Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Upcoming Checkuser and Oversight appointments

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Announcement

Roger Davies provided a link from ANI to here to discuss.

I like some of the names suggested. Some of the names from the previous May Secure Poll do not appear but may be better choices, in some cases.

I commend the Arbitration Committee for not immediately throwing out the May Secure Poll and imposing its own will. Waiting 3 months as a cool down period is a more responsible act. It could be improved by adding the names of the May Secure Poll candidates and allowing the community to select, by Secure Poll, the top 4 CU and 6 OS (the number that AC seems to suggest) among the 6 CU and 11 OS candidates. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Some of the candidates vetted for the May election may not have expressed interest in this round. –xeno^talk 15:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting selection. Are we supposed to email the mailing list for all comments, or just concerns/opposes? I'm guessing that anyone who does not email the list is assumed to be supporting or indifferent toward all the candidates. —fetch·comms 15:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to heartily endorse a particular candidate, then you should feel free to e-mail ArbCom. I'm sure they'll appreciate that feedback as much as they would any negative feedback. --Deskana (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I must admit, I was expecting a public page where people could make comments (positive or negative). If negative comments are sent to ArbCom about a candidate, will the candidate be told about the details (who said what?) or will they just be told "sorry, we got complaints..."? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Endorse! Of the 9 people listed to become CU or OS, you are in my top 2! You are very responsible. Of course, I think it is a foregone conclusion that all will be appointed. I don't need to e-mail, I publically endorse Phantomsteve and this message was approved by Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe so (probably not who said what, but more likely what was said). –xeno^talk 20:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

When this happened last time (August 2008) I was told what the concerns were about me, but I was not told who said it, which I believe was the best outcome. -- Avi (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree that knowing the concerns and not the whos is good from my point of view. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Follow-up announcement - Thanks for the comments received so far (both here and by e-mail). I'm currently co-ordinating the responses received, and am collating them into one document for ongoing review. People can make comments here if they wish (and those comments will be noted), but it will be easier for me to add them to the document if the comments are also e-mailed, and please note what Roger Davies said in the original announcement: "As the primary area of concern is confidence in the candidate's ability to operate within the Wikimedia privacy policy, comments of this nature are best directed to the Committee's mailing list". Xeno is correct that comments received, or a paraphrase, will be passed to the candidates, but we will anonymise those comments and concerns before passing them on. This also addresses the point raised by PhantomSteve. I'll be contacting the candidates towards the end of the comment period, and the final review will take place between 25 August and 1 September. Carcharoth (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Great candidates all around, expect that most, if not all, will be given the promotion. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• A fine selection. As, for the most part, were the previous candidates. I feel it's a shame that the community isn't being allowed more involvement, but the positions need filling. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Not interacted with Frank or Bastique, but support all the others no problems. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd follow Bastique into hell. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Are they likely to lead you there..? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Isn't he studying theology after leaving the WMF? </offtopic> —fetch·comms 22:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm definitely putting my dollar on Bastique. I'm just concerned with Frank getting CU. I just pulled up the most recent 500 edits in WP space and there're only 3-4 edits directly related to sockpuppets. Does ArbCom really thinks Frank is a suitable candidate for being a CU? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

If at first you don't succeed, just wait for the rules of the game to change. It really doesn't give anyone any pause that, in some cases, for nearly every support a candidate got, they got an equal oppose vote? In some cases, over 100 contributors actively opposed their candidacy (WP:100, anyone?). And there were voter eligibility requirements, so these weren't just drive-by voters. But I guess it's okay to ignore these facts because the encyclopedia would cease to exist without a few people in these positions. --MZMcBride (talk) 12:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

For reference, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight/May 2010 election#Results. --MZMcBride (talk) 12:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

</me waves>Well, obviously most candidates got almost as many opposes as supports - that is why only one candidate in the May elections made the 70%+ support (slightly more than 2 supports for every 1 oppose) standard. Does this reflect upon the candidates or the process? It may be also borne in mind that whatever the process, poor or abusive CU/OS'ers can have the flags removed. In the meanwhile, there will be more people to undertake some necessary tasks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't take it to heart, (I'm sure you haven't)I think it was the format that attracted the oppose votes not so much a specific rejection of the candidate. Off2riorob (talk) 12:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, people had the option to vote neutral. And many did. But a good number said "no, I don't think person should be in this position." If the vote had been held without a neutral option (which was also the default voting option in the form, as I recall), I'd be more inclined to say that opposition was a result of the format. But in May, people were given a choice, they decided to actively participate in the election, and a good number decidedly to actively oppose certain candidates. For nearly any election (ArbCom, steward, adminship), this would mean a fairly clear result. In this case, it just means that a few months have passed.

If there are other significant factors I'm missing beside the passage of time that make the result of the May elections irrelevant, please feel free to point them out. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Last time we did this dance, I seem to recall you telling me to calm down about it. Look, the earlier process was a disaster. Only one candidate made it through, and we got zero feedback, so none of us knew why we didn't get through. I have still not had one single person explain to me why they thought I couldn't be trusted with oversight. The previous process seemed like a good idea at the time, but it just didn't work. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Second follow-up announcement - Thanks again for the comments received so far (both here and by e-mail). I've recently posted some follow-up notices to provide updates and ask for further comments. I'm continuing to co-ordinate the responses received, and collate them into one document for ongoing review. As I said above, I'll be contacting the candidates towards the end of the comment period, and the final review will take place between 25 August and 1 September. Carcharoth (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• Strong support of MuZemike, Tnxman307, Beeblebrox, LessHeard vanU, MBisanz and Phantomsteve. Haven't paid enough attention to the others to have an opinion, but no concerns noted.--SPhilbrickT 13:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• Strong support for all the CU candidates. (But we always lose good clerks this way.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• I have had positive interactions with all of the candidates and have no objections to any of them. In particular, the CU candidates have done a fine job with SPI and we can definitely use more checkusers. (A disclosure; I once opposed granting CU to Tiptoety but I no longer have concerns.) -- Atama頭 19:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• I strongly object to Bastique or Cary Bass or whatever it is he currently calls himself - what am I supposed to do about it?  Giacomo  19:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• I guess you just make your concerns known here, which you've done, and Carcharoth will take it into consideration...? Not sure if there's more you can do Giano. -- Atama頭 19:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Giano: If you have concrete objections to Bastique, please email me (or the committee as a whole.. if you send to me I'll forward on to the committee) your objections, and it will be taken into account. SirFozzie (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I have already emailed the Arbcom, but why cannot it be discussed here? I would quite like to do it here. In my view, he is the last person on earth who should be granted oversight.  Giacomo  20:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The reason for requesting comments by email was to allow concerns to be fully discussed without people having to worry about revealing private information in such a public setting. If you don't need to disclose anything private to state your concerns, then you're free to do so here as well. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 20:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what is private about this at all - people who pry into our IPs and oversight our edits seems rather a matter for public concern to me. Regarding Bastique, I am surprised that someone so involved in such a huge and failed supression has the gall to allow their name to go forward as an oversighter. The raking over of old and now cold coals can serve no one well. I suggest the Arbcom consider that very well and very closely. As a breed, I dislike obedient poodles intensely.  Giacomo  20:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I will await a prompt response from the Arbcom to my email before taking this matter further. By prompt, I mean prompt, not ten days after the appointment has been confirmed. I am well aware of how these things are handled when guided from above.  Giacomo  20:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Giano, thanks for those comments. I've copied your 3 comments above, and the 2 received by e-mail, to the document I've prepared. Like all the other comments, they will be reviewed and taken into consideration when we complete our review of the candidates. We will contact you if we need further details on the points you have raised. Carcharoth (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh Good. The word "document" coupled with Wikipedia always makes me laugh, especially when its a secret one - any German quotes in it?  Giacomo  22:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That made me smile. My original reply was less funny than I thought, so I removed it. Carcharoth (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• I haven't had much direct contact with any of the candidates but have heard of most and I don't have immediate objections. WP has such massive privacy leaks in other places that CU/OS candidate issues seem like small potatoes. If the candidates are basically privacy-conscious people and are under enforceable NDA's and are aware of past CU/OS drama enough to not repeat the same errors, that's good enough for me. I'd like to see more disclosure and consideration of other privacy issues but this isn't the place for it. 67.117.146.38 (talk) 08:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Third follow-up announcement - the comments period has closed now. Thanks for all the comments received. I'll be sorting out most of the correspondence involved with this tomorrow, and we will be completing our review of the candidates over the coming week. The schedule for this round of appointments is as previously posted to the noticeboard. Carcharoth (talk) 02:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light

Announcement

Besides ignoring the original purpose of this appeal, also ignored in this ArbCom process is (i) the lack of evidence for disturbance of ‘decorum or standards of behavior’ , that is, there was no crime, (ii) the lack of notice that ArbCom action would be sought, that is, conditions required for activating the appealed action were not satisfied, nevermind conditions for implementing a general hearing of this kind, and (iii) there is no stated basis for the motions considered in terms of WP guidelines, that is the proposed remedies are not related to the five pillars or guidelines. There is every appearance that this hearing was hijacked to alleviate preexisting prejudices, and all rules and the good of WP were set aside to accomplish that aim. That impression should be corrected, for the good of WP and of the reputations of its administrators.

The administrators also have not considered an alternative remedy suggested by myself that is at the same time more draconian and more germane to the events leading to this action.

However, I now am quite used to knee-jerk administrative behavior that ignores WP welfare and the facts, and half-baked vague sanctions that encourage further fruitless ArbCom intervention to clarify matters that could have been stated clearly at the outset. Brews ohare (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I truly do not understand why or how the committee would vote this. I saw attempts to discuss and make a consensus and a lot of head hunting. I guess it's easier to scapegoat people then to deal with the issue Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• I only see this now. Students trowing out the professors - how is that going to improve an encyclopedia? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not actually about professors and students. One of my colleagues did mention professors and students, but I think that was not the best comment to make in the circumstances (with apologies to that arbitrator). What Wikipedia is about is editors working together to improve articles, and invariably those sanctioned by ArbCom have had problems working with others, regardless of their expertise or otherwise. If you look around, you will find plenty of experts and PhD students and probably professors as well, editing Wikipedia with no problems. The trick is to learn how to edit Wikipedia and work with others while doing so (work to your own strengths and recognise your own weaknesses and the strengths of others), and that does take a while to work out if you are used to a more individualistic approach. Carcharoth (talk) 01:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Real encyclopedias ask experts. Brews has shown endless patience trying to explain things on talk pages - how can that be a reason to block him? Most experts give up on editing wikipedia in their own field in frustration. Instead, wikipedia is dominated by wannabies and crackpots. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Are you suggesting that Brews is an expert, and not a fringe theorist whom anyone with a high school education or greater is going to disagree with (and I would suspect the higher the education, the more strongly so?) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs: Apparently you haven't visited my user page or googled my name. Yes, I am an expert, no I am not a fringe theorist, yes I am disputed by a bunch of wannabes with no conception of balanced judgment. Brews ohare (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Brews is an electrical engineering professor and his contributions to electrical engineering articles have been terrific as far as I know. His contributions to mathematics articles have sometimes been problematic. To be fair, a mathematics professor jumping into electrical engineering articles would probably do even worse. Being an expert in some subject doesn't automatically make a person into an expert on every subject. 67.117.146.38 (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
        • The IP editor is correct. I would also note that Brews has made excellent contributions in terms of images. I can understand that the areas of electrical engineering and physics overlap to a large extent, and that device physics (I presume semiconductor device would be roughly the right article to link to there) and circuit design and solid-state physics (all terms Brews uses on his user page) are largely in the area of physics, so I wouldn't be adverse to a clarification at some point to allow Brews to work in those areas, but speed of light is something else again (fundamental constants and large helpings of history of science and other stuff as well). But my main point still holds - even if someone is a world-renowned expert on the subject, they still need to be able to work with others when editing articles on that subject, and those who have published on a subject do need to be aware of what WP:COI and WP:NOR say on the matter (mainly the bits about citing your own work or publications you have worked on). Experts should always be welcomed on Wikipedia, but they have to know how to work within Wikipedia policies and work with other Wikipedians, and know where the limits of their expertise lie. Carcharoth (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The original appeal concerning Sandstein's indefinite block has not been discussed or ruled upon, so the entire purpose of this appeal has been completely side-stepped in exchange for a meaningless remedy treating an imaginary problem. Brews ohare (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Things go wrong with Brews i.m.o. because of a rather trivial reason: the lack of proper talk page management. When Brews edits an article, he tends to generate rather large volumes of talk page content. Whenever there is a dispute, that volume becomes a huge problem. I'm pretty sure Brews would not have been in trouble at all had he been editing with a "William Connelly" like figure who would archive irrelevant threads, threads that have strayed too far from the topic, and then start a new thread that summarizes the main arguments that are relevant and then come to a quick resolution on these issues. Count Iblis (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. Please don't encourage Brews to act more like William Connelly. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Where did I suggest that? In the old days here on Wikipedia, it were people like William who were able to work with editors who were causing far greater problems than Brews is alleged to be causing. Arguably you and I would not be editing here today if it were not for editors like William. Only later when Wikipedia had good quality articles, becoming more popular as a result, did we get the ArbCom here and have started to nitpick about trivialities.

Just take a look here at the start of the global warming article and here you see William appearing. That is then followed by a rapid improvement of the article, even though he is working with editors like Ed Poor and SEWilco. Count Iblis (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This line of discussion probably isn't going to be helpful, and comparisons like those you are drawing would be better done elsewhere. Any discussion here should really be specifically about the sanction passed here and concerns about that, rather than bringing in other topics. Carcharoth (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I mostly see the same bunch of personalities involved in the conflict as all the other times. Could they, like, stay away from each other for a while? 67.117.146.38 (talk) 08:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No we can't Count Iblis (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes you can. Although I was also thinking of Headbomb, who is on the other side but who has so much of this conflict stuck to him by now that he should stay away too. 67.117.146.38 (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps oyu can show where that was put in place again? I'm sorry but I see the same sad history here. Brews got railroaded, the people who supported him have been saying this for a while. This time we shut up for the most part and left cool collected statements. Some even purposefully did not enter the debate so as not to give the excuse that we damned brews with our advocacy. The same people who claim that we constantly defend brews are constantly mirrored by the ones that harass him. We try to help extricate him from situations and the mirror is always trying to implicate him and ban him. When does the madness stop? Can't there be a general interaction ban between the other people too? Seriously did the scenery change as far as the people calling for brews head? Will the committee let the same group of people run off a editor and blindly say we are the cause of the problems? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

That was put in place on March 29, 2010 per the motion he diff'ed. It then expired July 7 after a second motion (technically, it was retroactively expired the same as Brews' topic ban expiration on June 29th, the decision to do so being enacted afterwards).

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Motions

It has not been in effect for some months now, but jeez, guys. If you've repeatedly been sanctioned by Arbcom and told not to do something, you shouldn't do it, even if the time period set expired. You were told not to because it was felt to be bad. Do you really want one of us to file a new request to have general sanctions imposed and/or reimpose the advocacy ban on the four of you? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Is that a threat? Sure sounds like one. I'd challenge anyone who feels our behavior has crossed the line in this show us proof. Our only offense is disagreeing with the sham that is happening here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The community was sick and tired enough of this long drama that it went to Arbcom repeatedly, Brews has been repeatedly (and now for another year currently, again) topic banned, and you and several others were banned for a while from advocating for Brews in the manner you are doing now.

I normally loathe telling people that they need to stop discussing something, but the community is really sick of this. The arguments were made. A decision was reached.

Calling this a sham is effectively flinging the bird to the entire community administration and Arbcom process that we have here. You all had your fair says. You can re-appeal to Arbcom by new motion or by new case. Complaining in other venues is not effective and has moved from rational advocacy to irritating to disruptive.

We know that you disagree with it, but you've disagreed enough and sufficiently tiresomely that you got yourself specifically banned from doing so for a while. There are only so many times we can say "Stop" before nicely someone pulls out the stick, be it a disruption block, a new motion renewing the advocacy ban, or what.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

So that was a threat? Kinda disturbing you can threaten someone with a block for appropriately disagreeing. I'm not violating the civility policies, personal attacks or otherwise being disruptive. Would you care to explain your threat based on diff aside from the fact that we disagree that this was a fair motion, in case you didn't notice this is the place to discuss that. I'm not too sure you're too familiar why we were topic banned, it was because of references to the Nazi party, inquisition or even Les Miserables if memory serves. Maybe you missed that I am suggesting a way to stop it all. Ban the same editors that's crying for brews head from doing so, reinstitute the crap on us and bingo problem solved right? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

(Multiple edit conflicts) Long reply to some unacceptably grave insults here. I stayed away from this a few days ago as I usually do in such cases, but I now think it is better to give a reply.

First, I don't remember having been sanctioned for anything here on Wikipedia since I joined in 2004, except for a small misunderstanding about me contacting people who have a userbox about religion (an Admin thought I was spamming by contacting all Wikipedians with my message about atheism). People can politely ask me to not do something and I will consider that if it sounds reasonable. If there is anything that I wrote that is seen to be problematic (not just about Brews but in general) I would be glad to hear about that.

But statements like the IP made: "I mostly see the same bunch of personalities involved in the conflict as all the other times. Could they, like, stay away from each other for a while?" are not ok. at all. So, my answer to this is: "No", simply because the request is not well motivated. I'll swallow the fact that this is formulated in an extremely impolite way.

Georgewilliamherbert should file a whatever requests are necessary. I'll just note that what I was "advocating" for at the time when Brews was repeatedly brought at AE was that the topic ban be replaced by some mentoring agreement. My sentiment uttered above (that Brews would not have been in trouble had he been editing with someone like William), expresses the same idea about the problem. But note that ArbCom did not chose my solution. Instead, they decided to shorten Brews' topic ban and decided to restrict me, Hell in a Bucket and two other editors from commenting on Brews.

So, it seems to me that ArbCom was in full control of the situation, they imposed restictions and lifted restrictions as they saw fit. There was no interference with Brews from my side after I was restricted. So, perhaps it is time to recognize that ArbCom's measures did not work and that perhaps Count Iblis or Hell in a Bucket are not a factor here? Count Iblis (talk) 01:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Not helpful. Carcharoth (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a few well-placed Orwell analogies could help you guys agitate for Brews more effectively. ALLCAPS grabs attention as well. Skinwalker (talk) 02:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Did you take that from the trolling handbook or are you just going to throw out vague passive aggressive suggestions Put your money where your mouth is and either show us the policies we are in violation of or stop trying to bait us. Your choice. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC) O wait, you already dropped Nazi, Spanish Inquisition, and Jean Valjean references above. I apologize, it seems I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. I don't want to insult your intelligence. By all means, keep beating the horse; you've amply demonstrated your skill at it. Skinwalker (talk) 03:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Please point out in what distorted reality anyone here in this discussion called someone a nazi, corrupt official or otherwise? You're only making yourself look bad by blatantly making shit up. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC) I look bad? Cast the beam from thine eye, brother. Skinwalker (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC) I'd be happy to, would you care to point out where anyone made those references here? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, the tone of this discussion has become quite elevated, eh? For me the real issue here is the diversion of my appeal aimed to shorten Sandstein's block to become instead a conversation among arbitrators in their smoke-filled back room of issues of their own choice, unrelated to the appeal; resulting in a ruling with nothing to do with the appeal, and everything to do with hijacking it to create a venue for special pleading. In fact, shortening Sandstein's block was never ruled upon. Brews ohare (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I was kind of hoping that rather than insist on a ruling in relation to the length of Sandstein's topic ban (not a block), you (and others) would have wanted to comment on what I said here. In other words, instead of the tired old refrain of "we are right and ArbCom are wrong", try and find ways to accept the current situation and move forward. If it helps you move forward from this, I am happy to say on an individual level (as I have before) that Sandstein did over-reach here. But the subsequent events reflect poorly on you, rather than him. The choice is yours: continue to rail against the decision reached here, or move forward. There are numerous ways to contribute to Wikipedia productively, and you have the opportunity to do so, or to ask to be able to do so. But that would be done elsewhere, not on this page. It would also help your case if you yourself asked others to back off and let you speak for yourself. In every case where I've seen a topic ban relaxed, or a ban lifted, it has come from what the editor themselves has said, never from what others have said on their behalf. I would ask that anyone other than you who is considering replying to this to consider that long and hard. If you want to help Brews, let him speak for himself. Carcharoth (talk) 02:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI - I have filed a new amendment request to reimpose the advocacy restrictions for those four editors for the same 12-month period Brews' new topic restriction runs for. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Carcharoth: Of course I appreciate your remarks here suggesting clarification of muddy remedies. I made the same request multiple times. Later I asked EdJohnston here. Such requests have not been answered, and, it seems, will not be answered.

The suggestion I cannot work with others certainly applies to some others, but to place the problem primarily upon my shoulders doesn't fit the facts. If you want to drag out chapter and verse, I can do that on a diff by diff, frivolous action by frivolous action basis. I'd suggest we open a discussion on your Talk page and lay it all out. If you can maintain that I am the primary cause of these problems after such a review, I'll be very surprised. If I were you, I would not be so credulous as to decide that ArbCom has made a good call just because ArbCom is ArbCom. I think WP is replete with examples where ArbCom has made the wrong call and puttied it over.

Originally, I filed a simple appeal to shorten Sandstein's block. I did not insist upon a particular ruling on this matter: ArbCom could say "sure" or "phooey". I do object to sidestepping the appeal and making it into something else altogether. Instead of dealing with the appeal, ArbCom hijacked the proceedings, did not rule either way, and used the appeal to do something else entirely of their own choice, to fabricate a venue to "tidy up" as they saw it. This arrogation of a simple appeal to suit their personal agenda reflects poorly upon ArbCom, not upon me.

I can't tell other editors what to think. If they find some ArbCom actions deplorable, and wish to say so, that is not my call, and it is their privilege. They are independent agents. It's because they think that way. ArbCom's stifling their opinions that don't sit well with ArbCom is censorship, whatever the spin, whatever the excuses. Brews ohare (talk) 07:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom retains jurisdiction over the cases it hears. This may not always be clear, but anyone who fails to resolve matters at the community level and comes to ArbCom is running the risk of not getting the case or result they wanted. We define the scope of the case and the possible remedies, and have wide latitude to impose what we see fit, based on our judgment. This is because we are the last stage in dispute resolution, and the aim is to get matters sorted for the good of the encyclopedia as a whole, not attend to the finer details of due process for individual editors. There is also a need to not let things linger on and on. Good advice to those under arbitration is to accept the results of arbitration and work within the constraints set down. Anything else is unproductive, no matter how 'right' you think you are. And I appreciate the thought, but please don't try and shift discussion to my talk page, as you will likely get blocked for that. This discussion should be the last on the matter for some time. Your only options now are to file a formal appeal for relaxation of the topic ban (the page to do this at is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment), or to do some work in other areas - trying to spin out this discussion elsewhere will likely see you blocked for discussing your sanction in the wrong area. It should be obvious that some quiet work in other areas would go a long way to seeing an appeal (in a few months) actually succeed, and it should also be obvious that an immediate appeal will almost certainly fail. I really can't put it any plainer than that. I also am unlikely to have time to respond further here, as there are other arbitration matters that need attention as well. Carcharoth (talk) 11:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Confirmation of Checkuser and Oversight appointments

Announcement

It seems quite extraordinary that Bastique (alias Cary Bass "an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation") who blocked me for revealing that hitherto respected editors, including Jimbo, were not only privately sending each other complete rubbish but believing it and persecuting one of Wikipedia's best editors into the bargain and permanently driving him off can now be appointed an oversighter. In short, he blocked me to spare Jimbo's blushes [1]. One can only assume that the Arbitration Committee either applaud such conduct or are merely doing as instructed by their employer. I don't expect any support over this, but at least the Arbitration Committee has let you serfs know where you stand - behave, don't expose the lies, deceits and stupidities of your betters or be blocked! User:!! was one of our best editors, who had perfectly legally changed his user name for personal and justified reasons, the recipients, belonging to a secret Wikipedia-Society, of a widely circulated email were too stupid to understand it or too lazy to even read it, and he was driven of. Bastique tried by brute force and thuggery to spare their embarrassment. Now he is a hallowed oversighter, there once was a time when a barnstar was reward enough. Good luck to our new oversighter!  Giacomo  17:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

GiacomoReturned, you are well aware that, even back at that time, publishing of emails on-wiki was a blockable offense. You were blocked until such time as you agreed not to republish the email on-wiki (after it had already been removed several times). If the same actions were to occur today, in all likelihood exactly the same thing would happen, and the edits including the email would be suppressed. That does not in any way suggest that the underlying issue did not need to be addressed; indeed, it was addressed at the time. Risker (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Risker, do I subscribe to quasi-secretive mailing lists? - No! I was blocked for proving the existance of such secretive sanctioned societies and the stupid, ridiculous antics and falshoods they encourage and believe - or are you sugesting the contents of that "mail" were true and harmless!  Giacomo  20:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Even if Bastique had acted wrongly there, the notion that giving him an oversight tool would somehow be the Arbcom implicitly "applaud such conduct" from 2007 is extremely bizarre. If Cary Bass couldn't be trusted not to blow up the wiki, I think we'd have known by now. All this tends to show me is the remarkable endurance of Giano's grudges, and his inability to recognise that not everything is an action taken for or against his interests and agenda. If we really did discount regular editors because they'd made a controversial call (or even a bad one) sometime in the last three years, who'd be left? Giano?--Scott Mac 20:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Not my agenda at all, unless my agenda is to have an open and honest Wikipedia!  Giacomo  20:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• We're about writing an encyclopedia. Constantly engaging in battle ground tactics and dragging up stuff from three years ago that most of us have forgotten doesn't help that. No, this is only about your ego and smiting your perpetual enemies, as ever.--Scott Mac 20:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Funnily enough, you are the eone who keeps popping up - were you involved? - or are you just some form of wise oracle who loves to comment?  Giacomo  20:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I keep thinking that you might be open to wise oracles. But perhaps that's just my inability to learn the lessons of long ago.--Scott Mac 20:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well why don't we give everyone a laugh - there must be lots of new people who have never sem the "sooper seekrit dokument" that so many of Wikipedia's best beleived and I was banned for posting.  Giacomo  20:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I suspect a few people may smile at the memory of that past farce, but really, from this perspective, much ado about nothing.--Scott Mac 21:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, until he tries it again. Will anyone ever dare to expose one of secret-societies again and their stupidities - I doubt it. Is Jimbo privy to many of these do you suppose. Guten abend.  Giacomo  21:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Good grief. Yes, and have a good night too.--Scott Mac 21:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)