Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NuclearWarfare (talk | contribs) at 19:29, 19 May 2013 (→‎Clarification request: ARBMAC: archiving). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Ongoing problems surrounding Yasuke   16 September 2024 4/0/0
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Historical elections 13 Sep 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Clarification request: TimidGuy ban appeal none none 29 April 2013

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this page to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

  • Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
  • Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
  3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
  4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128

This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.

Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Shortcuts:
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128

Clarification request: TimidGuy ban appeal

Initiated by MastCell Talk at 18:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

(The list of affected users is simply a list of those who commented in the bottom subthread of this discussion. I've also posted a general note in that thread notifying readers of this request).

Statement by MastCell

In the TimidGuy ban appeal case, Will Beback (talk · contribs) was indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. In March 2013, Will stated on his talk page that he had appealed the ban to ArbCom, and that his appeal had been rejected ([6]).

Pursuant to this lengthy but inconclusive discussion, I am requesting the release of the simple vote count by which Will's appeal was declined (that is, a tally of which Arbs supported, opposed, or abstained on the appeal). Failing that, I am requesting a concise explanation of why such a tally cannot be released.

I am not requesting the release of any privacy-sensitive information, although of course individual Arbitrators are free to comment on their reasoning if they choose. MastCell Talk 18:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork, I am not asking for the release of any internal deliberations. A simple "yes", "no", or "no comment" next to each Arb's name would suffice. If such a process didn't take place, then perhaps a one-word summary of each Arb's position is not too much ask. Failing that, perhaps you could explain why this information needs to remain secret. Finally, while I understand that you believe a vote tally "serves no purpose", a number of editors in good standing have requested the information as a matter of accountability, and clearly believe that it serves that purpose. MastCell Talk 20:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Collect

I am unaware of any precedent for such a request having any effect on ArbCom, and suggest that iteration of the same points is unlikely to have different results from the request made a short time back. While I am in favour of following "process" I find multiple requests are unlikely to result in much at all, other than many hours and many thousands of characters of discussion leading nowhere. I see no procedural, policy, or guideline basis for demanding vote tallies. Collect (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmh: We ask questions about policy views of the candidates - see my ACE2012 page if you do not understand how the process works -- from answers we get, we can determine the philosophy of the candidates. Voting on the basis of political positions on any specific given case is going to be a remarkably bad way to make such decisions indeed. Collect (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@WG -- this page is not about me, though you seem to think ad hom asides mean anything. For the record, WBB and I intersect on about 4% of all articles I have worked on ... many of which do not have us editing anywhere near the same time. I have never kept any "enemies list" at any point, and for you to suggest that I have impure reasons for saying that ArbCom has no precedent for this sort of action is asinine. And, in fact, ought to be removed as having nothing at all to do with the requests being presented. Collect (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ImperfectlyInformed

Will Beback's ban occurred in public (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy_ban_appeal/Proposed_decision#Will_Beback:_remedies for the vote tally) largely as a result of public evidence, presented above the decision. We know the original story. Even if we don't know what Will's emails to Jimbo looked like, ArbCom unanimously affirmed that Will Beback emailed Jimbo with allegations, and so on. It is unclear why the ban appeal needs to have special treatment such that even the vote tally needs to be kept secret. The denied appeal was never revealed to the community and no official statement was made; Will Beback said he also did not receive an explanation in its rejection. Will Beback apologized at length at his talkpage after the appeal denial (we don't know what his communications looked like, but he has said "I would be happy for any of my statements to the ArbCom to be made public"). Regardless of the result of this request, I intend to edit the policy and open a RfC on the change (I'll hold off so we don't have too many pots on the fire). There is, incidentally, precedent for revealing votes when the appeal is successful (such as Russavia's unblock appeal tally currently at WT:BASC).

On a larger issue, the purpose behind this goes back to Churchill's quote (now a cliche) that "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried" (called the Churchill Hypothesis in academic literature). ArbCom members have expressed concern about politicizing, and I understand that there is some purpose to being more deliberative than an angry mob. However, ArbCom is elected, and we need to know the votes to hold them accountable for their positions.

On a further note, this position of not allowing Will to have a second chance, or even a hint of a public hearing, is plain discouraging to other long-term editors as it suggests a basic lack of fairness and respect for those who have dedicated many hours into improving this encyclopedia. I should also note that I proposed a compromise: a revote, in public, with no requirement to repeat the prior vote. II | (t - c) 20:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NE Ent

Arbitration policy: Committee deliberations are often held privately though the Committee will make public detailed rationales for decisions related to cases, unless the matter is unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal or similar reasons. (emphasis mine) While I agree the "working notes" of committee should remain private, a consensus summary statement and vote tallies doesn't seem unreasonable per committee policy. Did the committee make any public announcement? I've reviewed the Timid Guy case and AC/N and am not seeing any. NE Ent 21:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd. The scope of the committee does not extend to redefining commonly used English words. It should either follow the policy as written or change the policy to follow practice. The former is preferrable per the research quoted in last October's signpost

ensuring participation and transparency is crucial for maintaining the stability of self-governing communities.
— Schroeder, Wagner, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology[1]

NE Ent 22:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Schroeder, A., Wagner, C. (2012). Governance of open content creation: A conceptualization and analysis of control and guiding mechanisms in the open content domain. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63(10):1947–59 DOI Closed access icon

Statement by IRWolfie-

@Roger Davies, as II has pointed out, Arbcom already releases tallies. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvio Are you suggesting that a clarification about a decision made by arbcom related to a case should not be done here? Are you suggesting that this appeal is not a decision related to a case? IRWolfie- (talk) 22:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad I am sure they did vote in good faith, which is why I don't understand why other arbs are declining this measure. The alternative is, that Arbs who have declined to comment will be asked for clarification at the next election in the questions; the tin will be kicked down the road but for no apparent reason that I can discern. It isn't as though people are going to start waving pitchforks at the arbs. The justification that tallies can't be given because it violates a sacred trust or some such just doesn't appear to add up, particularly considering that other tallies have been released. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuchs; perhaps instead of supporting a release, you could just clarify which way you voted? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SlimVirgin

I support the request that the vote tally be released. If the candidates stand for election again, there are editors who may want to support or oppose based on this issue alone, so we need the information to be an informed electorate.

I would like to add an additional request, namely that the committee agree to re-hear an appeal from Will now in public. I understand from the BASC page that once an appeal is decided, the committee "will not revisit it earlier than six months except at the request of a sitting arbitrator." I'm therefore asking that one sitting arbitrator agree to ask the committee to hear Will's appeal again now, given that the circumstances of his first appeal have caused concern.

Roger suggested below that Will do this, but as he can't edit he's not able to request it here. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RegentsPark

I know nought about TimidGuy or Will Beback and why they were banned. However, on the face of it, it doesn't seem unreasonable to ask for the vote on the appeal. Straw poll or formal vote, one hopes that the process was clear enough to make this information readily available. To RogerDavis's point below, it appears that all that is requested is a tally of votes, not for the release of information "lock, stock and barrel". --regentspark (comment) 01:15, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Will Beback

Request for public rehearing

I have made public and private apologies for my past behavior,[7][8][9] and committed to not repeating the same mistakes. Despite that, my appeal was denied without explanation or indication of how the committee voted. Since then I have seen various, sometimes conflicting reasons for the denial, or the initial ban, and unclear statements as to whether or not the committee even voted on my appeal. For those reasons, I am requesting a public rehearing of my appeal to my ban which resulted from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal. This is per the invitation of Roger Davies.[10]   Will Beback  talk  02:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Posted here by Will. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jmh649

A number of people have commented that if we do not like the decisions made by arbcom we should vote in different arbcom members. The implication seems to be that the only input we should get is that of voting every couple of years. But how to vote when decisions and positions are held in secret? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:54, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While most arbitrators have commented. It is unclear how many of them weighted in on this specific case. For those who are clear and commented many thanks. I am trying to tabulate the positions here [11] If i get any of them wrong feel free to correct me / add to the discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Keithbob

My Summary:

  • Carchroth's final comment at the WBB Arb Ban Appeal was: "the best way to get a formal response from the full committee, if not satisfied with what is said here, is indeed to post at WP:ARCA.”
  • So MastCell filed this ARCA case saying: “I am requesting the release of the simple vote count by which Will's appeal was declined (that is, a tally of which Arbs supported, opposed, or abstained on the appeal)”. It seems to me that through simple addition, the purpose of this case has been achieved:
  1. Risker stated at the WBB pseudo RfC: “For the record, I did not vote on Will Beback's unban request, and I opposed banning him in the original case.”
  2. At the WBB Ban Appeals case AGK, Silk Tork, Carchroth, Roger Davies and Nuclear Warfare all made their views clear.
  3. And here at this WBB ARCA case NewYorkBrad, Timotheus Canens, Salvio giuliano and David Fuchs have added their views.
  4. Worm That Turned is currently listed as an inactive Arb.
  5. So that leaves only two arbs that have not yet self-released their “vote”: Courcelles and Kirill Lokshin. Those that feel a strong need to hear from Courcelles or Kirill Lokshin on this matter may approach them on their user talk pages and pursue their statements in that way.

With this in mind it would appear that the WBB ban appeal issue, which has been pursued in five separate venues, involving more than 100 editors, Admins and Arbitrators, has run its course. (Note: The five venues are: WBB's private request via email, WBB's talk page, WBB's psudeo RfC in Doc James' sandbox, Arb Ban Appeals and here.)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 22:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Writegeist

I note Collect's procedural/policy/guideline-based opposition; and note also the history of his interactions with WB at article talk pages, where WB clearly does not suffer Collect's debating—or editing—tactics gladly. (The discussion here is representative, e.g. where WB comments: Collect, you haven't even bothered to respond to two different compromise offers. You haven't explained how you decided to chose the items on the list. You've brushed aside my policy-based concerns and falsely accused me of objecting to the material based purely on not liking it. And you've engaged in edit warring to keep your preferred version in the article. That is not good editing behavior. [. . .] As for the assertion of a "clear consensus", I don't know if that's intended to be humorous. It's so absurd that I have to take it as a joke. If there were a consensus there would not be this long thread and the award section would not be the subject of edit warring.) Nevertheless, precedent or no, the Arbs are perfectly capable of responding to this request, and it's important they do so, not least because, as SlimVirgin has said, when Arbs stand for reelection there are editors who may want to support or oppose based on this issue. This main narrative thread so far is one of evasion and obfuscation. It's time for full accountability and clarity. Where there's a will there's a way. Writegeist (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Heim

Apparently this committee no longer believes in accountability or transparency. Your reasoning basically comes down to "we don't want to release this information; we get to keep secrets". Fine. People here who rightly think we ought to have access to this info for our voting purposes: instead, vote out these politickers who are obstructing transparency. Though frankly, if they had any decency as Wikipedians, they'd either quit obstructing or resign from this joke of a committee. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So this was a straw poll, not a formal vote? I'm a bit confused why the committee would do this for such a significant matter as the unbanning or not of a long-term contributor banned on fairly serious grounds. I do thank those arbs who have revealed their own actions on this issue, but I still find this tendency not to make it easy to know what's going on behind the scenes to be unnecessarily secretive and obfuscatory. I would really like to see a more transparent committee that clearly descends from its crystal fortress to tell us what it's doing more often. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AGK, I'm afraid "forthcoming" is not how I would describe this committee's approach to this particular issue at all. I'm not targetting you, as you've been clear enough on yours, but it's certainly taken a while for all this information to come out. I'm hardly the only one here saying that the committee's transparency here's been suboptimal, either. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Momento

Agree with SilkTork. If the "discussion was held on the understanding that it was held in camera" then the Arbs should keep it in camera unless there is unanimous agreement by everybody who contributed to the discussion to change that understanding. That surely satisfies MastCell's request for "a concise explanation of why such a tally cannot be released". MOMENTO 23:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

Re: Heim, "I'm a bit confused why the committee would do this [a straw poll rather than a formal vote] for such a significant matter". My understanding is that the straw poll was just to establish the current state of play - i.e. whether there was sufficient in principle support for allowing TimidGuy WillBeBack back with conditions to make it worthwhile working out what those conditions would be. If there had been sufficient support then those conditions would be developed and then a formal vote held to determine whether to accept him back if he agreed to the conditions. However as there was no such support nobody thought it worth wasting their and their colleagues time in proceeding further. It is analogous to the way the British House of Commons (and presumably similar legislative bodies) work - the proposal is put to members by the speaker for an auditory straw poll, only if there is not a clear majority for or against will a formal vote be held. Thryduulf (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thinko error above corrected (s/TimidGuy/WillBeBack/). Thryduulf (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Kurtis

There is obviously something more to this story than the Arbitration Committee is willing to tell us, and I imagine it must involve some very private information which likely pertains to someone's real life identity, or could otherwise cause serious harm if revealed to the public. That is the only conceivable justification I can think of for this complete lack of transparency.

Even though it's referred to as a social construct, a ban is a preventative measure. It is only applied when someone's contributions are detrimental to the well being of Wikipedia's integrity, whether through long-term disruptive editing or the endangerment of other contributors (among other possible reasons). What harm could possibly be done by allowing Will Beback to return? He's been banned for a year, and everyone knows what he did. We are all aware of Will's Machiavellian attempt to get his adversaries blocked. He'll never see the light of adminship again. But what threat is he to anyone now? Does he really have any sway? After being gone for a whole year, I doubt very highly that Will would do the same things that got him into this mess in the first place, even if his apology strikes some people as insincere (I personally think he meant what he said).

This ban serves no purpose at this point. Justice has been served. Whether Will remains unrepentant or unapologetic for his actions is his prerogative. Community consensus is not against his return; if you look through the opposes at Jmh649's recent RfC, you'll notice that most of them are merely against tarnishing the legitimacy of Wikipedia's most powerful dispute resolution process by overturning one of its rulings in such an ad hoc manner, yet they say virtually nothing about the merits of the case itself. Meanwhile, the majority voiced support for lifting the site ban. Waiting six more months before allowing another appeal smacks of process for process's sake, which is one of the most dangerous precedents we could set. If nothing else, it will seriously harm editor retention. Who wants to be part of a community where the rules are more important than the people they're applied to?

Finally, I'm not a fan of how cryptic ArbCom is about this case. It's one thing to withhold confidential information from the public, but it is something else entirely for the committee to give non-answers to basic questions and then tell everyone to just move along and go back to what they were doing. I understand that the job is much harder than people may think, and arbitrators are given virtually no gratitude for the essential services that they provide. Nevertheless, we need a transparent ArbCom; this opacity serves only to further alienate themselves from the rest of the community.

To put it in perspective, if the Arbitration Committee simply issued a statement where they described Will Beback's appeal as lacking in substance, or if they mentioned "recent developments" which cannot be released to the public for privacy reasons, then I could rest easy. I may still disagree with their decision, but they know more about the case than I do, so I'd be willing to trust their judgment. This air of secrecy gives me more than a modicum of unease. Kurtis (talk) 07:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Alanscottwalker

My understanding from what I have read is that there was WP:Consensus in the committee not to lift the ban, and various concerns were shared with the filer of the appeal. If no formal vote was taken, no formal vote was taken, and votes are clearly not the only way to determine things. I don't see any substantiated representation that the User was not in fact apprised of both the concerns and the consensus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Decline. It wasn't a vote tally, it was a discussion held on the understanding that it was held in camera. Also, such a vote tally serves no purpose. Will can appeal again in six months, and hopefully when he does, he will address the concerns that have been shared with him. That is the appropriate way of dealing with this matter. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline release of tallies. Tallies in straw polls are informal documents created purely for the purpose of seeing which way the wind is blowing. They help They are part of the process of deliberating. What's more, they are rarely binary and usually express nuanced thoughts and positions. By releasing tallies, the committee would be releasing, in effect, private working papers. The committee handles too much sensitive stuff to establish a precedent that it should disclose deliberations lock, stock and barrel whenever the torches and pitchforks come out. If something is done in private with a reasonable and legitimate expectation of privacy, it's private. On the other hand, there has never been a problem with individual arbitrators stating, should they wish to do, what their position is on a particular issue.  Roger Davies talk 20:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • @II. The obvious thing to do is for WBB to request a review of his ban here. I have no difficulty with that at all and it mystifies me why this hasn't been done. Instead we've got this request based purely on procedural stuff, which isn't really of that much significance. (I've added "release of tallies" to my Decline above, to make it clearer what I'm declining.)  Roger Davies talk 21:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If MastCell wants to factor this failure to unban Will Beback into his vote come December 2013/4, he should be able to. I am disappointed in Arbitrators who opined that the appeal ought to be dismissed and are choosing not to reveal that fact to the public. NW (Talk) 20:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • MastCell, this is not what clarification/amendment requests are for. In my opinion, if you wish to know how an individual arb voted, you should ask him on his talk page. That said, I believe that a more important question for Will to ask would be "why was my appeal declined?", so that he can take that into account when appealing next. This request should be archived. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My internal comment when we considered this appeal in February was, in substance: "For us to decline this appeal, this long after the decision was issued and despite Will Beback's note to us, would be to say that Will Beback is one of Wikipedia's worst editors: that there is no set of restrictions and no amount of guidance that we could provide that would allow him to edit productively and within policy on any topic; or that the way he crossed the line with respect to TimidGuy was so unforgiveable that, to revive and modify a well-known phrase, he can never again be a Wikipedian. Given Will Beback's record of contributions, and despite his various failings, I am not prepared to say that." Accordingly, my vote was to grant the appeal and allow Will Beback to return, subject to appropriately tailored restrictions on his editing to reduce the likelihood of further problems. Because the majority voted to decline the appeal, we did not reach the issue of what the appropriate conditions for a return might have been. I do not feel at liberty to set forth the votes or comments of my colleagues, but I would stress that each of them commented and voted in good faith based on his or her evaluation of the original case and the appeal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't vote in the appeal because large parts of the appeal challenges the findings made in the original arbitration case, but I was unable to find the time to fully examine and evaluate the voluminous public and private evidence and discussions related to that case, and hence could not possibly reach an informed decision. As to whether the tally should be released, I'll defer to my colleagues who have actually voted in the matter. T. Canens (talk) 02:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no policy reason to release tallies for ban appeals. On occasion, we have used more formal votes as a clearer way of seeing where the arbs stand (for instance, if there are a number of options for unblock conditions, etc). But that's not applied retroactively, nor should it. As to entertaining Will's appeal earlier than six months, I don't see any reason why the consensus (or, depending on how you look at it, lack of consensus) that he should be unblocked even on narrow conditions would have changed, especially as a result of this carousel of RfCs, noticeboard posts and clarification requests. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with T. Canens that finding the time to fully examine and evaluate the voluminous public and private evidence and discussions related to that case is indeed a problem. If arbitrators were expected to review even recent cases with the expectation of reversing or overturning them, the workload would be too much (some ban appeals that focus on righting past injustices as perceived by the appellant would require reviewing years and years of e-mail and on-wiki edits, which is just not possible). It is much better to take an approach whereby banned editors accept or move on from the details of a case, and accept that a return to editing will need to be under restrictions, and then gradually request those restrictions be lifted (rather than argue about them at the time of requesting a return to editing). On this particular matter, I agree with David Fuchs. There needs to be an acceptance that this appeal has failed, and a recognition that this formal on-wiki stage is the last step in the process of seeking clarification on the appeal. I do think that a more formal response here, as opposed to the ones provided at WT:BASC, was needed, but that should now be an end to the matter until the six months has elapsed. tldr: what SilkTork said. Carcharoth (talk) 23:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I very much believe that each arbitrator should state whether they voted for or against Will Beback's appeal, but that cannot happen without a unanimous vote by the arbitrators to do so. My own vote, as I have repeatedly stated elsewhere (mostly at WT:BASC in one long comment), was to decline his appeal. More broadly speaking, I think people should be moving on from Will's appeal to other things, and that they are not only compounds my concern that this particular matter has become deeply politicised. Will can appeal his ban again in the autumn, and for now I have nothing more to say about this matter. AGK [•] 20:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heimstern: Banned users' appeals are generally heard off-site by e-mail in order to avoid a distraction to the project. I think we quite rightly confine their appeals to the committee's mailing lists; can you imagine the enormous drama and time-sink that would be created if we were to hear every ban appeal on-site? It would be a circus, and it would waste our editors' time. We are forthcoming when there is an acute community interest in an appeal (in this case, it looks like every arbitrator has said how they voted on the appeal in question), and we consult the community when we aren't sure what to do, but I don't think it's fair to characterise our practices in the way you have done. AGK [•] 11:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem here, is that when it is known how a matter fell -- in this case, failing, and a non-trivial number of arbitrators state how they opined on an internal straw poll no one expected to be published, it soon becomes very easy to make accurate and reasonable guesses to how the other people voted. What should have happened, and what I really thought was going to happen based on the emails I've read, was that another vote was going to be taken, as an actual vote, as opposed to e-mail expression of opinions with the clear and universal knowledge it would either be on-wiki from the start, or published at the end. This is even a harder case than usual, because so many of the reasons Will needed to be banned in the first place are unpublishable. All that said, in this case I think at least a majority of us are fine with releasing the thrust of our comments -- I hesitate greatly to call what took place a vote -- I did oppose lifting the ban. Courcelles 23:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=555831438"