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 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Behaviour on this page: This page is for discussing announcements relating to the Arbitration Committee. Editors commenting here are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances, complaints, or criticism of arbitration decisions are frequently posted here, you are expected to present them without being rude or hostile. Comments that are uncivil may be removed without warning. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions.

Eligible editors are now invited to nominate themselves as candidates for the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections. Nominations will not be accepted after 23:59 UTC on 12 November 2019. Voting on the candidates is scheduled to begin on Tuesday 00:00, 19 November 2019 and last until Monday 23:59, 02 December 2019 (UTC). Mz7 (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Original announcement

• Well, that panned out exactly as expected, then. I still think James cantor is a problem in this area though, as an academic advocating a specific POV. Guy (help!) 12:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Quite. I'm still surprised, six years on, that ArbCom declared there was no evidence to say that Cantor has a COI, despite him literally declaring it on his talk page. Sceptre (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  If he (or any other editor) is causing problems then the usual dispute resolution methods should be followed rather than posting unsourced opinions about them here. That could include filing an amendment request to deal with their editing if necessary, but as this amendment request was only about Jokestress' editing and so anything anyone else has or hasn't done is irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Thryduulf, yes, I know. My frustration is that the community has not fixed this long-term CPUSHer. Guy (help!) 11:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  What dispute resolution have you tried? If AN/I or AN has been tried and failed then bring it to the committee. Thryduulf (talk) 12:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Original announcement

Original announcement

• Oppose the temporary injunction as written. From what I've observed, BrownHairedGirl has done extensive research, homework, and the like with respect to portal nominations. At the same time, she has a bot, as I understand it, which—instead of unlinking the backlinks for deleted portals can update the backlinks to the nearest topically relevant portal☼. It seems to me this injunction would prevent her from either nominating portals for deletion or even, potentially, from commenting to the XfD closer that she has a bot capable of performing these duties.

I would, alternatively, support a temporary two-way interaction ban between BrownHairedGirl and Northamerica1000 as there has been some general incivility and/or passive/aggressive ignoring behaviour observed between one or both parties. I would also soft support a temporary injunction that would bar BrownHairedGirl and Northamerica1000 from !voting in Portal: namespace deletion discussions, but not from either nominating portals or making neutral comments to the XfD closer. --Doug Mehus T·C 12:49, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here, to paraphrase Rocket Raccoon, you don't get a vote. spryde | talk 14:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarification: @KrakatoaKatie, AGK, Worm That Turned, Opabinia regalis, and Mkdw: not trying to get involved in drama, but wondering: does this motion extends to edits made by BHGbot per Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BHGbot 4? If it does, would it be a violation of a ban for me to have my bot perform the same task (assuming its approved, etc)? If not, would BHG be allowed to note the bot task in Mfds, as Dmehus brings up? --DannyS712 (talk) 14:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DannyS712: We have not discussed this, so I'm speaking for myself here. BHG is not allowed to participate in MfDs about portals, period. That means no comments at all. I'm willing to let the bot task run as long as its links to the 'next most relevant' portal aren't controversial. Anyone but BHG and NA1K can note the bot task to the XfD closer. If your own bot can do the task, that's not a violation of the injunction because you're not mentioned in the injunction. Katie^talk 14:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @KrakatoaKatie: I was asking about if it would be okay for me in terms of Wikipedia:Banning policy#Edits by and on behalf of banned editors - I'm not familiar with arbitration, but was interpreting the restrictions to be a "ban" from such edits. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @DannyS712: This isn't a ban. It's a temporary injunction; unless we enact a remedy specifying otherwise, it will expire upon conclusion of the case. You're free to take over the task if the BAG approves. Katie^talk 14:49, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @KrakatoaKatie: your comment of 14:36 suggest that I can run the bot so long I a) desist from my practice of notifying my intent and b) don't do anything controversial. That seems thoroughly perverse, because it removes the opportunity to let other editors make any objections ... so I wouldn't know what's controversial.
    So I am being invited to simply guess what's controversial before making widespread changes, and am banned even from any post-close discussions notifying my intent. That's precisely the sort of mass-changes-without-notice WP:FAITACCOMPLI conduct to which I objected when NA1K did it, so there's no way I will do that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    

    BrownHairedGirl, with my BAG hat on, I'd suggest you just don't run this task until this is resolved. While you have been granted a special permission, bots should not normally make an edit that would be inappropriate if made by the operator (and nobody should ever count on a bot making a future edit). — xaosflux ^Talk 17:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Xaosflux: per my comment above, that's exactly the conclusion I had reached. I am just disappointed that an Arb appears unwilling to recognise the consequences of their advice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Xaosflux: With you BAG hat on, is it worth filing a BRFA to take over the task? DannyS712 (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @DannyS712: that one is easy - anyone that wants to run a bot or run a new (to them) bot task should just file a BRFA :) Hat off - I really have no idea how important/helpful this task is to others, so unless you actually want to do it then letting it go un-run for a bit should also be fine. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @BrownHairedGirl: I haven't sufficiently dug into the details of this dispute to know if that bot task would make controversial edits or not. If you think it would, don't run it. Simple as. I'm going to disengage here now, as I think the question has been answered, but I would politely request that you not refer to any opinion or statement of mine as 'perverse' again. Where I come from, that's an extremely provocative word. Thanks. Katie^talk 18:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @KrakatoaKatie: I was using the term in the legal/logical sense of being self-defeating or contradictory, and I intended no offence. I was merely trying to note a contradiction which I thought was have been evident from the discussion above.
    The bot's edits have not been controversial; WP:BRFA/BHGbot 4 would not have been given bot approval if it was controversial. My point is simply that as Doug Mehus notes, if I am banned from notifying the proposed action or discussing it elsewhere, I have no way of knowing whether this is one of the rare cases where there are alternative suggestions. I had explained this in my response[1] to the proposed injunction, and assumed that arbs who had voted on the injunction would be aware of it, esp since you were pinged in that comment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @KrakatoaKatie: Without commenting on any other aspects, I can vouch for BHG's statement that "perverse" has a non-provocative meaning in this context, as in the title of this book. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Or this one [2] or this one [3] or this one [4] or ... (the last one's a math book, BTW). EEng 03:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, NyB & EEng. I am so familiar with the legal/political usage that I was unaware of any other meaning until KrakatoaKatie objected, when I googled it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment while @BrownHairedGirl: and I have disagreed almost 100% of the time in any discussion we have had, I have found this editor to be trustworthy and enthusiastic for Wikipedia. If the editor would volunteer to adhere to the terms of the temporary injunction, I trust it would be followed. That would prevent having the actual injunction placed on the editor and achieve the same goal. Please consider this as a possibility. No one wants a "black mark" and everyone could use a break.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Bradv, as Clerk for ArbCom, could you please relay the above discussion to the ArbCom so that they might consider an emergency meeting to potentially amend the temporary injunction that would permit BrownHairedGirl to make neutral comments to the MfD closer in Portal: namespace MfD deletion discussions that her BHG bot is capable of updating backlinks to the nearest topically relevant portal? I see no reason why this injunction should restrict her from making these comments. Thanks. --Doug Mehus T·C 21:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  You can safely presume that the arbitrators are watching this page and have seen these comments. – bradv🍁 21:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Original announcement

• Congratulations, SQL! — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 21:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• SQL, Please execute the following. "USE enwiki_P; DROP text; DROP users;"—CYBERPOWER (Merry Christmas) 02:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Original announcement

• Wow, impressive. "Gnome de plume" my personal favourite. Wish I'd thought of that one. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  They'd let me usurp it, right? – Levivich 21:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Probably not. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Holy mother forking shirt balls.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Breaking the rules - per this edit, I could vote a maximum of one time only and so would others. Edgar181 should have done the same even though the user was editing Wikipedia constructively and accurately. Iggy (Swan) (What I've been doing to maintain Wikipedia) 21:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Wow. That is incredibly disappointing- his socks have been pretty active in discussions, too. Gnome de Plume recently voted in an RFA. Ouch. Jip Orlando (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Wow from me, too. I've interacted quite a bit with at least two of those socks without ever suspecting it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I was about to nominate one for RfA and had arranged to meet up with two others for a Wiki-meet-up drink. Can I have a refund please? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC) [reply]

  • @Tryptofish: - I was unaware about a couple of them, thinking these are different users who are editing in good quality. Iggy (Swan) (What I've been doing to maintain Wikipedia) 21:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• If Carlsberg did socks, they would be like Edgar181 .... Britishfinance (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• This is one of the more disgusting cases I've seen in a long time. Mz7 (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) I am quite disappointed and something that really put this into perspective with respect to the extent is this chart below. Mkdw ^talk 22:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+----------------+----------------------+----------------+
| user_name      |    user_registration | user_editcount |
+----------------+----------------------+----------------+
| Edgar181       | 2005 10 14 160417    |         196322 |
| Deli nk        | 2005 11 07 145516    |          78799 |
| ChemNerd       | 2006 09 15 192833    |          17568 |
| Slideshow Bob  | 2006 10 02 182214    |            566 |
| PCock          | 2006 10 02 193930    |          15586 |
| TimBuck2       | 2006 10 03 185128    |            724 |
| Edgeweyes      | 2006 10 03 192406    |           1860 |
| Gnome de plume | 2007 10 07 131013    |           4748 |
| MetrosMan      | 2009 02 03 201525    |             15 |
| Tcg2019        | 2019 10 02 194400    |              2 |
| Dwonderl       | 2019 10 03 232520    |              0 |
| Dwndlnd        | 2019 10 03 232647    |              2 |
| Mylucideyes    | 2019 10 17 190946    |              1 |
| Mwg24          | 2019 10 24 235414    |              1 |
| Questiontoask  | 2019 11 27 152232    |              5 |
+----------------+----------------------+----------------+

I see that he created five socks since right after passing his RFA in July of 2006. Good. God. Jip Orlando (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It makes me sad to see this. Since 2006? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Except for voting at ArbCom and RFA (where, frankly, it probably has negligible effect), I don't think these were being used as good hand/bad hand, or to attack others, or support one another in discussions, were they? What possible reason could a long term (started 2005), productive (200,000+ edits over all accounts), by-my-memory good admin (and 3 other good editor accounts I recognize) have for socking? I mean, some LTA screwball? Sure, socking makes sense. Avoiding a block/ban? OK, I get it. Someone caught up in the moment and evading 3RR? Not my cup of tea, but I guess I can at least imagine it. But Edgar? Long term? I not only can't understand it, I can't even imagine understanding it. Some kind of game, maybe? If nothing else, wouldn't that be exhausting? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  This is my reaction. Thanks for putting it into words Floq. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  There are cases where multiple accounts edited the same AfD; warnings were issued by one account and and then blocked with the admin account; edited the same articles; and edited the project space which is not permitted per WP:VALIDALT. Collectively, there are over 316,000 edits between all the accounts. I am sure the community will find even more examples where multiple accounts were inappropriately used. It is shocking, but it is not something that should have been allowed to continue. Mkdw ^talk 22:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The block log for Edgeweyes, where Edgar edit warred using the Edgeweyes account, then blocked both Edgeweyes and the IP Edgeweyes/Edgar was edit warring with. See the edit history in May 2017 for State-sponsored terrorism. Katie^talk 22:14, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Floquenbeam: I also find it hard to understand. Edgar's own explanation is on his talk page, but it doesn't shed much light. My interpretation is that it was a classic case of creating an illusion of support. For example, there's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4-Ethylamphetamine, where he used a sock to add a delete !vote when it seemed his nomination was heading to a no consensus, or your own 2nd RfA ([5][6]). Presumably he picked up the habit early on and never got out of it. – Joe (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm confused. It looks like Edgar still has the sysop bit? Or is there a cache that hasn't been reset?--Jorm (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  We are still waiting for the bureaucrats to enact the motion. Mkdw ^talk 22:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  It's now been done. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I think folks might notice any further edits from any of those accounts? Martinevans123 (talk)

  All of the accounts were blocked as part of the ArbCom action. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by Edgar181 on his user talk page Mz7 (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Stunned. I can't imagine the energy it would take to do the total number of edits and then also to keep the editing accounts & strands separate. Shearonink (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I ...I don't even have words. Can't believe it went on for so long too. And so many edits! Sad that yet another early admin has betrayed the community's trust. Alas, I fear they won't be the last :( Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I was the local CU who first saw this when the scrutineers reached out. I’m confident that there are more accounts, but because of the limitations of the tool we won’t be able to find them. This was clearly calculated and manipulative and is quite frankly the worst socking I’ve seen in terms of abusing trust in my time on this project. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's OK. I never trusted him. Martinevans123 (talk)
    • Does (could) the tool need to be improved? Britishfinance (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Britishfinance, It does, and I am working on it. It was built from scratch, and in a hurry - so had some limitations. SQL^{Query me!} 23:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Britishfinance: much of it is that the timeline of activity that can be examined is short, in accordance with the WMF global data retention guidelines. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, I see, so it is only at times like ArbCom !votes when several accounts are simultaneously active that it becomes apparent? Perhaps WMF rules could be re-examined, especially for syops. Sone of Edgar181’s techniques of co-ordination with their socks go get third party accounts blocked seemed pretty onerous? Britishfinance (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Britishfinance, I don't think (nor do I agree with) WMF changing the rules regarding global data retention. There may be other options, however. Waggie (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Waggie and Xaosflux:, That wasn't the limiting factor Tony mentioned in any case. I'd be happy to discuss them elsewhere if you're interested. SQL^{Query me!} 23:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I haven't felt this angry over anything related to Wikipedia since... well, not that long ago actually... but the point is that this angers me greatly, especially compounded by the brazen dismissive comments he sees fit to post on his talk page. He just doesn't seem to have the faintest idea of how serious this is and what damage he's done. Anyway, I'd better switch off for the night now, before I say something I regret (which I nearly did at his talk page). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was holding out a faint hope initially that there might be some kind of reasonable (or reasonably stupid) explanation. Instead we get the chilling admission that he's been screwing with the entire community for fourteen years - for fun. This kind of thing totally undermines the community's trust in each other, especially in admins. You're entirely right to be angry. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What the FuCK????????? One of the very last people I'd think would be socking. Whats next- Drmies is actually 5 different LTAs? 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 23:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]