Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:40, 20 December 2009

Archives

1 - 2004 — July 7, 2007 2 - July — Nov 25, 2007 3 - Nov 25, 2007 — March 6, 2008 4 - March 6 — June 1, 2008 5 - June 2 — Nov. 8, 2008 6 - Nov. 8 — Dec. 31, 2008 7 - Jan 1 — Apr. 13, 2009 8 - Apr. 13, 2009 — July 1, 2009 9 - July 1, 2009 — Dec. 3, 2009 10 - Dec 2, 2010 — Sept. 4, 2010 11 - Sept. 4, 2010 — Feb. 25, 2011 12 - Feb. 25, 2011 — Aug. 29 2011 13 - Aug. 29 2011 — Jan. 2 2012 14 - Jan. 2 2012 — Aug. 15 2012 15 - Aug. 15 2012 — April. 11 2014 16 - April. 11 2014 — July. 14 2024

Please leave comments about my resignation at the noticeboard talk page. Thank you, John Vandenberg 15:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment

I left my comment at the right place. But I'd like to note here that I think the world of your moral strength and humility in offering your resignation, but in addition to the proper arguments at the noticeboard talk, those factors are outweighed massively by your skills and experience as an Arb. --Dweller (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Truly a shame. Respectful of your decision. Thanks for serving the community with such excellence. --Dweller (talk) 11:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

December 2009

Please do not engage in unjustified and what many believe to be disproportionate acts, such as resigning from the Arbitration Committee. They do not particularly help the project in any way, we have had too many arbitrators resign in the recent past already over similar incidents, and we have few enough people running for the open seats as is. Or, alternately, if you so desire, I think it could reasonably be permitted at this time for your resignation to take effect come the end of the current election cycle and have you offer yourself as a candidate for a post in a confirmation vote. But at the very least I would think that you, and hopefully the other arbitrators, will come to realize that we can't really afford to have you guys resign after you make a mistake. And I do think having some sort of confirmation vote instead in cases when individuals have maybe ruffled a few feathers would be an effective way to go. But we would probably need at least one example of that being effective (not necessarily keeping the person in place, just effectively dealing with the issue), and it is very hard for me to imagine that we would ever have a better and easier opportunity to see if such could work than this instance. Thanks for your attention, and I very sincerely hope that you reconsider, at least considering the possibility of a confirmation vote. John Carter (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, no less than 30 other users have expressed a similar sentiment at WT:AC/N, calling unanimously for you to return to your seat. The fact that this list includes some people who categorically never agree with each other I think speaks volumes. Hersfold 18:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I fully understand if you don't want to be on arbcom any more for you own reasons/sanity/stress. However, as noted above the consensus is that your resignation is not required, is unwelcome, and does not assist the project both because of the loss of your services and the poor precedent it sets. Please at least time the time to reconsider.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi John, I figure it's entirely likely that considering all the thousands of editors here that you've never heard of me, but I've been reading around some stuff lately, and thought I'd visit your talk page. Now, I don't know any details about anything; but, I've seen a lot of posts from you that to me indicated a huge level of clue, compassion, intelligence, and maturity. If I understand my research, it appears that you've stated that you will resign your efforts from ArbCom. To be quite frank about the matter, I think ArbCom is a vastly important aspect of our project, and I think the efforts you've made there have been a tremendously positive influence on the Misplaced Pages project as a whole. Now my understanding is that you are simply a volunteer editor here, and not a paid employee of the WMF, ... so nobody has any right to demand a single thing from you. If you would allow me though, I'd like to ask 2 questions:

1. Do you want to continue to serve on ArbCom?
2. Would you be willing to continue to serve on ArbCom (given the need and lack of alternatives)?

I know it's all none of my business and all, but I'm hopeful that you'll consider taking on that work that so few are able or qualified to. Either way, I do wish you the very best, and I'd like to thank you for everything you've done to improve our little slice of the web. I really hope you'll keep up the good efforts. All my best. — Ched :  ?  21:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I have heard of you Ched ;-)

The answer to both questions is no, but thank you for asking and the well wishes.

John Vandenberg 22:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawing my own objections then. I hope you realized the template was intended primarily as an eyecatcher and a joke. I can just see what would happen if I blocked someone for resigning from ArbCom. "Drama Month"? Hamlet is less dramatic than what would happen then, and probably has a happier ending too. Thanks for being willing to put up with the tasks involved in ArbCom in any event. I know I am completely unsuited to it for any number of reasons, and am more than grateful that a few more, well, thoughtful people are willing to subject themselves to it. John Carter (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You were one of the few I voted to support in last year's elections. Sounds to me like the committee is still a clusterfuck of drama mongering two-faced backstabbing, so allow me to be one of the few that says Do whatever the hell is best for you. Those asking you to get back on the Titanic after it's hit yet another iceberg filled with inflated egos should just be ignored, especially the usual admin suspects that drama mongered this into happening in the first place. I had hope with last year's elections that we'd start to see a change for the better, but the committee is now beyond saving. Good luck on your future endeavors, which hopefully includes ignoring all the hormonal rage from the crazy kids on this site. Vodello (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I second Vodello completely. As a friend, I can't help but see your resignation except as something that must make your life more sane and happy. Don't look back.--BirgitteSB 04:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I respect your decision, but I'd like it on the record that I respect it because I respect your judgement.

Hopefully this brings you some measure of life back and more time to do happier things.. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm very sorry to hear of this whole thing, and think you have been put in an intolerable position through no fault of your own. This is a slap in the face for those of us who've been trying to get accountability and good practice into wikipedia, and a big step backwards. --Barberio (talk) 06:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages needs an effective shake-up to make users like this feel better about working their asses off for it. This is a great loss to the community and I hope somebody somewhere exists who will take it as a loud alarm going off to begin making the project more reasonable for constructive use. Still way too much kindergarten. For no reason other than its preservation as such. SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Listen to the call of the WSirens or if not them, then otherwise watch Psirens at least they are saner than WP. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by anon ;-) (talk • contribs)

For what it's worth

I think you were one of the best. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. I don't agree with you on everything (you know what :-)), but you were one of the good ArbCom members. No reason for you to resign at all. Fram (talk) 08:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• Discouraging news to me as well. I am surprised to see you resign. It's a huge loss for ArbCom. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		Arbitration Barnstar
		I, Jehochman, award John Vandenberg the Arbitration barnstar for serving on the Arbitration Committee. (Arbitrators are the ones in the pot.) Jehochman 20:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

That's just brilliant. The other characters even have pitchforks. --Dweller (talk) 12:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

		The Newyorkbrad Dispute Resolution Barnstar
		I, MBisanz, award John Vandenberg the Newyorkbrad Dispute Resolution barnstar for serving on the Arbitration Committee. MBisanz 20:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Universality of patriarchy

Please see my reply at User talk:Alastair Haines#Universality of patriarchy. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Latin deletions

Hi John, are you still an admin at Latin Wikisource? If so, could you clear out s:la:Categoria:Deletiones Propositae? Thanks! +Angr 21:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Angr, thanks for letting me know.  Done John Vandenberg 00:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sandbox

Discussion at User_talk:ManfromButtonwillow#Sandbox. --John Vandenberg 03:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Council for the Development of Social Science Research in Africa

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Council for the Development of Social Science Research in Africa, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.codesria.org/Publications.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Admin accountability

It seems you were confused as to what proposal I was replying to. I hope my latest comment has clarified it sufficiently. Daniel (talk) 07:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Your comment did clarify it. John Vandenberg 08:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD: Nominated for deletion; see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tōru Sakai

AfD nomination of Tōru Sakai

An article that you have been involved in editing, Tōru Sakai, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tōru Sakai. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. andyzweb (talk) 11:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Note

Please revert if I'm mistaken. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted. :-) Cheers, John Vandenberg 02:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, Motion 2.2

Forgive me for getting in direct contact, however I have serious concerns about this motion:

"Mattisse is indefinitely banned from participating in FACs, FARs, GANs, GARs or DYKs of editors with whom she has had previous conflicts."

The wording is imprecise and is likely to lead to difficulty in implementing which will cause more conflict than it is intended to resolve.

Problems of wording:

• "FACs, FARs, GANs, GARs or DYKs of editors" - The intention is to avoid Mattisse being involved in any article quality assessment process of articles where certain users have been significant editors. The wording, however, doesn't make that clear, and doesn't give guidance as to when a person is a significant editor.

• "editors with whom she has had previous conflicts." - This is also unclear. Again, there are people in mind, but they are not named, as they normally would be in an ArbCom case. I do not know who all these people are, so I cannot advise Mattisse on this matter - and Mattisse herself may not know who would consider themselves to have had a previous conflict with her.

• "indefinitely banned" - This is going against the spirit of the case, which is to allow the mentoring process some time to work, to give Mattisse an opportunity of working toward co-operative and harmonious editing. Motion 2.3 has a 6 month restriction, which appears more appropriate.

This case has gone on for quite a time now, and it would be a shame for all concerned if in an attempt to close it quickly before the holiday season these ambiguities were not addressed.

Clearer, more workable options may be:

1. Mattisse is banned from FACs and FARs for 6 months.
2. Mattisse is banned from tagging Featured Articles for 6 months.
3. Users who have difficulty working with Mattisse are to make themselves known to ArbCom who will then inform Mattisse and Mattisse's advisers. Then for 6 months, Mattisse is to check the Revision history statistics of Featured Articles she wishes to become involved with by editing, tagging, talkpage comment or article quality assessment to see if any of these users are among the top five contributors. If any of these users are among the top five contributors, then Mattisse is to consult with her advisers and await a response before getting involved.

I have removed DYK and GA from the list, as these are not significant problem areas. Incidents there have been isolated. I feel some or all of these options, or a variation of them, would be acceptable to all concerned, and are worth considering. SilkTork * 01:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I have recently retired as an arbitrator, so don't put much weight on my vote there - the other arbitrators can strike my vote if a motion hangs in the balance due to my vote, or for any other reason.

For my part, the remedy is workable. The mentors can privately draw up a list of people based on prior problems they know of. When new problems arise, the mentors can note this, and advise against Mattisse initiating or participating in article quality assessment where similar problems are likely to re-occur.

The "indefinite" can be reviewed when the problems stop, and yearly reviews are typical. John Vandenberg 02:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

truthiracy

Aloha John Vandenberg,

I am Christopher C. Lord, aka "truthiracy". The "etymology" of your name means: Germanic "Vand" meaning "vandal" (destroyer), to " vandalize" or to sack. The suffix "berg" means the "Mountain or hill" (high up). So your name means "The Destroyer From The Mountain". In other words you crush and destroy (truth) from your high throne!

So you took my facts down because they told the "real truth" and like they say "He who owns the present owns the past, he who owns the past owns the future! If you cared for humans (sheeple) then you would not have your job! The Illuminati will go down, because the power of the dark side is weakness, and I have all the power of wisdom and the power to use it. Did you read what I wrote, or did one of your masters tell you to take it off?

Good day!

"Evil Must Die" Christopher C. Lord —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthiracy (talk • contribs) 12:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Your prose is unsuitable for Misplaced Pages unless it is accompanied with reliable sources.

Misplaced Pages is not a publisher of truths, real or otherwise. Misplaced Pages will wait until those truths have been peer-reviewed.

If you want to distribute your ideas to the world, you should write a book, or start a blog.

John Vandenberg 20:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello John, and thank you for your response, In other words, at present time, you may only "re-write" others peoples "original research"? All facts came from "original research" so who and or what "stopped" the very essence of finding facts? Does only the Rockefeller's & Rothschild say what is fact and what is not? I thought Misplaced Pages was made by the people for the people, but I see I was wrong. The words "original research" could be used before or after anyones article that has "original research", and that way people could make their own choice what is fact or not. All evidence should be presented, and all truth will be determined. Just because a new understanding is found, a new insight on old ideas unites to new wisdom that now is factual, may not be accepted by mainstream yet, but none the less, a fact! So, when a person is researching, they can find these new and innovating terms and understanding etc. Have a great day! Christopher Lord

Have a wonderful day! Christopher Lord —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthiracy (talk • contribs) 20:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you are understanding Misplaced Pages a lot better now.

Original research must be published somewhere else first, in a more traditional venue. Only after peer-review can the idea be incorporated into Misplaced Pages.

If you are wanting to publish new ideas or new understandings, you might have better luck over at Google Knol. Or, you can set up your own website; see Category:Blog hosting services and Comparison of free web hosting services.

--John Vandenberg 21:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Antonio Arnaiz-Villena

I do not want to bother you or Kwami anymore,but you are interested in Antonio Arnaiz-Villena page.

Apparently they brought about an old Palestinian paper work. This link has been disrupted. Do you have any other link to the paper? Is this old history behind all the attacks seen in the AA-V page?

I think ,I copied AA-V writings,showing he and his group are not anti-Jewish. Should we let this history as it is.It is wrong because we do not know the paper and people writes without knowing.

However,I am intersted in linguistics :there are still unreliable quotations and false assertions. But I am not going to touch it. I have been threatened too many times . Tell me if you want me to put correct and proper quotrations and editions.--Virginal6 (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The Great Misplaced Pages Dramaout

Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Misplaced Pages Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at Misplaced Pages:The Great Misplaced Pages Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, John, you've been disqualified.  :) Jehochman 14:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

E-Mail

You have mail. -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 21:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for delay...

in responding to your questions. have been too busy with work lately. i see that a decision has been rendered in the Asmahan arbitration case, which is fine by me. thanks for your help. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 02:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You chose... poorly.

While I might make an argument that unblocking Giano was unwise in substance, doing so without even so much as discussing the matter with me first was ill-advised. Not only is it, normally, mandated by policy but it is also basic courtesy. I expected better from you. — Coren  00:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Aye, two wrongs don't make a right. John Vandenberg 00:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Look, you know I'm not one to start harping on letter of the policy outside a case. I'm not falling on your head because of a fine point of procedure; but because I still believe that this block was both justified and necessary and that overturning it was a bad idea— something that we could have discussed. It's a bit late for that now. — Coren  00:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The block was way overdue. The unblock only made it worse. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is it that we cannot react to this user the same way we would anyone else? The primary reason blocks against him do not work is because there is always someone ready to unblock regardless of the circumstances. The ongoing re-run is one of the reasons I ponder leaving Misplaced Pages. I sure would like to see this reoccurring issue resolved one of these years. Chillum 00:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Me too, but it needs to be resolved now. Not years from now. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Nah, it's nearly Christmas - a Giano arbcom case is as traditional as the Sound of Music on TV. Wouldn't be the same without it. Oh, yes, they resolve nothing - never do. There's a sequel due out next year too.--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

That's the real shame in all this, nothing will get fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

And no, by the way, I had no intention of dragging you in front of the committee. I think you goofed with the unblock, but that's a peripheral issue and certainly not worth a spat over. As far as I'm concerned, your action was just a symptom of the underlying problem and not the core issue. — Coren  02:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yepper, Coren's got it. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

And yes, if you didn't notice, you did haul me in front of the committee. I think you goofed by blocking, which is a symptom of something, and that is a central issue worth desysopping or trouting.

John Vandenberg 03:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Err, what? You weren't named as a party, and I specifically said that your unblock wasn't what I was raising a case about. — Coren  03:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Grrrr!

In the interest of peace between the many English-speaking peoples of the world I can forgive many things, but ultimatums? Is that really acceptable anywhere? :) DuncanHill (talk) 10:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

apparently it is. Which is to say that it has slightly more use than my original attempt.

Maybe I should stick to using strine. Trouble besets me whenever I use high felutan' lingo. John Vandenberg 10:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Still confused re: suppressed edit

Thanks for the comments at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Audit_Subcommittee#View from the outside:. I looked at your referenced further comments relating to "Outing/COI" and now I'm completely confused. If there's a problem with the edit and it must remain suppressed, that's fine -- I don't care about my edit being "unsupressed." However, I never received any feedback that I had created a problem necessitating oversight, and never expected or intended to cause one. I'd just like to understand the nature of the concern that my edit raised, so that I can avoid future issues. As I recall, the comment related to the fundraising banner; I don't recall that it contained anything referring to another person, and I don't see how it could have been related in any way to my RL or interests other than Misplaced Pages. Is there a way you can explain further? Thanks! Steveozone (talk) 04:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I cant see your comment, as I am no longer an oversighter, however I am quite sure it was not a problem.

The problem was that there was content on the pages WP:COIN and WP:ANI, added by other people, which disclosed private details about an editor. i.e. it was being discussed at another part of the same page, so your edit inadvertently contained these private details which needed to be suppressed.

The suppression tool hides revisions of a page, so your revision of the page needed to be suppressed along with 70 or 80 other revisions by other people who had also done nothing wrong, other than edit the wrong page at the wrong time.

I'm curious ... were you worried about this? If so, perhaps we need to add a link on the suppressed edit explaining why it was oversighted, and who to contact if the reader (yourself) would like to know why it has been hidden.

John Vandenberg 04:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I understand that; it's fairly clear to me that my edit was caught up in a sequence of edits removed as a part of the removal of Giano's "Randy in Boise" comment. I thought you were saying that there was some independent reason for oversight of my unrelated remarks. If I understand correctly now, you are saying that those remarks were just part of the "collateral damage" caused by using oversight on a high-volume discussion board. That is good, and I thank you for the reassurance.

Frankly, I would not have realized that my comments were suppressed but for the imbroglio that ensued shortly thereafter over the action that was taken as to Giano's comment. However, it is somewhat disturbing that consensus is that Giano's comment should not have been oversighted (whatever disputes may remain over the motivations of those who were involved), and yet while Giano's comment is now in the open, the "collaterals" like me remain suppressed.

All that having been said, no, I don't care whether my edit is restored, although it is irksome that my thoughts and ideas were vaporized without giving me any notice and opportunity to express them in that other thread. Yes, I would think that if someone's edit is suppressed, they should be informed, so that (a) they are aware of any problem that they may have caused, or (b) they can go back to replace their comments if appropriate. Otherwise, the "collateral damage" from this sort of thing impacts the quality of discussions that are affected (my point wasn't heard, despite its inarguable merit!) and frankly insults the affected editor. My edit in this particular case was not a big deal, but I could envision circumstances where such an edit might be far more important to me, and it is not difficult to imagine others in this situation being very offended. Thanks again for your comments. Steveozone (talk) 05:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

There were two incidents. The Randy in Boise incident (which didn't involve you), and second one about a day later which occurred while the former one was being discussed.

Your edit occurred while the second piece of private information was on the page. You can see the second suppression here. That problem started when user:H Debussy-Jones initiated a new discussion at 2009-11-13 03:10:34, and ended when user:Daedalus969 removed the problem at 2009-11-13 05:50:24. That private information has not been unsuppressed, and it is unrelated to the Randy in Boise incident. John Vandenberg 06:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Again, I'm not upset, John, and I truly do appreciate the need to conduct oversight, and the challenges presented to those who perform those tasks. It seems to me that this indicates some 15-20 editors, who were discussing topics other than the suppressed discussion, lost one or several edits that remain suppressed (collateral damage). Perhaps some of these folks quickly figured out what was going on, were able to assure themselves that they were not involved, and were able to go back to their discussions and make their points again. On the other hand, how many had no idea that their edits disappeared, or couldn't figure out what happened and therefore stopped discussing? I'm not sure to what extent this is a problem, but it does seem as though an automated process could be employed to send a generic note to the talk page of each affected editor, advising that their edit at (linked page/section) has been removed for reasons that have nothing to do with them. Maybe this is better discussed at the Audit Committee talk page, but I'm not sure that would be very helpful at the moment. Steveozone (talk) 07:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in, but I do think it needs to be said that collateral damage on a board like ANI could be seriously disruptive. Editors can find themselves blocked or effectively banned after very short discussions there, and if comments are being removed accidentally the quality of argument and evidence available to the users of the board will be impaired, as will their final decisions. As we have seen how long it takes to review suppressions, and there have been recent examples of extremely short block/ban debates, there is a very real danger that the combination of the two will lead to a decline in the quality of decisions made. DuncanHill (talk) 12:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

G'day again Duncan. Usually oversighters dont remove unrelated sections; the text is visible, however the history during the affected period is not able to be browsed. The result is that the community needs to trust that the oversighter has not fiddled with the unrelated sections. Most of the time, oversighters use "" (or similar) to delineate the part of the page that has been messed with. These unrelated discussions end up archived, just like normal threads.

I think the long term solution is mw:Extension:LiquidThreads. On pages where LiquidThreads are enabled, each comment has its own mini-page, which has its own history. A problem with one comment can be fixed without touching any other comment.

user:Werdna recently announced that Liquid Threads will be available soon. There is an onwiki discussion at Misplaced Pages:VPT#LiquidThreads_almost_ready_to_deploy, but I expect that there will be proposals before it is implemented on en.wp.

I've tried it out and it is very different (jarring even), but quite usable.

John Vandenberg 12:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks cobber. I haven't looked at the Liquid Threads stuff in much detail yet, but if it reduces the opportunity for confusion it could be useful. As you said above, usually oversighters don't remove unrelated sections or comments, but of course sometimes they do, and it is very hard indeed for most editors to do anything about this. It has struck me also that a further problem with the current method is the unavailability of diffs. We've all seen the demands for diffs that accompany most attempts to bring concerns or complaints to the boards, and removing the ability of editors to point to legitimate diffs when also removing a problematic one will impede discussion. DuncanHill (talk) 12:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Oversighters editing the page should be to remove the private information. I've been watching the stream of oversight requests, and how they have been handled, fairly closely, and I can't quickly recall any times where oversighters have altered unrelated sections of a page without a good reason. if you know of any instances where you recall problems, even if only vaguely, email me or the audit-subcom.

Your "further problem" is a good point.

The diff links still exist, if you know how to get it.

for example, here is steveozone's suppresed edit: . note the error message, which comes from MediaWiki:Rev-deleted-no-diff.

The history & user contributions UI do not provide this link when the reader doesn't have permission to see the content. Without that link, the reader can't easily refer to the edit either, and they don't see that error message.

If we can let the reader see the error message, we can expand MediaWiki:Rev-deleted-no-diff to inform them that oversighters (or audit-subcom) can assist them.

The oversighter (or audit-subcom) can at least help the reader understand wtf happened, perhaps giving them the part of the diff that doesn't contain private information, or describing it accurately without releasing the private details. (similar to how admins handle requests from non-admins for deleted pages, only with a lot more care for private data.)

John Vandenberg 13:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I had no idea that that message existed, and would have no idea how to get to it from an oversighted diff! I think that by letting editors see that error message from the contributions list or history list, and appropriate use of a message as suggested by Steveozone above, we could help reduce the understandable frustration and confusion that sometimes results from oversighting. Of course, care must be taken to avoid accidentally giving out information which would render the oversight meaningless, but I am sure that it is possible. DuncanHill (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Here, as it veers off-topic

Re , of course I do. Part of the matter is the discussion on whether, and when, it is appropriate for an arbitrator to act privately; and that is a matter that demands careful examination by the whole committee and not just a small subset. There are some arbs who feel strongly against it, some that are considerably more measured, and some that feel that it is a judicious application of judgment in certain cases. The matter is far from decided, and will have considerable impact for the entire committee for years to come; the suggestion that it be "decided" as a side effect of an arbitration request where, at best, six of eighteen arbs could participate is completely ridiculous. I should point out that this is now moot given that it was made clear that no rule or precedent would be created by motion in this case (much to my relief).

As to your own participation in that discussion, well, I made to secret of my belief that you made a mistake by leaving your seat on the committee. — Coren  23:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)