User talk:NuclearWarfare

Startseite Talk E-Mail Contributions monobook.js Content Awards Userspace

Wait! Are you here because your article was speedy deleted? Click here before leaving a message to find out why.

I still think this needs airing

Originally posted on User talk:WJBscribe, with the section title "Get my position straight before you attack it"

I'd appreciate, next time, that you discuss things with me before you misconstrue my position. That I have expressed no small amount of frustration and a few choice words for the vultures that infested the AC/N talk thread is unrelated to the merit of the desysop. If you had taken the time to actually read what I'v been saying — or took a moment of your time to check on the facts — you would have known that I came down hard on that thread because it had nothing to do with the merits of the desysop and everything to do with process wonkery. — Coren ^(talk) 23:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

You should read some of what you've been posting lately and think about how it looks to a detached third party. You sound extremely angry and tense. If that's the case, take a step back - "vultures that infested the AC/N talk thread" is a ridiculous comment and unworthy of you. A number of well respected contributors expressed their concerns about a decision. Instead of calmly engaging in the discussion, you fanned the flame. Your posts stand out in that thread as having added a lot more heat than light and yet you are the one to archive it "with extreme prejudice"?
Your hostility here only reinforces my concern that you (and maybe some of your colleagues) have taken very entrenched views on this matter. Please think about recusing - let cooler heads deal with this. I post infrequently these days, maybe you should give some thought to why I thought your comments sufficiently worrying that I wanted to speak up. WJBscribe (talk) 00:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You're correct that I am furious, but you're entirely mistaken if you think that this in any way related to the original decision or that any part of that animosity is directed at Rod.

I'm entirely willing to extend a vast amount of agf your way — I'm pretty damn sure that you did this infrequent post because you are, somehow, convinced that Rod got a raw deal. I can guarantee that out of all the "concerns" expressed about the decision on the AC/N thread, maybe one in ten actually cared one whit about Rod at all. Of those, maybe one or two actually had enough information about the actual situation to make a mistaken guess about the rest.

We did everything we could to prevent Rod from being drawn into more crap then he could handle, but there is only so much we can do to protect someone when the mob pounces on the opportunity to sacrifice them on the public square for a shot at the Evul Arbcomz. Rod is getting a raw deal: he's being used by the community as a weapon against the committee, and he's going to end up being the only one paying the price for the "community"'s desire for blood. — Coren ^(talk) 12:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The Community's desire for blood Coren? Could you tell me exactly how much of that I, or Heim, or Sandstein, or Prodego, or TenOfAllTrades, or John, or WJBscribe have for the Arbitration Committee? Last I checked, we were all administrators in good standing, I am for now still an ArbCom clerk, and many of us voted for you last election. If you can't tell the difference between concern that the Arbitration Committee might be overreaching its powers and being out for blood and using someone as a weapon, then you have certainly lost perspective. NW (Talk) 14:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's the problem isn't it? I actually know the fact underlying this case, I know why the decision was taken, and why it was taken off-wiki. I know that the only one who will suffer from this case having been made public is Rod. There will be nothing gained from the public case, that couldn't have been done with a rational discussion of whichever failings of process there might have been in a manner unconnected to Rod — quite the opposite: the specific issue will obscure and confuse any wider point that might have been made about how the committee should go about in the future in such cases.

How else am I supposed to interpret this? We've unanimously been trying to tell you that Rod — and only Rod — will be harmed by exposing this. And yet, despite our repeated warnings and invitation to continue the discussion about the general process elsewhere and in another context, some people insisted that Rod should be hung out to dry in order to — I don't know — "expose Arbcom"? Punish it?

If that's not it, then please explain it to me; because right now it looks like either you (collectively) don't care one bit about Rod if it means scoring some points against the committee; or that you honestly believe that all 18 of us are lying bastards. — Coren ^(talk) 18:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

---

I've taken the time to copy this here since you (understandably) don't necessarily follow a conversation on someone else's talk page and it's better to not clutter someone else's talk page. My question above is sincere, and I really want to hear what you need to say on the subject. For what it's worth, the situation has obviously (and predictably) deteriorated since, and in retrospect it now seems that no amount of discretion could have avoided it. But surely you can understand how things might look from this side of the screen? — Coren ^(talk) 03:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I somehow missed your reply on my watchlist. My bad.

Let's look at how this appeared from Rod's end, shall we? He received an email from Roger Davies asking him to contact the Committee. He responded and got no real response, besides another note from Elen of the Roads asking if he received Roger's email. He responded to that too, saying that he had not received any specifics from Rod and as such, could not really respond to anything yet. Roger finally emailed him again and (summarizing) said the following: You're a good contributor. However, we have identified four issues of concern with you. Therefore, we have collectively decided to desysop you. If you want, you can voluntarily resign (under a cloud), but otherwise, please refrain from using your tools until we actually get around to going to m:SRP. Actually, at this point I think it would be important to quote from Roger's decision: "I'm sorry to say that we've now reached a point where the clear consensus is for you to be desysopped by motion and perhaps also subject to an interaction restriction with Malleus Fatuorum. However, the Committee is mindful of your long and dedicated service and has no intention of acting publicly in this matter unless it has no other alternative. A dignified and low-profile solution might be for you to resign your sysop bit voluntarily, with a note explaining that if you ever wish the tools to be returned you will do so via a fresh RfA." Nothing here indicates that this desyopping would be a temporary interim action pending full public review, as the ArbCom has tried to make it seem after-the-fact.

Now, do I think that Rod's actions were perfect? Of course not. Do I think that he should have at least had the opportunity to defend himself against the accusations? Of course. In fact, immediately upon receiving that email, he replied to each of the four points that Roger cited against him. Of them, my analysis of the email would say that he would not really have been able to refute #1, but #2-4 were perfectly refuted, either because of lack of evidence cited or because they were simply wrong on your part. #1, edit warring over Clown, at the very maximum for any editor would have led to an interaction ban. The whole idea of punishment fitting the "crime" seems to have been ignored here.

Now, that all addresses the facts of the underlying case. I mentioned Orangemarlin twice at WT:ACN, but I'm not sure if I made the connection clear enough. So let me go back and explain what I meant. From what I recall in the Orangemarlin "case", the Committee had investigated a number of issues about a particular editor. After their deliberations, they decided that the editor was not at fault, but Orangemarlin was, and he was summarily banned. A very real part of the problem was that ArbCom believed it had the power to summarily ban someone without even the pretense of allowing that editor to defend himself. I'm sure that you would agree that a ban and a desysop are both serious sanctions. I really cannot understand what has changed that would make the Committee think that something like this would be acceptable.

Now, you want The Community™ to discuss the overreach issue with a matter unconnected to Rodhullandemu? I'm sorry, but how exactly do you propose we do that? I'm sorry to have to make this analogy, but if the ACLU thinks that murderers such as this guy doesn't just deserve to get the death penalty, it doesn't just lobby Congress to try to remove capital punishment, but it also takes the individual case to the Supreme Court. I'm sorry for the hyperbole, but it was the only real analogy I could think of.

Do I think Rod would be hurt by a public exposure of your evidence? No. Do you know why? Because Jclemens said this: "A slight correction: to reinforce what I said above, what was considered off-wiki leading to the de-sysop decision doesn't include any evidence not already present on-wiki. Any interested editor has access to all the evidence considered by ArbCom in private deliberation which informed the decision to de-sysop." So if all the evidence is public anyway, the harm it would have done by collating it all is outweighed by the harm you have done by chasing off a hard-working administrator as well the harm you collectively have done to the Committee's public support.

Your question is do I understand how things look from your side of the screen? Yes. I accept that you and the rest of the Arbitrators were trying to act in the Community's best interest. But you have to understand how it looks from my perspective: "secret trials, protestations of "secret evidence" (soon contradicted by those same speakers), paternalist insistence that its "for your own good" despite your disagreement, etc" (Nathan). And to be honest, half of me thinks now that if I piss off people with the wrong friends, am I the next to be summarily desysopped without so much as a warning? NW (Talk) 04:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, as I expected, your position is very much consistent but based on partial information. For instance, you are seemingly quoting from forwarded email but obviously lack some context. Also, you are correct that the evidence to justify a desysop is public, but the reason to handle the matter discreetly was not — and it remains valid even with Rod having demanded a public case and will have to remain private even if it means that ArbCom needs to take the lumps on its reputation because much of the concerns we sought to address were in fact based on willful deception.

The committee will, of course, never publish email that was not agreed in advance could eventually be made public — to do so would destroy the inviolate expectation of privacy — but have you not wondered why Rod himself has not done so in a place where arbitrators could see and comment on whether what he published was accurate or complete?

Yeah, we've been had. We've been manipulated into a situation where we either act like bastards or look like bastards. We'll take the lumps, as usual, but you can't fault me for being more than a little frustrated at the situation. We're in a loose-loose situation, and the very people who are willing to crucify us for being so unfair are extending absolutely no good faith towards the actions of fifteen independent arbitrators, and it occurs to absolutely nobody that perhaps — just perhaps — we did the best that could be done under the circumstances and are neither evil nor incompetent? — Coren ^(talk) 13:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

And that's exactly the paternalistic attitude that invited the criticism in the first place: "Something is wrong with Rodhullandemu, we know what's best for him, and we aren't going to change our mind no matter what anyone says, even Rod himself."

Am I willing to extend good faith to the Arbitration Committee? Sometimes. You would notice that I didn't say anything in the David Gerard de-functionary-ing situation, because I knew you were working with him. But when you try to do your own thing without even the input of the editor involved? Sorry, but no. You have proven yourself to be incapable of trust in those situations in the past, and I don't see why that should miraculously change now.

You say that I obviously lack some context. That's fair, I only expected that. But what else do you want me to do? Did you even tell Rodhullandemu the real reason why he was being desysopped? Because right now, it really seems like you didn't. NW (Talk) 15:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

We're just going 'round in circles, and it's evident that nothing can be said that can convince you that you might not have an accurate picture of the situation. Rather than argue endlessly, we should just end this now with no hard feelings. — Coren ^(talk) 16:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Coren, I know I don't have a fully accurate picture of things. Could you answer those questions in my last paragraph? NW (Talk) 16:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Nuke, hopefully the pertinent questions will be addressed in the case; a couple of arbs are compiling a timeline that should hopefully make the timeframe a lot clearer. We didn't desysop Rod for any secret reason, and Level II procedures weren't a fig leaf applied ex post facto; using those procedures was discussed before Rod was contacted. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

David, that's good to hear. The email from Roger Davies to Rodhullandemu, which admittedly does state that he is speaking on his own behalf but is written in such a way to as if he is speaking on the behalf of the Committee, makes no mention of such a thing, and neither does the originally passed motion. NW (Talk) 16:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we've all realized that we didn't word the initial motion correctly and someone even pointed out that the Level II procedure itself uses "temporary" instead of "indefinite" which we use everywhere else on Wikipedia, so I think it's clear that we suck at copyediting. I'm not sure what you mean here by the "real" reason and that kind of concerns me - after being made aware of the problem, we reviewed Rod's contributions and had concerns, Elen's put together specific diffs which are now posted on the case and even Roger's email gave Rod a summary of those items. If you've been told there's some other reason behind it, you've been misinformed. Shell ^babelfish 16:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

If Roger's concerns were a full summary of what the Committee believed the whole problem is, that would be one thing. But I have read it, and I simply cannot believe that was the case. Half of the concerns you laid out were easily refutable. I simply cannot believe that such a thing is all it would take to get someone desysopped permanently. By that same logic that The Committee used in that email, I could probably get MastCell banned for POV pushing in medical articles combined with "obvious" bias in his administrative actions. NW (Talk) 17:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm - have you had a moment to look over the evidence that was posted? Personally, bias had nothing to do with my feelings on the situation. Everyone is entitled to get frustrated or have a bad day, but really, I've got a hard time understanding using the block log to insult the size of someone's genitals or ethnicity. Instead of going on the email summary, which may or may not be the whole exchange, take a look at the diffs Elen put up and see if you still completely disagree. Shell ^babelfish 18:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you might have misunderstood what I meant to say about bias: if I were allowed to desysop someone with the level of evidence that was presented in the email to Rod, I could desysop an administrator like MastCell for (1) POV pushing and (2) bias.

Elen's evidence, I admit, is fairly convincing. Yet three things about it bother me: (1) I fail to see what the necessity to do things privately was, or the urgency to do things so quickly that Rod was not even given a chance to respond to the accusations before him. A WP:RFC/U, often a prerequisite in cases like this, was not opened. Indeed, I seem to remember a case where ArbCom referred the editor to RFC/U with the understanding that they would be desysopped if problems arose after that. (2) "Examine all parties" seems to have been tossed out the window here. Why? (3) I could easily think of 3-4 editors who speak in much the same tone as Rod and have simply not gotten the message after these long years. I'm sure you can think of whom I am referring to. Why go after Rod and not them? NW (Talk) 18:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

One thing that might not have been well articulated here is that handling it privately was meant to be a courtesy, not secrecy. To use a real world analogy, if you screwed up at work, someone like your boss or HR might pull you into their office and offer you the chance to resign. It's something we'd do for any volunteer. We're all human beings here - we make mistakes, things in our life affect us and sometimes we just get burnt out dealing with the constant issues on the project. Nobody deserves to have their dirty laundry waved around in public and be subject to the drama that seems to come with it if there's another way to handle the issue.

You've suggested a few times that there was no chance to respond and all I can say is those comments suggest you don't have all of the emails related to this discussion. As for reviewing all parties, that wasn't the issue that was brought to our attention and if there are more things that need to be dealt with, those avenues are still open. I agree that there are other editors whose comments have no place on Wikipedia and personally feel that it shouldn't be tolerated; unfortunately the community has persistently been divided about whether or not that situation even needs addressing. Shell ^babelfish 18:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that analogy is poor. A more proper one would be more that if you were a manager of a team in an organization and one day, a couple of Vice-Presidents stopped by to say "You're going to be publicly fired next week because of WXYZ; you can resign now if you want" and then left. But maybe I'm not fully aware of all the emails. I think I was, but I really don't think so.

"that wasn't the issue that was brought to our attention and if there are more things that need to be dealt with" – Nothing was "brought to your attention" at all. The Committee chose to review this situation of its own volition and could have let the scope be anything it wanted. Elephant in the room: Why was Malleus' conduct not reviewed? NW (Talk) 19:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm..again, I'd have to say if that's what analogy you think fits, it's really unlikely you've got the full sequence of emails and all of their contents. I really don't know what else to say about that, other than my analogy was the (or at least my) intention here and I believe the emails (in full) support that. I really wish I had a better answer than "well, take my word for it", but maybe it's possible to consider that one person who has all the emails might understandably be unhappy with the situation and may be legitimately explaining the way he feels about what happened.

I think if you look at the ANI where I believe an arbiter was involved, we were asked to review Rod's conduct and that wasn't the only request made. We've not been brought anything that I know of about Malleus, other than in Rod's response, though I do think that some of Elen's evidence mentions that Malleus' comments or responses were just as inappropriate when the two interacted. Whether or not that will translate to anything during the case, I don't know. I don't think it's been brought up yet, but I can't imagine presenting evidence relating to those interactions would be an issue, though from what you're saying it might be best to look at Malleus' behavior separately, since you seem to be referring to more than just his discussions with Rod. Shell ^babelfish 19:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• I think this section needs to be linked to in the Evidence page, as there is information and discussion here that people need to see. And while it is rather old now, as a response to what Coren was saying at the beginning of this section, it seems to me that Rod is just as willing as anyone else to air this issue and doesn't seem to have any problem with there being a public case. Silverseren^C 20:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Please do. NW (Talk) 20:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Making me do all the work. :P I suppose it was my idea. Fine, i'll go do it. Silverseren^C 20:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Silver seren, what I'm gathering from your comments is that you are more interested in reviewing the processes and procedures used by the Committee in coming to a decision to remove administrative privileges (as opposed to reaching a conclusion on the basic question as to whether administrative privileges should be removed in the first place). While a discussion about the process and procedure used here - and how to approach similar situations in the future - would be useful, I don't think that it is really within the scope of the Rodhullandemu case, and trying to shoehorn that discussion into the case would probably be distracting and detrimental to a proper examination of either. –xeno^talk 20:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
        • I don't believe that this case should have anything to do with Arbcom, which has shoehorned its way into control over what should happen to Rod, which has ultimately led to his retirement. This was never formally presented to Arbcom and is a situation that should have been dealt with by the community (and was being dealt with anyways, from what i've seen). If it was the community's decision to only create an interaction ban between Rod and Malleus, then that is the community's decision and Arbcom should not try to usurp that by utilizing procedures in a manner that they were never intended to be used. Especially when it seems that, to reverse Coren's analogy from the beginning of this section, Arbcom is the one that is out for blood by only targeting Rod and completely ignoring Malleus' actions in this situation that was just as bad, if not worse. Silverseren^C 21:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
          • On the contrary, a core duty of the Arbitration Committee is to "authorize expedient removal of [advanced] permissions" in order to prevent harm to the project; this is something the community cannot do, for obvious reasons. –xeno^talk 21:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
            • Considering that this is the first time that Level II Permissions have been used and the subsequent reaction by the communityThe Community™, I think that says more than enough about said permissions. Silverseren^C 21:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
              • I'm not so sure I would use the monolithic term "the community" - unless you truly believe that those commenting at WT:ACN and WP:A/R/C are a representative sample... In any case, this is something that will no doubt come up when the new Arbitration Policy is going through ratification. –xeno^talk 21:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
                • Fixed. Come on now, Xeno. If more than five uninvolved senior administrators take major issue with your decision, it's fair to at least say that there is major dissent. NW (Talk) 21:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
                  • Are they taking issue with the decision, or the process? (I've already committed to examining the process with an eye to improving the handling of similar situations) And, even if they have an issue with the decision and/or the process, does that mean they have an issue with the Arbitration Committee's overall role in removing advanced privileges? In any case, these are questions that can't be adequately answered on your talk page, and please accept my apologies for taking up a seat here =). –xeno^talk 21:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
        • I have already drafted the evidence section and I am going to submit it now. Silverseren^C 21:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Please blank GoRight's user page

You have recently courtesy blanked Joshu Schroeder/ScienceApologist's user page. For consistency's sake, could you please do the same for GoRight? I see no reason why one indef-banned confirmed sock should get a courtesy blanking, while another gets the banned template. Whatever you feel about GoRight, he was certainly no worse than SA, who had a long history of blocks and conflict rising all the way up to arbcom. There is no good reason other than ideological preference that GoRight should get templates while SA's page is blanked. ATren (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

SA was blocked indefinitely, not banned. GoRight was community banned. It seems like semantics, but there has been drama over removing banned user templates, while I have rarely if ever seen that same drama over blocks. Maybe you could confirm with someone like Newyorkbrad that it would be OK to do so? If so, I would be very willing to courtesy blank GoRight's user pages. NW (Talk) 14:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice try, but Ottava was blocked by arbcom, not the community; SA was blocked via arbcom sanctions. Seems like SA is more like Ottava than GoRight. But then, GoRight doesn't have ideological correctness on his side, and that's all that matters here. ATren (talk) 00:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

A ArbCom ban is functionally the same as a Community ban. ScienceApologist's indefinite block was not Arbitration enforcement (that's not allowed by discretionary sanctions) but rather a block by an administrator who happened to be a checkuser. I don't think it really matters all that much; as long as there is a request by the party in question, I would be inclined to courtesy blank the page, but I do want to be sure. I have left a note with Brad here; hopefully he can clarify the matter. NW (Talk) 00:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

ATren, why are you badgering NW over this? Just go and ask another admin, preferably one you've never heard of so they can be a neutral arbiter. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I was asked to comment. My view is that templates of this nature serve little purpose and should be dropped either when the blocked/banned user requests it (and has stopped the behavior that has led to the block or ban), or when a reasonable time has elapsed with no further problems. However, I am not sure that my personal views on this subject have always gained consensus in discussions of these types of situations. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. A blocked/banned user's behavior (because they aren't editing) can't "stop" and "no further problems" can't be judged. I think all blocked/banned editors should be treated the same. They have forfeited all rights to polite treatment and a template describing their status should be placed on all their user pages. None should get preferential treatment. That's just plain wrong. Once their block or ban has expired things get back to normal, but not before then. -- Brangifer (talk)

@ATren: I blanked GoRight's userpage. NW (Talk) 15:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Request to undelete

I am preparing to present evidence in the AE sanction arbitration case. In your capacity as clerk, can you please restore the following pages for me?

User:Dreadstar/ND
User:Dreadstar/VT
User:Dreadstar/here
User:Dreadstar/Awards received/Cool award
User:Dreadstar/SSmith
User:Dreadstar/DE

Dreadstar deleted them just before the case was opened. I believe their contents are relevant to the dispute, but I am not an admin and therefore cannot view them. Thanks, Skinwalker (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe they are relevant to the case at hand—most are article drafts or otherwise related to content that Dreadstar has worked on (with the exception of the award). Why do you think they are relevant? NW (Talk) 21:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Because I believe they demonstrate a history of editorial involvement in fringe topics, particularly the ND (Natasha Demkina) draft. However, if you say they are not relevant then I will take you at your word. Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

With the exception of the first one, none are really related. I placed the secondmost-recent revision of the first one in your list here for the next month. I think it was a merely a draft he wrote to help out with some disputes they had been having on that article. NW (Talk) 00:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate your help. Skinwalker (talk) 01:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Lara Logan

That didn't work at all. As soon as protection expired, it was reverted by an anon IP, and then the usual suspects. There is no sincere discussion in Talk. The version being reverted isn't what was presented in Talk. Mindbunny (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

What didn't work? The vote? The ANI? The various noticeboards where it has all come down against you? Why bother when you have an administrator willing to step over the process? V7-sport (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia, as most editors know, is not a democracy, just because you or other editors can rally some troops does not mean you are right. Wikipedia is not yours or his and comments like "where it has all come down against you", portray a very low level of discourse. Clearwaterbehind (talk) 03:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Dm DO

I did not see merge proposal at the link you provided. Do I have a blind spot? PPdd (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It was probably archived. It's not really a problem; I don't care too much. NW (Talk) 02:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

They should be merged, but I don't care too much either. PPdd (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You have mail

You have mail. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you see this? Why aren't you replying? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll reply in due course. I read it, and have been thinking about the matter. NW (Talk) 22:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

OTRS

Hi NW, I'm sure you're busy, but I wonder if you could check the permissions-commons list. I have an image that I'd like to get on the Main Page, but I need the OTRS rubber stamp. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I have access to this queue. Which image do you need checked? Courcelles 17:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. Found it in the queue. Verified and marked as such Commonsside. Courcelles 17:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Suspension of Rod's case

Did I miss some sort of discussion somewhere where this was decided? Because, otherwise, this seems like some method to drown out discussion and start it back up when most of the people involved are no longer going to be interested in continuing it. Silverseren^C 22:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Private discussion among the Committee, but from what I understand, the motivations for the suspension seem to be on the up-and-up. NW (Talk) 22:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Which means...? Silverseren^C 22:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Can't say more unfortunately. But I do believe that the Committee is definitely acting in Rod's best interest here. NW (Talk) 22:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay. :/ Why exactly are you in on these proceedings? Silverseren^C 22:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It's complicated, but it's largely because I'm a clerk. NW (Talk) 22:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. *sighs* Well, I hope this all turns out amiably. Silverseren^C 22:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Water Tribes listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Water Tribes. Since you had some involvement with the Water Tribes redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Action need

A very distracting tactic is being used on this page and in the actual proceedings. Please warn Hans Adler and Ludwigs2 that bringing me into the discussion will not be allowed to disrupt the proceedings. It's a dirty distraction tactic. I am not part of this case. The comments they have already made should be removed or refactored. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

JPS

re: [1]: I figured this revert would happen, but before I reinsert the {{indef}} tag, I'd like to ask why you reverted it. are you suggesting that he's not indef blocked, or do you have a reason why the tag should not be placed on his page as it is on every other indef-blocked user's page? thanks. --Ludwigs2 04:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I have the same concerns. If there is some special reason for why it should not be restored, please explain. Otherwise it should be restored. We do not show special preference or courtesy to some blocked editors and not to others. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

NYB's comment above ("My view is that templates of this nature serve little purpose and should be dropped either when the blocked/banned user requests it") basically explains my view: it's not necessary or helpful at this venture and it certainly isn't applied to every blocked user's userpage. I'm certainly not the best writer; perhaps MastCell oder Courcelles can put it more eloquently (I have seen them make similar actions in the past). NW (Talk) 06:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, where do you suggest it be brought up for discussion? I don't generally see this same courtesy extended to other people indef-blocked for less serious offenses, and there should be some consistency to the practice so that there's no appearance of bias. Don't get me wrong, I'm not really an opponent of SA/JPS/etc. - if it were up to me who to indef-block he would not be my first choice by a long shot. SA was actually self-reflective and quite easy to work with if you got to him before he got on his high-horse about something. But frankly some of the things he did were about as bad as I've seen on-project, so special treatment looks a little funny. --Ludwigs2 06:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I too think there should be no difference. I think that all blocked/banned users should have a template on their user page. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I have asked Courcelles to comment here. He might be able to help out here. NW (Talk) 15:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think there's a difference of fundamental philosophy here causing the problems, as Brangifer said above, "They have forfeited all rights to polite treatment". No- totally wrong. You are talking about a user who could have their editing privileges restored at any time, and without tremendous amounts of difficulty. Study the history of the block, and not just the time entered in the duration field; indefinite does not equal infinite in this case by any means. JPS is still entitled to be treated to a standard of decency, his block does not make him any less human, and there is no reason at all to tar someone's real name with that indef block template that serves no function at all. {{Banned}} serves a purpose. {{Sockpuppeteer}} serves a purpose. Both of those provide easy links to community discussions, SPI threads, or serve to keep socks together so that Checkusers can use them in future checks. The indefinite blocked template is little more than a scarlet letter that does nothing that looking at the contributions wouldn't do. Unless someone is actively causing problems or formally banned, there is no reason to tag them if they request the tag be removed, and even less sense to do it to someone who edited under their real name. Courcelles 16:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Courcelles, and am a little surprised no one has written an essay WP:GRAVEDANCING to address this. I might throw something together on the subject. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Boris - that would be useful, yes; all I'm really interested in is seeing the practice standardized. The problem I'm seeing in this case is that SA is (factually) a sockpuppeteer who is currently indef-blocked. The only difference between him and (say) User:Martinphi (noting that MartinPhi got himself indef-blocked by emulating SA's tactics in their private little war) is that SA has a fan-base on project which is partly due to to a strong editing history outside of the problematic behavior, but partly due to being on the "right" side of the fringe science divide. Differential treatment due to fan-fatuation is ishy: the 'strong editing history' might be a credible reason, the 'being on the "right" side' thing is almost certainly not.

To be honest, I always saw those {{indef}} tags as purely informative - notices to any passersby who might be looking for the user that the user is no longer around the project. Otherwise it takes a bit of effort to figure out what's going on. Maybe what we need is a new, gentler template for long-term users who get in trouble, one that says something like "This user is currently barred from editing as a result of administrative procedures." Would that be more functional? --Ludwigs2 17:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there's one other difference between JPS and Martinphi, and it's the basis for courtesy-blanking JPS' page (at least as far as I'm concerned). His account is associated directly with his real-life name. In such cases, consistent with the prevailing attitude toward Wikipedia's potential to cause real-life harm, we have typically extended courtesy, even to users who have committed wiki-offenses far more substantial than JPS'. That said, if someone wanted to courtesy-blank or delete Martinphi's userpage, I'd be a bit surprised if anyone objected. Thus, I don't see a case for the sort of pervasive favoritism you're alleging, but that's just me. MastCell ^Talk 18:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, well, you haven't (to my knowledge) been on the receiving end of it, which naturally makes it difficult to see (objective psychological fact, that, not a criticism). Give thanks that no one makes a determined effort to portray you as a 'type' in order to keep you in your place - it's not a pleasant feeling.

As far as the the rest, I wasn't aware that JPS was actually his real name - that sounds like a made-up name to me (though I suppose my real name would sound funny to others, too). As I said, it's not a huge issue, I'm mostly interested in consistency. it's not something I'm likely to campaign about either way. --Ludwigs2 19:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I can understand Courcelle's point, but still have concerns. We need consistency, and also the information that a template provides. One often sees messages left on talk pages for banned/blocked editors because others don't know they aren't around. We need consistency and milder templates that are informative without being insulting. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Such shameless hypocrisy on this page -- but then, I've witnessed this level of hypocrisy from these same admins for several years now.

<redacted>

Have you looked at the page you are linking to recently? NW (Talk) 01:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)