Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51

This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Agenda

Announcement

• Any particular reason why? And if so, why was it intentionally omitted? That seems spectacularly unhelpful. ÷seresin 07:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Does the reason matter, except inasmuch as it satisfies the curiosity of individual Wikipedians? :P AGK 16:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It wasn't intentionally omitted: it ended up on the cutting room floor by mistake. Significant numbers of arbs travelling is the main reason.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I volunteer to be ArbCom's stand-in while they're gone. Address all your arbitration needs to User talk:Harej during the eight days of no ArbCom. ;] —harej (talk) 07:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly was the vote for? - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For some time now, all official AC decisions have been decided by vote. Paul August ☎ 03:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. But what was the decision here? Was Rlevse denying the other arbitrators their vacation? ;-) Rjd0060 (talk) 03:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rlevse would have to answer that. But the decision is given in the text of the announcement here. Paul August ☎ 03:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're clearly missing the point which is that this level of bureaucracy looks foolish. At least that is the point I was trying to make. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does rather. I confess, having been away when this board came into being, that it rather amuses me. I presume it stems from the wish for greater openness about ArbComn decisions. It is self-evidently bureaucratic, but this is felt to be counterbalanced by the need to publicise which Arbitrators support what. Given that I argued for greater openness in the last election, that is certainly a good thing. But I'm not sure it really promotes that much "openness". The discussions that lead to motions, even really trivial ones like this one, remain hidden. The reasons for Arbs supporting or opposing these motions is usually unclear. Real openness would surely require moving some of the discussion of these decisions to the wiki rather than keeping them on the list. This seems a prime example of a motion where no secrecy over the discussion behind it is necessary. My hope for the future would be that ArbCom give very serious thought in each case to whether their deliberations actually need to private at all - if not, move them back to the wiki. WJBscribe (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has been discussion aimed at making much of the "administrative" internal discussion open and on-wiki (for motions involving sanctions where there is no need for consideration of private evidence, or no real urgency to act swiftly, we would probably use the newly-resurrected motions page). A wide-ranging discussion on what should be done off-wiki and what should be done on-wiki as regards arbitration business is long overdue. WJBscribe, if you would like to start such a discussion, that would be good (this, and much of what follows, is my personal opinion only). Timing it for after the recess, when more arbitrators are here, would probably be best.

My initial views are that the actual discussions of bans and sanctions is sometimes (often) sensitive, and there is often a need for a private space in which to be frank in discussions, normally ones where the evidence is clear, but there is disagreement on the level of sanctions. But yes, the administrative discussions and decisions could well be taken on-wiki (the discussion for internal motions usually takes place on the arbwiki, not the mailing list).

Some of the arguments against this include: the inevitable minority opposition to almost any sort of change that would distract from just taking a "working practices" decision and getting on with things; and (my argument) that the community should have primary say in the arbitration policy (the new draft of which hasn't been forgotten, and which was developed with community input) and that the committee should have the flexibility (within the limits of that policy) to change their working practices to suit different committees year-by-year (as the composition changes due to elections). If each of those sort of changes was micromanaged by the community (or the small subset of the community who take an interest in this sort of thing), then there would be a danger of placing future committees in a strait-jacket as regards changes to their working practices. Some of these working practices were unwritten, and it has helped to formalise them on the "procedures" page.

Your point about asking individual arbs what their reasons for support or opposition are, has been followed in some cases - look through the talk pages archives and you will see examples of arbs being asked their reasons and them answering - though I agree that more on-wiki vote rationales at the time of publication would help (or indeed moving on-wiki entirely, but note that even on-wiki some arbitrators don't give reasons for their votes or failures to vote).

As for the noticeboard, one of the big advantages of this is that it is a central venue where all changes and decisions are announced, allowing people to follow a single venue and also allowing a chronological view of what arbitration business has been done, and also to encourage comments at this talk page (look through the archives for examples of such discussions). Previously, decisions were archived in many different venues, and it was difficult to keep track of them all. The noticeboard proved very handy when I compiled a report on what had been done in the first half of this year. And for those like WJBscribe who have been away, the following three links to things I've mentioned above would be a good starting point if you want to comment or give feedback: January to July 2009 report, second policy draft, internal rules and procedures.

Reading the latter page reminds me that this concept of a "recess" should be added there, and that Unexpected arbitrator absence didn't get added to the procedures page. And reading the half-year report, I see that I noted that out of "88 announcements at the arbitration noticeboard", a full 16 were announcements of "changes to internal Arbitration Committee processes". Anyone can generate that list by going back through the noticeboard archives. A list of what I included in that stat will be in the fuller report, but as it is based on public on-wiki pages, I will provide that list on request if anyone asks at the discussion page for the report. Carcharoth (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like "Arbitration Committee Vacation". Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Argentina [1]? Dragons flight (talk) 03:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For many of us, I suppose. I know for a fact that I'll be there (I'm leading a panel on day two), and so will a number of my colleagues. — Coren ^(talk) 23:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, "leading a panel". Of course that's what elected officials do in Argentina. ;) rspεεr (talk) 04:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... what? — Coren ^(talk) 13:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Mark Sanford. Nathan ^T 13:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah!  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 15:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Announcement

Announcement

I'm not sure I agree with the unblocking of Mrinal Pandey (talk · contribs), but I trust the appeals subcommittee knows what they are doing. That said, I do feel it would have been a nice gester to have been contacted prior to the unblock seeing as I was the blocking administrator. Maybe that can be incorporated into the BASCs SOP? Tiptoety ^talk 17:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good idea and we should have thought of that. Sorry. Anyway, the unblock has some conditions so hopefully things will go smoothly. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original announcement

I am dismayed by this development. Within 24 hours of this announcement, the atmosphere at MoS and related pages has palpably changed for the worse as parties who were under restriction immediately returned to revert each other at the MoS pages and introduce aggressive rhetoric into the Talk pages. Looking here, it's already started again. Despite his pledge that he is "not planning to return for a while, even if this amendment passes", PMAnderson has already been on the Talk pages with snide remarks about regular MoS editors, calling others' opinions irrelevant, and oops, that wasn't aggressive enough, going back again to beef it up with tendentious and inflammatory. Editors (including myself) who were driven away from the MoS pages by the constant warring were finally coming back and getting some work done. I fear we are going to devolve again. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The amendment explicitly leaves open the potential for further amendment based on evolving circumstances; editors involved in the case would be wise to be wary of repeating past actions on new guideline topics. The amendment also reminds editors addressed by the remedy to be careful to abide by all applicable policies and to be civil when discussing other style guidelines. To me that suggests complaints of incivility or edit warring by covered editors belong at WP:AE. Nathan ^T 18:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone out on a limb and stood up for the editors affected by this amendment based on my impression that most if not all of them understand the seriousness with which their prior behavior was viewed and that they need to behave in a civil and professional fashion going forward. As to most of them, I trust that this will be the case. If any of these editors misuse the second chance that has been given to them and lapse into chronic incivility or offensive behavior, I am going to be very disappointed and angry. Please feel free to draw this comment to the attention of anyone whom reading it may benefit. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Walsh misstates what I said, which was Noetica's question is therefore when did you stop beating your wife? and irrelevant tp the issue at hand. I was asked repeatedly, "Why does a given piece of text mean X?" It means Y, which directly contradicts X, and I suggested clarifications which make it beyond doubt that it means Y. At the third repetition, the question does become tendentious, irrelevant, and inflammatory, just like the notoriously unanswerable question quoted. Doubtless the next accusation will be that I called Noetica a wife-beater</irony>; do let me know.

This is precisely the sort of attack of which Carcharoth complained at the amendment discussion. I have now answered the questions asked of me during the last few months, and responded to the current proposals on WT:MOS. I am now going to offer Noetica my support - and unless my opinion is asked, or a particularly imbecilic provision is brought to my attention, I do indeed intend to continue the experiment of seeing how MOS evolves without my help. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see also this section, also compiled in the last 24 hours, as an example of what I can do for MOS. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• And is somebody willing to take over this effort at mediation, so I can leave without abandoning it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for raising this Andy Walsh. I too am disappointed by the breakdown that has happened in the previous day or two (e.g. here). For PMAnderson it is not enough to make a comment as to his preferred wording (re. the original "nineteen" issue); instead, he is personalising the discussion ("prejudices of six editors", "six 'usual suspects' "), in an attempt to bully other editors as he continues his crusade of undoing the work of thousands of editors at the various MOSs (See here for PMAnderson's true agenda: e.g. "WP:MOSNUM is declared historic. It shall be tagged {{historic}} and kept protected; neither it, nor any of the material it now contains, shall be considered to have any more force than an editor's opinion, for all purposes including WP:WIAFA").
Regarding "...as an example of what I can do for MOS", yes, it is true that PMAnderson can take part (and has taken part) in rational discussion at the MOS, however for some reason it is all too easy for him not to.
 HWV258  04:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thousands of editors? This current Crusade against nineteenth-century is the work of six editors, and long though it is, MOSNUM doesn't contain that many edicts. I am pleased to see that A. di M. is currently attempting to clean up the mess; but if he fails, as all before him, have failed, we should pull the plug on this swamp. It's a breeding place for controversy, and a indiscriminate mass of unsourced, uncited, arbitrary and silly edicts made up in class one day. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was of course referring to the multitude of editors who have worked on the various MOSs at WP over the years (you have stated that you would like to see all their work marginalised). Incidentally, it hasn't been a "swamp" recently—prior to a certain event a day or two ago.  HWV258  06:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's counting thousands of editors who have singly protested some crusade; most of them have been revert-warred out of MOS by a combination of two or three Crusaders; I suppose I should be honored by attracting six. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks Andy. Probably because of the bans (which I was not aware of) I do not know these people or the history of the case, and neither am I interested. All I know is that I want a relatively stable MOSNUM. To have it constantly changing underfoot helps nobody. When it changes, as it did, more than 20 times in one day, how can an article editor expect to conform to it? I politely requested, at the MOSNUM talk page (section "Flurry of edits", that matters were sorted out in talk before making the edits, with mixed success. I have no interest in any personal conflicts here, and simply refuse to get dragged in to any, I just want a stable, and better, MOSNUM. SimonTrew (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This entire discussion arises from an issue typical of MOSNUM, a Crusade even more useless to Wikipedia than date delinking. Because Andy and a half-dozen of his friends like to write 19th-century (the adjective), they seriously and solemnly !voted a rule that nobody may use nineteenth-century. (I'm for permitting both, myself.) Look for yourselves; I'm not making this up.

Such Crusades may be expected to continue indefinitely (unless these good souls - on this issue, Andy, HWV258, and Goodmorningworld - are outnumbered, which is unlikely to happen; it is this sort of editor who made Carcharoth too unhappy to continue with MOS); since there is always a new point on which Wikipedia should be forced to carry out this self-appointed Committee's opinions, MOSNUM will not be stable until they are banned, even if nobody opposes them. Judging from the level of improvement to MOS attained here and in the date-delinking controversy, I do not expect this turbulence to result in much improvement either.

As you will see, the discussion, Noetica aside, is also contrary to WP:CONSENSUS: Consensus discussions should always be attempts to convince others, using reasons. When a discussion breaks down to a mere polarized shouting match, there is no possibility of consensus, and the quality of the article will suffer. and a handful of editors agreeing on something does not constitute a consensus, except in the thinnest sense.

As I said some time ago, I will leave others to reform this if they can; but I do intend to ignore any rule imposed by a vocal minority not supported by general consensus or by English usage; nor I do not see that the page serves WP in any way - except I suppose to keep these editors too busy to edit content. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't be editing content? Beyond offensive, and another display of what got you banned from the pages to begin with. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to prove yourself more capable at that than at this specious charge, or than in attempting to reform the English language. I should like a pleasant surprise from Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll continue to work on WP as I always do. I will also disengage from conversation with you because I don't feel you capable of communicating without insulting people. I will be filing a request for enforcement later this evening to have you removed from the MoS pages again, and will inform you when I have done so. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shrug. Striking, in the interests of harmony - although this is an editor who believes that if we simply allow everyone to edit, we will not be a community, and who has dishonestly represented my edit here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it is important to leave the above diatribe as a permanent reminder of Pmanderson's true agenda at WP.

Regarding "...not supported by general consensus or by English usage;...". Hmmm; please note the following results:

• Google search of "nineteenth-century" results in 13,500,000 matches.
• Google search of "19th-century" returns 73,400,000 matches.
• WP search of "nineteenth-century" returns 3,911 matches.
• WP search of "19th-century" returns 10,204.

While this is not the forum for such specifics, I hope the above points out how out-of-touch PManderson is with the modern world (and WP's role in that world), and gives an inkling why he is constantly at odds with other editors at WP. It is worth noting that nowhere above was there a denial of the true agenda that I pointed out. Lastly, "...it is this sort of editor who made Carcharoth too unhappy to continue with MOS" is beneath contempt, and is bordering on actionable.

 HWV258  23:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge that I would prefer not to have a manual of style, rather than have one decided by someone who determines grammatical issues by Google search - and then misreads the search. We don't have to pick one; and if thirteen million people use nineteenth-century, it is a well-established and widely-used form. One could do similar searches for color and colour - but we don't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)My goodness—another departure from reality by an editor who cannot tolerate being shown having weakness. I didn't "determine grammatical issues by Google search" (this is a consensus-driven project, and I don't determine anything on my own). I was simply attempting to inject some reality into the discussion. It is truly bizarre to meet someone whom when demonstrated that between 2.5 and 5 times the people prefer to use one format over another, persists in the minority view. I'm used to dealing with people/editors who take more than nine minutes to consider their position when shown such weighty evidence, so I hope everyone reading this can begin to understand my distress in having to deal with someone who has such a belligerent and stubborn approach to "discussion". PMAnderson has consistently misrepresented the purpose of the various MOSs at WP (for his own stated agenda) and continues to argue (to everyone's annoyance) from that faulty basis. It is becoming tiresome and boring. In my humble opinion, PMAnderson should receive a lifetime ban from editing or commenting on any WP MOS page. That would both free him to contribute to other areas of the project (which he does well), and leave alone the people who are keen to progress in defining a worthwhile MOS for the benefit of all Wikipedians.

To PMAnderson: have the maturity to unwatch the various MOS pages and simply walk away. When we start to discuss issues such as "19th" versus "nineteenth", we are not interested in embarking on a discussion of the philosophy behind having a MOS. Everyone of your "contributions" to the MOS discussions reverts to your agenda-driven debate (which diverts from the basis of the original question posed by a Wikipedian—in this case Querying "nineteenth-century painting"). Surely by now you can see how pointless it is for you to devolve each and every discussion you take part in? In addition, your edits simply serve to scare away the average editor who is merely seeking clarification in many instances. If you really want to abolish/diminish/downgrade the various MOSs, then please start that debate as a separate RfC and see what sort of response you get; oh, that's right, you already have: here and here (do I need to add more text as to the outcome of those discussions?).  HWV258  00:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed? What is the "purpose of the various MOS's", in your own words? Their only function appears to be to permit self-appointed Language Reformers to yell "MOS breach! this article used nineteenth-century! Change this horror or be denied FA/denied GA/have to face edit wars with meddlesome bots"; this irrelevant noise supplants all too much of FA's actual effectiveness. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, this page is not intended as a forum for debating style rules. Truly, if you feel the spirit or letter of an arbitration remedy has been violated, it belongs at WP:AE. Please don't continue your dispute here. Nathan ^T 23:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Nathan. And one point for Pmanderson - he said: "it is this sort of editor who made Carcharoth too unhappy to continue with MOS" - that's not true actually. I was largely unaware of the 19th/nineteenth-century dispute (though my jaw hangs open in disbelief that people can really argue over such things, I can well believe it as I have sometimes fallen into that trap). It was something to do with the date delinking dispute that made me disillusioned with MOS. To be more specific, it was actual incivility that I encountered at MOS. I have never had any problems with people politely arguing their case, even if I think the discussion is pointless, but when people get upset and start using forceful words and overblown rhetoric, that is a sure sign things are escalating. If I could change one thing about the atmosphere at MOS, it would be to add Staying mellow to the mix. Carcharoth (talk) 01:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I am attempting to avoid is the same class of editor telling some newbie to change their spelling. This will lose us editors, without benefiting the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very simple solution to this which is already functional at 99% of Wikipedia's articles: treat the MOS as an essay rather than a guideline and follow any reliably published paper and ink style guide you want. Hard copy style guides are inherently superior to wiki-based style guides--if for no other reason than that they are more stable and less prone to internal squabbling. It's really outside ArbCom's remit to implement this solution (which could be spelled out in full in about three paragraphs, with provisions for wiki-specific formatting). So shall we start an RfC to deprecate the darned thing? Let's commit ourselves to content, not hyphens and ellipses. Durova³⁰⁶ 02:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then I would indeed unwatch it. As long as there are bots, and as long as Language Reformers can use FA and GA to get their way, that would be a real improvement. Where do we start? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The basic concept is this: open an RfC on the guideline status of the MoS and propose an alternate solution. The bulk of Wikipedia's internal MOS would be demoted from guideline to essay. For FAC and the few other places where such things count this would place the internal MOS on equal footing with the Chicago Manual of Style and other style guides. Editors who like the internal MOS are welcome to use it, but those who are accustomed to other established conventions are welcome to use those instead. We already have a precedent for this flexibility in the way the site handles national spellings. Elements of the internal MOS that are wiki-specific would remain at guideline level since there isn't really any replacement for them. This would cut down on many of the internal battles that have been happening at MOS, and best of all this change would facilitate expert participation in technical/academic subjects that have their own style conventions. After all, most of us care much more whether Ph.D. editors are writing articles than how they format centuries. Let's eliminate that hurdle to participation. :) Durova³⁰⁶ 02:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. I could do with the entertainment, and (upon defeat) it would allow us to be rid of PMAnderson's agenda-based MOS edits. Bring it on. It would be nice to have one other outcome riding on the RfC: namely, that PMAnderson agree to walk away forever from the MOS (and related pages and talk pages) if the RfC is defeated (I faithfully promise never to go near a MOS-related page if the RfC mentioned above is carried.) How about it?  HWV258  02:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you promised not to go near it if the RfC was proposed or had wide support, that would tempt me; but since I don't expect this to pass on the first attempt, any more than one attempt sufficed to settle the Macedonia nuisance, that is not enough. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Any good publication needs a manual of style, and demoting MOSNUM to an essay does not seem at all wise to me.

  I have an alternative proposal. Too often, editors come to MOSNUM to change things in order to lend legitimacy to their particular way of doing things in articles they’re working. However, this is often done with an insufficient understanding of the ramifications. This results in edit wars and instability on MOSNUM.

  I propose that there be a gate keeper on MOSNUM. There were some nice (very nice) periods where MOSNUM was locked down due to protracted bickering over IEC prefixes and date linking. And in both cases, the admins (MZMcBride and MASEM) did fabulous jobs watching over WT:MOSNUM discussions. What about those discussions? Well, with MOSNUM locked down, suddenly there was an outbreak of peace and tranquility and awfully civil, good-faith discussion. Check out WT:MOSNUM Archive 120 to see how things worked. All MZMcBride and MASEM had to do was watch over the discussions to ascertain whether what was being proposed was uncontroversial, minor, or was significant but enjoyed a wide consensus. Then they simply copied some suggested verbiage and pasted it into place denoted by the proposing editor. Greg L (talk) 03:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • A reasonable proposal. The gatekeeper doesn't have to decide all the issues himself; he just needs the authority to impose mandatory mediation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• <wakes up> did someone mention that the style anarchist Pam Anderson getting personal again at MOSNUM? Quoi de neuf? ;-) It's been all peace, quiet and civility for months, and now the sniping is back. It's high time someone put a stop to his anarchist's agenda backed by stinging insults. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've filed a Request for Arbitration Enforcement here, with regrets, per Nathan's advice above. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Quoting PMA: The gatekeeper doesn't have to decide all the issues himself; he just needs the authority to impose mandatory mediation. That wasn’t what I was proposing. Mediation is a big, time-wasting, formal hassle. What I propose is precisely what happened twice before (and can be forensically inspected on WT:MOSNUM Archive 120); namely, MOSNUM simply stays locked and an admin gatekeeper—or pair of gatekeepers) just watches over to see if there is conflict-free changes or additions to be made. I was astonished how the past two lock-downs suddenly made all parties settle down and behave themselves. “Consensus by parties of two” and “consensus by who can make forty edits a day” is not a consensus and just makes MOSNUM unstable. Unfortunately, it seems that if there is no teacher in the room, we kindergardeners can get out of hand. Way too much time is being wasted under the current system, which breeds anarchy and where the only remedies are to start big formal ANIs, WQAs, and ArbComs. Greg L (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, a lot of the regulars were absent, including both of us; that doubtless helped. ;-> But as long as it has the usual tag, protection will work too. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Convergence of opinion: that’s good. BTW, I was indeed present throughout the period of both lock-downs and was totally unrestricted at the time as to the topics on which I could weigh in. And it was still a peaceful and harmonious place! {{insane unbelievable emoticon}} Greg L (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was involved in MOSNUM-related drama? Surely you have the wrong man.... --MZMcBride (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the archive in question, you did answer one of the "editprotected" requests. In fact, there were several such, and Masem was one of the admins answering such requests. Msgj (Martin) was another, as was Aervanath and Ckatz. Oh hang on. You are being sarcastic, aren't you? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering why Mr Anderson is in so many negative situations at the moment, which appear to be part of the larger picture of his behavioural issues brought to ArbCom's attention here. Today, for example, I see that people are annoyed here and that he removed a complaint against himself from his talk page. I wish he would calm down and enjoy collaborating. It's getting too much. Tony (talk) 03:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noting here that the arbitration enforcement request Laser brain (Andy Walsh) filed on Pmanderson has been closed by Shell Kinney by re-imposing the year-long MOS ban for Pmanderson. I commented in that AE request on the conduct of two other editors (Ohconfucious, who later struck what he had written above, and Greg L). Of the 16 editors who recently had their restrictions relaxed, 8 had MOS topic bans relaxed. Of those eight, two are still serving bans or are blocked (Lightmouse, Locke Cole, Kendrick7), one has had the ban re-imposed (Pmanderson), and I've mentioned (at the AE request) the post-ban relaxation conduct of another two (Ohconfucious and Greg L). The other two are Tony1 (who has been saying exactly the right things with edits like this) and Kotniski (who has not edited MOS pages or talk pages since the restriction was relaxed). I would (again) urge that the Arbitration Committee seriously look at reviewing the stability of MOS pages and the conduct of those who edit them, beyond just the parties to this case. It was the date-delinking case that brought some people to the attention of ArbCom, but not everyone's behaviour got the scrutiny that was needed. Carcharoth (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Internal Wikipedia-space pages such as the MOS typically attract attention from our most experienced and dedicated editors. There is no reason that these editors cannot conduct themselves in a collegial manner and in accordance with the Arbitration Committee's, and the community's, expectations as to how Wikipedians should treat one another—particularly after having either been in, or near to, a protracted arbitration case. I will look with dismay at any instances that come to our attention of further misconduct that may take place on these pages, and quadruply so if it is by editors as to whom I played a role in allowing to return to those pages. Please, please do not make further arbitration proceedings in this matter necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original announcement

Original announcement.

I supposed that "broadly construed across all namespaces" even includes my own talk page. But I like talking with him about that topic on my own talk page. I don't think it's fair to apply the ban to my own talk page when I have no objection to him discussing that topic on my talk page. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is one of the precise problems that this clarified ban may alleviate. Grundle is an amiable good faith editor who has tried the patience of a number of others with an ongoing rapidfire series of proposals to add poorly sourced, trivial, and/or irrelevant disparaging material to the Obama article, to the point where he is currently on a community topic ban from the Obama article pages (but not talk pages). A number of us can see past the content disagreement and actually like Grundle2600 as an editor and enjoy interacting with him. When you offer a reasonable argument, Grundle2600 tends to listen and he realizes when he doesn't have consensus for something. Earlier though, ChildofMidnight would incite Grundle[2][3] with exhortations that Grundle's proposals were good ones, that Grundle was the victim of "POV-pushing censors" and "vandals" who patrolled the articles, and that instead of backing down Grundle2600 should join ChildofMidnight's fight to keep the "integrity of Wikipedia". ChildofMidnight has incited at least half a dozen others as well, both before and after the initial case decision, some of whom were in active edit wars on the Obama pages. Here's the latest on ChildofMidnight's talk page where he calls the other parties to the case (and by extension, Arbcom) "vandals" and compares us to the Nazis.[4] By encouraging other editors to fight the battles ChildofMidnight can no longer fight, he's trying to have his way by proxy. I don't know if Arbcom wants to allow that kind of venting on an editor's own talk pages, but if that spills over to other talk pages it's a real problem with tangible consequences in terms of other editors disrupting the Obama pages. Wikidemon (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if these attacks and smears are violations of Wikidemon's editing restrictions, but his campaign of stalking and harassment is very damaging to the encyclopedia. Thsi is the third time he's commented to or about me in recent weeks and nothing is done about. I can hardly be expected to ignore these vicious smears and distortions.

Those who aid an abet his efforts to censor and bias our content are doing a great disservice to Wikipedia. Our neutral point of view policy and other guidelines and editing policies are clear. The constant attempts to censor and go after editors that Wikidemon disagrees with is disgraceful and incredibly disruptive. I hope at some point those with administrative authority will put a stop to it. Grundle2600's article creation and editing work speaks for itself as does mine. Wikidemon's campaign of harassment and intimidation is an obscenity. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are implicitly entitled to respond to me here as a party to the case, whereas doing so elsewhere would likely violate the restriction - although you're pushing your luck with the over-the-top accusations. A query: am I one of the "censors", "vandals", etc., to whom you are referring in your talk page header? Or am I not on that list? Wikidemon (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, CoM has always seemed to hold Baseball Bugs in the highest contempt throughout all these theatrics, followed by you, Scjessey and then probably myself. So in his very unique point of view on the Wiki-world, I'd say Bugs is Adolph, you can be Goring, and Scjessey is Bormann. I'm just a sideline antagonist, so maybe I can be Axis Sally. Tarc (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment removed[5] after below caution - Wikidemon (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(cleaned up stray bits of previous edits)

• Okay everyone, time to go back to your respective corners and cut it out. The posts above border on personal attacks, and are not acceptable, from any of you. This is not the place for rubbing salt in each other's wounds or continuing the type of poor interpersonal interaction that leads to sanctions. Risker (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Risker you and the Arbcom committee have encouraged the stalking, harassment and abuse to continue. I have 30,000 edits over a wide variety of articles. It's only this small group of POV pushers that have caused problems. Their behavior is totally unacceptable and it's a disgrace that Arbcom had aided and abetted it.

Am I forbidden now from uttering certain words and discussing certain topics on Wikipedia? Based on what? Shame on you and your colleagues for creating this Orwellian environment of thuggery, intimidation and abuse. It's disgusting. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Risker, are you not reading what this is actually about? Our dear ChildofMidnight has a whiny screed at the top of his talk page, a pair of Nazi images with accompanying captions that read

and

which anyone with at least a shred of familiarity with this case will know precisely to who (or is is to whom, I always forget) these refer to. Reacting to being called a fucking (pardon my francais) Nazi is not rubbing salt or "continuing the type of poor interpersonal interaction", that is a completely absurd assessment of the situation. Thankfully there are other admins with the temerity to call a spade a spade. Tarc (talk) 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it would be either "to whom these refer" (correct old-style English grammar) or "who these are referring to" (colloquial and technically incorrect in times past, but through persistence of usage, probably legitimate now inasmuch as grammar like Wikipedia policy is a summary of consensus rather than a prescriptive rule). - Wikidemon (talk) 04:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from my talk page)

I realize that as an arbitrator you are entitled to police the arbitration pages. However, I think this comment[6] was hasty. Asking those objecting to being compared to Nazis to stop complaining about it is probably not the swiftest thing. The Nazi accusations must be removed one way or another - it's untenable that anybody on Wikipedia would use their talk page to call their perceived Wikipedia adversaries Nazis. There must surely be policies on this, but beyond Wikipedia policy that is a basic matter of decency, for people not to call each other Nazis. All of the trouble here is coming from a single editor who is acting out, with no supporters or defenders other than themselves, and it would be helpful to actually do something about it rather than waste everyone's time trying to warn all sides. Arbcom is the last stop for resolving behavioral matters and, like it or not, the parties to an Arbcom case have room to comment and make their case there as it involves them. Some comments are clearly more germane and actionable than others. Objections to the Nazi label are relevant. Nevertheless I have removed my comment from that forum. If not me, plenty of others share my disquiet. Wikidemon (talk) 02:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of you: this is not an Arbcom case page, or the place to make Arbcom requests. This is a noticeboard, and it is not the place to continue disputes. That goes for everyone posting here. If anyone feels that one of the editors posting here has violated the terms of their sanctions, the place to bring this up is Arbitration Enforcement.If anyone feels that another full Arbcom case is required, then the place to post is at the requests for arbitration page. As to the posts on ChildofMidnight's talk page, just remember Godwin's law. CoM is not sanctioned for bringing a different perspective, CoM is sanctioned for expressing that perspective in such a way as to denigrate others and cast aspersions. That, incidentally, applies to all sides of this issue. This project's behavioural standard is that one treats other editors with dignity and respect, whether or not one agrees with others. Now, this should be taken as a final warning to all of you—the discussion happening here in this thread belongs somewhere else, if it belongs onwiki at all. Either take it to the right place, or don't take it, but it will not continue here. Risker (talk) 03:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we're listening, Risker, we just disagree. This is a matter that could be dealt with swiftly by any administrator, and probably should be if Arbcom is not ready to act. Why encourage the filing of a new case? Wikidemon (talk) 03:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• These harassers adn stalkers are like Nazis. They go after anyone who doesn't agree with them. Their personal attacks and incivility was well documented in the Arbitration hearing. That the committee chose to ignore it has encouraged more thuggish behavior. The censorship and harassment has only gotten worse and I'm certainly not the only one who has been subjected to it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well then if we could swing back to the original question that started this, out of curiosity...would ChildofMidnight be prohibited from discussing Obama-related material on another user's talk page? Grundle's question never did get answered. Tarc (talk) 03:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, effective the time of the close of the decision and its posting. Risker (talk) 03:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what Risker? Why is my restriction being stepped up? Because of the stalking and harassment I've been subjected to? how does that make sense? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the Request for clarification identified on the noticeboard, ChildofMidnight. The motion was open for two full weeks, and the request made on August 7th. You commented there. This should not be a surprise to you. Risker (talk) 04:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a completely new restriction that was not in place before. So I want to know what it's based on. I haven't intentionally violated any of the previous restrictions. I haven't made a single edit to the Barack Obama article or any of the other article about him. I've been stalked to other articles, and when it's suggested that they are somehow about or related to Obama, I've left those too. Is this kind of hounding, stalking, censorship and harassment something you support? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CoM has just restored his comments comparing other editors (including me) with Nazis.[7] [8] I would hope that this place is the surest, most convenient forum for dealing with this. Can't an admin just delete these, and block CoM and protect his page if he continues? Were I not prohibited from interaction i would file a simple AN/I request. But cutting through the procedural fog, can we please just deal with it? It is most upsetting, and completely counter to what I understand the purpose of Wikipedia to be, to be called a Nazi for rejecting the attempt to claim in our encyclopedia that Obama is not a citizen of America. Wikidemon (talk) 04:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's being dealt with (somewhat, it's still unfolding), but honestly Wikidemon you should not worry about it. Just move far away from this situation right now. I understand and share your indignation, but there are plenty of eyes on this and you do not want to fall afoul of your interaction ban with C of M. Please move on to greener pastures, and if possible don't even bother to reply to this as it will only risk enflaming the situation. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[actual comments lost for now in edit conflict] - Wikidemon (talk) 05:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but he did not directly call you, Wikidemon, a Nazi, even if it was heavily implied. And this really has nothing to do with Obama stuff, oddly, but rather relates solely to C of M's unbelievably poor judgment when it comes to historical analogies. Trust me, no one in their right mind is seriously considering that you are a jackbooted stormtrooper. This is just a suggestion, but try to thicken you skin a bit on this one if possible and let it go. Also as Risker points out, this noticeboard is simply not the place to discuss this. If you want to vent and dialog about this a bit feel free to send me an e-mail as I'll be online for awhile. I've already e-mailed C of M about the situation (have not heard back) and would be happy to discuss it with you as well, but I think everyone needs to take a deep breath and just step away right now, as in just stop this discussion on-Wiki. Regardless of the specifics of the current situation, Risker gives very good advice above in that regard. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(comments removed - Wikidemon (talk) 05:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• Excuse me Bigtimepeace, but the grotesque historical innacuracies and ignorance shown by you and others is pretty shocking. The images I put up were from 1928 and 1934. Kristallnacht took place in 1938. So there was a period of years during which appeasement and neglect encouraged the cancer of nazism to grow. Those who stand with censors, intimidators and harassers on Wikipedia are very much like the appeasers that stood silent and avoided confrontation with the nazis. The analogy is right on target and I stand by it 100%. The hateful intolerance, the intimidation, the harassment is in no way comparable because it's online, but it's is very much similar in its insidious nature and its desired results. Silence = death. Go ahead and ban me, but I'm not going to shut up about the intolerance, censorship and the hate that this thuggery is fostering. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(posting out of sequence, but this is where this comment goes) I know when the images were from, and what they were of. I know in what year Kristallnacht so tragically happened, and I know how to spell it. I know you are not saying that the current state of Wikipedia is akin to Buchenwald, rather you're worried that, perhaps, Buchenwald and Kristallnacht are right around the corner and that today's Wikipedia "brownshirts" [your word] (some admins, Arbs, and/or POV pushers...right?) are tomorrows' concentration camp guards (or something, at the very least we know they "are like Nazis"). I know I e-mailed you a number of hours ago before any of this blew up and discretely advised you to take some offensive images down from your talk page, and I know you ignored that advice and only dug your heels in further at that point. I know it's long past time for you to go to bed now, and that there are a lot of good-faith editors who will not go within a thousand wiki-yards of you from this point forward, so unbelievably offensive, self-centered, and childish has been your behavior the past however-many-hours. I don't know for sure, but I think you actually want to be banned, because otherwise I can't explain what you are doing right now. I know, despite all our disagreements in the past, that I previously looked at you as a largely good contributor who went way off the rails at times but remained a credit to the project. Now--and FYI the above comment crossed the line for me, though obviously my frustration was building--I'm utterly done interacting with you. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank goodness! Things are looking up. An end to your one-sided interventions and aggressive actions against me and others who you disagree with on content would be a wonderful thing for Wikipedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't even be posting here, but I saw Grundle's question and then soon after the hateful smears distortions and attacks from Wikipedia's most abusive POV pusher smacked me in the face. He should have immediately been sanctioned for his outrageous attack on me in violation of his editing restrictions, but as usual I'm the one under attack. Well fuck that. His thuggery should sicken people as it sickens me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! How much longer must I be the subject of this vitrol? I don't see how, as the most frequent target, I should be restrained in this, the final forum, from objecting anymore than Nishkid, Bigtimepeace, Wizardman, or anyone else who has been the target of this. Please note, our founder has weighed in.[9] - Wikidemon (talk) 06:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes indeed. But take a break from this Wikidemon, please, as I've already asked. I think it likely that there will soon be a community discussion about ChildofMidnight. You will do yourself an enormous amount of credit by simply stepping away if and when that happens, hard as that will be to do. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am already restrained, and mostly stepping away. I'll leave it to others to see this for what it is, but please, don't think you're better than me in responding to offense. You, half of Arbcom, and Jimbo (Jimbo will read this shortly, and I can provide diffs of the accusations against Jimbo) are also the targets of these accusations. I'm not an admin. Do admins have a special privilege to object, whereas nonadmin users like me just have to suffer accusations? Wikidemon (talk) 06:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if it came off as lecturing (that statement is responding to the previous version of your comment), which it quite possibly did, as that was not my intent. It was only meant as (admittedly fervent) advice. And I very much appreciate that being an admin, or being Jimbo, or being on ArbCom creates a protective shell around the editor in question. Given how this project ought to function there is absolutely nothing fair about that, and I would never suggest otherwise. You have every right to object to whatever you want to object to, of course, as you are just as much as (or perhaps more so) of a valued Wikipedian as I am. I was just advising you, very much in the "friendly advice" mode, to step back and not object, as I felt it would be better for your cause, so to speak. I stand by that and I guess reiterate it, for what it's worth, but I'm now disengaging here as I've said my piece. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. Other duties call. I hope this can be dealt with by the time we return, so that responsible well-intentioned editors can go about our business without being called Nazis, vandals, censors, and whatever else by those attempting to upturn the apple cart. Wikidemon (talk) 07:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All editors are directed to refrain from analogizing the conduct of other editors to "Nazis" and from making any similar type of uncivil, offensive, inflammatory references. This is a collaborative enterprise in which we participate for our enjoyment. It has no place for this type of gross personal attack, irrespective of any perceived provocation or impropriety by the editor or editors targeted. I hope that it will never be necessary to revisit this issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]