:24:10 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 09:24:10 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG - case name and other issues
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30904211005o11dcababg4e54727a16a0bf4d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <206791b10904210404o77afc5ecxada7936e983e216e@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0904210643g4bc04ee3n928c90df1773baa0@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10904210654h64ab4a9bre6909c5c42d25ba7@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30904211005o11dcababg4e54727a16a0bf4d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830904211624g4849b73ema6c2c633535e4f1@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 3:05 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd be glad to see a post-mortem on our recent cases.? I had tried one
> earlier this year on the cases I've drafted since I joined the committee,
> but it didn't get much feedback, so I'm not sure how productive others think
> that type of reflection might be.
>
> I'm glad to let Steve B. do the drafting in Abd-JzG, but in general I feel
> underutilized and that I should be taking on more cases, so I hope I'll be
> in a position to do another decision at some point soonish.

We could start a /Post_mortem page on arbcomwiki to collate opinions
on how each case went. We could also start providing a similar
/Post_mortem page on enwiki, however before we do that, either we
would need to have a good idea of how it will work, or we should ask
the community to formulate a plan.

--
John Vandenberg
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Tue Apr 21 23:33:21 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 00:33:21 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG - case name and other issues
In-Reply-To: <deea21830904211624g4849b73ema6c2c633535e4f1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <206791b10904210404o77afc5ecxada7936e983e216e@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0904210643g4bc04ee3n928c90df1773baa0@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10904210654h64ab4a9bre6909c5c42d25ba7@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30904211005o11dcababg4e54727a16a0bf4d@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830904211624g4849b73ema6c2c633535e4f1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10904211633p2a9bbdc6md00d4a10faac13e@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 12:24 AM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 3:05 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
> <newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'd be glad to see a post-mortem on our recent cases.? I had tried one
>> earlier this year on the cases I've drafted since I joined the committee,
>> but it didn't get much feedback, so I'm not sure how productive others think
>> that type of reflection might be.
>>
>> I'm glad to let Steve B. do the drafting in Abd-JzG, but in general I feel
>> underutilized and that I should be taking on more cases, so I hope I'll be
>> in a position to do another decision at some point soonish.
>
> We could start a /Post_mortem page on arbcomwiki to collate opinions
> on how each case went. ?We could also start providing a similar
> /Post_mortem page on enwiki, however before we do that, either we
> would need to have a good idea of how it will work, or we should ask
> the community to formulate a plan.

Outsourcing? I *like* that idea! :-)

Anything involving digging through old cases, tidying up pages,
post-mortem, etc, etc, should be outsourced as much as possible.
Please remind me of that next time you see me digging through diffs
and cases from months or years earlier... [a little birdy once told me
they had read *all* the ArbCom cases ever - every single one!]

Carcharoth
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Tue Apr 21 23:38:23 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 19:38:23 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG - case name and other issues
In-Reply-To: <206791b10904211633p2a9bbdc6md00d4a10faac13e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <206791b10904210404o77afc5ecxada7936e983e216e@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0904210643g4bc04ee3n928c90df1773baa0@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10904210654h64ab4a9bre6909c5c42d25ba7@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30904211005o11dcababg4e54727a16a0bf4d@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830904211624g4849b73ema6c2c633535e4f1@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10904211633p2a9bbdc6md00d4a10faac13e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30904211638y2bab1717u9fe01fbc54e0954a@mail.gmail.com>

Back to Abd-JzG for a moment - I've asked a question in the voting section
on case acceptance that we might want to discuss before the case opens.

Newyorkbrad
----------
From sam.blacketer at googlemail.com Tue Apr 21 23:39:29 2009
From: sam.blacketer at googlemail.com (Sam Blacketer)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 00:39:29 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG - case name and other issues
In-Reply-To: <206791b10904211633p2a9bbdc6md00d4a10faac13e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <206791b10904210404o77afc5ecxada7936e983e216e@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0904210643g4bc04ee3n928c90df1773baa0@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10904210654h64ab4a9bre6909c5c42d25ba7@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30904211005o11dcababg4e54727a16a0bf4d@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830904211624g4849b73ema6c2c633535e4f1@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10904211633p2a9bbdc6md00d4a10faac13e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e75b49f70904211639r196bb6c1iafcf59e5e70ec201@mail.gmail.com>

Alert to the appearance of a lengthy comment by JzG, who certainly appears
to be "sick of it" to quote the conclusion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...lic_consumption

--
Sam Blacketer
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Tue Apr 21 23:43:08 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 00:43:08 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG - case name and other issues
In-Reply-To: <e75b49f70904211639r196bb6c1iafcf59e5e70ec201@mail.gmail.com>
References: <206791b10904210404o77afc5ecxada7936e983e216e@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0904210643g4bc04ee3n928c90df1773baa0@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10904210654h64ab4a9bre6909c5c42d25ba7@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30904211005o11dcababg4e54727a16a0bf4d@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830904211624g4849b73ema6c2c633535e4f1@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10904211633p2a9bbdc6md00d4a10faac13e@mail.gmail.com>
<e75b49f70904211639r196bb6c1iafcf59e5e70ec201@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10904211643q188c6d12yd912c50043c33a51@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks. Why people switch to the talk page, I don't know. Sure, it is
a meta point in a way, but it fragments things. If he wants to work on
Robert Hooke, he should do so. I sympathise with feeling unable to
disengage and move back or towards editing articles.

Carcharoth
----------
From szvest at gmail.com Wed Apr 22 01:17:32 2009
From: szvest at gmail.com (Fayssal F.)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 01:17:32 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG - case name and other issues
Message-ID: <2a8c5680904211817x44633a2dyac895a96806f4f9c@mail.gmail.com>

Good question. On a side note, I've recused myself... I clashed with Abd
last year because of his general attitude and long repeated posts on an
unrelated case. I'd say the same about the general attitude of Guy
(overzealousness) though we've never clashed. Incidentally, both their
statements are accurate.

Fayssal F.
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Wed Apr 22 10:07:46 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 06:07:46 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Brad's request at Adb JzG
In-Reply-To: <78A81E03B901410597220CE75EEA5A32@EveretteCentral>
References: <78A81E03B901410597220CE75EEA5A32@EveretteCentral>
Message-ID: <c52819d30904220307g20c70b69w2007c2a9005eb75f@mail.gmail.com>

I'm not as convinced as everyone that this case will be productive.
But 11-0 to accept is a pretty impressive margin, and Abd has rejected
my idea for a resolution, so the case should open. Can we just please
make sure it doesn't drag along for months?

Newyorkbrad

On 4/22/09, Randy Everette <rlevse at cox.net> wrote:
> RE:
>
> Question. JzG's comments above suggest that while he does not believe his
> use of administrator tools on Cold fusion
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion> was inappropriate, he
> anticipates that in the future other administrators will be watching the
> page, with the implication that he will not need to be the admin to take any
> action that might be required. JzG, are you prepared to make a commitment
> not to take further administrator action on Cold fusion
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion> or closely related articles?
> Other commenters, if JzG agreed to make such a commitment, would that
> resolve this dispute in your view and end the need for a case? I would hold
> off on opening the case until this avenue is explored. Newyorkbrad
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Newyorkbrad> (talk
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Newyorkbrad> ) 22:55, 21 April 2009
> (UTC)
>
>
>
> This won't solve the problem. Both users have far deepers issues than what
> went on at Cold Fusion and when it opens I'm pretty sure we'll gets lots
> more info than just Cold Fusion related matters. And we should not turn the
> evidence away as it'll show their patterns more clearly.
>
>
>
> r/
>
> Randy Everette
>
>
>
>
-----------
From rlevse at cox.net Wed Apr 22 10:22:36 2009
From: rlevse at cox.net (Randy Everette)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 06:22:36 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Brad's request at Adb JzG
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30904220307g20c70b69w2007c2a9005eb75f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <78A81E03B901410597220CE75EEA5A32@EveretteCentral>
<c52819d30904220307g20c70b69w2007c2a9005eb75f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <58EB40DE644E4168B2BCA0F2E8506860@EveretteCentral>

Not dragging along for months is something I wish for all cases.

r/
Randy Everette
-----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Wed Apr 22 11:01:55 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:01:55 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Brad's request at Adb JzG
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30904220307g20c70b69w2007c2a9005eb75f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <78A81E03B901410597220CE75EEA5A32@EveretteCentral>
<c52819d30904220307g20c70b69w2007c2a9005eb75f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10904220401o5b5fc116s7c2bbac8ae6af31a@mail.gmail.com>

I need to refresh my memory of what is controversial about these two
editors (or rather, the controversial bits that I haven't seen
before). I suspect the case will have five themes:

1) JzG's actions and attitude to criticisms
2) Abd's attitude and approach to dispute resolution
3) Appropriate use of the spam blacklist if content disputes are involved
4) The relationship between en-Wikipedia and sister projects that impact us
5) Copyvio claims and claims of bias for the two websites in question

[points 1 and 2 are admin actions, editor behaviour, and DR conduct]
[point 3 is partly cold fusion and partly a general spam vs content principle]
[point 4 covers the difference between the local and meta blacklists]
[point 5 is partly cold fusion and partly general copyright principles]

I've also been reviewing my talk page archives, and I have been
involved in several incidents involving these users before (one long
thread at ANI about a set of JzG's blocks, and trying to make sense of
long posts by Abd to my talk page). My stance on JzG's approach (not
always the best approach, but sometimes needed) and on Abd's approach
(long-winded but kernels of wisdom there) shouldn't be a surprise to
anyone who is aware of the previous interactions. I have never, to my
knowledge, been involved with the cold fusion disputes or any of the
spam or blacklist disputes.

Incidentally, JzG uses his OTRS work in his defence, but then tries to
put the meta spam blacklist discussion out of bounds. Guy's OTRS work
was mentioned here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...n/C68-FM-SV#JzG

We probably need to be clear on how actions on OTRS and meta (and, for
a complete listing of sister projects that have an impact on
en-Wikipedia, Commons) are viewed from our perspective and what we can
say and do (if anything) about such actions. I suspect we can commend
and/or condemn them, but nothing actionable.

Carcharoth
----------
From rlevse at cox.net Fri Apr 24 19:53:36 2009
From: rlevse at cox.net (Randy Everette)
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:53:36 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Arb for ABD JZG PD
Message-ID: <C92F8A468C874BA4BB8D5514A12B9C7A@EveretteCentral>

Who'd doing the PD for this?



r/

Randy Everette



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private.../attachment.htm

From risker.wp at gmail.com Fri Apr 24 20:09:43 2009
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 16:09:43 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Arb for ABD JZG PD
In-Reply-To: <C92F8A468C874BA4BB8D5514A12B9C7A@EveretteCentral>
References: <C92F8A468C874BA4BB8D5514A12B9C7A@EveretteCentral>
Message-ID: <eb45e7c0904241309j2dd7e1b3lc70f862d1f0d012d@mail.gmail.com>

I believe Stephen Bain volunteered for this one.

Risker

2009/4/24 Randy Everette <rlevse at cox.net>

> Who?d doing the PD for this?
>
>
>
> *r/*
>
> *Randy Everette*
-----------
From kirill.lokshin at gmail.com Sun Apr 26 03:52:04 2009
From: kirill.lokshin at gmail.com (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 23:52:04 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Status of "Aitias" and "Abd and JzG"
Message-ID: <3f797b9a0904252052h7d0b5052ve6c820d3713313f7@mail.gmail.com>

Wizardman, are you still on track to have a decision in the "Aitias" case up
by Monday? Or would it be better to slip the milestone dates by a week?
Stephen, any idea of a timeline in the "Abd and JzG" case? (Please feel free
to pick a random date; we can always slip it if it turns out to be
unrealistic.)

Kirill
-----------
From roger.davies.wiki at googlemail.com Sun Apr 26 07:17:22 2009
From: roger.davies.wiki at googlemail.com (Roger Davies)
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 08:17:22 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd case
In-Reply-To: <002D0AF2DD2B404097F4AB3C03714B96EB6A91@EMEA-EXCHANGE03.internal.sungard.corp>
References: <002D0AF2DD2B404097F4AB3C03714B96EB6A91@EMEA-EXCHANGE03.internal.sungard.corp>
Message-ID: <49F40A82.2000106@gmail.com>

Retrieved from auto-discard.

Roger


Guy.Chapman at sungard.com wrote:
>
> I will respond and add evidence but I do not know when I will find the
> time to do so
>
> One of the reasons Abd's crusade is particularly vexing is that, as I
> hope people will point out, I've been fairly inactive on Wikipedia
> lately, I've been well below normal wiki activity levels all year and
> a lot of the time I have had to spend on Wikipedia has been dominated
> by Abd's continual raising of the same complaint and the same request
> for removal of the same links from the blacklists.
>
> My starting point will be
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...it=500&offset=0
> and an analysis of:
>
> a) Who starts the threads
>
> b) What the consensus is
>
> c) Whether each complaint rehashes a prior complaint
>
> d) Relative volume of comment: Abd, me, rest-of-world
>
> Please ask one of the clerks if they would not mind posting the above
> to the /evidence page, the 3G bandwidth here is too slow to open the
> archives let alone edit.
>
> I'd also like to request a temporary injunction banning Abd from
> commenting on me outside the case, including discussing the disputed
> sites on the blacklist, to give the others there a rest. I think they
> are as tired of him as I am.
>
> Incidentally, I was amused by the suggestion that it is somehow
> uncivil to say Abd has ADHD. He has a userbox on
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Abd which says it with apparent
> pride. Maybe if I'd noticed that earlier I'd have given him a wide
> berth, or started proceedings to restrict him from wearing everybody
> out with his endless repetitions - these have definitely not only been
> aimed at me.
>
> For context, I have an office consolidation in full flow right now
> with a move date in early May, and right after that I'm due to head
> off to France. The move includes links to stock exchanges and support
> for live trades. We (<redacted>) acquired <redacted>
> (<redacted>) and we are closing three offices in
> <redacted> and moving over 200 staff into <redacted>
> This is <redacted>'s largest office worldwide, <redacted> was our
> largest acquisition, and this is the largest consolidation we have
> undertaken. My part of this deal includes commissioning three new EMC
> SANs and delivering software and hardware projects totalling just
> under $4m - small beer for some but two years ago I was the IT bloke
> in an office of 100 people, now I am being called by VMware and EMC to
> take part in their customer councils because we have one of the
> busiest virtual environments in the world, and it's all my own work.
> I'm proud of it, but it is hard work right now.
>
> Guy
>
> *Guy Chapman *? Senior Engineer, Enterprise Storage and Virtual
> Infrastructure ? <redacted>
----------
From djbeetstra at hotmail.com Sun Apr 26 08:47:47 2009
From: djbeetstra at hotmail.com (Dirk Beetstra)
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 09:47:47 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Jzg and Abd
Message-ID: <COL0-DAV243977DD3630B06A36EB05C3700@phx.gbl>

Dear Arbcom,

In the case of Jzg and Abd one of the crucial points seems to be if JzG a)
rightfully blacklisted newenergytimes.com, b) if he should have done that
and c) if that is abuse control or content control. I have some off-wiki
data, which colours it a bit further. JzG is probably not aware of this, so
his reasons for blacklisting may have been based on a less complete picture.

During the first de-blacklisting request there was discussion (archived
here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_tal...chives/February
_2009#newenergytimes.com ). Durova there mentions that Steven Krivit came
to her to ask for de-listing. Arguments against de-listing include some
very old Steven Krivit edits (3-4 years old, using [[User:Stevenkrivit]] as
account), and a relatively negative reliable sources noticeboard discussion
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive
_14#www.newenergytimes.com). Steven Krivit also participates in the
discussion, now using account [[User:StevenBKrivit]] (which may be called
socking, though it may just be a case where the editor forgot the password
of the old account, etc. etc.; 'fresh start'?).

I later declined that request, citing abuse (I have discussed this on-wiki
in the current ArbCom) and a small, recent case of cross-wiki spamming (6
additions by an IP). I say there, that if the spamming was only this (the
additions by the IP) this may have been enough to meta blacklist this. My
language there was a bit strong, I think that we would have been more
careful, actually, maybe reverting (though the additions don't seem too bad)
and seeing if it did not return. But what was said was said.

Shortly after my decline I received an email from Steve Krivit, using an
email address on newenergytimes.com:

Dirk,


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_tal...wenergytimes.co
m <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist>

You wrote: "This user adds the link to 6 different wikis, and has
only added this link. If there were no further additions, that would have
been enough to meta blacklist this."

I agree with you. Please add the blacklist to Meta.

Steve

Thinking this was a bit strange, I asked Steven to mail this to OTRS, to get
it into an official channel (my thought was, that Steve Krivit wanted to
protect his site against abuse by third parties (Joe jobs), etc.). He did
that, but with:

Dirk,

I'm not sure that there is a need for further enforcement. I was
just voicing my support for your decision.

I can assure you that the "POV pusher" is voluntarily abiding by and
respecting the rules now that he understands them because the "POV pusher"
was me.

I added those links before I even knew what Wiki spamming was and
how Wikipedia is not the place for "POV pushing," and that I was a "POV
pusher."

I did not know this when I corrected information on the pages for
Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons or when I listed New Energy Times
internationally as an external resource for the cold fusion pages. I thought
my site *was* a good external resource. I thought I was *improving* and
*helping* Wikipedia by providing the links to my site. But I now understand
that I was in error because my actions were verbotten, forbidden by the
rules. I do not wish to ignore the rules.

You said "that would have been enough to meta blacklist this." I
wish to full comply with the rules and the consequences of breaking those
rules. I therefore accept and support your judgement now that I fully
understand the purpose of Wikipedia and how it is supposed to work.

I hold myself accountable, and thus concur with you to meta
blacklist my site.

Thank you for your volunteer efforts on behalf of Wikipedia.

Steve

This is a massive MEA CULPA about this. But the de-listing request was
already closed, and over, and I had no reason to actually meta-blacklist the
site (and no-one on OTRS found it necessery either on this basis). Abd is
aware that I have communicated off-wiki with Steve Krivit, and I have
mentioned, again off-wiki, to him that if there was a properly backed-up
request from e.g. a wikiproject stating use etc. then I would use this mail
as an additional reason to de-blacklist (probably asking an OTRS member to
de-list citing the ticket or something like that).

However, another de-blacklisting was filed by Abd. Abd was here, IMHO,
mainly citing procedural errors, not really talking about the past abuse. I
recused from declining or endorsing, but stating that there was abuse in the
past which may have been enough reason for blacklisting. That argument was
ignored (and as I said, I recused, I may not agree with the final decision,
but will live with the analysis of an independent reviewer there), there was
no back-up from an appropriate wikiproject or from knowledgeable editors in
the field, so that was for me not a reason to ask OTRS to participate.

But, now the ArbCom case. One of the key questions is, if the blacklisting
by JzG was proper (or at least within policy/guideline), or if he (or
someone else) never, whatever the abuse, should have added this site the
blacklist. I now review and collate data (and there is more, but I will
already go way over 1000 words for some other parts of evidence). Part of
the analysis is that [[User:Stevenkrivit]] added the link way back in
2005/2006/2007 in spammy ways, and now there is the recent case of
[[User:76.126.194.190]], who also turns out to be Steve Krivit. IMHO, Steve
Krivit should have known about conflict of interest by now (I do not know if
he was actually warned for COI somewhere, but if he is using different
accounts he may never have seen it!), still these are the edits the accounts
perform. That part of the information makes me now even slowly get to the
conclusion to call this 'long term abuse by a site owner' (but that
76.126.194.190 = Steve Krivit is not known on-wiki, I can't say that, and as
far as I know, have never said it), and even if I ignore [[User:Pcarbonn]]'s
use of this link, I might actually start to consider that if abuse persists,
that this is becoming a proper reason to blacklist it (the link is spammed).
I think that the evidence that is on wiki already would be enough to show
that there is abuse, but that this information is showing more that the site
was abused and therefore blacklisting on those terms may be (or have been)
appropriate as a form of abuse control (question remains: should it really
have been done?).

I do not know the OTRS ticket number, but e.g. Versageek and Mike Lifeguard
are aware of the mail, as there have been short on-IRC discussions on this
(I asure that no names were mentioned in public channels)

I'd like to hear from ArbCom how to handle this information (or should a
clerk handle this on-wiki in some way). I grant ArbCom full right to use
this mail how they want (and I understand that if my first decision to
decline blacklisting on basis of abuse is also deemed wrong may have further
implications for me). Please strip all personal information from this mail
where needed. I hope I have been clear enough, but if ArbCom needs further
information or communication about this subject, this email address is
available, as is my wiki-email function or the usual on-wiki ways of
communicating. I am a bit busy in the next days, may not respond quickly.

Kind regards,

Dirk.

----------
D.J.Beetstra
<redacted>

E-mail (private): djbeetstra at hotmail.com
Large Email: djbeetstra at gmail.com
ICQ: 33938284
MSN: djbeetstra at hotmail.com
Yahoo!: beetstra_dirk at yahoo.com
------------
From casliber01 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 26 09:13:45 2009
From: casliber01 at yahoo.com (Cas Liber)
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 02:13:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd case
In-Reply-To: <49F40A82.2000106@gmail.com>
References: <002D0AF2DD2B404097F4AB3C03714B96EB6A91@EMEA-EXCHANGE03.internal.sungard.corp>
<49F40A82.2000106@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <630417.99232.qm@web62007.mail.re1.yahoo.com>


How do we feel about an injunction on abd?
Cas
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Sun Apr 26 09:24:09 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 19:24:09 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd case
In-Reply-To: <630417.99232.qm@web62007.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
References: <002D0AF2DD2B404097F4AB3C03714B96EB6A91@EMEA-EXCHANGE03.internal.sungard.corp>
<49F40A82.2000106@gmail.com>
<630417.99232.qm@web62007.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830904260224h3c0f99c8hf125e2fe544b3017@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 7:13 PM, Cas Liber <casliber01 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> How do we feel about an injunction on abd?
> Cas

What sort of injunction? prevent him from raising issues about JzG?

Prevent him from using posts of length greater than 100 words, and
only 10 such missives per day?

--
John Vandenberg
-----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Sun Apr 26 09:29:05 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 19:29:05 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd case
In-Reply-To: <deea21830904260224h3c0f99c8hf125e2fe544b3017@mail.gmail.com>
References: <002D0AF2DD2B404097F4AB3C03714B96EB6A91@EMEA-EXCHANGE03.internal.sungard.corp>
<49F40A82.2000106@gmail.com>
<630417.99232.qm@web62007.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
<deea21830904260224h3c0f99c8hf125e2fe544b3017@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830904260229s42cc5c1eqda364a506dcd71cf@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 7:24 PM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 7:13 PM, Cas Liber <casliber01 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> How do we feel about an injunction on abd?
>> Cas
>
> What sort of injunction? ?prevent him from raising issues about JzG?

ffs, he is at it again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...:Spam-blacklist

--
John Vandenberg

[MaliceAforethought]

From stephen.bain at gmail.com Sun Apr 26 11:36:04 2009
From: stephen.bain at gmail.com (Stephen Bain)
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 21:36:04 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Status of "Aitias" and "Abd and JzG"
In-Reply-To: <3f797b9a0904252052h7d0b5052ve6c820d3713313f7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3f797b9a0904252052h7d0b5052ve6c820d3713313f7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f30e42de0904260436l3d0f3affy2621b1edccc94c6c@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Kirill Lokshin
<kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Stephen, any idea of a timeline in the "Abd and JzG" case? (Please feel free
> to pick a random date; we can always slip it if it turns out to be
> unrealistic.)

The parties have just started submitting evidence, but the situation
is relatively straightforward. One issue will be how soon Guy will be
able to submit evidence, he indicated in another thread that his
activity has been low in general due to real life business.

I would guess sometime during the week of the 4th of May to start
posting proposals to the workshop, and then move to a proposed
decision within a week after that.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Sun Apr 26 14:17:57 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 15:17:57 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd case
In-Reply-To: <deea21830904260229s42cc5c1eqda364a506dcd71cf@mail.gmail.com>
References: <002D0AF2DD2B404097F4AB3C03714B96EB6A91@EMEA-EXCHANGE03.internal.sungard.corp>
<49F40A82.2000106@gmail.com>
<630417.99232.qm@web62007.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
<deea21830904260224h3c0f99c8hf125e2fe544b3017@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830904260229s42cc5c1eqda364a506dcd71cf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10904260717n3a6fa79bqcb0fc17d59954e01@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 10:29 AM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 7:24 PM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 7:13 PM, Cas Liber <casliber01 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> How do we feel about an injunction on abd?
>>> Cas
>>
>> What sort of injunction? ?prevent him from raising issues about JzG?
>
> ffs, he is at it again:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...:Spam-blacklist

At it again? I see him asking for a debate that started before the
case to be closed. Probably no-one was touching it because of the
arbcom case. What is more concerning is that Viridae has got involved.
Someone has pointed out that a previous ArbCom case strongly suggested
Viridae stay clear of JzG and no undo any of his administrative
actions. Whether this was an administrative or editorial action by
Guy, I haven't worked out yet, but Viridae should have known better.

Carcharoth
----------
From casliber01 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 26 20:00:40 2009
From: casliber01 at yahoo.com (Cas Liber)
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 13:00:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd case
In-Reply-To: <deea21830904260224h3c0f99c8hf125e2fe544b3017@mail.gmail.com>
References: <002D0AF2DD2B404097F4AB3C03714B96EB6A91@EMEA-EXCHANGE03.internal.sungard.corp>
<49F40A82.2000106@gmail.com>
<630417.99232.qm@web62007.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
<deea21830904260224h3c0f99c8hf125e2fe544b3017@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <624731.62572.qm@web62005.mail.re1.yahoo.com>


good points. Seemed sensible when I read Guy's letter but would be insanely tricky to enforce.
Cas



----- Original Message ----
From: John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com>
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2009 7:24:09 PM
Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] Abd case

On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 7:13 PM, Cas Liber <casliber01 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> How do we feel about an injunction on abd?
> Cas

What sort of injunction? prevent him from raising issues about JzG?

Prevent him from using posts of length greater than 100 words, and
only 10 such missives per day?

--
John Vandenberg
----------
From vassyana at gmail.com Sun Apr 26 20:15:45 2009
From: vassyana at gmail.com (Peter Casey)
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 16:15:45 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd case
In-Reply-To: <624731.62572.qm@web62005.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
References: <002D0AF2DD2B404097F4AB3C03714B96EB6A91@EMEA-EXCHANGE03.internal.sungard.corp>
<49F40A82.2000106@gmail.com>
<630417.99232.qm@web62007.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
<deea21830904260224h3c0f99c8hf125e2fe544b3017@mail.gmail.com>
<624731.62572.qm@web62005.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <715ff9f70904261315l381fb200q972b708345d84dce@mail.gmail.com>

It may be drama and somewhat annoying, I'd say let him complain and whinge
unless it really becomes disruptive. If he keeps continuing, it only serves
to show he cannot even back off for a bit during an ArbCom case. If he keeps
going full steam, or is just particularly disruptive or antagnosistic going
forward, a low tolerance injunction would be appropriate with a "no short
block times" (i.e. 24, 48 hours, etc) clause. If he's getting that out of a
hand, a day or two isn't going to be sufficient. I would suggest a one-week
minimum for violations. If he is blocked under such a circumstance, he can
use a section of his talk page or a sandbox subpage to submit evidence,
workshop proposals, responses, etc. (to be copied over by the clerks, as
appropriate).

For Viridae's part, I would like it someone from ArbCom who has had some
positive interactions with him could gently remind him of the ArbCom
decision and indicate to him that following the /spirit/ of admonition would
include not taking admin actions where JzG is seen as a principal party.
There's /thousands/ (if not /millions/) of other admin actions to do,
including conveniently categorized backlogs. There is no need whatsoever for
him to be taking action where JzG is considered a main party, especially
with such a long history of bad blood. If he doesn't want to fiddle with the
bit, XfDs always need closing, MedCab can always use more volunteers, GA
could always use more reviewers, or so on.

Pete
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Sun Apr 26 20:42:10 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 21:42:10 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd case
In-Reply-To: <715ff9f70904261315l381fb200q972b708345d84dce@mail.gmail.com>
References: <002D0AF2DD2B404097F4AB3C03714B96EB6A91@EMEA-EXCHANGE03.internal.sungard.corp>
<49F40A82.2000106@gmail.com>
<630417.99232.qm@web62007.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
<deea21830904260224h3c0f99c8hf125e2fe544b3017@mail.gmail.com>
<624731.62572.qm@web62005.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
<715ff9f70904261315l381fb200q972b708345d84dce@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10904261342p761f69d0qabee6747648caf1e@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 9:15 PM, Peter Casey <vassyana at gmail.com> wrote:
> It may be drama and somewhat annoying, I'd say let him complain and whinge
> unless it really becomes disruptive. If he keeps continuing, it only serves
> to show he cannot even back off for a bit during an ArbCom case. If he keeps
> going full steam, or is just particularly disruptive or antagnosistic going
> forward, a low tolerance injunction would be appropriate with a "no short
> block times" (i.e. 24, 48 hours, etc) clause. If he's getting that out of a
> hand, a day or two isn't going to be sufficient. I would suggest a one-week
> minimum for violations. If he is blocked under such a circumstance, he can
> use a section of his talk page or a sandbox subpage to submit evidence,
> workshop proposals, responses, etc. (to be copied over by the clerks, as
> appropriate).

I don't see any whinging here. I see persistence, yes, and
long-windedness but not whinging. I would want to see clear evidence
that Abd has been raising issues about JzG outside the ArbCom case. As
I said, here, he was calling for an old discussion to be closed. Maybe
he should have asked ArbCom first, but that discussion did need
closing.

> For Viridae's part, I would like it someone from ArbCom who has had some
> positive interactions with him could gently remind him of the ArbCom
> decision and indicate to him that following the /spirit/ of admonition would
> include not taking admin actions where JzG is seen as a principal party.
> There's /thousands/ (if not /millions/) of other admin actions to do,
> including conveniently categorized backlogs. There is no need whatsoever for
> him to be taking action where JzG is considered a main party, especially
> with such a long history of bad blood. If he doesn't want to fiddle with the
> bit, XfDs always need closing, MedCab can always use more volunteers, GA
> could always use more reviewers, or so on.

No positive or negative interactions I can recall. If no-one else
volunteers soon, I'll write to Viridae. If anyone wants me to write to
him now, I can do that as well.

Carcharoth
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Mon Apr 27 01:32:17 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 21:32:17 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd case
In-Reply-To: <deea21830904260224h3c0f99c8hf125e2fe544b3017@mail.gmail.com>
References: <002D0AF2DD2B404097F4AB3C03714B96EB6A91@EMEA-EXCHANGE03.internal.sungard.corp>
<49F40A82.2000106@gmail.com>
<630417.99232.qm@web62007.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
<deea21830904260224h3c0f99c8hf125e2fe544b3017@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30904261832q8fb3868q9ca6f9bd51ac03c1@mail.gmail.com>

What a horrible suggestion. If that applied accross-the-board, I would have
to retire again

Newyorkbrad

On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 5:24 AM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 7:13 PM, Cas Liber <casliber01 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > How do we feel about an injunction on abd?
> > Cas
>
> What sort of injunction? prevent him from raising issues about JzG?
>
> Prevent him from using posts of length greater than 100 words, and
> only 10 such missives per day?
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Tue Apr 28 01:55:34 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 21:55:34 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd case
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30904261832q8fb3868q9ca6f9bd51ac03c1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <002D0AF2DD2B404097F4AB3C03714B96EB6A91@EMEA-EXCHANGE03.internal.sungard.corp>
<49F40A82.2000106@gmail.com>
<630417.99232.qm@web62007.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
<deea21830904260224h3c0f99c8hf125e2fe544b3017@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30904261832q8fb3868q9ca6f9bd51ac03c1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30904271855u5fc6b443led67e301da4aba4c@mail.gmail.com>

Is there any substance to this case? If it were my case, I think it
could be disposed of in about three paragraphs, assuming we didn't
dismiss it outright. Am I missing something here?

Newyorkbrad
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Tue Apr 28 01:57:53 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 02:57:53 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd case
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30904271855u5fc6b443led67e301da4aba4c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <002D0AF2DD2B404097F4AB3C03714B96EB6A91@EMEA-EXCHANGE03.internal.sungard.corp>
<49F40A82.2000106@gmail.com>
<630417.99232.qm@web62007.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
<deea21830904260224h3c0f99c8hf125e2fe544b3017@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30904261832q8fb3868q9ca6f9bd51ac03c1@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30904271855u5fc6b443led67e301da4aba4c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10904271857q3d4bc456ob62f067d5ba49b24@mail.gmail.com>

Maybe look at the evidence page?

Carcharoth

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 2:55 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> Is there any substance to this case? If it were my case, I think it
> could be disposed of in about three paragraphs, assuming we didn't
> dismiss it outright. Am I missing something here?
>
> Newyorkbrad
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Tue Apr 28 01:58:45 2009
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 01:58:45 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd case
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30904271855u5fc6b443led67e301da4aba4c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <002D0AF2DD2B404097F4AB3C03714B96EB6A91@EMEA-EXCHANGE03.internal.sungard.corp>
<49F40A82.2000106@gmail.com>
<630417.99232.qm@web62007.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
<deea21830904260224h3c0f99c8hf125e2fe544b3017@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30904261832q8fb3868q9ca6f9bd51ac03c1@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30904271855u5fc6b443led67e301da4aba4c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eb45e7c0904271858v16a79568p41b127b21477bf73@mail.gmail.com>

To me, the case is about Abd and his inability to let go of things. From the
timeline I am seeing, JzG pretty well took the previous ruling to heart.

Risker

2009/4/28 Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <newyorkbrad at gmail.com>

> Is there any substance to this case? If it were my case, I think it
> could be disposed of in about three paragraphs, assuming we didn't
> dismiss it outright. Am I missing something here?
>
> Newyorkbrad
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Tue Apr 28 02:10:47 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 03:10:47 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd case
In-Reply-To: <eb45e7c0904271858v16a79568p41b127b21477bf73@mail.gmail.com>
References: <002D0AF2DD2B404097F4AB3C03714B96EB6A91@EMEA-EXCHANGE03.internal.sungard.corp>
<49F40A82.2000106@gmail.com>
<630417.99232.qm@web62007.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
<deea21830904260224h3c0f99c8hf125e2fe544b3017@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30904261832q8fb3868q9ca6f9bd51ac03c1@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30904271855u5fc6b443led67e301da4aba4c@mail.gmail.com>
<eb45e7c0904271858v16a79568p41b127b21477bf73@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10904271910n416d49cdobed33a217131c3a3@mail.gmail.com>

Strange, because I'm seeing JzG refusing to pay any attention to what
Abd was saying. What are you supposed to do when someone doesn't
listen to you? Either drop it, or treat it as a dispute, in my view.
Silence can be just as effective a way of disagreeing with someone. It
would be dangerous to encourage people to think that giving someone
the cold shoulder and asking them to drop something is an acceptable
way to handle things.

The root of the dispute is that Abd was saying something and not
shutting up, and Guy had his fingers in his ears going "I can't hear
you". They are just talking straight past each other.

If you are saying that Guy's agreement to back off from the topic area
is good enough, fine. But the next time something like this happens,
and Abd doesn't point it out because he has been warned off, will Guy
think that is tacit approval of his approach?

Carcharoth

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 2:58 AM, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
> To me, the case is about Abd and his inability to let go of things. From the
----------
From abd at lomaxdesign.com Tue Apr 28 02:32:44 2009
From: abd at lomaxdesign.com (Abd ul-Rahman Lomax)
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 22:32:44 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Request pending at RfAr:Abd and JzG
Message-ID: <mailman.313.1240892840.6671.arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...w_initial_focus

I consider this urgent. The Evidence page is spinning out and
becoming a collection of laundry lists, and a heavy volume of
comments are being made on the Evidence and Workshop pages that will
distract from the most important issue, and on which most other issues turn.

If JzG violated policy, if it wasn't being addressed, then what I did
was necessary. It is now being argued that these were old actions,
but they weren't old actions when I began addressing them, they were
fresh, and attempting to find ways to resolve the recusal issue,
which was paramount from the beginning, with minimal disruption and
maximum opportunity for low-level resolution, took a great deal of time.

On the other hand, if I'm incorrect, if I should have simply accepted
JzG's actions as (allegedly) supported by consensus, I'd agree with
those criticizing me, I'd have been disruptive and unnecessarily inflammatory.

Hence how my actions are properly seen may depend upon a judgment of
the original issue.

From my point of view, attempts are being made to view every action
of mine as being about pursuing a vendetta against JzG, or other
disruption. Heavily distorted interpretations of past actions and
events are being presented, in an attempt to paint my actions this way.

However, it's quite clear that this all rose up at once because of
the RfC I filed, for that is when opprobrium started pouring in. That
ignores Durova's support, which I had early on, at the end of
January. If we wonder why editors are so reluctant to complain when
abused or when they see abuse, the proof is right in front of us.
Every action of someone who rocks the boat will be scrutinized in
close detail, by hostile eyes, some of them with block buttons.

There are, in fact, separate issues here. I am, however, now facing
attempts by many editors to look at my history and dredge up whatever
dirt they can find. I didn't do that with JzG, I kept the focus very,
very narrow. Do I continue to keep the focus narrow, or do I respond
to all this dirt, which will involve demonstrating the involvement of
the editors dishing it out?

I would prefer to, first, focus on the primary and serious matter,
admin recusal. My own alleged bad behavior, even if it is very bad,
is a minor issue, resolvable with a block button, quickly, with only
a small initial discussion. But an admin who is willing to act while
very involved can do a lot of damage, ongoing, and not necessarily
particularly visible, the actions can be buried among many legitimate actions.

It's up to the Committee, but, I'd predict, if the wider case
proceeds simultaneously, it will become increasingly disruptive,
because so many editors and administrators who support JzG will be
motivated to impeach me. If the cases are separated, then they may
more appropriate focus on defending JzG, at least addressing the
issue of recusal. I'm not sure *how* separation should be
accomplished, I wish my original request had been noticed and
followed. What I'd want, now, would be an assurance that I can avoid
defending myself, that I'd be given full opportunity to do so later,
which would allow me to focus on the primary issue and, since that's
fairly simple, maybe even do some overdue editing.

The practice of examining the behavior of all parties may seem
efficient, but, in fact, it requires ArbComm to decide and resolve
issues that the community might resolve without a need for
arbitration. ArbComm would see more cases, if they were kept narrow,
but they would be resolved more quickly. Long experience with
deliberative process suggests that making one decision at a time is
far more efficient. There have long been complaints about my
behavior, but nobody has attempted to seek mediation of a dispute
with me, there has been no usage of WP:DR over my alleged bad
behavior beyond initial complaint or warning. When others become
involved in the discussion, it seems to become obvious that there
wasn't any response needed (usually). I avoid unnecessary conflict.
I've not been taken to AN or AN/I for a long time, for any of the
actions that are now being raised as my allegedly serious wiki-sins.
There has been no RfC to clarify complaints. In short, the only
reason my behavior is now before ArbComm is because I filed an RfC on
a popular administrator.

This is not an attempt to avoid examination of my behavior. But I do
want ArbComm to recognize the implications of a wide case. The case
against JzG's action while involved was very simple, a few diffs and
a complete record that was compiled months ago. It's obvious, so
obvious that JzG's friends hardly bothered to defend, they did not
impeach the evidence. By not deciding the simple case first, the
whole affair becomes far more complex.

Maybe it's better though, maybe I'm a honey trap that will bring the
bugs out of the woodwork. If the Committee wants me to serve this
way, fine. But it's likely to be messy.

I could write more, but this is already overlong, I'm sure. I'll
respond to any questions from arbitrators, and, indeed, I have a high
degree of trust in the Committee.
----------
From kirill.lokshin at gmail.com Tue Apr 28 12:07:33 2009
From: kirill.lokshin at gmail.com (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 08:07:33 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Request pending at RfAr:Abd and JzG
In-Reply-To: <E1Lyeui-000298-Di@lily.knams.wikimedia.org>
References: <E1Lyeui-000298-Di@lily.knams.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID: <3f797b9a0904280507p3ff0bef2u29b28d2c8c1335ae@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 10:32 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
<abd at lomaxdesign.com>wrote:

>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...w_initial_focus
>
<snip>

The Committee has received your note, and will consider your comments.

Regards,
Kirill
-----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Tue Apr 28 17:59:55 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 13:59:55 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd case
In-Reply-To: <206791b10904271857q3d4bc456ob62f067d5ba49b24@mail.gmail.com>
References: <002D0AF2DD2B404097F4AB3C03714B96EB6A91@EMEA-EXCHANGE03.internal.sungard.corp>
<49F40A82.2000106@gmail.com>
<630417.99232.qm@web62007.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
<deea21830904260224h3c0f99c8hf125e2fe544b3017@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30904261832q8fb3868q9ca6f9bd51ac03c1@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30904271855u5fc6b443led67e301da4aba4c@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10904271857q3d4bc456ob62f067d5ba49b24@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30904281059v40eba152j2c36ba41b88d4067@mail.gmail.com>

Um ... despite my real-life busy-ness this week, you really can take it that
when I say about an open arbitration case that there doesn't seem to be much
to the case, that I have reviewed the evidence page first.

Newyorkbrad


On 4/27/09, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> Maybe look at the evidence page?
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Tue Apr 28 20:10:08 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 21:10:08 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd case
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30904281059v40eba152j2c36ba41b88d4067@mail.gmail.com>
References: <002D0AF2DD2B404097F4AB3C03714B96EB6A91@EMEA-EXCHANGE03.internal.sungard.corp>
<49F40A82.2000106@gmail.com>
<630417.99232.qm@web62007.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
<deea21830904260224h3c0f99c8hf125e2fe544b3017@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30904261832q8fb3868q9ca6f9bd51ac03c1@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30904271855u5fc6b443led67e301da4aba4c@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10904271857q3d4bc456ob62f067d5ba49b24@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30904281059v40eba152j2c36ba41b88d4067@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10904281310vd7a0266s9fb8302045289db1@mail.gmail.com>

OK, then maybe wait until all the evidence is in? Sorry if the
previous answer was terse from me, but when you suggest a three
paragraph proposed decision or summary dismissal, it would help if
there was an idea what you mean by that. I think it would take longer
than that to address the issues here, so rather than circle the
issues, we could actually discuss the evidence in some cases (I'm
still unsure why we don't do that more often).

Carcharoth

On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 6:59 PM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> Um ... despite my real-life busy-ness this week, you really can take it that
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Fri May 1 13:56:34 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 09:56:34 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Fwd: Hi Brad (from Viridae)
Message-ID: <c52819d30905010656t2b30eb0bn2205363dfc19fbe1@mail.gmail.com>

By request, I am forwarding this e-mail from Viridae, who has been mentioned
on the Workshop in the Abd-JzG case.

Newyorkbrad

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: [Viridae]
Date: Fri, May 1, 2009 at 6:25 AM
Subject: Hi Brad
To: "Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)" <newyorkbrad at gmail.com>


Brad,
Since Hipocrite seems determined to involve me in the latest JzG arbcom
fiasco can you please circulate this to the committee if it is necessary, it
is the reason I gave my my closure of the delisting discussion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=286008656
I really can't be bothered getting involved in that case - or any arbcom
case.

Thanks,
-----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Fri May 1 21:57:00 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 17:57:00 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Plans for the next few days
In-Reply-To: <3f797b9a0904302220y106d3137hc4945b3e56414ff3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3f797b9a0904302220y106d3137hc4945b3e56414ff3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30905011457m14d43b5axf3bd09bd96970d83@mail.gmail.com>

As I mentioned, we are expecting rotten weather here this weekend so I hope
to catch up on some arb stuff.

My list:

1. Addressing the recusal request made to me in Ryulong.

2. Reviewing and commenting on the draft decision in Aitias.

3. Further reviewing the evidence and proposals in Abd-JzG. Frankly, I have
the makings of either a dismissal motion or a complete but short decision
pretty much drafted in my head. I don't want to step on the designated
drafter's toes, but we don't need to take too much longer with this one.

4. Reviewing and commenting on the proposals in Date delinking.

5. Scientology -- I'd like to contribute something here at this point, but
what? If we don't make any progress soon I'm either going to post my own
proposals to get it closed or move to close it as is or something.

6. Administrative votes on the arbwiki.

Anything else?

Newyorkbrad
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Fri May 1 23:01:46 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 19:01:46 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Plans for the next few days
In-Reply-To: <16032ea0905011530i78036181td380aa4ccaae4b3e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3f797b9a0904302220y106d3137hc4945b3e56414ff3@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011457m14d43b5axf3bd09bd96970d83@mail.gmail.com>
<16032ea0905011530i78036181td380aa4ccaae4b3e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30905011601r5f14781bt59b3ce1941e41a24@mail.gmail.com>

There is ridiculous behavior going on in the Abd-JzG research. We really
should get this one to a proposed decision at once.

Newyorkbrad
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Fri May 1 23:14:12 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 19:14:12 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd, JzG, Viridae and Hipocrite
Message-ID: <c52819d30905011614s5116b79gb0f7fa780196b3ea@mail.gmail.com>

In the Abd-and-JzG workshop, User:Hipocrite offered some proposals the other
day that accused Viridae of having broken his promise to steer clear of
JzG. The proposals were received fairly negatively, especially by Abd.
Today, Hipocrite has removed his name from the proposals and blanked his
comments in support of them, but not the balance of the sections. This made
the sections unreadable. Abd has restored all of Hipocrite's comments, not
because he agrees with the proposals but because he wants Hipocrite to look
bad. There is an incipient edit-war over the matter.

Given that these proposals now have no proponent, and concern someone
(Viridae) who is not a party to the case, I think the easiest thing to do is
just to blank the whole section of the workshop as no longer having any
purpose. Accordingly, I have done that. However, in order that no one
think the discussion on the proposals is being withdrawn from view, I have
copied the entire section below. I have posted on-wiki that I've done that
as well.

Newyorkbrad


==Proposals by User:Hipocrite==
===Proposed principles===
====Promises are binding====
1) Pledges made by users in RFC's, RFAr's and Mediations are binding.
Failure to observe those pledges can lead to sanction.
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::Admirable sentiment, but circumstances change, and thus, promises are not
binding. The only situation where a sanction may be needed is if a promise
is given in bad faith to induce a reliance that somehow harms Wikipedia.
[[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] ^{[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]} 12:52,
29 April 2009 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
::I don't think so. Pledges made on Wikipedia are like pledges in real life.
If someone shakes your hand and promises they'll do something, and then they
renege on their promise, what happens? You get mad, they lose credibility
and trust. Same things happen here. I would argue that a loss of credibility
and trust is actually a ''more'' serious repercussion, on Wikipedia, than an
administrative sanction. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;^{[[User
Talk:MastCell|Talk]]} 16:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
:::In light of the current pandemic we should avoid shaking hands with
Viridae, and Viridae should beware of MastCell. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]]
^{[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]} 12:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
::I'm struggling to synch this Principle with our policies, or any synthesis
thereof. [[User:Fritzpoll|Fritzpoll]] ([[User talk:Fritzpoll|talk]]) 11:27,
1 May 2009 (UTC)
::: [[WP:ADMIN]] "Administrators who ... have lost the trust ... of the
community may be sanctioned." Viridae breaks promises made to ArbCom. Above,
we're told that "If someone shakes your hand and promises they'll do
something, and then they renege on their promise ... they lose
credibility.... and trust." [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User
talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 13:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
::::Policies are descriptive of current practice. Promises are often
reneged on, and these are not sanctioned - thus it is not policy. Your
quotation is all very well and good, but it doesn't relate to the text of
this principle - you are synthesising the principle from ADMIN and your own
standards of when trust is lost. I'm not saying I don't agree with the
sentiment, but I don't thing one necessarily follows from another sufficient
for a principle to be established. Perhaps rewording this is in order?
[[User:Fritzpoll|Fritzpoll]] ([[User talk:Fritzpoll|talk]]) 13:59, 1 May
2009 (UTC)
=== Proposed findings of fact ===
====Template====
1) Viridae had been involved in a series of disputes with JzG and has
reverted a disproportionate number of JzG's administrator actions. In view
of their disagreements on numerous issues, Viridae agreed to refrain from
reverting any of JzG's administrator actions after 24 September 2008.
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::As I remember, this seems correct. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]]
^{[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]} 12:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
:::I don't think i have interacted with JzG at all since that case was
opened. (unless you count the blacklist bit) [[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User
talk:Viridae|<small>^Talk</small>]] 10:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
:: From [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV#Viridae]], adapted to
past-tense. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]])
12:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
====JzG blacklisted newenergytimes ====
2) JzG added newenergytimes to the blackslist. [
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=258849722
]
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::
:'''Comment by parties:'''
:: The record is the record. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] ^{[[User
talk:Jehochman|Talk]]} 12:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
::Sure. He added it, and that action is one subject to review here. However,
it did not remain on the blacklist because of JzG, it was on the blacklist
because Beetstra confirmed it, and became the "acting administrator." If
blacklist guidelines were being followed, the listing would have been
removed because it was not logged, unless someone confirmed it, as Beetstra
did. Beetstra's action in confirming was not outside normal practice on the
blacklist. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 16:29, 29 April 2009
(UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
:: It's true! [
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=258849722][[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]]
([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 12:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
::I agree with the ''original'' statement by Hippocrite. Abd, please
separate the other statement in a separate finding of fact, it has nothing
to do with this. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]]
^{[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]]
[[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span
style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]} 17:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
====Viridae deblacklisted newenergytimes ====
2) Viridae removed newenergytimes from the blackslist.[
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=285979549
]
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::
:'''Comment by parties:'''
:: Oops! [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] ^{[[User
talk:Jehochman|Talk]]} 12:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
:: Viridae did not "reverse an admin action," as implied, but closed a
discussion on the blacklist page that had remained open for two weeks, in
response to a request for a neutral close at AN. Hipocrite seems to be bent
on creating as much disruption as possible, so I'll include some evidence on
that. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 16:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

:'''Comment by others:'''
:: It's true! [
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=285979549][[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]]
([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 12:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
::Agree with ''original'' statement. Abd, no-one said here that Viridae's
action was "reverse an admin action,", and I don't see that implication,
that ''might'' be a separate finding of fact to discuss.
--[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] ^{[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span
style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span
style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]} 17:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
::Somewhat confused here - as I understand the timeline of events, JzG
blacklists, Dirk "takes on the responsibility" for the blacklisting by
confirming it (Sorry Dirk - I can't think of a better wording for this!) and
a discussion later ensues to de-blacklist. So when Viridae closes the
discussion, she is actually removing something that Dirk is "responsible"
for, and per a community discussion. I am struggling to link Viridae
directly to overturning JzG as Hipocrite's intention appears for me to do.
It certainly wasn't an admin action of JzG's being overturned since
responsibility for the decision (such as it is) was no longer his. Unless
I'm missing something (which I freely admit I may be), this seems somewhat
tenuous... [[User:Fritzpoll|Fritzpoll]] ([[User talk:Fritzpoll|talk]])
11:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
:::But the question in this 'finding of fact', as it is currently worded,
does not say anything about JzG and his involvement, or about the question
if the responsibility is transferred (or shared, or maybe it is only a
confirmation of/agreement with the action of JzG). It at most ''suggests''
that that is what Hipocrite means. We really need another 'finding of fact'
here (or more than one) regarding ''those'' things, or a serious rewrite of
this finding of fact. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]]
^{[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]]
[[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span
style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]} 11:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
::::Indeed, my confusion forced me to attempt a rationalisation. At best,
this sequence of Viridae-related proposals seems incomplete, and is, at
worst, an irrelevance to this case. I'm happy for someone to convince me
otherwise, however. [[User:Fritzpoll|Fritzpoll]] ([[User
talk:Fritzpoll|talk]]) 12:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
::::: So the justification is that if someone else '''agrees''' wit guy,
then Viridae can follow Guy around and revert his actions just like before?
That seems even more counterproductive than Viridae's old pattern of just
following Guy around and reverting all his admin actions - now he'd be
reverting only actions that other people liked. But, you know, promises in
front of ArbCom have no meaning, so whatever. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]]
([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 12:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::But that is an over-simplification of what has happened here. Viridae
closed a discussion, and did not undo Guy's action directly - that is, not
the older pattern you describe of reverting admin actions. The discussion
close appears an accurate reflection of the discussion itself. I agree that
in the interests of propriety and appearance, it would have been better if
Viridae had not closed the discussion. On the other hand, I don't think
that ''this'' is the appropriate forum for this matter - hence my comment
about irrelevancy. Take it to [[WP:AE]] if there is a problem, but at
present we just need to handle the existing parties to the case.
[[User:Fritzpoll|Fritzpoll]] ([[User talk:Fritzpoll|talk]]) 12:40, 1 May
2009 (UTC)
:::::::Guy did something, someone else said "Guy was right," and Viridae
undid it after a discussion that he read to go one way. Some people agree
with his reading. Some don't. You're saying we need a finding of fact that
someone agreed that Guy was right, and thus Viridae was ok to revert him? Do
you understand how idiotic that reads? Everyone except for Abd who has
commented on Viridae's action has now said that he should have found someone
else to do it (which, ironically, is what Guy is being told he did wrong, I
mean, except for the fact that Viridae has said that he'd stop reverting Guy
in front of ArbCom and all). If the arbiters choose to bless people ignoring
their promises to ArbCom, that's fine - it appears that everyone but me was
well aware that making false promises is the name of the game here. The
reversal became relevent when it became the cornerstone of Abd's case. I'd
promise to drop the issue, if Viridae promises to stop following Guy around
the encyclopedia and reverting his adminstrative actions but, you know,
promises are totally nonbinding, and Viridae ALREADY MADE THAT PROMISE LESS
THAN A YEAR AGO. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]])
13:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Agree with Fritz. I struggle to see how raising this issue here is
helpful to resolving the case at hand. [[User:Ronnotel|Ronnotel]] ([[User
talk:Ronnotel|talk]]) 12:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::::All caps shouting seems a little inappropriate here. My point was
simply that Viridae is not a party to this case, and that conflating these
issues in an existing case at this stage is not a good idea. We're here to
sort out Abd and JzG - Viridae's actions can be resolved in another forum.
Repeatedly shouting the same thing is not going to get your point across any
better - you think Viridae broke her agreement. I get it. I just think
this is not the place to have this discussion. My suggestion is to go to AN
and find someone else to reclose the debate if you find it so irksome. If
you want sanction for Viridae, [[WP:AE]] and the clarifications section of
[[WP:RFAR]] are thataway...[[User:Fritzpoll|Fritzpoll]] ([[User
talk:Fritzpoll|talk]]) 14:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
====Viridae never meant his pledge ====
3) Viridae stated that his pledge to arbcom was "never binding."
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
::
:'''Comment by parties:'''
::It would be wise not to resume the JzG-Viridae feud. All parties should
try to cooperate in that objective. I am not sure this finding helps.
[[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] ^{[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]} 12:59,
29 April 2009 (UTC)
:::This is the kind of implication of bad faith that is too common with some
editors. The direct evidence is [
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=286155348],
where Viriae responds to a provocative question by Hipocrite. Okay, was the
decision binding? The vote on it refers to a voluntary agreement. Is a
voluntary agreement binding? What might have been ruled had there been no
agreement? The original proposed ruling was ''2) Viridae is warned not to
involve himself in JzG's business, and not to undo administrative actions
without prior discussion and consensus.'' or ''2.1) Viridae is instructed
not to revert, in whole or in part, any administrative action taken by
JzG.'' Newyorkbrad later restated it by reporting the agreement. We can
speculate, and shouldn't. I've pointed out previously that if Hipocrite, or
anyone else, considers Viridae to have violated the ruling, AE is open.
Given that there was no "reversal" of JzG, but a close of a discussion that
hardly mentioned JzG, and it's even possible that Viridae was not aware of
the prior listing by JzG, and the community has clearly accepted the Viridae
close in spite of wide attention to it, this whole line of approach is
vicious wikilawyering over what would be, at worst, a mild offense, and is
abuse of this RfAr to pursue one or more vendettas. {{unsigned|Abd|16:59, 29
April 2009}}
:'''Comment by others:'''
:: It's true! [
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=286155348][[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]]
([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 12:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
::How ridiculous Hipocrite, if I hadn't meant it there is plenty of times
over the last year since the case when I could have, taken issue with
something JzG did, but didn't or overturned an action of his, or involved
myself in discussions in which he was heavily involved - I have avoided all
of that. In this case, I simply answered the request to have a neutral admin
close that discussion. I was that admin, and I closed it fas I did for the
reasons given on the evidence talk page. JzG is fond of referring to the
beating of deceased equines - this equine is a long time dead and buried and
you are flagellating it as hard as you can go.
[[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae|<small>^Talk</small>]]
10:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
::: Are you going to stop reverting Guy's adminstrative actions? If so, why
would you mind something binding you to that, given that you ignore your
promises not to do it? [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User
talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 12:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
===Proposed remedies===
<small>''Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a
ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently
unless otherwise stated.''</small>
====Viridae instructed ====
1) Viridae is instructed never to revert any of JzG's adminstrative actions,
regardless of his view of consensus, and reminded that his previous pledge
was binding. Further failures to follow his pledges will result in sanction.
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
:: Viridae is not presently a party to the case. If any arbitrator wishes to
take up this issue, he would need to be notified. For the record, note that
in the prior case, JzG and Viridae were instructed to avoid "unnecessary
interactions" with each other. Bickering over what precisely constitutes an
"interaction" between these two administrators will hopefully not become
necessary. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]])
17:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
:'''Comment by parties:'''
:: Reword this. A warning or admonishment not to do this again would be
wise. Whether the pledge was binding or not, the message is "don't do it!"
[[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] ^{[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]} 12:57,
29 April 2009 (UTC)
:: Reject this utterly. There was no "failure to follow a pledge." The draft
proposed finding, before the "voluntary agreement" was made, "instruction"
to not reverse JzG decisions, except reversal after "prior discussion and
consensus." So Hipocrite is actually proposing a reversal of the decision
that Viridae averted by voluntary agreement. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User
talk:Abd|talk]]) 17:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
:'''Comment by others:'''
:: Pledges made to arbcom should be binding. [[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]]
([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 12:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
:: Viridae was made aware of this case and has commented on it - [
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=286526039].
[[User:Hipocrite|Hipocrite]] ([[User talk:Hipocrite|talk]]) 17:49, 29 April
2009 (UTC)
:::I wasn't actually following it - the only reason I noticed this
particular section was because it came up in my watchlist.
[[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae|<small>^Talk</small>]]
10:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Fri May 1 23:40:36 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 00:40:36 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd, JzG, Viridae and Hipocrite
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30905011614s5116b79gb0f7fa780196b3ea@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905011614s5116b79gb0f7fa780196b3ea@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10905011640s4d4499ebi14d71972579c95e6@mail.gmail.com>

You might want to talk to the case clerk as well.

On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> In the Abd-and-JzG workshop, User:Hipocrite offered some proposals the other

[MaliceAforethought]

From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Fri May 1 23:43:47 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 00:43:47 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd, JzG, Viridae and Hipocrite
In-Reply-To: <206791b10905011640s4d4499ebi14d71972579c95e6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905011614s5116b79gb0f7fa780196b3ea@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905011640s4d4499ebi14d71972579c95e6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10905011643q9c47f9el9c20773313f1943d@mail.gmail.com>

And I see you did, I'm a bit behind the curve...

On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 12:40 AM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com> wrote:
> You might want to talk to the case clerk as well.
>
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Fri May 1 23:44:56 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 19:44:56 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd, JzG, Viridae and Hipocrite
In-Reply-To: <206791b10905011640s4d4499ebi14d71972579c95e6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905011614s5116b79gb0f7fa780196b3ea@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905011640s4d4499ebi14d71972579c95e6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30905011644g2c600eafob63e08be35bf8908@mail.gmail.com>

Already done (KnightLago), thanks.

By way of clarification, I see now that Hipocrite first tried to remove the
whole section of his proposals. Abd objected and put them back, and then
Hipocrite tried to remove only his own comments, and Abd didn't want that
either.

Newyorkbrad
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Fri May 1 23:51:28 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 00:51:28 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd, JzG, Viridae and Hipocrite
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30905011644g2c600eafob63e08be35bf8908@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905011614s5116b79gb0f7fa780196b3ea@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905011640s4d4499ebi14d71972579c95e6@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011644g2c600eafob63e08be35bf8908@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10905011651p653f14f6nea6176f4aff80349@mail.gmail.com>

While we are on this case, I forgot to mention that Abd would almost
certainly have filed this case himself at some point. Has anyone
thought to ask Jehochman whether he was aware of this, and hence
whether he filed the case pre-emptively or not? Abd would almost
certainly have not presented the request in a way that invited comment
on his (Abd's) actions, but because Jehochman filed the request, more
attention has been focused on Abd and possibly less on JzG. Does that
makes any sense, and is it possible for ArbCom to be objective enough
to overcome the effects of a pre-emptive filing to ensure the scope is
what the filer wants it to be?

Carcharoth

On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 12:44 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> Already done (KnightLago), thanks.
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Sat May 2 00:03:10 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 20:03:10 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd, JzG, Viridae and Hipocrite
In-Reply-To: <206791b10905011651p653f14f6nea6176f4aff80349@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905011614s5116b79gb0f7fa780196b3ea@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905011640s4d4499ebi14d71972579c95e6@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011644g2c600eafob63e08be35bf8908@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905011651p653f14f6nea6176f4aff80349@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30905011703i45159a90l9e60a6d965e43280@mail.gmail.com>

I think this petty case is being over-intellectualized. JzG edited [[Cold
fusion]] to, from his vantagepoint, maintain NPOV. He got involved in the
article administrator-wise from the same motive, and may have trenched too
close to the line of being an "involved" admin. However, he does not have a
past history of being cited for that infraction. (His reprimand in the big
case last year was for gross incivility, and in that regard, as Abd
acknowledges, JzG has cleaned up his act.)

Moreover, JzG withdrew from administrating on [[Cold fusion]] more than
three months ago and has acknowledged the need to avoid it in the future.
His attitude on the casepage appears sincere and reasonable. If Abd has
dropped this issue months ago, no one would even remember it. I am not
convinced that any action at all needs to be taken, and if a motion to
dismiss this case were offered, would support it. In the absence of a
consensus for dismissal (which is unlikely to come, since the vote to open
the case was 11/0/0/2), a reminder to be mindful of avoiding the actuality
or appearance of action by an "involved" administrator will have to do. If
we want, we can debate the precise parameters of what constitutes
"involvement", but that's always been a Potter Stewart ("I know it when I
see it") type of issue to me.

Abd has perseverated in pursuing JzG over this particular
tempest-in-a-teapot for the past four months, largely to the exclusion of
his accomplishing anything else on Wikipedia. It would be hypocritical for
me to criticize the length and meandering nature of his posts given the
nature of what I sometimes write, but hopefully I at least get from Point A
to Point B via some reasonably discernable route. I don't know that he has
done anything "sanctionable", and there has not been an RfC on him or the
like, but he does have a troubled record and some sort of precatory reminder
to pursue dispute resolution with an appropriate degree of proportionality
would not be out of order.

The allegation against non-party Viridae is peripheral and irrelevant and
does not warrant making him a party (although I would like to know whether
it's true that Hipocrite was threatened with sanctions by an administrator
for offering proposals about him).

That's all there is to this case whether we decide it now or six weeks from
now. I would prefer the former.

Newyorkbrad



On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 7:51 PM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com>wrote:

> While we are on this case, I forgot to mention that Abd would almost
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Sat May 2 00:21:15 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 20:21:15 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd, JzG, Viridae and Hipocrite
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30905011703i45159a90l9e60a6d965e43280@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905011614s5116b79gb0f7fa780196b3ea@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905011640s4d4499ebi14d71972579c95e6@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011644g2c600eafob63e08be35bf8908@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905011651p653f14f6nea6176f4aff80349@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011703i45159a90l9e60a6d965e43280@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30905011721ha0cc606h45455a784fa72583@mail.gmail.com>

Actually, there is also the issue of the blacklist/whitelist. But I don't
see any conduct issues there, at most a need to seek community discussion on
how these are to operate, to the extent existing policy isn't clear. And we
could, I suppose, assert that an action by a Meta admin primarily directed
at En-WP links is subject to our jurisdiction. If we want to. Do we?

There is also a claim that JzG referred to a Abd as having ADHD. JzG's
response is that Abd had a userbox stating he had that condition.
Nonetheless, if we want, we could point out that the reference was
insensitive, although Abd himself hasn't stressed the point.

Newyorkbrad

On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <
newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think this petty case is being over-intellectualized. JzG edited [[Cold
-----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Sat May 2 01:00:14 2009
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 01:00:14 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd, JzG, Viridae and Hipocrite
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30905011703i45159a90l9e60a6d965e43280@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905011614s5116b79gb0f7fa780196b3ea@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905011640s4d4499ebi14d71972579c95e6@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011644g2c600eafob63e08be35bf8908@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905011651p653f14f6nea6176f4aff80349@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011703i45159a90l9e60a6d965e43280@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eb45e7c0905011800n79f2d997n4d581474656f4e1d@mail.gmail.com>

I more or less agree with Newyorkbrad here; the reason I accepted this case
was to address Abd's tendentiousness, as JzG backed off from the
administrative role on the article involved when the issue was pressed.
This is not new behaviour for Abd, and he needs to be redirected from
continually picking at nearly-healed wounds. This case could be closed
fairly promptly.

Risker
-----------
From stephen.bain at gmail.com Sat May 2 01:25:28 2009
From: stephen.bain at gmail.com (Stephen Bain)
Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 11:25:28 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd, JzG, Viridae and Hipocrite
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30905011703i45159a90l9e60a6d965e43280@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905011614s5116b79gb0f7fa780196b3ea@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905011640s4d4499ebi14d71972579c95e6@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011644g2c600eafob63e08be35bf8908@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905011651p653f14f6nea6176f4aff80349@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011703i45159a90l9e60a6d965e43280@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f30e42de0905011825w3ed91462tc7e664877ac99e6e@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> That's all there is to this case whether we decide it now or six weeks from
> now.? I would prefer the former.

I mentioned in the other thread that I'd be putting up proposals
sometime next week. In fact I was planning to draft tonight, once I'm
back from the library, so I should have something ready by tonight or
tomorrow morning. My thinking is largely the same as yours, although I
think it would opportune to say something about the blacklist.

Conveniently, the substantive issue of the particular links being on
the blacklist has been resolved already.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Sat May 2 01:31:43 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 21:31:43 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd, JzG, Viridae and Hipocrite
In-Reply-To: <f30e42de0905011825w3ed91462tc7e664877ac99e6e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905011614s5116b79gb0f7fa780196b3ea@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905011640s4d4499ebi14d71972579c95e6@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011644g2c600eafob63e08be35bf8908@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905011651p653f14f6nea6176f4aff80349@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011703i45159a90l9e60a6d965e43280@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905011825w3ed91462tc7e664877ac99e6e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30905011831i1ad4738eqf38e22d0186f5ccf@mail.gmail.com>

Great. Thanks. And as I mentioned in my other comment, you may be right
about saying something about the blacklist. There is also a bit of new
evidence posted just now and a couple of workshop posts.

Are you going to post to workshop, or directly to PD?

Newyorkbrad
-----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Sat May 2 01:41:52 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 21:41:52 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd, JzG, Viridae and Hipocrite
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30905011831i1ad4738eqf38e22d0186f5ccf@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905011614s5116b79gb0f7fa780196b3ea@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905011640s4d4499ebi14d71972579c95e6@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011644g2c600eafob63e08be35bf8908@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905011651p653f14f6nea6176f4aff80349@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011703i45159a90l9e60a6d965e43280@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905011825w3ed91462tc7e664877ac99e6e@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011831i1ad4738eqf38e22d0186f5ccf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30905011841h59419892i34bca712857fdc2b@mail.gmail.com>

Coppertwig has now noted on the evidence page that he "plans to post some
evidence later." You might want to ask him how much later.

Newyorkbrad
----------
From vassyana at gmail.com Sat May 2 07:49:23 2009
From: vassyana at gmail.com (Peter Casey)
Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 03:49:23 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd, JzG, Viridae and Hipocrite
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30905011831i1ad4738eqf38e22d0186f5ccf@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905011614s5116b79gb0f7fa780196b3ea@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905011640s4d4499ebi14d71972579c95e6@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011644g2c600eafob63e08be35bf8908@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905011651p653f14f6nea6176f4aff80349@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011703i45159a90l9e60a6d965e43280@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905011825w3ed91462tc7e664877ac99e6e@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011831i1ad4738eqf38e22d0186f5ccf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <715ff9f70905020049w7f5251b4h905539fce19a2670@mail.gmail.com>

Regarding this case, it has been suggested to me that I should recuse. The
person in question request anonymity because they fear repurcussions from
"high level insiders". I do not think the fear is justified, but they are
not a directly involved party and do not seem to have entanglements with JzG
directly, so I will defer to that request. (I have indicated that I will do
so, noting that in a few more words, mainly that I do not think there's much
to be concerned about.)

To the point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req.../JzG_2#Response
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...iew_by_Vassyana

My participation in the second RfC has apparently lead some to believe that
I am on Jzg's side and/or will give him infinite chances. I do not believe
this is cause for recusal, especially because I supported the complaint
against JzG, another critical position and most of the nuanced (good work,
but incivility is bad) positions. I did not take a "defender" position, but
took a position that was essentially that Jzg is a hard worked that burned
out, becoming a dick, but he has acknowledged the problem and is working to
rectify it. I think that aspect of his behavior has greatly improved since
then and thus that the dispute resolution process worked in that instance
(to the benefit of Guy and the community). Additionally, regarding the
request, that was a while ago and the matter isn't very relevant to the
current case.

I would like to know what other arbirtrators think of this request. It is
entirely possible that others will see grounds for recusal and thus I tried
to fully explain my position and thoughts as relevant.

Since I raised the RfC, some of the nuanced positions about stressed/burned
out administrators may be worth a read to bear in mind with some of our
current caseload.

Pete
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Sat May 2 08:38:26 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 09:38:26 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd, JzG, Viridae and Hipocrite
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30905011703i45159a90l9e60a6d965e43280@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905011614s5116b79gb0f7fa780196b3ea@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905011640s4d4499ebi14d71972579c95e6@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011644g2c600eafob63e08be35bf8908@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905011651p653f14f6nea6176f4aff80349@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011703i45159a90l9e60a6d965e43280@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10905020138u40ca8f11we8af55478662f0a8@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 1:03 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think this petty case is being over-intellectualized.

I feel the same way about the Aitias case (that it is a petty case).
It is still my view that Majorly (who has said so himself) filed the
RfC in anger (Acalamari's RfC may have been better written, but
Majorly got in there first), and that Majorly continues to over-egg
the case. When I compare this to other cases (including the Ryulong
case) I still can't see exactly what terrible crimes Aitias has
committed, other than to make the wrong enemies in a tempestuous area
of the wiki. There are far more serious allegations and evidence of
serious allegations in this case (JzG) than in the Aitias case.
<shrug>

> JzG edited [[Cold
> fusion]] to, from his vantagepoint, maintain NPOV.

He clearly got involved in a content dispute.

Click on the links here and read JzG's edit summaries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...anti-fringe_POV

> He got involved in the
> article administrator-wise from the same motive, and may have trenched too
> close to the line of being an "involved" admin.? However, he does not have a
> past history of being cited for that infraction.

Then he needs to be cited for it now.

> (His reprimand in the big
> case last year was for gross incivility, and in that regard, as Abd
> acknowledges, JzG has cleaned up his act.)

Sure. That can be acknowledged.

I'm looking at the third RfC, and in particular these three views:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...w_by_Coppertwig

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...ide_view_by_DGG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...#View_by_Durova

Failing to acknowledge those views will send the wrong message.

> Moreover, JzG withdrew from administrating on [[Cold fusion]] more than
> three months ago and has acknowledged the need to avoid it in the future.

Not sufficient.

> His attitude on the casepage appears sincere and reasonable.? If Abd has
> dropped this issue months ago, no one would even remember it.

We really need to discuss this in a wiki environment where we can
discuss actual diffs and evidence.

My view is that if JzG had engaged with the *general* recusal issue a
little bit more and not walked away from the specific incident and
then continually given Abd the brush-off, this would not have
escalated. There does need to be some principle laid down that you
can't just chose to ignore someone because you don't want to talk to
them. Sometimes walking away from something is not the answer.

If we say (effectively) that it is difficult to know when an admin is
truly involved, then we encourage admins (including JzG) to push the
boundaries. We need to make quite clear that pushing the boundaries on
involvement and expressing views in a content dispute in a topic area,
and subsequent use of admin tools, is a big no-no. Admins need to
point to consensus that they have not participated in building, and if
there is disagreement over what the consensus is, they need to
facilitate further debate, not try and boldly cut a Gordian knot or
over-ride the debate.

> I am not convinced that any action at all needs to be taken, and if a motion to
> dismiss this case were offered, would support it.? In the absence of a
> consensus for dismissal (which is unlikely to come, since the vote to open
> the case was 11/0/0/2), a reminder to be mindful of avoiding the actuality
> or appearance of action by an "involved" administrator will have to do.? If
> we want, we can debate the precise parameters of what constitutes
> "involvement", but that's always been a Potter Stewart ("I know it when I
> see it") type of issue to me.

If it is a debate we need to have, we shouldn't avoid it. Where should
we have this discussion?

> Abd has perseverated in pursuing JzG over this particular
> tempest-in-a-teapot for the past four months, largely to the exclusion of
> his accomplishing anything else on Wikipedia.? It would be hypocritical for
> me to criticize the length and meandering nature of his posts given the
> nature of what I sometimes write, but hopefully I at least get from Point A
> to Point B via some reasonably discernable route.? I don't know that he has
> done anything "sanctionable", and there has not been an RfC on him or the
> like, but he does have a troubled record and some sort of precatory reminder
> to pursue dispute resolution with an appropriate degree of proportionality
> would not be out of order.

Agreed on the tendentiousness. But we need to acknowledge that dispute
resolution can be slow (four months is not unusual for a dispute to
rise to ArbCom). Also, are you really saying that if Abd had written
four featured articles, or done tons of wikignoming work as well as
pursue this dispute, your view would be different and you would look
more kindly on what he is saying? I hope not. The fundamental
rightness or wrongness of the allegations should not be affected in
the least by whatever other work Abd has or has not been doing. The
only thing that Abd's lack or work elsewhere speaks to is "what he is
here for". To see whether the allegations are correct or not, you then
need to look at see whether others support his view, and from the RfC
it is clear that others *do* support his views. So while Abd may not
have been the right person to pursue this, he has made some valid
points, and those points should not be lost here.

Ditto for Guy's concerns about Durova's motivations (in the e-mail he
sent us). If people are concerned about Durova's motivations here,
they need to look past that, be objeective, and assess Durova's
concerns and evidence on their merits, not dismiss them because of
concerns about the person presenting the evidence.

If valid concerns have been raised about Guy, it is not enough for him
to walk away from the dispute and ask people to drop the matter. He
needs to acknowledge the wider points and make clear whether he will
change his approach. If he does the same thing again in another topic
area (pre-emptively sticking a domain name on a blacklist in a BOLD
action), the whole thing will arrive back at ArbCom.

> The allegation against non-party?Viridae is peripheral and irrelevant and
> does not warrant making him a party (although I would like to know whether
> it's true that Hipocrite was threatened with sanctions by an administrator
> for offering proposals about him).

Viridae should not have acted here. Did you see the other thread where
it was suggested someone have a private word with him?

> That's all there is to this case whether we decide it now or six weeks from
> now.? I would prefer the former.

What about the point I raised in the e-mail you replied to? Does the
fact that Jehochman pre-empted Abd's filing of a case colour the
perception of the case in any way? Was Jehochman trying to force the
matter? Was Jehochman trying to shift the focus from JzG to Abd? Or
was he trying to make sure that the case was presented in a neutral
way, rather than as Abd filing a case against JzG? Or to put it
another way, if it had been Abd filing the case, and not Jehochman,
would the case have been accepted?

Carcharoth
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Sat May 2 09:05:24 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 10:05:24 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd, JzG, Viridae and Hipocrite
In-Reply-To: <715ff9f70905020049w7f5251b4h905539fce19a2670@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905011614s5116b79gb0f7fa780196b3ea@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905011640s4d4499ebi14d71972579c95e6@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011644g2c600eafob63e08be35bf8908@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905011651p653f14f6nea6176f4aff80349@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011703i45159a90l9e60a6d965e43280@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905011825w3ed91462tc7e664877ac99e6e@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011831i1ad4738eqf38e22d0186f5ccf@mail.gmail.com>
<715ff9f70905020049w7f5251b4h905539fce19a2670@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10905020205n35efc9abu10389f0a4df87938@mail.gmail.com>

I raised this in a general thread about recent calls for recusal. I'd
be wary of granting anonymous requests from non-parties. Personally, I
don't think you need to recuse here, but if you chose to do so, you
should make clear whether you do so on personal standards or general
ones.

Carcharoth

On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Peter Casey <vassyana at gmail.com> wrote:
> Regarding this case, it has been suggested to me that I should recuse. The
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Sat May 2 09:06:00 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 10:06:00 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Recent calls for arbitrator recusal
Message-ID: <206791b10905020206r333ab293j4b69ecc78636a139@mail.gmail.com>

I believe there have been five calls (recently and not so recently)
for arbitrator recusal in current cases. Could we briefly discuss this
so we are all on the same page here?

- CHL in Scientology (Durova)
- Coren in Tang Dynasty (Caspian blue and Teeninvestor)
- NYB in Ryulong (Mythdon)
- Vassyana in Abd and Jzg (anonymous)
- John in Dates delinking (Tony)

Were there others that I missed?

My general views, specifically about drafting arbitrators, has been
expressed in the thread where Coren is talking to Caspian blue and
Teeninvestor:

"If I may say something here about the role of drafting arbitrators,
as an arbitrator who has not drafted a decision yet, the role is more
to distill the case down to something presentable and manageable, and
ready for voting. When I look over a proposed decision before voting,
I do my best to check over the evidence and workshop and talk pages to
make sure nothing of major import has been missed. If I object to
anything in the proposed decision, I make that clear and will suggest
changes and different principles, findings of facts and remedies where
needed. The drafting arb may start the final ball rolling, but the
final product and published decision is still the work of the entire
committee. Some arbitrators who have seen a proposed decision change
drastically during the voting process will be able to confirm this.
[...] Carcharoth (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)"

Could we make some sort of statement on how the drafting arbitrator
*doesn't* (despite appearances) decide the case? In particular, what I
said here: "The drafting arb may start the final ball rolling, but the
final product and published decision is still the work of the entire
committee." We are not, I hope, sheep that fall in behind what the
drafting arbitrator writes.

I also think the point that concerns about recusal need to be raised
at the start of cases, not at the end, should be re-emphasised.

Any specific or general comments?

Carcharoth
----------
From roger.davies.wiki at googlemail.com Sat May 2 09:15:55 2009
From: roger.davies.wiki at googlemail.com (Roger Davies)
Date: Sat, 02 May 2009 10:15:55 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Recent calls for arbitrator recusal
In-Reply-To: <206791b10905020206r333ab293j4b69ecc78636a139@mail.gmail.com>
References: <206791b10905020206r333ab293j4b69ecc78636a139@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <49FC0F4B.7080304@gmail.com>


I don't think we should discuss this case by case unless the individual
arbitrator asks us to. Recusal is a personal matter and I'm happy to
trust and support my colleagues' individual conscience, honesty and
hudgment on it. It seems to me that the minute arbitrators are open
about something, a baying pack descends calling for recusal. This is not
a tendency we want to encourage as it will cripple our effectiveness and
lead to endless drama.

Roger


Carcharoth wrote:
> I believe there have been five calls (recently and not so recently)
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Sat May 2 09:27:25 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 10:27:25 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Recent calls for arbitrator recusal
In-Reply-To: <49FC0F4B.7080304@gmail.com>
References: <206791b10905020206r333ab293j4b69ecc78636a139@mail.gmail.com>
<49FC0F4B.7080304@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10905020227o41a54c6ei91912bacddc95a@mail.gmail.com>

And the general comments I made about drafting arbitrators? By all
means avoid specific discussions, but I think two points need to be
made here:

1) The drafting arb may start the final ball rolling, but the final
product and published decision is still the work of the entire
committee, based on reviewing the evidence and other case pages.

[At least I hope that is what people do...]

2) Calls for recusal should be made at the start of a case, not at a later date.

The draft arbitration policy sets the cut-off point at the start of
the voting phase:

"Any user who believes that circumstances call for an arbitrator's
recusal should bring the matter to that arbitrator's attention for his
or her prompt consideration and response. Concerns beyond this should
be raised with the Committee. Except in extraordinary circumstances,
requests for recusal after a case has entered the voting stage will
not be granted."

Should the cut-off point for recusal come before the proposed decision
is posted? I think it would be better to set it at x weeks after the
case opens, at the point where the evidence phase finishes (is that
one week or two weeks?).

Carcharoth

On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Roger Davies
<roger.davies.wiki at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't think we should discuss this case by case unless the individual
-----------
From vassyana at gmail.com Sat May 2 09:50:11 2009
From: vassyana at gmail.com (Peter Casey)
Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 05:50:11 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd, JzG, Viridae and Hipocrite
In-Reply-To: <206791b10905020205n35efc9abu10389f0a4df87938@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905011614s5116b79gb0f7fa780196b3ea@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905011640s4d4499ebi14d71972579c95e6@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011644g2c600eafob63e08be35bf8908@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905011651p653f14f6nea6176f4aff80349@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011703i45159a90l9e60a6d965e43280@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905011825w3ed91462tc7e664877ac99e6e@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011831i1ad4738eqf38e22d0186f5ccf@mail.gmail.com>
<715ff9f70905020049w7f5251b4h905539fce19a2670@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905020205n35efc9abu10389f0a4df87938@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <715ff9f70905020250m7ff36b55ra9a71554c733a878@mail.gmail.com>

Although I do not believe I need to (or should) recuse, I accept that I am
human and my self-perception is thus limited. I may fail to recognize a
self-bias or a situation where recusal would be beneficial for the sake of
propriety. I felt it reasonable to raise it to the rest of you for your
opinions. If at least a few arbs expressed the opinion that it would be wise
or reasonable for me to recuse, I would do so in deference to my colleagues.
I have deep respect for everyone on the committee and would take such
opinions to heart. Under a situation like that, I would point out the
motivating opinions or events indicating some need for a recusal and simply
state that experienced editors that I trust advised it would behoove me to
do so.

Pete

On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 5:05 AM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com>wrote:

> I raised this in a general thread about recent calls for recusal. I'd
------------
From vassyana at gmail.com Sat May 2 12:52:38 2009
From: vassyana at gmail.com (Peter Casey)
Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 08:52:38 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Recent calls for arbitrator recusal
In-Reply-To: <206791b10905020227o41a54c6ei91912bacddc95a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <206791b10905020206r333ab293j4b69ecc78636a139@mail.gmail.com>
<49FC0F4B.7080304@gmail.com>
<206791b10905020227o41a54c6ei91912bacddc95a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <715ff9f70905020552o39abf154vf9234e58a06687b8@mail.gmail.com>

Regarding drafting, it's good to emphasize that decisions are a committee
product. We have revised PDs and had disagreements in full view (to our
credit), hashing out the final form of them on-wiki. This should be evidence
enough that we don't rubber stamp decisions presented by drafters.

I think we should remain flexible on recusals. However, we probably should
be forward that the later a request for recusal, the more grains of salt the
request will be taken with, especially when it appears that the arbitrator
will support sanctions against the person making the request. When someone
requests a recusal at a very late stage when it becomes clear that
arbitrator will propose sanctioning them... well, the appearances are
obvious. (Additionally, someone railing for a recusal at the last minute can
illustrate behavioral issues and I think we're all thick-skinned enough to
put up with someone flailing about a bit.)

Pete

On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 5:27 AM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com>wrote:

> And the general comments I made about drafting arbitrators? By all
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Sun May 3 01:22:50 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 21:22:50 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Coppertwig evidence in Abd-JzG
Message-ID: <c52819d30905021822y4cf4062aj950e56f65ab0a627@mail.gmail.com>

I've asked Coppertwig on his talkpage when he expects to present his
evidence in the Abd-and-JzG case.

Newyorkbrad
-----------
From stephen.bain at gmail.com Sun May 3 14:14:03 2009
From: stephen.bain at gmail.com (Stephen Bain)
Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 00:14:03 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd, JzG, Viridae and Hipocrite
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30905011831i1ad4738eqf38e22d0186f5ccf@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905011614s5116b79gb0f7fa780196b3ea@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905011640s4d4499ebi14d71972579c95e6@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011644g2c600eafob63e08be35bf8908@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905011651p653f14f6nea6176f4aff80349@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011703i45159a90l9e60a6d965e43280@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905011825w3ed91462tc7e664877ac99e6e@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905011831i1ad4738eqf38e22d0186f5ccf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f30e42de0905030714p67902ec0hdd177eb71812efbc@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Are you going to post to workshop, or directly to PD?

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Abd_and_JzG/Workshop#Proposals_by_Stephen_Bain>

I posted to the workshop. Coppertwig has yet to be back online, and
Guy has not participated at all since his initial statement, he might
want an opportunity to. That said it could move to PD pretty promptly
if that is what is desired.

Some comments on the proposals:

I propose an admonition of Guy. Yes, this was some time ago, and Guy
has indicated that he no longer intends to be involved with cold
fusion articles, but this is one of the most blatant cases of using
tools while involved that I've seen, and Guy hasn't seemed to have
genuinely acknowledged that he shouldn't have used the tools. That is
my reading of his comments of course, there are likely to be others.

I've included nothing in relation to Abd. He may be loquacious but he
is civil and reasonable. If anything the problem was his timidity in
advancing up the dispute resolution chain, and Guy's refusal to engage
with the issue of taking action while involved.

I have not mentioned Viridae at all; the matter appears to have been
dropped by those raising it, and closing the discussion is
sufficiently far removed from the initial action for this not be a
major concern. A private word with Viridae, as suggested by someone
else (I forget who) might be good to do, nevertheless.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Mon May 4 15:58:46 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 11:58:46 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Pending agenda items (RFCs, recall,
post-ban restrictions)
In-Reply-To: <3f797b9a0905040853h208283fey79d58401f96a9c88@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3f797b9a0905022049y53b7bad6i3c25862f0afd0026@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905031954h48e52546i8fbde1e39300cc86@mail.gmail.com>
<3f797b9a0905031957o7d951ad1u1de68719d23781bb@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905032013p4b80fc1brf2a7b623140e00d7@mail.gmail.com>
<3f797b9a0905040853h208283fey79d58401f96a9c88@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30905040858t40ff5ebjee0c1cc3b2502206@mail.gmail.com>

If you want longer versions, you can ask Abd to draft something.

Newyorkbrad

On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 11:13 PM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <
> newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps, but my initial drafts of --
>>
>> 1. "There is no procedure for arbitrator recall, because of the danger
>> that recall would be used in a partisan fashion based on the arbitrators'
>> proposals or votes in pending cases. Arbitrators may, however, be urged to
>> resign their positions by the committee or removed from office by Jimbo
>> Wales in extraordinary circumstances reflecting that they have substantially
>> lost the community's confidence or demonstrated unfitness to serve."
>>
>> and
>>
>> 2. "Where a decision bans an editor from editing, the proposed ban should
>> often be accompanied by an appropriate restriction to govern the editor's
>> conduct on-wiki should he or she return following the ban."
>>
>> -- probably aren't what you're looking for, so I'll need some further
>> guidance.
>>
>
> That's way too short... who are you, and what have you done with the real
> Brad? ;-)
>
> Kirill
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Mon May 4 21:49:40 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 07:49:40 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Pending agenda items (RFCs, recall,
post-ban restrictions)
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30905040858t40ff5ebjee0c1cc3b2502206@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3f797b9a0905022049y53b7bad6i3c25862f0afd0026@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905031954h48e52546i8fbde1e39300cc86@mail.gmail.com>
<3f797b9a0905031957o7d951ad1u1de68719d23781bb@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905032013p4b80fc1brf2a7b623140e00d7@mail.gmail.com>
<3f797b9a0905040853h208283fey79d58401f96a9c88@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905040858t40ff5ebjee0c1cc3b2502206@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830905041449l68559fceq8ec5c81f859d308f@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 1:58 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> If you want longer versions, you can ask Abd to draft something.

*chuckle*

pls; no.

--
John Vandenberg
-----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Wed May 6 20:44:50 2009
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 16:44:50 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Segregating discussions
In-Reply-To: <206791b10905061303q53925372o48f8b0d4921067b5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <206791b10905061303q53925372o48f8b0d4921067b5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eb45e7c0905061344n71d24f42o2efe3458a29c359@mail.gmail.com>

2009/5/6 Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com>

> Given Risker's recent comments about clearly labelling mailing list
> threads related to cases, and not drifting off-topic, there has been
> some discussion of this on my talk page, though I'm not sure how
> practicable or useful it is. Just wanted to draw people's attention to
> it.
>
> Carcharoth
>
> I've followed some of that discussion, though I'm not going to read Abd's
contribution (I'm having a hard enough time slogging through his stuff on
the RFAR). A separate mailing list is something of a nightmare in that the
archives would not be part of the main arbitration archives, someone would
have to act as list admin, etc. On the other hand, I'd like to hear from
some of the "longer serving" members on how they dealt with it in the past.
I think I can maintain discipline as long as the subject doesn't wander into
all sorts of threads, but I can see how it might be difficult.

Risker
------------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Thu May 7 16:10:09 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 17:10:09 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admins "enforcing policy"
Message-ID: <206791b10905070910p640db008s54f0a4e792c8f57@mail.gmail.com>

Am I the only one being very confused by the claims being made at the
Abd and JzG workshop that admins are not involved if they are
enforcing policy? Specifically, some of the claims are being made with
regards to policies where admin tools are not needed to enforce
policy. My view has always been that editors can make changes to bring
an article into line with policies and guidelines. Where did this idea
arise that you then need admins to *enforce* that? Is the idea that
admins look at a dispute at an article and decide how policy should be
applied?

The idea that admins can make changes to articles and claim that they
are enforcing NPOV just makes my head spin. Surely that isn't what the
role of admin was created for, was it? The idea of making a neutral
judgment after a review of a "coherent discussion of the local
consensus" strikes me as a better approach.

But overall, merely enforcing policy doesn't make someone uninvolved
or involved, unless I'm missing something here. It should be the other
way round. If you are uninvolved, you are best placed to enforced
policy, if that is needed.

Carcharoth

[MaliceAforethought]

From stephen.bain at gmail.com Thu May 7 16:12:36 2009
From: stephen.bain at gmail.com (Stephen Bain)
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 02:12:36 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admins "enforcing policy"
In-Reply-To: <206791b10905070910p640db008s54f0a4e792c8f57@mail.gmail.com>
References: <206791b10905070910p640db008s54f0a4e792c8f57@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f30e42de0905070912h7476efecg8bdc24b510e04d3e@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 2:10 AM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> The idea that admins can make changes to articles and claim that they
> are enforcing NPOV just makes my head spin. Surely that isn't what the
> role of admin was created for, was it?

Yes, they're radically misinterpreting the role of administrator (as
opposed to the role of editor).

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com
------------
From guy.chapman at spamcop.net Thu May 7 21:30:33 2009
From: guy.chapman at spamcop.net (Guy Chapman)
Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 22:30:33 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd case
Message-ID: <uhe60555clonom7f5obo2eomqug7iadrnn@4ax.com>

I give up. I spent all week intermittently working and fighting ADSL
problems, I have nothing like the time Abd has to devote to this and
frankly the stress of wondering whether I should subject myself to the
stress of reading the case pages is enough to stop me sleeping.

I hope you can find someone else to watch for the relentless tide of
fringe and pseudo science, the people who have been doing it so far
(including ScienceApologist and William Connolley) are falling by the
wayside due to burnout. It is fantastically important to the kooks
and nutters that Wikipedia reflects their "neutrality" not that of the
scientific establishment.

As for Abd, there is only one way to resolve a dispute with him, and
that's to give him what he wants. Look at his userspace subpages,
where he sets up faux dispute resolution processes with himself as
arbiter of truth and appropriateness, and nobody else wants to join in
because nobody other than Abd trusts Abd in that role. You can
resolve a dispute with me by agreeing to differ or by walking away,
but not by endlessly reiterating the same stuff. My crime, as far as
I can tell, is that however often Abd tells me I am wrong, I don't
accept it. And because I am an administrator, that is necessarily
admin abuse. Last use of tools in this was, what, January? And Abd
was still raising it as a current issue in late April. Well bollocks
to that, as we say in England.

I can't find the time, and suddenly I can't be bothered even to try. I
will use my "copious free time" to sing and play with my trains
instead, at least they don't follow me round trying to suck the joy
out of my life.

Oh dear, did that sound a bit tense and depressed? Perhaps that's
because I'm tense and depressed and Abd's crusade on behalf of Jed
Rothwell and other website owners is a part of that. I can fix that
by not playing. Feel free to ask anything you like by email, it gets
through eventually despite my cretinous ISP's so-called "upgrade" of
my line.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
-----------
From stephen.bain at gmail.com Thu May 7 22:35:46 2009
From: stephen.bain at gmail.com (Stephen Bain)
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 08:35:46 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admins "enforcing policy"
In-Reply-To: <9F18E972950F436BABD4954CB960B13B@EveretteCentral>
References: <206791b10905070910p640db008s54f0a4e792c8f57@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905070912h7476efecg8bdc24b510e04d3e@mail.gmail.com>
<9F18E972950F436BABD4954CB960B13B@EveretteCentral>
Message-ID: <f30e42de0905071535n5cb78b1j2c59a520ecbdd532@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 7:35 AM, Randy Everette <rlevse at cox.net> wrote:
> Concur, if all they do is enforce policy, they are not involved.

Without qualification that's not true. Admins are empowered to enforce
policies against vandalism, edit warring, incivility etc. There are a
bunch of people however arguing on the case pages that admins are
empowered to enforce content policies like verifiability or NPOV,
which is completely wrong.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com
-----------
From rlevse at cox.net Thu May 7 22:55:56 2009
From: rlevse at cox.net (Randy Everette)
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 18:55:56 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Admins "enforcing policy"
In-Reply-To: <f30e42de0905071535n5cb78b1j2c59a520ecbdd532@mail.gmail.com>
References: <206791b10905070910p640db008s54f0a4e792c8f57@mail.gmail.com><f30e42de0905070912h7476efecg8bdc24b510e04d3e@mail.gmail.com><9F18E972950F436BABD4954CB960B13B@EveretteCentral>
<f30e42de0905071535n5cb78b1j2c59a520ecbdd532@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E05F28636A784824A75B62E79E2FCFB0@EveretteCentral>

True.

r/
Randy Everette

-----Original Message-----
From: arbcom-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:arbcom-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Bain
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 6:36 PM
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list
Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] Admins "enforcing policy"

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 7:35 AM, Randy Everette <rlevse at cox.net> wrote:
> Concur, if all they do is enforce policy, they are not involved.

Without qualification that's not true. Admins are empowered to enforce
policies against vandalism, edit warring, incivility etc. There are a
bunch of people however arguing on the case pages that admins are
empowered to enforce content policies like verifiability or NPOV,
which is completely wrong.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com
-----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Thu May 7 23:13:45 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 19:13:45 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd case
In-Reply-To: <uhe60555clonom7f5obo2eomqug7iadrnn@4ax.com>
References: <uhe60555clonom7f5obo2eomqug7iadrnn@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30905071613o556278d4peb3da53fafc02924@mail.gmail.com>

I will be posting on-wiki tonight (it was going to be this morning but
something came up) with my own view of this case.

Newyorkbrad
-----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Fri May 8 01:21:00 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 21:21:00 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] JzG-Abd case
Message-ID: <c52819d30905071821k5ca2eeddn3a4f06b6b163f8cc@mail.gmail.com>

I've placed on the workshop a draft of a proposed decision in this case. I
apologize for having written at length in a case in which I am not the
designated drafter -- and I would like to emphasize that absolutely no
derogation or disrespect of Stephen Bain's draft (or the other editors'
drafts either) is intended. I just had enough differences of view
from others' views expressed thus far that I felt it might be best to post
my thoughts. I look forward to comments, either here or on-wiki.

Let's see if we can come to an agreement where to take this case, and move
to the proposed decision page, within the next day or two. As I've
indicated on the workshop, it would not be out of the question that the best
result for this case would actually be a dismissal, but I'm not proposing
that now, in part because so much time has been invested and in part because
I don't believe a majority would support it.

Newyorkbrad
----------
From stephen.bain at gmail.com Fri May 8 01:27:59 2009
From: stephen.bain at gmail.com (Stephen Bain)
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 11:27:59 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd case
In-Reply-To: <uhe60555clonom7f5obo2eomqug7iadrnn@4ax.com>
References: <uhe60555clonom7f5obo2eomqug7iadrnn@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <f30e42de0905071827m2335d00am7d809de1630b8bbf@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 7:30 AM, Guy Chapman <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> I hope you can find someone else to watch for the relentless tide of
> fringe and pseudo science, the people who have been doing it so far
> (including ScienceApologist and William Connolley) are falling by the
> wayside due to burnout. ?It is fantastically important to the kooks
> and nutters that Wikipedia reflects their "neutrality" not that of the
> scientific establishment.

A fine demonstration of why Guy should not be using the tools in this
area. He's entitled to have a position on any of these issues, as is
any editor, but one may wear either the administrative or the
editorial hat, not both.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Fri May 8 01:30:28 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 21:30:28 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd case
In-Reply-To: <f30e42de0905071827m2335d00am7d809de1630b8bbf@mail.gmail.com>
References: <uhe60555clonom7f5obo2eomqug7iadrnn@4ax.com>
<f30e42de0905071827m2335d00am7d809de1630b8bbf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30905071830j47ff4c7fpa216253ef403e8bd@mail.gmail.com>

Although one could have just as strong a point of view on these areas even
if one didn't express them in edits, so as to preserve the ability to
express them through admin actions. The case against Guy is for "adminning
while involved in a conduct dispute," not for violating NPOV per se.

Newyorkbrad
----------
From stephen.bain at gmail.com Fri May 8 01:34:45 2009
From: stephen.bain at gmail.com (Stephen Bain)
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 11:34:45 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] JzG-Abd case
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30905071821k5ca2eeddn3a4f06b6b163f8cc@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905071821k5ca2eeddn3a4f06b6b163f8cc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f30e42de0905071834i124967ban98a32e79eca6fd9a@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> I've placed on the workshop a draft of a proposed decision in this case.? I
> apologize for having written at length in a case in which I am not the
> designated drafter -- and I would like to emphasize that absolutely no
> derogation or disrespect of Stephen Bain's draft (or the other?editors'
> drafts either) is intended.? I just had enough differences of view
> from?others' views expressed thus far that I felt?it might be best to post
> my thoughts.? I look forward to comments, either here or on-wiki.

Not necessary to apologise. I indicated in the other thread that I
doubt the utility of having designated drafters anymore, once all of
the 2009 cohort that want to have a go at drafting have done so.
Designating one or more arbitrators to keep track of a case, and
liaise with the assigned clerk(s), might be a better approach.

Anyway, as you said, the case is an exercise in line-drawing, and I'm
sure there will be different positions within the Committee on that.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com
-----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Fri May 8 01:36:37 2009
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 01:36:37 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd case
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30905071830j47ff4c7fpa216253ef403e8bd@mail.gmail.com>
References: <uhe60555clonom7f5obo2eomqug7iadrnn@4ax.com>
<f30e42de0905071827m2335d00am7d809de1630b8bbf@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905071830j47ff4c7fpa216253ef403e8bd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eb45e7c0905071836m340dde14o791db42fe3613cd1@mail.gmail.com>

Conduct dispute, or content dispute? I had thought it was the latter.

Risker

2009/5/8 Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <newyorkbrad at gmail.com>

> Although one could have just as strong a point of view on these areas even
-----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Fri May 8 01:38:44 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 21:38:44 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd case
In-Reply-To: <eb45e7c0905071836m340dde14o791db42fe3613cd1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <uhe60555clonom7f5obo2eomqug7iadrnn@4ax.com>
<f30e42de0905071827m2335d00am7d809de1630b8bbf@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905071830j47ff4c7fpa216253ef403e8bd@mail.gmail.com>
<eb45e7c0905071836m340dde14o791db42fe3613cd1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30905071838r28568ed5td59c4ffc700ecc94@mail.gmail.com>

Typo, should be content dispute.

Newyorkbrad

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:

> Conduct dispute, or content dispute? I had thought it was the latter.
-----------
From kirill.lokshin at gmail.com Fri May 8 04:47:13 2009
From: kirill.lokshin at gmail.com (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 00:47:13 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd case
In-Reply-To: <uhe60555clonom7f5obo2eomqug7iadrnn@4ax.com>
References: <uhe60555clonom7f5obo2eomqug7iadrnn@4ax.com>
Message-ID: <3f797b9a0905072147td478fa6s196680b3735193a8@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Guy Chapman <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:

> I give up. I spent all week intermittently working and fighting ADSL
> problems, I have nothing like the time Abd has to devote to this and
> frankly the stress of wondering whether I should subject myself to the
> stress of reading the case pages is enough to stop me sleeping.
>
> I hope you can find someone else to watch for the relentless tide of
> fringe and pseudo science, the people who have been doing it so far
> (including ScienceApologist and William Connolley) are falling by the
> wayside due to burnout. It is fantastically important to the kooks
> and nutters that Wikipedia reflects their "neutrality" not that of the
> scientific establishment.
>
> As for Abd, there is only one way to resolve a dispute with him, and
> that's to give him what he wants. Look at his userspace subpages,
> where he sets up faux dispute resolution processes with himself as
> arbiter of truth and appropriateness, and nobody else wants to join in
> because nobody other than Abd trusts Abd in that role. You can
> resolve a dispute with me by agreeing to differ or by walking away,
> but not by endlessly reiterating the same stuff. My crime, as far as
> I can tell, is that however often Abd tells me I am wrong, I don't
> accept it. And because I am an administrator, that is necessarily
> admin abuse. Last use of tools in this was, what, January? And Abd
> was still raising it as a current issue in late April. Well bollocks
> to that, as we say in England.
>
> I can't find the time, and suddenly I can't be bothered even to try. I
> will use my "copious free time" to sing and play with my trains
> instead, at least they don't follow me round trying to suck the joy
> out of my life.
>
> Oh dear, did that sound a bit tense and depressed? Perhaps that's
> because I'm tense and depressed and Abd's crusade on behalf of Jed
> Rothwell and other website owners is a part of that. I can fix that
> by not playing. Feel free to ask anything you like by email, it gets
> through eventually despite my cretinous ISP's so-called "upgrade" of
> my line.
>
> Guy


This is to confirm that we've received your comments and will consider them.

Regards,
Kirill
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Fri May 8 09:28:49 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 10:28:49 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd case
In-Reply-To: <3f797b9a0905072147td478fa6s196680b3735193a8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <uhe60555clonom7f5obo2eomqug7iadrnn@4ax.com>
<3f797b9a0905072147td478fa6s196680b3735193a8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10905080228w6bbad629uab6ad5a2debe2c3b@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 5:47 AM, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Guy Chapman <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
>>
>> I give up. ?I spent all week intermittently working and fighting ADSL
>> problems, I have nothing like the time Abd has to devote to this and
>> frankly the stress of wondering whether I should subject myself to the
>> stress of reading the case pages is enough to stop me sleeping.
>>
>> I hope you can find someone else to watch for the relentless tide of
>> fringe and pseudo science, the people who have been doing it so far
>> (including ScienceApologist and William Connolley) are falling by the
>> wayside due to burnout. ?It is fantastically important to the kooks
>> and nutters that Wikipedia reflects their "neutrality" not that of the
>> scientific establishment.
>>
>> As for Abd, there is only one way to resolve a dispute with him, and
>> that's to give him what he wants. ?Look at his userspace subpages,
>> where he sets up faux dispute resolution processes with himself as
>> arbiter of truth and appropriateness, and nobody else wants to join in
>> because nobody other than Abd trusts Abd in that role. ?You can
>> resolve a dispute with me by agreeing to differ or by walking away,
>> but not by endlessly reiterating the same stuff. ?My crime, as far as
>> I can tell, is that however often Abd tells me I am wrong, I don't
>> accept it. ?And because I am an administrator, that is necessarily
>> admin abuse. ?Last use of tools in this was, what, January? ?And Abd
>> was still raising it as a current issue in late April. ?Well bollocks
>> to that, as we say in England.
>>
>> I can't find the time, and suddenly I can't be bothered even to try. I
>> will use my "copious free time" to sing and play with my trains
>> instead, at least they don't follow me round trying to suck the joy
>> out of my life.
>>
>> Oh dear, did that sound a bit tense and depressed? ?Perhaps that's
>> because I'm tense and depressed and Abd's crusade on behalf of Jed
>> Rothwell and other website owners is a part of that. ?I can fix that
>> by not playing. ?Feel free to ask anything you like by email, it gets
>> through eventually despite my cretinous ISP's so-called "upgrade" of
>> my line.
>>
>> Guy
>
> This is to confirm that we've received your comments and will consider them.

I may send a slightly longer reply, asking if he wants us to find
someone to summarise things for him, and advising him that if he reads
the case pages, the proposed decisions by bainer and Brad are not as
bad as he might have feared (I don't know for sure, as he might be
horrified by them), but the proposals by others and the evidence page,
will take a bit longer to read.

Do we want to ask him formally if he wants a delay until he has time
to read what he wants to read and make some sort of response? I think
we should extend that opportunity to all parties if they are
struggling to find time to deal with a case (while making the point
that participation in Wikipedia can take time to do properly, and lack
of time can't always be an excuse).

Carcharoth
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Fri May 8 10:46:45 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 06:46:45 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd case
In-Reply-To: <206791b10905080228w6bbad629uab6ad5a2debe2c3b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <uhe60555clonom7f5obo2eomqug7iadrnn@4ax.com>
<3f797b9a0905072147td478fa6s196680b3735193a8@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905080228w6bbad629uab6ad5a2debe2c3b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30905080346pe74b2bu483ee4bed17e6648@mail.gmail.com>

I had sent a quick reply yesterday to JzG indicating I'd be writing in
the case. He's seen my draft, and posted comments on my talkpage.
Unsurprisingly, Abd has posted there as well, as has another editor.
They've pointed out a couple of factual corrections needed to my
draft, but other than fixing those, I think I'm not going to say
anything else for a bit (I need to turn to commenting on other cases
anyhow), and see what comments come in on Bainer's draft and mine.

Newyorkbrad
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Fri May 8 11:33:24 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 12:33:24 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd case
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30905080346pe74b2bu483ee4bed17e6648@mail.gmail.com>
References: <uhe60555clonom7f5obo2eomqug7iadrnn@4ax.com>
<3f797b9a0905072147td478fa6s196680b3735193a8@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905080228w6bbad629uab6ad5a2debe2c3b@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905080346pe74b2bu483ee4bed17e6648@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10905080433y5bd05517y50aae9366ed848cf@mail.gmail.com>

So is JzG happier now or not?

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> I had sent a quick reply yesterday to JzG indicating I'd be writing in
----------
From szvest at gmail.com Fri May 8 12:27:10 2009
From: szvest at gmail.com (Fayssal F.)
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 12:27:10 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd case
Message-ID: <2a8c5680905080527n901c487k66579da02a7533a0@mail.gmail.com>

Asking a New Yorker about someone living just miles away from you?

Fayssal F.


> Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 12:33:24 +0100
> From: Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com>
> Subject: Re: [arbcom-l] Abd case
> To: Arbitration Committee mailing list <arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <206791b10905080433y5bd05517y50aae9366ed848cf at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> So is JzG happier now or not?
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Fri May 8 12:52:55 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 13:52:55 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd case
In-Reply-To: <2a8c5680905080527n901c487k66579da02a7533a0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2a8c5680905080527n901c487k66579da02a7533a0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10905080552w2137b2f8v89395ef6d61b0e4c@mail.gmail.com>

That's the funny thing about e-mail and the internet. Those miles away
can know more about someone than those living next door to someone, or
even in the same building.

But what I was trying to get at here is that JzG was saying he didn't
have time to look at the case pages, and I was proposing to write
formally asking if he would like a delay ("stay"?) in the case to give
him time to read the case and provide a reponse? But no-one seems to
want to say anything about that.

Actually, what I should have done was go to Brad's talk page. [...]
And several minutes later, after reading Abd's comments, I've
forgotten what Guy said. Looking again, he does seem somewhat happier.
I would hope he has read bainer's proposals as well.

I suggest we all comment on the proposals by bainer and Brad and then
let them decide how to proceed from there.

Carcharoth
-----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Sun May 10 18:33:41 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 14:33:41 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG case - moving forward
Message-ID: <c52819d30905101133h7164db0fj42118cc4acb14c24@mail.gmail.com>

My approach to the Abd-and-JzG case has now been posted on-wiki for a couple
of days. There have been some good comments there which I can use to refine
several nuances of my draft (which is why I usually believe in workshopping
things), but the substance of my thinking is still pretty much the same.

I think we are close to being ready to move this forward to voting, but
Bainer is still the drafter in this case, and I don't want to give short
shrift to his proposals just because I wrote a possible alternative.
Unfortunately, as it developed, the structure of his proposed decision and
mine is not really parallel, so we don't really have a good option of
posting the two as alternatives in each paragraph and seeing which gets more
votes. That doesn't mean, of course, that we or anyone else can't offer
alternatives as appropriate.

I'd welcome more input from arbitrators on my proposals (and Steve's and
those of the other editors who have posted as well).

Meanwhile, I'd like to convene a quick straw poll here as to whether we
should:

1. Move forward with Steve posting his workshop draft (with whatever changes
he deems appropriate) to proposed decision for voting;

2. Move forward with my draft (with some tweaking by me) posted as the
proposed decision;

3. Move forward with some other approach as the draft; or

4. Move to dismiss the case (for the reasons I've discussed on-list and
on-wiki).

All suggestions and thoughts welcome.

Newyorkbrad
-----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Sun May 10 19:55:23 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 20:55:23 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG case - moving forward
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30905101133h7164db0fj42118cc4acb14c24@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905101133h7164db0fj42118cc4acb14c24@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10905101255g14743e09o46b9a5b24bb61e9c@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> 4. Move to dismiss the case (for the reasons I've discussed on-list and
> on-wiki).

Can you reconcile your posting of a proposed decision with moving to
dismiss the case? If not, I would suggest we go ahead and vote on a
proposed decision. As for reconciling your's and bainer's proposals,
I'm tempted to say we should lock the two of you in a room and not let
you out until there is a clear proposed decision to vote on... :-)

A good starting point would be to identify the bits that can be posted
and voted on together. And to then reconcile the bits that can't be
done that way.

Carcharoth
-----------
From roger.davies.wiki at googlemail.com Sun May 10 20:05:09 2009
From: roger.davies.wiki at googlemail.com (Roger Davies)
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 21:05:09 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG case - moving forward
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30905101133h7164db0fj42118cc4acb14c24@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905101133h7164db0fj42118cc4acb14c24@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4A073375.8020708@gmail.com>


Hmmm. Not tremendously good use of arbitrator time having two apparently
competing decisions, which we have to decide on before we decide on the
substance. How on earth did this arise?


Roger


Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote:
> My approach to the Abd-and-JzG case has now been posted on-wiki for a
----------
From rlevse at cox.net Sun May 10 20:13:10 2009
From: rlevse at cox.net (Randy Everette)
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 16:13:10 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG case - moving forward
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30905101133h7164db0fj42118cc4acb14c24@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905101133h7164db0fj42118cc4acb14c24@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <91B6CFC0F321412B9411F7193BDA656B@EveretteCentral>

I have to agree with Cla68 on this. JzG has been reminded about this before.
Why are we merely reminding him again?



r/

Randy Everette

_____

From: arbcom-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:arbcom-l-bounces at lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Newyorkbrad
(Wikipedia)
Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 2:34 PM
To: Arbitration Committee mailing list
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG case - moving forward



My approach to the Abd-and-JzG case has now been posted on-wiki for a couple
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Sun May 10 20:23:22 2009
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 16:23:22 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG case - moving forward
In-Reply-To: <91B6CFC0F321412B9411F7193BDA656B@EveretteCentral>
References: <c52819d30905101133h7164db0fj42118cc4acb14c24@mail.gmail.com>
<91B6CFC0F321412B9411F7193BDA656B@EveretteCentral>
Message-ID: <eb45e7c0905101323h996ab7bk34c55c6454e4a99e@mail.gmail.com>

I'm less inclined to hammer on JzG because he did disengage, months ago,
without any Arbcom threats.

I have more concern about Abd, who has pursued this issue almost to the
exclusion of any other work on the project, for months on end, and who still
to this day does not see this as disruptive or an abuse of community time.
If this was the first time he had done it, I'd call it a learning
experience. It isn't though, and failing to issue at minimum a warning to
Abd while going much further for JzG will simply encourage Abd to tie up
admins *who have already modified their behaviour* for months on end. When I
read that Abd is within a hair's breadth of getting topic-banned from
exactly the same page because of his tendentious editing, I'm hard pressed
to do anything that he could interpret as support for his position.

Risker

2009/5/10 Randy Everette <rlevse at cox.net>

> I have to agree with Cla68 on this. JzG has been reminded about this
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Sun May 10 21:06:49 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 17:06:49 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG case - moving forward
In-Reply-To: <4A073375.8020708@gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905101133h7164db0fj42118cc4acb14c24@mail.gmail.com>
<4A073375.8020708@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30905101406q4d49de12i72eef2abb2b7e477@mail.gmail.com>

It arose because I read Bainer's draft and fundamentally disagreed with his
analysis of the case as well as the points his decision chose to emphasize.
So my choices were either to nitpick at his draft, or to write what I
thought should be written.

That situation is going to happen sometimes.

Newyorkbrad

On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Roger Davies <
roger.davies.wiki at googlemail.com> wrote:

>
> Hmmm. Not tremendously good use of arbitrator time having two apparently
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Sun May 10 21:06:59 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 22:06:59 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG case - moving forward
In-Reply-To: <eb45e7c0905101323h996ab7bk34c55c6454e4a99e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905101133h7164db0fj42118cc4acb14c24@mail.gmail.com>
<91B6CFC0F321412B9411F7193BDA656B@EveretteCentral>
<eb45e7c0905101323h996ab7bk34c55c6454e4a99e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10905101406r6128c63di19ec73c69c71fa34@mail.gmail.com>

To be fair, I suspect another editor could take Abd's arguments and
make them stick. It is the way he presents his arguments that is
really annoying to many people who don't have the time or patience to
assimilate them, or can spend long enough to actually pick holes in
his logic (and although he is right on some things, the holes in the
logic are there).

Specifically, he does steer clear of noticeboards, and Brad's mention
of noticeboards confused things. It is dispute resolution mechanisms
(or his own brand of that) which we want him to steer clear of.
Specifically, I'd have no problem telling him bluntly to do some
actual editing and cut back on the dispute resolution.

Carcharoth

On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Risker <risker.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm less inclined to hammer on JzG because he did disengage, months ago,
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Sun May 10 21:09:57 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 17:09:57 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG case - moving forward
In-Reply-To: <91B6CFC0F321412B9411F7193BDA656B@EveretteCentral>
References: <c52819d30905101133h7164db0fj42118cc4acb14c24@mail.gmail.com>
<91B6CFC0F321412B9411F7193BDA656B@EveretteCentral>
Message-ID: <c52819d30905101409w2ee4aaaep6e182a4da19defef@mail.gmail.com>

Because it's not all that clear that what he did really is a violation -- or
put differently, he could (and I think did) hold the good-faith view that it
wasn't one.

Here's the issue: If an administrator edits an article for the purpose of
enforcing NPOV, eliminating UNDUE and FRINGE, etc., does that make him a
party to a "content dispute" that precludes his acting as an administrator
on that article ... or is it more that he was ALREADY acting as an
administrator by enforcing policies, so using the tools is just more of the
same.

As I say in my draft, his participation in editing [[Cold fusion]] was such
that the better practice would have been to let someone else push the
buttons. He knows that now. But it's not a blatant violation as Abd or
Cla68 would suggest, either.

Newyorkbrad

On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Randy Everette <rlevse at cox.net> wrote:

> I have to agree with Cla68 on this. JzG has been reminded about this
> before. Why are we merely reminding him again?
>
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Sun May 10 21:11:24 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 22:11:24 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG case - moving forward
In-Reply-To: <eb45e7c0905101323h996ab7bk34c55c6454e4a99e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905101133h7164db0fj42118cc4acb14c24@mail.gmail.com>
<91B6CFC0F321412B9411F7193BDA656B@EveretteCentral>
<eb45e7c0905101323h996ab7bk34c55c6454e4a99e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10905101411s47c073d7uc1727df4dfd9f38c@mail.gmail.com>

But more productively, the simple solution is to sanction both JzG and
Abd. The question, I suspect, is to what level and how. Abd doesn't
have prior ArbCom cases against him, JzG does. Abd was, to use
bainer's words "too timid" and should have escalated earlier, back at
the time when JzG was giving him the brush off (and no, merely walking
away and refusing to say you won't do it again in the *general* case,
isn't good enough). But JzG is has "clue" and Abd has some clue but it
gets lost in a sea of words. Surely someone can come up with a
balanced decision that pulls all these points together.

Carcharoth
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Sun May 10 21:12:53 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 17:12:53 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG case - moving forward
In-Reply-To: <206791b10905101255g14743e09o46b9a5b24bb61e9c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905101133h7164db0fj42118cc4acb14c24@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905101255g14743e09o46b9a5b24bb61e9c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30905101412g72ccfe57l4a2b1c9f93ef66d0@mail.gmail.com>

>
> > 4. Move to dismiss the case (for the reasons I've discussed on-list and
> > on-wiki).
> Can you reconcile your posting of a proposed decision with moving to
> dismiss the case?


Yes, I can. I had suggested dismissal days ago but got no support from
other arbitrators, so I concluded there must be more to this than met the
eye, and entered into the comprehensive analysis that accompanies doing a
draft. But when I had finished analyzing and drafting, I wound up where I
began: a marginal violation, several months ago, that would have been
forgotten by now if Abd had not long ago crossed the line between
persistence and perseveration.

Having said that, I'm not pushing for dismissal at this stage, because we
ought to get something out of the work that's been done. I was merely
remarking the option is still there.

Newyorkbrad
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Sun May 10 21:16:19 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 22:16:19 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG case - moving forward
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30905101409w2ee4aaaep6e182a4da19defef@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905101133h7164db0fj42118cc4acb14c24@mail.gmail.com>
<91B6CFC0F321412B9411F7193BDA656B@EveretteCentral>
<c52819d30905101409w2ee4aaaep6e182a4da19defef@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10905101416w558218d3t7873b7304b07798d@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> Because it's not all that clear that what he did really is a violation -- or
> put differently, he could (and I think did) hold the good-faith view that it
> wasn't?one.
>
> Here's the issue:? If an administrator edits an article for the purpose of
> enforcing NPOV, eliminating UNDUE and FRINGE, etc., does that make him a
> party to a "content dispute" that precludes his acting as an administrator
> on that article ... or is it more that he was ALREADY acting as an
> administrator by enforcing policies, so using the tools is just more of the
> same.

Huh? You should have already seen bainer and me saying on-wiki that
enforcing NPOV is not the role of an admin, so why are you repeating
that mistake here on the mailing list?

> As I say in my draft, his participation in editing [[Cold fusion]] was such
> that the better practice would have been to let someone else push the
> buttons.? He knows that now.? But it's not a blatant violation?as Abd or
> Cla68 would suggest, either.

So go and debate that on-wiki with them (and other arbs). We need to
explain our viewpoints in public. There is substantial support on the
RfC for the view that JzG was involved here, so something along those
lines should go into the proposed decision and it can be opposed
there, rather than be edited out at the drafting stage.

Carcharoth

[MaliceAforethought]

From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Sun May 10 21:17:42 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 22:17:42 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG case - moving forward
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30905101412g72ccfe57l4a2b1c9f93ef66d0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905101133h7164db0fj42118cc4acb14c24@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905101255g14743e09o46b9a5b24bb61e9c@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905101412g72ccfe57l4a2b1c9f93ef66d0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10905101417n5cdc4c8cl5097c6dae9f1aed2@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 10:12 PM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 4. Move to dismiss the case (for the reasons I've discussed on-list and
>> > on-wiki).
>> Can you reconcile your posting of a proposed decision with moving to
>> dismiss the case?
>
>
> Yes, I can.? I had suggested dismissal days ago but got no support from
> other arbitrators, so I concluded there must be more to this than met the
> eye, and entered into the comprehensive analysis that?accompanies doing a
> draft.? But when I had finished analyzing and drafting, I wound up where I
> began:? a marginal violation, several months ago, that would have been
> forgotten by now if Abd had not long ago crossed the line between
> persistence and perseveration.
>
> Having said that, I'm not pushing for dismissal at this stage, because we
> ought to get something out of the work that's been done.? I was merely
> remarking the option is still there.

If you dismiss the case, you will encourage JzG and others to go right
back to the way they were behaving before.

If Abd gets no sanction, he will be enouraged to continue his behaviour.

We definitely need to vote on this.

Carcharoth
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Sun May 10 21:20:37 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 17:20:37 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG case - moving forward
In-Reply-To: <206791b10905101416w558218d3t7873b7304b07798d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905101133h7164db0fj42118cc4acb14c24@mail.gmail.com>
<91B6CFC0F321412B9411F7193BDA656B@EveretteCentral>
<c52819d30905101409w2ee4aaaep6e182a4da19defef@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905101416w558218d3t7873b7304b07798d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30905101420o17036a12pf24b7022a07a20b1@mail.gmail.com>

I'm making a slightly different point: not that JzG really was
"uninvolved," but that it was reasonable for him to believe that he was
given the lack of clarity about exactly where the line is.

I don't quite understand what is meant by "enforcing NPOV isn't an
administrator function." I think what you mean is that it's not an
admin-ONLY function ... but neither is fighting vandalism or combatting
harassment a lot of other things.

My view of the case does have some support in the workshop comments too.
There may be no alternative to other arbs slogging through the page, even
though it's hard going due to the length of Abd's posts.
I'm happy to have this debate on-wiki (and it will be great to have it on
the PD page, where it will be much easier to read). The purpose of this
thread was simply to figure out whether Bainer's draft or mine was closer to
the mark so it should become the baseline PD, that's all.

Newyorkbrad


On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 5:16 PM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com>wrote:

> On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
> <newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Because it's not all that clear that what he did really is a violation --
----------
From wizardmanwiki at gmail.com Sun May 10 21:23:33 2009
From: wizardmanwiki at gmail.com (Wizardman)
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 17:23:33 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG case - moving forward
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30905101420o17036a12pf24b7022a07a20b1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905101133h7164db0fj42118cc4acb14c24@mail.gmail.com>
<91B6CFC0F321412B9411F7193BDA656B@EveretteCentral>
<c52819d30905101409w2ee4aaaep6e182a4da19defef@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905101416w558218d3t7873b7304b07798d@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905101420o17036a12pf24b7022a07a20b1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ef59f700905101423g5b8c3cadp3fe16245f99cb7dc@mail.gmail.com>

If we can't decide between the two, I saw just combine them and post the
whole thing at PD so we can make progress.
~W

On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <
newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm making a slightly different point: not that JzG really was
----------
From rlevse at cox.net Sun May 10 21:49:59 2009
From: rlevse at cox.net (Randy Everette)
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 17:49:59 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG case - moving forward
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30905101409w2ee4aaaep6e182a4da19defef@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905101133h7164db0fj42118cc4acb14c24@mail.gmail.com><91B6CFC0F321412B9411F7193BDA656B@EveretteCentral>
<c52819d30905101409w2ee4aaaep6e182a4da19defef@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B253188E98864BBA9F54FBE5CE68559D@EveretteCentral>

JzG has known for a long time what the better practice is, He just chose to
ignore it. Just like MZMcBride knew he was causing problems and thumb his
nose at everyone. There's a real chance people will see this as unequal
treatment.



r/

Randy Everette
----------
From rlevse at cox.net Sun May 10 21:51:56 2009
From: rlevse at cox.net (Randy Everette)
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 17:51:56 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG case - moving forward
In-Reply-To: <206791b10905101417n5cdc4c8cl5097c6dae9f1aed2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905101133h7164db0fj42118cc4acb14c24@mail.gmail.com><206791b10905101255g14743e09o46b9a5b24bb61e9c@mail.gmail.com><c52819d30905101412g72ccfe57l4a2b1c9f93ef66d0@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905101417n5cdc4c8cl5097c6dae9f1aed2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0BE27CF915204F8B8AA3AC7556A5BBE2@EveretteCentral>

Yes indeed, we need to do something here with both of them. We obviously
don't agree on what though.

r/
Randy Everette
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Sun May 10 22:01:19 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 18:01:19 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG case - moving forward
In-Reply-To: <0BE27CF915204F8B8AA3AC7556A5BBE2@EveretteCentral>
References: <c52819d30905101133h7164db0fj42118cc4acb14c24@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905101255g14743e09o46b9a5b24bb61e9c@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905101412g72ccfe57l4a2b1c9f93ef66d0@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905101417n5cdc4c8cl5097c6dae9f1aed2@mail.gmail.com>
<0BE27CF915204F8B8AA3AC7556A5BBE2@EveretteCentral>
Message-ID: <c52819d30905101501i2ee358e1y84f8be8fdbb7bc37@mail.gmail.com>

Unless someone says in the next 24 hours that they prefer my approach, in
which case we can continue discussing this, I suggest that Bainer post his
draft as the PD and we'll go from there.

Newyorkbrad

On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Randy Everette <rlevse at cox.net> wrote:

> Yes indeed, we need to do something here with both of them. We obviously
> don't agree on what though.
>
> r/
> Randy Everette
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Mon May 11 14:29:57 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 10:29:57 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG case - moving forward
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30905101501i2ee358e1y84f8be8fdbb7bc37@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905101133h7164db0fj42118cc4acb14c24@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905101255g14743e09o46b9a5b24bb61e9c@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905101412g72ccfe57l4a2b1c9f93ef66d0@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905101417n5cdc4c8cl5097c6dae9f1aed2@mail.gmail.com>
<0BE27CF915204F8B8AA3AC7556A5BBE2@EveretteCentral>
<c52819d30905101501i2ee358e1y84f8be8fdbb7bc37@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30905110729x59998c62l9fd0642bec69942c@mail.gmail.com>

*pinging* Again, unless anyone disagrees, I think Bainer ought to prepare
to move his draft to proposed decision, feeling free to incorporate any of
my thoughts (or those of anyone else on the workshop) that he may happen to
agree with.

Newyorkbrad

On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) <
newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:

> Unless someone says in the next 24 hours that they prefer my approach, in
----------
From stephen.bain at gmail.com Mon May 11 16:45:10 2009
From: stephen.bain at gmail.com (Stephen Bain)
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 02:45:10 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG case - moving forward
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30905110729x59998c62l9fd0642bec69942c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905101133h7164db0fj42118cc4acb14c24@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905101255g14743e09o46b9a5b24bb61e9c@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905101412g72ccfe57l4a2b1c9f93ef66d0@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905101417n5cdc4c8cl5097c6dae9f1aed2@mail.gmail.com>
<0BE27CF915204F8B8AA3AC7556A5BBE2@EveretteCentral>
<c52819d30905101501i2ee358e1y84f8be8fdbb7bc37@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905110729x59998c62l9fd0642bec69942c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f30e42de0905110945j1fbaa36esc0cfe9ff9defdce6@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 12:29 AM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> *pinging*?? Again, unless anyone disagrees, I think Bainer ought to prepare
> to move his draft to proposed decision, feeling free to incorporate any of
> my thoughts (or those of anyone else on the workshop) that he may happen to
> agree with.

Yes, the heat/light ratio on the workshop is declining rapidly.

I've run out of time tonight, I'll do it tomorrow. Well, actually it's
later today at this point

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Mon May 11 16:50:34 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 12:50:34 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG case - moving forward
In-Reply-To: <f30e42de0905110945j1fbaa36esc0cfe9ff9defdce6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905101133h7164db0fj42118cc4acb14c24@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905101255g14743e09o46b9a5b24bb61e9c@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905101412g72ccfe57l4a2b1c9f93ef66d0@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905101417n5cdc4c8cl5097c6dae9f1aed2@mail.gmail.com>
<0BE27CF915204F8B8AA3AC7556A5BBE2@EveretteCentral>
<c52819d30905101501i2ee358e1y84f8be8fdbb7bc37@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905110729x59998c62l9fd0642bec69942c@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905110945j1fbaa36esc0cfe9ff9defdce6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30905110950od09ed93q3f214ba21f66dbcf@mail.gmail.com>

Perhaps the heat/light ratio is declining because people are waiting for a
cold fusion reaction to provide the heat, and it's not working.............
Newyorkbrad
----------
From sydney.poore at gmail.com Mon May 11 16:52:55 2009
From: sydney.poore at gmail.com (FloNight)
Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 12:52:55 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG case - moving forward
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30905110950od09ed93q3f214ba21f66dbcf@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905101133h7164db0fj42118cc4acb14c24@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905101255g14743e09o46b9a5b24bb61e9c@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905101412g72ccfe57l4a2b1c9f93ef66d0@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905101417n5cdc4c8cl5097c6dae9f1aed2@mail.gmail.com>
<0BE27CF915204F8B8AA3AC7556A5BBE2@EveretteCentral>
<c52819d30905101501i2ee358e1y84f8be8fdbb7bc37@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905110729x59998c62l9fd0642bec69942c@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905110945j1fbaa36esc0cfe9ff9defdce6@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905110950od09ed93q3f214ba21f66dbcf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <16032ea0905110952o21f6395dq8f0d6215795a78c5@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps the heat/light ratio is declining because people are waiting for a
> cold fusion reaction to provide the heat, and it's not working.............
> Newyorkbrad

;-)

Sydney
----------
From stephen.bain at gmail.com Tue May 12 16:32:06 2009
From: stephen.bain at gmail.com (Stephen Bain)
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 02:32:06 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG case - moving forward
In-Reply-To: <f30e42de0905110945j1fbaa36esc0cfe9ff9defdce6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905101133h7164db0fj42118cc4acb14c24@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905101255g14743e09o46b9a5b24bb61e9c@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905101412g72ccfe57l4a2b1c9f93ef66d0@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905101417n5cdc4c8cl5097c6dae9f1aed2@mail.gmail.com>
<0BE27CF915204F8B8AA3AC7556A5BBE2@EveretteCentral>
<c52819d30905101501i2ee358e1y84f8be8fdbb7bc37@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905110729x59998c62l9fd0642bec69942c@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905110945j1fbaa36esc0cfe9ff9defdce6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f30e42de0905120932q301686ebt176f6703d86aef8d@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 2:45 AM, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I've run out of time tonight, I'll do it tomorrow. Well, actually it's
> later today at this point

Later today ended up being early tomorrow, but it's now posted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...oposed_decision

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Tue May 12 16:40:47 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 17:40:47 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG case - moving forward
In-Reply-To: <f30e42de0905120932q301686ebt176f6703d86aef8d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905101133h7164db0fj42118cc4acb14c24@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905101255g14743e09o46b9a5b24bb61e9c@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905101412g72ccfe57l4a2b1c9f93ef66d0@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905101417n5cdc4c8cl5097c6dae9f1aed2@mail.gmail.com>
<0BE27CF915204F8B8AA3AC7556A5BBE2@EveretteCentral>
<c52819d30905101501i2ee358e1y84f8be8fdbb7bc37@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905110729x59998c62l9fd0642bec69942c@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905110945j1fbaa36esc0cfe9ff9defdce6@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905120932q301686ebt176f6703d86aef8d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10905120940n5961725cp7fede29d9bd0df10@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 2:45 AM, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I've run out of time tonight, I'll do it tomorrow. Well, actually it's
>> later today at this point
>
> Later today ended up being early tomorrow, but it's now posted.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...oposed_decision

Goodness, we now have three cases in the voting stage. And I only
finished voting on West Bank last night. Anyone would think we were
trying to speed things up and reduce our caseload...

In less flippant mode: thanks for posting that Stephen. Will get to
that and Ryulong by the end of the week at latest, and hopefully one
of them tonight after tying up loose ends on Aitias.

Carcharoth
----------
From sydney.poore at gmail.com Tue May 12 16:42:13 2009
From: sydney.poore at gmail.com (FloNight)
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 12:42:13 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG case - moving forward
In-Reply-To: <f30e42de0905120932q301686ebt176f6703d86aef8d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905101133h7164db0fj42118cc4acb14c24@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905101255g14743e09o46b9a5b24bb61e9c@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905101412g72ccfe57l4a2b1c9f93ef66d0@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905101417n5cdc4c8cl5097c6dae9f1aed2@mail.gmail.com>
<0BE27CF915204F8B8AA3AC7556A5BBE2@EveretteCentral>
<c52819d30905101501i2ee358e1y84f8be8fdbb7bc37@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905110729x59998c62l9fd0642bec69942c@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905110945j1fbaa36esc0cfe9ff9defdce6@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905120932q301686ebt176f6703d86aef8d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <16032ea0905120942p6d5d7c46lad529e3bf17fd817@mail.gmail.com>

Excellent :-)

Sydney

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 12:32 PM, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 2:45 AM, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I've run out of time tonight, I'll do it tomorrow. Well, actually it's
>> later today at this point
>
> Later today ended up being early tomorrow, but it's now posted.
----------
From rlevse at cox.net Tue May 12 22:21:04 2009
From: rlevse at cox.net (Randy Everette)
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 18:21:04 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd
Message-ID: <46BCB09C4EBA4FE0B1CED590C991EB27@EveretteCentral>

Why is there no remedy against Abd?



r/

Randy Everette
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Tue May 12 22:28:55 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 23:28:55 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd
In-Reply-To: <46BCB09C4EBA4FE0B1CED590C991EB27@EveretteCentral>
References: <46BCB09C4EBA4FE0B1CED590C991EB27@EveretteCentral>
Message-ID: <206791b10905121528t61fcad71y9a81b13cb4ee6bf@mail.gmail.com>

Originally I believe there was no finding of fact.
Then Brad made some workshop suggestions.
Steven then incorporated a finding of fact, but no remedy.

Have a finding of fact but no remedy is not unheard of.
If I had time, I could do a list of cases with "orphaned findings of fact".

Carcharoth

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 11:21 PM, Randy Everette <rlevse at cox.net> wrote:
> Why is there no remedy against Abd?
----------
From rlevse at cox.net Tue May 12 22:32:24 2009
From: rlevse at cox.net (Randy Everette)
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 18:32:24 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd
In-Reply-To: <206791b10905121528t61fcad71y9a81b13cb4ee6bf@mail.gmail.com>
References: <46BCB09C4EBA4FE0B1CED590C991EB27@EveretteCentral>
<206791b10905121528t61fcad71y9a81b13cb4ee6bf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <60D13E8451F14E2289C962196E67EF14@EveretteCentral>

I think he needs a rememdy.

r/
Randy Everette
----------
From kirill.lokshin at gmail.com Tue May 12 22:35:58 2009
From: kirill.lokshin at gmail.com (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 18:35:58 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd
In-Reply-To: <60D13E8451F14E2289C962196E67EF14@EveretteCentral>
References: <46BCB09C4EBA4FE0B1CED590C991EB27@EveretteCentral>
<206791b10905121528t61fcad71y9a81b13cb4ee6bf@mail.gmail.com>
<60D13E8451F14E2289C962196E67EF14@EveretteCentral>
Message-ID: <3f797b9a0905121535j64a7783fk651f42bd1b59db85@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Randy Everette <rlevse at cox.net> wrote:

> I think he needs a rememdy.
>
Then by all means go ahead and propose one.

Kirill
----------
From rlevse at cox.net Tue May 12 22:39:22 2009
From: rlevse at cox.net (Randy Everette)
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 18:39:22 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd
In-Reply-To: <3f797b9a0905121535j64a7783fk651f42bd1b59db85@mail.gmail.com>
References: <46BCB09C4EBA4FE0B1CED590C991EB27@EveretteCentral><206791b10905121528t61fcad71y9a81b13cb4ee6bf@mail.gmail.com><60D13E8451F14E2289C962196E67EF14@EveretteCentral>
<3f797b9a0905121535j64a7783fk651f42bd1b59db85@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B982532C2B2842BC98C308101AABE61B@EveretteCentral>

I think I will.



r/

Randy Everette
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Wed May 13 16:50:20 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 17:50:20 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Case scope - some thoughts
Message-ID: <206791b10905130950u6fdcd879p9b8502118f2dc03d@mail.gmail.com>

Something Abd wrote:

"Allowing cases to widen invites immature charges and countercharges
and wasted discussion."

I'd say it is the other way round, that immature charges and
countercharges and wasted discussions are seen when parties widen the
scope or are not given clear and firm guidance as to the scope. The
more I see of cases, the more I'm thinking we really do need to tackle
scope.

Either:

A) Accept that a particular case is complicated, with no clear scope,
and sit back and wait, and try and issue a massive decision that
covers everything.

or:

B) Accept a case with a clear scope in mind, *communicate* that scope,
wait for the evidence, review and widen scope if needed, or confirm
scope and issue a decision based on that scope, while throwing the
unresolved bits back to the community or other areas of dispute
resolution.

The latter approach may lead to unresolved things coming back to us,
or not being dealt with, but we shouldn't be trying to resolve
everything in one go when some things are still developing. It is also
quicker than the previous approach.

Thoughts?

Carcharoth
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Fri May 15 06:38:02 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 07:38:02 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG case - moving forward
In-Reply-To: <f30e42de0905120932q301686ebt176f6703d86aef8d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905101133h7164db0fj42118cc4acb14c24@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905101255g14743e09o46b9a5b24bb61e9c@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905101412g72ccfe57l4a2b1c9f93ef66d0@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905101417n5cdc4c8cl5097c6dae9f1aed2@mail.gmail.com>
<0BE27CF915204F8B8AA3AC7556A5BBE2@EveretteCentral>
<c52819d30905101501i2ee358e1y84f8be8fdbb7bc37@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905110729x59998c62l9fd0642bec69942c@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905110945j1fbaa36esc0cfe9ff9defdce6@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905120932q301686ebt176f6703d86aef8d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10905142338w3569ac3k4f283f8d5bbeab84@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 2:45 AM, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I've run out of time tonight, I'll do it tomorrow. Well, actually it's
>> later today at this point
>
> Later today ended up being early tomorrow, but it's now posted.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...oposed_decision

There have been quite a lot of new additions and alternatives. Even if
people have already voted, could they go back and have another look at
some point? Thanks. The new additions (added by those other than
bainer) at the time of writing are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...ative_actions_2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...ion_of_disputes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...pute_resolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...n#Communication

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...ion#Disengaging

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...te_resolution_2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...ion#Abd_advised

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...n#Abd_advised_2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...ision#Abd_urged

Carcharoth
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Sat May 16 10:48:01 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 11:48:01 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG case - moving forward
In-Reply-To: <206791b10905142338w3569ac3k4f283f8d5bbeab84@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905101133h7164db0fj42118cc4acb14c24@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905101255g14743e09o46b9a5b24bb61e9c@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905101412g72ccfe57l4a2b1c9f93ef66d0@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905101417n5cdc4c8cl5097c6dae9f1aed2@mail.gmail.com>
<0BE27CF915204F8B8AA3AC7556A5BBE2@EveretteCentral>
<c52819d30905101501i2ee358e1y84f8be8fdbb7bc37@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905110729x59998c62l9fd0642bec69942c@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905110945j1fbaa36esc0cfe9ff9defdce6@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905120932q301686ebt176f6703d86aef8d@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905142338w3569ac3k4f283f8d5bbeab84@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10905160348m74abbfa5l32db9a6e2e3178b6@mail.gmail.com>

Mainly a note for Vassyana to point out some replies I've made on the
PD page to his comments. And in particular, the spam blacklist
incident where I ended up doing a play-by-play (as Kirill puts it) of
what I see as what happened here. If that would be more useful in
evidence, I'll go and put it there.

More generally, while the PD page may not be the right place for them,
I do think detailed looks at what happened in a particular case are
better than wording that oversimplifies and glossses over what
happened (I'm referring mainly to the Aitias case here).

Carcharoth
----------

From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Sat May 16 18:38:30 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 19:38:30 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG case - moving forward
In-Reply-To: <206791b10905160348m74abbfa5l32db9a6e2e3178b6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905101133h7164db0fj42118cc4acb14c24@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905101412g72ccfe57l4a2b1c9f93ef66d0@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905101417n5cdc4c8cl5097c6dae9f1aed2@mail.gmail.com>
<0BE27CF915204F8B8AA3AC7556A5BBE2@EveretteCentral>
<c52819d30905101501i2ee358e1y84f8be8fdbb7bc37@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905110729x59998c62l9fd0642bec69942c@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905110945j1fbaa36esc0cfe9ff9defdce6@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905120932q301686ebt176f6703d86aef8d@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905142338w3569ac3k4f283f8d5bbeab84@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905160348m74abbfa5l32db9a6e2e3178b6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10905161138k20db2364k741a84a4481ef7dc@mail.gmail.com>

One more note - I added a sentence to one of the findings of fact, so
those who have already voted there should speak up if they object.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req..._spam_blacklist

I don't intend to do this sort of thing very often, but sometimes
making a change like this (which I've seen other arbs do) is easier
than re-voting on a new wording. I know that sort of change is usually
copyediting, and if it is anything more than that, I will always leave
a note here. Anything really substantial, I'll do an alternative to
vote on.

Carcharoth
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Sun May 17 01:19:03 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 02:19:03 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG case - moving forward
In-Reply-To: <206791b10905161138k20db2364k741a84a4481ef7dc@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905101133h7164db0fj42118cc4acb14c24@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905101417n5cdc4c8cl5097c6dae9f1aed2@mail.gmail.com>
<0BE27CF915204F8B8AA3AC7556A5BBE2@EveretteCentral>
<c52819d30905101501i2ee358e1y84f8be8fdbb7bc37@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905110729x59998c62l9fd0642bec69942c@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905110945j1fbaa36esc0cfe9ff9defdce6@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905120932q301686ebt176f6703d86aef8d@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905142338w3569ac3k4f283f8d5bbeab84@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905160348m74abbfa5l32db9a6e2e3178b6@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905161138k20db2364k741a84a4481ef7dc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10905161819o731796e3ibab64c55777f14d8@mail.gmail.com>

There has been what looks like a well-grounded objection to FoF 3
("JzG's use of the spam blacklist"):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...of_blacklisting

I'm away tomorrow, but if others could review that and work out what
needs doing, that would be great.

Carcharoth
----------
From stephen.bain at gmail.com Sun May 17 01:48:21 2009
From: stephen.bain at gmail.com (Stephen Bain)
Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 11:48:21 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG case - moving forward
In-Reply-To: <206791b10905161138k20db2364k741a84a4481ef7dc@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905101133h7164db0fj42118cc4acb14c24@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905101417n5cdc4c8cl5097c6dae9f1aed2@mail.gmail.com>
<0BE27CF915204F8B8AA3AC7556A5BBE2@EveretteCentral>
<c52819d30905101501i2ee358e1y84f8be8fdbb7bc37@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905110729x59998c62l9fd0642bec69942c@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905110945j1fbaa36esc0cfe9ff9defdce6@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905120932q301686ebt176f6703d86aef8d@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905142338w3569ac3k4f283f8d5bbeab84@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905160348m74abbfa5l32db9a6e2e3178b6@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905161138k20db2364k741a84a4481ef7dc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f30e42de0905161848i75b282d4o8f0a205a61a837d1@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 4:38 AM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com> wrote:
> One more note - I added a sentence to one of the findings of fact, so
> those who have already voted there should speak up if they object.

I took out the additional sentence; as you note in your later message,
the talk page discussion indicates that's probably not an accurate
representation of what's required.

The point of those parts of the finding is to indicate that Guy did
not even try to compensate for taking action while involved by
attempting prior discussion, or explaining himself through edit
summaries, and in one case did not record the addition anywhere at all
(in both cases failing to comply with the instructions to note
additions at the log).

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com
----------
From stephen.bain at gmail.com Sun May 17 02:01:20 2009
From: stephen.bain at gmail.com (Stephen Bain)
Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 12:01:20 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG case - moving forward
In-Reply-To: <f30e42de0905161848i75b282d4o8f0a205a61a837d1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905101133h7164db0fj42118cc4acb14c24@mail.gmail.com>
<0BE27CF915204F8B8AA3AC7556A5BBE2@EveretteCentral>
<c52819d30905101501i2ee358e1y84f8be8fdbb7bc37@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905110729x59998c62l9fd0642bec69942c@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905110945j1fbaa36esc0cfe9ff9defdce6@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905120932q301686ebt176f6703d86aef8d@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905142338w3569ac3k4f283f8d5bbeab84@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905160348m74abbfa5l32db9a6e2e3178b6@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905161138k20db2364k741a84a4481ef7dc@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905161848i75b282d4o8f0a205a61a837d1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f30e42de0905161901o7fcb673et9a22a4c3da322b68@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I took out the additional sentence; as you note in your later message,
> the talk page discussion indicates that's probably not an accurate
> representation of what's required.

On a related note, I've struck a part of another proposal:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=290425940

I presume the disagreement is not to do with the essential thrust of
the proposition, that substantive decisions about what links are or
are not to be blacklisted are not justiciable by the Committee?

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Sun May 17 07:17:50 2009
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 07:17:50 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG case - moving forward
In-Reply-To: <f30e42de0905161901o7fcb673et9a22a4c3da322b68@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905101133h7164db0fj42118cc4acb14c24@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905101501i2ee358e1y84f8be8fdbb7bc37@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905110729x59998c62l9fd0642bec69942c@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905110945j1fbaa36esc0cfe9ff9defdce6@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905120932q301686ebt176f6703d86aef8d@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905142338w3569ac3k4f283f8d5bbeab84@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905160348m74abbfa5l32db9a6e2e3178b6@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905161138k20db2364k741a84a4481ef7dc@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905161848i75b282d4o8f0a205a61a837d1@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905161901o7fcb673et9a22a4c3da322b68@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eb45e7c0905170017w162ffa69m1bfb861e3dcb2c6d@mail.gmail.com>

Reminder to those who have already voted to check back and make sure you
have indicated first/second choices on the proposals with multiple options.
There's a pretty good chance we can get this one ready for closing within
the next 48 hours, I would think.

Risker
----------
From rlevse at cox.net Sun May 17 11:38:52 2009
From: rlevse at cox.net (Randy Everette)
Date: Sun, 17 May 2009 07:38:52 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd Jzg
Message-ID: <66F3B0ED26FA4E4083D6F159EACDFB4B@EveretteCentral>

This is about ready to close. Looks like a few people didn't vote on a few
things. Let's wrap this up.



r/

Randy Everette
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Mon May 18 06:27:20 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 07:27:20 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd and JzG case - moving forward
In-Reply-To: <f30e42de0905161848i75b282d4o8f0a205a61a837d1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c52819d30905101133h7164db0fj42118cc4acb14c24@mail.gmail.com>
<0BE27CF915204F8B8AA3AC7556A5BBE2@EveretteCentral>
<c52819d30905101501i2ee358e1y84f8be8fdbb7bc37@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905110729x59998c62l9fd0642bec69942c@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905110945j1fbaa36esc0cfe9ff9defdce6@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905120932q301686ebt176f6703d86aef8d@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905142338w3569ac3k4f283f8d5bbeab84@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905160348m74abbfa5l32db9a6e2e3178b6@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905161138k20db2364k741a84a4481ef7dc@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905161848i75b282d4o8f0a205a61a837d1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10905172327u25484a52k8dc38ca55a04f5e5@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 2:48 AM, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 4:38 AM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> One more note - I added a sentence to one of the findings of fact, so
>> those who have already voted there should speak up if they object.
>
> I took out the additional sentence; as you note in your later message,
> the talk page discussion indicates that's probably not an accurate
> representation of what's required.
>
> The point of those parts of the finding is to indicate that Guy did
> not even try to compensate for taking action while involved by
> attempting prior discussion, or explaining himself through edit
> summaries, and in one case did not record the addition anywhere at all
> (in both cases failing to comply with the instructions to note
> additions at the log).

The involvement being more worrying than the process. OK. Thanks for
making that change.

Carcharoth
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Mon May 18 08:08:44 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 09:08:44 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd Jzg
In-Reply-To: <66F3B0ED26FA4E4083D6F159EACDFB4B@EveretteCentral>
References: <66F3B0ED26FA4E4083D6F159EACDFB4B@EveretteCentral>
Message-ID: <206791b10905180108m1b7f4267rc2530d15d4d94f42@mail.gmail.com>

Its not clear to me which Abd remedy is passing. We should clarify that first.

Carcharoth

On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Randy Everette <rlevse at cox.net> wrote:
> This is about ready to close. Looks like a few people didn?t vote on a few
> things. Let?s wrap this up.
----------
From stephen.bain at gmail.com Mon May 18 08:56:06 2009
From: stephen.bain at gmail.com (Stephen Bain)
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 18:56:06 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd Jzg
In-Reply-To: <206791b10905180108m1b7f4267rc2530d15d4d94f42@mail.gmail.com>
References: <66F3B0ED26FA4E4083D6F159EACDFB4B@EveretteCentral>
<206791b10905180108m1b7f4267rc2530d15d4d94f42@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f30e42de0905180156t65beb342yab5364065107f2ff@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Its not clear to me which Abd remedy is passing. We should clarify that first.

Hmm. Each of 2.1 and 2.2 has three first choice supports, three second
choices, two supports with no preference indicated (so presuming equal
preference) and one other person supporting without supporting the
alternative.

I'm going to move from abstain to oppose on 2.1, which should push
things in favour of 2.2. Alternatively Pete and Wiz, if you'd like to
clarify your preferences (if you have one) that would also be handy.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Mon May 18 11:13:56 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 07:13:56 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd Jzg
In-Reply-To: <f30e42de0905180156t65beb342yab5364065107f2ff@mail.gmail.com>
References: <66F3B0ED26FA4E4083D6F159EACDFB4B@EveretteCentral>
<206791b10905180108m1b7f4267rc2530d15d4d94f42@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905180156t65beb342yab5364065107f2ff@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30905180413u4a5f9118pb087c2f867212d5f@mail.gmail.com>

I can go through everything again and try to clarify my preferences
where/if it matters, but I won't be home until late this afternoon.

Newyorkbrad
----------
From frank.bednarz at gmail.com Mon May 18 16:11:13 2009
From: frank.bednarz at gmail.com (Frank Bednarz)
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 11:11:13 -0500
Subject: [arbcom-l] Short (but total) absence from Wiki
Message-ID: <8ec76cd10905180911p52e87c5l1db88d85acb49a73@mail.gmail.com>

I have my work next year (probably) figured out. I'm accepting defferal
from my firm. As it turns out, I'll likely be working on a litigation
project with Ted Frank (yes, THF) in a right-wing think tank. That might
lead to me recusing from more cases in the future, but I'll certainly have
more time than if I was at a law firm.

That said, I have some final deadlines for papers this week, so I shouldn't
really go online much through Wednesday. Please don't hold up any cases
(such as the JzG/Abd case, which I've never looked at--in fact, mark me as
absent from that case). If another person votes on the Guido proposal,
please have someone unban him with the notice and warning.

Should be all downhill after this, and I'll have much more time into the
foreseeable future (well, except for when I take concurrent bar exams in
Massachusetts and Illinois, but that won't be until late July).

Frank
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Mon May 18 16:18:40 2009
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 16:18:40 +0000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Short (but total) absence from Wiki
In-Reply-To: <8ec76cd10905180911p52e87c5l1db88d85acb49a73@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8ec76cd10905180911p52e87c5l1db88d85acb49a73@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eb45e7c0905180918l32984348lf81e34577c97470d@mail.gmail.com>

2009/5/18 Frank Bednarz <frank.bednarz at gmail.com>

> I have my work next year (probably) figured out. I'm accepting defferal
> from my firm. As it turns out, I'll likely be working on a litigation
> project with Ted Frank (yes, THF) in a right-wing think tank. That might
> lead to me recusing from more cases in the future, but I'll certainly have
> more time than if I was at a law firm.
>
> That said, I have some final deadlines for papers this week, so I shouldn't
> really go online much through Wednesday. Please don't hold up any cases
> (such as the JzG/Abd case, which I've never looked at--in fact, mark me as
> absent from that case). If another person votes on the Guido proposal,
> please have someone unban him with the notice and warning.
>
> Should be all downhill after this, and I'll have much more time into the
> foreseeable future (well, except for when I take concurrent bar exams in
> Massachusetts and Illinois, but that won't be until late July).
>
> Frank
>

Thanks for the heads up, Frank. I'll make a note at the clerks noticeboard
to mark you inactive on JzG/Abd, and will try to keep an eye on the Guido
case, although I suspect it has already passed due to recusals. (Everyone
else, please take a look at it.)

I'll have intermittent access until Thursday morning myself.

Risker
----------
From stephen.bain at gmail.com Mon May 18 23:28:13 2009
From: stephen.bain at gmail.com (Stephen Bain)
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 09:28:13 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd Jzg
In-Reply-To: <206791b10905180108m1b7f4267rc2530d15d4d94f42@mail.gmail.com>
References: <66F3B0ED26FA4E4083D6F159EACDFB4B@EveretteCentral>
<206791b10905180108m1b7f4267rc2530d15d4d94f42@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f30e42de0905181628r5aa0ef68pbc1b95f05618e49f@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Its not clear to me which Abd remedy is passing. We should clarify that first.

Well Hmwith has closed the case with *both* #2.1 and #2.2, even though
most arbitrators voting were clearly treating them as alternatives and
not as additional proposals.

The other issue is principle #2 vs #2.1, which Hmwith has closed with
#2.1 passing. Both had the same number of arbitrators supporting as a
first or only preference (myself, Carcharoth, Vassyana for #2, and
Sam, Rlevse and Risker for #2.1) but #2 had ten supports and #2.1 only
eight, with two opposes.

I don't think either of these are right. Or else we need to revisit
the methods for determining which proposals pass when more than one
meet the minimum threshold to pass.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Mon May 18 23:34:42 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 00:34:42 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd Jzg
In-Reply-To: <f30e42de0905181628r5aa0ef68pbc1b95f05618e49f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <66F3B0ED26FA4E4083D6F159EACDFB4B@EveretteCentral>
<206791b10905180108m1b7f4267rc2530d15d4d94f42@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905181628r5aa0ef68pbc1b95f05618e49f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10905181634g3a9ef095vc0af3ef7f5030743@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 12:28 AM, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Its not clear to me which Abd remedy is passing. We should clarify that first.
>
> Well Hmwith has closed the case with *both* #2.1 and #2.2, even though
> most arbitrators voting were clearly treating them as alternatives and
> not as additional proposals.
>
> The other issue is principle #2 vs #2.1, which Hmwith has closed with
> #2.1 passing. Both had the same number of arbitrators supporting as a
> first or only preference (myself, Carcharoth, Vassyana for #2, and
> Sam, Rlevse and Risker for #2.1) but #2 had ten supports and #2.1 only
> eight, with two opposes.
>
> I don't think either of these are right. Or else we need to revisit
> the methods for determining which proposals pass when more than one
> meet the minimum threshold to pass.

I thought having both Abd remedies passed looked quite nice, actually,
and rather apt. :-)

But yes, some discussion needed here, and ongoing here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...sion#Results.3F

Carcharoth
----------
From stephen.bain at gmail.com Mon May 18 23:37:07 2009
From: stephen.bain at gmail.com (Stephen Bain)
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 09:37:07 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd Jzg
In-Reply-To: <206791b10905181634g3a9ef095vc0af3ef7f5030743@mail.gmail.com>
References: <66F3B0ED26FA4E4083D6F159EACDFB4B@EveretteCentral>
<206791b10905180108m1b7f4267rc2530d15d4d94f42@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905181628r5aa0ef68pbc1b95f05618e49f@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905181634g3a9ef095vc0af3ef7f5030743@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f30e42de0905181637u4c9a8162mdf4b939b511d9a25@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> I thought having both Abd remedies passed looked quite nice, actually,
> and rather apt. :-)

They're not inherently incompatible, no. But the arbitrators voting
clearly treated them as alternatives.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Mon May 18 23:43:20 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 00:43:20 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd Jzg
In-Reply-To: <f30e42de0905181637u4c9a8162mdf4b939b511d9a25@mail.gmail.com>
References: <66F3B0ED26FA4E4083D6F159EACDFB4B@EveretteCentral>
<206791b10905180108m1b7f4267rc2530d15d4d94f42@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905181628r5aa0ef68pbc1b95f05618e49f@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905181634g3a9ef095vc0af3ef7f5030743@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905181637u4c9a8162mdf4b939b511d9a25@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10905181643g5739c486l62ac6dc9e1ec6f85@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 12:37 AM, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I thought having both Abd remedies passed looked quite nice, actually,
>> and rather apt. :-)
>
> They're not inherently incompatible, no. But the arbitrators voting
> clearly treated them as alternatives.

Yes. I agree with you on principle 2 vs 2.1. Funnily enough, I've
never carefully checked a page after a clerk has closed it. I assume
they get it right. What would have helped here was a posting in the
implementation section before closing.

Hmwith has said: "Coppertwig, as for principle 2, 2.1 supercedes it,
and I don't think there was anything in 2 that 2.1 didn't cover.
However, situations like that are judged by the clerk on an individual
basis."

Is it best to deal with this now (so Hmwith can update the published
results), or make sure we all agree on what the result should be? In
either case, do we want another clerk talk to Hmwith or do we have a
quiet word? Don't want to be too overbearing here. Could those who
have been clerks before opine?

Carcharoth
----------
From sydney.poore at gmail.com Mon May 18 23:56:01 2009
From: sydney.poore at gmail.com (FloNight)
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 19:56:01 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd Jzg
In-Reply-To: <206791b10905181643g5739c486l62ac6dc9e1ec6f85@mail.gmail.com>
References: <66F3B0ED26FA4E4083D6F159EACDFB4B@EveretteCentral>
<206791b10905180108m1b7f4267rc2530d15d4d94f42@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905181628r5aa0ef68pbc1b95f05618e49f@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905181634g3a9ef095vc0af3ef7f5030743@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905181637u4c9a8162mdf4b939b511d9a25@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905181643g5739c486l62ac6dc9e1ec6f85@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <16032ea0905181656y35a94177yeeb077cd5960a34c@mail.gmail.com>

This kinda stuff happens all the time.

Another clerk or an arb needs to review the case after it closes to
minimize the errors.

Sydney
----------
From rlevse at cox.net Tue May 19 00:07:50 2009
From: rlevse at cox.net (Randy Everette)
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 20:07:50 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd Jzg
In-Reply-To: <16032ea0905181656y35a94177yeeb077cd5960a34c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <66F3B0ED26FA4E4083D6F159EACDFB4B@EveretteCentral><206791b10905180108m1b7f4267rc2530d15d4d94f42@mail.gmail.com><f30e42de0905181628r5aa0ef68pbc1b95f05618e49f@mail.gmail.com><206791b10905181634g3a9ef095vc0af3ef7f5030743@mail.gmail.com><f30e42de0905181637u4c9a8162mdf4b939b511d9a25@mail.gmail.com><206791b10905181643g5739c486l62ac6dc9e1ec6f85@mail.gmail.com>
<16032ea0905181656y35a94177yeeb077cd5960a34c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <90CFEF682F744F35AD471AC4091D7DE4@EveretteCentral>

I agree we should keep a closer eye on this stuff.

r/
Randy Everette
-----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Tue May 19 00:34:18 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 10:34:18 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd Jzg
In-Reply-To: <90CFEF682F744F35AD471AC4091D7DE4@EveretteCentral>
References: <66F3B0ED26FA4E4083D6F159EACDFB4B@EveretteCentral>
<206791b10905180108m1b7f4267rc2530d15d4d94f42@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905181628r5aa0ef68pbc1b95f05618e49f@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905181634g3a9ef095vc0af3ef7f5030743@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905181637u4c9a8162mdf4b939b511d9a25@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905181643g5739c486l62ac6dc9e1ec6f85@mail.gmail.com>
<16032ea0905181656y35a94177yeeb077cd5960a34c@mail.gmail.com>
<90CFEF682F744F35AD471AC4091D7DE4@EveretteCentral>
Message-ID: <deea21830905181734v38c48b7ch890d364ab8b18bd0@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Randy Everette <rlevse at cox.net> wrote:
> I agree we should keep a closer eye on this stuff.

Would it be helpful to nominate an arb to each case to review it after closure?

--
John Vandenberg
----------
From rlevse at cox.net Tue May 19 00:54:54 2009
From: rlevse at cox.net (Randy Everette)
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 20:54:54 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd Jzg
In-Reply-To: <deea21830905181734v38c48b7ch890d364ab8b18bd0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <66F3B0ED26FA4E4083D6F159EACDFB4B@EveretteCentral><206791b10905180108m1b7f4267rc2530d15d4d94f42@mail.gmail.com><f30e42de0905181628r5aa0ef68pbc1b95f05618e49f@mail.gmail.com><206791b10905181634g3a9ef095vc0af3ef7f5030743@mail.gmail.com><f30e42de0905181637u4c9a8162mdf4b939b511d9a25@mail.gmail.com><206791b10905181643g5739c486l62ac6dc9e1ec6f85@mail.gmail.com><16032ea0905181656y35a94177yeeb077cd5960a34c@mail.gmail.com><90CFEF682F744F35AD471AC4091D7DE4@EveretteCentral>
<deea21830905181734v38c48b7ch890d364ab8b18bd0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A72F44F0E60642D7A2636E29C70D87A5@EveretteCentral>

How about the drafting arb?

r/
Randy Everette

[MaliceAforethought]

From guy.chapman at spamcop.net Tue May 19 21:51:21 2009
From: guy.chapman at spamcop.net (Guy Chapman)
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 22:51:21 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd case
Message-ID: <55E5FC0A8F11485793055A8AE6C196EE@chapmancentral.local>

Thanks for the result, I stonrgly suspect that Abd will completely miss the
point. I will bet you a dollar that within a week he is back at the
blacklist talk pages asking for the blacklisting to be rescinded, and at AN
asking for Rothwell's topic ban to be lifted, because I was "involved" -
despite the fact that the exact same argument has been made dozens of times
and the response in each case has been "right action, wrong person doing
it". Except on Meta, where all I did was lodge the request, so the claim of
ivolvement is specious there.

Guy
----------
From guy.chapman at spamcop.net Tue May 19 22:07:47 2009
From: guy.chapman at spamcop.net (Guy Chapman)
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 23:07:47 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Laugh of the week!
Message-ID: <E5785E8B13E447A5AE48782DF594B88C@chapmancentral.local>

Viridae removed newenergytimes from the blacklist. And there was I thinking
that Viridae had been cautioned not to revert my admin actions! Funnily
enough, Abd has not complained about this. I wonder why not? Most
uncharacteriestic.

I note that, as with lyrikline.de, Abd created an article on the blacklisted
website as a lever to get links restored. I really do think you are going
to have to deal with him at some point. He does not seem to grok WP:POINT
at all, and WP:STICK might as well be written in Urdu.

Anyway, enough from me.

Guy
----------
From kirill.lokshin at gmail.com Wed May 20 00:45:40 2009
From: kirill.lokshin at gmail.com (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 20:45:40 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd case
In-Reply-To: <55E5FC0A8F11485793055A8AE6C196EE@chapmancentral.local>
References: <55E5FC0A8F11485793055A8AE6C196EE@chapmancentral.local>
Message-ID: <3f797b9a0905191745q6f406143vd53978bdb2f3c473@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Guy Chapman <guy.chapman at spamcop.net>wrote:

> Thanks for the result, I stonrgly suspect that Abd will completely miss the
> point. I will bet you a dollar that within a week he is back at the
> blacklist talk pages asking for the blacklisting to be rescinded, and at AN
> asking for Rothwell's topic ban to be lifted, because I was "involved" -
> despite the fact that the exact same argument has been made dozens of times
> and the response in each case has been "right action, wrong person doing
> it". Except on Meta, where all I did was lodge the request, so the claim
> of
> ivolvement is specious there.
>
> Guy


Thank you for your comments; we will consider them carefully.

Regards,
Kirill
----------
From kirill.lokshin at gmail.com Wed May 20 00:46:51 2009
From: kirill.lokshin at gmail.com (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 20:46:51 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Laugh of the week!
In-Reply-To: <E5785E8B13E447A5AE48782DF594B88C@chapmancentral.local>
References: <E5785E8B13E447A5AE48782DF594B88C@chapmancentral.local>
Message-ID: <3f797b9a0905191746u18044831nde1e08e7883494af@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 6:07 PM, Guy Chapman <guy.chapman at spamcop.net>wrote:

> Viridae removed newenergytimes from the blacklist. And there was I
> thinking
> that Viridae had been cautioned not to revert my admin actions! Funnily
> enough, Abd has not complained about this. I wonder why not? Most
> uncharacteriestic.
>
> I note that, as with lyrikline.de, Abd created an article on the
> blacklisted
> website as a lever to get links restored. I really do think you are going
> to have to deal with him at some point. He does not seem to grok WP:POINT
> at all, and WP:STICK might as well be written in Urdu.
>
> Anyway, enough from me.
>
> Guy


Thank you for letting us know.

Regards,
Kirill
-----------
From stephen.bain at gmail.com Wed May 20 05:00:28 2009
From: stephen.bain at gmail.com (Stephen Bain)
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 15:00:28 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd Jzg
In-Reply-To: <206791b10905181643g5739c486l62ac6dc9e1ec6f85@mail.gmail.com>
References: <66F3B0ED26FA4E4083D6F159EACDFB4B@EveretteCentral>
<206791b10905180108m1b7f4267rc2530d15d4d94f42@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905181628r5aa0ef68pbc1b95f05618e49f@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905181634g3a9ef095vc0af3ef7f5030743@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905181637u4c9a8162mdf4b939b511d9a25@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905181643g5739c486l62ac6dc9e1ec6f85@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f30e42de0905192200g10c1f5dbt9e598f5f1d57f638@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> Is it best to deal with this now (so Hmwith can update the published
> results), or make sure we all agree on what the result should be? In
> either case, do we want another clerk talk to Hmwith or do we have a
> quiet word? Don't want to be too overbearing here. Could those who
> have been clerks before opine?

Well, I think it's plain that both were closed wrongly, and it doesn't
seem that anyone disagrees. Unless there's any objection shortly, I'll
tell Hmwith to correct the final decision (and the notices where
applicable).

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Wed May 20 05:22:30 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 01:22:30 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd Jzg
In-Reply-To: <f30e42de0905192200g10c1f5dbt9e598f5f1d57f638@mail.gmail.com>
References: <66F3B0ED26FA4E4083D6F159EACDFB4B@EveretteCentral>
<206791b10905180108m1b7f4267rc2530d15d4d94f42@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905181628r5aa0ef68pbc1b95f05618e49f@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905181634g3a9ef095vc0af3ef7f5030743@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905181637u4c9a8162mdf4b939b511d9a25@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905181643g5739c486l62ac6dc9e1ec6f85@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905192200g10c1f5dbt9e598f5f1d57f638@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30905192222g18e02eeej65e7de06c00d3290@mail.gmail.com>

Just so there's no further confusion, could you please indicate
exactly what changes you think should be made. (I'll be asleep soon,
but will double-check them first thing in the morning.) Thanks.

Newyorkbrad
----------
From stephen.bain at gmail.com Wed May 20 05:35:15 2009
From: stephen.bain at gmail.com (Stephen Bain)
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 15:35:15 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd Jzg
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30905192222g18e02eeej65e7de06c00d3290@mail.gmail.com>
References: <66F3B0ED26FA4E4083D6F159EACDFB4B@EveretteCentral>
<206791b10905180108m1b7f4267rc2530d15d4d94f42@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905181628r5aa0ef68pbc1b95f05618e49f@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905181634g3a9ef095vc0af3ef7f5030743@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905181637u4c9a8162mdf4b939b511d9a25@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905181643g5739c486l62ac6dc9e1ec6f85@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905192200g10c1f5dbt9e598f5f1d57f638@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905192222g18e02eeej65e7de06c00d3290@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f30e42de0905192235l42687a54oeb773e83ca81591c@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia)
<newyorkbrad at gmail.com> wrote:
> Just so there's no further confusion, could you please indicate
> exactly what changes you think should be made. (I'll be asleep soon,
> but will double-check them first thing in the morning.) ?Thanks.

Proposed principle #2.1 was closed as passing when #2 should have
(equal number of first preferences, #2 has greater total number of
supports).

Proposed remedies #2.1 and #2.2 were both closed as passing, although
they were treated as alternatives by most people voting. Both have
equal numbers of first and second preferences, however #2.1 has one
oppose vote, so #2.2 should probably pass. I should say however that
the oppose vote was mine.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com
-----------
From paulaugust.wp at gmail.com Wed May 20 18:32:40 2009
From: paulaugust.wp at gmail.com (Paul August)
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 14:32:40 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] "Abd and JzG", P2 vs P2.1
Message-ID: <E6ABB20C-E11D-4E7D-9B1A-3D125D5B13E2@gmail.com>

Regarding case "Abd and JzG" Does anyone take issue with the fact
that P2.1 was judged to have passed in preference to P2? See the
discussion here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...tion_Committee/
Clerks#Abd_and_JzG_errors.3F

Based on a comment there, I'm a bit concerned that the closing clerk
may have made the decision based in part on the content of the
proposals, rather than solely on procedural grounds, not something we
want happening. I don't want to make a big thing about this, but this
might be something we want to nip in the bud.

Regards

Paul August
----------
From kirill.lokshin at gmail.com Thu May 21 01:55:30 2009
From: kirill.lokshin at gmail.com (Kirill Lokshin)
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 21:55:30 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] "Abd and JzG", P2 vs P2.1
In-Reply-To: <E6ABB20C-E11D-4E7D-9B1A-3D125D5B13E2@gmail.com>
References: <E6ABB20C-E11D-4E7D-9B1A-3D125D5B13E2@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3f797b9a0905201855q1231e121j40811ae89a57011@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Paul August <paulaugust.wp at gmail.com>wrote:

> Regarding case "Abd and JzG" Does anyone take issue with the fact
> that P2.1 was judged to have passed in preference to P2? See the
> discussion here:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...tion_Committee/
> Clerks#Abd_and_JzG_errors.3F
>
> Based on a comment there, I'm a bit concerned that the closing clerk
> may have made the decision based in part on the content of the
> proposals, rather than solely on procedural grounds, not something we
> want happening. I don't want to make a big thing about this, but this
> might be something we want to nip in the bud.
>
> Regards
> Paul August


Thanks for letting us know; we'll take a look at this.

Regards,
Kirill
----------
From stephen.bain at gmail.com Thu May 21 14:09:34 2009
From: stephen.bain at gmail.com (Stephen Bain)
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 00:09:34 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd Jzg
In-Reply-To: <f30e42de0905192200g10c1f5dbt9e598f5f1d57f638@mail.gmail.com>
References: <66F3B0ED26FA4E4083D6F159EACDFB4B@EveretteCentral>
<206791b10905180108m1b7f4267rc2530d15d4d94f42@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905181628r5aa0ef68pbc1b95f05618e49f@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905181634g3a9ef095vc0af3ef7f5030743@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905181637u4c9a8162mdf4b939b511d9a25@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905181643g5739c486l62ac6dc9e1ec6f85@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905192200g10c1f5dbt9e598f5f1d57f638@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f30e42de0905210709r725a4dc5h22599c7035650c08@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Well, I think it's plain that both were closed wrongly, and it doesn't
> seem that anyone disagrees. Unless there's any objection shortly, I'll
> tell Hmwith to correct the final decision (and the notices where
> applicable).

Ok, since there doesn't seem to be any disagreement, I'm going to
email Hmwith asking her to change the closing of principle #2 vs #2.1.

There's still the issue of proposed remedies #2.1 and #2.2 both being
closed as passing; I think #2.2 passes, but the only way to split the
two is my oppose vote on #2.1. It may need some further clarification
of preferences, unless people are happy to leave it with both passing.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com
----------
From jayvdb at gmail.com Thu May 21 14:54:26 2009
From: jayvdb at gmail.com (John Vandenberg)
Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 00:54:26 +1000
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd Jzg
In-Reply-To: <f30e42de0905210709r725a4dc5h22599c7035650c08@mail.gmail.com>
References: <66F3B0ED26FA4E4083D6F159EACDFB4B@EveretteCentral>
<206791b10905180108m1b7f4267rc2530d15d4d94f42@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905181628r5aa0ef68pbc1b95f05618e49f@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905181634g3a9ef095vc0af3ef7f5030743@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905181637u4c9a8162mdf4b939b511d9a25@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905181643g5739c486l62ac6dc9e1ec6f85@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905192200g10c1f5dbt9e598f5f1d57f638@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905210709r725a4dc5h22599c7035650c08@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <deea21830905210754s1116f99fp1ead288aa6e84c7d@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 12:09 AM, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Stephen Bain <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Well, I think it's plain that both were closed wrongly, and it doesn't
>> seem that anyone disagrees. Unless there's any objection shortly, I'll
>> tell Hmwith to correct the final decision (and the notices where
>> applicable).
>
> Ok, since there doesn't seem to be any disagreement, I'm going to
> email Hmwith asking her to change the closing of principle #2 vs #2.1.
>
> There's still the issue of proposed remedies #2.1 and #2.2 both being
> closed as passing; I think #2.2 passes, but the only way to split the
> two is my oppose vote on #2.1. It may need some further clarification
> of preferences, unless people are happy to leave it with both passing.

This was raised on clerks-l and functionaries-en ; search for "Hmwith"

--
John Vandenberg
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Thu May 21 16:05:13 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 12:05:13 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd Jzg
In-Reply-To: <deea21830905210754s1116f99fp1ead288aa6e84c7d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <66F3B0ED26FA4E4083D6F159EACDFB4B@EveretteCentral>
<206791b10905180108m1b7f4267rc2530d15d4d94f42@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905181628r5aa0ef68pbc1b95f05618e49f@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905181634g3a9ef095vc0af3ef7f5030743@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905181637u4c9a8162mdf4b939b511d9a25@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905181643g5739c486l62ac6dc9e1ec6f85@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905192200g10c1f5dbt9e598f5f1d57f638@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905210709r725a4dc5h22599c7035650c08@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830905210754s1116f99fp1ead288aa6e84c7d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30905210905v74389816rf2a1c3b1eb341a6e@mail.gmail.com>

The decision was closed before I got to cast my last couple of votes on the
newest proposals. (I'm not being critical, I just didn't get to them in
time -- I thought I had until that night, and it closed that afternoon. If
belated votes at this point would be helpful I'll cast them but that
probably is non-licit.

Newyorkbrad
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Thu May 21 16:14:12 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 17:14:12 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd Jzg
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30905210905v74389816rf2a1c3b1eb341a6e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <66F3B0ED26FA4E4083D6F159EACDFB4B@EveretteCentral>
<206791b10905180108m1b7f4267rc2530d15d4d94f42@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905181628r5aa0ef68pbc1b95f05618e49f@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905181634g3a9ef095vc0af3ef7f5030743@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905181637u4c9a8162mdf4b939b511d9a25@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905181643g5739c486l62ac6dc9e1ec6f85@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905192200g10c1f5dbt9e598f5f1d57f638@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905210709r725a4dc5h22599c7035650c08@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830905210754s1116f99fp1ead288aa6e84c7d@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905210905v74389816rf2a1c3b1eb341a6e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10905210914r4e4ccbbfkabf3d0be9e949428@mail.gmail.com>

Maybe say something on clerks-l asking that clerk implementation notes
be written and reviewed before cases are closed? In this case, that
would have delayed it a bit longer and given you time and also given
time for the grey areas to be ironed out.

Carcharoth
----------
From risker.wp at gmail.com Thu May 21 16:20:16 2009
From: risker.wp at gmail.com (Risker)
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 12:20:16 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd Jzg
In-Reply-To: <206791b10905210914r4e4ccbbfkabf3d0be9e949428@mail.gmail.com>
References: <66F3B0ED26FA4E4083D6F159EACDFB4B@EveretteCentral>
<f30e42de0905181628r5aa0ef68pbc1b95f05618e49f@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905181634g3a9ef095vc0af3ef7f5030743@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905181637u4c9a8162mdf4b939b511d9a25@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905181643g5739c486l62ac6dc9e1ec6f85@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905192200g10c1f5dbt9e598f5f1d57f638@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905210709r725a4dc5h22599c7035650c08@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830905210754s1116f99fp1ead288aa6e84c7d@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905210905v74389816rf2a1c3b1eb341a6e@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905210914r4e4ccbbfkabf3d0be9e949428@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eb45e7c0905210920x6f217ca1td76af56e28f2946e@mail.gmail.com>

This was Hmwith's first case closure, as I understand. As such, yes, her
implementation notes should have been reviewed with a more experienced
member of the team. I'm really glad that we have a team with such great
potential, but failing to provide them with the support and education they
need to succeed is self-defeating.

Risker
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Thu May 21 16:20:22 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 12:20:22 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd Jzg
In-Reply-To: <206791b10905210914r4e4ccbbfkabf3d0be9e949428@mail.gmail.com>
References: <66F3B0ED26FA4E4083D6F159EACDFB4B@EveretteCentral>
<f30e42de0905181628r5aa0ef68pbc1b95f05618e49f@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905181634g3a9ef095vc0af3ef7f5030743@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905181637u4c9a8162mdf4b939b511d9a25@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905181643g5739c486l62ac6dc9e1ec6f85@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905192200g10c1f5dbt9e598f5f1d57f638@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905210709r725a4dc5h22599c7035650c08@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830905210754s1116f99fp1ead288aa6e84c7d@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905210905v74389816rf2a1c3b1eb341a6e@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905210914r4e4ccbbfkabf3d0be9e949428@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30905210920w3e10225dle07b94546721448f@mail.gmail.com>

Given that delay is our most pervasive problem both substantively and
reputationally, I'm reluctant to advocate that anyone connected with this
committee take any longer than they do to do anything.

(And now back to my work on Tang Dynasty, which is delayed, and Mattisse,
which will actually be early. )

Newyorkbrad
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Thu May 21 16:25:35 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 17:25:35 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd Jzg
In-Reply-To: <eb45e7c0905210920x6f217ca1td76af56e28f2946e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <66F3B0ED26FA4E4083D6F159EACDFB4B@EveretteCentral>
<206791b10905181634g3a9ef095vc0af3ef7f5030743@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905181637u4c9a8162mdf4b939b511d9a25@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905181643g5739c486l62ac6dc9e1ec6f85@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905192200g10c1f5dbt9e598f5f1d57f638@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905210709r725a4dc5h22599c7035650c08@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830905210754s1116f99fp1ead288aa6e84c7d@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905210905v74389816rf2a1c3b1eb341a6e@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905210914r4e4ccbbfkabf3d0be9e949428@mail.gmail.com>
<eb45e7c0905210920x6f217ca1td76af56e28f2946e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10905210925t5943643w28938a2a089d46f6@mail.gmail.com>

Sure, don't get me wrong. That's why this hasn't been raised more than
it has. We are (me at least) trying to avoid scaring off Hmwith in any
way shape or form. But saying nothing, or letting it slide, won't work
either. If anything, you should be addressing this to Paul August.

Carcharoth
----------
From carcharothwp at googlemail.com Thu May 21 16:31:48 2009
From: carcharothwp at googlemail.com (Carcharoth)
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 17:31:48 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd Jzg
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30905210920w3e10225dle07b94546721448f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <66F3B0ED26FA4E4083D6F159EACDFB4B@EveretteCentral>
<206791b10905181634g3a9ef095vc0af3ef7f5030743@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905181637u4c9a8162mdf4b939b511d9a25@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905181643g5739c486l62ac6dc9e1ec6f85@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905192200g10c1f5dbt9e598f5f1d57f638@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905210709r725a4dc5h22599c7035650c08@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830905210754s1116f99fp1ead288aa6e84c7d@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905210905v74389816rf2a1c3b1eb341a6e@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905210914r4e4ccbbfkabf3d0be9e949428@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905210920w3e10225dle07b94546721448f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <206791b10905210931i33ca76d7ra89bc75e047d200a@mail.gmail.com>

OK, scrub the specifics.

Simple question:

Do we want the clerk implementation notes to be filled in before a case closes?

I'd say yes, and if the clerk documentation doesn't say this, we
change it. I'd also say the implementation notes should be filled in
at the point that a motion to close first starts, but since Cas uses a
placeholder to start those early (I'm still think a "finished voting"
section would be better - there is a clear difference between calling
for a case to close, and finishing an initial set of voting), that
might not work.

Carcharoth
----------
From sydney.poore at gmail.com Thu May 21 16:32:20 2009
From: sydney.poore at gmail.com (FloNight)
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 12:32:20 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd Jzg
In-Reply-To: <206791b10905210925t5943643w28938a2a089d46f6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <66F3B0ED26FA4E4083D6F159EACDFB4B@EveretteCentral>
<f30e42de0905181637u4c9a8162mdf4b939b511d9a25@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905181643g5739c486l62ac6dc9e1ec6f85@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905192200g10c1f5dbt9e598f5f1d57f638@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905210709r725a4dc5h22599c7035650c08@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830905210754s1116f99fp1ead288aa6e84c7d@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905210905v74389816rf2a1c3b1eb341a6e@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905210914r4e4ccbbfkabf3d0be9e949428@mail.gmail.com>
<eb45e7c0905210920x6f217ca1td76af56e28f2946e@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905210925t5943643w28938a2a089d46f6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <16032ea0905210932o5c3d70eap429abd38878f39be@mail.gmail.com>

Every clerk helper that I trained made mistakes when they closed
cases. They would ask me to review them after they closed so I caught
the mistakes and they could correct them. The clerks need to be
training the helpers and looking over each others work.

When I was working as a clerk, I frequently asked the Arb's to clarify
their votes in order to make the closure more clear. That was the way
I started clerking, actually. I saw that arbs skipped votes that made
a vote on a proposal unclear, and would ping them to ask them to vote.

Especially with the big cases, the implementation note needs to be
looked at by arbs prior to the case being formally closed.

Sydney
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Thu May 21 16:32:52 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 12:32:52 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd Jzg
In-Reply-To: <206791b10905210925t5943643w28938a2a089d46f6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <66F3B0ED26FA4E4083D6F159EACDFB4B@EveretteCentral>
<f30e42de0905181637u4c9a8162mdf4b939b511d9a25@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905181643g5739c486l62ac6dc9e1ec6f85@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905192200g10c1f5dbt9e598f5f1d57f638@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905210709r725a4dc5h22599c7035650c08@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830905210754s1116f99fp1ead288aa6e84c7d@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905210905v74389816rf2a1c3b1eb341a6e@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905210914r4e4ccbbfkabf3d0be9e949428@mail.gmail.com>
<eb45e7c0905210920x6f217ca1td76af56e28f2946e@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905210925t5943643w28938a2a089d46f6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30905210932l6ae9e0f5m12261e80c52aa4bb@mail.gmail.com>

If Paul August is going to be reading over our work so closely, which I
appreciate, should we invite him to rejoin us for the balance of his
unexpired term?

Newyorkbrad
----------
From sydney.poore at gmail.com Thu May 21 16:33:17 2009
From: sydney.poore at gmail.com (FloNight)
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 12:33:17 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd Jzg
In-Reply-To: <206791b10905210931i33ca76d7ra89bc75e047d200a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <66F3B0ED26FA4E4083D6F159EACDFB4B@EveretteCentral>
<f30e42de0905181637u4c9a8162mdf4b939b511d9a25@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905181643g5739c486l62ac6dc9e1ec6f85@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905192200g10c1f5dbt9e598f5f1d57f638@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905210709r725a4dc5h22599c7035650c08@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830905210754s1116f99fp1ead288aa6e84c7d@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905210905v74389816rf2a1c3b1eb341a6e@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905210914r4e4ccbbfkabf3d0be9e949428@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905210920w3e10225dle07b94546721448f@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905210931i33ca76d7ra89bc75e047d200a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <16032ea0905210933w299653c0r5cccb3542f4606e7@mail.gmail.com>

On the big cases it is needed. On the short cases less so.

Sydney

On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Carcharoth
<carcharothwp at googlemail.com> wrote:
> OK, scrub the specifics.
>
> Simple question:
>
> Do we want the clerk implementation notes to be filled in before a case closes?
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Thu May 21 16:35:57 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 12:35:57 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd Jzg
In-Reply-To: <206791b10905210931i33ca76d7ra89bc75e047d200a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <66F3B0ED26FA4E4083D6F159EACDFB4B@EveretteCentral>
<f30e42de0905181637u4c9a8162mdf4b939b511d9a25@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905181643g5739c486l62ac6dc9e1ec6f85@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905192200g10c1f5dbt9e598f5f1d57f638@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0905210709r725a4dc5h22599c7035650c08@mail.gmail.com>
<deea21830905210754s1116f99fp1ead288aa6e84c7d@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905210905v74389816rf2a1c3b1eb341a6e@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905210914r4e4ccbbfkabf3d0be9e949428@mail.gmail.com>
<c52819d30905210920w3e10225dle07b94546721448f@mail.gmail.com>
<206791b10905210931i33ca76d7ra89bc75e047d200a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30905210935r2fe9ef15nbcb441d27c2d0694@mail.gmail.com>

When I was a clerk, I filled in the implementation notes either when the
first vote to close was cast, or earlier when the results of the case were
apparent and it was clear they would not be changing (sometimes even
prompting the arbs with "appears ready to close").

When I cast the first vote to close a case, I often post an implementation
note myself; it's not limited to the clerk to do it, although it's more
usual that they do.

One source of potential confusion to clerks may arise when a motion to close
is offered before the results of the case are apparent. The note in that
case often has to say that there are lots of things that haven't passed yet,
or that the final result isn't clear.

In the future I'll try to flag any situations in which a case is moving
toward closing with an unclear result, and others should do the same.

Newyorkbrad
----------
From paulaugust.wp at gmail.com Thu May 21 16:43:01 2009
From: paulaugust.wp at gmail.com (Paul August)
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 12:43:01 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] "Abd and JzG", P2 vs P2.1
In-Reply-To: <3f797b9a0905201855q1231e121j40811ae89a57011@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E6ABB20C-E11D-4E7D-9B1A-3D125D5B13E2@gmail.com>
<3f797b9a0905201855q1231e121j40811ae89a57011@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6784D782-F92F-4AEF-91FC-949659681710@gmail.com>


On May 20, 2009, at 9:55 PM, Kirill Lokshin wrote:

> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Paul August
> <paulaugust.wp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Regarding case "Abd and JzG" Does anyone take issue with the fact
> that P2.1 was judged to have passed in preference to P2? See the
> discussion here:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...tion_Committee/
> Clerks#Abd_and_JzG_errors.3F
>
> Based on a comment there, I'm a bit concerned that the closing clerk
> may have made the decision based in part on the content of the
> proposals, rather than solely on procedural grounds, not something we
> want happening. I don't want to make a big thing about this, but this
> might be something we want to nip in the bud.
>
> Regards
> Paul August
>
> Thanks for letting us know; we'll take a look at this.
>
> Regards,
> Kirill


Thanks for the response Kirill.

The conversation continues on that talk page. I've just made another
comment in an attempt to clarify how I think clerks should handle
such things. I hope I've struck the right tone. Other voices or
feedback welcome. There are probably other issues here. As Sam Korn
implies, the arbs could probably do more to make their preferences
clear. And (unless it already exists) some write up somewhere on how
clerks are supposed to determine outcomes based on preferential
voting would be a good thing (I'm not volunteering).

pa
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Thu May 21 16:49:18 2009
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 12:49:18 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] "Abd and JzG", P2 vs P2.1
In-Reply-To: <6784D782-F92F-4AEF-91FC-949659681710@gmail.com>
References: <E6ABB20C-E11D-4E7D-9B1A-3D125D5B13E2@gmail.com>
<3f797b9a0905201855q1231e121j40811ae89a57011@mail.gmail.com>
<6784D782-F92F-4AEF-91FC-949659681710@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30905210949x5b814b44j32409b38f44b1a1a@mail.gmail.com>

(To ArbCom list, cc Paul August)

David Mestel drafted a very good essay on this in his userspace, although I
haven't ever proposed elevating it to be part of the arbitration policy
because it's a little on the complex side. I'll try and find it when I have
a moment or someone can poke him for it.

As discussed in the other thread on Arbcom-l, I try to keep my eyes open for
these situations -- I hadn't realized that this case was going to close
quite when it did.

Newyorkbrad
----------
From paulaugust.wp at gmail.com Thu May 21 17:06:24 2009
From: paulaugust.wp at gmail.com (Paul August)
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 13:06:24 -0400
Subject: [arbcom-l] "Abd and JzG", P2 vs P2.1
In-Reply-To: <c52819d30905210949x5b814b44j32409b38f44b1a1a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E6ABB20C-E11D-4E7D-9B1A-3D125D5B13E2@gmail.com>
<3f797b9a0905201855q1231e121j40811ae89a57011@mail.gmail.com>
<6784D782-F92F-4AEF-91FC-949659681710@gmail.com>
<c52819d30905210949x5b814b44j32409b38f44b1a1a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1664A1F8-B060-4C4B-923D-857BDEDA9B3E@gmail.com>

Also, as I've tried to point out on the talk page thread, lack of
implementation notes exacerbated this. We might take this opportunity
to reinforce the goodness of such.

pa

[Abd]

Thanks, Malice, for the work you did to collect these mails. Fascinating (to me, don't necessarily expect it to be fascinating to someone else).

What I see in the Abd and JzG case is that the division on ArbComm was much stronger than I thought from the decision itself (which was perceived by me as an almost-total vindication, the "admonition" that passed, boiled down, was to more rapidly pursue Dispute Resolution. In the background, there was already substantial sentiment to ban me from DR. That's quite a contrast!).

There were arbs pushing for a result that simply failed majority, but they held to this position -- which was largely evidence-free. In a word, they were prejudiced, but did not recognize this.

I was really uninvolved when the dispute with JzG began, I had no content position on cold fusion, and assumed, with nearly everyone else, that it had been conclusively rejected years before. So I entered this dispute from a neutral -- or even MPOV -- position. And that showed in stronger respect from some arbs.

Later, with Abd-William M. Connolley, I was involved, with a history of editing easily perceived as Fringe POV-pushing (though a closer examination would show that this showed up almost entirely on the Talk page, I was firmly on the side of avoiding OR in the article, and using the strongest sources only, as to the science. As to the history, media sources were appropriate. Later, after I came off my topic ban, I declared COI, and COI editors are *expected* to be "POV-pushers," hence the COI rules. Which were ignored, and "Fringe POV-pushing" was what JzG alleged in initiating my renewed ban. He never disclosed his prior involvement, neither with my renewed ban, nor with that of Pcarbonn.)

The knee-jerk assumptions from the assumptions about my POV, which show up in the background in the JzG case, later flipped the Arbcomm majority, which was, unbeknownst to itself, making a content decision. The "ban from DR" position became, then, a ruling, sweetened with a mentorship provision that increased support (I was in favor of it!), then the rug was pulled out from under this by effectively prohibiting mentorship, later.

History demonstrated the foolishness of ArbComm's position on JzG. He did, later, continue to use tools, he blacklisted lenr-canr.org *again* during April this year, during my request for clarification that they rejected. They ignored evidence about this. JzG also acted, again and again, as an ordinary editor, pushing for the ban of those dispute with him, including but not limited to myself.

He was reversed, but only because of the consensus that I'd fostered, and I did, behind the scenes, call attention to this. But he's still an admin, and the only person with the knowledge to point out the problem was effectively banned. I finally came up with a nuanced position. Fuck it!

JzG was, it's easily shown, far more "tendentious" than I, pushing again and again for extreme positions that had been rejected by consensus many times. My "pushing" was for consensus! The proof is that it was maintained even after I was banned, something that JzG has completely failed to recognize, even though he must have seen many examples.

JzG, in his mail to ArbComm, cited ScienceApologist and William M. Connolley as editors doing the same as him. He was right. SA should have been seriously sanctioned long before, and he was site-banned at the time JzG was writing. Note that he was topic banned for three months, for serious POV pushing, whereas the editor he was opposing was topic banned for a year, which became practically permanent through later action by JzG inciting the mob. WMC lost his tools precisely for violation of recusal policy, and had ArbComm clarified this policy in the earlier case, it's entirely possible that WMC would still be an admin. A better one. Or not. Crystal ball broken.

I found it remarkable that at one point, Carcharoth quoted me, then presented his or her own position in apparent contrast to it, when, in fact, Carcharoth was just restating what I'd said....

I've Other Stuff to Do right now, but this lifts the veil on what was going on. Had Arbcomm openly discussed the issues, in a forum where comment could be sorted and filtered, a true deliberative environment, that discovers informed consensus, I'd have understood the dimensions of the problem, far earlier.

I was quite interested to see that some arbitrators noticed that the positions expressed by administrators, in the case discussions, arguing against recusal policy, as clearly understood by, say, Bainer. ArbComm roundly ignored that, as to anything public.

ArbComm depends on editors to notice recusal failure and bring it to the Committee, but when ordinary editors do this, it tends to shoot them. These editors make them uncomfortable. It's a setup.

This recusal problem, then, continued to cause trouble, again and again, as administrators, seeing others express that anti-recusal position ("enforcing NPOV" with tools), believe that it's just fine. Until they get whacked for it.

My argument during the case was that ArbComm should clarify recusal policy, much of my alleged walls of text -- they were not usually walls, in fact, -- were devoted to that. Clarification should involve amnesty for what came before. Yet ArbComm seemed to assume that I was pursuing a vendetta against JzG.

No, I wanted them to, at most, suspend JzG's tool access until he made it clear that he understood and would follow recusal policy, and the most I'd have suggested about all those admins who likewise declared that recusal policy was a pile of impractical crap, was the same. Suspension, not removal. Just let us know that you understand recusal requirements, and we now doubt that from your statements before the committee, so, please, reassure us.

They've never had the cojones to do this, not yet. I can hear the screams....

What they expect is vendettas. That makes their work simple: just ban editors pursuing vendettas. Unless, of course, it's FT2, i.e. the vendetta is against someone Really Bad.

Really Bad is whatever we think it is. We are the Committee, with Plenary Powerz.

But the Committee is not set up to represent the community, it uses an election method that will not create representation, the opposite. It's a setup for failure.

If it were about representation, there might not be recusal rules, though there might be declared COI. Recusal plus majority rule can lead to warped results.

[Cla68]

This shows that anyone who engages in dispute resolution with JzG should be aware that while it is going on, JzG will be trying to schmooze behind-the-scenes with the ArbCom or whoever else is involved with it in an admin capacity. To be fair, he's probably not the only who tries to win disputes using this tactic.

[Cla68]

This shows that anyone who engages in dispute resolution with JzG should be aware that while it is going on, JzG will be trying to schmooze behind-the-scenes with the ArbCom or whoever else is involved with it in an admin capacity. To be fair, he's probably not the only who tries to win disputes using this tactic.

I just reread the the threaded emails and noticed that Rlevse had agreed with a point I had made in a discussion about the case.

[LessHorrid vanU]

This shows that anyone who engages in dispute resolution with JzG should be aware that while it is going on, JzG will be trying to schmooze behind-the-scenes with the ArbCom or whoever else is involved with it in an admin capacity. To be fair, he's probably not the only who tries to win disputes using this tactic.

I just reread the the threaded emails and noticed that Rlevse had agreed with a point I had made in a discussion about the case.

Don't feel bad about it - it happens....

[Cla68]

This shows that anyone who engages in dispute resolution with JzG should be aware that while it is going on, JzG will be trying to schmooze behind-the-scenes with the ArbCom or whoever else is involved with it in an admin capacity. To be fair, he's probably not the only who tries to win disputes using this tactic.

I just reread the the threaded emails and noticed that Rlevse had agreed with a point I had made in a discussion about the case.

Don't feel bad about it - it happens....

Perhaps I'm the only one who thinks it shows a flash of genius in Rlevse.

[Spartaz]

This shows that anyone who engages in dispute resolution with JzG should be aware that while it is going on, JzG will be trying to schmooze behind-the-scenes with the ArbCom or whoever else is involved with it in an admin capacity. To be fair, he's probably not the only who tries to win disputes using this tactic.

I just reread the the threaded emails and noticed that Rlevse had agreed with a point I had made in a discussion about the case.

Don't feel bad about it - it happens....

Perhaps I'm the only one who thinks it shows a flash of genius in Rlevse.

Most likely yes.

[Cynick]

From guy.chapman at spamcop.net Thu May 7 21:30:33 2009
Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 22:30:33 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd case

I hope you can find someone else to watch for the relentless tide of
fringe and pseudo science, the people who have been doing it so far
(including ScienceApologist and William Connolley) are falling by the
wayside due to burnout. It is fantastically important to the kooks
and nutters that Wikipedia reflects their "neutrality" not that of the
scientific establishment.

Is he saying that Wikipedia should not have articles that describe fringe science and pseudoscience? That's like criticizing Wikipedia for having articles on the big bad Nazis.

Of course Wikipedia should not have paragraphs of text describing that the Moon is made of Green Cheese, but there is no reason to suppress an article specifically on whether "The Moon is made of green cheese", or any other subject. I doubt anyone would believe it, but I still want to read who, why, how and where.

[Abd]

From guy.chapman at spamcop.net Thu May 7 21:30:33 2009
Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 22:30:33 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd case

I hope you can find someone else to watch for the relentless tide of
fringe and pseudo science, the people who have been doing it so far
(including ScienceApologist and William Connolley) are falling by the
wayside due to burnout. It is fantastically important to the kooks
and nutters that Wikipedia reflects their "neutrality" not that of the
scientific establishment.

Is he saying that Wikipedia should not have articles that describe fringe science and pseudoscience? That's like criticizing Wikipedia for having articles on the big bad Nazis.

Of course Wikipedia should not have paragraphs of text describing that the Moon is made of Green Cheese, but there is no reason to suppress an article specifically on whether "The Moon is made of green cheese", or any other subject. I doubt anyone would believe it, but I still want to read who, why, how and where.

Well, there is an issue of notability. What Guy has done, regardless of what he says, is to promote a majority POV position on science, based on the majority view among certain Wikipedians who think of themselves as defenders of science. These Wikipedians are more generally following pseudoskepticism, which is common among immature wanna-be scientists. Real science is indeed skeptical, but it does not forget to be, and is specially careful to be, skeptical of self.

Cold fusion was quite an interesting test case. I saw JzG's abusive blacklisting of lenr-canr.org, and objected, and his response led me to investigate, and I found a huge can of worms, long-term abuse. He had just succeeded in getting Pcarbonn banned, based on successful misrepresentation of Pcarbonn's position and practice. Pcarbonn was probably one of the models for Raul654's "civil POV-pusher." JzG wants to ban POV-pushers. The general position of the pseudoskeptical cabal is that their POV is "SPOV," Scientific Point of View, and they think that this is superior to NPOV.

They are actually in serious opposition to the findings of RfAr/Fringe science, but ArbComm basically left the enforcement of that RfAr to the community, and then allowed the cabal to whack community members who tried. Like me.

Anyway, I read Cold fusion and started reading the sources. I have the physics background to understand the issues, and I was aware of the 1989 events in 1989, very aware, but I'd assumed that CF had been conclusively rejected. It turns out, going back and reading the source materials, including the 1989 U.S. Department of Energy ERAB panel, that this had never happened. It's a myth. What happened was that most nuclear physicists and many others concluded that there wasn't sufficient evidence to show that the discovered effect was real, and that, in any case, there wasn't justification for a massive federal program, under these conditions, but ... research was encouraged.

Eventually, I noticed that all peer-reviewed reliable secondary sources, since about 2004, which actually addressed the issues, as distinct from some reviews that mention cold fusion off-hand as an example of rejected science, were strongly in support of the reality of the effect. That the two largest scientific publishers, Springer-Verlag and Elsevier, were regularly publishing cold fusion material. That the major questions asked in 1989, with the lack of answers being strong arguments against cold fusion, had actually been answered by the mid 1990s, and that this was even noticed (in RS) by Huizenga, the major critic of cold fusion.

Yet the article still used the present tense for its descriptions of scientific consensus on cold fusion. There is plenty of source for the rejection in the past, but if we look carefully at recent media sources on this, it's just old ideas being regurgitated, the statements are often dead wrong or highly misleading, such as the frequent claim that the original cold fusion experiments were never replicated. The original *exact experimental technique* was replicated, many times, but results varied. What was overlooked was that the "effect" occurred in poorly-understood conditions, quite difficult to control, and still difficult to control.

And still not understood. As Storms points out, there is no explanatory theory of cold fusion that satisfactorily explains all the established experimental data. But this much is, in fact, known: for the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect, the fuel is deuterium and the ash is helium, and the energy generated confirms this (it is at the deuterium fusion level within experimental error). The "excess heat" correlates strongly with the measured helium. No heat, no helium.

I'm not just making this up. It's in many reliable secondary sources, of high quality.

But it is still not mentioned in the article!

I didn't try to push this shift for the article, it's my own original research, and even cold fusion researchers sometimes diagree with it, but I did mention it in Talk. The reality is that peer-reviewers at mainstream scientific journals are approving papers on cold fusion, and truly negative publication (as distinct from specific criticism within the field) has almost entirely disappeared in peer-reviewed journals.

What is not known is *how* this reaction happens. It is not known exactly what the reaction is. There are strong reasons for thinking it is not simple d-d fusion. But it happens. The existence of such a major gap in knowledge is threatening to the worshippers at the Temple of Science. So they prefer to call this view, "pseudoscience," "pathological science," and so, in spite of the history and characteristics of cold fusion being quite contrary to the description of pathological science by Langmuir, who coined the term, they frequently assert the pathological science characteristics as being those of cold fusion.

For example, they claim that the effect is down in the noise, and disappears with more careful measurement. The opposite is true. The effect, when it appears, is not in the noise, it is quite clear and robust. The problem is getting it to appear, it turned out that was very difficult. But when the chimera padded into the lab and licked the researcher's face, he or she knew it had been there, and no amount of skeptical rejection of experimental results changed that. Researchers with tenure continued.

Odd. The "fringe scientists" were those with tenure, with the ability to pursue a field in spite of rejection, and, indeed, in spite of massive efforts to deny them funding and insititutional support. That's all well-documented, by the way, in academic reliable source.

Attempts to gradually introduce the available RS material were met with constant revert warring by the cabal. Eventually, sometimes with weeks of work, something would be improved. And then along would come JzG and take it out without discussion, or WMC took the article back to many weeks before. Even without all that, I'd largely concluded it was a waste of time to work on the article, it was just too much work for a damned wiki.

[-DS-]

From guy.chapman at spamcop.net Thu May 7 21:30:33 2009
Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 22:30:33 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd case

I hope you can find someone else to watch for the relentless tide of
fringe and pseudo science, the people who have been doing it so far
(including ScienceApologist and William Connolley) are falling by the
wayside due to burnout. It is fantastically important to the kooks
and nutters that Wikipedia reflects their "neutrality" not that of the
scientific establishment.

Is he saying that Wikipedia should not have articles that describe fringe science and pseudoscience? That's like criticizing Wikipedia for having articles on the big bad Nazis.

Of course Wikipedia should not have paragraphs of text describing that the Moon is made of Green Cheese, but there is no reason to suppress an article specifically on whether "The Moon is made of green cheese", or any other subject. I doubt anyone would believe it, but I still want to read who, why, how and where.

I think he's actually saying that Wikipedia should not have articles that describe fringe science and pseudoscience that are biased towards fringe science and pseudoscience.

[Angela Kennedy]

From guy.chapman at spamcop.net Thu May 7 21:30:33 2009
Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 22:30:33 +0100
Subject: [arbcom-l] Abd case

I hope you can find someone else to watch for the relentless tide of
fringe and pseudo science, the people who have been doing it so far
(including ScienceApologist and William Connolley) are falling by the
wayside due to burnout. It is fantastically important to the kooks
and nutters that Wikipedia reflects their "neutrality" not that of the
scientific establishment.

Is he saying that Wikipedia should not have articles that describe fringe science and pseudoscience? That's like criticizing Wikipedia for having articles on the big bad Nazis.

Of course Wikipedia should not have paragraphs of text describing that the Moon is made of Green Cheese, but there is no reason to suppress an article specifically on whether "The Moon is made of green cheese", or any other subject. I doubt anyone would believe it, but I still want to read who, why, how and where.

I think he's actually saying that Wikipedia should not have articles that describe fringe science and pseudoscience that are biased towards fringe science and pseudoscience.

The problem is, Chapman is a POV sandbox warrior inebriated by the excuberance of his own pseudoskepticism, who believes he's some sort of witchsmeller pursuivant of 'fringe science and pseudoscience'- two highly unstable, complex and often inaccurate descriptions anyway, but which he uses to suit his worldview, whatever it is at the time.

He's been helping make Wikipedia an enemy of scientific progress and rationality, ironically.