Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| WT:AC Archives |
[edit] Request for oversightship
I wish to become an oversighter, because there are not enough wikipedians with oversight privileges. I've identified edits that grossly violated wikipedia's policy on living people, and reported them to oversight. But sometimes the response takes too long (for example, the most recent time I asked for oversighting of an edit).
Getting oversight should be no big deal. Some tasks involved with being an admin (which I am not currently), such as closing an AfD or banning a user, may be difficult, but deciding to delete a phone number or an address should be easy. Thanks, Andjam (talk) 09:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Your willingness to help out is admirable. However, I direct you to three points: 1/ all Oversighters are administrators, and I do not think that, in practice, the permissions will be issued to non-administrators. Oversight is, after all, a permission that has the potential to cause damage to the project, and for that reason, requires a great deal of trust. 2/ Requests for the oversight permission are generally directed to the AC's private mailing list (index page), and addressed in private. Obviously, I see no reason why the request cannot be addressed here, rather than requested privately, but I would advise that you at least contact the Committee, pointing them towards this thread. 3/ Those that are given access are required to confirm their identities to the Wikimedia Foundation. If you desire access to the oversight flag, you will need to identify, via a medium detailed here. Regards, Anthøny 21:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Request for oversight access can be emailed to ArbCom mailing list as Anthony says. It is necessary for people with oversight access to be admin since they need to be able to see deleted versions of articles since some edits are deleted prior to the request for removal by oversight. Thank you for the offer to help, though. :) FloNight♥♥♥ 21:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Thanks for replying Anthony. When I read Wikipedia:Oversight#Assignment_and_revocation, I misinterpreted it as saying that you could put a request on the "Arbitration Committee Talk page". Should the section be clarified a bit? Andjam (talk) 12:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] Unable to get a reply from ArbComm
Hello, I am posting this message on behalf of User:Iantresman, who I know and have worked with outside of wikipedia. Ian tells me he has tried to contact the ArbComm to see if the the community ban he received can be re-examined in the light of new evidence, as he summarizes here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iantresman#Indefinite_ban:_unappealing_replies ...but apparently he has not received any reply at all. Could someone let him know where he stands?--feline1 (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- I thought that he recently received a reply from an arbitrator after we reviewed the request. You double check and so will I. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ian has emailed me privately to reply:
"Since my request for appeal was turned down last year, I re-applied on 1st Jan (with a reminder on the 15th) as it was clear that the evidence showed factually incorrect allegations (rather than just misleading ones).
- I received a reply from Josh Gordon on 16th Jan 2008 saying "Received and under consideration". Since then, I have no record of receiving responses from anyone on the Arbcom list. I sent reminder emails to:
- The ArbCom mailing list on 1 Feb and 14th Feb, without response.
- Morven on 20, 26, and 28 Feb without response.
- Kirill Lokshin on 3 March, without response.
- NewYorkBrad on 4 April, without response.
I then asked clerk Thatcher131 to see if he could get a response, and he was quite helpful. But my emails on 19, 25, 28 and 31 March, and 4 Apr, have all gone without response. ie. Since Josh's reply on 16th Jan 2008, a dozen of my reminders have gone answered."
feline1 (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Soupdragon42 (talk) 10:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, well. I see that ScienceApologist (ScienceAntagonist, more like) is still waging his Holy War against Plasma Cosmology. The suppression of Ian Tresman's valid contributions is nothing short of a witch hunt. Nearly all scientific breakthroughs have resulted from conflict, not consensus, and Wikipedia's irrational devotion to mainstream ideas thus stifles scientific progress
- Scientific American magazine was still denying that Heavier than Air Flight was possible two years after the Wright brothers had been flying successfully!
- Furthermore, Ian Tresman has always been polite and reasonable, by stark contrast to the behaviour of certain Wiki people who should know better. His community ban was clearly instigated on false pretences
- NB. ScienceAntagonist. Please do not accuse me of being a sockpuppet of Ian Tresman again, as I have demonstrated to more reasonble moderators that this is not the case - dvd[at]plasmacosmology.net [1]
- I've opened an RFAR to appeal this as it appears that the request isn't being taken seriously. Stifle (talk) 11:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] JW's tie breaking vote?
From memory, it seems that Jimbo's role as a tie-breaker, when the Arbitration Committee is in a deadlock, conflicts with with policy on another page (Or, as I have just found Newyorkbrad's comment in the discussion linked below, "oddly enough the actual Wikipedia:Arbitration policy does not contain this provision"). Looking at the case just now which originally brought this to my attention, the controversy concerning this role was brought to light by this proposal link. And at least one of the conversations concerning this tie-breaking role took place here. So, should this text:
-
- "In this circumstance (a tie vote), the Arbitrators may ask Jimbo Wales to cast a tie-breaking vote, but this has yet to occur."
be removed? It does not seem to have acceptance. And one arbitrator changed their vote just to keep it from being invoked. . . R. Baley (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- R.Baley, the Committee is discussing several internal policy matters. I'll add this to the list for us to discuss. FloNight (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- I know the AC is busy, but this still appears to be an unsettled issue. Is there any discussion going on about this? I ask because it would be a shame to leave it until such time as it would cause the maximum amount of drama to decide. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Requests for Checkusership
As noted elsewhere, a discussion is ongoing beginning with Wikipedia_talk:RFA#Requests for checkusership. The discussion centers around the idea of an RfA-like process for selecting and/or approving Checkusers. Though I am reasonably certain that some or all of the members of the committee are aware of the discussion, I'm adding a notice here to notify you of the discussion and the proposal. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Comments welcome
I've started a discussion here about whether an official clerk system is really needed. Al Tally (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Sockpuppet notification
Hi there, an editor who is currently under suspicion of abusing multiple accounts (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TheNautilus) has stated here that he has notified the "arb bureaucracy" of his account usage. Could somebody please check to see if this is true? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Either email the arb mailing list or post on one of their talk pages. Only the arbs will know if this is true. You could also file a report at WP:SSP. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I've contacted Charles Matthews and Jpgordon. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Who is the "arb bureaucracy"? Anyway, I couldn't find any such notifications in the email records going to back to my beginning as an arbitrator in Jan 2006, and there's nothing in the archive either (at least, nothing with the word "TheNautilus" could be found.) However, if I were participating in the RFC in question, I'd point out that in the absence of any suggestion of abuse, it's simply irrelevant whether or not anyone was informed; current sockpuppet policy allows for such multiple accounts (a policy I disagree with, but there you have it.) It does look that opinion is already being voiced adequately on the RFC. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- The problem is tendentious editing and multiple policy violations, not simple sockpuppet abuse. This is why an RfC is needed, rather than a simple RFCU block. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- I presume the "arb bureaucracy" is the arbitration committee. I've seen that usage used a few times in emails I have received from editors who do not have much experience with the arbitration process. I don't think it's meant offensively, at least in this case. :) Anthøny 23:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I wasn't offended, just amused at the term. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have no memory of it but I got an email from TheNautilus in March 2007 discussing a case. In it he mentions using a past account and that some admins (he names them) were aware of the reason for him starting with a new user account. At the time, I did not see the email as notification, but he certainly did say so in the email. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Did he say what this account was called? I ask since I'clast is still an active editor, so if TheNautilus mentioned a "past account" that would seem to imply an account that he had stopped using. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I wasn't offended, just amused at the term. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- I presume the "arb bureaucracy" is the arbitration committee. I've seen that usage used a few times in emails I have received from editors who do not have much experience with the arbitration process. I don't think it's meant offensively, at least in this case. :) Anthøny 23:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- I used the phrase arb bureaucracy because not everyone I've discussed my situation with or WP identity in email, associated with the arbitration process was on the committee itself, I think (little hazy on which functions carry which title recognitions and powers, 2006-7). I thank FloNight for acknowledging my brief note to her, I have more numerous and meatier correspondence with present and former arb process members that I do not think "sharing" is a good idea, considering the long term expectation of privacy.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I consider Tim's actions, especially this past couple of weeks, in bad faith and a sophisticated, concerted personal attack in nature. Although Tim may normally be a good editor, his surprising conduct starting from "orthomoecular medicine" several months ago, suggests to me, a strategic campaign of measured, baiting with escalating coercive conduct & intimidation where most editors are too far removed to understand the underlyng factual science issues and multiple errors. A kind of "will to power behavior", Tim's edits rely on inaccurate historical and scientific statements that are 2nd, 3rd, 4th repetitions of unreliable sites that repeat (project) and spread a known fraud and misrepresentations about a famous scientist & his work. This disparagement, by close association, his living co-author(s) and by society names, members & professional associates may even have BLP/entity issues.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I believe what has happened is that I have tapped Tim's core beliefs. You see, I can *document*, through source text research with WP:V and RS sources, that his favorite epithets are the continued projection & spreading of known, fraudulent misrepresentations by a scientifically unreliable, partisan website that has long history of projecting the *image* of infalliblity (here too) despite being, scientifically and historically on this subject, roadkill. For such controversial situations, I rely on a pretty sophsiticated integration of *all* policies to maintain an "NPOV-SPOV" for accurate, current NPOV, RS, V, WEIGHT text. Tim's tactics have been (perhaps subtly) pre-emptory and ad hominem in nature taking aim my lack of time and edit volume as well popular but documentable misconceptions about the subject, that are the fallout of a decades long propaganda campaign (knowably, even reckless) with the misrepresentation. Now sufficient historical documentation and mainstream scientific authority exists for me to issue this challenge and take it to the line: Tim's favorite epithets, originating unreliable sources, are a form of professional disparagement (those authors and similarly named societies) that are in actuality (based on "my" WP:V, RS mainstream sources) founded inside a "magic square" of severe bias, scientific incompetence, scientific misconduct, and since it is so popular here, scientific quackery. All I am hearing from Tim and fellow travellers by "body language" is "STFU" and WP:HUSH. The bottom line is that Tim is manipulating the system, ignoring WEIGHT & science fact issues and attacking me through WP processes, rather than collaborate like a number of previous MD and PhD editors.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I am not a fast writer by any means. The rapid escalation of complaints and the previous tactics that I consider gratitious and unfair, suggest an intent to overwhelm me by funneling in old adversaries, at a time *when I have been scaling back my editing*. My story involves security issues, some in meatspace & undiscussed anywhere, as well as previous, recurrent trolling and real sockpuppetry where I don't appreciate Tim's inflammatory actions stomping around, attracting notice & harrassment, that just might reanimate one of the prior problem editors. One was an extraordinarily powerful writer, a pharmaceutical lawyer that I've seen finish off another lawyer here at WP inside of a week despite lack of technical merit, and the other that I simply consider a gifted predator, now has several indefs but managed to come in under the WP radar for a year+.--TheNautilus (talk) 01:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- This isn't the place to discuss this. I'd invite anybody interested to read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TheNautilus and comment on the issues highlighted in this RfC, some of which are probably obvious to anybody reading the comment above. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- By my reading of WP:SOCK, there are 5 legitimate uses of multiple accounts - to my surprise, segregation of contributions is one of them. There is a LOT of gray area between segregation of contributions and avoiding scrutiny (one man's legitemate segregation is another's avoiding scrutiny), rendering the page almost useless. However, the page does say alternative accounts should be tagged. At minimum, the two accounts should be tagged as alternative accounts. WLU (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] JzG RFAR merged with Cla68-FM-SV case
Per the arb vote here the RFAR on User:JzG is now merged with this case and he is a named party. Also see my case disposition notes there. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] a Prod, for the Committee
Could we get some action on the various stale requests for clarification? {{RfarOpenTasks}} lists threads that are stale and/or need arbitrator involvement. In particular, the IRC clarification and Moby Dick clarification are particularly stale, and require action.
Anthøny 18:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Proposal to unmerge C68-FM-SV and JzG/Viridae cases
- Please see the proposal here. (Placed this note here since the arbitrators appear not to be reading the case pages.) dorftrottel (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] G33 case
I asked AGK about this, who suggested asking here [2]. The case looks stalled to me. What are you waiting for? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Problem with connexion
Hi! I Have some problem to connect at Wikipedia. I can't acces to wikipedia. I'don't know the reason. I say to french admistrator, because i edit lot of in wikipedia french language. Please resolve this problem.I must change my computer ton acces to wikipidia. Excuse me but my english is basic. Thank'you.--Great11 (talk) 05:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
