User talk:Roger Davies

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

If you are here about an arbitration matter, please post instead on the appropriate arbitration page to keep discussion centralised.

If you post a message on this page, I'll reply here to avoid fragmenting the discussion. So add it to your watchlist.
If I leave you a message on your talk page, it will be added to my watchlist. So feel free to reply to it there instead of here.
Please sign and date your message by typing four tildes (~~~~)

Disappointed

I'm fairly disappointed by this opinion. It seems clear to me that the word "processes" in the ArbCom decision was understood by all involved to be the kind of formal and semi-formal discussions that take place in the Wikipedia name space. Your reinterpretation looks like an after-the-fact wikilawyering rationalization to me. As mentioned by many others, comments on a user's own talk page have not, so far, been interpreted as violating a topic ban. If this is to change, I would very much wish this change to be explicit and transparent, not retroactive and per a discussion with unclear consensus. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Stephan: If people who are topic-banned move discussion that belongs on article talk space onto their user talk pages as a proxy for the article talk page, they are circumventing the ban. It's a simple as that really.  Roger ^talk 12:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course, that is not what happened here. No discussion was moved, or even took place. William had the audacity to point out sock vandalism and BLP violations. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Or, looked at from a different prespective, used his talk page to proxy edit articles covered by the his topic ban ...  Roger ^talk 13:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Proxying is a problem of the user who makes the edits, not the user who suggests them. And there has been a long-standing consensus that users may make edits suggested by blocked and even banned editors if they take responsibility for the edit. But I'd avoid repeating the whole discussion here. Sphilbrick below has expressed it well. If you want a certain result, find a clean way to achieve it. Don't use bogus arguments that create very problematic new precedents. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

No, Stephan, you're wrong in your analysis.  Roger ^talk 14:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the specificity of your statement. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a very clear statement. Unfortunately it's not a very convincing one. It's not an argument, it's just plain contradiction. Hans Adler 15:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Stephan, clearly WMC is gaming the system by creating an alternative process on WP for influencing the topic area. So, I agree with Roger and a few other editors that have pointed out that it does fall under the letter of the ruling. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 12:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

You defended following the spirit, not the letter over at AE. Stretching the letter of the ruling is exactly the kind of Wikilawyering I would not expect from Roger (or from you, to be honest). I can't help the feeling that this debate is not concerned with precedence and fairness, but with justifying a predetermined result and getting it over with as quickly as possible. We probably disagree on the desirability of the (very intermediate) result. But I had hoped that we would agree on the value of a fair and open debate. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I've given up trying to get the community to understand that the WMC block did not properly follow process, but this opinion is far-reaching, and ought to be reversed. No one thinks Wikipedia "processes" means user talk pages. Everyone knows that WP processes refers to AN/ANI/RPP/etc. Redefining the term to include user talk pages is a stretch, and a stretch too far. As evidence, I can quote the esteemed Roger Davies, who refers to the edits on talk pages as "circumventing the ban". You can't say that the edits are both covered by the ban and circumventing the ban.

They were circumventing the ban. The solution is simple - either get ArbcCom to revise the ban generally, or remind admins they can warn, then block when someone is circumventing a ban inappropriately. The wrong answer is to declare that the ban really did include talk pages. I do not understand the reluctance to follow the procedures set out in the decision. They made sense. Re-defining "process" to include talk pages is not the right way to go.

(I promised myself last night I would let this issue go, and I am resigned to the fact that the community won't reverse the WMC block. However, justify it by saying enough is enough and IAR. This new definition of "processes" is not limited to CC, and should not be done this way. If the community really wants such a redefinition, let's do it properly, not as an offhand comment by a single Arb member.)--SPhilbrickT 13:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the short answer is that the prohibition applies to "participating in any Wikipedia process". It doesn't much matter for the purpose of the topic ban where the participation takes place. There's nothing sacrosanct about user talk pages where, for example, the community makes no distinct between, for example, personal attacks on article talk pages or user talk pages.  Roger ^talk 14:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

But he did not participate in any process. He highlighted edits he thought were wrong on his talkpage with no commentary. You are redefining what most people understand by process no matter how skillfully you work your way around it. Polargeo 2 (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that initiating or instigating a process is not participating in it?  Roger ^talk 14:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I am seriously suggesting that you are redefining the term "process" against what is commonly understood on wikipedia. Process on wikipedia is generally understood to mean ANI etc. but I really shouldn't have to tell you this. Polargeo 2 (talk) 15:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

What other word would you use to describe a series of actions? That's all a process is.  Roger ^talk 15:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand you are using the word "process" generically rather than in the generally accepted wikipedia sense. That is fine until you start to use the term in a rule defining wikilegal sense. Polargeo 2 (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Polargeo, but I don't accept I'm using it in any strange way. If I had meant it to carry a special meaning, I'd have linked it or qualified it.  Roger ^talk 15:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I obviously understood the word differently in wikipedia terms. If someone like me is having trouble understanding what you mean then this is something I think you should clarify better when you use the term in future. Polargeo 2 (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Something to consider for future cases using this penalty is to be very simple and clear with the language. "User XYZ is banned from commenting about ABC in any form, on any page on Wikipedia." If you mean everything, say it. The current wording leaves some gray area. Ravensfire (talk) 21:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

A change in the policy is being worked on, here, to do exactly that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

If users push the envelope and attempt to say involved with the topic then there will be grey areas no matter what wording is used. Despite the block and the clearer explanation to WMC yesterday, he again edited his talk page today with an link to a CC article that he wanted his tpw to see and take action. So, this confirms that confusion over the use of talk is not at the heart of the issue in this situation, and not worth all of the various talk page comments and objections. And the wording that you suggest would leave loopholes, too, since it only mentions comments and not actions which also would be covered. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I totally disagree with your interpretation of the word "process". As far as I know this interpretation is unprecedented, but I guess you are in the best position to prove me wrong if I am wrong. I note that there was a related discussion, involving NewYorkBrad and Carcharoth, neither of whom clearly contradicted the emerging consensus that what WMC was doing was technically OK although very unwise. (The page structure of everything surrounding Arbcom is so chaotic that I regularly don't find such things, but I guess you know what discussion I am talking about.)

Any block that leads to much more extensive discussion afterwards than preceded it is in some sense a bad block. This is particularly true if a block exacerbates the main problem, which according to Arbcom was polarisation, IIRC. Such bad blocks should not be encouraged, it must be made clear that contentious blocks must be preceded by extensive discussion and ideally also warnings. Hans Adler 15:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hans: Let's look at the bigger picture here for a moment.

Virtually everyone accepts that WMC has engaged in conduct that was, depending on your perspective, either at least pushing the envelope or wilful wikilawyering. He was offered a chance to "cease and desist" shortly after the block was placed by an administrator who was clearly interested only in defusing the situation. WMC ignored the offer. Since then, and during the site block, he has not only repeated the complained of conduct but has also steadily escalated the situation with a series of remarks, which are at best inappropriate and at worse deliberately inflammatory. Additionally, a steady stream of editors who frequent his page have protested the block with varying degrees of civility.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the wording of the topic ban, there was undisputedly widespread discussion of it and it is clear that the AE action has wide consensus among admins working there. It is equally clear that WMC has, to great measure, brought this on himself.

I disagree with your suggestion that this issue has been polarising. What we are seeing is a continuation of deliberately polarised battlefield conduct that is best summarised as "either you're with us or against us", which started many many months ago, which hamstrung the community sanctions regime, and which turned the topic into the powderkeg it is today. This unremitting manoeuvring succeeded in turning everything into "contentious"; with argument, counter-argument, and personal attacks designed to discredit. This pattern is continuing, even as I write. This must all stop. A good start point would be WMC genuinely disengaging: that means no more pointy comments; no more ingenious wriggles; no further attempts to poke people with sticks. Once we've seen genuine commitment to disengagement, I'm sure that everything else will fall into place.  Roger ^talk 16:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The "either you're with us or against us" attitude used to be a really bad problem around the pseudoscience topic, but it's much better now than it used to be. (Most notably, ScienceApologist is no longer part of the problem and as far as I am concerned that seems to have been a huge success of Arbcom.) I don't see much evidence of this problem in the climate change area. What I see is communication disasters between Arbcom and the community of editors with scientific qualifications. So long as not just WMC believes that Arbcom is part of the problem, but also SBHB and others of a similar calibre, you must be much more careful with sanctions. If the target of a sanction believes that it is unfair, and if all their friends agree, then it will have only negative effects. I hope that at some point Arbcom will understand that the problem with the Giano civility probation wasn't just that it was a civility probation. The problem was that the civility probation was a licence for admins to poke Giano. Under the circumstances of the CC case, you had a choice between poking WMC directly (with an unambiguously worded sanction) and encouraging admins to poke him (via an ambiguously worded sanction and support for what WMC and his friends see as unfair treatment). Of course WMC also had the choice to turn this sanction into something constructive, but it appears that like Giano he won't do us the favour of going to a physician and ask for mood-altering drugs for Wikipedia's benefit.

Personally I have never been a fan of WMC and probably had some forgotten conflicts with him in the past. But like many of WMC's friends I am concerned about the quality of our coverage in the face of a continuous stream of throw-away accounts and a substantial percentage of blog-programmed editors. In the CC decision I did not see any acknowledgement that Arbcom was aware of this problem and the fact that qualified editors are harder to replace than unqualified ones, or indeed any acknowledgement that the situation is asymmetric. Since a rational, informed observer can have no doubt about the underlying content questions, I felt that this left only two interpretations: That Arbcom officially stayed clear of any content questions in order to have more informal manoeuvering space, or that Arbcom genuinely doesn't care about content at all (i.e. the really big picture) and would be happy with a totally misleading encyclopedia so long as the social side is harmonious. I assumed good faith, but sadly it appears I was wrong. Hans Adler 18:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

This case has highlighted the fundamental problem that some scientists have with the Wikipedia model. That is the tension between NPOV and scientific consensus, and the respective weights that should be placed on scientific consensus and on opinions/theories outside of that consensus. This is essentially a content issue, over which ArbCom has no jurisdiction. The only longterm solution is for the community to reconcile NPOV and SPOV, and either say that SPOV trumps NPOV (which it has never done to date) or to find ways of accommodating SPOV within NPOV.

I fully understand how difficult it must be for any expert in any field to have their views/research/life's work repeatedly but for controversial subjects that too is the nature of a wiki. The same arguments have to be made out over and over again; the same issues explained; and that is undeniably frustrating, but that too is the nature of a wiki. I can easily understand too how over time these discussions become personal and embattled but that also is the nature of a wiki. Against all this, we have policies in place to facilitate article creation and maintenance, and spare the community from the ravages of warfare: these are ArbCom's domain and it is ArbCom's role to enforce them.

Against this backdrop, you will see that neither of the "only two interpretations" you refer to are applicable as they do not include the reality of ArbCom's position.  Roger ^talk 15:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

So according to you, Arbcom's position is a postmodernist one? For example, until relatively recently Wikipedia would have had to say that there is no scientific consensus that smoking causes cancer, simply because there was a huge political campaign to create that impression? Or for an even clearer example, consider the article Sam Blacketer controversy, which at some point stated, based on "reliable" sources that contradicted what we all know, that the "Labour leader" (this actually didn't make it into the article) known to us as Sam Blacketer had made "many unfavourable" "alterations" to David Cameron. If you missed the extreme wikilawyering that went on at the time in order to use Wikipedia as an instrument to libel a former Arbcom member, have a look at WP:Articles for deletion/Sam Blacketer controversy and Talk:Sam Blacketer controversy. The situation with global warming is very similar, and there are plenty of academic sources describing not just the scientific consensus but also the purely political methods used to create the impression that it doesn't exist.

I really hope that you are not speaking for Arbcom as a whole, since such a fundamentalist postmodernist position would be completely at odds with the first pillar: That Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are about knowledge, not belief. They are deeply rooted in the French enlightenment, and they are built on rational thought, not on following powerful authorities. Most readers of an encyclopedia hope to find the best available approximation to the truth there, rather than the most popular belief. Some readers have different priorities, but that's a niche market which is served by Conservapedia and similar projects. Hans Adler 16:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

No, what I am saying is that ArbCom would probably not make rulings that smoking causes cancer, or that the earth orbits the sun, because it is not within our jurisdiction to do so. And it certainly wouldn't rule that anyone opposing that position may be reverted/blocked on sight or that any conduct no matter how egregious by anyone supporting the SPOV position is acceptable. Instead, the usual view taken by the committee is that once conduct issues are resolved, normal consensus editing on content prevails. The cases you mention are slightly different because they involve BLPs, where different and stricter rules apply.  Roger ^talk 17:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom would presumably not rule that smoking causes cancer. But what about an account whose edits largely or solely promote the view that smoking is harmless? Would that conduct be seen by ArbCom as problematic per se, on behavioral grounds, even if the account in question was superficially polite and did not edit-war? Or is that just a "content issue"? What if there are dozens of such accounts, interwoven with numerous sockpuppets? Is that a content matter? Would the relatively small number of reality-based editors be responsible for dealing with this onslaught while simultaneously maintaining a perfect success rate in identifying socks, unfailing civility, and avoiding anything that might resemble edit-warring or even isolated "drive-by" reverts? MastCell ^Talk 20:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for Clarification

Roger, would you please explain how this warning from Hans is OK but the warnings listed in my finding are not? ATren (talk) 13:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

In the same way, I suppose, that one revert is usually okay but five is persistent edit warring.  Roger ^talk 19:58, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No, not quite. My warnings were to 4 different admins spread out over months. There is no analogy to edit warring. And besides, the editors who pursued Lar did so repeatedly and they were not sanctioned. Your explanation holds no water. Would you care to take another crack at it? ATren (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

• News and notes: Foundation's finances, geodata milestone, interim counsel, museum conference

• In the news: Airplane construction with Wikipedia, lessons from the strategy project, logic over rhetoric

• WikiProject report: Scoring with WikiProject Ice Hockey

• Features and admins: Good-lookin' slugs and snails

• Arbitration report: Arb resignation during plagiarism discussion; election RfC closing in 2 days

• Technology report: Foundation office switches to closed source, secure browsing, brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: Motions you have posted

Mark wanted me to let you know that he accepted the amended terms. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC) See my other note also.

Thanks for the message. He'll need to accept it as currently drafted, I'm afraid.  Roger ^talk 18:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I came here to ask about:

Proposed: That provided they unequivocally accept the spirit and the letter of the amended terms above by message on their talk pages, User:Marknutley and User:William M. Connolley will be unblocked upon the passing of Motion 1 above.

Support:

1. Roger talk 16:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Assuming that's what this section is about, can any editor post a reply, or is that only for Administrators and Arbitrators? Thanks. --Yopienso (talk) 19:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, the proposed motions have some problems.

• The actions of MN and WMC were not identical. It is hardly obvious that everyone will reach identical decisions on both editors. It would have been better to make them as separate motions. (Perhaps all arbs will reach the same decision on both, but it is clear to me that MN violated the woridng of the ban, and WMC did not, so if I were an arb, I would not be able to vote cleanly).
• Participating in a legitimate dispute resolution forum, such as an appeal of the ban, can be an exception to limited ban. However, this motion does not invoke the topic ban wording per Wikipedia:Banning policy, thus it is not obvious that the exceptions still apply. Presumably, the reason for crafting specific wording, as opposed to simply referencing Wikipedia:Banning policy, is because the wording there is deemed deficient. Why on earth should it be obvious that while the topic ban wording has been replaced, other provision still apply? In addition, the general page says "exceptions to article, topic and interaction bans are usually recognized:" (emphasis added). How do we know when they are or are not recognized? One possibility is that the exceptions are always recognized unless explicitly excluded, but why not spell it out?--SPhilbrickT 20:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)