Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

essay on AE

Wikipedia:A_request_for_enforcement_over_a_salad--Cerejota (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Good essay. Nice work! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved...

• Statement by uninvolved [editor]

It's not uncommon to see editors post comments under a heading which declares their lack of previous involvement. Yet in many of those cases there has been some significant involvement, with either the disputed topic or the editors involved in the dispute. In other cases, editors who have no real involvement post their statements without making such a declaration. Is it helpful or distracting to have editors declare uninvolvement? What about when other editors disagree over involvement, creating a fresh dispute in the midst of an ArbCom request?   Will Beback  talk  22:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a fair point, although I suspect the origin is more a short-hand for "Statement by non-party [editor]" (as opposed to "Statement by party [editor]") rather than as a declaration of (un)involvement per se. Personally, I don't see any real value to having headers indicate either editors' perceptions of their own involvement or their status as parties; can anyone think of a good reason to retain them? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I would regard "involved" to indicate an involvement in the dispute before the committee. "Uninvolved" to indicate that they have no meansurable involvement in the issues before the committee. Clearly admins and others frequently have some overlap in editing articles with just about any random editor one can find, but I would not consider that "involved." For example, I have on the order of two thousand pages I have edited - if my overlap with another editor is on, say, a half-dozen minor pages, I would likely know virtually nothing about that editor. If the overlap were on sixty pages, the I would find it to be a significant overlap. I suppose there is no absolute determinant, but the past history on the arbcom pages seems quite in accord with my understanding. I would not use "non-party" as in one case a plenitude of editors were named as parties, despite there being no significant connection for many of them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

"Statement by uninvolved [...]" is shorthand for "I want to make a statement. I haven't been listed as a party, and have no intention of becoming one." This shorthand was invented primarily because there was a line of instruction along the lines of "please do not edit this section unless you'd like to be an involved party" or something like that. I don't think the shorthand detracts us from discussions anyway. If a very involved editor claims to be uninvolved, someone will say this is not right and list that editor as a party. Deryck C. 14:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Speaking for myself only (I haven't discussed this with my colleagues or the clerks), I don't typically worry very much about the labels on the sections in terms of figuring out (if necessary) who is involved or should be a party or not. As Kirill suggests, if someone posts "Statement by X" as opposed to "Statement by uninvolved X", it's not as if I'm going to leap to the conclusion that X is a party to the dispute. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Also only speaking for myself, I've always mostly taken the "uninvolved" label here at RfAR as meaning no more than "not involved as a named editor in this dispute." Gwen Gale (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I see varying responses: that it's not given attention; that it is used by people who do not want to become parties to a current case, even if they're involved with either the topic or the other editors; and that it is actually meant to convey a lack of involvement. I see a response which says incorrect claims of uninvolvement should be disputed by the parties. In that case either an editor who's already posted would need to add an addendum questioning the claim or a previously 'uninvolved' editor would have to jump in just to make that point. In cases where there are already multiple or complicated disputes, and strict limits on total length, having an unnecessary source of fresh disputes seems unwise.

Does allowing editors to add this comment to section headings serve a real purpose? We otherwise implictly restrict people to writing "Statement by [editor]". Would it also be acceptable to write a section header, like "[Editor]: Why user:JohnDoe is a threat to Wikipedia" or some other editorial comment? Or would it be better to ask contributors to just post their name and leave the commentary to the text?   Will Beback  talk  10:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

How many articles of overlap make one editor "involved" with every other editor on those articles? 5% of the articles edited? 1%? .1%? I have looked at many times in the past where the term "uninvolved" was used, and in every single case there was some "overlap" if one uses an absolute standard as you appear to argue for. And in every case the person was "uninvolved" in the case at hand. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

"Uninvolved" is undefined. The main question is, what purpose is served by making that assertion? Collect, you personally used the term in a ercent filing. What was your purpose? Yet I see that you have quite a bit of overlap with William M. Connolley and with Climate Change.[1] How do you define the term?   Will Beback  talk  04:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

"Quite a bit of overlap"? Shirley you jest! And with "Climate Change"? My total overlap with WMC (from well over two thousand pages) is 12 articles. On none of which have I made any substantive edits about "Climate Change." Your overlap with WMC, by comparison, is on 119 articles with substantial edits on Climate Change. The deduction is left to the reader as to who is "uninvolved" and who is 'heavily involved". Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeedy, User;Will Beback has a massive article overlap with WMC compared to Collect. I think that such simple comparisons have almost no value without deeper investigation, as long tern editors are usually all over the project helping out as much as they can. Off2riorob (talk) 14:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't labeled myself "uninvolved" so my edit overlaps with editors here is irrelevant to the issue, which is what benefit is gained by adding this assertion to headers. Some folks above have suggested that it is sometimes used in full cases by people who wish to comment but don't want to become parties to a case. However that isn't an issue when it's just a request for amendment or clarification, such as the WMC request. So that leaves the question, why do editors insist on making the assertion and what happens when editors disagree with the assertion (as has happened in the WMC request)? Forcing editors in a dispute to go to the trouble of contradicting a false claim seems like adding fuel to the fire. It seems simplest to just ask people to avoid putting anything in the heading other than their username.   Will Beback  talk  23:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I have also noticed these uninvolved and involved user claims being imo misstated and I don't see any value in them in the headers. Make a case in your comment rather than a header. Arbs and users that are involved enough to make a comment are also aware of who is who. As I see it, in a way you are becoming involved by making an opinionated statement. Off2riorob (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Bingo! The man in the Pelé T-shirt wins the can opener and the iron with our compliments. Claims as to uninvolved status are ill-defined, often gamed and serve no useful purpose. The format should simply be "Statement by [User X]" and clerks should quietly remove any claim of status one way or the other. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey Boris - thanks for this comment, it had me laughing out loud in support this morning. I think this should be a shoe in. Off2riorob (talk) 19:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I still don't agree that the use of "uninvolved" causes any confusion. The editor claiming "uninvolvement" is merely asserting that they haven't been listed as a party, and is not interested in becoming one. If a party of the requested case doubts their uninvolvement, they can always request that the commenting editor be added as a party. The use of "Statement by uninvolved ..." doesn't inherently cause problems, and there is no need to fix it. Deryck C. 21:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

But what do other editors do when an editor is indeed involved? Ignore it? If everyone ignores it, then what's the point of adding it? Parties should be added to cases based on their actual invovlement in disputes, not their claims one way or the other.   Will Beback  talk  23:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

If the editor is indeed very involved, then someone can challenge the "uninvolved" claim. The point of adding it is for the commenting editor to express disinterest in becoming a party, or even a request not to be added as a party. Parties should be added based on their actual involvement, but the line of actual involvement isn't black and white (as has been pointed out above), and "uninvolved" helps editors express where they think they are.

Hypothetical example:

1. User:Example is an active editor of Article.
2. There is an ongoing multi-party edit war on Article, in which User:Example didn't take part.
3. The dispute escalates to RfArb.
4. User:Example wants to comment on the request to offer his observation. If he simply commented, someone may come along and say "wait, you're an active editor, and should be added as a party."
5. User:Example now claims to be "uninvolved User:Example". The listed parties of the dispute see this, and are reminded, "oh yea, he's been editing a lot, but isn't actually involved in the dispute", and therefore do not add User:Example as a party.

Deryck C. 08:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

[2] Count Iblis (talk) 20:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand the relevance... would you enlighten me please? Deryck C. 20:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Collect needs to be rebutted. He can either do the honourable thing and admit that he has misused and been dishonest about being "uninvolved" in the very recent past, or I am happy to provide diffs to clearly demonstrate this. If he is unaware of what I am talking about, he should refer to a recent AE discussion. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 22:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

To also answer Deryck Chan, when User:Collect posts at some ArbCom page, saying he is uninvolved, he is like the photon here arriving at detector C. Count Iblis (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Your derisive personal attack is noted. Alas for you, I have made essentially zilch edits in Climate Change, and thus your assertion implying otherwise is totally errant and quite obviously deliberately so. As for Russavia - I think the warnings concerning their behaviour are quite sufficient indeed. I have essentially no intersection with that editor, as much as they might wish to assert otherwise. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the kind of dispute which makes me think the practice should be phased out.   Will Beback  talk  02:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I certainly don't find these "uninvolved" headers helpful and don't see their value. When I comment, I don't bother with any of that. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Russavia, I think this discussion has progressed to such that you do need diffs if you think your point is important. However, even if Collect has abused the word "uninvolved", I see little value in blanket-banning everyone from using this word just because some editors have abused it. Deryck C. 13:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

This isn't about Collect. This issue has come up many times. Folks coming to the ArbCom are already involved, or are making themselves involved, in a dispute. Making a dubious claim of uninvolvement adds fuel to the fire, giving them something more to argue about. The only benefit claimed here is that in initial RFARs, it expresses a desire of a commentator to avoid becoming a party to the case. However we should not rely on that claim to decide who should be a party. So if it serves no real purpose, and if it's a source of fresh conflicts, then why do we do it?   Will Beback  talk  20:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

How about we use percentages: Statement by 95% Uninvolved...? But in all seriousness, WillBeBack makes an excellent point. Involved/Uninvolved just gives people something else to argue about. If a dispute has gotten so bad that it required arbitration, we should do everything possible to minimize another source of potential conflict.

I suggest the following:

• We stop using uninvolved/involved.
• Let the clerks enforce it. If anyone adds it to their subject line, a clerk can remove it and post a polite message to the editor's talk page explaining we don't do that anymore (and being careful not to bite the newbies who don't understand the complexities of Wikipedia's vast maze of rules.) If an editor really wants to indicate what they think their level of involvement is, they can still use the text of their statement to do it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with Will's claim that all people who post at Arb/Requests are involved or trying to make themselves involved. I've posted comments in this and other forums for the purpose of providing some detail (e.g., you might want to read this advice page, or you might need to know that there is a parallel dispute on another page) without caring one way or the other about the dispute at hand, and I suspect that a lot of active editors have done the same. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't discourage people from giving their views or adding missing information. My point was simply that when someone goes to the trouble of volunteering a statement to the ArbCom they are participating in the process. Their level of involvement in the underlying dispute should be determined by their prior behavior rather than a one-word claim in a section heading.   Will Beback  talk  21:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course one's involvement isn't defined by one word, but this word helps an editor express that they don't want to become a party. (As I said, an older version of RfArb used to say "don't comment unless you want to become a party".) Willing to volunteer a statement to a requested case is one thing; willing to become a party is quite another. Deryck C. 21:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Omnibus motion

Can I congratulate whomever thought of the omnibus motion regarding discretionary sanctions (Coren?). Simply put, it is (in my view) a very good, very simple idea that has the potential to make life a lot simpler for many people. Thryduulf (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

This actually spread from an AE request, but yes, Coren made the decision to poll the Committee to see if there was support for a motion that would standardize the discretionary sanctions in place on older cases, before we settled on a standard wording. SirFozzie (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. As SirFozzie states, this is the end result of a discussion on an AE request that raised the issue that the Troubles remedies would benefit from being updated specifically. All I did was use the opportunity to survey the older remedies to see if anything else could gain from being updated. — Coren ^(talk) 20:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe it was T. Canens who suggested this as a result of the discussion on AE. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Certainly the recent request resulted in further consideration of the existing situation; however, in fairness, the idea was initially proposed within the Committee over a year ago, and received a less supportive response at that time. On my part, at least, I've reviewed the relevant existing sanctions and followed the activities on the Arbitration Enforcement board more closely to see what challenges the "inconsistent" discretionary sanctions brought to the enforcement process. My initial view had been that there was an element of unfairness in changing longstanding discretionary sanctions because most parties had come to clearly understand them and work within their confines. It became apparent to me that one of the ways in which editors illustrated their understanding of differing sanctions was in using those variations to suggest that otherwise unacceptable behaviour was not covered by them. Those individuals may have been correct technically, but were ignoring the spirit of discretionary sanctions. The result was that otherwise sanctionable behaviour that was not specifically covered by the most applicable discretionary sanction wound up going unsanctioned because the request for sanction had been done in the "wrong place", i.e., the AE noticeboard, and thus gave the impression of being unreviewable. Risker (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Second opinion on discretionary sanctions

I've posted at WP:AN#Second opinion on discretionary sanctions. I will not repost here to avoid cross-posting, but I would like a second opinion from people familiar with the matter. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Header update, complete promptly

Per [[3]], updated header to encourage filers to complete promptly [[4]]. Gerardw (talk) 12:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Just filed my first Request, and I have to say that one hour isn't a lot to compose and redact a statement (e.g. staying within the 500 word limit). I just made it (by accident, I wasn't timing it), but perhaps the advice should be given to compose the statement completely before filing the case, or else perhaps "one hour" can be changed to "two hours" or so. An Arb request is not something undertaken lightly (if done properly), and the statement by the filer (and evidence of dispute resolution and so on) is an important step that shouldn't be rushed. Fram (talk) 11:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

"Net four" requirement for opening a case

Looking at the current requests page, there are two requests where the committee are split on whether to accept or reject the case (7/5/1/2 and 6/6/0/1) and look likely to be rejected because the requirement for "net four" arbs in favour cannot be met. In the latter one Coren comments that he has "frankly never understood" this requirement, and I realise I don't either. The combination of these factors has got me starting to muse about the requirement, but I don't know enough about the history of it to formulate even a meaningful discussion about it. So can anyone point me to where it originates from, any previous discussions around it, etc. Thanks Thryduulf (talk) 14:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a philosophical decision made when the committee was originally set up and organized that it should be and remain conservative in when it intervenes. This works fairly well in practice for the most part – especially since the mandate of the committee was originally much more straightforward. I feel is does breaks down and becomes a bit confusing around the edges when the issue itself is divisive (as opposed to the simple facts of the matter).

Personally, I think that the fact that the community brought an issue because it was divisive should be reason enough to take the case even though it's also divisive within the committee itself (which is, when you think about it, entirely unsurprising). That said, I think this rule exists mostly because that's what the rule always was. — Coren ^(talk) 14:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

And the committee was rightly set up to be conservative, even to the point of stating I think that its pronouncements would not constitute precedent (as was generally the case with community decisions, AfDs in particular). Curiously the community - or at least the less rule-adverse part of it - has often taken the opposite view. It was also instructive to see BAG paralysed in 2009 by rulings of ArbCom, which had specifically given them power to make decisions overriding those rulings. Rich Farmbrough, 00:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC).

Clarification question not answered, intent to repost the request

Per my comment here, I intend to repost my request for clarification, as my initial question was not answered. Perhaps some arbitrators will see this comment here and answer it, so I won't have to do so? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Arbcom-unblocked editors

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Initiated by T. Canens (talk) at 08:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

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

• Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• MuZemike‎ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (previously involved in dealing with TLAM)
• EdJohnston‎ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (as above)
• Sandstein‎ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (as above)
• HelloAnnyong (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (as above)
• Hersfold‎ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (as above)

Statement by Timotheus Canens

Under what circumstances may an individual administrator block an editor previously unblocked by arbcom?

In particular, if an account X is first blocked as a sockpuppet, then unblocked by arbcom, and then new evidence of sockpuppetry is alleged, what action, if any, should be taken by an individual administrator? Can the admin take action on the request alone, or must the matter be referred to the committee? If individual admin block is permitted, how is the admin supposed to weigh the evidence? What weight should be accorded to the previous unblock by the committee? Is there any way for the admin to ascertain the evidence considered by the committee in reaching the decision to unblock? If not (because committee deliberations are private) how is the admin supposed to reach an informed decision?

See this comment of mine at an AE thread for the case that motivated this request, although this request is not limited to the particular editor. T. Canens (talk) 08:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Russavia

As I said at the AE, and I will say again here. Let's "try again"[5][6], because as it stands now, we are dealing with an obvious sockpuppet, and the inability for anyone to give a straight answer is allowing this sockpuppet to "take the piss" out of the community?[7][8]

What we have a case of here is the Arbcom overstepping its bounds by totally disregarding behavioural evidence, and the knowledge of editors and admins who have dealt with these sockpuppets in the past. There is not a single admin out there who has dealt with Marknutley sockpuppets that does not believe that TLAM is not a sock of Nutley. This is based on behavioural evidence and obvious editing traits. I provided one such trait to the Committee, and it stuck out like dogs balls when I saw it, and the more one delves into the evidence, the more and more WP:DUCK evolves that it is quite obvious this is a sockpuppet. And I am told by the Committee "we are not convinced".

As I said in the AE, we have the opportunity to right a major wrong here...and it is a wrong, given that this sockpuppets disruptive behaviour has somewhat led to a long-term editor in good-standing being topic banned for 6 months, whilst the obvious sockpuppet gets a 3 month topic ban...go figure. So without blame and without shame, the following needs to be very clearly answered for the community.

Who made the decision to unleash this sockpuppet on the community? Those Arbs who reached this decision need to explain to the Community a few things, such as: Upon what basis was this decision reached? Why was this done in secret, and why was the community not involved in this process? Given that it is the community that has dealt with this disruptive user in the past, and there is not a single admin who has even so much as considered unblocking this sockpuppet. Did those who looked at this appeal totally disregard behavioural evidence, and concentrated only on technical evidence? Such as IP addresses? One can easily change their IP and ISP, but behaviour is much harder to change.

Is the Committee willing to turn this issue back over to the community to deal with? And without further involvement from the committee? The fact that there are many admins who are of the opinion that this is a sockpuppet, and yet none will do anything about it, for fear of the Committee, is quite daunting. No-one should be fearful of the Committee, it is the Committee that should be fearful of us. There has to come a time when someone will stand up, say straight that the Committee has ballsed up, ballsed up in good faith, but ballsed up all the same, and correct the mistake that has been made. This is even moreso needed as the Committee itself doesn't seem to know what to do, so it will likely be up to an admin out there with some spine to make a relatively easy decision of right over wrong. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 17:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick note. I have 2 laptops and 2 desktop PCs. I have Bigpond broadband, Optus mobile broadband and 3 mobile broadband, in addition to Optus internet on my mobile. I also have Windows XP, Windows Vista and Windows 7. I also use a combination of Firefox and Chrome - and versions can differ according to which system I am using at the time. If I wanted to, I could easily sockpuppet and not be caught on technical evidence. But my behavioural traits and editing preferences would soon give me away. Would anyone like to challenge me to this? I'll be more than happy to give it a go in order to prove a point to whoever unblocked this sockpuppet. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 05:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

In actual fact, there is no need to challenge me to do anything, one can merely CU me, and they will see that I already currently edit from a range of PCs, and a range of ISPs, and with different browsers. So I will withdraw the WP:BEANS comment, and let other comments stand on their merits. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 05:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a great saying...If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit. I see a lot of attempts at the latter from Arbs below, but baffled I am not. Questions have been asked of the committee, and they need to be answered.

When I corresponded with the Committee I was told that further evidence of sockpuppeting can be taken back to, and dealt with by, the community. However, the Committee would appreciate a heads-up. I see the heads-up only a courtesy, nothing more.

But now we have Arbs saying that the community needs to defer back to the Committee on sockpuppeting. So what is it to be guys? Dazzle me, but don't make me put in a WP:RM to have this moved to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Bafflication. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 11:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

To John vandenberg... You mentioned that several arbiters looked over the evidence and they came to the conclusion that these two are not the same user. In the interests of openness, would the arbiters who reviewed the evidence and came to such a decision care to identify themselves? That is the #1 request. The #2 request is that these arbiters post here and explain to the community, why in the face of overwhelming evidence and suspicion from literally dozens of editors and admins, were these concerns and evidence ignored? Because as it appears to me, the committee only unblocked them because of different IP? The unblocking has lead to the case where the sockpuppet has been allowed to take the piss [9][10] out of the community, and more horribly, admins at AE have allowed the sockpuppet to participate in mediation on one of the most contentious articles on WP --- even though they are clearly topic banned. Under no circumstances should a disruptive sockpuppet be allowed to engage in anything on WP, much less in decision making on contentious articles. Unfortunately, up until now, there still has not yet been a straight answer.

Additionally, I do have to say that the response that is below totally contradicts what I was told by the committee on email. On email I was clearly told that any evidence could be taken back to the community, with the committee being given a heads up. Now it is being said that any evidence needs to be given to the Committee for them to decide? Why the contradiction? Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 21:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

In regards to this from Mathsci, this clarification is not moot, as there is nothing stopping TLAM from unretiring once this discussion is disposed of as being moot, and starting to edit again. Of course, there is the possibility that Marknutley's latest incarnation really has retired, which only leads on to wonder what form the next sockpuppet will take. This clarification is still relevant, as much as the day it was posted. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 07:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Biophys

I think such cases are easy to handle. If there is any new evidence of sockpuppetry, anyone can submit an SPI case (based only on this new evidence), and checkuser can make a judgement, after consultations with Arbcom members if appropriate. Let's not renegotiate decisions by Arbcom, whatever they might be. Remember, that was a general policy question by TC, not a quest to sanction an editor. Biophys (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Vecrumba

Per Biophys. Neither is there need for invective or disparaging remarks. Over time, I have had occasion to communicate with both editors regarding the case precipitating this clarification request and personally have no indication to believe they are the same person. Is there some reason for rushing to obvious guilt? As for the interaction by other editors here with both, clearly, I am at the low end of resorting to threats of enforcement, requests for enforcement, etc. while other editors on both sides of the aisle are less inclined to deal with what they consider POV pushing by debate only. To observe that on any day any editor may raise the hackles of multiples of others would be a statement of the obvious.PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• The conversation here is degenerating. If there is no incontrovertible evidence of MN/TLAM sockpuppetry we are done. Anything else is speculation which pretty much looks to be along party lines (regardless that it may also all be in good faith, certainly mine is, based on my interactions) and therefore irrelevant. The ravenous appetite exhibited here to convict editors based on allegations of "smells like, at least to me" evidence is appalling and revolting. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
• I would also note that IP address geo-location can be notoriously unreliable. Witchita, Kansas, is, for example, a popular destination. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Alas, the ArbCom election is now also being taken over by Victorian novels lobbying for a response based on personal representations of circumstances. Can we please wrap all of these up? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement The Last Angry Man

Why was I not informed of this? Of course if at first you don`t succeed let`s try again Of course I already pointed out how I am taking the piss Quick now, lets block all these sockpuppets. Regarding Mathsci`s other behavioral evidence mentioned on the AE page, "@" being used in response to other editors. Steven Zhang also uses it. As does Transporter Man, and Paul Siebert has also used it. The usage of @ in responding to other editors is not quite so rare as Mathsci believes but is no doubt being hailed as the second coming in the "evidence" currently being e-mailed all over by Russavia. The Last Angry Man (talk) 08:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• "One can easily change their IP and ISP" Yes one can, but of course it would be rather strange to have two IP`s two providers and two computers at the same time? [11] Nutley blocked four days after I began to edit. First checkuser in the words of T. Canens is an an experienced SPI clerk found no connection, the second SPI was a farce with the checkuser basing likely on the fact that Nutley used chrome as do I. He got it wrong as have those here. I fully realize what I write here will not natter a damn to those wishing to see me gone, but at least the truth will have been told. The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Observation by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

I took only a very quick look at TLAM's edits, but it was enough to convince me that if this is not Marknutley then TLAM should be sanctioned for impersonating another editor (thinking WP:POINT here). He has Marknutley's verbal and stylistic idiosyncrasies locked solid. I have no idea what the arbs may know (or think they know) that would argue against re-blocking, but I hope they are keeping in mind that it is trivially easy to sockpuppet so as to avoid providing technical evidence. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by NuclearWarfare

Regardless of the meta-issues, I'm hoping that we can have ArbCom comment on this specific case. So far, we have had one checkuser (Hersfold), three administrators/SPI clerks (HelloAnnyong, T. Canens, myself), and one ex-admin (and likely more, haven't really gone looking) call this an obvious DUCK case that needs no further investigation. That's a bit too many experienced editors to simply dismiss I think. NW (Talk) 04:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Tammsalu -> Nug

This issue arose after User:Igny attempted to have TLAM indefinitely topic banned on WP:AE ostensibly for incivility[12]. When it seemed apparent that Igny himself was going to be hit by WP:BOOMERANG due to his own battleground behaviour, accusations of socking was then levelled at TLAM. Now it appears that particular people, who as the Committee will recall from a prior amendment request claimed wanted to focus on content rather than editors, are pushing hard to have TLAM site banned. I have to wonder why Igny and his friends are pushing so hard for this banning, while appears that TLAM may have a low tolerance for certain Russian nationalist POVs, I don't understand why some would take that so personally. I see no new evidence of disruption by TLAM warranting a ban, in fact he was about to participate in content mediation[13], which I think we can all agree is more desirable than attempting to get editors banned in order to win content disputes. Now I do not know the full circumstances behind TLAM's unblock by the sub-Committee, but I do know that Mark Nutley was a real identity who )was smeared during a proxy farm investigation where his identity was odiously linked with certain external sites. Now I see no evidence that TLAM is Mark Nutley, but those that claim there is a link may well be WP:OUTING him for all we may know. Given that ArbCom have permitted former socks to return after a period of time, given that no evidence has been presented linking TLAM with Mark Nutley and given there is no new evidence presented suggesting TLAM has been disruptive, I do not see any need for the Committee entertain the need to reblock TLAM. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 08:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• To those claiming TLAM is Mark Nutley based upon nothing more that shared topics, I would point out that Mark was extensively involved in climate change topics while TLAM is not. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 19:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

On the recent comments

In regard to the recent comments from Paul Siebert and others, what's the point? Attempting to ban a content opponent on some wiki-lawyered technicality, I thought the EEML only practiced this kind of thing? Looking at TLAM contributions since he was unblocked, I see no ongoing disruption, in fact he recently was awarded a barnstar[14] and has been productively expanding this encyclopaedia since this clarification request[15]. I see no point in continuing on whipping this dead horse, so perhaps this should now be archived now. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by the Four Deuces

I was involved in all the SPIs relating to mark nutley. In each case, mark nutley, Tentontunic and TLAM were blocked only on their second SPI. mark nutley made great attempts to disguise his identity, for example by using open proxies. In fairness, no one claimed that the people using these open proxies throughout the internet were mark nutley, instead examples were provided in order to demonstate that the IPs were open proxies. Both mark nutley and TLAM are from Wiltshire, and mark nutley edited from a range of locations across the south of England. Given all this, it would be hard to disprove that these accounts were related. TFD (talk) 13:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

@Collect - that is my point: "it would be hard to disprove that these accounts were related". TFD (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

@Sander Saeda - your reference to people who opposed mark nutley's edits as "pro-communist" is a personal attack that you should withdraw. TFD (talk) 05:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Collect

SPI does not require "proof of innocence" and actions undertaken by ArbCom regarding an SPI result can only be undone by ArbCom. The reasonable presumption is that the committee, in fact, have information which can not be just divulged in open posts - that is why they do not give such information out. There is, however, a history at SPI of various editors making iterated claims there in the hope that eventually an admin will say "well - maybe" and perform the block. Using a "well the accusation was made several times therefore it must be true" fails any course in logic ever given <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

@TFD - the "south of England" covers a lot of people. @PS - that one has numerous content disputes with people does not mean they are socks. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

@TC, TLAM has apparently been successfully hounded including by such posts as [16], [17], [18]. [19], [20], [21], [22] some of which might well appear to be mean-spirited comments from a person who has not actually done appreciable editing in the areas where TLAM edited, and whose astonishing interest in him I can not explain. I regard hounding-by-ad-hoc-committee to be possibly improper. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

@Mathsci - I am acting on behalf of no one and nothing except my belief that SPI should not be abused, and that claims of socking should be made there and not used as a means of hounding anyone at all. This was also true, if you recall, at the CC case where I pointed out the large number of accusations found to be without proof for Scibaby, which ArbCom specifically noted. Cheers. And hope no one decides that you are worthy of four or five repeated SPI investigations. Genug est genug. Collect (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

@Mathsci glad you emended your comments. As I noted, I have no dog in the hunt, no horse in the race etc. All I do is be a stickler for the fact that accusations are far cheaper than proof, and the treatment of TLAM has not been a model for anyone. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: Add [23] to the list of posts by a person who does not even have a real connection to this

Someone wails that Nutley was "hounded". Come on.

Considering the iterated attacks on me by that editor over an extended period, including attacks here, I rather think it is he who has been "wailing." The hounding is real and apparent - just as others apparently hounded Mathsci in the past, I understand. That does not make it right. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

@PM - Um -- why would a fishing expedition labelling all IPs who are "only 70 miles away" (providing an area of perhaps 15,000 sq. mil in England, roughly 1/3 of that entire country) from MN be anything more than a fishing expedition considering that CU specifically does not make such connections? The comment again trying to assert TLAM is a sock is invalid, again. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC) @PM Amazing -- so why did you mention TLAM at all then? Seems to me that the disclaimer was there specifically to indicate that a connection might exist - there is no other logical reason for your comment, especially with all the TLAM stuff being bandied prior. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Paul Siebert

Frankly speaking, since a probability to find more than one anti-Communist person in vicinities of Wiltshire is definitely far from zero, I initially didn't believe TLAM is a sock of MarkNutley/Tentontunic. However, some recent events forced me to change my opinion: the more TLAM is editing, the more his behaviour is resembling that of Tentontunic.

1. MarkNutley accuses me in formal violation of 1RR on Mass killings under Communist regimes [24]. This accusation was purely formal (there was one intervening, but totally unrelated edit made by a third user), and although that eventually lead to my only block, the blocking admin (EdJohnson) conceded later that this 1RR violation fell into the "gray zone".
2. Tentontunic accuses me in formal violation of 1RR on the Communist terrorism article and requested to self-revert [25], although this violation was also purely technical.
3. TLAM accuses me in 1RR violation on the same article [26]. Again, the accusation was based on the totally artificial ground (my second edit was not a revert, the only intervening edit between my edits was made by the AnomieBOT, and the users Anonimu and Noetica edited other sections of the article [27])

Both articles are the areas of MN/Tentontunic and TLAM's interests, and in all three cases I see quite similar tactics. I face such tactic very infrequently when I deal with other users.
Another example is a story with anti-colonial and anti-authoritarian insurgencies in Indochina.

1. I had serious dispute with Tentontunic over the labelling of these movements (e.g. Viet cong[28]) as terrorists in the Communist terrorism article. My arguments were based on the fact that, although some sources, mostly British and American official sources did describe them as terrorists, much more sources describe them otherwise, and the mother WP articles do not use the terms "terrorism" as a primary term for their description.
2. The same dispute has started recently with TLAM ([29], see the bottom of the section), so I see the same arguments and have to re-iterate the arguments I already used in the dispute with Tentontunic).

The more I am interacting with TLAM, the more I am having a deja vu feeling. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
PS It is probably necessary to mention that most users who left the comments in support of TLAM were defending Tentontunic against false accusations in being a sock.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
PPS I have to agree with Russavia that the usage of different computers is hardly an evidence of anything. I myself use different computers when I edit from home (Windows XP and Linux Fedora), and different browsers; sometimes I use a VPN connection through my university server; I use my university computers in different parts of the campus, each of which has different browsers and different Windows or Linux based operation systems. I also know that I am not the sole person who edit Wikipedia from the computers of my university campus. In this situation, the hardware based evidences would have a little weight.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

On the last Russavia's post

Although the post is somewhat emotional, I see some rational points there. The ArbCom made some decision based on some evidences that were not available for wider WP community. In that situation, it is hard to speak about any new evidences, because we simply do not know what the old evidences were. In my opinion, the ArbCom should clearly explain what kind of evodences have been taken into account by them, and which of them appeared to be decisive. We do not need to know any details, but we have a right to know if that was the CU data, which appeared to be more convincing than the behavioural evidences, or that was some private information that convincingly demonstrated that TLAM was not a sockpuppet.
In other words, we have a right to know if TLAM is a suspected sockpuppet, which has been unblocked simply because the evidences of sockpuppetry appeared to be insufficient, or that the ArbCom had been provided with some convincing private evidences that TLAM and Mark Nutley are different persons despite the obvious similarities in their editorial styles.
I believe, a direct answer on that question violates noone's privacy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

@Nug

Obviously, the attempt to present the issue as someone's attempt to ban TLAM for ideological reasons is not acceptable. Moreover, it is based on absolutely faulty logics. Martin argues that TLAM and Mark Nutley are two different persons, and that even if that is not the case (i.e. if TLAM is a MN's sock), we do not need to block him, because he behaves well. However, these are two quite separate arguments. If TLAM and Mark Nutley are two different persons and ArbCom has unequivocal evidences of that, we have a right to know about that (I mean we have to be aware of the very fact of the existence of those evidences). However, if no such evidences exists, and TLAM is a well behaving MN's suspected sock, I am not sure that any references to his good behaviour can work: in this case MN is supposed to ask for unblock on behalf of himself.
In addition, I would like to point Martin's attention at the fact that the reference to "some wiki-lawyered technicality" is insulting and offensive, and, therefore, should be immediately retracted (with apologies). The reference to EEML is also redundant, especially taking into account someone's own history. I strongly suggest Martin to use less inflammatory terminology.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement Sander Säde

I haven't had all that much interaction with Mark Nutley or TLAM, but I've presumed them to be the same person. I figured the ArbCom subcommittee decided to give MN one more chance, esp. after the nasty slights and witch-hunt by pro-communist editors, which most definitely could cause real-life issues to someone using his real name on Wikipedia. I don't think administrators or non-involved arbitrators should do or decide anything hasty here. --Sander Säde 20:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Hersfold

I'm not totally sure of the background behind this other than I've blocked this guy in the past (and tbh have little interest looking into the backstory), but my opinion on ArbCom involvement in blocks has always been that ArbCom (read: Ban Appeals Subcommittee) is the court of last appeal on Wikipedia - if they review your block and refuse to unblock you, you're out of options and effectively banned for life (that is, until the next ArbCom elections). If they accept your appeal, however, you are free to go and there is no-one (save Jimbo acting as Founder) with the authority to override their ruling in that particular case. To do so would in effect be double jeopardy - the former blockee has been "acquitted" (or at least released from jail as time served) and can't be tried again for the same case. Should other facts arise, however, and it turns out that the blockee is violating policy again, then they can be blocked as appropriate for those violations. Should that happen, I would also assume that ArbCom would be less forgiving when the appeals came up to them again. A successful ArbCom appeal should not be interpreted as a blanket pardon for all crimes past, present, and future - if you cross the line again, you can expect to be blocked again with little chance of appeal. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Steven Zhang

Personally I would appreciate some clarification on the reason for the unblock in the first place. As I've filed an amendment request to TLAM's topic ban, one thing I am not clear on, is that has there been more alleged sockpuppetry by TLAM since his block was lifted by ArbCom (i.e. a new user) or whether it's more evidence that TLAM is the sockmaster that was originally suspected. If the latter, I assume that this should be sent to arbcom-l as opposed to on-wiki again. I would like to know some details on the reasons the block was lifted, whether they received an agreement that TLAM wouldn't sock anymore, or whether it was that ArbCom found TLAM innocent of said socking. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Prioryman

I've interacted with TLAM on Talk:Edward Davenport (fraudster) and thought there was something familiar-looking about his comments. Looking at his contributions, as someone who had extensive interactions with Mark Nutley before his ban, I'm in no doubt whatsoever that the two are the same individual - his language and editing style are very distinctive. WP:DUCK applies in spades. Prioryman (talk) 07:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Please note that The Last Angry Man has withdrawn his "retirement" notice and is editing again, so this issue is now no longer moot. Prioryman (talk) 22:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are two items left unfinished. SZ went to a great deal of trouble to allow my participation in the Holodomor mediation, I feel I owe it to him to complete the process. Carry on with your sockpuppetry case. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

In relation to Marknutley (but not concerning the TLAM account), please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marknutley for some new developments. Prioryman (talk) 08:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

@Collect: problems with reading comprehension? I already said above this did not concern the TLAM account. Prioryman (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Mathsci

It is unclear why Collect (talk · contribs) appears to be acting in support of The Last Angry Man (talk · contribs). The details of this specific case seem moot now [30] (a wikipedia retirement posting).Mathsci (talk) 07:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry is complicated. A.K.Nole / Echigo mole socks have left retirement notices asserting their innocence or casting blame shortly before being indefinitely blocked by checkusers. The last one was Tryphaena (talk · contribs) about two weeks ago. An example of a retirement message prior to being indefinitely blocked by checkuser can be found here. Mathsci (talk) 10:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

• The return to editing of The Last Angry Man (talk · contribs) has not been properly explained. Mathsci (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Threaded discussion is not permitted on this page - please could a clerk or TLAM move this to his own section?
You feel I ought to explain my actions to you? I already explained why in the section above to Prioryman The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I dont think there is an easy answer for this one. The successful ban appeals are sometimes announced with wording that gives an administrator a clear picture, and other times they are not. Also, the situation after the unblock may be different than at the time of the unblock. For example, the arbitration committee may have been monitoring the unblocked user, and may have received new information after the unblock. The simplest solution is for an admin to notify arbcom (via arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org) of an ongoing discussion if they feel that the user should be reblocked, and arbitrators should comment onwiki if they believe the reblock would be inappropriate. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Some people have asked for specifics regarding our decision on TLAM. The committee did not unban Marknutley. Prior to the unban of TLAM, several arbitrators reviewed the evidence that TLAM was Marknutley, and didn't find it conclusive. That, combined with the appeal from TLAM, resulted in the committee unblocking an account who they believe is a new user. In this specific case, the community should not read our unban decision as vacating the admin decision of the original block. There was a good component of "show good faith" in our unban. We rarely unban accounts which have been linked to banned users via sockpuppet investigations. ArbCom has been sent more evidence than was publicly provided, however it is broadly similar, and within the committee there isn't a consensus to overturn the unban. However we keep hearing about more evidence that isn't being shown to us. We've said that if there is better evidence, we're happy to be overruled in this instance. Whoever has the 'complete' evidence should make a decision, or send it to us and accept our decision. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• In general, I agree with John's comment, that is under those circumstances, it would be prudent to inform ArbCom of an ongoing discussion about a possible re-block. I also agree that arbitrators who took the decision to unblock should, after being notified about the discussion, comment onwiki. This particular unblock was handled by the Ban Appeal Subcommittee, so I think somebody from the subcommittee should comment in regard to the ongoing discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

• I suppose, as a rough rule of thumb, it would be unwise to reblock for "more of the same" (for example, more socking) without first contacting ArbCom. This is simply because there may be some pertinant backstory or material that only came to light off-wiki. But this is unlikely to be necessary if the second block is for different activity (for example, incivility or personal attacks when the first block was for socking).  Roger Davies ^talk 04:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm of two minds here. Personally, I have argued in the past that behavioral quirks (the DUCK test) need to be just as prominent as Checkuser info. However, considering the multiple reports from checkusers that these are different people, I'm hesitant to reblock here. However, I said a while back that the Buck Stops Here at ArbCom.. so on the balance of behavior versus IP, I'd have to weakly support a reblock. SirFozzie (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
  • This has become stale (and the base issue behind it on sending us additional information on actions we've taken, is settled), so I suggest this be archived. SirFozzie (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• On the general question, I agree with those commenting above that these situations need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Onthe specific case, in the first instance I will defer to my colleagues who dealt with this at the BASC level to comment. I would also point out that unblocks by the Committee or BASC of those who have been blocked for sockpuppetry, on grounds of mistaken identity or insufficient evidence, while sometimes controversial, are relatively rare. We look at appeals on this basis with a view toward providing the independent review that blocked users are entitled to, and once in awhile we find an obvious mistake, and other times we find the evidence equivocal; but everyone should understand that the Committee winds up agreeing with the checkusers and administrators who implement these blocks significantly more often than not. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that such situations need to be addressed case-by-case. As SirFozzie has pointed out here, the checkuser evidence is pretty strongly that these are two separate people. This reminds me of a previous situation where there were calls to name a user as the sock of a banned user, and Arbcom could not agree to that particular sanction because it was contradicted by private but fairly definitive evidence. What we could do was point to the fact that the behaviour may be sanctionable for other reasons, which were within the scope of the community to apply. In this case, there are other sanctions available that could be applied by arbitration enforcement administrators, completely separate to the question of sockpuppetry. The editing area in question is covered under discretionary sanctions. Many of the behaviours that would raise sockpuppetry red flags are also the kinds of behaviours for which sanctions would be appropriate irrespective of the socking issue. I support the principle of administrators using the range of tools available in the toolbox; a topic ban or other limitations may be issued, as could a block for different reasons. Risker (talk) 03:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm going to opine here that an appeal that was received and granted by ArbCom should be brought to ArbCom if new material information has been found that indicates that the appeal should not have been granted. Unrelated misbehavior or new incidents do not need this, however. — Coren ^(talk) 17:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
• Along with Coren, I think that unless specific mention of extenuating circumstances is given via unblock notice or notification, there's no reason for an admin to wait on reblocking for egregious behavior or sockpuppetry (not that it's not helpful to also notify ArbCom.) Information related to a reason the original unblock should not have been lifted should go to ArbCom first, and the admin should hold on a reblock. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
• Indeed, the others have said most of what I would on the subject--I'd just like to reinforce that yes, if an ArbCom-unblocked editor gets him/herself reblocked for other behavior, we should be notified. If nothing else, ArbCom needs the feedback for process improvement purposes: something went wrong with the original unblock. Either that was a failure to inform the community of administrators of the nature of the unblock, or we failed to accurately judge the editor's likelihood to engage in appropriate conduct upon his/her return. Jclemens (talk) 03:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tendenitious editing on discussion pages

If evidence were to be presented of (or evidence of what one or more editors believe to be) conduct such as tendentious editing, refusal to get the point and WP:IDHT on article and policy talk pages where there is repetitive disagreement from a small group of editors that there is a consensus against their views/proposals, would the committee consider taking the case? I'm not asking for a definite we'd accept, obviously without evidence and formal request you would never do that. Also I'm deliberately not naming names here, but I'm wondering whether it would be worth spending the time collating the evidence, etc to present a case - if it's most likely to be rejected as out of the committee's remit then the time spent would not be worth it. It's not entirely hypothetical of course, as there is a situation I'm involved in where we believe this is happening (disagreements are basically over the outcome of and conduct during/following discussions about content/what policy is/proposed changes to policy), and we are trying to work out a way forward. Even if the committee thinks that it is potentially within their scope, it doesn't mean a case will necessarily be brought, just that it would be an option to be considered. Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• As an involved person who would really like to see this issue resolved, I'd argue that the next step is to as at WP:AN for a kind word in the ear of the user(s) in question with the threat of a topic ban if WP:IDHT continues--I don't think we need ArbCom (yet). Hobit (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • As an involved person as well if you want to get something like this surely the first step is to get the relevant discussions closed by an uninvolved administrator or a triumvirate as something other than 'no-consensus'? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Empty!

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Since the adjacent page is empty I have fully protected it, thereby ensuring peace on Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 21:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Is lying a full or only a part time occupation of yours Jehochman? Or is trolling your better suit these days? Really, I honestly think WP:DICK was written with you in mind. Pedro :  Chat  21:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Pedro, please retract that personal attack. Jehochman was trying to insert a bit of humor, and your comment is way out of line. SirFozzie (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC) You stump up the diff where Jehochman "fully protected the adjacent page", I'll retract the accusation he's lying. Pedro :  Chat  21:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Pedro, I think you're missing the joke. He's saying that the Requests page is empty, which is a rare enough thing that if he protected it, we'd have peace on Wikipedia. If he had fully protected the page, would you have gone after him for a frivolous administrator action? In any case, you have gone beyond the bounds of what's allowed, calling someoneone a WP:DICK and a troll is not allowed. SirFozzie (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC) And I'd struck that part prior to your comments - although if calling someone a dick and a troll is "not allowed" I'm mystified why we have essays bluelinked from both words. Perhaps you could shed more light on this "not allowed" bit? I also note you've neatly ignored the request for a diff. Could you hurry up with that please. Pedro :  Chat  22:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC) It describes behavior, not people. Calling someone's behavior a violation of DICK is usually ok, calling someone a dick, not so much. And again, as I stated on your talk page, no diff is necessary, because it's fairly obvious (except maybe to you) that it was an attempt at humor. SirFozzie (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Hysterical gag then. I hope Jehochman isn't going into anymore comedy anytime soon. Pedro :  Chat  22:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Timotheus Canens

I would like to know if there is a process that would prevent an administrator from making decisions in a topic area when enforcement is requested. An RFC might do the trick but we might as well localize it and not draw in other editors. If there is such a process I would be happy to provide reasoning since I would prefer to get feedback from third parties before telling an admin what's what (ie: stop having double standards and no one is stupid enough to not get it). Cptnono (talk) 08:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

You could take it to AN/I--Peter cohen (talk) 22:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, and next I'm sure you could try gathering consensus for a motion that says that administrators are never allowed to block me or any of my friends.

Ask the Arbitration Committee (WP:A/R/C) if you want, but I highly doubt you're going to get anywhere. NW (Talk) 22:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

That was cute, NW. Did you consider that there might be evidence worth looking at or did you just blow it off assuming that every single admin is infallible while anyone who isn't an admin is a jerk?Cptnono (talk) 07:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

If you have evidence, you are welcome to submit it to the Arbitration Committee. This is ArbCom's process though, so ANI should shouldn't be used. NW (Talk) 15:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

There was some incorrect information here.. if Cptnono had questions about Timotheus Canens's AE actions, he should submit a request to the Committee, rather then ANI. Specific AE actions can always be reversed with a clear, ongoing and active consensus at ANI (or at AE after further discussion), however, to remove an administrator from enforcing AE sanctions in area only should come from the Committee.

While I have not had a chance to do more then get a passing familiarity with this (I've been working on a case where I'm one of the drafters), I don't find Timotheus's actions in this area to be outside what we expect from admins in the area, so if this HAD been presented to the Committee as a formal request to disqualify Timotheus Canens from working in enforcing those AE sanctions, I would likely reject the request.

Administrators working in contentious areas like AE deserve all the support we can give them. I know this greater then anyone, as my work as an AE Admin was a major source of burnout, where I took a several month break. I see that Timotheus has turned in his administrator status, and hope that like me, he will return to administrative duties when he has a chance to recharge his batteries (and just in case it is not clear, it is my opinion as an Arbitrator that this resignation is NOT under a cloud and that he can get back the mop upon request.) SirFozzie (talk) 04:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Concur in every respect with SirFozzie. Risker (talk) 04:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

IDHT?

WTH is IDHT? ("without IDHT", "massive IDHT going on "...) Lolo Sambinho (talk) 02:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I Didn't Hear that. It basically means you're not discussing or trying to get consensus, you're just repeating your position over and over again in attempt to win the argument by annoyance/exhaustion. SirFozzie (talk) 02:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Lankiveil's statement

Would an Arb please evaluate this statement made at the Muhammad images case request, particularly the "a separate significant fraction of those involved seem to be letting their Islamophobia get in the way" line? Unless there is evidence provided that someone in these discussions has made anti-Islamic statements in support of image retention, I find that tarring people one disagrees with as any sort of -phobic is quite disruptive. Tarc (talk) 13:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Have you considered the possibility that this is fair comment on the overall picture presented by Talk:Muhammad/images and its 23 archives, right from the big red box at the top of the page? Hans Adler 13:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

In what universe is it "fair" to call a group of people a bunch of bigots without supporting evidence? Can't we have disagreements about contentious topics without calling each other homophobes, antisemites, and the like? Tarc (talk) 14:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

You would be wise not to intensify the dispute by making counter-accusations. Jehochman ^Talk 14:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? I was not accusing Adler of anything, I was giving general examples of how labeling ones' perceived wiki-opponents in derogatory fashions is unhelpful. Tarc (talk) 15:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

You accused Lankiveil of being disruptive for the arbitration statement he made. It is not usually disruptive for a person to speak their mind as part of a dispute resolution process. Better for everyone to lay their cards on the table and see what each is concerned about. Jehochman ^Talk 20:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Soooo...blanket accusations of bigotry are a-ok when done in the process of weighing in with an AC Case filing. Interesting. In what other venues is the behavior acceptable, Hoch? I should make a list, checking it twice. Tarc (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Just file it away as evidence against the people who would make that accusation against you. Argumentum ad hominem has not exactly been a rarely used tactic in this regard. Resolute 03:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Citing supporting diffs where... appropriate, necessary, or possible?

This thread leads on from a minor procedural argument between Fram and me during the (unsuccessful) request for an arbitration case concerning Rich Farmbrough. The original discussion can be found via this permalink.

Let's compare the wording in the red box above the requests (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Header) and the Arbitration Guide.

• Red box, step 3: "State your request in 500 words or fewer, citing supporting diffs where necessary."
• Red box, bullet 3: "to 500 words or fewer, citing supporting diffs where possible."
• Arbitration guide, section 3.3: "A short and factual statement of 500 words or fewer should be written, including diffs where appropriate"

My question is, which one do we actually want? Possible, appropriate or necessary? Personally I think we should standardise all instances as "appropriate" as a middle-ground and to leave the interpretation open to the party making the statement. Deryck C. 15:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Well I just decided to be bold and make the change. Deryck C. 17:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps off-topic

First allow me to apologize if this post presents a difficult situation. I am reminded of the AC email leaks via the current Malleus Fatuorum request for case, and as a private email between he and another arb. was the first to be leaked. Have there been any explanations posted publicly? If so, may I ask where? If the current case request results in the loss of a 120k+ editor, will the AC provide said editor of any explanations?

Note: I understand that I may get a "canned" response to this. I also understand that there are times that information can not be made public due to the need to respect other's privacy. Still, the "we're looking into it" aka "we'll just let it die" approach actually does undermine the credibility of our project. Having a background in network and Internet security, I have no doubt that at least a couple folks know what happened here. I'm not demanding anything, and I honestly do understand the need to be prudent in these matters. I'm simply asking that some honest "we messed up here" integrity be displayed. My apologies to a couple of you that I KNOW to be of the highest caliber (hi Risker, Roger, etc.), but much of the disgust and mistrust of our project lies in the "What the hell is going on" venue. My best holiday wishes to you all. — Ched :  ?  05:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ched, to be honest, there's so many avenues of how it could have been leaked (someone's mail account being hacked, someone accessing the Mailman software etcetera, or deliberate leak). We've covered every possible method we can try to determine the exact cause, with assistance requests to the WMF (for access logs on who accessed the archives, etcetera) and hit a dead end on every single one of them so far. We continue to try to come up with theories on how/why and to find out exactly how it was done, but at this point, the trail has gone cold. We'd love to know how it was done, to make sure it doesn't happen again, and we've made strides on that (requiring a proven identity via PGP request to the WMF developers to get an access password to the archive, but we do not have anything to report on the root cause, and may not at all SirFozzie (talk) 00:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the update Sir. — Ched :  ?  12:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I've only just read your post above, Ched, and much of it puzzles me. You say "Having a background in network and Internet security, I have no doubt that at least a couple folks know what happened here" (how does that make sense? I can think of several ways that logic can be shot down) and "much of the disgust and mistrust of our project" (this is hyperbole - you can't blame everything wrong with the project on the fact that ArbCom use a closed mailing list). Both of those statements strike me as wrong-headed - seeing things the wrong way. Also, the bland "etc" fails to hide the implication that you mistrust some sitting arbitrators. You can't post blanket criticisms like that and then apologise to some vague and partially defined portion of the body you are criticising. What I think you are asking for is an update on whether anything more is going to be said about those leaks. In that sense, SirFozzie has simply told you that nothing is known for sure and nothing more is likely to be said. That's not an update. That's more a 'nothing known and nothing more to be said' final word, which is where I thought the matter had been left months ago. I have a personal interest in this, as the leaks included posts I made to the mailing list when I was an arbitrator, but I've long since concluded that nothing more is likely to be done, and I've almost forgotten about the leaks now. I certainly wouldn't expect any further updates (it is some six months now), and certainly not in the context of this request involving Malleus, which is about as unrelated as you can get (unless someone is spreading wild conspiracy theories). And even if an explanation is posted at some future point, I don't think it would be possible to provide proof that would satisfy everyone, and people would still carry on believing their own theories about what happened. Carcharoth (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Carcharoth, and thank you for taking the time to address this. I'm in a bit of a time bind here due to some holiday items as well as trying to get an article passed as GA within the allotted time; but I will follow up on this on your talk page asap. Basically I suppose my original post is an empathetic understanding to the ongoing issues regarding M.F. born out of an understanding of his frustrations. System administrators (as opposed to wp:admins) working on a project of such a large scale as WP would normally be able to trace packets to and from various areas of the servers used to host such a project. Given that some of the material was years old - I'd think that it would be easy to see who had accessed the data in regards to the leaked material. I do understand that there are a variety of ways the information could have been "turned loose into the wild" so to speak, but think that such a breech would have our best minds trying to find a root cause; if for no other reason than to ensure that it never happened again. I won't pretend to understand how WP is set up, and I'm not really trying to research that information. I was simply trying to point out that if some folks have a certain mistrust of our infrastructural workings, then perhaps there is a valid reason for it, and some steps could be taken to reduce those qualms. Look, I don't want to be a trouble-maker; but I do admit that I really hate when I see good folks run-off of this project. Anyway .. I will touch base with you again in a couple days. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  15:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

TOC bunching

On my browser the TOC bunches into the Arbcomopentasks template making it hard to read. I do enlarge my text but believe pages should render properly regardless of browser or configuration. If someone knows the fix, it would be great to see it incorporated. Otherwise I suspect I will research the matter further within my own time constraints and achieve the fix. Thanks in advance for considering this matter. My76Strat (talk) 11:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Most statements in a request for arbitration?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Out of curiousity, does anyone know the record for most statements in a request for arbitration? The request regarding MF is currently at 90 statements. That's the most I've seen in recent memory. Just curious. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

sure plenty for them to read huh? :) — Ched :  ?  23:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Most I recall seeing, too. Jclemens (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

One more comment and it'll be 100. (Jayen466 was 99.) Maybe we should give them a toaster or something. A lot of people have a lot to say about this guy. Thats for sure. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 10:29, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought I'd seen more, but a brief look through the archives of declined requests didn't bring up anything among those requests I remembered being very long. Possibly some of the accepted cases have lots of statements at the request stage, though those will be harder to identify as: (a) I don't think a diff is kept at the point a case is opened; and (b) the statements by parties and others are split up once a case opens. Possibly the large number of statements here is due to a combinations of: (i) timing (holiday season for many); (ii) the peaking of a divisive issue within the community; (iii) actions over the last few months by some of those involved keeping the issue 'hot' and oft-discussed (this is subtly different from an issue which is naturally divisive - the difference between genuine controversy and manufactured controversy). Or it could be simply because it involves a very active editor who comes into contact with a large number of other editors. Finally, there is the relatively slow response by arbitrators at a time of transition/holidays for ArbCom. Requests that get a quick response from arbitrators tend to get less statements. If arbitrators bide their time and wait before saying something, a snowball effect can occur. Carcharoth (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Though we're not strictly speaking at the level of 100 statements in "support" of something, this is probably still worth listing at WP:100. --Elonka 01:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, it would be not less "worth" doing that any other listing there - which is not much on a worth-less page. (Although that page is about 100 Wikipedians "supporting" something, whereas here there are 99 users with very disparate views.--Scott Mac 01:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's not; it would be in bad taste to add infamous editors to the list, and a violation of WP:DENY. Those of us who have watched numerous ArbCom cases know very well that Malleus will be banned as a result of this proceeding. There is zero chance that ArbCom will tolerate editors calling colleagues "cunts" repeatedly and without remorse. Jehochman ^Talk 02:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you are accurate in your prediction, but I find it just a tad unseemly to "judge and sentence" without even a pretense of a trial. guilty until proven innocent? Just IMHO. — Ched :  ?  13:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

This case is going to play out like the series finale of Seinfeld. Some of these people are practically salivating over hitting the Evidence page. Tarc (talk) 13:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I see a difference between uncivil wording addressed at a specific individual, and language directed at an undefined subset of a group. If I said "some Americans are idiots" would that be considered an uncivil comment directed at an editor who happened to be an American?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

If someone needlessly, deliberately and provocatively kept inserting nasty asides against Americans, into what should otherwise be an on-topic encyclopedic thread, then yes, that would be considered disruptive. At best it would be lame, and at worst (or, perhaps, quite obviously) it would be trolling.--Scott Mac 15:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

A useful principle, if a case is accepted, would be that 'casting aspersions' is no less unacceptable when directed at a group than when directed at an individual. Just as when saying things about an individual, there is a requirement to actually provide evidence to back up what you say (or to present it as an opinion, rather than a fact), there should be a requirement to do the same when criticising a group. Whether that group be ArbCom or admins in general. As an example, Tarc says above "Some of these people are practically salivating over hitting the Evidence page". That is a vague and poorly defined statement. Tarc leaves unsaid who he means when saying that, with the result that no-one is likely to object to it, yet the statement drags down the level of the discourse. To confuse the issue further, Mkativerata has (correctly) prepared evidence here in preparation for the opening of any case. Would Tarc characterise that as 'salivating over hitting the Evidence page'? Somehow I don't think Tarc had that in mind when making that statement, but that sort of misunderstanding is what can happen if you throw out poorly-defined statements of hyperbole like that. Carcharoth (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I fear that once we have arbcom decreeing "this be incivility" then we're not solving the problem. It is the same logic that allows me to say "I may be mistaking your posts for idiotic trolling" but will block me for saying "you are an idiotic troll". We soon get into the legalism of "Whoever swears by the altar, that is nothing, but whoever swears by the offering on it, he is obligated." (Matthew 23:18). Incivility is like pornography - you'd need something longer than the MOS to define it - yet we tend to know it when we see it. Granted there's a huge cultural grey area, but there's still a line where 95% of people recognise a crossing. The problem at the moment is that the right desire to be liberal in the grey areas, is being wikilawyer to excuse downright poisoned remarks. The fact that some people are curt, and everyone occasionally blows of steam, is used to excuse a constant torrent of verbal abuse from people who are either deliberately drama stirring, or are just naturally toxic personalities.--Scott Mac 17:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I can accept that "needless..., deliberate... and provocative... nasty asides ... would be considered disruptive". However, we aren't here asking ArbCom to deal with a case of disruption. It isn't even alleged in the complaint, unless it falls under the ill-defined umbrella of "other sorts of undesirable behavior". And if this is the allegation, where's the evidence of the failed RFC? According to Policy:The last step – only when other avenues, including RfC, have been tried and failed – is the Arbitration Committee, [emphasis added] This case, except for the wheel-warring, is not ripe.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Incivility in long-term users, and the drama caused by the block/unblock cycles is a problem as old as any on Wikipedia. The names change, but the issues are the same. It has been discussed on countless threads, RFC, and arbcom cases. That's the underlying issue here, and it is well ripe for being dealt with. I'm less optimistic that arbcom will have the nerve or the unity to actually deal usefully with it. But if they are not going to address it, then they ought to reject the case. A month of drama, a dozen pages of history rehersing, and no real solution would be a crime.--Scott Mac 17:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem as Scott says is that long term users can become habituated to informality and feel that their large volume of contributions justifies them doing whatever they please, and that their large number of friends would protect them from consequences. ArbCom should advise, "Don't risk getting into a feud with that group of friends by blocking the offender. Don't go it alone with a contentious block." Thankfully the number of problematic longterm users is rather small. "Instead of blocking these users, bring a request for arbitration, and we will decide it as a community, rather than by wheel warring." Jehochman ^Talk 17:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

That's certainly a widespread perception (and I may even agree with it). The other perception is that admins needlessly pursue writers, blocking them for stuff others don't get blocked for. However, what is self-evident is that the circle of block/unblock wrt established writers is disruptive - and leads both to frustration by admins, and (quite possibly) baiting in order to "get" those with perceived block immunity. We really do need to deal with this - whether that is in restricting civility blocks and/or discouraging the easy unblock. We need a policy that the community can accept, even if they don't like it.--Scott Mac 18:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

My ideas:

• Don't block editors for mere incivility, unless there is serious harassment such as unambiguous outing, homophobia, antisemitism, race baiting, etc. of a truly offensive nature. Calling somebody a generic rude name ("arsehole") wouldn't be blockable.
• Lesser incivility is not acceptable. However, the community is deeply divided over how lesser incivility should be dealt with.
• To avoid wheel warring, to ensure that blocks stick, and that civility is enforced, there must be a community discussion before blocking for lesser incivility. If that discussion fails to achieve a clear consensus, the matter must either be dropped or referred to arbitration.

If these guidelines were followed, we would have a lot less trouble, and we would have less uncivil editing. Jehochman ^Talk 18:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

really? .. someone actually felt a need to close this discussion? ... amazing. — Ched :  ?  17:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The clerk wanted us to save it for the actual case and put a hat around the whole thing. Risking death or mayhem I changed the hat-hab to a visible archive box. Jehochman ^Talk 20:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Why does the whole thing have to be archived? The original question and the first few responses were fine. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Malleus case

AFAICS this can now not be heard, according to the voting numbers. Merry Christmas! Rich Farmbrough, 02:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Where on earth do you get THAT impression? Jclemens (talk) 03:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

It is still mathematically possible to reach the net four votes required to open a case. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 23:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

There are still three arbs who have not weighed in. If two vote yea, regardless of what the third does, the case is open. Possibly I'm wrong, my math has traditionally sucked.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Put very simply, in terms of net votes to accept, the tally stands at four to accept, one to decline, a net three votes. It therefore just takes one more arbitrator to accept to achieve a net four. Alternatively, if an arbitrator votes to decline, the tally will drop to a net two votes, and it will take two arbitrators to vote to accept to achieve the net four. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

What he said.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, OK it is four net accepts over decline, not clear. Rich Farmbrough, 19:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC).

RD's accept vote clinches acceptance, if I understand it correctly. Peanuts go on sale 9 a.m. tomorrow in the gallery. Heavy sales and throwing expected.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Rich, where wasn't it clear? Was it Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#How_requests_are_processed? I've updated that to change reject to decline. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I was looking Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Opening_of_proceedings here. Rich Farmbrough, 00:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC).

OK, so is this better and can I make the change? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome New Arbitrators!

Per our long tradition, you are hereby presented with this highly contentious case. We hope you enjoy it!

• Jehochman ^Talk 20:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• I would like to wish all the current and newly elected arbcom members good luck. This case feels like it'll be a marathon! Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas! 01:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• I also would wish to thank all of you who have agreed to serve on the ArbCom. I hope you all feel that you still want to be ArbCom members come the end of this case. John Carter (talk) 01:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• rdfox 76 (talk) 06:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC) (By the way, can I have the popcorn concession on this one? Tuition and books are gonna kill me this semester...)

Comments by other editors on WP:AE cases

Suggestion: Disallow comments besides comments made by the accuser, the accused or uninvolved admins.

Reasons:

1. These comments serve to increase hostility between editors as accusations and slurs are thrown back and forth.
2. The comments made are with few exceptions made by involved editors, limiting the value of their comments, as their neutrality is compromised.
3. The sheer volume of comments is also making the administrators task more time-consuming than needed. --Frederico1234 (talk) 06:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment. What about comments from people who have tried to sort out a mess? A former mediator, for example, someone who has adopted or mentored one of the users, people who have commented on RfCs? Itsmejudith (talk) 11:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I dislike seeing anything made admin-only.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The comments do much more harm than good and often make the AEs veritably impossible to process. Also consider this as a suggestion, if it's relevant here:

• Admins will allow the accused to respond to the charges against him before commenting on the case.—Biosketch (talk) 11:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
• Although what goes on at AE often obscures this, the consensus sought is supposed to be amongst uninvolved editors, not restricted to admins. Comments from highly-involved editors can be problematic, it's true, but the solution is not to turn admins and non-admins into the rulers and the ruled. EdChem (talk) 11:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Ed, what are you basing this on? Uninvolved Admins are basically considered the only ones with the capacity to apply Wikipedia's policies without prejudice to either of the sides involved; that is to say, without biases relating to the conflict in question. It's been my experience, and that of others as well, that the comments made by other editors serve only to cheer or castigate the parties directly involved. There's rarely any detached observation that actually assists Admins in their decision making.—Biosketch (talk) 12:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Look at the AE instructions, the discussion section (where consensus is supposed to form) is restricted to uninvolved editors. The decision section below, which in principle should simply be for the closer, is in practice where admins come to consensus deliberately preventing input from uninvolved non-admins. As I said, typical AE bahaviour obscures what should be happening and unfortunately ArbCom hasn't stepped in to say that the consensus discussion must be open to all who are not involved, with a closing admin determining the consensus view. In practice, a small group of AE admins is able to control everything and disenfranchise non-admins from being considered in coming to a decision (which goes a long way to explain the lack of regular participation from uninvolved editors).
You write that "Uninvolved Admins are basically considered the only ones with the capacity to apply Wikipedia's policies without prejudice to either of the sides involved". I consider this deeply flawed on two levels. First, some uninvolved admins are not competent for this task. Second, the suggestion that I (or any other editor) is incapable of unbiased judgement because I lack sysop tools is offensive. Adminship is supposed to be no big deal. Even though this is not the case in reality, anything that adds to the notion of admins having anything but a few extra tools is to be resisted. The AE processes need modification to better facilitate the contributions of uninvolved editors, not change to further empower admins. EdChem (talk) 12:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

With the reality being what it is at AE, as we speak even, it's exceedingly rare that an uninvolved editor will have any insightful input to offer Admins in formulating their proposals. It happens on occasion, but it's so relatively infrequent that I didn't think it even merited attention. When I said uninvolved Admins are the only ones with the capacity to apply Wikipedia's policy free from bias, it wasn't to suggest that uninvolved editors shouldn't comment – on the contrary, they should. But when AEs become venues for editors on opposing sides to vent their resentment at each other, which is typically all that involved editors ever do there, then there needs to be some restriction introduced to make the cases calmer and clearer to follow. The I/P-related AEs have a tendency to descend into chaos and personal rhetoric to the point where any calm and sensible comment gets drowned out in the commotion. It could very well be that it's that environment that discourages uninvolved editors from dipping their toes in to begin with. Indeed, uninvolved editors should share their perspectives at AE – that would be a refreshing departure from the same recycled stuff that goes on there week after week. But the only way to make that possible, and to make AEs readable and on-topic, is to introduce a policy that restricts involved editors from ranting there.—Biosketch (talk) 12:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with restricting the ranting from involved editors. EdChem (talk) 12:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

If any *uninvolved* editors comment in an AE case, whether or not they are admins, their comments should be read and studied by whoever closes the request. It would certainly be easier to review cases if editors who were involved, but were not named in the complaint, did not offer comments. Such a change in the general practice would have to come from the community. Arbcom is unlikely to take such a step. On the downside, any attempt to restrict the involved editors would lead to lengthy discussions as to who is involved, and that might counteract any time savings. Anybody who comments in a case and does a halfway-decent job of analyzing evidence is providing a big contribution, but not many people have the patience to do that. EdJohnston (talk) 13:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The most easiest criterion would be anyone that received a warning of particular case of course it will not cover all the involved but at least it will limit the editors somehow also most of the editors are mature enough to understand if the involved or not for example user:Zero0000 or user:Ynhockey are not commenting in results section in WP:AE.I personally support user:Frederico1234 proposal --Shrike (talk) 14:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Ladies and Gentlemen, don't you think that this restriction will just move the ranting by the involved and half-involved wikilawyers editors interested in a specific AE case to the admins talk pages and blur the discussion? There are other means by which the text walling can and shall be limited. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 16:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

While I suggested this at A/E, and try to abide by it myself, I regrettably agree with those who point out the shortcomings of a ban on comments from involved editors. Instead of the sniping we currently "enjoy", we would see sniping about who is and isn't "involved", and much of the lobbying would simply move to administrators' Talk pages. I continue to advocate for a voluntary adoption of this approach, but I'm afraid a formal requirement wouldn't help. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

How would you feel about a routine question that would be asked of each commenter, whether they feel themselves to be an uninvolved editor for purposes of that AE request? We could even make a bot to ask that question if people felt that it was legitimate. We would simply report their answer and not make any judgment about it. EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I suppose we could ask people to declare themselves involved or uninvolved. I seem to remember that the A/E complaint template once had separate sections for comments by involved and uninvolved editors. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand the motivation for the proposal (I often do read the requests for enforcement) but am uneasy about limiting comments to administrators. I would feel more comfortable with EdJohnston's suggestion, asking editors to self-declare whether or not they were involved, or a variation such as Malik Shabazz's. Jd2718 (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Any system in place or adopted has, or will have defects. Why not experiment for a few months, successively, with various proposals. I have one: restricting AE cases to the plaintiff and the accused before one admin, and a reviewing admin? The evidence or input to be reviewed, being thus drastically thinned down, would allow a more rapid appraisel. If the plaintiff or accused thinks a judgement flawed, (s)he would be invited to make one analytic paragraph and request a third party to review. The potential danger here would be administrative solidarity working not to overturn or compromise what earlier admins have decided. But you all are aware of this. Only in cases where regular (not IPs, anons, socks, or raw newbies mess around) editors are sanctioned for more than two months, should third parties be invited in to have their say. Their comments should be limited to one paragraph (not the length I write!) and they should not have a right to respond to anything others or admins write. A time restriction on the presentation of evidence and discussion (2 days?) might help in avoiding the frequent agony column- or wikidrama temptations.Nishidani (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is a bad idea but don't you think they would all automatically escalate? I think it's an interesting approach and the tit-for-tat wall of text that AE has become is something worthy of discussion for revision. --WGFinley (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Escalation is what I hoped to elide, but I may not have thought it through. Where problems are chronic, you either have a solution (no one has: the first thing in any proposal is to examine how it might be gamed) or you don't. I just think a little experimentation with alternatives is the way to handle this. If it totters, we learn from the exposed defects, tinker on, or revert to the tried-but-not-quite-true system we now have in place. I know wiki is very respectful of tradition and precedent. But traditions were once innovations, and this kind of experiment does not, ipso facto, create any (dangerous) precedent. Nishidani (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Self-restraint, as Malik declared and demonstrated, always wins. From other side, people need the right to be heard. This right can be limited to a single response at AE page, with a total prohibition on on- and off- wiki canvassing. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that is not really the appropriate way to go about fixing some of the bickering that has gone on at AE. Being involved should not be regarded as some sort of poison pill for an editor's perceived ability to discuss an issue fairly. Maybe there should be a consideration for how to restrain the specific behaviors you mention with some new set of rules on conduct at AE or stricter enforcement, but I think going after an editor's "involvement" is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Typically the people most familiar with the case will be those who have been involved in it and one editor may touch upon a piece of evidence or particular argument that the accused editor or filing editor have not considered. Taking potshots at other editors, using one case to try and reargue another, or bringing the subject of one case to another where there is no actual connection are all obviously pointless and disruptive behaviors to bring to AE. I see no reason why there should be a restriction against all editors based on whether they contributed to an article or topic area.

Perhaps, given that I believe most of this conduct relates to ARBPIA, we should look at the broader problems in that topic area specifically. I believe most of this conduct at AE is merely a symptom of a broader issue with that specific area of the project. Maybe there needs to be a request for amendment. Several admins have been strongly voicing support for giving out tougher sanctions to a group of people in this topic area on top of these concerns about behavior at AE.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• I made an identical proposal this evening in a new section at WP:AE, before being pointed to this thread. For the reasons I outline there, such a change in practice would have my support. AGK [•] 01:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think Carcharoth advocated this idea in the last ArbCom ruling on AE in 2010. To my mind we could try to encourge this by modifying the templates that are used to file requests: ie create a specific section for a) the requester/appealer (with room for diffs and less than 350 words for complaints) b) the subject of request c) involved editors, d) uninvolved editors, and e) uninvolved admins. At the top of the page in the red info box there could be a warning a) not to misrepresent oneself as uninvolved, and b) a warning not to make more than one post (of 350 words or less) to the thread unless specifically requested to do so by uninvolved sysops.
  Tangentially, I remember that there was a recent thread about general behaviour at RFAR and I suggested formalizing what behaviour we expect of ppl in that forum (not everyone is used to that kind of environement)[31] I would support this for AE too. It can't hurt to tell ppl that we expect them to behave with honesty, respect and on the basic premise of AGF--Cailil ^talk 03:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

As I said above I think this is not a question of editors being involved or not, or the length of comments, but one of more basic conduct. Restricting the amount of words an editor can use, where they are allowed to make comments, or when they are allowed to make comments would be harming the process more than helping it, in my opinion. Looking at what particular conduct is creating the problem would be more relevant. Seems to me, as I note above, that this concern has been raised specifically because of request in a specific topic area so there should first be a consideration of whether that particular area should examined for the problem.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

While I've argued for a judicial format that saves admins' precious time by reducing the quantity of comment from those outside the strict conflict between plaintiff and defendent at A/E, and therefore make the place more accedptable to the great majority of admins who won't touch it, I'd like to remind administrators that we hewers of dead-wood in the I/P field are forced to face a level of industrial wastage of time and commonsense no sane person should accept in their work lives or leisure. I just downloaded the 'argument' engendered by two small edits at Jerusalem and Alon Shvut, into a word file. The result was two months of absolute defiance of commonsense, and a book length (160 pages, and I've surely missed several boards) screed. Arbs can't be expected to review that, and that's why when we get to an A/E case discussion should be succinct, and stringently restricted to the matter of diffs and policy. At the same time, however, since the system allows this extraordinary profligacy of verbiage as an entitlement to any editor who holds out, (a) those who have to WP:AGF and cope with the mountain of chat at talk-pages know far more of what's going on than those who must adjudicate (b) have to put up with far more potential stress than arbs themselves face. One could only wish there a strict rule were applied that least that in controversial inter-national territorial arguments, WP:NPOV is met by adherence to international law, and no equivocation through the ruse of dubious or factitious sources is to be tolerated in definitions and language. Much of the abuse arises from anons or some editors refusing to accept policy on this. People resist this because they confuse such a reading of WP:NPOV as taking sides. It ain't. The result is the same stale arguments have to be rehearsed and repeated from article to article. It's not fair on the peonry to expect this of them. Sigh Nishidani (talk) 11:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Request for clarification: User:Timotheus Canens

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Initiated by brewcrewer (yada, yada) at 23:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

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

• Brewcrewer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by Brewcrewer

User: Timotheus Canens is a former administrator[32] but continues to act as an administrator at AE, by for example lifting topic bans,[33][34] editing the Uninvolved Administrator section, and proposing bans.[35][36] Today I asked him to stop,[37] but he continued to act as an admin subsequent to my request[38] and refused my request.[39]

Firstly, I would like to clarify whether a topic ban validly enacted as part of AE enforcement is considered vacated when it was "removed" by a former admin if the former admin originally placed the restriction when he was an administrator?

Secondly, and this is not really to clarify anything, I would like ARBCOM to make clear that former admins should not be acting as if they are admins at AE. I would move TC's comments to the appropriate section, but wanted to confirm with ARBCOM first. Thank you.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

@Sir Fozzie. I don't think it is much of a concern that someone will claim that since the topic ban was not technically vacated, the editor under question is editing in violation of the ban. However it should be of concern when a former admin (even if good standing) is acting like an admin. No explanation is necessary. There is no good reason for Timotheus Canens to undertake admin actions or act like an admin when he isn't one. If he wants to act in an administrative capacity let him regain his tools (which I don't oppose). --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Additional Comment. Timotheus Canens has reacquired his "bit" on his main account[40] so I guess this issue is now stale. I would however like to urge TC to avoid this type melodramatic behavior. Giving up the tools, acting like an admin without the tools, refusing to stop when asked to, then asking back for the tools a few weeks later, blanking his own talk page[41],and then changing his mind again a day later.[42] We don't want an admin who appears to spend the majority of his WP-activity at the AE noticeboard to exhibit the drama-queen type of behavior he himself should be adept at dealing with at AE. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Statement by NuclearWarfare

This was discussed last year on WT:Arbitration, I believe. I'm going from memory, but I think the conclusion is that administrators without the admin bit shouldn't be doing anything at AE. With that said, I think that lifting one's own bans is entirely reasonable and can/should be done by the user even if they don't have the admin bit. NW (Talk) 02:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Can't find the discussion. Maybe someone else remembers what I'm talking about though? I definitely remember Kirill stating something during the conversation, but that's it. NW (Talk) 06:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

Some clarification on this would be nice. When I saw Tim commenting in the uninvolved admin section I actually thought he had returned to his admin duties as did an admin who apparently acted based on that perception. Several other admins also responded to him in that section as though he was just another admin suggesting sanctions.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Spartaz

Speaking as another recently resigned admin, I think you have to be very careful in how you act if you remain active in areas where you previously acted as an admin. For example, I don't think it would be reasonable for me to close any DRVs that don't require the bit as the convention is that admins should close DRVs. Nevermind the fact that I have closed 100s of the darn thing. By the same token, if a user asked me to review a previous AFD close, I don't think it would be very userfriendly to refuse to engage because you don't have the bit. Personally, I think the situation is like an arb who is leaving the committee, they are allowed to participate in cases that they have already been involved in. To me, this suggests that its reasonable for Tim to act as an admin-emeritus in cases where they have imposed sanctions and that they can by virtue of the fact that they are reviewing their own action and have resigned in good odour remove a topic ban they imposed. Beyond this Tim shouldn't be involved at AE in any kind of quasi admin role. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by TC

I had always taken the view that administrators who turned in the mop in uncontroversial circumstances are still admins, just temporarily with the bit flipped off. Since they could receive the bit back by simple request at BN, I don't see the point of insisting on that empty formality.

In this particular case, I am currently traveling (you can check that out with a quick CU if you want), so I have been (and will be) editing from my alternate non-admin account. I intended to ask for my tools back when I return to my usual location.

If you really insist on the empty ritual of me asking for the tools that I would not be using anyway until I return from my trip, fine. I just don't see the point of it. T. Canens (talk) 08:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Scott MacDonald

I agree with AGK that the sysop bit is binary - you either have an account with it, or without it. Accounts without the bit can't do a few things that accounts with the bit can do, and we don't (and shouldn't) attempt to differentiate between accounts without the bit.

My problem is, and where I think the confusion lies here, is that I dislike there being anything that an account without the bit CAN TECHNICALLY DO, but isn't actually allowed to do. That creates a status differential, rather than a differential of technical ability. And it is what causes the problem when someone has a right to the status, but lacks the bit. It is why I detest the practice of people saying "only an admin can do this". If only an admin can do this (i.e. bit needed) then this shouldn't need said - and it is technically the non-admin can't possibly do it (whether they are allowed to or not). I also hate the practice of people marking stuff as "non-admin close". A close is a close, it is either a good one or a bad one, who did it doesn't matter.

If adminship is "no big deal", then it only matters at the "being trusted with some tools" level. We don't do rights of status and access beyond that. So, in short, I agree with AGK that we don't want to try to work out who, that doesn't have the bit, still has the status of admin. But I also think that the user had every right to do exactly whatever he did at AE. The only question is - is he clued enough to do it, and did he do it right.

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Considering it was the thought of the committee that this was a break, and that Timotheus could get the mop back on request, I don't have too much of a problem with it (especially since he was simply reversing an action he took while he was an AE admin), but I will wait for further comments/statements. SirFozzie (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• An administrator who gave up the tools non-controversially can request them back at any time; thus, if Tim were to encounter something in an AE request that he felt needed immediate administrative action, he could, in theory, request the tools back and take care of the matter himself, as an admin. If he then chose to, he could immediately resign the tools again, although speaking as a crat it would be a bit annoying. ;-) Barring any sort of incident that would bar him access to the tools, I don't see an issue with this. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Just to add, this is now somewhat moot, as Tim has requested (and been given) his rights back. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• I must take a more severe line. The administrator right is sometimes called 'the bit' because it is a binary assignment: an account either is an administrator, or is not. I think there are far more serious issues on Wikipedia, but nevertheless my view is that to allow this kind of thing is a slippery slope: if former administrators can enforce arbitration decisions, we then have to consider in each case whether they stepped down "under a cloud" and how likely they are to have their sysop right returned. In the past, determining whether a sysop resigned without controversy has not been simple, and ideally such a discussion would be reserved for the resysopping process - not extended to every enforcement thread the former sysop contributes to. Frankly, the enforcement process is complicated enough without adding the headache of checking up on whether an account that doesn't have the sysop flag is in good standing; the issue also complicates the process for first-time users of the enforcement process, which is suboptimal. While I agree with Hersfold that the opinion of T. Canens (whom I regard as a thoughtful and useful user, not that this changes the situation we are in) would be useful in appeals or amendments of his previous enforcement actions, I request that he abstains from taking new enforcement actions unless or until he is resysopped (which I hope he is in the near future). We don't need the headache, nor more scope for AE wikilawyering. AGK [•] 19:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• My mind is along Spartaz's thought process, I don't have an issue with Tim revoking something he imposed when he had the bit, but I would support a motion clarifying that AE remedies can only be imposed by flagged admins. AE is contentious enough, and the issues of whether an editor is an admin in good standing yet lacking the flag can only be unnecessary drama. (And personally, I think if you don't have the flag, you don't do things limited by rule to admins, as these style sanctions are.) Courcelles 02:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with SirFozzie and Courcelles; I don't see a problem here. Jclemens (talk) 05:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• ....aaaand this is rendered moot now by Timotheus Canens getting the bit back, so I guess it's time to close. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• Apart from this terse and inappropriate response to a comment, Timotheus Canens has behaved in the best interest of Wikipedia, so I don't see there's an issue with him. The clarification request is, however, interesting in that it has pointed to a grey area not just in AE, but across Wikipedia: how welcome are editors in good standing to do actions that don't require the admin tools, but which require good judgement? Generally it appears to me that we work with an understanding that if a discussion/action is straightforward it can be closed/done by any editor in good standing, if the discussion is controversial and/or has a big impact we prefer an admin to close it as an admin has the consensus of the community to make actions that require good judgement and understanding, if the discussion is mega (such as the recent verifiability discussion) we look to three admins to make the close. If there is some uncertainty about an action the action can be questioned or challenged, and if needed it can be looked at again; we have informal (and sometimes formal as in DRV) procedures in place for this. If in any particular area, or with any particular editor, there are repeated concerns, the community tends to resolve the issue, or bring them to ArbCom. As this is a one-off (and fairly unique) situation it is too soon for either the community or ArbCom to be looking into it. Is an admin's judgement impaired because they have temporarily relinquished the tools in order to take a break? No, I don't think so. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Strange archiving of a request

Is this method of archiving appropriate? [43] With the "mathematically impossible". Why is it different from the other declined cases around the same period of time. It also makes searches not work to find the content.

TCO (Reviews needed) 22:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It's archived no differently than any other declined case request (cf. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests#2009). Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 04:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

OK.TCO (Reviews needed) 13:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Question on AE procedure

I know that for an editor to be sanctionable under ArbCom discretionary sanctions that editor must have been formally notified about the case, etc. Does this notification have to come from an admin? If so, what is the appropriate way to get admins to look at a situation and decide whether to issue notifications / warnings? If not, is there a problem with the notification coming from an editor who has previously commented at the article talk page and / or edited the article? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 15:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The latest wording at WP:AC/DS does not require that the warning come from an administrator. If you think that a warning ought to be given, your best plan is probably to request it at WP:AE or WP:ANI, or from an admin who sometimes gives warnings under the relevant Arbcom case. If the warning is done in an official manner it is less likely to be challenged later as being inadequate. EdJohnston (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Jimmy Wales' powers

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Initiated by ASCIIn2Bme (talk) at 02:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

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

• ASCIIn2Bme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• the rest of Wikipedia editors, but I don't think individually notifying all other editors is practical in this case. Perhaps a WP:CENT notice should be added?

Statement by ASCIIn2Bme

Does ArbCom still recognize the principle it set forth in [44] where it stated that "Jimbo Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, may make or alter Wikipedia policy when he chooses to do so"?

@Lord Roem: I assure you that it has practical implications. And the ArbCom policy enumerates some powers that Jimbo has (e.g. as ultimate appeals instance), but doesn't say those are all of his powers as founder. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

@LR (2): Like [45] (scroll for the 2nd reply green chunk/reply) and [46]. And the putative RfC is about a future delegation of powers, which strongly implies that Jimbo currently has certain powers. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

@AGK: Ok, I guess this shall remain a mystery in the sum of knowledge of the present ArbCom (unlike the 2006 one.) Happy New Year! ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

@Hersfold: Thanks for a the info on administrative actions. Assuming [hypothetically] that Jimbo decided to undo the closure of a RfC performed by another administrator, would that count as an administrative action appealable to ArbCom? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

@Beyond my ken: From the pink header: "Use this section to request further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision." I don't see where it says that requests need be limited to "results". And principles in the final decision are results of a case anyway. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 06:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Lord Roem

I do not think this Request for Clarification is properly made. This is likely an attempt to begin a Wikipedia governance debate at RfArbitration at its worst or an abstract question at its best.

Jimbo has stated in posts on his talk page in the past few days that he plans to open a community RfC later this year on a process to transition away from his traditional powers. It is this community-driven process that should be used to discuss such important issues, with an eye towards reaching consensus, rather than this attempt at "Clarification".

Lastly, I would direct my friend to the new Arbitration Policy which may provide the clarification he so desires. Best Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

@ASCIIn2Bme - practical implications in what context? Why exactly are you raising this issue now? At the least, I'm very curious to know. Lord Roem (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

(1) The question of what Jimbo can and cannot do is not within ArbCom's remit.

(2) This request is in itself improper, in that it does not ask for clarification of the result of a case, but seeks to force a discussion on one of the many findings involved in the case. There's no indication I can find that such a purpose is legitimate in a "Request for Clarification".

I urge the Committee to reject this request. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

@Tarc: The statement of principle from 2006 was made in the course of determining the outcome of a case. There is no case pending at this time which requires a similar determination, so no need for "clarification". Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Tarc

I don't think anyone here believes Arbcom can outright rescind or really affect Jimbo's powers. That 2006 principle was an affirmation of the reality of the project at that time, and IMO what is being asked here is just a simple, similar statement on the reality of 2011. Consider an analogy to a newspaper that endorses a candidate, then down the road withdraws that endorsement.

To his credit, I do not believe that he would even try to "make or alter Wikipedia policy when he chooses to do so", per what is laid out in here. Perhaps you could just issue a clarification along the lines of "The 2006 principle has been rendered moot by WP:JIMBO".

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• The Arbitration Committee does not govern this project, and it would be a gross overstep of our role to rule on Jimmy's role on Wikipedia at this point. I will therefore not comment at greater length on this issue, aside from recommending that, if it is to be brought up anywhere, it is not here. AGK [•] 04:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I don't believe that this is an appropriate location for this discussion. While the principle you note was set down in an Arbitration case, it is important to note that the case took place almost six years ago; much has changed since then, which the community, Committee, and Jimbo are all aware of. Given that there is an upcoming RfC on the matter, I'd highly recommend you raise this there and see what feedback you get from the community on the matter. At present, the Arbitration policy holds that any administrative action by Jimbo (blocks, etc.) can be appealed to the Committee (as with the ban appeal currently being heard), however it does not mention his ability to declare policy by fiat. I realize this is a bit of a non-answer, however I don't see that it's really something the Committee is best able to respond to just now; at any time, the community may, as a whole, change policy in such a way that makes previous arbitration principles obsolete, and it's very likely that's going to happen in the near future. Making any official statement now could adversely affect that process, which - speaking for myself at least - is probably best avoided. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Struck a portion of the above, it was pointed out to me I'd misread a section of the policy. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• This is a huge question, which I'll do my best to answer succinctly.
  1. Part of the answer lies in the Arbitration policy, where it says: The arbitration process is not a vehicle for creating new policy by fiat. The Committee's decisions may interpret existing policy and guidelines, recognise and call attention to standards of user conduct, or create procedures through which policy and guidelines may be enforced.... While the Committee will typically take into account its earlier decisions when deciding new cases, previous decisions do not create binding precedent. As community policies, guidelines and norms evolve over time, previous decisions will be taken into account only to the extent that they remain relevant in the current context (cf. Arbitration policy#Policy and precedent).
     So, from this I conclude that as ArbCom neither creates policy nor creates precedent, the 2006 finding is neither policy nor precedent.
  2. The next question is whether the committee has jurisdiction over Jimmy's conduct: there is no "Head of State" immunity in the arbitration policy and Jimmy has been a party to a number of cases. However, it is possible to conceive of actions where he is explicitly acting in a WMF capacity and, in these instances, the committee explicitly has no jurisdiction over: (i) official actions of the Wikimedia Foundation or its staff... (cf. Arbitration policy#Jurisdiction). For transparency, such actions are usually made from an account clearly flagged as a WMF one (cf: User:Moonriddengirl and her WMF account, User:Mdennis (WMF)).;
  3. Finally, appeals of remedies in arbitration cases may be appealed to, and heard by, Jimmy unless the case involves Jimbo Wales' own actions (cf. Arbitration policy#Appeal of decisions).
  So, in a nutshell, this is not the place to raise a complicated constitutional issue. Perhaps wait for the upcoming RFC on Jimmy and Governance?  Roger Davies ^talk 07:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
• I think if we reiterated that statement today, a large portion, if not an outright majority, of the community would reject it as us making policy about making policy. Jimbo's role has evolved since the time that was written, and the community (not Arbcom) has assumed more responsibility for self-governance. This is a very good example why we fretted over the wording of handling precedents in the arbitration policy: we want to provide the greatest level of consistency, commensurate with the fact that the encyclopedia, its policies, and governing structures are all continuously evolving. Jclemens (talk) 05:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• The scope of the Committee's responsibility is outlined here, which doesn't include general discussion on Jimbo's role as policy maker. That would be for the community as a whole to discuss. It would however be within our remit to examine Jimbo's behaviour, which would include the scenario of Jimbo edit warring over policy. It's worth noting that the Committee deals with conduct not policy; and in dealing with conduct incidents the Committee may make comments and observations on matters (such as consensus, guidelines, policies) related to the incident which exist at the time, though as matters change over time, these observations may become outdated. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Word limit on request pages

This one is 1200 words. Tony (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 3

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 3. Silverseren^C 21:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Quick request

Would someone care to take a look at this discussion on WP:BLPN? When I notified User:Johnalexwood that I was discussing their edits, I noticed this warning from User:Sandstein about ARBSCI/BLP issues. (I asked Sandstein to take a look, but they said "I'm not currently active in arbitration enforcement because I consider it a waste of time due to insufficient support on the part of the Arbitration Committee". I can certainly relate to that.) Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Olive's post

• Olive's post

I'll say up front I have no idea about the specific situation under review.

but I think Olive's points about this negative trend of interacting (to use a nicer word than what tends to happen) with other editors. are things which should be addressed by somebody.

Yes, there can a clique-ish nature to most boards and Wikipedia process areas. simply that those more involved in a specific area tend to have a better idea of what goes on there (for good or ill). But they also have the easiest route to abuse that knowledge for subtly (or even less than subtly) gaming the system. Or even if it's shoot first and ask questions later (or even no questions, just link some diffs out of context and rile up the masses).

Is every Wikipedian like this? I surely hope not. But we do have more than our fair share I think.

So I think discussion of this, and finding ways forward would be a boon. If we let the negative editors drive the positive ones away, we're going to be left with more and more negative, and less and less positive. And I would hope that that is not a situation that we're striving for.

I welcome anyone's thoughts on this. And better, any ideas to alter this seeming trend. - jc37 19:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree. This has become a major problem. A few negative editors have been able to drive away some of our best editors and many new editors with just a few out of context diffs. There are too many editors at AN/I that enjoy supporting sanctions/bans/indefinite blocks. There is no longer any tolerance for mistakes, which makes it very difficult for new editors to become long-term editors. Wikipedia is a wiki, mistakes can be easily fixed so there shouldn't be any problem with mistakes. Yes, many websites mirror Wikipedia, presenting potential difficulties in correcting offsite mistakes. However, it isn't our responsibility to make sure those mirrors are correct. We have Wikipedia:General disclaimer for this purpose. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 19:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Pertaining to the RfAr

I'd suggest you look through the diffs contained in the AN/I thread, that relate directly to Olive's conduct on RS/N, over an issue she has previously been sanctioned over. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Fifelfoo. I'd suggest that before you go any further you start by presenting diffs supporting your accusations. I've been willing to think your actions were in good faith but I'm starting to wonder.

My actions on the NB were in order, and your further insistence on anything else here on this thread which about improving Wikipedia rather than anything personal is concerning. I believe you made some mistakes. You don't. Lets leave it at that.(olive (talk) 02:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC))

You have already seen the diffs at AN/I, the first five of them relate directly to inappropriate conduct by you on RS/N. If you have a continuing problem with COMPETENCE, in terms of being able to click on a diff link, it is not my problem. To assist you, here is the set of diffs again: [47]. Your continuous revisitation, misrepresentation and allegations perturb me. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've separated off Fifelfoo's accusations so the discussion can continue uninterrupted by other issues.(olive (talk) 03:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC))
  • Do not refactor my contributions. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Theodore Bikel

This is just an informal FYI, rather than a noticeboard filing. Two IPs have replaced "Israel" with "Palestine", which I have reverted, citing the source which uses "Israel". I noted that such edits may fall under the scope of the Arab-Israeli Conflict Arbitration ruling, and provided links to the ruling using the associated templates.

An outside review of my edits wouldn't hurt. (I trust that this is a quickly resolved issue.)

BTW, Theodore Bikel played the Russian-born father of the Klingon Worf on Star Trek: The Next Generation.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why you needed to post this here instead of the article talk page, but I have reverted to "Palestine" as the source is clearly in error - Israel did not exist until 1948 - although the source itself does mention that the family "migrated to Palestine". Gatoclass (talk) 07:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Two IPs changed "Israel" to "Palestine", the first giving a contrary-to-policy motivation in the edit-summary and the other no edit-summary. Reverting two bad edits on Palestine-Israel promoted my asking for second opinions or guidance.

Thanks for your edits, which caught the use of "Palestine" that I had missed. I updated and expanded the account.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

"Professionalism"

Regarding the Muhammad images case: I have no issue with the substance of the decision, but I would like to gently urge future drafters to avoid casting principles or findings in terms of "professionalism". Wikipedia editors are unpaid volunteers, not professionals. Looie496 (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't behave as you would in a professional environment, (or, for a non-professional example, how you'd behave at a party when chatting up a pretty girl you hadn't met before), rather than how you would down the pub with your mates. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Also unpaid volunteers act like professionals, all the time, that's basically what makes volunteer organizations work, at all.Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a long discussion on the usage of this word on the proposed decision talkpage. My own view was, and is, that there was nothing wrong with this wording. Those interested should also read User:Kirill Lokshin/Professionalism, an essay by the senior member of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Link to section. The nutshell explanation is that unprofessional basically meant uncivil (or at least uncollegial or unbusinesslike demeanor/attitude) in the context used in this decision. This is a valid, dictionary meaning of "unprofessional", although there are others. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Oddly enough, this choice of wording by ArbCom has convinced a long term contributor, GiacomoReturned, to retire [48]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism in 9/11 conspiracy theories

This topic ban[49] is overly broad. Why not just make it about this one article or about 9/11 conspiracy theories broadly construed (as opposed to 9/11 broadly construed)? Nobody has alleged or presented any evidence of issues beyond this single article (let alone beyond 9/11 conspiracy theories). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 07:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

A general topic ban is the default. There is no reason to depart from it here. The seriousness of the violations -- occurring on a core article within the area of conflict -- gives no reason to believe that the editor concerned is capable of editing neutrally within the topic area. I won't be commenting further other than if the editor concerned lodges an appeal. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That's your prerogative if don't want to respond, but there's no doubt the claim that 4,000 Jews stayed home from work on 9/11 is anti-Semitic:

• JTA: 10 years on, anti-Semitic conspiracy theories about 9/11 persist
• BBC: Were Jews forewarned about the attacks?

If you don't like news articles, here's Among the Truthers by Jonathan Kay published by Harpers[50]:

“ Even when the Third Reich lay in ruins, and anti-Semitism became widely detested in its bald-faced Nazi-style form, the Protocols[of the Elders of Zion] would remain ensconced as a sort of universal blueprint for all the successor conspiracist ideologies that would come to infect Western societies over the next nine decades - right up to the modern-day Truther and Birther fantasies of the twenty-first century. In these conspiracy theories, the imagined evildoing cabal would come by many names - communist, globalist, neocon. But in most cases, it would exhibit the same five recurring traits that the Protocols fastened upon Jewish elders in the shadow of World War I: singularity, evil, incumbency, greed, and hypercompetence. ”

Here's a peer-reviewed academic journal.[51]

“ One conspiracy allegation that did achieve early prominence was the rumor widely circulated by e-mail and on the Web that not a single Jew had been killed in the attack and therefore that the attacks must have been the work not of Islamic terrorists but of Mossad. This conspiracy-minded urban myth with its anti-Semitic overtones rapidly spread through cyberspace, and although the rumor was soon rejected in the United States and Europe (in part because it was shown to have originated from an anti-Zionist Web site in Lebanon), it soon became widely accepted as fact in the Arab world. ”

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Mkativerata...the editor is well known for being meek...I've edited with Tom harrison for many years...his comments on the arbcom enforcement issue are about as much as he will ask...the man isn't going to beg you...but an INDEFINITE BAN is extremely excessive force.--MONGO 01:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Both the broad scope and the indefinite duration appear to be inappropriate. Tom's edits in my opinion were synthetic and polemical, and pushed the sources too far: that was poor judgment. However, the article gives short shrift to the anti-Semitic conspiracy theories that dominated in the period 2001-2003, until the Iraq War gave conspiracy theorists a broader canvas on which to speculate. That should be corrected, just not as boldly. The comments on the Dummies book are troubling: while I wouldn't have chosen it as a source because the title makes it too easy to disparage and because their writing style isn't particularly academic, I'm not aware of any concerns about their factual reliability. The characterization of Among the Truthers as a "hit piece" is a similarly casual and simplistic dismissal. Tom was out of line, but the sanctions are disproportionate: indefinite sanctions have previously been imposed for long-term intentionally disruptive behavior, sockpuppetry or hit-and-run disruption. Acroterion (talk) 03:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Acroterion, you seem to confuse 'indefinite' with 'permanent' in your comments about the severity of the sanction. An indefinite ban was imposed here because of the nature of the violations (unlike, say, edit-warring, which usually gets you short, then escalating, sanctions). The indefinite ban might last weeks, months or years. All will depend on, as I said in the AE thread, Tom harrison's demonstrated ability to comply with NPOV in other areas. The indefinite ban is therefore in a sense less grave than a fixed-term ban, because its length is largely in the hands of Tom. He's already started that process well: editing away quietly in other areas. No-one's interested in locking him out of the topic area for any longer than is necessary. But the violations were just so severe that he had to be removed from the topic area pending evidence that he is ready to return.--Mkativerata (talk) 05:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the elastic nature of "indefinite", having issued similar explanations in other circumstances, and I appreciate the clarification and the evidence that you're following up. That is my chief concern, that you and others maintain an ongoing watch on the issue, and that it not become a de facto permanent ban on a broad scale. As evidenced by his notes to you, you will need to retain initiative for future removal or adjustment of the sanctions. Acroterion (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You're WP:INVOLVED....as shown here...You're biased as to the nature of these edits and unfit to render an impartial assessment on this matter. Since you have admitted bias on things related to Jewish issues such as the PIA, you should never be issuing bans or blocks to anyone in this subject matterMONGO 12:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

No reason to believe?

@Mkativerata: I know you said that you weren't going to comment further, and that's fine, but you can at least read this. You said that you have "no reason to believe that the editor concerned is capable of editing neutrally within the topic area."

Then consider this. At the main September 11 attacks, there was a long-standing content dispute over if and how conspiracy theories should be mentioned in the article. The debate was contentious and polarized. But one editor proposed a possible solution. It took 2 months of hard-work and consensus building to finally hammer out the wording, but in the end, a solution was reached that was acceptable to all.

You may be interested in learning the name of that editor who started the ball moving and was instrumental in building that consensus which resolved the content dispute:

Talk:September_11_attacks/Archive_57#Proposed_wording

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Wait a second. Mkativerata's user page says that they're involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and that they won't use their admin tools. How is Islamic terrorists attacking the US because of US support of Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict not part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a pretty egregious COI...there are all sorts of claims that Tom harrison wasn't editing neutrally, yet in this same subject matter the primary topic banning admin has stated they have a COI and are INVOLVED...furthermore The Devils Advocate himself was under a 30 topic ban in this topic and Tom harrison commented at that request for arbcom enforcement against The Devils Advocate...so The Devils Advocate used this forum for retribution.MONGO 17:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I concur with both of MONGO's statements - both parties that supported a ban are clearly COI, Tom's support of a topic ban for DA and by the blocking admin's clear admission of bias on Jewish-Palestinian issues. Further, it can be solidly established that Tom is one of the most productive editors on the 9/11 series of articles, and the edits he made were not worthy of an indefinite ban. Toa Nidhiki05 20:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Toa and Mongo, please stop going to several different admins and several different places to push for sanctions against me or accusing me of filing the request against Tom in bad faith. I was just as taken aback by the edits Tom made as other users, maybe moreso, and it was the insistence on inserting on such material that caused me to file the report, because I felt that was just one transgression I shouldn't let slide. I am surprised by the indef, but I think Mkat's suggestion for Tom is appropriate. Should Tom file an appeal consistent with what Mkat said I would be happy to support him returning to the topic area 30 days from now. If you want to raise issues about my conduct then you can file an AE request.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The blocking admin resigned and retired. AQFK retired. Tom is topic banned indefinitely. Are you happy, DA? You drove away two editors and got another banned for an indefinite period of time; I don't think that is something to be proud of.

As for what you accused me and MONGO of, I can't speak for him but prove me wrong. Based on previous actions by you and bans, I have no doubt Tom's support of your topic ban came into play in you're judgement. Toa Nidhiki05 02:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The admins did an indefinite ban on Tom Harrison which would force him to seek clemency by way of the admins who acted here, or via a direct appeal to arbcom enforcement. Wgfinley did a 30 day ban on The Devils Advocate in this topic area which meant all that was needed there was to wait out the 30 days...yet they're wikilawyering how "indefinite" could be 30 days, even though it has been stated that there is, "no reason to believe that the editor concerned (Harrison) is capable of editing neutrally within the topic area"...if the admins working on these boards are going to be so polemic in how they administer justice, then they should all be topic banned from this particular arena. It's rather preposterous to think that Tom Harrison, an editor with a 7 years of contributions history to 9/11 topics, is going to bother to appeal this matter when the acting administrators have provided the chilling effect that ensures the POV pushers and troublesome linger on, while the ones that have a long history of exemplary dedication are banned. Maybe the arbitration committee should be doing the arbcom enforcement actions...I never understood why the less well vetted administrators did this.--MONGO 18:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

MONGO, self-revert, in the name of WikiLove! You are only going to land yourself in a world of hurt by suggesting that the admins get topic-banned over this.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Any administrator is subject to inquiry on his/her administrative actions...just as you or I are subject to inquiry on our edits. One admin has resigned their tools under a cloud as they self proclaimed...if I or others protesting this preposterous action were "wrong" then there would have been no reason to resign.--MONGO 19:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that any admin is subject to inquiry, but there are appropriate and inappropriate ways of doing it. This would be one of those inappropriate ways. Now put down the costume and back slowly away from the German parliament building.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

A request of sorts

See User_talk:Chase_me_ladies,_I'm_the_Cavalry#Permission_request. Cross-posted here, because he was speaking for the entire committee in that email. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 06:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Feeler question

Does anyone think that something like "Repeated accusations of homophobia" is sufficiently well defined for a case? I see a long-term dispute and pattern of behavior surrounding that, with the latest incarnation at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Youreallycan_.28ex_Off2riorob.29. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Weird page

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Appeal of Betacommand 3. Why is it not linked from here? Right now it's linked only from User talk:Δ. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Undoubtedly because I have made errors. I posted a request for a clerk to assist, and believe they will.[52] My76Strat (talk) 10:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

My76strat, we are not going to reopen a case we just closed. The decision has been made. I'm not going to bar you from making the request, but I'm going to say flat out you have a 0% chance of succeeding. SirFozzie (talk) 10:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Sir I do understand your position. I am normally familiar with an appeal being filed in a timely proximity to a decision and not so much far removed. I sincerely hope such an appeal has something better than 0% because I rather wish to believe the provision in policy is more than aesthetic. My76Strat (talk) 10:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I've asked the clerks to look at this because it is malformed and not really properly listed in any category. I've explained here what I believe the correct procedure is.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Please clarify jurisdiction

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Scope and responsibilities does not include within its scope an appeal from "any editor", specifically an editor in good standing. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Appeal of decisions appears indicative that it should. Can this perceived contradiction be clarified or corrected to afford standing to "any editor" upon delineated cause? To be clear, I am more comfortable appealing the decision opposed to requesting a modification. Respectfully submitted - My76Strat (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

You have been informed, quite clearly, that as you are not a blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted user, the course of action in such circumstances is to request an amendment or a clarification, per policy. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

How can I have been informed when I am clearly asking to reconcile the apparent contradiction in policy and that significant element is consistently not addressed? It is worth considering that I postulated my question prior to the post to my talk page. If you are suggesting that I can not ask for this clarification unless it is done on a properly formed request for clarification then I do better understand your comments. My76Strat (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Which "significant element" are you saying is "consistently not addressed"? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry for that ambiguity. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Scope and responsibilities requires an editor be blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted to appeal a decision. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Appeal of decisions states: "Any editor may ask the Committee to reconsider ..." I am vexed by this apparent contradiction and would appreciate if someone could help me understand what I am missing. My76Strat (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no contradiction. To appeal you have to be "blocked, banned, or otherwise restricted". Any editor may ask the Committee to reconsider or amend a ruling. They are two different processes. As to you 'postulating your question', I checked the timestamps, though that is irrelevant and not worth persuing. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that information. I understand the distinction as you have just explained. the issue of timestamps is worth pursuing if it in any way causes you to doubt my sincerity. The question was originally postulated on a deleted contribution, now located here. I would rather you not be distracted that I might tend to embellish. Again, thank you for helping me better understand the intent of these provisions. My76Strat (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Who controls the artibration policy?

• We're elected to discharge the duties assigned to us by the community in the arbitration policy... [53]

This comment was made by an Arbitrator in a proposed decision. How long has it been since the community had any control over the arbitration policy? Last time there was a revision I thought it was made pretty clear that only the ArbCom can alter the arbitration policy. Is that incorrect?   Will Beback  talk  04:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The current policy was proposed by Arbcom with community input and ratified by the community in June, 2011. It's all linked from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy for your reading pleasure. Jclemens (talk) 04:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification.   Will Beback  talk  05:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Soapboxing

I gave a bit of thought to the concept of soapboxing and the point where it becomes a distracting disruption. Usually, there is some leeway on user's own talkpage, but how far should that leeway go when it is boldly presented at the top of the page? Is a person allowed, for example to say "kill ethnic group x!" or some other clever variation? Let me know what you think, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I require someone notify of the case to Tiamut following his demand that I not touch his wiki user:talkpage. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Please unprotect, I need to make a request

This account is operated by User:PaoloNapolitano, a blocked user who only can appeal his block to the ArbCom. This account has been created with the sole purpose of requesting arbitration. As this account isn't autoconfirmed, I kindly ask for unprotection of the page. PaoloNapolitano2 (talk) 12:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Alternate account blocked. Blocked users wanting to contact Arbcom are meant to do so by e-mail. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

General question

Are uninvolved parties to a dispute allowed to request for arbitration? Avertissement (talk · contribs) 22:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Have any alternatives here: Guide to arbitration alternatives been tried  ? Mlpearc (powwow) 23:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Request for comments, talk page discussions, talk page discussions here, too, informal mediation, formal mediation, and administrators' noticeboard. Avertissement (talk · contribs) 21:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

OK. I'm new the the committee. I'll point someone to this thread and get you an answer. Mlpearc (powwow) 21:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe there's anything prohibiting an uninvolved editor from requesting arbitration, however you should check with all involved parties first. Unless the situation is especially contentious, involved parties should be aware that someone's considering arbitration and should be willing to participate. As the person filing a request, you will be a named party as well, and as such will be expected to submit evidence and proposals for solutions during the case. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Category discussion

Will someone please have a look at the discussion of this category and resolve it? Link here. While I freely admit I may not have followed all of the policies for renaming the categories of Art conservation, what I've done is try and make some sense out of a rarely edited set of articles that should be categorized similarly. What I've encountered in this process is a set of random editors that appear more interested in citing rules, doing absurd searches in Google, and setting out personal attacks against my well-intentioned work. This discussion has been going on for a week and it's gone no where. Please help. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 12:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Request: Republic of China

I have previously requested to enforce the previous ArbCom decisions regarding Ireland/ROI and Macedonia/ROM on Taiwan/Republic of China, and was advised that I should do so through a new request. [54] [55] I would therefore like to request for your assistance to file a new request. Thank you very much. 61.18.170.240 (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:ANA

Any clue why WP:ANA redirects to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement? Nyttend (talk) 20:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

According to its initial edit [56] it was originally pointing to a sub-page of WP:AN, and named "along the same lines as ANI and AN3". Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. Seeing as it is not even listed on the /Enforcement as a shortcut, I'd say it is safe to use it for something else (if there is another part of the project that wants to use it). Tiptoety ^talk 21:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep, only ever managed to gather two incoming links. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)