text:
have a group of individuals who are immune from experiencing the hell that is RfA yet are allowed to vote down any reform of the RfA system could be seen as having the appearance of being self-serving. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * RFA's tend to attract malcontents. If only admins were allowed to vote on the admittance and retention of other admins, much of the "hell" from RFA's would go away. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I was expecting someone to suggest admins not being allowed to vote on RfA reforms (which would be the wrong solution to the problem I talk about above; admins having to experience RfA every ten years would IMO be a far better solution). The idea of only allowing admins to vote on RfAs goes against Wikipedia's core values, and thus will never happen. In addition, there is a danger which we have seen happen in many organizations where an elite who already have control over the organization carefully select new elite members who will not rock the boat by suggesting reforms. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Admin reforms is one thing. RFA's are another. The RFA is a popularity contest, attracting everyone with an axe to grind against the candidate. The only way to gain adminship is to pretend to be a choir boy. Then once you're in, you've got it for life unless you do something really, really bad. Until that popularity contest "core value" changes, you will continue to lose admins and to discourage potentially good admins from bothering to try. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I wish I could say that you were wrong, but you hit the nail on the head. Alas, it may take a total meltdown of the system before someone wakes up and takes action, and that action is likely to be in the form "something needs to be done. X is something. Therefore X needs to be done." :( --Guy Macon (talk) 07:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

 * (ec) Have you heard the old saying "Friends come and go; enemies accumulate"? I can tell you right off the top who would be voting against my next (hypothetical) RfA—just read down the list of acupuncture-promoting editors who opposed the topic ban I suggested at AN/I for one of their number a few days ago. Then go through the list of editors who keep trying to promote their cold fusion inventions in Wikipedia.  If you're still short, troll the talk pages of the articles on Andrew Wakefield and anti-vaccine activism.  It won't take long to find the twenty or thirty oppose votes necessary to sink a typical RfA. I don't think it would be good for the project to build a system where our most experienced admins will be encouraged to avoid controversial articles for a year or two before their re-RfAs. And incidentally, "eating your own dogfood" doesn't really make sense as a principle here.  RFA isn't something that was designed or is maintained by the admin corps.  While admins, like many other experienced editors, participate in RfA's votes the majority of voters don't seem to be admins.  (The most recent successful RfA was Requests for adminship/Abecedare 2; in it 7 of the first 10 voters were non-admin editors, and then I got tired of counting.)  Admins don't control the standards (or whims) by which RfA candidates are judged.  A number of admins, myself included, have noted problems with the evolution of RfA, but we – like most everyone – have been stymied by how to repair the process. As far as actually eating the adminship dogfood goes, I do it all the time.  Whenever I go to AN/I or AE or AfD to request (or establish consensus on) an admin action, I'm dogfooding—I'm relying on the quality of our existing admin corps. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If the problem at RFA was that the existing admins were being overly picky and trying to stop new people becoming admins then yes the solution could be to exclude admins from voting at RFA or require us to go through some sot of reconfirmation. However RFAs are not a secret ballot, anyone can check who supported and opposed and whether the admins are collectively more or less open to new admins than other editors. Last time it was properly looked into the pattern was that admins were usually as picky as the non admins, the only exceptions were some unusual high profile cases. My experience is that most admins rarely if ever take part in RFAs after they themselves make admin, and those of us who do include some who usually !vote support. I'd be interested to see some up to date figures, but I would be surprised if there had been many recent RFAs where disregarding the admin !votes would have moved it from unsuccessful to successful. In my experience "Admins are the reasons why RFAs fail" is as implausible a theory as "admins are the ones who block RFA reform". Just because admins are accused of  something doesn't make it true......  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  19:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is really disappointing. Antonio is a longtime editor who has made many thousands of good contributions over the years. He's been an administrator for 11+ years at least, and it's a shame that things had to go down this way. The desysop was obviously the correct move; sockpuppetry is unbecoming of an administrator and cannot be tolerated. I just hope that Antonio will recognize where he went wrong and work to rebuild his standing within our community. Kurtis (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, just wow. As some may know I suggested an arbcom case would be a waste of time. This is embarassing afther what happened although if it were to happen again, I'd probably say the same think if I could be bothered because at the time, there was no evidence I saw that things were this bad. And I'm not certain a general arbcom case would have uncovered it. Plus even if it did, we obviously can't open arbcom cases because an editor has shown some poor behaviour, so perhaps they are socking. An arbcom case will hopefully mroe carefully analyse the behaviour to find whether there's other stuff that has been missed or gotten little attention, but the limited resources still suggest this should be limited to cases where we definitely need arbcom, i.e. the community can't take action and I still believe the general behaviour raised in the thread suggested it was more fruitful to look at wider sanctions rather than simply removing the admin bit, if it became necessary. Nil Einne (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You have no reason to feel embarrassed. The sockpuppeting took everyone by surprise, and the alert arb who discovered it deserves props. The fact is that while I was pushing for desyssopping on pre-sockpuppeting grounds, you are correct: incompetence alone is not grounds for removal of an admin at the present time. Your second point is also correct, but as you know the discussion at ANI was halted immediately after the desysopping, effectively saying that admin status is such a high station in wiki-life that removal from it is a serious blow equivalent to a block. Coretheapple (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Someone (don't ask who, I can't remember) coined this the "Super Mario effect". –xenotalk 14:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Afraid you'll have to explain that. Coretheapple (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In the video game series Super Mario Bros., if Mario eats a magic mushroom (successful RFA), he becomes Super Mario (administrator) and if he gets injured (gets caught violating policy), he doesn't die (get blocked), he just reverts to non-Super Mario (editor). –xenotalk 15:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be courcelles, iirc -- Guerillero |  Parlez Moi  15:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a reasonable analogy, Xeno, but I think "caste" captures the effect a little more precisely. Coretheapple (talk) 13:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding the Infoboxes arbitration case

 * Original announcement

 * (trivial) The last bullet of the motion should have "... remedy 3.2 shall automatically lapse." or (redundant but otherwise ok) "... remedy 3.2 as well as remedies I-IV of this motion shall automatically lapse", else we have a potentially paradoxical scenario. :) Abecedare (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That had me laughing for a while :P --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 00:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/OccultZone and others closed

 * Original announcement

 * I know I can't be the only one who is really disappointed in how this case turned out. In the beginning I just thought that OccultZone was on a really bad downward spiral, and probably needed a short break from editing to gather his thoughts and get a new perspective on things. Then the sockpuppetry evidence surfaced, and seeing that one of the two alternate accounts was created over a year ago, the recent incidents can't be so easily excused. I hate seeing him banned for a full year, but the Arbitration Committee was left with no choice. I hope OccultZone will take his time away from Wikipedia to reflect on what got him into this situation in the first place, but I also think it'd be good for him to do something else for a while - something that he enjoys. I don't think he's been enjoying Wikipedia over the past several months; you can see the amount of stress that it has been causing him. Come June 2016, I hope he submits his appeal and it gets accepted. It will take a while for him to reintegrate. Trust, once lost, is difficult to regain. But I think OccultZone can get it back, and here's hoping that he can eventually put this dark period of his Wikipedia experience behind him to become a valued contributor once more. Kurtis (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any case on this project where a person who has lost trust enough to be banned by the AC has regained the trust of the community. From my knowledge, once you are besmirched here (rightfully or wrongfully), you're toast. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I can think of several instances in which editors who were banned by ArbCom have returned from the ban and become valuable editors again. I wouldn't say those editors are permanent "toast," although I grant that "regained the trust" is more subjective. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is subjective. But, regained trust to me implies abilities to gain or regain permissions beyond editor. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I can actually think of at least one editor who was banned indefinitely by the Arbitration Committee and later passed an RfA. I don't think this would apply to OccultZone though, especially considering the newest revelations. Kurtis (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for the "trust of the community", but people have come back to become productive and valuable editors. Bgwhite (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Example pictured, banned twice (almost three times), and I trust him, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Shouldn't the sock and alternative accounts be blocked too? Bgwhite (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see below. —DoRD (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Note to the closing clerk, I have listed the topic ban and one-account restrictions at WP:EDR since (unless repealed) they remain active despite (in addition to) the current site ban. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  ✉  17:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

OccultZone and sockpuppetry
I conducted a sockpuppetry investigation independent of ArbCom, and with their permission, I have posted my results at Sockpuppet investigations/OccultZone. —DoRD (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am aghast. has its own 15K+ edits history and block log (and AN/I history) and several other socks I had interacted with and would've never suspected they were the same person. This deception and hypocrisy is amongst the filthiest of behaviour I have had the displeasure to witness. ☺ ·   Salvidrim!   ·  ✉  17:34, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, Bladesmulti. If OccultZone ever has the gall to try and come back I'll make sure I oppose most vigorously. I'm all for second chances but this type of thing is just too much. § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * and are familiar to anybody who deals with India related articles.  So, it was very shocking to see those two names.   AmritasyaPutra's account has been around since 2008, before OccultZone's account.  Wow.   Thank you DorD for releasing this.  Bgwhite (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, what even drives a person to commit this level of sockpuppetry? There must be at least 25k edits between those socks. Winner 42 Talk to me!  17:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Not even. More like 250k-300k. Esquivalience t 23:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm shocked at this, absolutely shocked. There are so many things wrong with this - using sockpuppets to criticise those making administrative actions against his main account, using sockpuppets to interfere with ANI threads, using sockpuppets to vote stack and interfere with XfD discussions and using sockpuppets to interfere with the Arbitration process. The most insulting thing was that they were asked, after the first couple of sockpuppets were exposed, whether there were any other accounts they wished to disclose, and they said they had no other sockpuppets, which is clearly not the case. The hypocrisy is troubling too, between OccultZone and Bladesmulti, this user was responsible for filing a large percentage of SPI cases in recent months. I don't see how the individual behind these accounts can ever be accepted back as a member of the community. Nick (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is, umm, wow. Given the passion that OccultZone had shown towards sockpuppets, I was surprised when the PD was posted and included were findings that OZ had used socks.  That was only a couple of accounts, okay, not good but I've seen worse.  This is rather worse.  Very disappointing. Ravensfire ( talk ) 17:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am shocked that it happened, and shocked that it could even be done at so massive scale and for such a long time. Have interacted especially with AmritasyaPutra and Bladesmulti on numerous article and talk pages and disappointed at the dishonesty of it all. Abecedare (talk) 18:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Speaking personally and not as an Arb, I'm dismayed. We've wasted a lot of time with these socks. Doug Weller (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yuck!!!!. And all that by an editor who got in trouble largely by demanding help fighting other socks.  Yuck!!!!  What was he thinking?  That he could hide?  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am very surprised to hear this. Good find. Chillum 19:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't even know what to say here. To think that just a little while ago, I expressed the sincere hopes that OccultZone can come back and contribute productively to our community once again. I'm not someone who would ever go so far as to say an editor should never be allowed back on Wikipedia after being banned (aside from pretty extraordinary circumstances), but the sheer scope of this user's deception is beyond words. Somebody should cross-examine the activities of each account to determine the extent of the damage. There could be a history of vote-stacking, edit warring via multiple different accounts, using alternate personas to gain the upper hand in content disputes, etc. Kurtis (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

 * DoRD's findings are the same as mine during the case. -- Guerillero |  Parlez Moi  22:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It makes one wonder how much progress the WMF is making with eye-recognition technology to limit humans to one registered account. Blades, this is awful. Just awful. Drmies (talk) 07:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously meant as a joke :) But what is more of a 'joke' is the inability of the project to monitor itself. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

 * The socks are starting to request unblocks. Bgwhite (talk) 07:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Does he have no shame? Winner 42 Talk to me!  13:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * He is probably right that he isn't OccultZone, but that is a distinction without a difference. OccultZone isn't the oldest of the accounts, and has only been listed as the sock-master because he was the filing party.  The fact that Bladesmulti isn't OccultZone is likely true but irrelevant.  We don't know who is behind the sock-farm, and it doesn't matter, since we know it is a sock-farm.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Am I the only one who isn't "shocked," or even surprised, by this? Sockpuppetry is rampant in the areas where these accounts edited. This is just one more example (admittedly with more activity than usual). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yesterday I was shocked. Today I am not shocked.  Two other editors explained to me how dishonest editors are those who are most fearful of dishonest editing.  With respect to an editor who brought himself down, see Tragedy.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't yet know what the scope of the damage is. However, see Talk:Ayurveda, which is a traditional Indian healing philosophy.  In November 2014, an RFC asked whether it should be categorized as Pseudoscience.  In December 2014, I closed the RFC with the conclusion that there was consensus against that categorization, because it precedes the modern concept of science.  In February 2015, a closure review resulted in no consensus to reverse the close, thus leaving the close unchanged.  Within the past 24 hours, I was again asked to review my close, based on sock-puppetry including Bladesmulti.  I concluded that three of the !votes were of sock-puppets, but also that other editors in good faith had relied on the arguments of the sock-puppets.  I cancelled the close, and recommended a new RFC in place of a new close.  The new RFC is in progress.  We don't know whether any other content disputes have been corrupted.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hypocrisy, hypocrisy, pure hypocrisy. Could become a WP:LTA case. Esquivalience t 20:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I can tell you this is not the only Indian sock farm. Please keep up searching. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Robert, no comment on you as being victimized by someone doesn't make you a perpetrator. I would like to say that a main line of defense against vote stacking is the refusal to count votes in consensus forming, and instead rely on the strength of arguments. I've commented before elsewhere, but a 'vote' of 50-1 against <x> doesn't mean there's consensus against <x>. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * But don't discount the impact of multiple *different* editors making good arguments on the subject to influence the flow and outcome of the debate. If the 50 to 1 is one person objecting to a blatant BLP violation, sure, policy dictates the result no matter how many people disagree. But far more often there isn't a right answer, and a strong majority with reasonable arguments, even when the other side also had reasonable arguments, ends up being consensus. Monty 845  16:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If you had 50 people all sharing the same opinion, vs. 1 person holding an opinion, it's 1:1. There's weight of arguments, not vote counting. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Um, I think it's a bit more complicated than that. Fifty people making a poor argument still have a poor argument, but fifty people making a good argument probably do get more weight than one person making the good argument. If 50 people think Hammersoft is a great editor and one disagrees, one would not say that opinion on the quality of Hammersoft's editing is evenly divided. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * How about we just agree I'm a bad editor and use a different example, eh? :) If 50 people say the sky is red, and 1 says it's blue, are the 50 right? Depends. What planet are we on? There's tons of ways to twist this. The reality is that evaluation of arguments is by far the best tool to evaluate consensus than vote counting. 50 people making the same argument convinces me of only one thing; there's one argument. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Newyorkbrad (and I think with Monty). Closing is tricky because the closer must consider both strength of arguments and vote count.  If the closer considers only vote count, that is a vote count.  However, if the closer considers only the closer’s personal judgment of strength of argument, and discounts the number of opinions, that is a supervote.  If there were 50 people sharing the same opinion, and one other opinion, and the closer closed it as no consensus, then I would challenge the close.  In the case in point, I did take strength of argument into account.  I thought that the argument provided by the sock-puppets was a strong argument.  However, at this point, I defend not only my original close, but my setting aside of my original close.  Good-faith editors had been persuaded by the multiple arguments by the socks, that is, multiple arguments that appeared to be by different human beings, but were not.  As a result, the entire discussion was corrupted.  Is Hammersoft saying that a closer should cast a supervote? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course not, nor did I even begin to mention such an absurd idea. My point is if you strip out the number of people commenting, and isolate arguments for and against, even if you had 50 on one argument and one on the other, you have one argument vs. another. Over at WP:RFA, we've seen heavy criticism of people 'voting' oppose without indicating why, other than agreement with someone else who opposed. There's even been suggestion of tossing such votes as invalid. Not saying I agree with that. However, allowing a bunch of people agreeing with one opinion and not adding additional argumentation to carry to 'consensus' is vote counting. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Just a question, OZ's sock AmritasyaPutra filed a complaint against Darkness_Shines that resulted in him receiving a year-long block (see Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive174). OccultZone also commented upon it. Does it require a second look? What do you think? Liz Read! Talk! 21:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe it does, purely so that such behaviour is discouraged in future. I don't believe it will make a great deal of difference in the longer term, but the Arbitration Enforcement request started by AmritasyaPutra should be 'voided' and the present sanction (an indefinite block) rescinded. Nick (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's up to . Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Considering everything that has transpired, I think it's worth a review. Not suggesting that it should be overturned, but if the major determining factor of that case was the filing of the motion and the influence by other controlled accounts, then I think it's our responsibility to re-examine that decision. It may turn out the same but at least due diligence has been had. Mkdw talk 00:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Dunno about the Darkness Shines case but the logic of the Ayurveda RFC nullification(?) seems weak to me. It seems to treat the non-sock commenters there as impressionable children or something.  If I see five arguments supporting position X and I'm persuaded by three of them, it shouldn't matter whether they came from one poster (say as a numbered list) or from three different posters, or (in the Ayurveda case) one poster pretending to be three.  Might have been ok to just strike the sock comments and possibly re-open the original RFC for another week.  <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Temporary injunction regarding open Lightbreather arbitration case

 * Original announcement

 * I read "sans the usual exceptions" to mean the opposite of "with the usual exceptions" which is to say that in this case the usual exceptions do not apply. If this is not the Committee's intended meaning, that should be made clear. ReverendWayne (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like "sans" was intended to mean "except for", i.e. "except for the usual exceptions". Maybe it's not hypercorrect usage but the meaning seems clear.  Sometimes I see "modulo" used like that ("modulo the usual exceptions"), which also works.  <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Functionally unambiguous wording might be "the usual exceptions apply." I think the meaning is clear, though, from the fact that the exceptions are enumerated.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC).

See also: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lightbreather/Proposed_decision All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC).

The intended meaning is that the standard exceptions do not apply ("sans" meaning "without" or "minus", the only meaning of the word given at Wiktionary, as sans serif fonts are clearly not relevant to the context.). The only exceptions to the interaction ban are those specifically enumerated in this motion. Thryduulf (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that the exceptions are enumerated means that they're not the usual ones, otherwise there would be no need to enumerate. Clearly. ReverendWayne (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Can't you just say "without" or "minus" then, rather than using a French-derived word that's not in wide use in everyday English and which obviously not everyone understands? Mr Potto (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Should we need to do this in future we will. While I can't speak for anyone else, it is a usage that I do hear frequently in my daily life (although not literally every day) and did not have any trouble understanding the meaning. Indeed that anyone would think it meant the opposite comes as a surprise to me. Thryduulf (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's cool, thanks. Mr Potto (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sans is widely used in everyday English. It appears in every major British and American English dictionary. If someone has access, I'd be curious to know where it falls on a Word lists by frequency. The word appears in Shakespeare so I imagine it wouldn't be all that too low on the list but I could be wrong. Mkdw talk 23:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd be interested to know that too. I'm a wordsmith by profession and "sans" is not common in the circles in which I move in the UK (which might just be due to the lowly status of my circles, of course ;-) Mr Potto (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * While I'm no professional wordsmith, I am fascinated by language. I had a look last night, and the only thing I can tell you is that is not one of the 2000 most common words used in "contemporary fiction" (I forget the definition of that) nor one of the 1000 most used on Project Gutenburg as of late 2008. This is getting off topic for this page though, so if you want to continue the discussion might I suggest Wiktionary's Tea room as a better venue. Thryduulf (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

 * I do agree that ArbCom should strive to minimize potential ambiguity and to make its deicsions as accessible as possible -- "sans" is a loanword from French that can easily be substituted for "without". ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  ✉  00:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Arbcom has displayed a fondness for pseudo-legalistic regalia and language. This is not unprecedented among similar organizations of the past, and is not without a function: after all, Arbcom is a pseudo-juridical body and enforces rules and procedures that seem, within the project, equivalent to laws. History teaches us that too much reliance on the trappings of law brings a body, sooner or later, up against the inherent contradiction: Arbcom’s word is not law, its writ does not run, and its gravest sanction casts out an editor from a club that most people would not join if they were paid to do so,

 * Some of Arbcom’s recent errors can be blamed on precisely this sort of overreach. A court that stretches too far makes problems for its successors; a pseudo-court that over-reaches is merely ridiculous. GGTF and GG each wandered into the fields of absurdity, and of course in the latter case the absurdity was rather widely publicized.

 * The path back from the brink begins with finding sufficient humility to understand that this is not  a high court with pomp and grave penalties: this is pretty much a boy’s club, and it might behoove Arbcom to adopt the language and demeanor of the leader of a club rather than constantly reaching for the language it (incorrectly) will lend it more gravity, Plain speaking, plain language, circumspect behavior, and humility might better comport with the position of Arbcom in today’s world. 'Tis a gift to be simple... MarkBernstein (talk) 03:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Like Salvidrim, I agree that all decisions, even temporary ones, should be unambiguous. "Sans" is an unusual usage in this context, and it can be read either way.  It's just like saying "This ban prohibits her from doing X, minus these things that we generally permit" — does that mean "Banned from X, and without the protections of the usual exceptions" or "The ban prohibits X, but of course reverting blatant vandalism to the user's talk page is an exception", i.e. the ban prohibits interaction, but sans/without prohibiting her from reverting me when I replace Scalhotrod's talk page with obscenities.  This really should have said either "...interaction ban, and the usual exceptions don't apply here" or "...interaction ban, with the usual exceptions".  Nyttend (talk) 03:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

 * , it is more usually in the WP context an arb com that has not gone far enough that produced subsequent problems. At least half the problems confronting us so far this year could have been prevented by sufficiently energetic action being taken in the fist place. The discussions within arb com I have sen in my first half-year there have in my opinion frequently shown a  tendency to withhold action to avoid even the doing something which is mistaken. The only way to avoid making actual   mistakes is to find some technical reason to avoid doing anything.  At arb com, we find ourselves  to a considerable extent trying to judge the future actions of people on the basis of what we can guess about their intentions. The only approach to this is to realize we are not here to judge people; we are here to resolve current disputes and prevent future ones, not to give people their just deserts, buy rather for the benefit of the encyclopedia.  Our available sanctions are consequently limited to those that apply within the encycopedia only, which is as it should be--but as they do not affect anyone's liberty or RW status,  we should not be afraid to use them.  DGG ( talk ) 07:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet investigation block closed

 * Original announcement

 * Sad to see it go down like this, but I can understand the reasoning behind the ArbCom's remedies in this case. It's difficult to say whether or not Cavalry has the sufficient trust of the community to hold advanced permissions. A new RfA would probably be necessary, and if he decides to run again, he'll have my support (not too sure, actually) . On an unrelated note, I believe this is the first time a former arbitrator has actually been desysopped by an ArbCom decision. Kurtis (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, technically, Sam Blacketer was also desysopped by the Arbcom, except it happened 2 years before his tenure. The part where history repeats itself though is that what would eventually end his tenure as an arb was also tied to UK politics. MLauba (Talk) 20:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The correct decision. It's unfortunate that Chase Me didn't voluntarily resign (even though it would be under a cloud) and that he has, as a write this, said more to The Guardian than he has to his colleagues on Wikipedia. Nick (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * A great pity that it was decided not to determine this before the UK General Election. Giano    (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm sure it would have changed the course of history itself.... Beeblebrox (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You've missed the point. The fact an editor was chased away during a time when an editor with a keen interest in that subject, without any evidence behind the blocking, is disgraceful. And what happens? Another admin gets their wrists slapped and nothing else. Anyone else doing that kind of hounding would have ended up on a lengthy block/site-ban.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not think it can reasonably be argued that the "keen interest" of User:Contribsx in articles related to Grant Shapps, Grant Shapps' opponents, and Grant Shapps' rivals, would have been a benefit to the encyclopedia during the election campaign. Or even to Grant Shapps himself. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ArbCom could have determined in a few days whether the evidence before Chase me justified the confidence of his pronouncements, and made a preliminary finding on that point well before the election. It chose not to. If you think that a public correction from Wikipedia ahead of the election wouldn't have had some effect on subsequent events, I can only endorse Giano's assessment. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email)  20:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You are assuming that the committee received all the evidence it required to make that judgement before the election. I was/am recused from this case, so I have no inside knowledge on what evidence was received and when it was received, but remember the deadline for evidence submission was put back at least once. The committee is not a court and has no power to compel anyone to give it any evidence at all by any specific deadline. Thryduulf (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If the committee had told Chase me to put before it the evidence upon which he based his strident assertions of Shapps's responsibility for Contribsx, he could have done that in an hour. A focussed discussion between them and him about that evidence to clear up any possible misunderstandings would have taken 24 hours. They chose not to.

 * If Chase me had refused to cooperate, they could have put that refusal to cooperate into a preliminary finding along with the evidence Chase me had publicly adduced up to that point, and the obvious conclusion to be drawn from that available evidence. ArbCom made the decision (possibly by default) to proceed with a whole case before correcting the public record. It was a foolish (to be generous) and irresponsible choice, making them complicit in any subsequent real world consequences of this defamation. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that imposing time constraints on submission of evidence is completely reasonable—in fact, that's what we do by default with every case by imposing the evidence submission deadline, and that's what we did in this case. That said, I can't think of any circumstances in which I would feel a 24-hour deadline would be reasonable. We are all volunteers who have other commitments, and I know that personally there have been many occasions in which I have not been on Wikipedia in 24 hours, much less able to compile a complete evidence submission. We did extend the evidence period in this case, and I did not feel that was inappropriate—the Wikipedia-related conduct was not time-sensitive, as we did not feel that it was wise to try to rush a decision or try to base the timeline on offwiki events. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, Wikipedia-related conduct was not time-sensitive. Take as long as you like about that. No need to rush decisions about on-wiki stuff. I'm disappointed you didn't see the need to act with urgency on the real world situation, though.
 * Chase me had at his fingertips all the evidence you needed for a preliminary finding on this one urgent question: Was his confidence in identifying Shapps with Contribsx justified by the evidence before him when he spoke to the press ? You had a moral responsibility to address that one question urgently, and make a public clarification well before the election. You blew it. Badly.
 * Regarding, "...I can't think of any circumstances in which I would feel a 24-hour deadline would be reasonable. We are all volunteers who have other commitments, and I know that personally there have been many occasions in which I have not been on Wikipedia in 24 hours, much less able to compile a complete evidence submission." OK. 48 hours. This was serious defamation
 * in Wikipedia's voice
 * by a WMUK employee and a Wikipedia administrator
 * affecting the reputation of a (then) cabinet minister and senior office-holder and candidate in an imminent general election.
 * That you (pl.) felt you could just ignore this fact and put off correcting the record until you'd figured out the on-wiki issues in the fullness of time tells me ... I don't know ... something about your collective grip on reality and sense of moral responsibility. Is there one arbitrator who will acknowledge that you, as a group, failed here? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email)  05:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As loath as I am to compare ArbCom to any judicial process, if this had been before a real-world court, a final decision would likely have taken years, because doing it right is more important than doing it right now. I am not at all sorry that we take the time to gather appropriate evidence and deliberate on a reasonable decision. If you consider that a failure, I hope we always fail in that way. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I said you should have urgently - not carelessly or incompetently - addressed those aspects of Chase me's behaviour that affected Shapps's reputation. Everybody reading this, even you, knows that it should have taken Chase me no more than a couple of hours to put before you the evidence upon which he based his confident assertions to The Guardian:
 * "Believe" speaks of a high level of confidence. All you had to do was look at that evidence and, based on it alone, offer an opinion about the strength of the probability that Contribsx is run by Shapps or under Shapps's direction. It would have taken less than 8 hours. You didn't even try. Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Also we don't get paid a pence to do this. Our jobs, education, families, and other obligations come first. Even if I was paid a very attractive amount ($50K+), I wouldn't jeopardize my Uni graduation for an arbcom case. -- Guerillero |  Parlez Moi  20:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry you had other things to do. Those that had the time could probably have gotten by without you on this one. (In fact, you (pl.) should have appointed a sub-committee that could dedicate the day or two it would have taken to assess the evidence Chase me based his accusations on.)

 * To be clear: You didn't need to prove/disprove a link between Shapps and Contribsx; you didn't need to look at any other evidence than that which Chase me relied upon at the time he publicly linked the two. The only evidence you needed to address urgently was that. All ready. Sitting in a little folder on Chase me's desktop, probably - or no more than a couple of hours of gathering away at most. Very, very disappointing.--Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email)  06:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC) Added 08:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Good decision. Note that the committee's decision did not undo or otherwise comment on the block of the Contribsx account; this was left to the community. The Contribsx account has since been unblocked.
 * I believe there are still legitimate questions for Wikimedia UK to answer, but I am not holding my breath. Andreas JN 466 18:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As noted there, if you have questions for Wikimedia UK your best chance of getting answers is actually asking Wikimedia UK on their wiki or via any of the other contact methods they list on their website. Thryduulf (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You see, that is precisely the point. No one should have to come running after Wikimedia UK, or jump through hoops, for them to clarify to the community what happened, and why it was or wasn't appropriate. There are clear implications in the timeline ArbCom posted as part of its decision. It is in Wikimedia UK's interest to address them. Andreas JN 466 21:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is very important that the National Chapters and the various language WPs remain independent of each other, and that the one central body, the WMF, regulate things with a very light hand and only when absolutely unavoidable. WP as a movement needs to preserve diversity and allow for multiple approaches; it needs to fight bureaucracy and avoid monolithic control. The role of arb com on the English WP is deliberately limited, and I  think (or at least hope) that those of us on it would not want to be members otherwise. We most of us have careers in formal conventional organizations, and are here at WP because it is intended to be, and actually is, not just different, but as far opposite as it can be while producing useful results (and I thinks it's fully shown that it does produce useful results unmatched by any other organization on any principle). To be sure, our way or working creates inevitable losses in efficiency and consistency--since the rest of the world is increasingly moving in the opposite direction, it becomes increasing crucial to maintain our own multiple individualities.  DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * David, Wikimedia, both on the level of the Foundation and on the level of the movement as a whole, professes to espouse transparency as one of its core values. Fine words, but they ring hollow when actions don't match them. At the Foundation level, donors are shown fundraising messages that many users feel are misleading. At the community level, users exploit the cover of anonymity for years on end to engage in vendettas or promote commercial interests. At the chapter level, Wikimedia UK has had widely reported problems with conflicts of interest in the past. And we now have an ArbCom finding that to my eyes appears to expose a long history of inappropriate backroom contacts between a national newspaper and Wikimedia UK staff members, in the service of a partisan political agenda. Under these circumstances, a bit more actual transparency would be welcome. I agree that ideally, this should not be compelled. More specifically, I agree that it was not part of ArbCom's brief here to compel Wikimedia UK to do anything, or to disclose WMUK-internal information that was not of immediate relevance to resolving this case. The format and content of the timeline you provided as part of your findings seems entirely appropriate. However, I am still disappointed that Wikimedia UK does not appear to see a need to proactively respond to the implications of your findings and provide a full account of what happened, instead seeming to hope that the matter will blow over and go away. I don't think it will work that way. Andreas JN 466 07:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Respond to some of this with my personal views: About WMUK,  I cannot say anything useful, because I have no  first-hand knowledge.  About fundraising, I agree  whole-hearetedly with your comments--we need to keep raising money on a continuing basis, but to pretend there was an emergency was foolish. The revenge (Qworty) would have been a matter for arb com, but the community dealt with it on its own--it was fundamentally an extension of off-WP literary quarrels, & WP was just one of the channels for it.  Arb com dealt with the promotion of the business school. WP will never be free from promotion and misuse as long as it continues a commitment to anonymous editing.  And we did at arb com make a finding of inappropriate involvement with an outside entity.  "Proactively responding" to the findings is a matter for the communities involved, but I will personally say I see no obvious way of doing this at enWP.  DGG ( talk ) 15:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The obvious way for WMUK to respond proactively is to clarify who among WMUK staff was in touch with the Guardian, what kind of information was provided to the Guardian, what level of collaboration there was between WMUK and the Guardian for the 2012 and 2015 Shapps stories, whether this was done on staff or personal time and with or without the knowledge of WMUK board members and managers, and so forth – just answering the obvious questions that the published timeline of events raises. Does it really matter where that statement is made? I don't think so. If it isn't made here, a link to it could be placed here. Andreas JN 466 20:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've asked and this was the response I received. To say I'm underwhelmed, disappointed and angry in equal measure in a significant under statement. Nick (talk) 15:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Two more write-ups this evening:
 * The Guardian: Wikipedia: account at centre of row 'not linked' to Grant Shapps
 * Scienceblogs (Stoat): Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet investigation block: aka Chase-Me and Grant Shapps Andreas JN 466 22:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Breitbart: Shapps case raises questions for Wikipedia and The Guardian --Andreas JN 466 20:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

When are you all going to fix the defamatory and misleading Wikipedia page on Shapps?Dan Murphy (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC) Nah. The people who run this place are incompetent, unreasonable, and often ideologically driven. I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole. This website's article on the man, meanwhile, continues to be deceptive and defamatory about him. Why would I want to cover that up?Dan Murphy (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * the content of Wikipedia articles is something the arbitration committee is explicitly prohibited from deciding. If you think an article is incorrect, then you should either fix it yourself or discuss it on the article's talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've updated Grant Shapps: (Surprised that no one had thought to do that already...) If you think that one line isn't sufficient, feel free to add more information. Robofish (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the advanced permissions including his administrator tools for his seriously poor judgment. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 00:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

 * This is the correct result, but it's far too late to put right any political or public damage caused to Shapps and Wikipedia as a result. While Chase may have been the instigator or tool causing the damage, Wikipedia itself (that's all of us) must accept a share of the blame because our purpose is to impartially inform, on this occasion we failed seriously on three points.

 * 1: Wikipedia defamed a high profile politician without evidence.

 * 2: Wikipedia misled an electorate.

 * 3: Wikipedia willfully failed to correct the damage before that same electorate voted.

There is no excuse for the length of time it has taken to reach this decision and people must draw their own conclusions from that. At the very least, an official interim denial of any extant evidence could have been issued the following day - it wasn't. Jimmy Wales privately phoned Shapps the next day to explain, so if Wales knew the truth why could the public not be told then? This affair has been badly handled from start to finish, and I expect it will have far reaching consequences and ramifications. We still don't know which Wikipedia staff and editors Chase discussed this with (as he claimed) before taking his actions and that is concerning too. Perhaps the atrocious handling of this case is merely the result of the inward looking Americocentric culture we hear so much of in Europe rather than an ill-conceived UK based political agenda; however the likely explanation is that it's just another Wikipedia 'cock up' cause by bad management at all levels - paid and volunteer; and a culture which permits the inept and stupid to be fêted and promoted. Giano   (talk) 07:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , had we rushed to complete it before the election, we would probably have been accused of having done so for political purposes and to make a political impact. So we  took the time we needed without paying any attention to the timing.  DGG ( talk ) 16:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * We can not compel anyone to produce documents or recount why they did an action. To receive the information we need to finish a case, we sometimes need to wait until a party has the time to submit evidence. -- Guerillero |  Parlez Moi  20:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * and : You seem to forget that Jimmy Wales was able to phone Grant Shapps personally the day after the story broke in the UK national press and reassure him that this was the work of a lone mistaken/rogue/whatever editor. If Wales knew the truth, why the Hell didn't the Arbcom or the Foundation - WTF is going on? Why was an official statement refuting the allegations not immediately issued? The severity of the sanctions against Chase could have waited a month, refuting false allegations is far more urgent. Giano    (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Jimmy Wales is of course able to do as he pleases, but his views and the deliberations of the Arbitration Committee are two very separate matters. We took the time we needed to gather and process the relevant evidence. How Mr. Wales reached his decision I, of course, do not know. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I suggest you ask Mr Wales how he knew and learn from his reply. Because however he knew, it was a damn sight more efficient method then the one you were using. I cannot believe that if Wales knew the truth, the Foundation did not know the truth and ultimately the Arbcom too and between the lot of you a statement could not have been issued before the election refuting the allegations. Giano    (talk) 06:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

 * "...cause[d] by bad management at all levels - paid and volunteer". Why do we even want this user as a volunteer? Any other volunteer organization would have likely severed ties entirely.  I don't understand that part, but this is the internet, I guess, rather than a brick-and-mortar institution. Weird. Rgrds. --<IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 10:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Has anyone informed the OTRS administration about this decision? They may wish to re-evaluate the editor's access to certain OTRS queues in light of the findings. –xenotalk 13:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , it is my understanding that the OTRS administrators have removed ChaseMe's access to all OTRS queues save the WMUK queue. His access to the Oversight queue was removed promptly after his access to the oversight permission was removed. If the applicable page on Meta has not yet been updated, it will likely be done soon.  Risker (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Considering the egregious betrayal of trust along with the real-world harm, I am amazed that CMLITC still is allowed to edit here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Such action would be punitive. We don't do that. The damage that was caused was done so with the use of advanced permissions, all of which have been removed. There were no actions taken via standard editing privileges which were candidates for sanction, and therefore removing editing privileges would be out of line. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly, Hammersoft. It was the misuse of checkuser that was at issue, not any editing behavior or misconduct. Since concern is with the prevention of damage and not punishment, the permissions were removed. There is no cause for an extended editing block. Liz  Read! Talk! 21:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I can see that in a formal sense he didn't edit war or anything that would technically lead to blocking. Mere dishonesty is not a cause for blocking, otherwise the editor ranks would be considerably depleted. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you raised an important point. What does one of Wikipedia's royalty have to do to get indeffed? This one dragged Wikipedia's name through the mud, creating much worse damage to the project than 99% of the people who do get indeffed. Yet his being removed and kicked out is not even in the cards because it would be "punitive." Coretheapple (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly the same as anybody else - they need to abuse basic editing privileges (which Chase me has not done) and lose faith of the community and/or have a compromised account. There are multiple examples users who were formally in very good standing who have since been indefinitely blocked. Thryduulf (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In reading back in Wikipedia's dispute history, I've been very surprised to see how many long-term (say, 5 years or more) editors/admins have received indefinite blocks, it happens more often than I thought although it was more prevalent in the past (pre-2010), that's my impression. There are a variety of things that can go wrong but what most often tripped them up was socking. That activity was the most common cause leading to a block. Liz  Read! Talk! 13:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. In the AntonioMartin situation, a long-term user was caught socking and all that was done was that his admin "mop" was taken away - no block. Considering that mere mortals are blocked for exceeding 3RR, that's the best example I can find of "administrator immunity" for misconduct. This is a different case, far worse. A high-level Wikipedian is caught doing something far worse than "abusing basic privileges" and, again, he just loses his high station in wiki-life but doesn't get the block a non-admin edit-warrior or non-admin sockpuppeteer gets. Coretheapple (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is interesting to note that Sock puppetry makes it clear that having a second, undisclosed account is perfectly acceptable under policy. It does note that great care needs to be taken to not cause disruption, but it does not prohibit otherwise policy abiding behavior in alternate accounts. Yet, if anyone is caught having a second, undisclosed account they are (so far as I've seen) wiki-lynched. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well if you define "wikilynching" as "getting your admin privileges removed and a stern finger-wagging" than that's a wikilynching. See . Just a couple of weeks ago. Coretheapple (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

 * This was the inevitable ending of one of the saddest Arbcom cases I have been involved in, and that’s saying a lot given my 5 years as a member of the committee. Nobody won.  Mr Shapps lost his seat at the Cabinet table.  The British electorate lost about 4% of its election campaign  because of the media’s inability to ignore silliness. The Guardian has come across as manipulative and the reporter is apparently under investigation.  ChaseMe has lost a reputation he took years in building, and perhaps even more.  Wikipedia’s reputation has taken another hit. I’m pretty sure I managed to lose a few friends over this too, for pursuing this matter (or pursuing it in the way that I did).  Nobody won.  Everybody lost. I wish I could say that there were some teaching moments here, but I'm having a hard time finding them. I wish I could say that checkusers have learned what boundaries are not to be crossed – but judging by the reaction of my checkuser colleagues to the SPI that started this ball rolling, they already knew that. I am certain that none of them would have ever made such a direct link to a public person based on the evidence that was available in this case, and none of them, I am certain, would ever have emailed their SPI statement to the media at all, let alone before actually publishing it on-wiki. I hope the community can feel somewhat reassured about that.  As editors, we’ve seen that the mainstream media we depend on for sourcing of so many of our articles is only slightly more accurate than the National Enquirer, a depressing thought given how much we rely upon them; perhaps it is time to rethink whether tomorrow’s fishwrap is really that reliable, and whether the momentary excitation of the media, ever hungry for anything even mildly salacious, is really worthy of a thousand bytes of “column space”.   I hope that longtime editors and administrators will go back and read the BLP policy and really start enforcing it to the fullest – all of it, including removing relative trivia from articles about people, treating accounts that might possibly be the subject of the article with decency rather than bullying, and insisting that others also meet those standards.  I can hope, but I’ve been hoping this for a long time and I’m seeing increasing disregard for the BLP policy as time has gone on. It’s time for others to pick up this torch. Don’t leave it to our outside critics (or even our internal critics) – this is a responsibility that all of us share. I'm just not convinced that "the community" agrees. I'd love to be proved wrong. Risker (talk) 05:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed there are no winners in this, only losers. Your thoughts are excellently written here Risker. To address one of the points you raise; accuracy in the media and our reliance on it. Truth is an amorphous thing. As the old adage goes, the more something is repeated the more it is perceived as true. Speaking in a very abstract sense, Wikipedia is doing a very good job of pulling together information from secondary sources from around the world, and then having that compilation be viewed as 'truth' to the millions of readers every day who come to Wikipedia looking for answers to something (thanks in no small part to Google). When we get something wrong (and I think we do it far more than anyone is willing to consider grasping, much less believe), it becomes 'truth' because we are the preeminent world wide dispenser or 'truth'. In some ways, Wikipedia has harmed human advancement as much as it has helped. Nevertheless, something like Wikipedia was inevitable. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

 * (edit conflict with Hammersoft) I agree with substantially everything Risker has written here (the exception being that I'm not going to opine about reasons for the Cabinet non-reappointment).
 * (responding to Hammersoft) I disagree with your second-last sentence, but I agree with most everything else you wrote. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no way to evaluate it. It's a subjective opinion. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Great summary by Risker. If there is any winner, it is the general public, who have received another object lesson in why they should treat Wikipedia's pronouncements with caution.
 * and make valuable points about the accuracy of press sources. I've always loved this quote: "What people outside do not appreciate is that a newspaper is like a soufflé, prepared in a hurry for immediate consumption. This of course is why whenever you read a newspaper account of some event of which you have personal knowledge it is nearly always inadequate or inaccurate. Journalists are as aware as anyone of this defect; it is simply that if the information is to reach as many readers as possible, something less than perfection has often to be accepted."
 * Press stories about Wikipedia fulfil a useful function for Wikipedians: they demonstrate first hand just how often details in media stories are wrong. I have lost count of the number of times where I have seen someone argue from personal knowledge in Wikipedia, "but this is not what happened", and seen Wikipedians reply with almost sadistic pleasure, "but this is a reliable source, and what reliable sources say is all that matters here".
 * History used to be written by historians. Today, it is written by Wikipedians regurgitating and immortalising press stories (if not inventing things outright), with the resulting concoction achieving a greater readership and market monopolisation than any qualified historian ever did. For all the convenience and great content Wikipedia contains, I fully agree with Hammersoft's penultimate sentence: "In some ways, Wikipedia has harmed human advancement as much as it has helped." It's no utopia. Andreas JN 466 15:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Audit subcommittee
I am troubled by the reported text of the audit subcommittee (AUSC) findings. Had the matter been referred to AUSC alone, it appears that they would have concluded (incorrectly, and manifestly so) that these matters were not a "major breach of policy" and would have issued only a warning to Chase me. For the avoidance of doubt, could someone please confirm that ArbCom and AUSC had access to all of the same evidence? Does AUSC stand by its findings now that it has seen the full ArbCom decision? WJBscribe (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * if you examine the voting at the PD, you will observe that the degree of agreement with AUSC varies among the individual arbitrators.  DGG ( talk ) 15:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I concur with WJBscribe. Based on the policy wording (including "The tool should not be used for political control" and " it is a violation of the privacy policy... to reveal... other information sufficient to identify them") I fail to see how the actions can be described as not a "major breach of the policy." It seems a strange judgement indeed. QuiteUnusual (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly, my reading of the findings that the tool was not used for political control, but the actions lead to the appearance that it might have been used in such a manner. If that is correct, then I can see room for legitimate disagreement on how serious that was with both "you didn't actually break the policy, but it was not clear to observers this was the case - do better next time" and "the appearance to observers was of a significant breach of policy, and it is as important the policy is seen to be followed as it is that it is followed - no second chances" being proportionate based on your interpretation.
 * Secondly, the AUSC ruling was made only by those members who were not arbitrators, and so it is conceivable that they did not have access to all of the private evidence the arbitrators did (I do not know), if so then it is most likely that the evidence that was available either pointed to less serious interpretation of events or was not sufficient to be conclusive about the seriousness of events and they chose to give Chase me the benefit of any doubt.
 * Put the two together and I can see why the AUSC might have concluded the way it did. If the AUSC were in possession of all the evidence, then my theory holds less water as a whole as while the political control aspect may not have been interpreted as serious, the divulging of information should have been. Thryduulf (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

 * Based on some of the findings of fact we didn't have everything. We were looking solely at the use of checkuser and we had some detail on what Chase me divulged but not the whole lot. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

How much auditing is the Audit Subcommittee doing?
Speaking of the AUSC, given the precendent of this case, it does raise some rather interesting questions about whether proper auditing is being done of functionaries? This case caught the wind of public interest because of the high political profile of Shapps, the curious interactions of CheckUser usage, staff at WMUK and a reporter from The Guardian newspaper—and the filing of an ArbCom case. What I'm curious about is whether a similar misuse of the CheckUser tool would have been caught had it not been brought before ArbCom through the channel of a request for arbitration. My hunch is "no".

Does ArbCom have any plans to reform or modify the role of the AUSC so that it is proactive in checking for abuse or misuse of the functionary tools (CheckUser and Oversight)? Currently, it seems to me that the only real check on the power of CheckUsers and Oversighters is that misuse of functionary tools can be brought before ArbCom in the form of a case—if a suitably motivated individual is willing to bring a case. Instead, why not consider a process where ArbCom, AUSC or maybe some other body randomly checks a percentage of CheckUser or Oversight functions to see if abuse/misuse is taking place, and to remedy it if it is.

Obviously, I assume good faith in thinking that most CUs/OSes are good and trustworthy (I certainly have found the oversighters I've dealt with directly to be professional) and any process to randomly audit samples of CU/OS actions would need to be relatively unintrusive for the CU/OSer, presuming innocence and good faith unless the quick auditing turns up an issue that needs investigating. As ArbCom has the power (delegated from Jimbo etc.) to appoint functionaries, do they have some responsibility to police their actions? Given that the rest of the community has to trust ArbCom's decisions when it comes to CU/OS appointment, are we happy that ArbCom and the AUSC is doing a good enough job acting as a policing and governance body for CU/OS? —Tom Morris (talk) 07:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

 * I generally pick a random at least 20-50 checks a month to have a look at, and I try to get them from a range of CUs (and usually not from SPIs as that has a number of eyes on it) but when you consider the sheer number of checks that's only around 0.6-1%. The majority of investigations come from other editors, functionaries and self-reports. Checking those 20-50 generally takes at least an hour or two as I usually need to find all the evidence (as some CUs just write "sock check" in the log), decide whether I think there's enough and go from there. The Chase me one was referred to AUSC by another functionary before the ArbCom case was filed, and I'd started investigating before it was reported. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hold on. The AUSC is getting more than 20 requests a month? That is what I am taking from what you say here (if the majority of investigations are from outside AUSC, and you yourself are doing 20-50 reviews a month...), but if that is true then it's a phenomenal increase - at least tenfold - from previous years.  Risker (talk) 11:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not counting the ones I'm checking as an investigation. I'm only counting investigation as the auditors discussing an issue together and/or asking the CU who performed the question. We'd be lucky to get 1 or 2 a month that we actually investigate. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Isn't the low number of appeals/complaints a sign that the process generally works? Or do you think it is an indication that most editors don't know about the AUSC? It's heartening to see that members of the AUSC randomly check, uh, checks to see that they are appropriate, that's what I'd hope an oversight committee would do. Liz  Read! Talk! 18:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The random checks I wasn't particularly worried about; they're fine. Callanecc's wording suggested to me that they were receiving 20+ complaints a month, which would have been a 10- to 20-fold increase over...well, since the AUSC was created. It would also concern me, as a holder of CU and OS permissions, if they were receiving so many complaints but that the two groups never heard anything about any of them. In fact, their last report was in November 2014 (12 or 13 cases in the previous 19 months, depending on which line you read). It would be helpful to functionaries if the AUSC was to bother to give us a bit more detail about the cases that they investigated as in-scope, so at least we'd all be knowledgeable about what they feel is best practice, and why. Risker (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Risker, what is the typical frequency of AUSC reports? I know that the editors on the committee will be changing this summer. Liz  Read! Talk! 21:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request
I'm having difficulty squaring what I read on these pages with the statement given to the Guardian by. He says "I am happy to see that the committee found no evidence of foul play or political activism on my part, and I am glad to see that they were confident enough with my evidence to not overturn the block I made on Contribsx themselves, even though others might."

In the findings of fact, the AUSC statement that his actions created an appearance of favouritism and an appearance that the CU tool was being used to "exert political or social control" was explicitly endorsed. It would seem to be beyond the purview and ability of the committee to decide if Chase me was actually engaging in political activism, although they have allowed that it could appear that he was. Does the committee agree with the statement that they found no evidence of political activism?

I also have difficulty understanding how someone who has just had his admin rights stripped from him could suggest that the committee found "no evidence of foul play". Surely that is why Chase me is no longer a checkuser, oversighter, or admin? Is it unfair to conclude that "foul play" is exactly what the the committee found?

Finally, was unblocking Contribsx within the scope of this case? Should the fact that Contribsx was not unblocked by the committee suggest an endorsement of that block by the committee? American Pharaoh (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not an arbitrator (though I have experience as a former arbitrator), but for what it's worth, I don't see any need for the Committee to issue a clarification. The text of the Committee's decision speaks for itself. With regard to Contribsx, please see the discussion here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure what your answer means, Newyorkbrad. Chase me's statement to the press does not agree with my understanding of the committee's actions. I do not wish to assume that Chase me is being disingenuous or self-serving so I have asked for clarification of a few points. If they are clear to you, perhaps you could help me by answering my questions? I understand that you would not be speaking for the committee. American Pharaoh (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What NYB (probably) means is that the arbitration committee isn't in the business of reconciling potential differences between a decision that is here for all public to see, and the statements offered by others in their own name to third party media outlets. That would be the role of the press reprinting those interpretations (in particular those that are deemed WP:RS due to a reputation of fact-checking and accuracy). MLauba (Talk) 21:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * American Pharaoh, you seem to be asking the arbitrators to explain the contradiction between how you read the findings of fact and what Chase me said to the Guardian in an emailed statement. I think these kinds of questions are better answered by Chase me as the arbitration committee can't speculate on Chase me's interpretation of the outcome of the case. Liz  Read! Talk! 21:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * (personal view):Agree with MLauba (and Liz). People are free to characterise the committee's decisions how they like off-wiki, and there's not much the committee can (or should) do about it. Anyone who reads the decision will draw their own conclusions either way.

 * Re Contribsx: an unblock is a matter for the community, and in fact they were unblocked almost immediately after the case outcomes became clear. Absent sufficient cause for a sockpuppet block, what remains is a short-term editor accused of POV contributions. In this instance that's more a content than a conduct concern. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Changes to the Audit Subcommittee (AUSC)

 * Original announcement

Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 closed

 * Original announcement

source: wikimedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 28


text:
Igor Klimov (wrestler)

Igor Klimov (born 1 June 1962) is a Kazakhstani former wrestler who competed in the 1996 Summer Olympics.

title: Igor Klimov (wrestler)


text:
Mont Saint-Michel (Alsace)

Mont Saint-Michel (Michaelsberg) is a hill, 437 metres high, in the Vosges mountains in the French region of Alsace. It rises above the town and abbey of Saint-Jean-Saverne (St. Johann bei Zabern). It is home to a St. Michael's Shrine like its more famous cousin in Normandy, but historically is not related to it.

Literature

 * Jean-Joseph Ring: Promenades historiques et archéologiques autour de Saverne. Saverne, 2000,

title: Mont Saint-Michel (Alsace)


text:
Talk:Chief justice of Nigeria

Why Page was Moved from Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria
The page was moved here from Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, because the official designation for the office is Chief Justice of Nigeria and not Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria. This may be confirmed here: The National Judicial Council - Constitution. —JOHNMOORofMOORLAND (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chief Justice of Nigeria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120717134143/http://www.punchng.com/news/jonathan-swears-in-nigerias-first-female-chief-justice/ to http://www.punchng.com/news/jonathan-swears-in-nigerias-first-female-chief-justice/

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Government
is the government of the higher than the chief judge discuss <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Chief justice of Nigeria


text:
Journey Newson

Journey Ja-rel Newson (born March 7, 1989) is an American mixed martial artist who competes in the Bantamweight division. A professional since 2015, he is most notable for his time in the Ultimate Fighting Championship.

Background
Newson grew up in the Merced, California area. Due to his mother's drug addiction and despite father's attempts to keep the family together, Journey and his siblings were taken into foster care when he was around the age of seven. He started training Tae Kwon Do around the age of 12. He began training Brazilian jiu-jitsu for self-defense around the age of 20 and shifted to mixed martial arts in a couple of years.

Early career
Newson started out his career in 2015, fighting for a variety of regional West Coast organizations, such as Cage Sport and King of the Cage. During this time, he compiled a 9–1 record, capturing the Cage Sport and Prime Fighting Bantamweight titles.

Ultimate Fighting Championship
Newson made his UFC debut as a late replacement for Sergio Pettis against Ricardo Ramos on June 29, 2019 at UFC on ESPN 3. He lost the fight via unanimous decision.

Newson next faced Domingo Pilarte at UFC 247 on February 8, 2020. He won the fight by TKO within the first minute of the fight. However, on March 25, it was announced by the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR) that Newson had tested positive for marijuana during in-competition drug tests. His victory was overturned to a no contest and he was suspended for 30 days.

Newson was initially scheduled to face Randy Costa on September 26, 2020 at UFC Fight Night: Covington vs. Woodley. However, the event was shifted to take place on September 19, 2020, as UFC 253 was later scheduled for the original date. He lost the fight via knockout in round one.

Newson was scheduled to face Felipe Colares on May 1, 2021 at UFC on ESPN 23. However, Newson withdrew from the bout and was replaced by Luke Sanders.

Newson faced promotional newcomer Fernie Garcia on May 7, 2022 at UFC 274. He won the fight via unanimous decision.

Newson faced Sergey Morozov on December 17, 2022 at UFC Fight Night 216. He lost the fight via unanimous decision.

Newson was scheduled to face Brian Kelleher on April 29, 2023 at UFC on ESPN: Song vs. Simón. However, Kelleher pulled out of the bout and was replaced by Marcus McGhee. He lost the fight via rear-naked choke in round two.

On June 8, it was announced that Newson was not extended a new contract and no longer on the UFC roster.

Championships and accomplishments

 * CageSport MMA
 * CageSport Bantamweight Championship (one time)
 * Prime Fighting MMA
 * Prime Fighting Bantamweight Championship (one time)

title: Journey Newson


text:
Template:No thanks

}}}
We appreciate your effort to contribute to Wikiversity. This work appears to be a copy of. If you have permission or can get permission from the copyright owner soon to release the work freely under CC-BY-SA 3.0, please comment to that effect at, and we may be able to accept the work. Otherwise you may need to consider rewriting the content in your own words. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page or the Wikiversity community at the Colloquium. Thank you.

Usage
~

 * PAGENAME: Where the copyright issue is identified locally. Is used in links, so should be the full page title.
 * SOURCEURL: Where the content is believed to be copied from. Is used in external links, so should be the full URL, including "http://".

Note
This template automatically creates a section heading that is a link to the page where the copyright issue is identified. Remember to sign if you use this template on someone's user talk page.

title: Template:No thanks


text:
Corporate Strategy

Corporate Strategy
Key concepts to learn:

 * Porters Five Forces
 * Positioning
 * Game Theory
 * Sustainable Competitive Advantage
 * Strategy Maps and the Balanced Scorecard.

Good thing to read when the summaries of the concepts won't do:

 * Porter, What is Strategy?

title: Corporate Strategy


text:
Talk:My Little Monster

Translation of title
In the first sentence of the lede, "The monster sat next to me" is given as a "lit." translation of the title. This may be a good translation of the overall meaning, but it is not in any sense literal. Tonari literally means "adjacent position", no is a subordinating particle, kaibutsu is indeed "monster", and kun is an affectionate suffix used toward young people by intimates the same age or older. The title just can't be translated "literally" into English; the closest you could come would be some nonsense like "The monster-y of the next position". The title has no "me" in it, nor does it have any explicit reference to sitting.

Maybe all I'm saying is that the "lit." should be removed, but I hope somebody will have a better idea. ACW (talk) 04:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

 * I went ahead and removed the "lit." part from the introduction. You make a valid point but this isn't the first nor will it be the last time Translation issues have been brought up for Japanese media on Wikipeda. ー KirtZJ Talk 04:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:My Little Monster


text:
Template:Did you know nominations/State censuses in the United States of America

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

State censuses in the United States of America
Created by Futurist110 (talk). Self-nominated at 05:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC).
 * ... that New York Governor David B. Hill prevented New York from carrying out a state census in 1885? Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=y4s-AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA19&dq=new+york+census+1885+governor+hill+1880&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj-zcyI1rfWAhXqxVQKHcRBDJMQ6AEILDAB

 * This is my QPQ for this DYK? nomination: Template:Did you know nominations/Border Police of Georgia. Futurist110 (talk) 05:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

 * Symbol delete vote.svg Article is new and long enough. It is neutral and cites sources inline. "Earwig's Copyvio Detector" reports no copyvio issues. Hook is well-formatted and is interesting. Its length is within limit. Hook's fact is cited inline. Because I cannot check the offline source of the hook, I AGF. QPQ was done. Not approved due to: Article is written in a list format with most of the text repeating itself. Second sentences in the subsections Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon,Rhode Island, South Dakota, Virginia, Wadhingtonand Wisconsin are missing inline citation. CeeGee 02:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I have now fixed the inline citation part. Please let me see what I can do in regards to improving the wording and phrasing of this article. Futurist110 (talk) 03:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your efforts. Please recheck the forgotten citation under the subsection California. To my POV, the subsections could be expanded with some more details about the census there. Or, the entire article can be folded into a prose without the subsections naming the cencuses of the various states in a readable text (Sorry, if I went too far with this proposal). Anyway, the articl as it is now, looks like a list, which I guess is not ready for the Main Page. Cheers. CeeGee 04:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * How much further should I improve this article? Futurist110 (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Only so much that it doesn't look like a pure list. CeeGee 03:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Lists are actually fine for DYK per Rule 2C. The requirement is that there be 1,500 characters of prose, in addition to what is in the lists. Currently this article has 384 characters in the lead, and 1,378 in the expanded New York section (excluding the list-like first paragraph). I'm not sure whether those 1,378 qualify for the 1,500 requirement, as they're prose yet contained in the overall list. Futurist110, would it be possible to add 1,116 characters to the lead? That would resolve all ambiguity. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 05:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I can try doing this. However, please give me several days to do this. Futurist110 (talk) 05:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your intervention and the clarification. I kindly ask you to take over further reviewing in order not to make any mistake. I appreciate if you'd do this. CeeGee 06:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Although there has not been further expansion, I am approving this based on the prose contained in the New York section. Rule 2c requires that "Proposed lists need 1,500+ characters of prose, aside from the listed items themselves", and the second through fourth paragraphs of the New York section, added in response to comments above, do not follow the list format used in the rest of the article. Of course, should feel free to add additional information to the lead, which would nevertheless be appreciated. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


text:
Gerard Overdijkink

Gerard Overdijkink (14 March 1936 – 6 November 2010) was a Dutch field hockey player. He competed in the men's tournament at the 1960 Summer Olympics.

title: Gerard Overdijkink


text:
Motu Kotawa

Motu Kotawa is one of three islands in the Pukapuka atoll of the Cook Islands. It forms the western apex of Pukapuka's triangular atoll, and is the smallest of the three islands. The island is low-lying, with a maximum elevation of 3 meters above sea level. The island is uninhabited and used as a food source. It is home to numerous Frigatebirds, as well as plantations of taro, papaya, breadfruit, coconuts and bananas, and is regulated by the village of Yato. A reef extends from the west of the island, connecting it to the islet of Toka.

title: Motu Kotawa


text:
Talk:Laila Freivalds

Untitled
This article needs to say what the law was - and what she did rather than saying circumventing "controversial law" Secretlondon 15:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is pretty comples actually. Trying to explain the issue to someone not familiar with Swedish law would probably double the article in size. Roughly, there are two types of housing tenure in Swedish law: Hyresrätt (approximately leasehold estate) and Bostadsrätt (owner-occupier, sort of). The law provides for converting an apartment from one type to another. Simplifying the scandal alot, you could say the controversy arose from the fact that Ms. Freivalds had actively made it more difficult for municipalities to convert apartments from hyresrätt to bostadsrätt, while at the same time working to have her own hyresrätt apartment turned into a bostadsrätt. I'll try to work a brief elucidation into the article, though. —Gabbe 12:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The tsunami and Laila
Shouldn't something be mentioned about her actions surrounding the tsunami chatastrophe? Some people claim that that was a more important factor for her resignation than the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy was. - Chebab 15:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * According to a Finnish MTV3 news broadcast I'm watching right this moment, closing down the website - and lying about it - was more of a final straw, and that her resignation had been called for ever since her heavily criticized handling of the tsunami. Additionally, there's a whatever-it's-called political event coming up, and she might've harmed her party and/or gotten the boot. --Kizor 20:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, all swedish newspapers (DN, SvD, Aftonbladet) writes that the main reason for her resigning is her handling of the Tsunami, and the affair with the shut down website was quite a welcome excuse to let her go now. She resigned March 21, and March 22 the constitutional committe is expected to come with their comments about her handling of the tsunami catastrophy. This will probably be very critical, thereby causing trouble for the government, and the green party who supports the government would have to call for a vote of no confidence, which would be troublesome for both the green party and the social democrats. Since she has already resigned, the comment from the constitutional committe will be a minor event.Battra 00:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What he said. --Kizor 07:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, media, TV, Radio, papers & opposition place more importance in the Tsunami handling than the web closing. However, listening to people being interviewed, many found the lie more startling. And many analysts interpreted the loss of confidence of the Prime Minister the deciding factor for leaving, especially in an election year. DanielDemaret 14:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The lie
I heard her answer in the radio about a month ago, and I heard the chief editor, the man who found this interesting piece of information and wrote about it in "Riksdag & Department". Try as I might, I can only interpret her words, despite hearing her defence, as a lie. None of the reporters in media that I have seen or heard here in sweden call it merely an "accusation" or "alleged".

There is an interesting point to how the lie was laid bare. "Riksdag & Department" is a kind of internal paper to the government, which reads internal writings, documents, pm, etc, since all writing by the state is in principle open to public access according to "offentlighetsprincipen". The editor in chief pointed out that according to four public documents, Laila had been fully aware of the actions that were about to take place, and at least tacitly approved of them.

Merely "accused" or "Alleged" are words that imply that someone has contested the accusation, but I did not hear anyone, including Laila herself, contest that she knew about the events.

However, whether or not what she did was against the part of the swedish constitution which says that government is not allowed to interfere with the freedom of the press is something that would have had to bedecided by a court. MyPOV is yes.

I am grateful for info on what I may have missed here. DanielDemaret 14:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I put this in just in case it was unclear why closing a web site might be considered serious in Sweden: Her involvement in closing the website is seen by many as a violation against that part of the Swedish constitution dealing with press freedom.DanielDemaret 14:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC) Please shorten, wikify, and otherwise improve :) DanielDemaret 14:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I think she is the only minister in Sweden ever to have resigned twice, but I doubt that this is notable enough for the article, is it?DanielDemaret 14:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Most media I saw mentioned took note of it, so I don't think it's too trivial to mention in the article. —Gabbe 12:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

 * GO for it, Gabbe :) DanielDemaret 16:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to add things that are notable that are not in the references. However, there are notable details in the references aplenty if anyone cares to enrich the article with this. DanielDemaret 17:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Article unclear about lies, noindex?
The article contains a very obscure "This theory requires Freivalds to have lied to the cabinet, something many have found unlikely" with no sources or hints as to exactly what was not lied about. It's irrevocably clear that Freivalds DID lie to the media about not having been informed - hence the quote is at best obfuscating. It serves no purpose, so I'm cutting it out.

Also, is there any reason why the article has a "noindex" tag? I believe this would mean that it doesn't show up in search engines when someone searches for Laila Freivalds. From a brief reading this type of tag seems quite rare, and has been added manually. Could someone with better knowledge of Wikipedia indicate whether that is as expected? I can't find the rules about which articles should be no-index tagged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies, it turns out it was just the Talk page.. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've now rewritten that section for clarity. If the standard on Wikipedia is 'less than truthful' instead of the stronger 'lie' then feel free to change it, although in my view the latter should be used when there's no question about clear facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Laila Freivalds


text:
Barbara Muschietti

Bárbara Muschietti (born 22 December 1971) is an Argentine film producer and screenwriter, best known for producing the 2013 horror film Mama, the 2017 and 2019 adaptations of Stephen King's It, and the 2023 superhero film The Flash, all of which were directed by her younger brother, Andy Muschietti.

Personal life
She is of Italian descent. She is married to writer Arthur Phillips.

title: Barbara Muschietti


text:
User:Farquan17/sandbox

name="EFL1"> | birth_date = January 18, 2003 | birth_place = luton, England | height =5ft 8in | position = Midfielder | currentclub = Northampton Town | clubnumber = 77 | youthyears1 = | youthclubs1 = Northampton Town | years1 = 2017–2018 | clubs1 = Hashtag United | caps1 = 6 | goals1 = 2 | years2 = 2018– | clubs2 = Northampton Town | caps2 = 16 | goals2 = 1 | years3 = 2019 | clubs3 = → St Neots Town (loan) | caps3 = 2 | goals3 = 0 | years4 = 2019 | clubs4 = → St Neots Town (loan) | caps4 = 7 | goals4 = 0 | nationalyears1 = | nationalteam1 = | nationalcaps1 = | nationalgoals1 = | club-update = 17:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC) | nationalteam-update = | medaltemplates =

}}

title: User:Farquan17/sandbox


text:
Mood Swings (A Boogie wit da Hoodie song)

"Mood Swings" is a song by American rapper A Boogie wit da Hoodie, released on September 13, 2019 by Highbridge and Atlantic Records. It is the lead single from his third studio album Artist 2.0 (2020), and was produced by Wheezy.

Composition
The song focuses on A Boogie's "journey as an artist and the rollercoaster of emotions that comes with fame." Boogie sings and raps about his mood swings while dealing with fame and his sexual conquest. The chorus is built around him not using the last syllable of a word, replaced with a humming sound instead. The instrumental was produced by Wheezy, and features an "over-the-top base-filled trap beat with smooth guitar play".

Music video
The music video was released on September 17, 2019, and was directed by A Boogie wit da Hoodie and Elf Rivera. It begins with A Boogie relaxing and walking through a thunderstorm in the night. He shows his eyes under his hooded raincoat to be lit neon blue. Boogie enters a place where he is joined by several people wearing hoodies obscuring their faces. He then recreates the cover of his mixtape Artist, where he is playing piano with a woman controlling his movements using strings, which are then cut by his camouflage-dressed alter ego. He later deals with paparazzi and goes to a strip club, before the video ends with him rapping and dancing while surrounded by female friends on quads.


text:
WBPZ-TV

WBPZ-TV (channel 32) was a television station in Lock Haven, Pennsylvania, United States. The station was owned by the Lock Haven Broadcasting Corporation.

History
WBPZ-TV began broadcasting in March 1958, from its transmitter atop Sugar Lusk Mountain. Channel 32's establishment made Lock Haven the smallest city in the United States with its own television outlet—and WBPZ-TV the smallest station in the United States. The station would operate as an ABC affiliate, with some NBC programs, by rebroadcasting the output of Wilkes-Barre television station WILK-TV (channel 34). The radio station added five employees in anticipation of the new television operation. Soon after launching, WBPZ-TV appeared on cable systems from State College to Williamsport.

WBPZ-TV ceased operating on September 4, 1959, citing financial pressures; the radio station continued operating. The next year, the Lock Haven Broadcasting Corporation reached an agreement to sell channel 32 to Scranton Broadcasters, owners of WDAU-TV (channel 22) in Scranton; under the proposal, which never became reality, Scranton Broadcasters would have leased the equipment for three years with an option to buy, and channel 32 would have repeated channel 22 for Williamsport, Lock Haven and State College. An agreement was reached to donate equipment used by the television station to Lock Haven State College in 1962; the college lacked interest in operating a broadcast facility, and a second offer was made to the local school board in 1965. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) canceled WBPZ-TV's license in 1965 as part of a purge of unbuilt or non-operational UHF television stations.

title: WBPZ-TV


text:
Gustave Fischweiler

Gustave Fischweiler (18 December 1911 – 1990) was a Belgian sculptor. His work was part of the sculpture event in the art competition at the 1936 Summer Olympics.

title: Gustave Fischweiler


text:
List of Pahangese royal consorts

Royal Consorts of Pahang are the consorts of Sultan of the Malaysian State of Pahang. Throughout the history of Sultanate of Pahang, several Sultans practiced polygamy, but per Islamic marital jurisprudence, they did not have more than four wives in the same time. However, this list only included those who given the official royal consorts title.

There are two official titles given to the royal consorts of Pahang based on their background identity. Tengku Ampuan of Pahang is the official royal consort title given to the consorts who came from a royal family. Meanwhile, Sultanah of Pahang is the royal title reserved for commoners.

Styles
In English, both Tengku Ampuan and Sultanah of Pahang is styled as Her Royal Highness. In Malay, the Tengku Ampuan of Pahang formerly styled as Kebawah Duli Yang Maha Mulia until it was changed to Kebawah Duli Paduka Baginda since 14 March 2024, while the Sultanah of Pahang is styled as Duli Yang Maha Mulia.

Roles and duties
Like many spouses of heads of state, the royal consorts of Pahang has no stipulated role or duties in the Pahang State Constitution. However, she accompanies the Sultan of Pahang to official functions and state visits, as well as hosting visiting heads of state and their spouses.

title: List of Pahangese royal consorts


text:
1985–86 Toto Cup Artzit

The 1985–86 Toto Cup Artzit was the 2nd season of the second tier League Cup (as a separate competition) since its introduction.

It was held in two stages. First, the 16 Liga Artzit teams were divided into four groups. The group winners advanced to the semi-finals, which, as was the final, were held as one-legged matches.

The competition was won by Hapoel Hadera, who had beaten Hapoel Acre 3–2 in the final.

title: 1985–86 Toto Cup Artzit


text:
Arizona Women's Hall of Fame

The Arizona Women's Hall of Fame recognizes women natives or residents of the U.S. state of Arizona for their significant achievements or statewide contributions. In 1979, the office of Governor Bruce Babbitt worked with the Arizona Women's Commission to create the Hall of Fame. The first inductees were in October 1981. During its first decade, the Hall of Fame was overseen by the Arizona Historical Society and the Arizona Department of Library, Archives and Public Records. A steering committee would each year select a varying number of women to be inducted. The 1991 inclusion of Planned Parenthood creator Margaret Sanger resulted in disapproval being heard from some in the Arizona Legislature, and funding dried up. With the lone exception of María Urquides in 1994, there were no Hall of Fame inductees for over a decade. Inductions finally resumed in 2002, when the Hall of Fame has only inducted new honorees every two years. The award returned to being annual in 2018.

In 2023, AZWHF created a scholarship awarded to an individual pursuing a degree in a museum program or a history discipline with an emphasis on women.

As of 2024, sponsorship of the Arizona Women's Hall of Fame is provided by Arizona Humanities, the Arizona Secretary of State, the Arizona State Capital Museum, Arizona State Libraries and Archives, Arizona Heritage Center at Papago Park, SRP, Arizona Community Foundation, PBS - Horizonte, the Arizona Historical Society, C.L. Russell, and Front Doors.

title: Arizona Women's Hall of Fame