So, in the matter of this admitted bad-faith editor, I have had a reply on
Not so satisfactory. Admits 'occasional tongue-in-cheek' edits
(unspecified). Contrast that with the statement further up the page
(Colonial Colleges) that 'If this was not fact, I would not have written
it.'; and subsequent complaints from others.
The guy has had a chance to be helpful. There are some anon edits in
September that would be harder to check back on.
Try this excerpt:
''Fifth, since your user page contains a number of comments of an aggressive
and antisocial nature, such as the sneering about 'civility', would you like
to give an account of yourself in relation to the WP project which would
convince anyone that you have some intention of being a better community
member in the future?Charles Matthews 12:54, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
a.. No. Warnings should be taken at face value. Now find something better
to do with your time. -ExplorerCDT 13:24, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC) ''
I am certainly minded to push for a ban of this user.
The current listing at VfD of [[Cayley-Newbirth operation matrix]] has
flushed out User:ExplorerCDT, who at the very least knew this was a hoax
page, and posted comments at VfD designed to obfuscate and mislead.
User:ExplorerCDT is apparently otherwise in good standing as a Wikipedian.
How to proceed in such a case?
Context is that there have been a number of attempts to place hoax pages in
mathematics in the English Wikipedia. This example is evidently written with
at least a well-informed graduate student knowledge (as with the recent
vandalism attack by [[User:Slim Jim]], with plausibe disinformative
tweaking). The page was been around for eight months, since it has the
look-and-feel of a piece of obscure, dull abstract mathematics quite
For myself I would like to see User:ExplorerCDT banned, for bad faith
A user keeps on getting blocked but returns with returns with one new
sockpuppet after another. He wrote on my page:
Hey, it's not my fault wikipedia doesn't have a registration system that
requires input of an actual email address. Haha.
He's right... Why don't we have one?
Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
>I don't think three years is excessive. It might seem a long time
>since Wikipedia is a relatively young project
It seems like a long time not just because Wikipedia is young, but
because realistically, it is a very long-term commitment relatively to
the contributing lifespan of quite a few Wikipedians. Turnover and
attrition will happen among arbitrators as well.
>but the experience
>which arbitrators will build up during that three year period will be
>invaluable in assisting them in making good decisions.
Sure, IFF they are actually developing experience in the arbitration
process during that period.
The combination of these factors leads me to conclude that the issue is
not with the three-year term per se, but that arbitrators need to
recognize whether they are serving effectively and be prepared to step
aside if not, even if it's before their term ends. I think there is an
obvious problem when an arbitrator who has not really been active in the
process at all still has two years left to serve, and based on the past
year there is no reason to seriously expect this arbitrator to begin
participating. No experience is being gained by anyone that way.
If arbitrators resign responsibly when they recognize that they won't be
able to serve effectively, they can be replaced and the process will
function more smoothly. I commend Martin and Camembert for taking this
step. In many systems, elected officials may resign before the ends of
their terms, and a mechanism is available to replace them. We did this
earlier this year with Jwrosenzweig and Raul654.
I understand that going through election cycles too often can be a
little draining. To be honest, I don't care that much whether interim
appointments are handled by special election. I would be fine with
letting the Board of Trustees appoint interim arbitrators, and just
adding these positions to the regular election at the end of the year.
This is similar to the model in my own local jurisdiction. We have
elected judges, but frequently there are mid-term vacancies (resulting
from resignations due to retirement, advancement, other career
opportunities, and occasionally death). Such vacancies are filled
through appointment by the executive branch of government, until the
next election. I haven't observed any significant problems with this
system, unless you simply have philosophical concerns about whether
judges should be elected at all.
Check out 'Reproduction Fees' on Wikipedia. Its possible for an out
of copyright image to attract a reproduction fee from the library
holding it and providing the image. These fees can be very high and
even prohibit the publication of limited-run publications since the
finances do not add up.
Season's greetings to all
Canal Side, Huntworth, Bridgwater, Somerset UK
Phone (44) 01278 663020
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.296 / Virus Database: 265.6.3 - Release Date: 21/12/2004
Currently RFCs which have not been certified by two or more users (the
requirement for certification is having discussed the matter at hand
with the defendant of the RFC and failing to achieve substantial
compromise) are deleted after 48 hours, or are supposed to anyway. To
match the reality of the fate of most RFCs, a proposal is underway to
amend this policy:
Comments/brickbats would be appreciated.
Given the conduct of at least one arbitrator, my own view is that anyone should be able to unconditionally challenge and reject at least two arbitrators, without cause, much as jury challenges work.
I'm thinking, for example, of an arbitrator who appeared happy that an arbcom interim action would prevent someone from standing in the arbcom elections, because they were (at least in the view of that arbitrator) prohibited from editing the page to indicate their candidacy.
Given that, it seems wise to provide an easy way to eliminate those who do not do the right thing and recuse themselves when appropriate.
I wonder... has James F actually used his admin capabilities recently? Wondering if it might be an idea to keep arbitrators at arms length from all but essential enforcement, and have the arbitrators who opposed a particular penaly be the ones acting to enforce it, at least if the decision was close.
From: "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales(a)wikia.com>
To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 09:03:58 -0800
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Questions about recusal
Has everyone voted? If you've still not voted, please consider doing
so today. :-)
James Rosenzweig wrote:
> what do we feel are legitimate grounds for recusal as
> an arbitrator, and what may a user legitimately demand
> to know about an arbitrator when the user is
> considering asking them to recuse?
I would say that if you've been involved personally in a dispute with
someone, you should recuse from the case. Add to that I guess any
case where you personally feel that either your own neutrality would
be too difficult to sustain, or where there could be a significant
appearance of impropriety.
I would suggest pretty strongly of course that ArbCom members try to
be exemplars of kindness and thoughtfulness in day to day actions, so
as to reduce any perception that you've got a vendetta or whatever.
You in particular are *very very* good about this in my opinion. :-)
I think a very good example we can look to is that of James F, who has
in his own words become "increasingly Wikignomic" in his editing over
the past year. What this means is explained here:
What this means, in my opinion, because he's never said such a thing,
is that he's better able to function as an arbitrator because he's
basically been steering clear of the sort of edits that can land you
in combat with the trolls and POV pushers. A wise way for an arbitrator.
Has everyone voted?
WikiEN-l mailing list
Well, since the topic has been raised, there's another question I'm curious about.
I think in the U. S. publication is the key to copyright. For sure, unpublished letters can be copyrighted when they surface, even if they were written over a century ago.
Millet's Le Semeur was painted in 1850, but when was it "published?" What constitutes publication for an oil painting which isn't mass-produced? Is it published when it's exhibited in a gallery? If so, then no problem (for most famous classic old paintings).
Otherwise, do you need to research when the first printed reproduction was published? Truly "slavish" color reproductions weren't cheap and common (and used in textbooks and encyclopedias and magazines) until, oh, maybe the 1930s.
So, if "published" means "printed" then printed reproductions that are old enough to be in the public domain would be hand-tinted engravings, or chromolithographs (or whatever the Currier and Ives things are called), or black-and-white photos. Which are significantly different enough from a color photo of the same painting.
>This election turned into, to put it bluntly, a
>crapfight, with open season on the candidates. I found it to be a
>painful experience, and I wasn't even one of the ones being targeted
>most. I would also seriously consider not running again entirely on
>that basis, despite the fact that I'm looking forward to getting into
>my work as an arbitrator. That's why I chose one of the three-year
>terms - and I believe I'm not the only one.
>I think it would be wise to make absolutely damned sure that the
>events of this election don't happen again before we start talking
>about shortening the terms of the newly-elected arbitrators, or we may
>well find next time that we once again won't have enough suitable
>candidates, or that a certain class of users won't run. Being
>tremendously thick-skinned shouldn't, IMO, be a requirement for
>running for arbitrator.
I agree with Ambi that the campaign phase of this election had some
serious problems, particularly the handling of the endorsements page.
Since I was working on the process, I feel this as a personal failure.
Unfortunately, I felt somewhat limited in what I could do because I was
acting with no particular official mandate and didn't feel it would help
to arrogate the authority to myself. I'm sure the candidates also felt
restricted in terms of how much they could do about the deteriorating
situation without appearing self-serving, even if they were honestly
concerned with the health of the process. As a result, the manner in
which endorsements and "disendorsements" were presented was left up to a
group of users, several of whom have little interest in the good of the
project and are primarily active in stirring up trouble, as a review of
their contributions will show.
This would be a good time to review the process and establish some
better ground rules for future elections. I like the practice of
collecting short candidate statements in one place, leaving them the
freedom to post longer statements and have discussions with the
community in their own user space. If we continue to have endorsements,
I think a similar principle can apply there. Let people who want to make
public endorsements use their own user pages for that purpose, and
perhaps collect a list of links to those pages. Anything more than that
becomes an unreadable VfD-style page and bogs down in the attacks that
get flung back and forth. Just because some people want the opportunity
to air their grudges with particular candidates does not entitle them to
maximum exposure of their grievances.
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
>>There's absolutely no reason why said arbitrator should be allowed to
>>continue serving - he wasn't elected, he's done basically nothing in
>>months, and he's been approached about the matter several times, with,
>>as far as I can see, no response. While we've just had elections, now
>>seems to me to be the perfect time to do something - there's a couple
>>of people who only missed out by one or two votes who would be quite
>I agree with this completely. Will you research for me which arbs
>have been least active, and I'll email to ask them about their plans
>for the future, and then make some decisions.
I already did this before the election, to try and move the issue along.
Since then, we've elected replacements for Camembert and Gutza, while
Mav and Delirium have stepped up their participation in the process
again. That leaves Nohat.
>There's no indignity in
>people stepping down because they won't have time to deal with it.
None at all, as I've tried to point out. But as the position of
arbitrator has evolved, it carries with it a certain obligation to the
community - more so than admins, who aren't individually required to
exercise their functions if they don't feel like handling, say, page
protections. Part of that obligation is knowing when to step aside.