Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Roger Davies (talk | contribs) at 10:25, 21 January 2010 (trim redundant restored material). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcuts

Discussion of agenda

Agenda (please use a header for each new discussion section here)

Discussion of announcements

Emergency desysop: User:Cool3

Announcement

Temporarily desysopped? So, we'll be seeing him again soon I hope. Anyway, congratulations again arbcom on deleting yet another useful editor. Majorly talk 23:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean a) the checkusers are wrong b) ArbCom shouldn't desysop ban-evading sockpuppets or c) the announcement is untruthful?  Skomorokh  23:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go for b with a hint of c (because I very much doubt Cool3 will be resysopped). Majorly talk 23:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks for the clarification. Cheers,  Skomorokh  23:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All emergency desysops are temporary until they are either reversed or become permanent. It's a fast track procedure to use when accounts with high level permissions are or appear to be compromised.  Roger Davies talk 23:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how this meets Level I procedures "emergency" desysop. Please explain. Majorly talk 00:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You honestly think Kohs was using the Cool3 account since 2005? Nathan T 00:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Majorly talk 00:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's an account. Obviously compromised (Multiple checkusers have signed off on it being used by a banned user, before we even thought about asking for the de-sysop). Per the part of L1 Proceedures that states Level I procedures may be used if (a) an account appears to be obviously compromised. Not sure what you're missing here.. SirFozzie (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you're discussing everything important out of sight for some bizarre reason. I know arbcom likes to act in secret, but it needs to stop. Majorly talk 00:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not so bizzare. Has a lot to do with Checks being run and revealing IP addresses, which is not fit for public consumption per se.--Tznkai (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody bothered mentioning a compromise in the announcement; clearly you expect people to be able to mindread such things. Regardless, it was in no way an emergency because the account clearly wasn't doing any damage to Wikipedia. Majorly talk 00:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking to me? I'm just responding to the secrecy issue you brought up. It seems I can't keep track of what your problem with the issue is exactly.--Tznkai (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea any more, I am just so sick and tired of arbcom fouling up time after time. Majorly talk 00:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Unindent) Majorly, here's why. As we ran through a routine Checkuser, a couple of confirmed sockpuppets popped up along with this admin account. We blocked the sockpuppet accounts right away, as they were editing actively. As the the puppeteer would then have realized that his socks have been compromised, he probably would have nothing to lose with the remaining admin account if he knew that it's going to be desysopped anyway. Imagine the amount of potential damage if we decided to wait and see. This is why the Committee agreed that an emergency temporary desysop was necessary. - Mailer Diablo 01:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has legal been contacted RE this issue? Hipocrite (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would they be? Majorly talk 00:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
18 U.S.C. § 1030. Hipocrite (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For those who don't have the Unites States Code memorized (unlike myself, of course), we have an article at the inobvious name of Protected computer that explains what Hipocrite means. Given the history between Kohs and Jimbo, bringing this to Mike Godwin's attention is pretty reasonable. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We wouldn't have standing, regardless. We have no way to know how the account exchanged hands; for all we know the transfer of control was entirely willing in which case no laws have been broken (although our policies have been), and even if not the putative victim is an editor and not the foundation or one of its agents. — Coren (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the law governs unauthorized access to a computer, and we suppose that the unauthorized access in question is that of Cool3 to WMF servers, then it would appear to be the owner of the computers that has standing. Not that any of this is particularly relevant to real circumstances, but... Nathan T 01:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its been tried.--Tznkai (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think the circumstances in US v. Lori Drew are sufficiently different (wrt to "unauthorized access") that it doesn't really apply, but there again is that actual relevance problem :-P Nathan T 01:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetical question Would an account sold by one person to another be labelled a "compromised account"? On a second note, where is the evidence this account was going any damage to Wikipedia? GTD 01:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not material, because both would have led to — essentially — the same result (though the procedure might have been slightly different if we had a way of distinguishing between the two). In this case, the person currently in control of the account is not the person who passed RfA; either it was compromised in which case it needs to be desysopped very swiftly, or it was given willingly in which case it also needs to be desysopped but "only" swiftly (because it's a banned user, and would not be the user who passed RfA anyways). We prefer to assume in good faith that the original owner has not given their consent. — Coren (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Since we're drumming up legal terminology, ban evasion is damage to Wikipedia per se, approximately the same way that willfully invading another's home and "not causing any damage" is still trespass, and operating on someone without their consent is still battery even if you "did no harm."--Tznkai (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Though if the person invading the house were to redecorate a couple of rooms exactly as the owners wanted, all at their own (the invader's) cost...sure, they'd still be trespassing, but...? GTD 01:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And they'd still be trespassing. Follow the paralell argument for say, plastic surgery and see where it leads you. Wikipedia, as a whole (as much as we can act as a whole) have chosen to say "no" and to exclude a certain editor, and that is approximately where the conversation ends. You can have a different discussion on whether that decision was wise, or metaphysically correct, but that is a different conversation that has nothing to do with the sense of the follow up action, unless somehow the original decision is so lacking in merit it is infact out right evil to support it. Issues that have fallen into this category include 1. genocide 2. slavery. 3. murder. They do not include banning people from websites.--Tznkai (talk) 01:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Banned users cannot force a review of their bans by acquiring admin accounts. That would be absurd. Durova401 16:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could a checkuser comment on how far into the past there is evidence of a compromised account? It would be worth looking over the edits. Dragons flight (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the only reasonable action, the desysoping of the account, has been done. Short of some impressive explanation and some good evidence to back it up I don't think it will be "temporary" either. More information is always nice and I look forward to it, but I do understand privacy and "beans" reasons not to disclose some information and methods. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 02:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, the ArbCom decided to run a checkuser on Thekohser after MZMcBride handed him a list of BLPs articles to do little "experiment" on. For context see [1]. Sole Soul (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope.--Tznkai (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More likely it related to the alleged "sock-master" sharing information with a checkuser in a restricted-access Wikipedia Review forum, if we're really keeping score GTD 03:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, by the looks of this edit, Thekohser appears to have acquired the account in early December. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that's the case, why wouldn't Cool3 come forward via a different account or IP and announce the account had been compromised, unless the account was handed over willingly? Ks0stm (T•C•G) 15:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It could simply be that cool3 does not used Wikipedia anymore and that is why he did not notice. Either way the result is the same. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 16:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • General Comment I think Arbcom could spare everyone a portion of the confusion and argument when there things like this come up with some slight changes to the standard announcement. First if the word "emergency" were replaced with "expedited" it would avoid the confusion along the lines of "What emergency? They haven't even edited in the past 48 hours". Secondly if the standard announcement ended with something along the lines of "This account will remain temporarily desysoped until the full ArbCom votes to either reinstate or permanently desysop the account." With a link to some page where the permanent motion will take live. That way anyone concerned about final resolution of the matter can watchlist that page and there will less confusion over what is meant by "temporary".--BirgitteSB 01:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the above suggestions. They sound like generally positive clarifications. The change from emergency to expedited is especially appropriate. In addition, it should be noted that this will not entail a change to the Committee procedure, just the announcement, since the official term is neither emergency nor expedited but Level I — James Kalmar 06:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestions, Birgitte. The first change is easy to implement and probably desirable; the second is much less straightforward as under the current procedure the desysop stays in place until it is appealed by the desysopped editor (either in public or by email) and a determination is made.  Roger Davies talk 07:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was mistaken about the procedure there. I would recommend removing the word "temporary" in the announcement given that actual procedure. It doesn't really add anything except confusion. If you wanted to be precise you could say: "This motion will stand until Arbcom receives an an appeal from User:Foo explaining what has happened." But I don't see an issue with just dropping it entirely. --BirgitteSB 01:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appeals to BASC: Shamir1 & DollyD

Announcement
  • As the editor involved, I found the dubious block (which apparently morphed into a complete, Talk-Page-locked-down "ban" with zero community consultation) completely humiliating. It was very illuminating to see the true faces and motives of many of Wikipedia's most lauded functionaries. DollyD (talk) 09:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration clerks

Original announcement

Contgratulations to all of you, both the new clerks and the confirmed clerks! Don't let us down. :) (X! · talk)  · @247  ·  04:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about we not criticise the clerks for things that are completely immaterial? Criticise when they actually do something wrong in the course of their clerking duties, sure, but over unintentially forgetting to appeal to minority groups of editors on en.wp with a poster on ACN? The WordsmithCommunicate 19:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • LessHeard vanU, you are the only one making a big deal out of it. Just because something is different does not make it bad (ie: an American poster opposed to a European one). I mean, unless you live in a culture that recognizes such differences (race, gender, Americanism, etc) as significant, they are socially irrelevant and therefor, in one way or another, do not exist. Had you not brought up the issue of "bias" in the poster, I highly doubt it would have been an issue, or would have influenced the outcome. Tiptoety talk 01:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Country-of-origin did not really enter my thinking during our discussions on who to promote, but I would point out that, if you look at the timezones that the active clerks are in, Europeans were previously over-represented and Americans under-represented. The new trainees bring a bit of balance back to that. If you look carefully at the candidates, you'll see that there is a fair bit of diversity in their backgrounds and interests, something that I think will be a positive for the clerk corps. Lankiveil (speak to me) 21:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong

Original announcement

Vassyana

Announcement
Part of the reason the Committee is so large is to deal with attrition since, to my recollection anyway, midterm appointments are disfavored.--Tznkai (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[2] Sole Soul (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an interesting point. Mr Wales's statements appear to indicate that such an appointment could be expected. As a matter of general policy, the desirability of late substitute appointments is up for debate. In the specific case, I have no doubts about the suitability of the named candidate. — James Kalmar 23:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal

In cases of serious professional misconduct it is normal for a person to be suspended, without prejudice, during any hearing. I think the community would like to see admins against whom cases are accepted, suspended from using their tools during the period of the case. Whether this is enforced by flipping the bit or not is probably immaterial. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure that all cases would require a complete suspension. If a prima facie case is presented that an administrator may have misused his tools in a particular area, I would not object to the ArbCom suspending (by motion, without prejudice) a suitably-scoped portion of that admin's tools. Actually flipping the bit would only be required if an admin failed to adhere to the terms of such an injunction; the injunction would automatically lapse at the close of the case. Obviously the ArbCom would retain its powers to carry out an emergency desysopping under the usual, limited set of conditions. Otherwise, we open ourselves to vexatious litigants being able to hamstring otherwise productive administrators for the weeks or months required to complete a full Arbitration. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Guy. DuncanHill (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a cost here, but it might be worth paying. We can have one of two norms: suspending as a matter of course, or only under some certain parameters. If you suspend as a matter of course, this skips a lot of wrangling, any appearance of prejudice or prejudgment, and theres a lot of room for face saving. It is of course, rather inflexible and prone to abuse. I think I'd rather see the matter of course route.--Tznkai (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a suspension of all advanced permissions should be effectuated in any case where abuse or poor judgement has been alleged. Making this routine will prevent acrimonious debate in specific cases. This is in line with the professional atmosphere, as noted. — James Kalmar 23:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic suspension is a widely understood and utilised practice in other areas. Yes, it may have a level of stigma, but the effect is the same for everyone, no-one is encouraged to rush to their support in terms of keeping the tools, and the disastrous effect of appearing to support certain persons by not suspending them then - sods law being what it is - having to permaban them when the sockfarm crawls out of the basket is avoided.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with this proposal. Automatic suspension of the tools would prevent bad things from happening because someone has the tools who shouldn't, would prevent others from being subject to innuendos just because they used the tools while an Arbcom case was in play, and would actually be the fairest option for those who didn't need to be in front of Arbcom in the first place - there's the least amount of stigma attached to something like this if it's just how we always do things without exception. If it reaches a point where continuing to withhold the tools becomes unjust because it's been ages and someone is still subject to an open case when everyone knows they shouldn't be, then there's an equal problem for everyone else in the case if Arbcom holds it open, so you should take such inclinations as a sign to hurry up and finish the damn case already. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&oldid=339127887"