Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Preliminary injunction regarding pending changes and biographies of living persons

Original announcement

And what happens, pray tell, when semi protection is not justified? One must first semi protect, then remove the semi protection? Such bureaucratic silliness arbcom, you disappoint me. A simple "Administrators shall review the possibility of applying page protection when removing pending changes protection from any article." would have done nicely. Instead we have this overreaching mandate that should be ignored. Prodego ^talk 16:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not a realistic proposal. For example—after protracted problems—I added indefinite level 2 PC to Carl Hewitt, in addition to indefinite semi-protection, with a view to stopping all but the most legitimate of edits. I had intended to remove PC and leave the semi in place. I certainly can't justify adding indefinite full protection. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 17:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• Since when did GovCom have the power to re-write the protection policy? I for one won't take a blind bit of notice of this. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Now I'm not an admin, I've got no ability to add/remove changes, and have little to risk here, but my interpretation is that admins should be expected to use common sense here. The way I read this, if a page had PC with 37 days left on it before expiring on an article, the new protection should be 37 days. Moreover, pending changes, like protections, are subject to reevaluation by and admin at any time, with possible outcomes including shortening the time a protection is applied and removing the protection all together, (especially if the admin that placed the protection no longer sees it as necessary). This injunction dosen't change this. It states that when PC goes down, protection of other means goes up, but says nothing about what is done to that protection afterwards. If someone really is worried here, a request for clarification should be filed, asking about the terms of these new protections. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Well perhaps we're reading it and seeing different things, but, to me, Any administrator who removes pending changes protection from any article flagged as a biography of a living person shall replace level 1 pending changes with semi-protection of an equivalent duration sounds like I am obliged to semi-portect a BLP if I remove PC from it (which admins are obliged to do by the closure pof the RfC). That's re-writing the protection policy, which is ultra vires. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Read the comments by the voting arbs. A majority of the voters, Jclemens, John Vandenberg, Risker, Kirill, and Coren all mention in one way or another that this is a stopgap and does not impede the normal process of removing unneeded protections. The point here is not to leave articles hanging when they need protection; to prevent a less than thoughtful admin from performing an en-masse removal and in so doing leaving vulnerable articles where some protection is needed.

If you want to remove PC, replace it with the prescribed protection, and then remove that prescribed protection, all in the span of three seconds, with an edit summary expressing that no protection of any type is needed anymore, you've done your due diligence in assessing the threat posted by removing protection. There should not be any problem with you doing that. Sure the extra step is a pain, but if it calms the worries of a large group of people, suck it up and make the extra two mouse clicks. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

That's beyond ArbCom's power. Protection is added, removed or modifed in accordnace with the protection policy at the discretion of the admin or as a result of an RfPP request. That can't be changed without seeking site-wide consesnsus. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It's within arbcom's power in that the arbitrators hold the power to remove administrative privileges, and can use such to prescribe whatever rules of administration they like. The exercise of power may not be legitimate, but there's no doubt that in terms of sheer force, they have the ability to make the injunction stick. Given this injunction, and the willful failure to deal with Scott's wheel warring and involved blocking, many of the current arbitrators may have difficulty in seeking reelection. Unfortunately, there is no process for arbitrator recall. Chester Markel (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I wish that they had added a qualifying word to that, such as "blindly". The PC test netted a range of articles, some of which had suffered vandalism, others not so much. The admins clearing out the list generally seemed to be taking time to figure out what level of protection was needed, as often expressed in their edit summaries. Since the process has now gone on past the target date, I can understand if some people rushed at the end, and the ArbCom announcement sounds like reasonable advice for people who don't have the time to figure out what the situation is with individual articles. With the notable exception that generally Pending Changes articles were protected for an infinite duration at the technical level, and for a two month test duration ending last year at the policy level, making the "equivalent duration" a hard thing to figure out. They should just have specified some fairly short fixed term and left it to be reviewed case by case after that. Wnt (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I think there's an overreaction here. There are folk who want to go through all the articles which have FR set and remove it. that's causing problems with BLPs, because anyone doing mass removals may well not be fully aware of why a BLP was flagged in the first place. What this motion allows is for those who want to go through and de-flag all articles to go ahead and do just that - but in a manner which does not lower the protection on any article. In many cases, the protection level can be removed or lowered. That can still happen, in the usual way, on a slower case-by-case basis. I'm the first to say that long-term full-protection is seldom if ever appropriate. With problematic underwatched BLPs a better response is to get them on several watchlists. That's what I've now done with the flagged articles I was tending, and I've removed the flagging now. This motion is a win/win, because it separates the desire to remove all flagging from the need to treat BLPs carefully on a case-by-case basis. If an article has been protected due to BLP violations, or (as in at least one case) because of an OTRS complaint, there's time to stop, think, consult, before lowering the protection.--Scott Mac 20:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The motion is irrational. A great deal of PC was added thoughtlessly, or with a view simply to testing it out to see how it fared. There is no way PC level 2 should be replaced in every case with full protection. Has there been lobbying behind the scenes about this by interested parties? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Not by me (and the question seems to fail to assume good faith). Actually, I mostly agree with you. Looking at most of the PC set, they were set explicitly as part of the test or to avoid simple vandalism. In such cases, removing and substituting little or no protection is fine. However, some have been set explicitly due to BLP violations, and in at least one case with reference to an OTRS ticket. Any such should not have lesser protection without at least a careful inquiry as to the problem and an insuring that we don't open up a particularly vulnerable article to problems - particularly if it is underwatched. In such cases, notifying the admin who set the problem should be a minimum. Already we're seen two mistakes in what Kww was doing. Two problematic articles that were unprotected without seeing the problem (one OTRS related). I'm not blaming him, it is an easy mistake to make when you are coming at this from a mass-article approach. I suspect the number of articles that this will apply to is very limited, but we do need some care.--Scott Mac 20:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, no, it's not fine simply to remove it, because now there's a motion saying we have to add full protection in place of PC2. I'm the admin who set the Carl Hewitt protection, and I've carefully reviewed it and notified myself that, if we're removing PC, then semi is now fine. But now I'm not allowed to do that. This is silly. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Heee. Well, use IAR on that specific case, and for good cause. If you get arbcommed, I'll be happy to write you a testimonial! Meh, this is what happens when we put aside pragmatism and common sense for inflexible blanket rules.--Scott Mac 21:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Just ignore it, Slim. Not even a GovCom as mad with power as this one has become is going to desysop an admin as effective and prolific as you for doing the best thing for an article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I agree. An action in the obvious best interests of a particular article is always justified.--Scott Mac 21:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The motion is just a sign that Arbcom has misinterpreted the case set before it. I removed protection from some articles, I protected some articles. I made one mistake that has been pointed out (and one supposed error that isn't one: no one has pointed out any reason to protect Tony Meléndez, an article that hasn't been edited in 9 months), but no one has provided any evidence that I was not using sound judgment about articles. I was acting with a quite strong consensus. Scott objected, and brought the issue to ANI. When the response at ANI made it clear that others viewed my actions as being within consensus laid out, I continued, and Scott blocked me for implementing that consensus, despite it having been made quite clear to him that his position was without merit. When it continued to be clear that he had no support for his position, he brought it to Arbcom. Now Arbcom is acting as if I was acting uniliaterally and causing mass disruption, and the answer they are providing is to deprive all admins of exercising any judgment in making protection decisions when getting this trial to finally end. Normally in a case like this, Scott would have been desysopped summarily the moment he filed the Arbcom report: instead, Arbcom is acting as if he was reacting to a threat to Wikipedia, and rewarding him by handing him what he wanted, and I'm being asked to go through all of my decisions and undo them as if I everything I had done was in error. I find it sad.—Kww(talk) 21:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The long-term viability of pending changes protection has been compromised by actions taken for the sake of short-term expediency. Not ending the "trial" after the prescribed two months, because of the belief that some articles would still benefit from the protection, has resulted in a situation where any efforts to create a long-term policy for implementing pending changes will be opposed by many editors who are angry with the trial situation. Exacerbating this problem, by blocking an administrator for attempting to actually end the trial as supported by community consensus, is ultimately very harmful to BLP enforcement, because it is going to make the anti-PC editors even angrier, and sink any efforts to apply the protection to a large number of BLPs per a new policy. Scott's actions are anti-BLP, and support the use of Wikipedia as a vehicle for anonymous defamation. Chester Markel (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

@Kww and SlimVirgin. We can keep fighting over this, or we can try to suggest to arbcom a better way. This isn't a matter of me winning or losing. I'd be content with a motion that said "Where flagged revisions has been set for reasons of "violations of BLP policy" or (OTRS or somesuch), the flagging should be substituted with the equivalent level of protection until the admin setting the protection is notified, and the article listed on a page for review for 7 days". That would allow most of your removals to stand, and articles with BLP issues to have a number of eyes on them, and ones with complications identified, before we lower their protection. Seriously, I think the practical distance between us is very limited here. Sarah, if we could agree on a better motion, more to your liking, I think we could pitch it to arbcom.--Scott Mac 21:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

We've pointed it out multiple times, Scott: individual admins exercising sound judgment, with the normal checks and balances that are always in place, are able to handle all of these cases. Neither of the "errors" you point out as evidence of some kind of sloppiness or rushing on my part are clearcut errors: both articles would stand a very good chance of being unprotected if a request was made at WP:RFPP. Articles which have not been edited in months, much less vandalized, are not generally left protected forever. You acted as if I was some kind of threat to Wikipedia: I wasn't, am not, and will not be. This injunction is a case of Arbcom reacting to the wrong thing, and it saddens me that you are going to feel empowered by this decision as if you had some kind of justification for your actions. You didn't. You wheel-warred and blocked me invalidly, all because you didn't understand that PC was coming to an end. Your misreaction has now generated much worse problems, as we now have Arbcom dictating an invalid protection policy.—Kww(talk) 21:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I think there's a very large difference here, between admins who believe that BLP is ultimately best served by working through community consensus, since it is largely dependent upon the community to do the legwork of enforcing the policy, and one administrator who seems to feel that BLP is advanced by involved blocking to forcibly escalate the situation to arbcom, requesting action squarely in opposition to the community. Scott, how much cooperation in BLP-related efforts do you expect, after resorting to such high-handed measures? You will never be able to enforce the policy by yourself. Your best option would be to ask arbcom to reverse the motion, apologize to the community, and resign your administrative privileges as a gesture of penance. Chester Markel (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest something like this:

When removing pending-changes protection from a biography of a living person, administrators should replace it with semi-protection for the same length of time. Any other administrator may review the protection level and remove it, reduce the time period, or increase it to full protection, as appropriate. Where there is disagreement, a request should be posted to WP:RfPP for review.

SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

How about "When removing pending-changes protection from a biography of a living person, administrators should exercise sound judgment. Generally, articles that have been on pending changes should be switched to semi-protection, but the admin may, at his discretion, switch to either full protection or unprotection if circumstances warrant." There's no reason to prescribe a two-step process.—Kww(talk) 21:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Let's direct administrators to exercise sound judgement, as most have already been doing. We might want to create a special process with notification of the protecting admin and a 7 day delay for articles that were pending changes protected with an OTRS number referenced, but that's a vanishingly small fraction of all BLPs. Chester Markel (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Generally the "sound judgment" or semi-protection, is fine. However, since we know mistakes get made, and reviewing admins may not be in possession of the facts, then where OTRS or "BLP violation" has been given as the reason, the deflagger should also notify the protecting admin, and not lower to semi until either that admin is given a chance to review, or at least until another set of eyes looks at the article. If the BLP is underwatched, removing flagging for semi protection, at least has the potential for problems from confirmed accounts. It would also be good for the deflagger to watchlist any BLP articles, so that they see any problems their action might cause.--Scott Mac 22:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

How about just adding articles in general and BLPs in particular that you protect to your watchlist? I watch every article I've ever unprotected (except where I was reversing my own action) and I believe most RfPP/RfUP regulars do similarly. Notifying/discussing with the protecting admin, if they're active, is courteous and to be strongly advised in borderline situations, but we don't need GovCom to essentially tell admins to do what the community made them admins to do.

On a more general note, Scott, BLP enforcement is, of course, of the utmost importnace and you do a great job under trying circumstances, but you would find it easier if you worked with the community and your fellow admins rather than against them (emergencies aside, of course). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious; what would you have done this case? NW (Talk)

I don't understand why any admin without access to OTRS would modify a protection level with an OTRS ticket given as a reason. Can someone help me explain the reasoning behind someone wanting to do this? Jclemens (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

OTRS tickets are not a valid protection reason. It may be that the ticket contains such a reason, but then you should be supplying that as a protection reason instead. Prodego ^talk 22:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

But there's no harm in asking another admin with OTRS access to investigate before unprotecting and there might be a very good, but not so obvious, reason for the protection. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The ticket most often contains the rationale, and often the information cannot (space reasons) and/or should not (privacy policy) be released. In cases where I cite an OTRS ticket, I almost always also use "Violations of the BLP policy" as the primary reason. NW (Talk) 22:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Indeed, the OTRS number is a pointer to a reason, not a reason itself. By listing an OTRS ticket in BLP protections I've done, I've intended to convey that 1) it is a good reason, 2) it's available to approved OTRS agents, and 3) people who need to know should refer to OTRS. I've always seen OTRS as a good place for this--if I get hit by a bus, no one knows why anything done "per Jclemens' conversation with the subject" really happened. Since the discussions are conducted through OTRS, any appropriate admin can pick up the conversation (including with the BLP subject) right where it left off. I'm still interested in hearing why anyone without OTRS access would think it's a good idea to unprotect such an article rather than referring to someone with OTRS access to read up on the history, first. Jclemens (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

@Jclemens. The stated reason was "Trial is complete" [1].--Scott Mac 22:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

This particular case is the only one of the unprotections that I made that can validly be described as a "mistake" (I missed the OTRS ticket), and, even then, I don't think it's much of one. OTRS ticket or not, an article that hasn't been edited in three months is generally not considered a candidate for protection. Unless I've missed it, there has never been a consensus for indefinite semi-protection on BLPs that are not chronically vandalized. There were not any rejected anonymous edits during the course of the Pending changes trial, and no apparent history of heavily vandalism with the article at all. There's one oversighted edit in January 2010, and there was one anonymous editor that blanked it several times, but stopped quite a while ago. Given that history, what protection level is justified?—Kww(talk) 22:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Just because no one is making valid edits to a page doesn't mean that there aren't folks waiting in the wings to make BLP edits. There are plenty of topics where IP editors will regularly make BLP-violating edits; Stargate fandom and GMT Games are two that come to mind. They need to remain indefinitely semi-protected regardless of how infrequently viewed or edited they are. Jclemens (talk) 23:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Granted, and that's one of the problems with semi-protection: people can't try and fail, so you can't see if people are interested in trying. That's why watchlisting articles that you unprotect is important. I reprotected Indo-Pakistani relations this morning due to the immediate resumption of vandalizing IPs, for example. This is par for the course: a standard part of protecting and unprotecting articles is to monitor the article for the results of your actions. Evaluating the long-term history of an article is important as well: I'd oppose any effort to unprotect Sacagawea, for example, due to the long-term history of vandalism. Peaches (pornographic actress) just doesn't give any indication of that necessity. There's a short burst o problems in February, but that's about it. If I hadn't missed the OTRS ticket, I probably wouldn't of unprotected it just out of an abundance of caution, but there really isn't a strong case for continuing protection on the article.—Kww(talk) 00:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure there is; it's called "due caution". That is, once an entity such as Wikipedia has actual knowledge of defamation issues, it could be legally actionably irresponsible for that entity (us) to allow them to recur when we possessed the ability to prevent such recurrence. Beyond the mere legalities, which are imprecise and vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, there's always the fact that it's the right thing to do. Jclemens (talk) 00:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You haven't seen me take any steps to remove the protection once the OTRS ticket was pointed out to me, have you? I disagree with the concept that OTRS tickets last forever (and I would be interested in seeing a policy which says that they do), and, more importantly, we don't have any mechanism short of full protection that prevents defamation from being inserted in articles: all we can reasonably pledge is to react promptly when it comes to our attention. Remember: my inclination and preference is to completely disable all anonymous editing, effectively semi-protecting all articles. I don't get my way on that, and I know it. That I ever unprotect any article is a sign of my efforts to follow policies and guidelines. When I step through articles and remove PC, I do my best to follow policies and guidelines about what the protection state should become. In my judgment, on that article, it can reasonably fall either way: the only thing that nudges it towards semi-protection is the OTRS ticket, and I'm not aware of a policy that makes those tickets last beyond the apparent cessation of the problem.—Kww(talk) 00:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Jclemens, we ('users') are not legally responsible for Wikipedia. Legally we are users of a service, that's the WMF that is responsible for Wikipedia. For Wikipedia to have knowledge of defamation issue, it means that the WMF or its agents have knowledge of such issues. If mere users of the service, even if they call themselves 'admins' or 'arbitrators', have knowledge of a defamation issue, it doesn't make it that 'Wikipedia' as legal entity has knowledge of it (that's where your 'us' is incorrect).

The OTRS system however is indeed a way to inform the WMF of defamation threats, and OTRS personnel can be considered agents of the WMF (not mere 'users'). Those 'agents', in their interaction with 'users', must follow the policies set by the WMF. From what I understand, generally admins may not of their own discretion change OTRS protections, but consensus can unless otherwise directed by WMF officials (not mere OTRS agents). Cenarium (talk) 00:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Concern about legal liability misses the point. As a practical matter, if Wikipedia becomes "the free scandal sheet anyone can vandalize", we're screwed. Implementing level-two PC protection on a wide range of BLPs is an important tool in preventing that outcome. But the pending changes feature cannot be properly deployed in an atmosphere so degraded by authoritarian actions that the community will never agree to it. Regaining our trust needs to start now. Chester Markel (talk) 01:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Another suggestion, then, based on the above:

When removing pending-changes protection from a biography of a living person, administrators should replace it with semi-protection for an appropriate length of time. Any administrator may review the protection level and switch to no protection or full protection. Where there is disagreement, a request should be posted to WP:RfPP for review. Where pending changes was added as a result of an OTRS ticket, or BLP violations, the protecting administrator should be notified.

SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

"Same length of time" results in indefinite semiprotection in most cases.—Kww(talk) 22:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Add "if pending changes was set due to BLP violations, the admin who set the flag should be notified." I'd rather have them consulted prior to the protection being dropped, but I'll settle for notification. That means if semi isn't going to solve the problem (sleeper socks) and the admin removing flagging misses this, there's an opportunity for the flagging admin to sort the issue (probably by getting the article on multiple watchlists). As I say, I'd want more - but I'll compromise. Informing an admin isn't onerous.--Scott Mac 22:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, changes made. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed that you are still mandating a two-step process. Might as well use a bot to do the robotic, judgment-free switch to semi-protection, and then have admins go over the result and do the real work. Or you can skip the bot, and just let admins do their jobs. Alternatively, I guess the first admin could semi-protect any article that didn't need protection for 5 minutes or so.—Kww(talk) 22:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree we should just let people do their jobs, but I'm thinking this would be a reasonable compromise. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• Colleagues, this injunction by ArbCom is what is called adult supervision and leadership, two things which are often sorely lacking with this project, and, in the case of BLPs, the lack of such can and have caused serious problems. If you admins took protection of BLPs seriously enough, then this wouldn't be necessary. To be fair, there aren't enough admins with enough time to police all BLPs, which is why pending changes is necessary. Cla68 (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • You've hit the nail on the head: community involvement is necessary to enforce WP:BLP. So grossly insulting statements comparing editors opposing the injunction to children who require "adult supervision" are counterproductive. Scott + arbcom + OTRS + foundation staff members cannot possibly police every biography. Effectively stopping Wikipedia-based defamation and highly biased biographies requires buy-in by Wikipedia's 500+ active administrators, and tens of thousands of regular editors. Such a goal necessitates that the community to be treated with respect. Chester Markel (talk) 00:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• I would just like to commend ArbCom for the swift decision on this. NewYorkBrad's closing statement on the RFC correctly dictated that we should be cautious in implementing the consensus to end the Pending Changes trial. Since we seemed to be incapable of following a softer, more flexible request to act judiciously (which resulted in an unfortunate block) an injunction more clearly spells out what Brad meant. Abiding by the spirit of WP:BLP while we carry out removal of Pending Changes is the right thing to do obviously, and should allow admins act on the consensus of the RFC without further drama. Once that's done, the community can move on to creating a lasting policy about how and where to apply Pending Changes, if at all, and this injunction will have served its purpose. Thank you again, Steven Walling at work 00:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Creation of "a lasting policy about how and where to apply Pending Changes" could have already been achieved, if the foundation hadn't already messed up the "two month" trial. At its conclusion, the PC feature should have been disabled by developers as a technical measure. The community could then have discussed a long-term pending changes policy, without having the debate continually derailed by complaints that the trial was unfairly extended. Chester Markel (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Arguing about the past does no one good, especially since I wasn't around or in charge for any Foundation decisions about extending the trial past two months. Steven Walling at work 01:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
      • The past is repeating itself, in the form of a community-disrupting injunction, and foundation endorsement of the same. Removing PC protection from the remaining articles was supposed to limit the damage caused by the never-ending trial, so that I could, say, propose a policy that PC level two protection is to be used on all articles with a history of BLP problems, or all "high-risk" biographies, or whatever, without being shouted down. Now, any such discussion will be disrupted by complaints about the trial and the injunction. Arbcom/foundation actions of which the community strongly disapproves are harmful to a community-based project. Chester Markel (talk) 01:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
        • "Arbcom/foundation actions of which the community strongly disapproves are harmful to a community-based project."? ArbCom is part of the community. In any case, I'm not convinced that it causes any harm to ask that admins apply some form of protection if they're going to remove Pending Changes from BLPs. Quite the opposite. It seems like simple common sense in light of our current policies. Steven Walling at work 02:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
          • Please read the injunction more carefully. It doesn't just mandate "some form of protection". It states that semi-protection must be used to replace level 1 PC, and full-protection for level 2 PC. Simple common sense would be for the administrator removing the PC protection to review the history of the article, and determine what level of conventional protection, if any, should be used to replace it, OTRS situations excepted. Instead, administrators' hands are tied with useless bureaucracy. Please review some of the comments by community members here, on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#BLP_and_flagged_revisions, and at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Mass_removal_of_Flagged_revision_from_BLPs to ascertain just how angry many editors are with the injunction, and the lack of sanction for Scott's wheel warring and involved blocking, which would ordinarily result in emergency desysopping. Chester Markel (talk) 02:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
          • Also, "ArbCom is part of the community" only in the sense that they are elected by the community, but cannot be recalled before the end of their terms, no matter how injudicious their decisions. If it were possible, we'd certainly be having recall elections right now. Chester Markel (talk) 02:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
            • Precisely. We are being enjoined from using judgment. Sadly enough, people have been assuming that I am guilty of poor judgment: I note that Steven seems completely comfortable with stating that my actions were "injudicious". I would invite him to review the protection decisions I have made during this time, and point out any that struck him as being "injudicious". So far, out of a couple hundred decisions I made, only one has been suggested to be counter to any policy or guideline, and no one has really made a conclusive statement on that one.—Kww(talk) 02:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
              • On the bright side, according to Template:ArbitrationCommitteeChartRecent, many of the current arbitrators responsible for creating this mess will be up for reelection in December. I encourage editors to vote the incumbents out. Chester Markel (talk) 02:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
                • Arbcom cannot remove admin discretion with regard to protection; a few arbs acknowledged that admins could subsequently alter the protection level in accordance with the protection policy and though they emitted conditions such as 'after a review' or 'after a while', their opinions diverged and this was not mentioned in the injunction. So we should assume that we can immediately after apply discretion as usually (that is, after a review, with regard to the article and protection specifics, in accordance with the protection policy), and as pointed out above arbcom indeed would have no power to exempt those articles from the protection policy. This injunction is just a hype. Cenarium (talk) 02:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
                  • The arbitrators seem to believe they can make whatever modifications to the protection or any other administrative policy they want, because they hold the power of desysopping. Widespread defiance of, well, whatever arbcom wants, would precipitate a constitutional crisis, with admins being desysopped left and right, attempts made to community ban arbitrators, etc. While I have faith that stewards would exercise good judgement to eventually reign in a rogue committee, there's no need to escalate the conflict to that point. It's only a thousand articles, and half of the arbitrators will probably be voted out in December. That should be sufficient to send a message to those remaining on the committee that the will of the community must be respected. Chester Markel (talk) 03:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
                    • Or you could stand on a platform yourself and see what support the community gives to that platform. That would be an alternative to judging 1-3 years work by some arbitrators on their stance on a single issue. In my experience, voters at such polls tend to see single-issue voting for what it is, and the vast majority of voters look at what is said at the time of the election, and most specific incidents are long forgotten, especially when they happen 7-8 months earlier. Anyway, ask your questions at the election, and see what the responses are, but I doubt you will get the sweeping change you envisage. Carcharoth (talk) 01:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
              • Kww: nowhere did I say your actions in particular were injudicious. I never even used the word. In fact, I said that your block was unfortunate, and I meant that. (I'd also like to remind everyone that this is my opinion as someone asked to help the tech staff talk to you all about this. It's not an official Wikimedia Foundation "seal of approval" on anything or anyone. The word of the Foundation is not needed for a decision to be made about how the trial is closed.) Steven Walling at work 03:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• This is all very dumb. The reason we don't have a consensual permanent PC implementation by now is because of the actions by some overzealous people who wanted PC immediately. We finally have the consensus to 'end' the 'trial', the plan was to allow admins to apply their discretion in transitioning to no protection, SP or FP, with all due regard to article specifics and following WP:PP. This was part of the proposal, and the closer's discretion cannot go against that, the closer has no line veto; of course admins had to be watchful of BLP issues when evaluating the level of protection required (and if it's otrs), as always. Now because an admin made several such transitions in order to apply the consensus and among them two mistakes, he got blocked, this silliness got to arbcom, and arbcom made a swift rigorous injunction in order to appear tough on BLP. But unofficially arbs say that we can apply discretion subsequently. That's again an injunction for nothing but political interest. Keep going with such zeal, and PC will never be a reality on WP. Cenarium (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• • Indeed. Scott's wheel warring and involved blocking weren't his only recent imprudent actions in this area. The removal of reviewer status for wiki-political reasons, such as disagreement with an editor's talk page comment tends to confirm editors' worst fears that the PC tool will be used in an authoritarian manner. Users should discuss sources that may or may not be appropriate on article talk pages, rather than unilaterally adding them to BLPs. To punish an editor for daring to suggest that a certain source is usable in a biography by removing his reviewer rights has a chilling effect on discourse within the project, and may lead to the community avoiding pending changes protection altogether. Chester Markel (talk) 02:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Credibility is the biggest issue here, and those in charge of PC have lost it in a pretty big way, IMHO. Implementation and rollout were ill thought out. Its indefinite existence was a foregone conclusion, thus no proper planning was ever put into place for its dismantling. As I recall, the proposal was mounted in the face of considerable opposition, and it gained consensus on the promise that this would only be a temporary. The fact that we have only now voted to end the "2-month trial" without there being a real analysis of the results against the original goal supports my view of poor project management. Yes, post-trial, there are legitimate fears sudden dismantling would result in chaos, and the arbcom motion can be seen as an attempt at an orderly wind-down of PC. However, considering the vote to end, the motion is a knee-jerk which seeks to perpetuate the "trial" by locking in some default parameters requested by Scott but undiscussed by anyone else other than Arbcom. Having nudged Arbcom into passing the motion that it passed, Scott now seems to be seeking to apply the letter of the motion in a heavy-handed manner. Arbcom must agree that that was not the intent, and must amend the motion. Otherwise, Arbcom's own credibility will go down the tubes just as that of the project managers of PC.

      I agree with Harry that Arbcom appears to have exceeded its powers – the terms are well past what is reasonable or to encourage orderly unwinding. It's obvious that as a first and easy step, those bios with OTRS tickets can be taken off PC with immediate effect, and given a high level of protection. Then, had we done a proper study of the results, we would also know which articles can have PC removed without much ado. We don't, so now it will have to be left to interested admins to sort the wheat from the chaff. I don't envy them. The Arbcom motion is unnecessarily formulaic, and treats our admins were a bunch of machines. I say we should perhaps just ask Rich Farmbrough to send Smackbot in to remove PC in the manner prescribed, because such formulaic rules lend themselves well to this being an automated task to achieve the very unnecessary two-step proccess mandated. Slim Virgin is one of those prepared to get the bit between her teeth, and attack the problem in a sensible manner; Kww should be thanked and have his back patted for applying a bit of nous. I would thoroughly commend her on her efforts to propose a pragmatic and reasonable implementation. If we continue to have intransigence and bullying like we have witnessed, the only solution would be to say "fuck bureaucracy" and apply WP:COMMONSENSE going forwards. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

      • I think now that the arbitration committee. Is just giving power to disrupt wikipedia to make a point. The arbitrators have the power to there heads; it is just contradicting WP:NOT. Sysops should just use there own sense of judgement and use common sense. Also, full protection?! If there is not any more vandalism, no protection. If you put protection of pages like that, it is just a waste of time for the sysops that have better things to do. It will also have an effect on editors. Protected page edit-requests are horribly ineffective. It takes lots of time, and it might not look good, but it is. Full protection also may discourage editors. Our motto is "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Not everyone can edit pages with protection. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 19:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• PC has been removed from all mainspace pages. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The point of full-protection (which is usually undesirable) was to allow the immediate removal of PC, while also allowing a more cautious examination of articles to see what level of protection (often none or only semi) the merits of the particular article demanded. In most cases it appears that PC was simply set as a test and could be removed without any consequences, in a few cases it had been set because of extraordinary BLP issues, and it was important that consideration be given to what, other than PC, was needed to safeguard. As the person who sought (and welcomed) the injunction, I'll admit this one was probably overcautious in most cases, and has now probably outlived its usefulness.--Scott Mac 20:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I am still wondering what the answer is to the question that was asked here. Guy Macon (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Or here.. Guy Macon (talk) 11:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. For no reason should an article ever be indefinitely fully protected, even because of Arbcom's ruling. PC works; semi-protection doesn't—it's as simple as that. —mc10 (t/c) 23:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Semi has its uses. As does PC and, in extreme cases, FP. However, it is not within the remit of the Arbitration Committee (which, in name if nothing else, is a dispute resolution body) to dictate a new protection policy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe the problem here arises from the conflation of issues. WP:BLP itself is a non-negotiable, foundation-approved policy. Should there ever develop a consensus to do something which arbcom believes violates the policy, the committee would be acting correctly in quashing it. However, the limited scope of BLP needs to be recognized. Primarily, the policy concerns itself with substantive standards for content about living people. To a lesser extent, it prescribes certain extreme remedies that can be used to directly enforce key portions of the content standards, such as involved blocking and page protection. However, BLP does not permit the following offensive behaviors, under any circumstances:

1. Wheel warring over page protection. While even an involved administrator can place a page protection when reasonably believed to be necessary to stop badly sourced contentious material from being inserted, the community can decide to remove it, either immediately or later, if the circumstances are judged to be otherwise, consistent with the protection policy.
2. Involved blocking to stop any action which does not directly affect substantive content about living people. Editors, even admins, can be blocked to stop potential defamation. But administrators must never place involved blocks against other admins to stop activities only indirectly affecting BLP content, such as unprotection of articles.

The correct level of protection for any article is a matter to be decided by the community, with due regard to BLP, but consideration also given to maintaining an editable wiki. While any level of page protection less than sysop only presents a non-negligible possibility of future BLP violations, BLP does not require freezing editing of the site. If an administrator is recklessly unprotecting articles in a manner which, evaluated against the community developed protection policy, portends an unacceptable level of future BLP violations, arbcom may intervene with emergency desysopping. But the committee should not use its power to rewrite the protection policy, force compliance with its rewrite, or countenance involved blocking due to simple disagreement with good faith administrative actions. Chester Markel (talk) 07:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I admit the hypothetical possibility of a future consensus to undermine the blocking and page protection policies which permit BLP violations to be forcibly stopped, or community actions reversing blocks and page protections to such an extent that the BLP content standards are substantially jeopardized, necessitating foundation intervention. But we are nowhere near that point yet. The community generally does take BLP pretty seriously, and allows administrators ample use of blocking and protection tools to enforce it. Chester Markel (talk) 07:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, the phrase "BLP trumps consensus" is greatly overused. While the policy page describes certain principles that the foundation is willing to protect, its exact text has been under the control of the community, and its application to particular factual circumstances determined by consensus, with a few interjections by arbcom. BLP is certainly not a license to elevate one's own idiosyncratic view of the policy to the force of divine mandate. Chester Markel (talk) 08:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

BLP is by convention, necessity and practice more of a principle than a set of rules. It says "fairness of living people matters, and Wikipedia's practices must always take this on board". This needs a lot of judgement, and at times creativity. We can't tolerate our inhouse rules adding to the high risks open editing already exposes living people to. So admins need to be free to look at the circumstances of a case, and make a call - baring in mind the overarching principle. You can't write a policy page to cover all eventualities - so admins need to have freedom of action in defence of BLPs. Call that "idiosyncratic" of you want - I just call it flexibility to respond to unforeseeable circumstances. Sure, the call be carefully reviewed later. Often it is possible to say "well, OK, but actually we can do this, if we just do it this way instead." But what we must to is err on the side of extreme caution, till we've done the risk assessment. That's why an unreferenced negative bio gets nuked on sight. It may be that later discussion will show the contents factual and fair, but we don't publish until we're sure no one will be damned. It is the same here. Unflagging BLPs may turn out to be harmless, or indeed a simply check by one admin may turn out to be sufficient. However, when a risk is pointed out, we stop, err on the side of extreme caution, assess the risk, and then if safe proceed. Unfortunately, that was missed, which resulted in regrettable measured being taken. In the cold light of day, we can see other ways of proceeding, and have now done so. But the principle is right.--Scott Mac 23:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that you are genuinely and passionately concerned with BLP enforcement. But so are many other admins, and other editors. In the future, if you believe that another administrator's clearly good faith actions are so misguided as to constitute a BLP emergency, blocking him yourself is neither acceptable, nor even useful, since the block may be quickly removed, as it was here. Instead, you should contact a steward on IRC, and request an emergency desysopping. Such requests are generally acted upon within minutes. The benefit of this approach is that it doesn't hold your own judgement of the matter as superior to other admins. Instead, a neutral, highly trusted third party will determine the correct course of action. If the situation actually constitutes an emergency, the offending administrator's activities will be halted in a way that can't be reversed until arbcom reviews the issue. Alternatively, if the steward declines your request and asks you to calm down, you can be assured that the matter wasn't as serious as you had thought. Chester Markel (talk) 04:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

And one reason the arbcom injunction is wrong is that administrators who can't be trusted not to take many injudicious actions on BLPs and open the floodgates of defamation shouldn't be admins. Human sysops whose judgement is sound do not require robot-like instructions - it's been observed that a bot account could have been used to more quickly and efficiently remove PC protection from BLPs in the way mandated. Being "free to look at the circumstances of a case, and make a call" is exactly what the injunction forbade admins to do. Chester Markel (talk) 04:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

An emergency desysop is quite ridiculous in these circumstances. The block was perfectly useful as it did have the desired effect of getting the admin to stop and the matter to be discussed. Indeed, with hindsight a shorter one would have sufficed. As for me calming down, that's beside the point. If my concerns, once investigated, prove unmerited then the mass action could continue. The important thing was to get the admin to halt so that there could be a proper examination. In hindsight, although I believe my blocking was justified, it would been wiser to get someone else to do it (as it would have caused less brouhaha. I was foolish not to have considered that.). There should be no big deal about a short pause when someone is doing something to BLPs on mass, and another admin in good faith expresses concerns. Kww's refusal to stop was quite unreasonable. Your second rant about floodgates and judgements is beside the point. Admins make mistakes. Having an admin take the unprecedented step of mass unprotecting BLPs runs the risk of serious mistakes. The point of the injunction is to slow that down, if people must mass unflag BLPs then temporarily they should protect them, so the ultimate protection for each can be considered at a slower pace, which has a lower chance of making mistakes. Anyway it is moot now, I just hope the lessons have been learned by all.--Scott Mac 19:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Emergency desysopping is a perfectly reasonable response when an administrator's use of the tools is so disruptive as to create exigent circumstances. That was basically your justification for the involved block, wasn't it: that Kww's actions created a BLP emergency, and needed to be stopped immediately? Such desysopping would only have been "quite ridiculous" if there was no emergency, nothing justifying a forcible intervention to halt the removal of PC protection. While contacting a steward would have risked having your judgement overturned, that's the point: that your assessment of a situation does not override everyone else's. Judging from the community response to your block, and how quickly it was removed, I doubt any other administrators would have been willing to place it.

If arbcom thought that BLPs were being unprotected too quickly or carelessly, they could have imposed specific rate limitation and due diligence requirements. There was no justification for simply suspending the ability of administrators to exercise good judgement. Chester Markel (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Rubbish. You are now taking this to extremis to make some silly point. It does not take an "emergency" to say "hey, stop, there's more sensitive ways of handling BLPs". Which ought to have resulted in administrators saying "Hm, OK. Let's talk about that. Maybe you are right - maybe not." This has nothing to do with "disruption" or with Kww. Risk should always minimised, and especially on BLPS that ought to be the aim of all of us. And we should always be willing to stop see if that can be done. I was of the view that the mass unflagging was a risk that could be reduced through discussion. Stopping the action was thus desirable in order to minimise the risk. No one is "suspending admins ability to exercise good judgement" - what is being said is that slightly slower actions, with a pause for review, is better judgement. You seem to be of the view admins can't improve what they are going, they should always be open to that possibility.--Scott Mac 20:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

If there were really exigent circumstances, then Kww being reasonable, and stopping the unprotections after he was unblocked couldn't have been relied upon. But if there was no emergency, which you now concede, then there was no justification for an involved block, the only type which was ever going to be placed against Kww in this situation. Reducing BLP risk through discussion is important, but certainly does not require the use of force. For instance, you could have reviewed some of the removals of PC protection yourself to determine whether semi or full protection was prudent, and asked other administrators to do the same. Kww stated that he reviewed the articles himself when unprotecting, and applied conventional protection where necessary, but let's assume that's not enough. There were only a couple hundred articles left under PC protection when you blocked Kww. If all the administrative energy that had been focused on your block and arbcom case in the next several hours had instead been redirected to examination of the articles that were PC protected, the situation could have been quickly resolved, simply by splitting the articles to be reviewed into small, easily manageable groups. In the absence of an emergency, administrators should resolve BLP issues through discussion and cooperation, not brute force power struggles. Chester Markel (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It is hypothetically possible that certain articles are associated with such severe BLP problems that they can't safely be unprotected for even an hour or two. But removal of protection would then constitute an emergency, which you say didn't exist. Chester Markel (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You are wikilawering now. Bottom line. There was a risk here. That risk could have been minimised. Kww unreasonably refused a request to stop and discuss. I blocked him for a very short time. Theoretically he could have resumed after the block was removed, but he wasn't that dumb. The idea that I should have checked every one of his 70 odd unprotections after the even is just silly. It was better to have a slower process. Kww should have stopped and discussed when reasonably asked (even if it turned out my fears were unjustified - there was no loss in a pause.) The block was justified as it was aimed at improving things for BLPs - it was perhaps unwise to do it myself, since it created a commotion (I'll not do that again). The notion that Kww should have been emergency desyopped is patently absurd - that would have caused 10000% brouhaha than a simple, quickly reversed, block. And, really, so is this discussion. Think what you want - I really don't care now. Unwatching.--Scott Mac 21:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You're mischaracterizing my position. I never claimed that you personally should have double-checked all of Kww's unprotections. You could have asked other administrators for help. This is the fundamental problem with many of your actions: the attitude that you're one of the few defenders of BLP on the wiki. If no other administrators cared about this issue, you'd have no alternative but to do exactly what you did: wheel war with Kww, block him, then, when he was unblocked, file a request for arbitration, and threaten to block him again[2]. I assume that, had Kww continued to unprotect articles, you would have reblocked him again and again until you were desysopped for wheel warring, involved blocking, and block warring. This behavior is brute force power struggling, not cooperation with other administrators, almost all of whom strongly disapproved of your actions in the AN/I discussion and in comments on the arbitration request. You certainly made your point, but whatever negligible gains were achieved by ensuring that a few articles weren't unprotected for even a couple of hours are outweighed by the community goodwill towards you, and towards PC protection, that was lost. Why should you care? Because of the most potentially valuable uses of pending changes is to place many BLPs that have previously had issues under level two protection. We're talking about a large number of articles, not the few you were fighting over. But that can't happen until the community approves a policy to authorize it. After this fiasco, and User:Scott MacDonald/Removal of reviewer rights from User:Wnt, many editors will be genuinely concerned that any reauthorization of PC protection anywhere will serve as an excuse for harsh, authoritarian actions. To be honest, I don't know what I could tell them. Editors don't want to see reviewer rights used to suppress dissent by removing them from editors who make talk page comments of which you disapprove, or any more wheel warring, involved blocking, disrespect for consensus, and useless arbcom injunctions. You could assuage these fears by apologizing and promising to work more cooperatively with the community in the future. But until and unless you do this, approving a long-term policy for the use of PC protection will be very difficult, if not impossible. The result of delaying or never having a long-term plan for implementing pending changes protection will be more harm to living people, and the degradation of Wikipedia's reputation. Given your obvious concern with BLP, this isn't a result you would like. So don't let it happen. Chester Markel (talk) 04:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The point of a "pause" was for multiple admins to see if more precautions were needed. It is better to have the maximum safeguards in place before protections are lowered, rather than scraping about checking articles later. In any case, if my fears were idiosyncratic, and other people involved in BLP did not share them, then a pause and discussion would have revealed that. There was no need for hurry here - except artificial deadlines. But we're going over old ground here. As for the removal of reviewer rights - the problem wasn't the removal - it was that there was no policy for granting them and they were being given out like cookies to people with no real clue (and who incidentally never asked for them). That's what made the whole trial so useless. If it isn't repeated, that's fine by me. If it is, you need to start be defining who gets rights, before you worry about how they are to be removed. Personally, I think the whole PC thing is a total waste of effort anyway wrt BLP, but that's another issue.--Scott Mac 16:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that your recent actions were nothing but disruption to illustrate a point. If you believe that "the whole PC thing is a total waste of effort anyway wrt BLP", then there was no legitimate reason to create such a fuss over the removal of PC protection, since you claim pending changes was of no utility in preventing BLP problems, at least in its present formulation, as "the whole trial" was "useless". As many editors do believe that the PC tool can be effectively used to stop the most serious BLP violations, such as material that could be defamatory with no or inadequate sources provided, there was no need to scuttle the future of pending changes by inflaming community opposition, simply because you don't regard it as useful. This is a problem with many of your BLP related actions: the belief that your way is the only way. Chester Markel (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Based on your comment above, User:Scott MacDonald/Removal of reviewer rights from User:Wnt now seems like a WP:POINT issue as well: removing the privilege without a good reason is not an acceptable means by which to draw attention to the purportedly negligent granting of rights. Chester Markel (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I was not trying to make any point. I'm uninterested in the trial - and broadly I'm unenthusiastic about PC - for reasons I've given at length elsewhere. However, if you are going to have PC, then reviewing rights need to be meaningfully given to clued people. As for the original dispute, it was for me nothing to do with larger consideration of PC, it was merely to do with a pragmatic approach to the articles before me. But way to assume bad faith. Anyway, I'm now repeating myself, and as you are evidently simply looking for stones hurl at me rather than a genuine attempt to understand my thinking, there's little point in continuing. You may have the last word. --Scott Mac 19:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Either pending changes, as formulated during the trial, with reviewer rights as allocated for it, was a useful tool for prevent BLP problems, or it wasn't. In the latter case, "a pragmatic approach to the articles before" you would have been to do nothing, since PC protection wasn't going to stop any BLP violations from developing in any case. Whether pending changes is useful at all is directly related to whether it's worth having this much of a fight over its removal. Did you really not consider this issue? Chester Markel (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

What did a section break ever do to you?

I don't have the will to read the entirety of the text above, but it seems that at least some people are pushing for a motion that says "use common sense." Or in expanded form: when evaluating protection options, you can unprotect, semi-protect, or full protect at your discretion. How is that any different from the current protection policy? Is it really necessary to re-declare that here? I don't like ArbCom as much as the next guy, but the answer isn't to try to prop them up with a corrected (silly) motion. Just ignore this one and move along. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 01:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Common sense is absolutely fine. If someone surveys an article and thinks the protection can be safely lowered, that's absolutely fine. They should obviously be very careful if the article has been the subject of BLP problems, and, if there's any doubt or possibility they've missed something, it might be good policy to check with the protecting admin. That is all fine, and always has been. The unique circumstances here was that admins were doing this not because "hey this article might be better with this particular protection" but because they were determined to remove all flagging by a strict deadline, and thus were removing it from multiple articles at once. That isn't normal, doesn't allow for the usual cautious pragmatism, and arbcom were really saying "if you are intent on doing that, to remove the protection by a strict deadline, just give the BLPs maximum protection, which can be reviewed later (as is normal) without any time pressure." It was a sensible measure for a unique (and time expiring) circumstance. It shouldn't stop any admin doing what any admin would usually do.--Scott Mac 16:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

There would be some irony in a body that so thoroughly fails to use common sense itself passing a motion telling others to do same. Resolute 16:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

That type of remark improves wikipedia how? Debate on issues is good, reasoned disagreement can clarify, inarticulate attacks do nothing constructive whatsoever.--Scott Mac 17:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, how about this? Above, you had this comment: "We can keep fighting over this, or we can try to suggest to arbcom a better way." And my answer is to suggest that Arbcom butt out. Protection levels are, imnsho, a content decision that is outside of its mandate. Conduct issues surrounding the protection changes would be in its scope, but given the arbs don't seem interested in looking at your abuse of tools via wheel warring, handing out blocks against administrators enforcing consensus and despite being involved, removing permissions despite being involved and other examples of "sod the community" in a futile attempt at overriding community consensus, I am not seeing any real purpose for Arbcom to be involved in the slightest. In the end, my comment above is apt: ArbCom needs to show some common sense and learn that it should not exceed its mandate. They were not elected to govern Wikipedia. That is the Foundation's job. Not theirs, and certainly not yours. Resolute 18:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's a valid opinion, the spelling out of which is worthwhile and may even persuade. Simply saying "you lack common sense" is simply abuse. Articulating opinions is useful, hurling abuse is not.--Scott Mac 19:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: "Kww's refusal to stop was quite unreasonable" and "Kww unreasonably refused a request to stop and discuss." That is simply not true. You know that. I paused. I discussed at ANI. Your objections at the time had already been endlessly discussed, and you brought absolutely nothing new to the discussion. I explained that to you, and proceeded. Note that you were asking for people to go back and reinstall pending changes on all BLPs when the consensus had already been reached to remove pending changes from all BLPs. People sometimes react as if you were concerned that I was unprotecting BLPs, but, in fact, the articles you were objecting to were articles where I had increased the protection level. Your concerns had already been refuted innumerable times. There was no need for further discussion. There was no obligation on my part to stop, for the simple reason that you never, at any point, provided a valid reason for me to stop. When I proceeded with doing what consensus had already been developed for, you unjustifiably blocked me. I really wish that you would understand that. It's unfortunate that Arbcom ducked the case.

Whether they ducked the case or not, it's time for you to stop actively misrepresenting the facts of the case. Do not accuse me of unreasonable behaviour when it simply is not true.—Kww(talk) 20:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It's high time to have an RFC on Scott. While pending changes is gone, for now, he could certainly find some new pretense for wheel warring, involved blocking, threatening to block war, and generally disregarding consensus. An RFC would ensure that, if this happens again, an effective remedy could be imposed. Chester Markel (talk) 20:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

GoRight ban appeal

Original announcement

Questions:

1. What has changed since the last appeal?
2. Has GoRight copped to the socking yet?
3. Has GoRight proven by working on another wiki that the problems with his editing are over?
4. GoRight's 'get blocked, promise to do better next time, get blocked again for the same thing, repeat' pattern in the past has been eminently predictable. Why should we believe it now?

I suspect the answers are 1) nothing, 2) no, 3) no, and 4) we shouldn't. But I'm willing to be surprised. → ROUX ₪ 21:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

GoRight has admitted to socking with several accounts in correspondence with the Committee, yes. Obviously sock-free behavior is a considered requirement for an unblock. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Which are the sock accounts? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of GoRight is not exactly encouraging, although no socks have been detected in many months. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

@David: When is the last time he said he socked? NW (Talk) 01:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Personally, I'm (almost) always in favor of giving someone another chance. — Ched :  ?  23:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
• I'm not entirely supportive of this, but if GoRight is to return, I would request that he be topic banned from any US political issue, broadly construed. NW (Talk) 01:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Well, bearing in mind that GoRight spent so much of his time enabling disruptive behaviour in others and major league shit stirring I'd like to see evidence of a sustained period of collaborative work in another wiki before we considered unleashing him here again. I'd also like to see some evidence of understanding what it was that he did to get the community to ban him to ensure that he knows what to avoid as/when/if he is unblocked. Truly I see this as a recipie for trouble but other disruptive users have been unblocked and redeemed but something tells me this won't be one of them. If the BASC are considering an unblock I' like to see supervised editing, a ban on engagement in all controversial areas and an absolute ban from posting at ANI except to respond to reports about him. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• There isn't enough information to form a judgment. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• I agree that a record of undisruptive editing elsewhere should be a requirement for GoRight's return, and that if he is allowed to return, it should initially be with a topic ban on all political topics, broadly construed, for at least 3 months. If he is able to edit productively then, the topic ban can be relaxed or removed. I am otherwise opposed to allowing GoRight to return, unless these or similar conditions are imposed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with Spartaz and others that there does not appear to be anything which suggest it is suitable for this user to return. It would be an endless quantity of restrictions which are going to fall back on the Community to deal with, and editing the Community will have to supervise because apparently we should all consider turning from English Wikipedia to English Rehab Wikipedia. I'm not sure how many more steps the Community were expected to try before clarifying that there was no other way of dealing with this problem, and in the absence of new evidence which suggests otherwise, there still isn't. Probably the only step the Community managed to avoid was arbitration (though even then, there was a pretty strong case during CC anyway). If it's a "Hey, I've been a sockmaster, but I've stopped for now, so you should let me back (aka otherwise I won't have incentive to stop?)", I'm certainly not convinced at all. But here's some more questions then. What is the purpose of entertaining such an appeal? Out of curiosity, was it BASC who decided to bring it here despite all of the above or was it the entire Committee? Chase isn't even active so he obviously couldn't make this decision as a BASC member (so which arbs are on BASC currently)? Were there any other users who made recommendations to lift the ban (be it a climate change case participant or otherwise)? Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• • There wasn't a lot of action on-list one way or another, besides a general sentiment (shared by myself) that since it was a community ban, it should at least be open for discussion on the matter. Secondly, reading the last community ban discussion I didn't find the sort of complete and unanimous support for a ban that would most likely preclude another appeal. Ergo, defer in part back to the community. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I think the state of that discussion (like many of the other discussions involving this user) indicated just how exhausted the Community has become with expecting to have this issue addressed for once and for all. As far as the Community is concerned, ordinarily, its doors are open for appeal for a lot of things; if people prefer BASC, they're welcome to go there. But if the Community has indicated "go directly to BASC if you want to appeal", we expect BASC to deal with the issue and only bring it back to us if there is a good cause for accepting the appeal. Maybe you aren't aware of all of the context which came from last year; I appreciate that. But you also need to appreciate that if the Community is pissed off, it's because you are saying there is a good chance of the Community having to go through this perpetual cycle of tendentious editing and games again. And incidentally, we don't want to see you being played either. But back to my earlier question(s), you've mentioned that there was a general sentiment that it should be open for discussion - could you indicate which arbs expressed this sentiment or agreed with it vocally on-list? Was this the only discussion you looked at in relation to the ban (I mean, although you checked the Sockpuppet category linked above which is mostly socking post-ban, were there any other discussions you looked at in relation to conduct pre-ban)? Could you also specify which arbs are currently sitting on BASC (as the ArbCom page is not up to date)? Finally, could you specify how many other people (other than GoRight and the current arbs you'd mention in my previous question) have submitted comments on-list in relation to this appeal prior to this announcement)? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I have notified all of the participants in the ban proposal (not all of them may be following the normal locations and David appears to have questioned how complete/unanimous the support for the ban was at the time). As an aside, I note that my questions have not been answered. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Notation: There are good questions here and above from Ncmvocalist that still need answering please. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• At the very minimum a ban from AN/ANI, maybe a ban from all wikipedia space unless it's a discussion directly about him. And a ban from from discussing anywhere the banning/unbanning of other editors. And a ban from Global warming, cold fusion, and probably other topics. He was told to do constructive work on other wikis, but his work in commons stopped after only a few days [3]. I think a non-disruptive record somewhere else should be a requirement before being unbanned here. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I disagree. A topic ban was attempted in 2008, and problems continued. The editor is clever and energetic. They will find ways to advance their agenda around any topic ban. Jehochman ^Talk 10:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• The first thing to look at is whether or not GoRight has conformed to the terms set out before he could make such an appeal - i.e. 3 months useful work on another Wiki, such as Simple or Commons, or 6 months total absence from en-Wiki with no sockpuppetry whatsoever. If these have not been met, we shouldn't even be considering an appeal. If they have been met, the it may be possible for GoRight to return, perhaps with a topic ban for a period of time to keep him away from any troublesome areas and give him time to show that he can edit collaboratively. Mjroots (talk) 07:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• I asked four questions, ArbCom has answered only one. Are answers to the others forthcoming? You guys asked for community input but have been rather short on providing information that would help such input be informed. → ROUX ₪ 08:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • See below... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• I reserve comment until the questions asked above by Roux have been answered. We need more data if we are to give input. AGK [•] 10:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• It would have been better to link to the sanction discussions (2008) so people could understand why the user was topic banned. Is this the sanction being appealed, or is there another one on top of it? Jehochman ^Talk 10:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Here's the community ban discussion (2010). Prior problems included hounding, WP:NPA, and WP:BLP violations against another editor. Upon review, I think that this user has been highly troublesome over a long period of time. As I linked above, a topic ban was attempted in 2008, and did not work. Eventually a full ban was placed. We do not need ideological battles being imported to Wikipedia. This editor has shown through their actions that they will fight by any means possible: wikilawyering, endless appeals, and mud slinging. No thank you. We don't need your help. Jehochman ^Talk 10:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm leaning the same way you are, but a shred of AGF remained, thus my questions above. I find it kind of strange that an Arb showed up to answer only one of them. → ROUX ₪ 10:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I find it strange that there was no link to the history of this issue, as well as no rationale stated for the appeal. Why invite people to express opinions without informing them of the facts? Since you asked, and only got a partial answer, my read is that there is nothing good to say about the matter. GoRights wants another chance to play us the fools, and evidently some are willing to take on that role. Jehochman ^Talk 11:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

←Or, it's just my first rodeo dealing with this, and I wasn't really aware what response would be generated. Interpreting anything from my busy real-world schedule would be a bad idea. aMy apologies. Anyhow, I'll just quote from GoRight's emailed appeal, in part:

Now, in my defense for making a return I would like to point out that in my absence there was the Omnibus Climate Change Arbitration which resulted in many topic bans for many users. I explicitly avoided any attempt to get involved in that proceeding. I did not attempt to stir up trouble even though I would have otherwise been directly involved throughout the entire episode and in spite of the fact that others tried to pull me into it despite my current ban. I believe that this demonstrates my willingness to put the battleground mentality of the past behind me.

While not voluminous, in my absence I have had occasion to help out on Commons with a number of graphics related projects without incident. You can check my contributions history there to verify this. I believe that this demonstrates that I am capable of working constructively with others.

Finally, my on-wiki interactions on my talk page since being banned have been civil and without incident. The only item of significance is when I decided to unify my wikimedia accounts and needed to be unblocked briefly to do so. I behaved myself at that time and the matter was conducted without incident. I believe that this demonstrates that I can be trusted to keep my word.

Additionally, he has claimed TheNeutralityDoctor (talk · contribs), Absit invidia II (talk · contribs), and Copyright_police (talk · contribs) as his; he says the suspected accounts in his SPI archive that targeted WMC are not his, and he says he has not socked in more than 6 months and has no current or active socks. I believe that answers Roux's questions, although the final one is obviously open to interpretation. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I see that User:Absit invidia II, one of GoRight’s admitted sockpuppets, did indeed "get involved" by editing a talkpage of the climate change case [4] Cardamon (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• I oppose unblocking in the strongest possible terms. GoRight was frankly and consistently dishonest about his use of sockpuppets. See User talk:Absit invidia II. See his edit summary here - "MastCell is lying with the clear intent to deceive" - when I correctly identified that account as a GoRight sock. Or see User talk:TheNeutralityDoctor#IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION, where he states: "I see that many editors around here have a hard time dealing with the fact that I am not actually GoRight." The fact that he now owns up to them, after they've been blocked, his lies have proven ineffective, and he's exhausted his avenues for claiming innocence, suggests a shift in tactics rather than a sincere change of heart.

  GoRight's claim that he avoided getting involved in WP:ARBCC is similarly false. Cardamon has pointed out his editing (via sockpuppet) to the case pages. GoRight's sockpuppet Absit invidia similarly lobbied Lar on his talk page (e.g. here) during the case, and his input was described even by ATren (talk · contribs) as "a bit over-the-top".

  While active, GoRight split his time between tendentious, ideologically motivated editing and acting as a self-appointed litigator on behalf of other disruptive accounts. On the constructive side of the ledger, we got zero useful contributions from him. On the disruptive side, we got hundreds of kb of timewasting, process-wonking, and wikilawyering, followed by extensive socking, again all in service of a political agenda. This is exactly what Wikipedia does not need.

  Assuming that a decision is made to unblock GoRight, allow me to plead for some mechanism of direct oversight of his editing. He has a nearly endless capacity for superficially civil wikilawyering, which makes him nearly immune to Wikipedia's normal disciplinary processes. Out of basic fairness to the people whose time will be wasted by him, there should be some sort of ready mechanism for reblocking him if he repeats previous patterns of behavior.

  But to reiterate: I oppose unblocking in the strongest possible terms. I see no credible indication that anything has changed. His first paragraph of justification consists of the sort of misleading and untrue claims that were a staple of his earlier participation. As for the second, work on Commons projects, while admirable, has no bearing on whether GoRight will be able to subsume his political agenda to edit within policy. His final paragraph is again the standard misleading lies-by-omission; while he has been superficially civil on his talk page since being blocked, his sockpuppets have not exactly been models of decorum. MastCell ^Talk 18:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• I have to say that Mastcell has stated a view that others should read and strongly consider. I for one read what was said and I too have to say I strongly oppose the return of GoRight. Well said Mastcell, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• I have a simple, perhaps novel, solution. How about unbanning him but only allowing him to edit one article? Is there a movie, video game or TV show that GoRight has a particular interest in? Perhaps he'd be a good editor there? If, after 6 months, he hasn't returned to his old ways, we can expand his editing area to whatever topic space the article was in. Of course, he should be indefinitely banned from climate change and any political-related article. What does everyone think of my suggestion?A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm with MastCell too. There's simply no proof that anything has changed. If there's enough of a collective brainfart that GoRight gets unblocked, well, proposal below to make this easier to read. → ROUX ₪ 23:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I sent an e-mail to GoRight asking him what he thought of my suggestion. He responded that he would accept it if this was his only path back. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• GoRight has posted a response that I believe speaks to some of the concerns above in an off-wiki venue: [5]. Also, Roux, given that this is just a request for comments, I really see no reason for a vote. Rest assured arbs actually read this page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Wasn't intended as a vote per se, was more trying to distill the wall of text above. → ROUX ₪ 23:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Hm. While the blog post seems to be making some of the right noises, I cannot help but share the extremely strong reservations many of the other editors here have about any relaxation of GoRight's ban. It's not entirely clear what he does want to do here if he is unbanned in any way shape or form, and his past actions must necessarily speak very loudly compared to his current words. The cynic in me can't help but notice that that apologetic blog entry nevertheless carries with it some implicit canvassing:

"The committee has decided to ask for community input. The resulting discussion is [at WP:AC/N, WT:AC/N, WP:AN]."

Be aware that he is recruiting advocates to these pages from his principally-sympathetic audience. I note that he has not taken any steps to update the lies, taunts, and attacks in his previous blog entries about other editors who correctly identified his now-acknowledged sockpuppets, nor has he named his sockpuppet accounts in his blog. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades: He has responded to (at least some of) your points above.[6] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal 1: no change

• GoRight remains banned from Wikipedia. One year from the date this proposal is enacted he may reapply for unbanning if and only if the following conditions are met:
  • Zero sockpuppeting for that year
  • Evidence on at least two other projects (Commons and Simple come to mind) showing continued behavioural change. That means contributing at or close to GoRight's normal average contributions to enwiki. It's really easy to be good for a little while; if he can do it for a year elsewhere maybe there's a there there.
  • A full and frank public disclosure onwiki by GoRight of all socks, and an honest assessment of where he went wrong and what he will do to avoid problems in the future

Support

• I guess I'll be the first to actually "support" something. Given that this proposal adds some wording along the lines of "one strike, no matter how grazing, and we go back to a siteban" (no escalating blocks, those have already been tried and simply do not work for this particular editor), I can wince and nod it. Strong emphasis on "reapply for unbanning" (as opposed to "will be unbanned"), "zero", "continued" (one year minimum), and "honest" (as opposed to "honest-sounding" or "politely-worded") - my support is entirely conditional on all of the above being met. GoRight has been a resource drain for years - on the AN/I crowd, sure, but even moreso on the good-faith editors who already have a hard enough time keeping the various global warming articles scientifically accurate in the face of stubborn WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT from WP:RANDY after WP:RANDY. Even dangling the carrot of unbanning leaves me a bit uneasy, as - absent a rather large jug of Flavor Aid which I really don't feel like swallowing - I have no reason to believe this will lead to anything other than impassioned wiki-lawyering over the meaning of words like "honest", "continued", "reapply", "zero", and "year" (among others); this is about as far in this particular direction as I personally can reach. Allow me to restate, for emphasis: In the event, however likely or unlikely it may be, that GoRight satisfies the conditions and his application for unbanning is successful, there will be no warnings, no bickering over whether his edits were intended to be disruptive, no accusations of a "mainstream scientist conspiracy", no "a pox on both your houses", no invitation for the anti-science fringe to come crawling out of the woodwork in support - the onus will be on GoRight to collaborate the way others wish him to, and if the bridges he's burned in science topics mean he can't even add a comma without being taken to the noticeboards, then it's up to him to stay out of those particular topic areas. Badger Drink (talk) 05:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• (ec) I've read over the past few hours everything I can about GoRight's previous blocks and bans. I don't think this editor is capable of making a sincere assessment of where he went wrong, because it appears to me that he is incapable of knowing what "going wrong" means. I get the impression that he defines "wrong" not as "factually inaccurate" or "against community consensus" but as "not what I believe". This sets him up to be contradicted by editors who don't see his beliefs as equal to fact, which again makes him the victim in his own mind and sets off all kinds of defensive responses that end up disrupting the project. I simply don't trust this editor to be able to detach his ego from his opinions, or to fully comprehend the difference between his personal opinion and fact. I guess I have to support this option as the closest to what I would prefer - a truly permanent, irrevocable ban. --NellieBly (talk) 05:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

• This won't work. Also you risk that he will return a year later with what looks to be a good C.V. He would then be allowed to edit without restrictions, while still "unreformed". Count Iblis (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• I'm with Count Iblis. Like last time, GoRight is not someone I'm personally against. I've never had a dispute with him myself, and I admit he has also done good things. But I can't trust him and I don't think I ever can. What makes GoRight so dangerous is what Jehochman said earlier, "The editor is clever and energetic." Those same traits that made him a good editor at times also made him very disruptive. I wouldn't put it past GoRight to show wonderful behavior, then came back to Wikipedia and start causing problems again. At this point, to me, he's like the boy who cried wolf, he has had so many chances and has been sincere about changing so many times and each time he goes back to his disruption. -- Atama頭 17:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Unban with severe restrictions

• GoRight is unbanned from Wikipedia under the following conditions:
  • Required to have a mentor uninvolved with the situation. (Should be an admin, to deal with blocking issues);
  • Complete topicban from all discussions in all namespaces relating to climate change and politics, broadly construed. This includes his own talkpage; he will be expected to simply ignore or remove any commentary left on his page;
  • Banned from editing WP:AN, WP:ANI, Arbcom, or any other noticeboard/complaint pages except as a respondent. Even in such cases, is limited to responding through his mentor, who may impose limits on length and/or number of comments;
  • Restricted to using only the GoRight account. Leeway granted for occasional and accidental logged-out editing if and only if the edits are reconnected to the named account by GoRight;
  • Restricted to a handful of articles unconnected with previous editing problems. Such articles to be determined by the mentor in consultation with the community;
  • Infractions to be dealt with via escalating blocks: 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, permanent, with no chance for block reduction;
  • Conditions may be appealed to the community one year after enactment, through the guidance of the mentor. Time resets at the conclusion of each block duration;

Support

• Third choice, the restrictions in this form probably won't work, some modifications are needed, but this is along the general lines of what me must implement. Count Iblis (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

• Per what I said above and at the original ban discussion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• Severe restrictions have been tried. I have yet to be convinced that GoRight views these restrictions with anything other than excitement at the prospect of getting to play Wiki-Lawyer for another go-round. Badger Drink (talk) 05:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• Severe restrictions haven't worked and won't because he's just going to feel victimized again when editors fail to put his personal beliefs first. That's what I meant about his defensiveness causing disruption: the wikilawyering is one of his defense mechanisms. --NellieBly (talk) 05:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose While I generally promote second multiple/many chances, I think the onus should be on GoRight to prove through nontrivial, positive effort elsewhere that they are capable of having a net positive influence on a similar project. In particular, WP:KISS comes to mind — if we were eventually to unban them then *any* violation (including WP:LAWYER) should result in an immediate reversion to an indefinite block. -- samj _in^out 10:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal 3: Unban with restrictions

• As in Proposal 2, minus the restriction to a handful of articles

Support

• Second choice. GoRight must be subjected to quite severe restrictions, but exactly which one must be up to the mentor. Count Iblis (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• While my gut instinct leads me toward the "no restrictions" area, the obviously strong community opinions compel me to place the project over my own personal thoughts. I think the user has value to offer to the project, and I'd like to see some of his contributions incorporated into our efforts. However, with respect to the community as a whole, I agree that some restrictions should be a first step. — Ched :  ?  21:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

• Far too forgiving. This editor has already had too many chances to reform themselves and failed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• Per what I said above and at the original ban discussion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• Good faith is not a suicide pact. Badger Drink (talk) 05:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• This might work if he could choose to reform, but I don't think that's plausible. --NellieBly (talk) 05:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal 4: Unban with mentors imposing restrictions

• GoRight will be allowed to edit under the following restriction. By default, GoRight is topic banned from editing Wikipedia, except his own user pages. If he wishes to edit an article, he discusses that first with one of his mentors there. GoRight can then edit the article if the mentor agrees. The mentor can impose restrictions on GoRight for that article, like e.g. 0RR or 1RR. Also, the mentor can delegate mentoring as far as editing a particular article is concerned, to another editor. The primary or secondary mentors may be involved in the articles GoRight is editing. After a year of editing under this restriction, GoRight may appeal to get the restriction lifted or modified.

Support

• This is a practical way to actually "reform" an editor like GoRight. It all has to do with imposing restrictions on a case by case basis. An editor who edits Wikipedia without causing trouble is able to impose such restriction on him/herself. The best way for an editor who is unable to do that to learn to do this, would be to be confronted with his shortcomings promptly. In a mentoring agreement like this, GoRight will receive direct feedback as he edits. If his editing improves, the mentors can allowe him to edit more articles with less restrictions. If after a year, he is de facto editing without much restrictions, that would be proof that the restrictions may no longer be necessary.

While GoRight may be a difficult problem for Wikipedia to deal with, Wikipdia will be better of if we can implement a solution that works. Such solutions can then be used for other editors who would otherwise have to be site banned. It will then be more difficult for the critics of Wikipedia to say that Wikipedia is censored, that not everyone can edit Wikipedia etc. etc. Count Iblis (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Note

I just received an email from GoRight (forwarded to me by another editor, GoRight didn't have my correct email address), he accepts conditions like this, he says that he is willing to work from his userspace, so I guess he could accept more rigorous restrictions along the lines in this proposal (I have not discussed this with him any furhter, I have yet to reply to his mail). Count Iblis (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

• Absolutely not. Mentorship was tried in the past, with neither TruSilver nor 2/0 managing to make even the slightest dent in GoRight's seemingly impenetrable wall of "I'm Right, Everybody Else Is Wrong" - 2/0 was in serious, intense discussion with GoRight for three weeks and managed to accomplish nothing. The only mentor GoRight is going to listen to is one who tells him exactly what he wants to hear, and while I'm sure that's nice for GoRight and lets his ragtag motley crew of supporters and enablers pay lip service to reform while ultimately not compromising at all, it's not going to help the project. Absolutely, wretchedly ridiculous non-condition condition. Badger Drink (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

  I know, but under that arrangement, the mentorship was advisory, in this case it is restrictive (in a rather absolute sense). I guess that "mentorship" isn't the right word for this proposal... Count Iblis (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Wasn't GoRight previously to mentor User:Abd (now also banned indefinitely for similar disruption), or vice versa? In any case this sounds like a great way to divert the positive energy of a constructive editor into a blackhole. -- samj _in^out 10:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal 5: We take a fraction of the time and effort we're willing to spend on this rehab project, and instead spend it on supporting, encouraging, and retaining constructive editors

Support

• As proposer. This is something I'll never understand. We have good, constructive contributors who burn out every day for lack of support, encouragement, and positive feedback. Instead we're willing to expend a huge amount of time and effort thinking up ways to rehabilitate someone who - it could not be clearer - is a poor fit for this particular project. If you want to know why the community is dysfunctional, consider that set of priorities. Seriously: take whatever time you're spending on this thread, and use it to leave a constructive editor a word of encouragement, or a barnstar, or a friendly note, or welcome a newbie and help them figure out Wikipedia. It will be a better use of time, I can guarantee, and better for the project as well. MastCell ^Talk 18:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• While I'd argue your average editor shouldn't require "support, encouragement, and positive feedback", they also shouldn't have to deal with the time and energy sapping process of dealing with problematic editors. WP:DNFT comes to mind. -- samj _in^out 10:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Good point, even now GoRight is wasting our time. -- Atama頭 19:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• Considering the stipulations I made in my support of "proposal" #1 above (in short, "GoRight remains banned as long as he's a poor fit for the project"), it basically amounts to this. MastCell speaks words of wisdom - though I am not usually a fan of the "this discussion is wasting our time" meme, in this case it does feel suitable. Badger Drink (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• yup this is the correct approach William M. Connolley (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• Uncontroversial, and undoubtedly the best way forward. GoRight is, IMO, constitutionally unable to work productively in this environment. That does not make him evil, it just means that every hour he spends here creates many more person-hours of dispute resolution, fixup or whatever. Guy (Help!) 21:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• Awestruck agreement—the community should focus more effort on keeping constructive editors who have demonstrated an ability to work collaboratively without undue POV pushing. Endless discussions about the best way to rehab a proven problem editor is a waste of time and energy, with very little likely benefit. Johnuniq (talk) 00:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
• Best solution. Some editors are time sinks for the community. The editor was not noticeably productive, and has mostly distracted editors from better tasks. Editors who've made a habit of lying and cheating seem to find it very difficult to give up those behaviors and do not belong in a collaborative project built on mutual respect.   Will Beback  talk  00:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
• First choice. I definitely agree, our priorities as a community do need to change. So much of our time is spent on drama, ANI, RFAR and the like, as well as working on rehabilitating users with long histories of disruptive behaviour, where we could be spending on the new and experienced users and admins that slip through the cracks, due to either a) Being bitten for creating a poor first article, and them leaving Wikipedia, where all they needed was a friendly message explaining what they did wrong and how to improve it in future. And that takes sufficiently less time than posting on RFAR (call me a hypocrit but this still had to be said). Experienced users leave due to stress or burn out, and admins even more so. I think our time should be put into positive pursuits, and less so discussions like these. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support this first and I have to say leave GoRight banned. The major problem I am having is the little bit of comments that the arbitrator released from GoRight's email was found to be a lie. He said he didn't get involved in the ARBCC, a lie. He called Mastcell a liar when his sock was found out which GoRight denied totally, another lie. His whole comment here contains untruthfulness. Maybe something will be said to change my opinion here but I think from what we have been shownn from the arbitrators is that we are going to be played, nope not supporting that in anyway. I do have a question though, why isn't he using his talk page for messages about this? As far as I can see, his talk page is still available for use. If I missed something then an administrator should make it possible for GoRight to comment on his talk page, instead of his blog, for easier access and for less soapboxing. I am adding this final thought, GoRight admits to 3 socks but denies the others, how can we believe him with what he has said so far in the partial comment released by the arbitrator? --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
• No brainer. Per Will Beback mainly: Wikipedia is not therapy, it is a project to build an encyclopedia. This editor is a net detriment to that aim, so goodnight. Could he be reformed? Anyone can be. But the effort in trying, the disruption in failing, and the low chance of success, and the probable low gain in the unlikely event of success, don't make the rehabilitation project one worth doing.--Scott Mac 12:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support Arbcom injudiciously overturning GoRight's ban would simply require the community to immediately re-ban him. Please save us the trouble, as this extremely disruptive editor should not and will not be permitted to return under any conditions, for any longer than necessary to hold a new ban discussion. Chester Markel (talk) 23:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support, noting that there is nothing new under the sun. Four years ago User:Tom harrison wrote: "The community has built a system that accommodates people whose net contribution is negative, while alienating some of our best volunteers... What should we do instead? Keep people who help the project, quickly dump those who do not, and protect each other from harassment. We could do that if we only had to deal with opposition by trolls and vandals. We cannot do it against the opposition of established members of the community." Nor, one might add, against the opposition of the Arbitration Committee. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Another good reason to vote out the current arbitrators who are up for reelection in December. Placing this here for discussion was a needless, injudicious waste of the community's time, much like the PC protection motion. GoRight's ban appeal should have been denied outright. Chester Markel (talk) 03:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
    • WP:Waste of Time is not yet being enforced. Count Iblis (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support While editors shouldn't require massaging to make positive contributions, they also shouldn't have to deal with disruptive editors. I found GoRight's disruptive and tendentious editing to be particularly problematic, ultimately making editing a chore rather than an enjoyable passtime. I'm sure I'm not alone, though your average editor is more likely to avoid confrontation and walk away quietly. What was particularly problematic was that they enabled other problematic editor(s), and vice versa, as well as setting a bad example for others. Ultimately the onus is on them to prove they are capable of making a net positive contribution to the community (for example, by making sustained, nontrivial and positive contributions elsewhere) before being allowed to return. -- samj _in^out 11:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support Practical, honest, recognizes the reality that GoRight shoul never edit here again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support - disruptive user that is a clear net loss to the project. If it was shown that the user has been contributing to another project constructively then I would reconsider allowing the user to contribute but only with a complete editing restriction on all the areas they were previously disruptive. Off2riorob (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
• In the email posted here, GoRight points to his edits in Commons and says "I believe that this demonstrates that I am capable of working constructively with others.". However, GoRight only made a few edits for a few days, 16-21 September 2009. This is very deceptive, and it shows that GoRight hasn't really changed his style. He has to show real reform before the community considers even a restrictive unbanning. Also, naming a mentor would be a total waste of time for the mentor: wikipedia is not therapy, and I still have to see any real indication that GoRight is trying to reform for real. As for now, I only see him feeding false information to arbitrators in order to get a quick unban. He should go to some sister project and spend his own time in learning to work collaboratively and learning to not feed b*llsh*t to other editors in order to achieve the desired results. And that means actual real collaborative work over a period of time. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
• Catering to persistent trouble makers seems to be a pointless waste of time. --B (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I recommend that the Committee stop wasting its time, and the Community's, on trying to rehabilitate persistently disruptive banned users, and instead address the disputes that are submitted to it (you know, your actual function?) in a timely manner.  Sandstein  05:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Of course. Another good use of the time saved might, perhaps, be editing articles \o/  Chzz  ►  09:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

• Taken literaly, one has to agree of course. However, what is meant between the lines and clearly expressed in some the comments above, is that we don't need to do an effort to figure out how to deal with problem editors. I think that's the wrong attitude for Wikipedia, because we should take serious that everyone can edit Wikipedia. So, if an editor poses a problem, we should try to see if there is way that editor can contribute. If this really can't be made to work, then we can ban that editor. Otherwise, we shouldn't say that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that everyone can edit". In the case of GoRight, simply confining him to his userspace and allowing him to contribute to Wikipedia from there via a mentor seems to be a rather simple solution. So, it shouldn't be very time consuming to get this implemented. What leads to the waste of time is that we try to use remedies that do not work and then have lengthy discussions when these fail. Count Iblis (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

"Anyone can edit" is a statement of technical functionality, and does not imply that every person on the planet is able or willing to contribute productively to Wikipedia. Stating that "anyone can edit, unless shown to be harming the project, and not amenable to reform" would be more accurate, but would discourage many potentially valuable users. Chester Markel (talk) 23:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Letting GoRight contribute via his userspace would not guarantee non-disruption. Let's consider the various ways he would be able to cause more trouble, just by editing his own talk page:

1. He could add massive copyright violations from offline sources to articles.
2. He could slander living people, with the defamation cited to counterfeit references hosted on his own websites.
3. And lots more...

When an editor is this determined to disrupt Wikipedia, he will probably find a way to do it if readmitted under any conditions. Chester Markel (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

He could, but only for a few hours at most. The party will be over when the mentor checks his userpage :) . Count Iblis (talk) 00:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The determination of whether a user has introduced a copyright infringement from an uncited, offline source is quite difficult. Similarly, many editors' due diligence in checking online references is limited to determining whether the cited source supports the claim, and whether it is of similar appearance to a credible media organization. A user's personal website can, with a little programming and formatting be set up to look just like the sites operated by real newspapers. These examples, and similar activities which I leave to the imagination, should suffice to show that not all disruption will be immediately visible. Bad content can be copied into articles without the mentor realizing it. Wikipedia's survival is dependent on the good faith of most of its contributors. For that extremely small percentage of users who are here to cause trouble, and have made the fact plainly obvious, the only appropriate response is to eject them from the project. Chester Markel (talk) 02:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with these points, except that we must make sure that this indeed applies to anyone who is booted out. I'd rather have GoRight contributing to Wikipedia to certain articles that are on the watchlist of many and edited by many, so that this issue doesn't arise, than keeping him banned (unless such a set-up fails, of course).

Suppose FOX News were to criticize Wikipedia for being biased by pointing out some editors who are banned and then pointing to other editors who aren't banned, who seem to have caused problems too, but who edit with different POVs. Then there should always be a simple convincing argument available to Jimbo, explaining why such editors are banned making it manifestly clear that this has nothing to do with us being biased here. If he has to appeal to community consensus today not being in favor of him returning, then that's simply going to confirm the bias promoted by FoX News about Wikipedia (because they would say that community consensus here = liberal bias). Count Iblis (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

No. This editor lied about his socks, ok maybe that could be excused with an apology but he lied in his statement to the arbitrators in the partial released email above. Nope, not exceptable. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. GoRight is banned for disruption, sockery, and lying, not a political disagreement. While Fox News can spin that however they want, the purview of their role in project governance is vanishingly small. Chester Markel (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I also agree that ArbCom can take this into account and then decide not to unban him. However, it should not be the case that the community vetoes his return based on vague perceptions about how he will behave, based on his past behavior alone. Of course, there are concerns stemming from his past behavior that GoRight has to address; if he is not truthful now, that is a relevant issue. Count Iblis (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• I would prefer that we decide that this unban request has at least some merit (which it probably does), the Committee unban him accordingly (and with appropriate restrictions), and we get on with our own business. I don't know what all the fuss is about, really. If the unban request is credible, then the worst that can happen if we accept it is that he messes up, and we re-block and re-ban him. Basically, this isn't a rehab project, and if it becomes one then we have made a bad decision and should at that point move to reverse it. AGK [•] 20:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • So you're making a personal commitment to be the admin-on-call every time he causes disruption? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
    • No, AGK is just being honest. The worst that can happen to him is that GoRight causes disruption and someone eventually re-bans him. Of course, the worst that can happen to content editors who have to actually deal with GoRight is that he wastes another hundred hours or so of their time. Historically, the time and effort of constructive editors who stand to be directly affected has been discounted and undervalued in these sorts of discussions, a trend which AGK's comment exemplifies. My proposal was intended to highlight exactly this concern - a lack of empathy for the editors who shoulder the burden of these projects, whatever one chooses to call them. MastCell ^Talk 04:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. This proposal is disingenuous-- it's phrased to appear as though it's uncontroversial, but it's actually a proposal for a permaban with no opportunity for reform. At least have the courage to be upfront regarding the proposal-- it's severe, drastic, and represents a failure on the part of Wikipedia. Do you really want to change the Main Page to read "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit (except GoRight)"? I'd hat this proposal if I wasn't so sure that I'd be accused of vandalism or sockpuppetry for doing so. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• He is still free to go to some sister project and show that he can work collaboratively. A few edits in Commons over a few days is not enough by any standard. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not suggesting that he be unbanned now. I'm suggesting that this proposal is facially OT and subtly extreme, in that it appears to preclude the possibility that he can ever be unbanned at all. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal 6: Unconditional unban, and limit editing solely to article space

Support

• This proposal may sound strange but please indulge me for a moment of explanation. First, if we do not unban GoRight it is virtually certain that he will continue sockpuppeting. It's easier to keep tabs on him if he's using his main account. Second, the unban should be unconditional because any conditions will be gamed, disputed, and wikilawyered to death. This is only in part because he will want to have the conditions removed. More to the point he sees wikilawyering as an end in itself, an amusing diversion. The third point is related to this: if we limit his editing solely to article space we will remove the opportunities for wikilawyering in project space, taunting in talk space, and so on. His edits in article space would then have to stand on their merits and sourcing, not simply be a means to promote squabbling (as his article space edits have mostly been in the past). For this to work the limitation would have to be absolute, with no exceptions whatsoever -- not even his own Talk page would be excepted. So, odd as it may sound, this proposal is offered as a pragmatic route to minimize disruption to the project. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Until the community finds a good way to deal with socking, the best way to handle situations like this is to unban but keep them on a short leash. checkuser frequently for socking and editing on proxies or tor, and give a timeout if they are. permanent bans are counterproductive because they encourage socking with no repercussions. -Atmoz (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

So we don't do a permanent ban, then. GoRight's block/ban could be converted to two years, but reset after any incidents of socking. This expresses a strong community disapproval of sockery, while giving him a light at the end of the tunnel if he can behave himself. This should probably be done for many community bans, with the exception of certain extreme situations. What we should not do, ever, is allow a banned user to sock us into submission, since it rewards disruption and encourages similar misconduct by other banned users. Unbanning GoRight because he's created a sufficiently serious sockpuppet problem sends the wrong message. Chester Markel (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's also point out that if a user is banned, but he continues to edit, then the moment a sockpuppet is discovered and blocked, any disruptive edits and comments can be reverted mercilessly. We don't have to argue with him about why his edits damaged articles, or why his talk page contributions aren't helpful. The reversion process shouldn't be applied mechanically, since we don't want to restore vandalism, BLP violations, obvious errors, or similar problems simply because a banned user happened to correct them. But the bottom line is that any edits made against the ban that are judged to be problematic by any good faith editor go straight to the garbage can. But if GoRight is unbanned, then

1. We can't block his accounts to slow him down.
2. We can't protect articles just to keep him out.
3. We can't revert any disruptive edits in disregard of WP:EW.
4. We can't use range blocks to stop him from creating more socks.
5. We have to politely discuss every single dispute with him.

Based on the comments in this discussion, many editors are sick and tired of dealing with GoRight as a user in good standing. We like him much better banned, since his editing can be impeded by every feasible means, and any garbage can be properly disposed of. Chester Markel (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• I do think that you could allow for a maximum of, say, 150 words talk page text per article space edit. A constraint on the number of article space edits per day should perhaps also be imposed in that case. Count Iblis (talk) 01:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

• We do not negotiate with trolls trying to sock us into submission. Allowing GoRight to do this would encourage more bad behavior. While we could "limit" his editing however we want, conceding our factual inability to ban him would render such restrictions impotent. Chester Markel (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• A novel rationale, but unfortunately it boils down to "blocking you doesn't work, so we'll unblock you with restrictions, and if you break your restrictions we'll... block you?" Unblocked, I have no credible reason to imagine that he'll do anything but return to the same global warming articles with daily bad edits which will then be wikilawyered to death - if not by him, then by his proxy supporters/enablers. Will still result in a massive timesink, even if GoRight's name isn't at the end of all the combative posts. Badger Drink (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
• Sometimes you have to use the talk page to explain why an edit was made. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Some background information

Just a note about the process here, as a couple of the commenters above seemed to be unsure why the committee has raised this issue on-wiki at all.

As indicated in the original announcement, GoRight has appealed his community ban to the Arbitration Committee, he has the right to do so under the banning policy. In fact, requesting ArbCom review is really his only avenue to request an unban at this time, since he can't ask the community because he's not allowed to edit.

In a recent case, the Committee unanimously accepted this principle:

The Wikipedia community, acting through a fair discussion leading to consensus achieved on the administrators' noticeboard or another appropriate venue, may impose a sanction on an editor who has engaged in problematic behavior. A sanctioned editor may request an appeal to the Arbitration Committee. While the Arbitration Committee is authorized to overturn or reduce a community sanction, such action is relatively rare, and would be based on good cause such as a finding that (1) some aspect of the community discussion was procedurally unfair, (2) the sanction imposed appears to be significantly excessive or overbroad, (3) circumstances have changed significantly since the community sanction was imposed, or (4) non-public information that should not be addressed on-wiki, such as personal information or checkuser data, is relevant to the decision.

As you can imagine, we receive a lot of unblock/unban requests that are rejected without much ado, and once in awhile we receive an unblock request (not necessarily an unban request) that deserves to be accepted. In this case, it wasn't a blatantly meritless request because of the time that has elapsed, and yet because this was a community ban that followed a long history of problems, it certainly wasn't a clear case to grant the appeal, either. Therefore, some arbitrators thought it would be useful to provide an opportunity for community input on the request before we address it. This is something we've often been asked to do in connection with complex unblock/unban requests.

I am not meaning to cut anyone off from commenting in whatever way they feel is most productive, but I'm not sure that a vote among five or more alternative proposals is really the best way to structure this discussion and provide input at this stage.

I haven't reviewed this appeal in any detail yet, but I thought this background might be useful in explaining why we're having this discussion. My thanks to everyone who has commented so far. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

"I'm not sure that a vote among five or more alternative proposals is really the best way to structure this discussion" - with all due respect, Brad - and while I hope I don't come across as a kiss-ass, I also hope it's clear that there is a lot of respect due - I think you're processing the "vote" a bit too literally. For my tastes, it offers a much more clear-cut way for members of the community - such as myself - to express where they stand without getting sucked into a long-winded, multi-threaded discussion using software that doesn't automatically make it obvious just who is replying to who. ArbCom solicited the community's position. I, as a member of that community, expressed my position through my statements in the more-organized, better-delineated section. Let's all try to focus on the substance, the "what", of the various messages, rather than the style or the "how" - this is a problem that far too often stifles discussion on Wikipedia. Badger Drink (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, my concern is that members of the community may be spending extra time on this request unnecessarily. If (hypothetically), the committee's decision is to leave the ban in place, then there's no need for discussion about what the terms of an unban would be, etc. Anyway, I was just offering my two cents, and everyone commenting should proceed as they think best. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out (again) that badger Drink summarises my intent quite accurately. My only purpose was to focus discussion, given the wall of text that already existed. → ROUX ₪ 21:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

If others think this format is a more useful way to focus the discussion, I bow to the consensus. Regards (and signing off for the holiday weekend), Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

• If I may ask a question of the ArbCom; on what grounds has GoRight requested relief from his current situation? I am going to be honest - I do not care to support nor oppose any of the proposals made or that may be made, but I think that providing a little more information as to the reason why GoRight wishes to be allowed to return to editing may effect the judgement of some respondents; if there is an article or subject that they have expressed a desire to work on, it may be that some editors will be inclined to allow a limited return to that area only (or not, if they see potential issues arising). It may be that GoRight thinks they have served sufficient time, and will endeavour to contribute more "responsibly" in future, in which case editors may feel differently. Like I said, I am not going to be moved either way personally but perhaps a bit more clarification may help this process. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • "[...] served sufficient time, and will endeavour to contribute more 'responsibly' in future" is pretty much it: when an editor spends no less than six months complying with their ban, the committee will always consider the appeal. In this particular case, GoRight's community ban was at the end of a particularly acrimonious series of incidents and we felt it was important to see what support or objections members of the community would have to a possible return before we made a decision.

    All that said (and this is probably something we should have been more explicit about in the original announcement) this editor did express understanding of what they did wrong, state that they will endeavor to keep their behavior within community norms in the future, and agrees to follow eventual restrictions going forward (editing from exactly one account being one). We would not have heard the appeal at all unless those conditions had been credibly met in the first place. — Coren ^(talk) 14:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

    • This is an editor who has long shown no hesitation to lie like a trooper, and yet you consider that Arbcom's "conditions have been credibly met"? I have a nice bridge over the East River you might be interested in. (And you guys really need to read MastCell's proposal above, and take it to heart.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
• Can you explain why the arbitrators, whoever did the checking, didn't find that there were lies in at least the two paragraphs released above? He said he stayed out of the ARBCC but he socked and commented, a sock he admits is his. He also went to Lar's to talk about it the ARBCC. Difs for these are above. He adamantly denied socks, going so far as to call Mastcell a liar, and now he calmly admits it's one of his socks. Why were so many lies not seen? Why isn't GoRight using his own talk page instead of his blog? Someone can bring his posts over plus it keeps everything recorded on the project. I just don't understand how or why we should allow an editor to return who is not truthful when asking for a return. Sorry, I am sad to feel this way but I do and I would appreciate some answers too. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with MastCell's statement above, but would note that the chaotic nature of the above thread appears to have been a misunderstanding on the part of those commenting here, along with the way the discussion was restructured by roux. All the arbitrators were asking for (as Newyorkbrad said) was a short statement from anyone who felt the need to comment, to inform the decision the arbitrators need to take (i.e. to send a formal reply to GoRight). I agree that links to the previous ban discussions should have been provided.

  On the specific case here, IMO, appeals have been heard from (and even accepted) from editors at least as controversial or disruptive as GoRight. The difference here appears to be the larger number of editors with an interest in commenting and opposing any appeal. i.e. Be disruptive in a heavily trafficked area and you will be ostracized far more than elsewhere.

  My view is that the only way back for such editors is a long period of productive work and high-quality content production elsewhere as a precursor to an appeal strictly limited to working on a very small set of articles completely unrelated to areas worked in previously. There has to be a visible benefit to weigh against the potential for future disruption.

  On a more general note, it might be simplest for the Committee when receiving such appeals and posting a notice here to limit the question to the following: "Community-banned editor ABC [links to ban discussions] is appealing their ban - is there a need to open a community discussion regarding this appeal, or can this be referred to the ban-appeal subcommittee?" People can then post "open community discussion" or "refer to BASC", as needed, and things can then progress from there. The point being that such community discussions need some degree of structuring by uninvolved editors to avoid the initial set-up being less than optimal, or skewed, or hijacked for other reasons, or added to randomly later by others. Carcharoth (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• I would have had no problems allowing him back if he didn't lie to the committee but he did. That's totally unacceptable behavior, don't you agree? --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: I for one very much appreciate the comments that are coming forward from the community, not just on this matter specifically, but on the more general issue of banned users. As a rule of thumb, I think the Arbitration Committee has tended to check in with the community when an unblock/unban request relates to a community-initiated sanction, if for no other reason than to verify that the community's opinion isn't changed. I am interpreting the commentary and responses to this specific request as "no, the community has not changed its collective mind", which is just fine by me personally. In particular, I note Mastcell's Proposal #5 and the number of editors supporting it, which may guide us in the future when similar requests come to our attention. Risker (talk) 03:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• The proposal by MastCell is defective, because it wrongly suggests that the unban proposal is a 'rehab project'. It is actually a proposal to allow GoRight to return to normal editing, with the understanding that if he again becomes a problematic influence (and this does become a 'rehab project'), he will be re-banned. I do wonder who understands that among the people who supported the proposal. AGK [•] 20:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• I know I've said this before but I guess it needs to be said again. An arbitrator above released two paragraphs of an email from GoRight. After that release above you will see that GoRight lied to the arbitrators and well to all of us. Now I for one can't forget that he lied while trying to get unbanned. How do you ignore such behavior? I don't mean to sound unforgiving or rude but seriously, this is something that should definitely prevent and prove he doesn't have any respect for the project or the editors that volunteer here. --CrohnieGal^Talk 22:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• How you handle other editors lying or deceiving or being economical with the truth or telling white lies is part and parcel of editing on Wikipedia. You would hope that other editors would hold themselves to the highest possible standards, but that doesn't usually happen. There are those currently editing (probably even some admins) who to varying degrees 'lied' to others or abused the community's trust in some way (including socking) and were admonished/blocked/sanctioned/desysopped and so on, but were subsequently forgiven/allowed back, and are now editing productively (hopefully). i.e. Some editors do manage to come back from astonishingly poor past records and reform.

  So while AGK is right that this isn't a 'rehab' project, it is important that the principle of unbanning is available to banned users, even if it is declined in specific cases. As others have said, that is important because otherwise those socking will just carry on regardless. At the end of the day, banning is a social construct and is about community trust. It is trivially easy to contribute in a non-disruptive fashion to Wikipedia in an obscure corner (avoiding controversial pages and avoiding talk pages and avoiding project-space pages and so on), but if you do that you don't get any of the 'attention' (of other editors) that many disruptive editors seek. What it is generally more difficult to do is edit in the areas where disruption occurred and where people will 'notice' you.

  In my view, most banned users seeking to be unbanned are either: (a) trying to get their foot back in the door and resume disruption on the pages where they were active, because their socks are being detected too easily; or (b) they want to prove to the community that they can reform and conform to the standards expected. Judging which is these two applies in specific cases is not always easy. It is rarely about wanting to edit, and usually more about wanting to be let back into the "community". Carcharoth (talk) 00:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

This is very useful to us, as the Committee, I'd say. 90% of the ban appeals (topic or site) the Committee handles are pretty cut and dried. Either they're an easy yes (very few, agreed, but those who've done good work elsewhere, and show they understand where they went wrong and understand they'll be on a short leash), or an easy no (continuing to blame others, make excuses, and think that time heals all wounds without doing the work necessary). I'd say another nine percent are those where it could go either way, but the Committee comes to a decision. That still leaves the one percent. That's why this is useful. Not only do we get to look at the comments from a greater number of editors than just those on the Committee who worked the appeal, but we also get a sense of "the community" as a whole as to what it takes to allow problematic users back into difficult topic areas, or coming back to the site as a whole(using the Community term very loosely, I don't know if even 0.01% of the active editors on WP contribute to these discussions, but they are still helpful). I think the guidance we have gotten here will be useful and probably result in a more jaundiced eye being applied to long term problematic users appealing. SirFozzie (talk) 05:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like to thank the arbitrators who are now active and even those who took the time to comment here who are inactive. Thank you very much, it's nice to know when editors are read. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Point of order

ArbCom should not substitute their judgement for the community's, except for very specific circumstances (e.g. small discussion with few editors participating, or secret evidence that can't be discussed in the open). If an editor wants to be unbanned, they can email a request, and the matter can be referred to a community discussion, as has happened here (though circuitously and in a bad venue). For the sake of the editor wishing to be unbanned, their request ought to be posted at WP:AN with links to the ban discussion. Lay the facts on the table.

We should offer editors a path back to good standing, because this discourages socking. As a suggestion to GoRight, please make a list of articles you'd like to improve. Specifics will help you. Perhaps the community would authorize probationary editing of just those articles, and then evaluate the results. There would have to be an understanding that the account could be reblocked at the first sign of disruption. Yes, what Mastcell says is correct: we do not want to invest a lot of effort in this; but we could invest a little effort because that will be cheaper than hunting sock puppets. Jehochman ^Talk 15:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but GoRight needs to explain himself on his talk page. He needs to explain what went wrong and what he's going to do to change that but more important is he needs to explain why he lied to the arbitrators. Did he lie just to get unblocked thinking no one would notice or is there another reason? I would love to agree to him re-entering the community but he has to first explain himself truthfully. Just my opinion but I think others agree with me at this point. If his talk page is protected, which I didn't see, please unprotect it so he can talk to us through he talk page. I'd be more than happy to bring over what he says, as I'm sure others would too. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Removal of permissions

Original announcement

Am I missing something? I can't see any evidence that the account is compromised. If you've received evidence in private that you can't disclose, it'd be good if you could say that in announcements so that people like me don't look at the contribs of the account and scratch their heads. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you notice the six-year gap in editing? --MZMcBride (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and my concerns with that were somewhat reduced by the fact that he returned to editing the same kinds of articles as he edited before the break. Thus I was confused as to what evidence led ArbCom to make the desysopping. As mentioned below, my point in making this comment was to see if ArbCom could improve the content of these announcements in the future. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 17:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I seem to remember that there was an issue a few years back where it was alleged that old admin accounts were insecure, owing to some technicality?, but a proposal to desysop all inactive admin accounts was rejected. I don't know if anyone has better recollection and can point the current committee to that discussion. Anyhoo, it may be that the individual controlling the accounts is not aware of the advanced flags - since none appear to have been used. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to this by any chance? Skomorokh 17:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Could be, but I think that that may be also after an initial issue raised. Cheers, anyhoo. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The six year gap, combined with the socking, makes it likely enough that the person who controls the account today is not the person who controlled it when they got the bit. Removing the permission ensures that even passive permissions (like accessing deleted contributions) cannot be misused until the situation has been clarified. — Coren ^(talk) 17:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to back up Coren - a checkuser raised issues that this account's current edits were connected with a number of problematic sox. The handful of edits from this account are not themselves problematic. Since we're now starting removing rights from oversighters and checkusers who are inactive after relatively short periods of inactivity (months, not years), and given that there have been more recent security issues, perhaps its time to revisit removing tools from old dormant accounts. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Dormant accounts with privileges are one of the most obvious attack surfaces for Wikipedia. Anyone who puts in the effort can extract the list of dormant admin accounts, then run a standard password guesser on them. --John Nagle (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a less controversial solution than desysopping all inactive administrative accounts would be for stewards to run the password guessing software themselves, and desysop only the accounts that they were able to compromise. Chester Markel (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

For those still scratching your heads, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev is of relevance. Thanks to the arbs for acting swiftly on this (though I don't quite grasp the willingness to discuss the background publicly elsewhere on-wiki and not here). Skomorokh 17:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It's the whole "delicate balance" thing. There's no reason to not discuss the background, but I saw no reason to expound on it here beyond "there was socking". The SPI you link to does, indeed, give the relevant background. — Coren ^(talk) 17:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

My point in making this post is that, in future, it would be nice if ArbCom could either give reasons for the desysopping or explain why those reasons cannot be given. For the former, something like a link to an SPI case or some problematic edits would be nice. For the latter, a public statement that the reason cannot be disclosed would suffice. Giving no reason other than "concerns that the account may be compromised" makes it sound like ArbCom is acting on flaky evidence. I'm sure you're not, but some people may perceive it that way. Anyway, it's just a suggestion regarding the content of the notices published to this board. Feel free to leave it if it doesn't suit you. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 17:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

That's an entirely reasonable suggestion, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

+1, it would have been nice to see which SPI (if any) was being referred to in the original announcement rather than having to go here, first. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Point taken. — Coren ^(talk) 20:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• If ArbCom were so sure that the account was compromised as to desysop it, shouldn't it be blocked? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

  Preponderance of evidence vs. certainty, HJ. At this point, we're still hoping the account holder will contact us to clarify matters; removing the bit is a precautionary measure — we can advise on the rest after seeing how things develop.

  That said, while the fact that one of the accounts implicated in the socking was a long-abandoned sysop account prompted our intervention, the actual socking investigation can proceed normally. — Coren ^(talk) 00:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Smart move. Maybe we should revisit the idea of automatically de-sysoping account that have been dormant for some long period (years, not months). It's an obvious security hole. If the owner becomes active again and can prove their bona fides they can regain the bit just by asking, in the same way that retired admins can regain the bit now. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I have revived a proposal after this episode to that effect. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The opposite would also be a red flag situation. If an account remains active for much longer than a century, you can be sure that the original editor is deceased and the account has been handed over to someone else. Count Iblis (talk) 01:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

We do have some ninety years to come up with a procedure for such cases. — Coren ^(talk) 02:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure ... though the idea of hereditary adminship is rather appealing :)  Roger Davies ^talk 06:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

... and some editors already think we're Lords in a fiefdom ... :-P (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, if that were the case, we'd need to determine whether administrative rights are transferred by cognatic or agnatic primogeniture. ;-) Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Why are you excluding matrilineal primogeniture? — Coren ^(talk) 20:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

And Salic law. Let's not forget Salic law.  Roger Davies ^talk 20:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The day we have the "Viscount of Vandal-Whacking", I'm running fast and far :) SirFozzie (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

User:SonOfPedro has already been promised his birth-right. Pedro :  Chat  21:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment. The account was not compromised - I returned to Wikipedia after a hiatus. I do have multiple accounts for privacy reasons, but this was done in accordance with policy. I am not mikemikev. Spencer195 (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration policy update

Original message

When should the discussion close? For something like this a specific time would be good. 10 days? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe 14 days, but I'm waiting on confirmation of that. It needs to be long enough to allow anyone who is taking a holiday this week to get back and offer their two penn'orth. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)