Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

RE: Request concerning KillerChihuahua

In regards to Akuri's comment,[1] the one way interaction ban was ill-conceived. It basically allows one party to attack another party, without the accused even given so much an opportunity to respond. In most (all?) modern civilizations, the accused has the right to respond to accusations against them. But a one-way interaction ban completely turns this upside down. It basically allows someone carte blanche to accuse another editor of whatever they want, and the accused editor is forbidden to respond. It's preposterous, insane, and needs to be fixed. Either remove the one-way interaction ban or make it a two-way interaction ban. Editors shouldn't have to be subjected to attacks without the ability to respond. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Totally wrong. If X comments about Y on any arbitration-related page, Y is of course free to comment on the substance of what X said. There may be some difficulty (assuming Y is under an interaction ban) if Y were to comment on X, but such a comment would be off-topic on a page like this so any theoretical limitation is irrelevant. Also, Y is free to approach an admin and request an opinion whether an interacton ban would prevent them from replying to a comment made about them (the answer is no, but such a comment should be temperate and focused). A number of one-way interaction bans have been imposed in relation to R&I, and they have proven to be extremely effective because the stream of time-wasting misguided complaints that used to occur has dried up. Johnuniq (talk) 03:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Widescreen

Hi, I think the jugdment in this case is a insolence. Is there a way for me to object it? --WSC ^® 16:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

You just did. But if you are asking whether there is a way to get a notice of discretionary sanctions retracted, no, there is no way of doing that. Once you have been informed about something, there is no way to make you forget it. Looie496 (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Widescreen, there are many things one can learn from editing Wikipedia. One of them is to learn that when everyone else says you are wrong, the probability that you are wrong is quite large. You then have some possible choices: (1) You can show that you believe you are God and can do no wrong; (2) You can show that you think you are right and everyone else is wrong; (3) You can also come to the realization that maybe you might be wrong. In the first two instances, Wikipedia is not the place for you. In the last instance, you can show that you can learn, and thus show evidence of a positive learning curve. That is essential if you are going to be able to function in a collaborative editing environment. We've all made mistakes, been wrong, been criticized for it, and have been forced to alter our self-perception. That's not a defeat, but a victory. It's your choice. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

note

hi there. I left a note for anyone in Arbcomm, here at this page. feel free to write back if you wish. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for the delayed reply. These pages don't get much traffic and are not watched closely, but they should be. I've asked my fellow arbitrators and the clerks to keep an eye on these pages. The short answer here is that the page you left that note on is a closed case page, and the wrong place to ask that question. I see a similar question has been asked below (this page and WT:ARBCOM are both suitable for minor requests and questions). For a full and formal clarification, it is best to go to WP:ARCA (the clarifications and amendments page). I see someone has filed a clarification request there, and hopefully over the coming days I and other arbitrators will find time to look at that. Apologies again it took so long to find the right place. Carcharoth (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be useful to have a "closed case page" template that directed people to the right place to ask questions? Thryduulf (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank-you. If you could suggest this at the clerks noticeboard (WT:AC/C), or point them here, that would be best. Clerks are generally responsible for that sort of thing, both doing it and assessing whether something like that is feasible. Carcharoth (talk) 22:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Suggested. See WT:AC/C#Closed case template. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 00:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

hey, thanks for your replies on that. I understand. thanks. I also appreciate the actions you have taken on this, as you have described above. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 11:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Mandated Jerusalem discussion appears to be a bureaucratic morass

The issue here is the same one raised in the previous section, but I would like to try to explain what seems to have happened in a way that people who haven't followed the process can understand.

1. On 27 Dec 2012, ArbCom resolved that a community discussion should be held to determine a consensus on wording for the Jerusalem article.
2. On 12 Jan 2013, ArbCom named an editor to moderate the discussion, and three admins who would have the duty of closing the discussion at the appropriate time.
3. A discussion was begin at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion to decide on wording for an RfC.
4. Preliminaries and the first three steps have been completed and archived (at great length), the last of them on 5 March 2013.
5. Per the schedule at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#Schedule, there are still four steps to go, three having indeterminate duration.
6. At that point, if it ever comes to pass, an actual RfC will commence.

This is absurd. Can the current ArbCom do anything about it?

(For what it's worth, I am totally uninvolved here. I wasn't even aware that this process existed until yesterday, and am trying to act as a neutral reporter.) Looie496 (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Looie496, thank you so much for your input on this. by the way, for the record, my concern level is rising slightly, owing partly to the fact that not only have I not gotten any replies, but there also seems to be almost no activity at all, even on other topics, at several of the pages where I have posted some mild queries. that includes this arbcomm page, and also some others as well. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both for posting here (see also my reply above). Steve, I can check your contributions history to see where else you left questions, but I think the reply above and this one will answer it. The right place to ask for clarification is WP:ARCA, so that is the best place to convene, providing all the people that need to be aware of this have been notified. Carcharoth (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

hi there.sounds fine!! thanks for your reply. I have already done so. thanks!!! --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 04:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

for the record, here are the other talk pages where I left queries about this. this includes the personal talk pages for several members of Arbcomm, and others.

• User talk:SilkTork
• User talk:Roger Davies
• User talk:Kirill Lokshin
• User talk:Nyttend
• User talk:NuclearWarfare
• User talk:Hertz1888

thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Premature closing of MathSci's Rfe against D.Lazard by Future Perfect at Sunrise?

Future Perfect at Sunrise has closed an RfE only minutes after my last comment.[2] I sincerely doubt that this is enough time for everyone to have had a chance to read what I said or even had time to consider it. My understanding of Wikipedia's process of dispute resolution is that editors should engage in a good faith attempt at resolving the dispute. But what are editors supposed to do when AE admins don't provide an opportunity to resolve such disputes? I'm at a loss at what I should do next. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Huh? At the time I closed the report, three uninvolved admins and numerous other observers had all agreed that the report was not actionable. You yourself also were in agreement with this. In what sense do you feel your recent addition to your posting would have been likely to lead to a different outcome? In a situation like AE, where comments by multiple more or less loosely involved people typically trickle in over extended periods of time and at irregular intervals, we don't systematically wait until there has been any particular time span of silence after the latest person added their 2c. If we did that, we'd likely end up not closing things ever. Closing AE reports quickly is a good thing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: So you contacted all three admins and "numerous other observers" after they read the full discussion to find out their opinions? What did they say? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge, WP:AE is not a dispute resolution forum. It is a venue for making enforcement requests to administrators. You need to resolve your disputes with Mathsci through the fora provided for in WP:DR. Continuing these disputes via WP:AE (especially in the context of unrelated enforcement requests) is disruptive and distracting, please don't do it again or you may be sanctioned. Administrators processing AE requests must ensure that all parties to an enforcement request have the opportunity to make a statement, but other than that, they are not required to take anyone else's opinion into account, including yours. I find no fault in Future Perfect at Sunrise's closure.  Sandstein  15:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec) AQFN, you either have an inflated sense of the importance of your own role in this discussion, or an inflated sense of the purpose of an AE thread. The result of an AE thread is what people have said there. This result was very clear and had been stable for more or less the entire time the report was sitting there. Also, an AE thread is not an open-ended "dispute resolution" opportunity, as you make it appear here. It is a process that is narrowly focussed on the question of what sanctions, if any, to impose for a given alleged infraction. About this narrow issue, your comments were not offering anything new. There was no reason to expect that your contributions to the discussion (or anybody else's, for that matter) would have such an earth-shattering impact that other observers would have changed their minds – especially since your comments were quite in line with the large majority of other commenters – so the suggestion that I should have gone round asking others about their reactions to it is nothing short of ridiculous. What the heck do you want? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

@Sandstein: AE isn't a part of WP:DR!? If you honestly believe that, can you please remove the Arbitration section from WP:DR? Please seek consensus for such a huge, sweeping overhaul of our WP:DR process. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

If you read the arbitration section in WP:DR, it mentions Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration (as a last resort) as part of the dispute resolution process, but not the page Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. The red box in WP:AE explains this: "Enforcement is not "dispute resolution". ArbCom decisions are the last stop of dispute resolution. ArbCom has already decided that the actions and behaviors in the remedies are not constructive to our purpose of building an encyclopedia and has ruled they should not recur. The question here is whether or not that prohibition was breached."  Sandstein  16:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Future Perfect at Sunrise: I believe that I - like everyone else - should be treated like an equal. RfE's own rules require "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors". Why did you not seek this consensus before closing? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

@Sandstein: According to AE's own rules, "ArbCom decisions are the last stop of dispute resolution. ArbCom has already decided that the actions and behaviors in the remedies are not constructive to our purpose of building an encyclopedia and has ruled they should not recur". Can you please enforce what ArbCom has already decided? Or do you disagree with ArbCom's own Findings of Fact? If you disagree with ArbCom's findings, can you please request an appeal? Again, I'm not really sure what to do, when everything I've said is correct. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, AQFK.. I have to agree with FPaS and Sandstein that the issue was resolved, and as all of us stated in our comments on that AE thread that the Mathsci request did not fall into the remedies authorized by that case. AE is not a forum designed to expand or make up new remedies.. the administrators who work in that area have a large amount of leeway on what they levy, but they still have to justify it within what the Committee has authorized, and no further. If you want to use regular DR (or even fasttrack the issue as a clarification to the Committee), that's probably a more correct way to handle this. SirFozzie (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not follow AQFK about the closing issue. However this closure leaves open a question for which no convenient answer has been provided. This abusive request (is "abusive" the right English word?) reveals a disruptive behavior of its author that is not specific to me, and has been conducted against many other Wikipedians. I have learned from AQFQ's contribution that this behavior is not new and that he has already been reprimanded for that? The ARBCOM recommands to use the usual WP:dispute resolution to solve this. But, what is the usual dispute resolution process for such a disruptive behavior conducted for many years against so many users? Should it be a new request to ARBCOM? Should it be an enforcement request based on the reprimand cited by AQFK? Who should make the difficult work of collecting the numerous diffs showing this systematic behavior? Personally, I think that this has to be done, but I am not volunteer. IMHO, because of the aggressivity of that user, this should be done by a native English speaker and, better, an administrator. D.Lazard (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Everyone familiar with the noticeboards is aware that if someone asks for a resolution confirming that the sky is blue, there will be two or three editors enthusiastically arguing for the opposite side. I might drop by your talk and explain some of the complex background, but those opposing Mathsci fall into two camps: good faith editors unaware of the background and who believe that if there is smoke there must be fire, and socks of banned users who manipulate the good faith editors. Take any case that concerns you, and look at the facts while ignoring what people say—you will find that Mathsci was doing good work that developed the encyclopedia, while the turmoil on the other side provided no benefit. I don't have time to look for information now, but there is a fascinating story about "blue"—there is evidence that the sky was not regarded as "blue" until comparatively recently. Johnuniq (talk) 01:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

@SirFozzie: I am genuinely confused by your claim that the issue has been resolved. When exactly was it resolved? Was it resolved 3 years ago in the original ArbCom case? Or was it resolved in the dozen or so RfEs that have happened since then? And if it was resolved, why does it keep happening? No offense but I'm reminded of the (possibly apocryphal) Mark Twain quote: "Quitting smoking is easy. I've done it hundreds of times." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

AQFK, I don't think you and Fozzie are talking about the same issue being resolved. You're talking about a broader issue of Mathsci's conduct, while Fozzie (along with Sandstein, FutPerf and I think basically everyone else here) is, I believe, referring to the specific issue of the AE report. And that latter issue was clearly resolved. The former one seems to me to be ill-suited to AE in general, as I don't think any breaches of AC rulings are alleged. And if I'm wrong, there's no problem with opening a new AE request against Mathsci. The report opened by Matschi, by contrast, had been resolved and closing it was entirely within policy. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

@Heimstern Läufer: Correct. I'm referring to the ongoing battle between the various participants involved in the dispute. While I have great respect for the AE admins and the difficult job they have, this is clearly one area where they have f***ed things up. Each AE decision only seems to guarantee another round of Wiki-litigation. This is why we keep seeing AE request after AE request, ad nauseum. All I'm saying is how nice it would be for this to stop. Oh well, I've said my peace. Thanks for listening. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, the only person trying to perpetuate another round of wiki-litigation right now seems to be you, right here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea to which battle AQFK is referring. Perhaps some fictional invention of his own. As a point of information, since his last posting at WP:AE, I collapsed in real life and was rushed to intensive care in the local cardiology unit where I was kept under observation for 72 hours (fortunately nothing serious). AQFK seems to have some one-sided personal feud which he airs whenever possible. The world of cheap potshots. This tendency to regurgitate the alphabet soup of WP:ARBR&I is ill-advised. Isn't there a set of findings about AQFK from WP:ARBCC? Should other editors now be spending their time repeating those findings like parrots? I think not. Mathsci (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

While you have my condolences for your recent health issues, I strongly suggest you cut down the personal attacks in commenting on other users, Mathsci. SirFozzie (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

SirFozzie, I did not see this remark until today. AQFK was repeating past problematic behaviour in posting here. On WP:ANI in March 2013 they had previously posted this request about me.[3] It was rejected unanimously by all commenting, including multiple administrators. After the ANI thread was closed three times by administrators Basilisk, Writ Keeper and The Bushranger, with advice to AQFK,[4] AQFK posted a request to be blocked, because he felt "treated like crap."[5] AQFK's two disingenuous and provocative postings on ANI constituted what is normally called "trolling." It was no different here. In the WP:AE request mentioned here in his second statement he regurgitated the alphabet soup of a 2010 arbcom case.[6] The most trolling part of his second statement at AE was "I really do feel this is one of those areas where we have failed." He evidently bears some kind of dismal grudge. I am not remotely interested in why he has it or what it is. Thank you for your condolences. Mathsci (talk) 06:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

In need of aid

Months ago I requested the Arbcom to do something about two users that had been pushing fringe views across several articles and, in retaliation, harassed me. The request was accepted and the case became Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History. It was supposed to have reached a decision on 19 April. It's now 12 June.

I've been unable to edit on Wikipedia because of those two users who have insisted on harassing me. A few editors and I discussed what was the best title for an article. We reached an agreement. I changed the title. Two days later MarshalN20 (one of the two aforementioned users) changed the title of the article for one he liked better, ignoring all the other users who had discussed the matter. The important detail: MarshalN20 had never edited the article before,[7] not its talk page.[8]

Now I opened a FAC nomination. There was MarshalN20 to oppose it even though he had never edited the article [9] nor its talk page: [10]. He should stay far away from me, even more because the Arbitration case where one of the requests is for him to leave me alone. I've been unnable to edit anything because of his harassment. I'm asking the Arbitrators to take a look at the case. --Lecen (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Since the arbitration is taking a very long time, would [WP:AN|Administrators Noticeboard]] or Administrators Noticeboard for Incidents be a better forum? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I would like to ask why arbitration cases are taking longer than planned. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I asked a question about whether to take it to WP:AN or WP:ANI. I got an answer. It now appears that he is being hounded, at least based on what he says. Would it be in order to request a temporary injunction from the ArbCom against stalking or hounding? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Advising somebody to take an active ArbCom case to ANI is just about as bad as advice can be. I somehow suspect that the fact that Lecen's evidence is three times as long as usual and extremely difficult to make sense of has something to do with the delay. Apparently he got permission from ArbCom to go over the limit, but I suspect that was a mistake. Any uninvolved person who tries to read the evidence page is likely to come away with a severe headache. Looie496 (talk) 01:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

As one of the editors in the case, I would like to point a pair of things. First: if Lecen truly wants to avoid interacting with certain users, he should avoid restarting discussions where those users took part. For instance, the article on the Portuguese invasion of the Banda Oriental: if he moved it in the past, there was a discussion, and he left it when he did not receive support; moving the article again is not the best away to stay away from the users who took part in the old discussion. Same for a FAC: if a FAC fails, it is to be expected that the old reviewers may show up again and point if their concerns had not been adressed.

Second: notice that, during this pair of months that he made a self-imposed wikibreak, all the heated discussions in Talk:Juan Manuel de Rosas and related articles suddenly halted. Even more, nobody took advantage of his absence to reformulate any of his pet articles. If there is a problematic user around here, it's him. Here he told MarshalN20 that "I won't do nothing for him". On the other side, I would help Lecen and try to find agreements, middle grounds or negotiations, if he wanted. For example, in Talk:Brazil there is a recent discussion by other users, completely unrelated to all of this, who rewrote the history section written by Lecen, pointing the monarchist bias and the sweet description of the slavery issue. If I had a feud on Lecen, I would have taken the chance and say "yes, I agree, rewrite it all", but I did not, I avoided that particular thread. Even more: some user (who s not a regular contributor, nor commented his idea before) made a passing-by GA nomination on the article. I removed it (not failing the article, which would be needlessly derogatory, but just removing the nomination) and pointed here that there was an ongoing discussion about the history section, and that we should wait a few days to see if someone opposes the changes before nominating. And, although I did not give names, the "someone" I was thinking was precisely Lecen. Again, if I was against him I would have stayed silent, and hope that perhaps the nomination was approved before Lecen returned and realized that something had happened. But no, I did that to give him a chance (at the time that I avoided him, as he seems to prefer) to notice those chances and defend his text if he considered it appropiate. In short, I made him a favour. If he gives up his intrasigence and actually tries to work toguether (not to "make a point", but try it for real), I wouldn't have a problem to forget all the things he has said about me and work with him. Cambalachero (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting Arbcom vote regarding civility

This vote in the Argentina case seems interesting. (But before it passes, I hope someone will rephrase the potentially ambiguous "and/or".) Is it intended to have an effect on blocking decisions in general regarding civility, and if so, what effect? (I don't have a dog in this fight, I'll happily follow along, as long as I know what I'm supposed to be following.) - Dank (push to talk) 19:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I have a horse in this race and will be curious to see how this develops. My experiences have regrettably led me to believe that a substantial number of admins are IMO overly-reluctant to get involved in conduct problems, to the point that they will recast such as content disputes and subsequently redirect those targeted by personal attacks to content-dispute forums rather than engage directly. DonIago (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I am really worried about that actually. It seems innocent and for good purpose but I am worried it will be used to justify abusive behavior by some of the more aggresive admins. Kumioko (talk) 20:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I think people will have an expectation that speech that they regard as "political" or as "speaking truth to power" shouldn't be sanctionable. Obviously, one person's political speech is another person's defamatory or abusive speech. - Dank (push to talk) 20:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, not to mention sarcasm. It seems to much like one of those "broadly construed" language that they slip into things all the time to hem people up. Kumioko (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a well-worded update of a previously stated principle. Making unfounded accusations of misconduct poisons the editing environment, and this provision recognizes that.  Sandstein  04:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Sandstein. Accusations of misconduct without evidence are extremely rarely useful. Repeated accusations without evidence are harassment. It will not block discussions of civility, it just requires that anyone accusing anyone else of incivility must due so in an appropriate location and include evidence of the (perceived) incivility. For example, it is not acceptable to repeatedly state "user:example keeps harassing me" anywhere and everywhere. It is acceptable though to post a message in an appropriate location saying "user:Example keeps harassing me [diffs showing examples of User:Example's behaviour]".
As for the "and/or", I don't see what is confusing about that in the least. It simply acknowledges that depending on the circumstance the appropriate location to make/discuss allegations of misconduct might be the user's talk page, a dispute resolution forum, or both. More formally, it is explicitly specifying an inclusive or. Thryduulf (talk) 13:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

My biggest problem with this "clarification" is enforcement. I doubt that we are going to enforce this outside venues such as AE, so therefore it becomes a weapon to be used against only those who have been sanctioned. As it is, virtually no editor has survived for long after a sanction has been imposed. They edit for a few months, get a toe out of line and someone sends them to AE where they are blocked or banned for extended periods of time. We do not live in a utopian society and this editing environment isn't either. I see these "unfounded accusations" coming from Admins and editors alike so unless you plan on putting some teeth behind this and enforcing this evenly including and especially Admins who have a higher level of trust and should know better, which I doubt you are willing to do, then this clarification will only be used by Admins against editors. Admins have too much power now. They do not need more. Kumioko (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

@KumiokoCleanStart: I think you're being far too pessimistic. There are exceptions, of course, but for the most part, you have to do something pretty bad to get sanctioned at AE. With regards to this proposed principle, avoiding being sanctioned is actually pretty simple. If you are going to accuse someone of misconduct, you need to take it to their talk page or appropriate forum and do so with diffs. I trust that the AE won't sanction someone for an occasional lapse. The wording ("especially when the accusations are repeated or severe") seems to imply as much. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

My pessimism is based on my experience with the site. I admit that I don't have a lot of faith in fair treatment of editors by admins anymore but that is based on my experiences with dealing with some of them. Not all, its really an aggressive and abusive minority but the problem is no one seems willing or able to deal with these overly aggressive admins. Because of that, I feel this new "clarification" will be used as an added justification for abuse. Unless there is a willingness by Arbcom or the Amin cadre to riegn in on some of the abusive admins, then I do not think this type of clarification is appropriate because it will unfaily target the editors. I understand if you disagree, but I have been under the lash so until you have been in the helpless situation of trying to fight off an admin that's hell bent on getting you thrown from the site, I don't expect you or anyone else to understand. Kumioko (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Please don't confuse not understanding your concern with not agreeing with your conclusion. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not confused at all. I just think no one cares about the implications of what this could mean. There is this sense of, well if people abuse the system then they will be dealt with accordingly but that simply isn't the case. Admins rarely are held accountable for their actions and when they are they are "admonished" which is a big fancy word for a slap on the wrist. So you will excuse me if the wording of this makes me worry about it being used against editors and won't be evenly used for admins who already haeva massive advantage in the current system. Even some of my comments here could fall within the scope of that "clarification" if I don't provide links to specific admin abuses. Eventhough everyone knows them to exist and chooses not to do anything about them. Kumioko (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Your vague accusations here of "admin abuse" and "abusive admins" here are neither sanctionable (as they are not directed at a specific person) nor useful (because it is impossible for anyone to do anything about them). If you believe that any editor, admin or not, has acted inappropriately then you need to present specific examples of this behaviour in an appropriate forum so that independent observers (who by definition cannot know about that the behaviour without links to it) can judge for themselves whether the complaint is justified (including that there is no boomerang involved) and if so what the appropriate sanction is. If there is a long term pattern of behaviour then you need to mention that (with evidence) as with 121,345 active registered users (and an unknown number of active ip users) it is unlikely that uninvolved people at dispute resolution fora will be aware of the background. Thryduulf (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I have actually, several times. Twice I was told basically that admins were not subject to WP:Harassment or WP:Involved. Once I was blocked because the admin thought I might violate 3RR after submitting that a user did on three occassions. A couple more times no one bothered to respond to the ANI at all (because its me I suppose), etc. etc. Those are just the cases that pertain to me directly over the 7 years I've been here, that doesn't even mention all the other editors that have been steamrolled by the system. There are at least half a dozen admins that routinely bully editors and other users and aggressively display POV, Article ownership, 3RR and break a vareity of other policies. Policies that by the way would get a regular editor blocked, but its no big deal for admins to do it apparently. So you will forgive me if I do not hold the system in high regard at the moment. All you need to do is watch ANI for a couple weeks and read the discussions and then research the actual background of the discussion and not make assumptions that the admin must be right, which unfortunately is common pattern. Kumioko (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

For better or worse, I think several of you are overestimating how much impact a "principle" passed in an arbitration decision typically has outside the context of the specific arbitration case. In my experience, administrators and editors don't rely on the principles we have passed in unrelated cases in deciding what edits to make or what actions to take.

We do do our best to get them right, and I sometimes think that the portion of the community that edits policy and guideline pages might want to consider incorporating the best of our adopted principles into those pages—except, of course, to the extent that it works the other way, and we draw the letter or spirit of a principle from a policy or guideline page to start with. (A couple of times, I've written some principles into new paragraphs policy, principally on the BLP and NLT pages, but this is comparatively rare.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Personally I think that if the policy doesn't direct it, then the Arbitration committee shouldn't be inferring what may or may not exist to suit the case. For example, in this case the Arbcom is "clarifying" a couple different rules based on their interpretations of the policy. These interpretations may be right or wrong, but in this case, they are not clearly what is defined in policy. Another example in an older case was when they determined that an Admin should not unblock their bot and made that part of the grounds for desysopping the admin. However, it is common for admin bot operators to unblock their bot when problems are fixed and that has occurred numorous times since then without anyone taking action to desysp[ the admin. This is the type of thing that I mean when I say that policies are not being enforced evenly. If we are going to cite or use a policy in an arbitration decision then we need to stick by that and enforce it evenly, at least from that point on. Otherwise it should not be used as grounds against the accused, nor should a "clarification" be held against them for events prior to that clarification. Ignorance of the rules isn't an excuse but when we tailor the policies and the rules to meet the needs of the moment without taking the time to reflect on the impact of those changes against past policy decisions and future effects we are doing the process in injustice. With all that said. It is clear to me that nothing I say will be taken seriously and the Arbcom and the admins here are going to do pretty much whatever they want to get the goal they are trying to achieve so I see no need to continue to argue the point. Kumioko (talk) 19:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

We do not impose sanctions against an editor unless the editor's conduct was repeatedly and/or seriously problematic, based on standards that were or should have been clear to the editor at the time. (Compare this principle that I wrote and that the Committee unanimously adopted long ago.) Of course there will be disagreements with decisions and judgment calls in individual cses.

Beyond that, your criticism of the Committee as willing to do anything it needs to "get the goal they are trying to achieve" has lost some of its force through sheer repetition, but at any event remains misguided. If the members of the Arbitration Committee were as power-hungry and intent on world wiki domination as you suggest, the number of cases we accept and decide would not be at its lowest level since the Committee was created ten years ago. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't really agree. The Arbcom has in the past on several occassions tailored the policy interpretation to fit that case and then never enforced it again. Case in point the unblocking of bots example I gave earlier. Additionally you also do not accept a case unless you think there is a problem. So if the Arbcom takes a case, the editor may as well pack their bags (which has happened a couple times in the past) because the end of the case is Wikideath. For those that are allowed to remain virtually no editor survives a sanction "broadly construed" for long after. I can think of several cases involving users though where the users were getting harassed unendingly by Admins until they finally did something that allowed the admin to "act". But then when the case is brought here the admin was slapped on the wrist (err, I mean admonished) and the editor was blocked because they allowed the admin to bait them into a situation that allowed the admins to use their magic. And yet, I am the arsehole because I have a problem with it and speak out against it. So I must be some kind of heritic! And why is that you ask? Because admins are reluctant to stand up to other admins because they do not want to set the precedant that an admin not perform an admin action for fear that they might lose their tools. Its a pathetic excuse for inaction but a prevailing argument nontheless. These cases need to adhere to policy not rewrite it when it suits them and then ignore it after wards. If you are going to refine a policy that currently says X to say Y so that you can justify sanctioning or blocking an editor then that new Y policy should be enforced thereafter. Case in point, again, the unblocking of the bots action. Kumioko (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is completely false. There are plenty of cases in which a sanctioned editor failed to comply with the restrictions imposed or guidance given to him and further sanctions followed, but there are also various cases where an editor improved his or her behavior following the case and no further sanctions were needed. The statement that any editor who is the subject of a case will automatically be sanctioned or banned as the result of the case is also a false one. That being said, as I've written before, it is certainly true that if we accept a case for arbitration, we see reason to believe there may be fault with the conduct of one or more editors. But what is the alternative?—that we should open arbitration cases randomly even when it doesn't appear that anyone did anything wrong? Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I would continue to argue the point or at least ask you to provide more than 1 isolated case (I know of only 1 in the last 5 years) where the editor did not get a sanction or the sanction didn't eventually lead to an all out ban from the project, but I know there is no way that either of us is going to change our opinions of the process. You and probably most of the other members of Arbcom are quite fine the way it is, where as I think the process needs a complete overhaul and redesign. I doubt any amount of back and forth is going to change that for either of us. I also doubt that you could find more than 1 or 2 cases where the scenario I describe above is not true and as I said above at least a couple have just left instead of fight a losing battle (Schuminweb) being one of them). At any rate. I have voiced my opinion about the wording and how it could/should and probably will be interpreted so my work here is done. Kumioko (talk) 23:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

@Kumioko: I can speak from personal experience. I was sanctioned by ArbCom, learned from my mistakes, and moved on. ArbCom lifted my restriction and I've managed to stay out of trouble since then. I can think of at least 3 other editors who were also sanctioned by ArbCom in the same case who have gone on to lead productive 'careers' editing Wikipedia. Being sanctioned by ArbCom is not the death sentence you make it out to be, at least not for editors who are willing to learn from their mistakes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

You were the only one I know about but I didn't want to call you out. There may be one or 2 but again. It is extremely rare. The problem isn't just being willing to learn from your mistakes. Its having admins that aren't carrying a chip on their shoulder following you around looking for something. We all make mistakes, even me (hard to beleive I know.:-)) but if they want to find something, they will. And they almost always follow the sanctioned editor until something comes up. I shouldn't say this but I know for a fact that if a case was opened on me I wouldn't walk away. I have made too many enemies so there would be little point in even taking the three months to plead my case. That is the case with many others as well. You might be right, a couple have come out of it besides you. But its extremely rare and I dare say that with the culture and the way that some of the admins act these days, it would be next to impossible to recover. Kumioko (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Brad, that's quite helpful. I think I hear you saying that ... for those of us who do read and respect the opinions ... you'd prefer that we keep the context of the underlying case in mind. - Dank (push to talk) 21:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I really ought to watchlist this page; I didn't see this discussion until I was looking through NYB's contributions. Yes, Dank, that is entirely right. The principles often seem like a waste of time to go through, but they serve to contextualize the policy bases behind our decision. In general, I see the principles as us selecting and summarizing the key policy pages and then deriving the findings of fact and remedies from those. NW (Talk) 21:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Completely and utterly off-topic comment about the current request

I notice that in the afore-mentioned request, a number of editors are using the "@" sign when replying to other editors. I use this convention too, as it makes it easier for everyone (especially passer-bys) to know who you are replying to. So I just wanted to give a shout out to a new template that I discovered today, Template:Reply to. Not only does it automatically add the "@" sign to your comment, it adds a notification in our new notification system. So, for example, if I wanted to reply to Newyorkbrad (selected at random as they were the first Arb to respond to this request), I would say:
@Newyorkbrad: Hey, how's it going? I hope you don't mind me using you as example in this post. Pretty cool, huh?
Anyway, I just wanted to let everyone know about the new {{Reply to}} template. Thanks and happy editing.  :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Because adopting an addressing convention from Twitter because it is familiar to so many readers is a great idea, and no way will Twitter ever go the way of Jaiku, GeoCities and the @Home Network.

Also because typing "{{reply to|Guy Macon}}, I agree" (@Guy Macon:) is so much easier than typing "[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]], I agree." (Guy Macon).

I have an even better idea. "AOL Keyword:[[User:Guy Macon]], I agree." (AOL Keyword:Guy Macon). That way we will never have to worry about it becoming dated or obsolete -- it already is!

AOL Keyword:A Quest For Knowledge. AOL Keyword:Newyorkbrad. Way better. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 00:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, no one is forcing you to use the new template if you don't want to. And for the record, I did not get a notification when you used AOL Keyword:A Quest For Knowledge. Fortunately, (or unfortunately - depending on how you look at it) I had to check this page manually to find out if it had been updated. I can't speak for anyone but me, but my first thought is "How barbaric"! In any case, I'm not sure why that didn't work with our current notification system, but it didn't. Personally, I don't like to recommend solutions that don't work, but that's just me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge: You do know that at least one arb already used the system in that very case? [11] Worm^TT(talk) 07:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I received the notifications that both A Quest for Knowledge and Guy Macon mentioned me here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Clerking

Why is your clerk, who already participated in the discussion, hiding my section on the IRC canvassing that influenced the ANI discussion?

Did WTT recuse from that discussion? Which arbitrators were on line at IRC? Which arbitrators were off line at that IRC discussion? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Given a similar discussion is also taking place at User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz#Your statement, I think it'd be best if we just left this section as is. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Would a clerk please deal with this?

[12] "Clerks, thanks for fixing the list. I'm not responding to Keifer per WP:DENY. He's enjoying his trolling, and if everyone else wants to go along with it, then that's fine by me :-) Pedro 18:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)" --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

As a Pedrophile, I say let Pedro's comment remain. He has had called me a troll for years. In fairness, let me say that Newyorkbrad did try to calm Pedro down in an argument some years ago.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

What, out of interest needs to be dealt with? Kiefer, who seems to be an expert at what is a personal attack judging by his references to WP:NPA called me, and The Rambling Man, "administrator trolls" only a week or so ago diff. As Keifer, presumably, doesn't think calling someone a troll is out of line then I fail to see a problem. Pedro :  Chat  19:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually some three weeks ago, but I'll let my original stand. Pedro :  Chat  19:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Net 4 votes?

Has the rule about 4 net votes needed to open a case changed? The KW/Ironholds case was 5/4 S/O, I thought, so I am wondering why it was opened? EdChem (talk) 04:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

A case is opened "if its acceptance has been supported by either of (i) four net votes or (ii) an absolute majority of active, non-recused arbitrators." In this case, the net-four rule was not met, but the absolute majority was. There were eleven active arbitrators, nine of which were non-recused. Thus, five out of nine was an absolute majority, which granted the opening of the case. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks for the explanation. EdChem (talk) 05:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

EdChem's question is something I was wondering about as well. The absolute majority criterion is covered in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Opening of proceedings but it is not mentioned in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Deciding of requests. Does anyone object if I update that section? Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Good observation. I support the update (Assuming of course, that the former is considered accurate, and the second, incomplete).--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it should definitely be updated to be internally consistent. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, I have made this edit to the Guide page. Most of it is a direct copy of the motion that last amended these rules. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Prodego and Wheelwarring

The case should not have been rushed to close, because the wheel-warring by administrator Prodego has not been addressed, e.g. by removing his administrator status for misuse of tools. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The initiator withdrew the case and as no arbitrator at that point had voted to accept the case then it was quickly withdrawn as policy allows. There is nothing to stop you initiating a new request if you feel that desysopping was not enough and that earlier steps in the DR process either have been or would be ineffective. Thryduulf (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with some of what Thryduulf says. While I don't see that any further actions can be taken toward INC, I do think there is a case to be had here as far as Prodego and Kww. — Ched :  ?  19:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Concerning recusals

Excuse me for a strong statement but I think it is necessary to get the point across. A member of Arbcom who has recused from a case should not talk about it until it is over. Don't make comments, don't make suggestions, don't engage in discussions, just shut up. Respond to questions by saying that you are recused and therefore cannot comment. If the non-recused members ask for information you can give it to them, but otherwise just be silent. Any other behavior is not a genuine recusal. Looie496 (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Arbs are members of the community and have a long history or offering evidence and workshop suggestions on cases they are recused in --Guerillero | My Talk 16:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
• Exactly. They recuse as arbitrators, not as editors. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
• Arbitrators who are involved in a case have just as much right to comment on it as any other involved editor. Andrew³²⁷ 22:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Update on discretionary sanctions review

The committee recently received an enquiry about how our review of discretionary sanctions was proceeding, and I thought I would leave a public note in response. After collating the results of the several clarification and amendment requests we have received about the discretionary sanctions system, we held an internal straw poll to resolve the fundamental questions raised by those requests; I am happy to report that we comfortably reached consensus on all those questions. I then set about rewriting the current set of standardised discretionary sanctions to incorporate that consensus (therefore resolving the outstanding points of order relating to arbitration enforcement). I then passed the rewritten procedures to another arbitrator, who quite extensively simplified the whole set of procedures. The new procedures look rather different from the current ones, so this has turned into a rather extensive review of the whole system. We are finalising the copyedited procedures and will vote on them this week. Although the review has taken some time, I and the other arbitrators who have been working on this believe that such an important piece of procedure is best not rushed. Thank you to all the editors who have waited patiently on the finished product. AGK [•] 11:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Will there be an opportunity for the community to offer feedback on the new procedures before they go live? Is there a defined transition or other defined way of handling existing sanctions/ongoing requests related to existing sanctions when the new procedures go live? Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks in advance for your work and that of your colleagues, AGK. As an administrator active in AE, I would also appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes.  Sandstein  12:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thryduulf, the changes will be publicly voted on at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions and I imagine most of us will leave the motion there for a few days before voting (or offering alternatives). Current requests will be governed by old procedure until the new one passes. The two are not so different that there will be major confusion in any transitory period. NW (Talk) 13:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Sandstein, I had actually agreed with the copy-editing arbitrator to publish the draft for community comments before we move anywhere close to "voting", so there will be ample opportunity for meaningful consultation. (Sorry, NW – I forgot to note that fact on-list.)

  Thryduulf, one of the things I seem to do quite well is setting out procedures for these types of "transitions". Unless my colleagues object, the procedure for the transition between Old DS and New DS will be that: (i) enforcement requests that have no administrator comments before the new system takes effect will be subject to the new system; (ii) enforcement requests that have received comments by one or more uninvolved administrators before the new system takes effect will be subject to the old system; (iii) in no case will any existing sanction be invalidated when the new system takes effect; (iv) subject to the guidelines in i) and ii) for appeals pending at the moment of transition, all appeals will be heard under the provisions of the new system. I think that covers everything, but some other provisions for the transition may be made closer to the time. And to reiterate what NW and I have said to Sandstein, because it bears repeating: there will be an extensive period of review of the new system, in which the comments and suggestions of any unblocked editor will be invited and very welcome. AGK [•] 22:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both, it is good to know that there will be a consultation period and that you have actively thought about transition and come up with sensible-sounding provisions for that period. Thryduulf (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

How recusal works in practice

Given the comments on the IH/KW case about recused arbitrators not taking part in a case in any way, it seems that one or more editors don't understand what recusal means in practice.

One or more then-active arbitrators gave a good explanation in terms of the multiple mailing lists etc in response to one of my questions on either the 2012 or 2011 arbitrator election questions to candidates page so I now understand it. I can't immediately find that now so it would be good if someone could write a simple guide (1-2 paragraphs is probably all it needs) to what recusal means and how the recusal of an arbitrator is handled in practice. I guess this would best fit on the "Guide to arbitration" page. Thryduulf (talk) 15:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

See Judicial disqualification. Apteva (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Thryduulf. I believe the question you refer to was was in your 2011 arbitrator election questions, specifically What are you feelings regarding a sitting arbitrator being a party to a case? Is there a conflict of interest? Does the level of their involvement in the events leading up to the case matter?. If it helps, here are the answers from the sitting arbs. It's also worth noting that your subsequent question (how would you handle it?) is relevent.

Sitting arbitrator's 2011 election answers
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Courcelles: A sitting arb who ia a party to a case first must recuse, then should have the same privileges of making statements, presenting evidence and workshop proposals as any other editor. Sometimes the recused arb possesses unique insight from an involved perspective, however their voice is no more significant than any other parties. An arb who is a party is removed from arbcom-en-b as a mater of course, and any discussion of the case would obviously happen there, the arbs hearing the case must erect a Chinese wall for this particular matter.) Risker: This will happen occasionally, and usually their direct involvement isn't too much of an issue. There has not been a situation during my term where an arbitrator has refused to recuse in such circumstances. The committee has a secondary mailing list that is used for such cases, and the recused/involved arbitrators do not have access to that mailing list for the duration of the case. While it may not be particularly apparent to others, most of the time arbitrators don't watch over the activities of their colleagues or opine on them, so it is unlikely that most members of the committee would have had prior knowledge of another arbitrator's involvement. Kirill Lokshin: Obviously, a sitting arbitrator is obliged to recuse from a case to which he is a party; beyond that, I don't believe that there is any substantive conflict of interest. The Committee has established various mechanisms to segregate arbitrators who find themselves in such a scenario from any discussion of the case in question—indeed, those same mechanisms are commonly used when arbitrators are recused for other reasons—and, despite what one might think, arbitrators are not any more sympathetic towards other arbitrators than they are towards anyone else. Roger Davies: We treat them as we would any other party. As we have two mailing lists, we can move discussion of the case to the secondary list and unsubscribe the arbitrator party from that list so they're not privy to discussions. SilkTork: Committee members are part of Wikipedia community and so are subject to the same sanctions. One would hope that a member would observe some restraint in involvement in everyday matters so as to avoid the potential of being named in a dispute; however, if a member does get named, then being treated the same as everyone is to be expected. There may be a perception of a potential COI in the Committee ruling on a member, though how one would perceive the Committee's attitude might depend on how one views ArbCom as a whole - some people may feel that the Committee might be more lenient toward "one of their own", others may feel the Committee might be harsher under the principle that there is an expectation of higher standards from an ArbCom member. Whoever is being discussed, the same principles of openness and fairness must be applied, and the outcome should be focused on the continued smooth running of the encyclopaedia. AGK: While I would tentatively be satisfied that most arbitrators would not seek to interfere with the committee's internal discussion about a case, I nevertheless think it is wrong for that arbitrator to even be privy to those deliberations. The committee's mailman software prevents 'selective unsubscription', and I think that is damaging. If the parties to a case know one of the parties has been able to read internal discussion (and maybe even participate in it), then the perceived legitimacy of the decision is lessened. The legitimacy of ArbCom's decisions is important. As for the arbitrator's involvement with the case before it comes to the committee: an arbitrator must either come to case proceedings with as much impartiality as we can expect from people, or must recuse. I do not think there can be much leeway here; a partisan arbitrator is a bad arbitrator. Worm That Turned: It is sometimes necessary - if a case is brought against a sitting arbitrator for example, or if they are heavily involved in the dispute. There is a plausible conflict of interest, to an extent, the difficulty lies in any behind the scenes discussions which the arb may be party to. I would expect the arb to have recused and looked at ways of minimising this.

I hope that helps a bit. Worm^TT(talk) 11:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

That is exactly what I was thinking of, particularly the answers of Risker and Roger in mentioning the mailing list. I'll write up something for the guide to help others too based on that. Thanks. 11:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

In baseball, a tie goes to the runner

So, what happens with a case that wound up 6-6 accept-decline, where it calls for 7 to cement a decision, a default to decline? The clerks aren't leaping to remove the case from the main page, I see, so I'd be curious to know just what is going on at the moment in off-wiki channels, i.e. is lobbying of other Arbs to change their vote allowed? 16:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

We discussed the case among ourselves for a little while, but no one changed their vote. That was a few days ago, before the last vote was cast. I can't recall the last time someone tried to lobby the Committee off-wiki and we actually took it seriously. The case request is mostly just waiting for a clerk to remove it, and that'll be done as soon as someone is available. NW (Talk) 17:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

What I had in mind there was if your fellow Arbs try to influence each other to alter votes. I'd hope that off-wiki lobbying by outsiders is given virtually zero weight. Tarc (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Lecen's personal attacks

Dear arbitrators,
Lecen continues to cast aspersions about me (accusing me of using Fascist sources & sponsoring political proganda; see [13]). He was already warned in the Argentine History arbitration case to stop these kind of accusations unless he had actual evidence to back his claims. Several days have passed since he made these accusations against me and has yet to provide any evidence whatsoever that justifies his claims (making them, in effect, nothing more than personal attacks).
I must emphasize that he has already been warned various times to stop. In fact, these "warnings" do nothing but encourage him to continue casting aspersions. Your leniency on this matter provides him with a sense of superiority that no editor in Wikipedia should have over others. I request the arbitrators to take action or to recommend me a venue where I can notify other administrators about Lecen's continuous personal attacks against me (I am evaluating whether to take this to AN/I or the Arbitration Enforcement board; please provide me with a suggestion).
Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

By points:

1. Argentine Nationalists/Revisionists are regarded fascists by scholars. The Nationalists/Revisionists published books that are deemed pieces of political propaganda by historians. This is a fact. I provided sources in the Arbitration case evidence page and through e-mails to the Arbitrators.
2. You and Cambalachero insisted, over and over, to use Argentine Nationalists/Revisionists as sources. In fact, you and Cambalachero argued in favor of using them on the Arbitration case. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History/Evidence#Evidence presented by Cambalachero (sources) and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History/Evidence#Evidence presented by MarshalN20 (sources)
3. The Arbitrators agreed that the Argentine Nationalists/Revisionists were indeed unreliable as sources and this why you and Cambalachero were both "banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces". See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History/Proposed decision#Proposed remedies.
4. I was warned nowhere about not casting aspersions. The only place in the Arbcom case where aspersions are mentioned are in "proposed principles". My name is not mentioned there.
5. I was not warned by anyone and even less "various time".
6. The link you provided is a reply I made to an Arbitrator where I said that Argentine Nationalists/Revisionists (Fascists) published books with political propaganda in mind and that you and Cambalachero used them as sources. This is a fact. It is the very foundation of the ArbCom case that led you and Cambalachero to be topic banned. --Lecen (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

My only position in the dispute between you and Cambalachero was that sources should not be dismissed simply because certain authors accuse them of being Fascists. Essentially, all I ever did was defend freedom of speech. And I would do the same for "democratic authors" or "communist authors" in any other situation.
I also never disputed the validity of the sources you presented (such as John Lynch or David Rock), and merely suggested that all information (regardless of political leaning) be evaluated on their academic value.
At the Arbitration page, you wrote the following: "two editors who used unreliable sources written by Fascists". Again, I never included a single source (Fascists or non-Fascist) into the article. Your accusations have no foundation.
Cambalachero and me are two different people. Yet, throughout this whole problem you have bundled the two of us as if we were one person. To this point, you keep writing "You and Cambalachero". Why? Because all you ever wrote about (including all diffs used in the evidence page) focused on Cambalachero and his actions rather than mine.
The last three points in your list (4, 5, and 6) clearly show that sense of superiority I mentioned in my first statement. You are not above any of the findings or "Wikiquette" standards and were warned to stop attacking users.
I again ask that you show a single diff where I "use a Fascist author" in any article.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, by topics:

1. I couldn't dare to place you and Cambalachero on the same category. I believe Cambalachero was far more harmful to Wikipedia than you, since he wrote history as it didn't happen. However, I must be fair: his behavior since the end of the Arbcom case has been exemplary. He is respecting the sanctions; he is not bothering Arbitrators; he is not arguing over and over about the Arbcom case outcome; no friends of his have suddenly appeared on articles they never contributed supporting his point of view. You should try to follow his example.
2. "Freedom of speech" is not above Wikipedia:Verifiability nor Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If you want to allow "freedom of speech" to Fascists writers and their propaganda books (scorned by respected scholars) you are in the wrong place.
3. As it seems, this yet another attempt of yours to discuss the Arbcom outcome and try to change the Arbitrators' mind. You're wasting our time, MarshalN20. Move on. --Lecen (talk) 22:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I stand by my position that freedom of speech is important when analyzing all sources to get a complete comprehension of the literature of a subject. You cannot blind yourself to a certain political view and think that the other view is infallibly correct. That is POV editing.

But I will not discuss article content, which is what you are turning this into

The point of my complaint is your continuous personal attacks against me. To count them up:

1. Accusation of Fascism ([14]).
2. Accusation of nationalist propaganda ([15]).
3. Accusation of meatpuppeting ("no friends of his have suddenly appeared on articles they never contributed supporting his point of view"). Adding to this that you have already been warned to stop these meatpuppeting claims ([16]).

I request, no, I demand that you put an end to your insults.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

By topics:

1. Argentine Nationalists/Revisionists were fascists, authoritarians, anti-Semitic, racists and misogynistics who supported eugenics. Their books were pieces of political propaganda. See here.
2. Cambalachero wrote several articles using Argentine Nationalists/Revisionists as sources. You fiercely supported him. See here.
3. Because of that you and him were topic banned from all articles related to Latin American history forever. In your case, you have "engaged in tendentious editing and battleground conduct" and was "banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces". See here and here.
4. Thus, you can't argue that I'm insulting you because I merely mentioned the very reason to why you were topic banned forever. --Lecen (talk) 10:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Really? Instead of apologizing, you keep justifying your personal attacks? Yes, I was banned for "tendentious editing and battle ground conduct" for a year (not "forever"). However, none of the "findings" against me accuse me of meatpuppeting, Fascism, anti-Semitism, misogynism, eugenics, or promoting propaganda. You are insulting me and I am tired of your harassment. Enough is enough. Arbitrators please respond!--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Again: "MarshalN20 is banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed across all namespaces." "Indefinitely" means forever, not a year. --Lecen (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Both of you, stop this pointless bickering and please consider yourselves informally banned from interacting with each other. I may propose an amendment to the case to which you were both parties if you want, but I'd rather assume that, as adults, you can both avoid one another. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Salvio giuliano, I don't appreciate being implicitly called childish or immature. It is offensive and inappropriate. You should remember Wikipedia:No personal attacks. As an Arbitrator, you're supposed to set an example and not to demean other editors. I replied here because MarshalN20 accused me of insulting him. I pointed out that had I solely mentioned why he was topic banned. Nowhere on this thread I was rude, offensive, ironic or unpolite. And lastly, I gladly accept the mutual interaction ban. --Lecen (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

You should remember Wikipedia:No personal attacks indeed I do, which is why I did not call you a child or immature; quite the opposite, actually. I said that I'm confident that, since you're both adults, you can avoid each other on a voluntary basis, instead of requiring third-party intervention... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear Salvio, how is it "pointless bickering" to ask for Lecen to quit insulting me? He was already "reminded to conduct himself in accordance with Wikipedia's behavioral guidelines" (see [17]). Yet, instead of taking this time to cease and desist his personal attacks, Lecen justifies them under the cover of my topic ban.

And, instead of following your advice, Lecen proceeds to accuse you, Salvio, of personally attacking him?!! This all adds up to a clear case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.
Given Lecen's position, which basically indicates that he will continue attacking me, administrative intervention is necessary.
Being labeled a Fascist is particularly insulting for me as many of my relatives died fighting as a result of that ideology.
And all of this because I defended WP:NPOV at an article about an Argentine caudillo? None of this makes sense to me, and it utterly disgusts me that Lecen keeps getting away with these insults. Please stop him.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, since Lecen has agreed to stop interacting with you, I don't see what's left to do wrt him. You should just ignore him as well, or, since blocks are meant to stop disruption, you might end up restricted per WP:BOOMERANG. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Lecen had previously agreed to stop interacting with me. Please see the show at arbitration enforcement (see [18]) and also feel free to ask User:NuclearWarfare.

He is tricking you into again getting away with insulting me. And this battleground behavior is nothing new...you previously blocked him for it.

Meanwhile, I am left here wondering why Lecen is above Wikipedia's behavior guidelines? ...--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I would like to request an interaction ban as well. Cambalachero (talk) 14:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

formatting suggestion regarding votes to accept/decline/etc a case

In DC's case last week as commentary went on and on, I for one was finding it a bit difficult to track down where the Arbs' votes were actually being made. Some use the standard asterisk bold on a newline of its own, while others made several comments before putting the bold vote in the middle or at the end of the sentence. I'm wondering if it may be a worthwhile idea to separate the "Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter" section into two sub-sections; one for commentary, questions, etc...and another purely for votes? Tarc (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion Tarc, I think it really only becomes a problem when the Arbs don't bold their vote. But on the occasion that the Arbs' section gets quite long it can be difficult to follow where the votes are. I'll bring it up on the mailing list, thanks for the suggestion.

A suggestion about the Active sanctions list

This s just a suggestion but it might be worthwhile to have a discussion to clean out the Active sanctions list. A lot of the folks there aren't editing anymore so it appears that a fair number of the problems have run their course. It may not be required to completely eliminate the sanction but if the party is indefinitely blocked like Racepacket or hasn't edited since 2009 (Some of the scientology case folks date back to 2007 as their last edit) it seems a little unnecessary. Kumioko (talk) 10:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

@Kumioko Thanks for the suggestion, the only reason not to that I can think of at the moment is that even though that editor isn't active the sanction still applies. Wikipedia:Editing restrictions is the (only?) place that is recorded, so when assessing unblock/ban requests or if they all of a sudden start actively editing again there is still a central record of any restrictions which apply to them. I suppose what we could do is create another table in the same section noinclude it and collapse it, but I'm not sure if that will achieve much. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh sure and I would totally understand doing a general sanction that say something like "The following sanctions have been removed due to inactivity but if the editors returns the sanction will be restored and continues to be in effect". Or something to that effect. No biggie to me though I noticed a while back that there were a lot that seemed to have been OBE so I thought I would submit it for consideration. Kumioko (talk) 13:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Question about discretionary sanctions page restrictions

Hi all, a couple of us arbitrators, in talking about how to revamp the discretionary sanctions procedure, had a few questions about page restrictions imposed under the authorization of discretionary sanctions. First off, which ones are actually used? I know that 1RR is probably the most common, and I have in the past implemented or suggested move protection discretionary sanctions (on Talk:Senkaku Islands and Talk:Climatic Research Unit email controversy), but are there others (long term full or semi-protection, for example)? For 1RR, are there cases where it is applied topic-wide or is it generally just applied on a few pages? How many pages restrictions are in place, and how often are users sanctioned under them? Is it only new editors who are blocked or is it established editors as well (or is it just the latter)? Should other procedures be utilized besides just the editnotices to warn people who violate 1RR before we have to hand out blocks?

I know that's a pretty wide set of questions, but even answers to just a few of those would be helpful. I'm going to ping a couple of admins who I know work at AE, but I would welcome the comments of anyone who is familiar with the situation. (@Future Perfect at Sunrise, Sandstein, Heimstern, Bbb23, SirFozzie, Cailil, Seraphimblade, EdJohnston, and The Blade of the Northern Lights:). I have also left a notice at WP:AN. NW (Talk) 15:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand all the questions, but I'll try to respond anyway. There are generally a few ways I get involved in discretionary sanctions. One is a report at WP:AN3, which I patrol fairly regularly. Another is because a page subject to sanctions is on my watchlist. The least common is someone alerts me to a problem on my talk page. If I choose to impose sanctions (I'm not counting a formal notification), it's most frequently a block for violating 1RR. The second most frequent is to semi-protect the article. How long I do that for varies, but I tend to treat it similarly to a report at RFPP, meaning it would depend on the disruption, the length of the disruption, and the history of protection. I would say it's rarely if ever "long term". Third most frequent is full protection - same deal except a higher standard because of its impact on the page. I've never applied move protection. I'm not sure what you mean by 1RR and topic-wide. I've never imposed a topic ban under discretionary sanctions.

As for new vs. experienced editors, I've blocked both, but I tend to be more lenient with new, although I'm a great believer in my discretion to act depending on the circumstances, so I take into account various factors before deciding.

I think the notice on the talk page and the edit notice is sufficient notice for any editor. Obviously, a formal notification cinches it, but it's not necessary in my view.

My biggest issue is whether a page should be under discretionary sanctions in the first instance. For example, if there's a notice on the talk page but I don't think it's appropriate, the procedure for handling that is often cumbersome. Conversely, if there is no notice but I think the page should be under sanctions, that, too, is a little difficult. I've occasionally unilaterally put a page under sanctions that had no notice. I do that if I think it's obvious, but when it's not so obvious, it's harder to know what the correct approach should be. Usually, I solicit input from another admin, figuring there's strength in consensus.

If I missed something, NW, or if you need additional clarification, let me know.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think - from my own reading of what NW posted - he wanted to know

1. When DS is authorized, what kind of restriction is used the most often;
2. If 1RR restriction is in placed, is it applied topic-wide or on limited set of pages;
3. What are the number of page restrictions in place and how often are users sanctioned under them;
4. Do editors get sanctioned under these restrictions regardless of their experience; and
5. Should there be other steps prior to blocking for violation of 1RR.

• - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 23:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

1. 1 RR, or a requirement to fully discuss proposed changes on talk pages before submitting them.
2. Usually topic wide
3. Not as much as some might think, it's usually able to tamp down on things before they can cause issues (and because serial offenders usually end up being blocked or completely restricted from the topic area)
4. If anything, I think more experienced users get blocked more, because we expect that they should know better.
5. I don't think so, usually, there's enough leeway that if it was an honest mistake, there will be no block levied for a first infraction. SirFozzie (talk) 02:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Responding to NW's questions:

1. What kind of restriction is used the most often? 1RR is most common. See the rare single-page restrictions listed in: WP:ARBPIA#Log of article-level discretionary sanctions, WP:ARBEE#Log of article-level discretionary sanctions, WP:ARBAA2#Log of article-level sanctions, WP:ARBMAC#Article-level restrictions and the Senkaku Islands page move restriction by NW. See also the indefinite full protection of Mass killings under Communist regimes which was done under WP:ARBEE. Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia is move protected until November 2013 under WP:ARBMAC.
2. The majority of articles that are now under 1RR got there by a topic-wide decision. The blanket 1RRs in WP:ARBPIA and WP:TROUBLES originated from community discussions. The one for ARBPIA was in WP:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/Israel-Palestine articles, (12 November 2010).
3. How often are users sanctioned under the page restrictions? The AE enforcement log for ARBPIA case shows about 100 entries every year and about half of those are due to 1RR violations. The logged remedy for a first-time violation is usually either a 24 hour block or a warning. If a person violates 1RR more than once the sanction will escalate. Sanctions for 1RR are also given out due to the WP:TROUBLES case. The term '1RR violation' occurs 15 times in the TROUBLES log.
4. Are editors sanctioned regardless of their experience? Usually there is a discussion with the person first if they appear to be new. Should they say that it was inadvertent, then a warning is most likely. The regular editors who work in ARBPIA warn each other for 1RR and ask each other to self-revert. Refusing to self-revert is not logical yet it does occur. When the person reverting won't make any concession even when they are reported for a 1RR violation at AE it is typical to issue a block.
5. Should there be other steps prior to blocking? If a 1RR violation is reported at AN3 or AE there will most often be a discussion with the person. So we already try to avoid admin action if we can. EdJohnston (talk) 05:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't have much to add to EdJohnston's thorough answers.

In my view, a significant unsolved problem with topic-level sanctions is how to warn users about them beforehand, as it's not feasible to create editnotices for all topic-related material. I suspect (though I don't have data about it) that the vast majority of 1RR violations in the affected topic areas are unnoticed and/or unreported, which raises the question of whether it is fair to sanction the few cases that are reported. We also lack data about how reverting behavior is actually affected by the deterrent effect (if any) of such topic-wide sanctions. This is an area that might lend itself to further study.

As a general observation, administrators (including myself) appear to prefer taking action on a per-editor basis rather than a per-page basis, which seems to be a (relatively rare) last resort in cases where patterns of misconduct are difficult to ascribe to individual editors. Topic-wide restrictions avoid taking individual conduct into consideration to begin with, which is also why I am rather skeptical with regard to their appropriateness.  Sandstein  06:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I actually understood that blanket sanctions were always placed on a single article or a small group of articles – but never on a topic. Are there any recorded instances of these sanctions being applied to an entire topic? AGK [•] 11:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Two that I know of. WP:ARBPIA#General 1RR restriction and WP:TROUBLES#Final remedies for AE case. Both make the respective topic area (Arab-Israeli conflict and Northern Ireland conflict) subject to 1RR. In both cases there is no clear record of who imposed these sanctions and under what authority, but if I remember correctly T. Canens said in reply to a clarification request that the ARBPIA 1RR should be considered an individual administrator's discretionary sanction for enforcement purposes.  Sandstein  11:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Another example of a topic-wide sanction: I remember that back when Climate change was under community sanctions (not discretionary sanctions yet), I implemented a topic-wide sanction freezing in place all {{NPOV-dispute}} tags and forbidding editors from adding new ones to articles. Blocks weren't placed immediately unless the editor was already aware of the restriction; instead, any editor could revert to the status quo. NW (Talk) 13:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine

I am just placing a note here to encourage taking a look at what is happening at Talk:1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine. I don't want to report anyone and I am not asking for any specific sanction; I just want someone to keep an eye on a what looks like a brewing problem.

I ran into this page after a case was filed at WP:DRN, where I am a volunteer, and later one of the participants expressed dissatisfaction with DRN. I and another DRN volunteer tried to point them in the right direction (simple stuff like "go to WP:SPI instead of repeatedly accusing another editor of sockpuppetry on the article talk page") but at that point I realized that there is an ongoing raging battle with accusations and counteraccusations flying and that I am completely out of my league. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Chelsea/Bradley Manning mess

Not a formal RFAR, just a heads up. As some of you are already aware this content dispute is displaying nearly every type of undesirable behavior we have a name for, up to and including wheel warring, so it is more or less inevitable that it is going to end up on the committee's doorstep at some point. Enjoy. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

There is also a discussion here: Talk:Chelsea_Manning#Requested_move. Kumioko (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

And like five other places, it's pretty much a wiki forest fire at this point. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that, I think I have about 4 on my watchlist but I'm sure there are more. That's not even counting the discussions on the site which shall not be named. I almost commented at a couple but there are already so many people fighting over this my voice would just be lost in the crowd anyway It baffles me that we have all these things to fight about in this project and all kinds of important issues like RFA, Visual Editor, editor attrition and this silly case is what everyone is mad about. I have thought for a while that some of our editors have lost perspective and this case pretty much verified that. Simply appalling. Kumioko (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The "wiki forest fire" of mention does fully illustrate the larger issue of wiki dysfunction; hell, they may as well be discussing infoboxes! :) John Cline (talk) 03:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that there is something that Arbcom can do to help here. Someone needs to give us a definitive answer to the argument that WP:BLP does not apply to article titles. Comments from the ongoing RfC:

"This is not a BLP issue.

"MOS:IDENTITY is not about article titles, and I don't think there is a BLP issue."

"The appeal to WP:BLP as a reason to keep the article at Chelsea Manning (and to immediately undo any reversion to Bradley Manning is baseless. The BLP policy has nothing to do with the use of Bradley in the article title. The BLP policy is about protecting Wikipedia from defamation suits."

"At what point will you acknowledge that your invocation of BLP was off-base, and restore the original title?"

"This article name change dispute isn't affected by the BLP policy at all. There's no basis for applying it."

"Why exactly does 'WP:BLP trump WP:ARTICLENAME'? Many participants use this argument (or a similar one) during this discussion, but I have to admit that I can't see any primary/secondary ranking of the Wikipedia policies."

"WP:BLP does not apply, WP:MOSIDENTITY deals with pronouns not article titles, in fact it says in there to refer to policy when it comes to article titles."

"The interpretation of BLP in this manner runs counter to consensus on Wikipedia."

"I cannot even begin to imagine why people are citing WP:BLP. There are no BLP concerns affecting this discussion from what I can see."

"I would also like to ask editors who say this is a BLP (as opposed to style) issue to justify that claim.

"That interpretation of BLP is, quite frankly, bunk. The article should be restored to the person's actual name, and mention of the Bradley-to-Chelsea wish is certainly notable enough to mention in the article. But not to the point where it dictates what this project actually titles the article, or what pronouns are used to refer to the person in the article."

"I don't see why BLP mandates that we use the name Chelsea in the title."

"Those who are opposing as said are citing WP:BLP with nothing in that policy that mentions title changes, it says in MOS that title changes are referred to in the Title changes policy, nobody has been able to counter this argument."-

"There is nothing on WP:BLP that comes out and says anything against the article title change to Bradley Manning"

"So I think that this part of WP:BLP does not apply to our case."

"Again there is NOTHING in WP:BLP that covers this and under WP:IDENTITY it points to policies including WP:TITLECHANGES as this does not have to do with article content but an article's title."

"Those who have cited WP:BLP as an exception here have yet to back it up."

My opinion is that BLP applies to anything on Wikipedia that involves a living person. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It does apply. However, many think that titling an article by a person's legal, given name, the name that they are commonly known as, when it may not be what the subject prefers, is not at odds with BLP policy. Tarc (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The grey area here is that BLP policy is to use whatever the self identification is used by the subject. However that is in regards to sexual identity, not a name. However, we do allow such self sourced content on Wikipedia. "Verifiability not truth' is no longer the standard. If the subject declares that they are identifying themselves with a name, we can use it per the source being the subject. Verifiable names do NOT always match the common names. This is a matter of consensus to me as the policies and guidelines should not override common sense.--Mark 18:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

"Verifiability not truth" does apply - it needs to be verifiable what the subject's gender and name preferences are before we title an article based on them. In the case of Chelsea Manning, that verifiability is not in doubt though, so there is no question what name the article should be at based on our policies. Thryduulf (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Well....not really. You see we no longer have such a policy as "Verifiability not truth". And even the policy page itself still contains language that contradicts other policies and guidelines. The subject has made a public declaration. Is that verifiable? Some might say yes, while others would say that a public declaration must be found in a reliable source. While it certainly strengthens the claim it is not a requirement. It could well be an OTRS ticket or an simple mention in the official website or could simply be a declaration proven to have come from the source. It becomes a matter of consensus really, but the subject can indeed simply state that their name is "such and such" and just because the documented and verifiable information may not show this information we do have to take into consideration such claims being made directly from the subject. Issues of name and DOB are not as complicated as some may wish to make them.--Mark 19:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

As much as this may or may not be a BLP issue (I believe it is), it is worth mentioning that enforcing BLP applies to the broadest imaginable scope as it relates to the living person affected by matters of disregard. Therefor a section heading is as much an issue as another if the living person is left to carry the burden of angst it derives. The argument that an article title contravenes BLP sensitivities unravels if the same sensitivity is not apparent in the name published for a talk page section; in my opinion. :) John Cline (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Uh...no. The talk page may use speculation (Original Research) in order to further a debate or argument. It is not at the same level of as the article itself.--Mark 20:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. I was hoping that this would not become a duplicate of the huge fight going on at the article and instead we could focus in on my specific question. In particular, the "is not at odds with BLP policy" argument above and the replies to it have nothing to do with the question of whether BLP applies to article titles. If anyone wants to argue that BLP does indeed apply to article titles but this particular case is not a BLP violation, that's fine, but could you please start another thread for that rather than hijacking this one? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I have no idea what the discussion is at the talk page but I will say that neither myself or the other editor appear to be hijacking this thread Guy. And frankly I am a little disappointed that you would accuse editors of such when the natural flow of the discussion does not include your quandary. Couldn't you simply re-state your question instead of accusing editors of such behavior?--Mark 20:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

[A] WP:BLP does not apply to article titles: True or False?

[B] Whatever the answer to [A] is, I can name 200 editors who violently disagree. Can we get a definitive ruling on this? Do I need to file an Arbcom request to get one? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I cannot possibly see how Arbcom could simply rule that 'WP:BLP policy does not apply to article titles' without opening a gaping hole in the entire WP:BLP policy - one that would surely conflict with the WMF's resolution on the matter [19]. As to how it applies regarding the particular issue under discussion, that is another matter. If Arbcom is to become involved, surely it is better to ask a question that is actually likely to resolve the issue? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I wonder Guy Macon, are our policies only explicit or is there some implicit information that would guide editors towards the right way to handle the situation, regardless of the varying opinions. I know that when something is not spelled out word for word, we sometimes have to look to other guidelines to understand how situations could be handled with what guides we have.--Mark 23:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

---

In my opinion, when I see hundreds of editors disagreeing on a fundamental matter of policy interpretation, and then I see several administrators wheel warring over the same fundamental matter of policy interpretation, I am allowed to ask the arbitration committee for a ruling on whether WP:BLP applies to article titles. They may decline to rule on that, but I am allowed to ask.

If you want to ask a question other than "WP:BLP does not apply to article titles: True or False?", feel free. I am still allowed to ask my question.

If you think that some answer other than an Arbcom ruling will convince a couple of hundred editors at Talk:Chelsea Manning#Requested move that's fine. I am still allowed to ask the arbitration committee for a ruling on whether WP:BLP applies to article titles.

If you think that somewhere other than Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests (or Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard‎; it was moved here from there) is the right place for me to ask the arbitration committee to consider ruling on whether WP:BLP applies to article titles, please tell me where I should make that request.

If you are not a member of the Arbitration Committee and have an opinion as to whether on whether WP:BLP applies to article titles, is there any way that I can convince you to discuss it someplace that does not interfere with me asking the arbitration committee to consider ruling on whether WP:BLP applies to article titles? Talk:Chelsea Manning#Requested move might be a good place for that, but just starting another thread on this page and letting me ask my question and wait for an answer from arbcom will do nicely. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Guy, I wrote this before I saw your latest post, so I hope you don't mind me going ahead and posting it anyway. BLP applies to everything about living persons on Wikipedia. The policy says: "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, and categories." It doesn't mention titles explicitly, but note that it says "including," so that was never intended to be an exhaustive list of the things it applies to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:45, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Well, Guy, some years back the Committee attempted to bring forward a subcommittee, made up almost entirely of community members, who would advise the committee on content and other issues so that we would be in a position to answer a question such as yours; the intention was to get it going and then cut it loose to community control, so that it would act as a parallel to the Arbitration Committee with respect to content issues. That was, however, kiboshed by the community, which has steadfastly refused to consider over the intervening years that maybe it would be a good idea. (Full disclosure: I voted against creating that subcommittee because I was fairly sure its creation would not be accepted by the community.) So, here we are, with a single "Arbitration Committee" that is precluded by policy to answer a question such as yours, absent a case built around the actions of individuals. And really, the people you'd wind up bringing here would be the admins who moved the article back and forth between a couple of titles. We might be in a position to rule on whether or not either title was a BLP violation, but only in the context of whether or not an administrator moving the article had reason to believe that there was a BLP violation, and whether or not said administrator should be sanctioned. But you should know that the Arbitration Committee, through every single iteration since about 2006, has been very strongly supportive of the all-encompassing application of the BLP policy, over and above almost all other policies. One would have to present a really phenomenal argument that an administrator moving the article because the original title was a BLP violation did not actually believe that it was true, and was acting maliciously, in order to obtain any sanction here; and I'm not sure that the case would be accepted if there was no reasonable prospect of someone being sanctioned. Oh, and, yes...article titles are subject to WP:BLP; I don't understand why you might have any doubt about that. Risker (talk) 04:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

  The issue is that WP:WHEEL contains a BLP exception for deleting material that contravenes WP:BLP, but does not explicitly authorize any other BLP related Wheel exceptions, such as here, where its alleged that the title itself is a BLP violation. So in that very limited sense, BLP does not apply to titles, at least as policy is currently written. Monty₈₄₅ 04:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

  You honestly think that? BLP applies everywhere on the project, as is stated right in the BLP policy. Risker (talk) 05:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

  I would have thought that a more mainstream view was that BLP applies to article titles, but there is dispute as to whether in this case BLP is being breached. ϢereSpielChequers 06:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

  It seems patently obvious to me that BLP policy applies to anything that affects the LPs. The normal sort of "does not apply" argument goes something like "BLP does not apply because John Wilkes Booth is dead" or "BLP does not apply because Eric Cartman isn't living or a person". When I saw hundred of comments saying "BLP does not apply to article titles" with "prove it!" responses when someone disagrees (noting that there are other arguments such as "BLP applies but isn't being violated in this case" that I am purposely not addressing) it made me want to ask for some sort of official ruling. Alas, as Risker pointed out, Arbcom is a lot like the US Supreme Court, set up to deal with specific situations, not the kind of policy question I am asking about. So, as a practical matter, is there anything else that I can do? For example, I could file an Arbcom case on the alleged wheel warring even though I think that it was a legitimate application of BLP policy. If it was accepted and if the ruling went the way I think it would, I would have an official ruling that BLP applies to article titles. That sound OK on paper, but dragging some poor admin to Arbcom when I don't think she/he did anything wrong? No. I can't do it. Maybe if they volunteered to be a test case... Is it even worth asking them? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

  Arbcom exists primarily to address matters where the community has been shown incapable of resolving by some other preferred means. Why should Arbcom be your first recourse? Have you entirely lost faith in community consensus? You can not suggest that you have tried. :) John Cline (talk) 06:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't speak for the Arbitration Committee but will offer my view. Seconding a couple of other people above, the BLP policy clearly applies to article titles, as it does everywhere else. For example, in the (hopefully unlikely) event that an article title contained unsourced negative information about a living person, this would need to be addressed, either by reliably sourcing the information (if true) or changing the article name or both. I doubt that many experienced Wikipedians, on reflection, would disagree with that.

The question of whether this article should be at "Bradley Manning" or "Chelsea Manning" at this moment seems to me to be at some distance from the crux of the BLP policy, however. It also seems to me that it is receiving a quite disproportionate amount of the community's time and attention. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• As a thought experiment, let's presume that someone writes an article about someone with a common name, and, as is common in such cases, adds a parenthetical disambiguation. Let us further presume that the disambiguation they use is John Doe (criminal), and doesn't support that classification. I certainly hope we could all agree that would be covered by BLP, despite being in the title. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually, as I think about it, this type of situation has come up, as when we sometimes move an article from "Murder of X" to "Death of X" when there's an issue as to whether it was a murder or not. (The living person in question there, of course, being not X but the suspect.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
  • You don't need a hypothetical example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna Simpson (obese) - David Gerard (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Death of Lee Rigby (not murder). BLP certainly does apply to article titles, but I don't think it's relevant to Bradley Manning or Chelsea Manning because there are plenty of sources using both, and neither is derrogatory. If Manning were to file an OTRS request saying she felt very insulted with being called Bradley Manning, we might even switch it as a courtesy, but that hasn't happened as far as I know. Jehochman ^Talk 14:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Disproportionate? Given that Wikipedia is an entirely voluntary activity that prohibits many behaviors but actually requires few it's unclear to me how the proportionate amount of discussion could be determined. If folks want to express opinions about the specific issue and the broader difficulties involved in writing articles related to transgender individuals, I'd classify that as forming consensus, not disproportionate. Besides, there are 121,345 active users -- so if, conservatively, 300 folks have commented, that's only a proportion of 0.0023. NE Ent 13:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I have personally moved articles due to BLP issues in the title before and received no complaints whatsoever. BLP clearly applies to article titles. Andrew³²⁷ 13:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

record?

I'm slightly flabberghasted at the size of this, already. (Only slightly.) Is there a record for the number of statements an an Arb request? Morwen (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh there probably is. This one isn't close so far (I think we had over 50 statements a few times), although it does have the unique feature of being the first one where Sue Gardner has posted. Risker (talk) 21:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

117 on civility enforcement. (115 on talk + 2 on main case page). NE Ent 13:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Removal of relevant comments

I'm concerned about various relevant comments being removed, such as [20]. The global living persons policy draft that User:Keegan mentioned seems particularly relevant to a broad examination of this case, and the removal makes it unclear what we are actually discussing, if not trying to establish how BLP or fundamental principles along those lines apply to this case. Josh Gorand (talk) 12:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. What's going on here? One of the biggest problems in the original dispute was selective silencing and erasure - David Gerard (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

This is the first place where you should inquire about this. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Keegan's comment for example, was targeted at someone who had left a statement and not about the content of that statement. If someone (Keegan included) wishes to make a comment related to the global living persons policy draft, and their comment is relevant to the case being accepted or not, then that's fine. But the statements need to be relevant to the case. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the removal of statements as well. All of the removed statements were addressing some element of the case. You could have dropped a note on Keegan's talk page asking him to rephrase; as it is, it appears his input is entirely unwelcome and this is surely not appropriate. Ditto for whatever your objection was to other statements. KillerChihuahua 14:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The removal of DHeyward's statement was done at my request and a summary of why I requested it is on DH's talk page. As far as Keegan's post goes, perhaps I ought not to comment considering that the page history tells me I originally wrote the global living persons policy draft.[21] (I have little recollection of the task force actually). But I see why Callanecc removed it; it does seem like something that belongs better on User talk:Sue Gardner than Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. As far as Adam Cuerden's comment goes: Callanecc, could you explain further please why you removed it? I don't necessarily disagree with the removal at this time; I would just like to hear your explanation. NW (Talk) 15:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Removing Keegan's comment especially strikes me as a mistake. Actually, given that BLP issues are centrally related to the reasons I see for accepting a case, I disagree with both removals, and thought both comments were rather relevant to the broader issues in play here. Courcelles 18:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Keegan's and Adam Cuerden's, IMO, should not have been removed. I can see the rationale behind possibly asking Keegan to rephrase some of his statement, but I cannot see any reason for removal of Cuerden's statement, and in looking at it, don't even see any reason for any of it to be rephrased. KillerChihuahua 18:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Keegan's was directed at Sue and was a criticism of her regarding the global living persons policy draft. I should have mentioned in the message I left Keegan that there was no problem making another statement, and should have said the same thing in the message I left Adam Cuerden. Looking at Adam Cuerden's again I can see where everyone is coming from and it is very borderline, so I probably didn't need to remove it. However the reason I did is this, the statement is a criticism of editors in general, as well as -sche's comment more specifically, and seemed to me like it was just being used as a place for Adam to make a comment rather than relating to specifically to the case. However I can see where everyone is coming from and I'm happy to add it back if that's what people would rather. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, my statement was not a criticism of Sue. She doesn't get to set or really influence the Board's agenda. I wouldn't be surprised if she was unaware of the global Living People Policy draft languishing on strategy; she's a busy women. It would be beneficial if she has seen it now. Anyway, it's all moot now, I've adjusted the framing to make it pointedly relevant to this case. Keegan (talk) 00:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The removal of my comments were described as a soapbox and offensive. As I didn't intend it to be a soapbox or offensive, I am at a loss for understanding the reaction. I came at the subject from a different point of view, but it was never intended to be offensive. My intent was only to point out that there are BLP concerns at the individual level as well as BLP concerns for many in similar situations and catering to stereotypes in the name of BLP could be more harmful and a larger BLP violation overall. Since no one was approaching it in the same direction as I did, I felt it necessary to explain it. Some comments are on my talk page and those that wish to read the original post can do so with diff's as I won't repost without understanding the offense and refine it so it is not. -DHeyward (talk) 02:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

@Jehochman: - the average editor wouldn't think of it as a BLP violation, but, looking at the !votes, the average editor thinks comparing transgender people to dogs is apposite. (Why's it always dogs?) I would have hoped we could do better - David Gerard (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

RfC - Edit-warring

I invite community feedback regarding this RfC.[22] Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a Great Example of Tribal Warfare

My suggestion to the arbitrators is to go through all the editors involved here and especially the admins and take some actions to protect the integrity of Wikipedia. They have put themselves in the spotlight here and this provides an excellent opportunity to conduct further investigations of all involved. These are among the most agenda pushing, edit warring, defaming bunch of wickipedians to be found. This has provided an excellent opportunity to take some drastic yet severely needed actions. Pulling some admins, warning some editors and suspending others would definitely clean up wiki for awhile. Yes, more would come in the future but I am sure there will be other opportunities like this to weed them out.208.54.40.134 (talk) 03:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC) My 2 cents worth.

I'm not sure there's been an arbitration since 2004 someone wouldn't apply that paragraph to - David Gerard (talk) 06:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Alphabetic ordering

The large number of the comments by editors in the Manning RFAR makes it difficult to quickly look up comments from certain editors. Why not order all the entries alphabetically? The comments by the initiatior of the RFAR would then still come first, perhaps in a higher level section, the rest should be ordered alphabetically below that. Count Iblis (talk) 13:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Control-F. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that will also work :). Count Iblis (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, solving all of Wikipedia's problems one user at at time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Bigoted, pro-Windows post. Per MOS:OPERATING_SYSTEM, shortcuts should be referred to by the preference of the operating system (in my case, that's ⌘ -F) NE Ent 02:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Macphobic? Neutron (talk) 03:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Translinux. And I remind you that nobody switches to linux. --DHeyward (talk) 03:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Do you guys see how it might be possible that this is kind of an offensive joke? Archaeo (talk) 11:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC) In functional terms, it is a class of incivility that is difficult to distinguish from deliberate boundary testing when done on an arbcom page. I'm sure a good-faith explanation could be constructed - David Gerard (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC) LOL. DPRoberts534 (talk) 14:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm still surprised that Arbcom doesn't use a separate page for each case request. How hard would it be?

One non-trivial side advantage is that individual comments would be naturally be in the TOC. While one could force them to be in this format, with multiple cases on a single page, it would make the TOC unmanageable. Much better if on a separate page. As a compromise, if in fact it is common to have several small case requests, most of which are rejected, and a single page is fine, then break out whenever a case request exceeds some size.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case provides a TOC. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests does not (presumably because the actual cases page is transcluded). Guettarda (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I missed that distinction.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

How do we post our thoughts/comments on cases here?

I had been an occasional editor for years, but only registered after Chelsea Manning's page had been moved back to "Bradley Manning." I don't know if this will be helpful.

Background:

I am an occasional but previously-unregistered Wikipedia editor. I looked at the talk page after Chelsea Manning's page was moved to her own name, but backed away from the transphobia. I returned after seeing that her page had been moved to her boyname, and was and am shocked by this decision.

Biases:

I am a survivor of anti-trans violence. I do not deal well with transphobia, because I believe it contributes to anti-trans violence, and because of the trauma. I have commented elsewhere condemning the move-back.

Comments:

I wonder how many other editors backed away because of the transphobia. Apparently, I could be mistaken, the margin was based on a very narrow majority, rather than consensus, and the hostility, or canvassing on either side, could have tilted the balance. I don't think people who don't experience transphobia are always able to recognize what is or isn't transphobic; more of the transphobia may come from misunderstanding than from hate; but that's a good reason for an appropriate committee to go over this and hash out guidelines for similar situations. And yes, I think this a issue of basic human dignity, and not only that, I fear that disrespecting trans people's identities may encourage anti-trans violence. Ananiujitha (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I see that you already found Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute, which is where this sort of statement would go. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Swarmed with bad accounts

So I've been active on wikipedia again this last week, and I'm being swarmed with either malicious or incompetent accounts and I'm wondering what to do about them. I see socks purposely misrepresenting sources - [23], accounts adding to an article information about a random youtube video -[24] and engaging in falsifying history -[25], the ceaseless AndresHerutJaim socks - [26], accounts removing sources written by the article's subject themself because they have a hatred for the website hosting the source -[27], accounts removing multi-sourced statements because they dislike one of the sources -[28]. I can do little against any of these accounts as they just keep reverting, making new accounts, ips, and if I revert they will take me here for edit warring or such. What can I do? Can anyone help me, at least block the worst? Sepsis II (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

You have included an edit of mine in your list of edits by "malicious or incompetent accounts" and "socks". I would like you to clarify: do you believe I am "malicious", "incompetent" or a "sock"? I would remind you that I have been active for nearly 9 years and have approximately 12,000 edits. GabrielF (talk) 05:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions review

Since March 2013, various individual members of the Arbitration Committee have been reviewing the existing Discretionary sanctions process, with a view to (i) simplifying its operation and (ii) updating its procedures to reflect various clarification and amendment requests. An updated draft of the procedure is available for scrutiny and discussion here.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this.

Discretionary sanctions review

(This is a repeat of an earlier notice.) Since March 2013, various individual members of the Arbitration Committee have been reviewing the existing Discretionary sanctions process, with a view to (i) simplifying its operation and (ii) updating its procedures to reflect various clarification and amendment requests. An updated draft of the procedure is available for scrutiny and discussion here. AGK [•] 16:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Discuss this.

Request for Arbitration for unresolved dispute : Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati

Respected Sir i never with drew from the dispute resolution filed by me. I only mentioned i have no stamina left to bear insults and degrading of the subject. I demand justice Sir. Further instead of giving justice the people involved in the dispute had started Vendetta. All sections of talk page has gone to archives. Further they have started raising new issues against the subject after that dispute, which they them self accepted initially. I invite you to visit the article Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati for same The dispute filed by me was "Talk page of the article "Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati", Talk page of the editors themselves in discussion about the subject of the article, NeilN, Yunshui, Ihardlythinkso, Myself, Subject." I beg you and feel sorry if any language of mine was considered as with drawing of dispute. RegardsSarower Sigh Bhati (talk) 07:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

You said two days ago you were giving your "last message" and that you would never again log in to Wikipedia. Anybody with common sense would conclude that the request you filed could be closed as withdrawn. Now it looks like your "last message" was theatrics. Binksternet (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, several people were editing with that account and the involved parties are all now indefinitely blocked. He had an urgent message to get to ARBCOM. It was almost impossible to understand though and an Admin has deleted it, twice, from his Talk Page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Tumbleman WP:AR displeasure

I just wanted to record my displeasure at the recent Tumbleman WP:AR. It seems that only admin MastCell was at least willing to wait before making a more circumspect decision. The rest of the process seemed not too dissimilar from Monty Python's Life of Brian "Blashphemy" sketch. I am disgusted at this WP:AR:

1. It concluded in less than 24 hours, whatever happened to due process?
2. Tumbleman has not even contributed, whatever happened to a right to reply, or providing his side of the story?
3. Not one editing diff was provided showing inappropriate editing of any kind.
4. No diff showing an initial warning from an involved administrator, as required by Discretionary sanctions.
5. Blocked per WP:NOTHERE when his contributions to this page are demonstrably constructive.
6. Two WP:AR administrators who should know better, in addition to editors, showing clear incivility with personal attacks, such as questioning his competence (WP:COMPETENCE).
7. Of the nine editors who responsed to the WP:AR request, five where clearly not in favour of sanctions against Tumbleman. That's a majority of 55% against. Whatever happened to WP:CONSENSUS?

I am dismayed at this flawed process, ashamed that Wikipedia allows this to happen, and not in the least bit surprised. --Iantresman (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Responding to only a few of these points: there isn't a default timeframe which constitutes "due process" at WP:AE. The rate-limiting step is usually the speed at which admins review the cases and comment. Some are resolved in 24 hours or less, and some stay open for weeks. In this case, five experienced admins reviewed the case—that is due process at WP:AE. In fact, it's far better than most AE cases, which are resolved with input from only one or two admins.

Tumbleman provided responses on his own talkpage, which is a common approach in requests dealing with blocked editors. As Iantresman notes, I suggested we table the request until Tumbleman was unblocked, but I think the consensus of the 4 other admins—to action the case more swiftly—was reasonable. The point about the lack of a warning is potentially valid, but frankly strikes me as a technicality. There was sufficient cause to block Tumbleman indefinitely for disruptive editing, regardless of the existence of discretionary sanctions, and I don't think it serves any purpose to insist on yet another warning when he's already had a number of general warnings about his conduct.

To the final point, it should be obvious that WP:AE cases are not handled according to a head-count of commenting editors. They are resolved by an uninvolved admin, or by consensus among uninvolved admins, and editorial comments are advisory in nature. In this case, there was a clear consensus among reviewing admins to block Tumbleman indefinitely, and that's what happened. MastCell ^Talk 17:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Some Editors really know how to work the system. I'll just say that I'm surprised that so many Admins came down so harshly upon an Editor who was participating in a content discussion. It makes me wonder who is next. It is really chilling.

And if I'm accused of not AGF I'll just say I'm assuming as much good faith towards others as they extended to Tumbleman. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I've already been threatened with WP:AE[29][30] apparently for discussing the wrong academic sources, and pushing a POV in an article I haven't actually edited for 18 months. --Iantresman (talk) 18:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Forget weak consensus on the indef block, there was no consensus. I'm worried on what that could mean for others taken to AE. It's certainly a matter that needs more looking into. KonveyorBelt 18:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

No, let's be clear. There was an obvious consensus among uninvolved admins for an indefinite block. That's how AE works. I will repeat this as many times as necessary: WP:AE is not WP:AN/I. Reports at AE are not disposed on the basis of head-counting editors' comments, so it makes no sense to refer to a consensus (or lack thereof) among commentators on the request. MastCell ^Talk 19:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I see comparisons to the Community sanction noticeboard (CSN, that was closed because it was flawed. See CSN closure nomination. Now that I think of it, I see no difference. --Iantresman (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Further to my original comments above, I now see:

• 8. Per my Item #4 (above), no diff seems to have been provided showing an initial warning concerning, possibly because I can't find any such warning, neither on User_talk:Tumbleman, nor on Talk:Rupert Sheldrake, per WP:AC/DS

• 9. Tumbleman has been blocked indefinitely.[31] This seems contrary to Discretionary Sanctions, which states that "sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length".WP:AC/DS

--Iantresman (talk) 13:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

If you have an issue with the process please submit a request at WP:ARCA where the Committee can take a look and do something about it. The discussion between a few users on this page really isn't going to achieve much. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Any admin can block a user indefinitely. Certainly a consensus of 5 experienced admins is sufficient to place an indefinite block. This block was not placed as an ArbCom enforcement action, but rather as a regular, everyday indefinite block of the sort that are routinely used to deal with disruptive editing. If we're going to focus on technicalities, then that's the technical reason why the points about a specific AE warning and the length of the block are irrelevant. Tumbleman can appeal the block using any of the standard methods, which have been put in place specifically to provide recourse for editors in these situations. MastCell ^Talk 18:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the issue I have with that is

1. This case was brought as a Discretionary Sanction
2. It was discussed as a DS
3. Even the closing admin thought it was a DS when they closed it.
4. Editors and admin may have discussed it differently if they knew it was in a wider context
5. I thought the issues that may warrant regular blocking are discussed at WP:ANI
6. At the very least "it is a good idea to make a note of the block at the administrators' incidents noticeboard for peer review", per WP:BLOCK.

--Iantresman (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, if it is a regular sanction then it is not just limited to ivory tower review, but can be overturned by regular editors at AN. Should you believe there is a problem with the block then that would be the place to raise your concerns.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Archives

Could there be a word or two distinguishing WT:RFAR archives (2004-2009) from Various archives (2004-2011) and Ongoing WT:A/R archives (2009-)? It's especially unclear what "Various archives" refers to and it's unclear where to look for an older request. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Another way of saying various archives is random archives search at own peril, they are mainly collections of archives from various places including during the transition from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests. What sort of older request are you after? The Arbitration Index has links to accepted cases, motions and declined case requests. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

That is surprising, Callanecc, I would think since ARBCOM has clerks that the Archives would be nice and tidy. That sounds like a good weekend project, like cleaning out the garage. ;-)

When did that transition occur? I'm trying to get a sense of how ARBCOM has changed over time and Arbitration Committee (English Wikipedia) doesn't provide much detail. I don't have a specific case I'm looking for information on. Are the only archived records regarding ARBCOM, records of cases, requests and elections? I assume email list archives are private. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Another question, I don't see the Noticeboard archives. How can I find them and how far back in time do they go? Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Finally, I promise, will Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Statistics 2011 be expanded to include 2012? Right now, there are only stats for the 2008-2011 period. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure when the transition occurred, but Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/History, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/History/January to June 2009 and "The position of clerk was created by the Committee in January 2006" (from WP:AC/C) may be of assistance. I believe the noticeboard is a reasonably new thing. AGK, may be able to help some more, he's been around for a while. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Statistics 2011 won't be extended, but you can get the same information from the index and subpages. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

@Liz: Oh dear, you have asked a lot of questions! No matter – I enjoy dredging the institutional memory :-).

• Committee clerks implement our decisions and administer the process. They are not like the committee's secretaries, and keeping everything neat and tidy is not part of their job. The archives are actually often updated by community members, not the clerks.
• The transition from the Requests for arbitration to the Arbitration/Requests process occurred in April 2009.
• Records are kept of arbitration case requests, requests for clarification, requests for amendment, arbitrator-initiated motions, arbitration cases (and their workshops, evidence and PD pages, and all talk pages), announcements, discussion of announcements, and Audit Subcommittee personnel changes and public reports.
• The noticeboard started in 2008–2009 and its archives are linked at the top of WP:ACN.
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Statistics 2011 and its predecessors was created by a very complicated Perl script that took hours to run and required frequent maintenance. Beginning in 2010, it was decided that it was not an effective use of volunteer time to keep producing those statistics. I did, however, maintain a different set of statistics in my userspace for a short time: see User:AGK/Arbitration_timekeeping.
• Mailing list archives are private.

However, I think the very best way of getting a sense of how the committee has changed over the years is to look through our case decisions (at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases), starting in 2004 and 2005 and reading a couple of cases from each year. It's fascinating how the process itself as changed, as well as what sort of disputes came in front of the committee then compared to now. I hope this helps, AGK [•] 23:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks, Callanecc and AGK, for all of this information. I found this one particularly stunning:

"Records are kept of arbitration case requests, requests for clarification, requests for amendment, arbitrator-initiated motions, arbitration cases (and their workshops, evidence and PD pages, and all talk pages), announcements, discussion of announcements, and Audit Subcommittee personnel changes and public reports."

Yikes! That sounds like a whole lot more pages that are present in the boxes at the top right of this page. It would be nice to have one index page (or, I guess a Category page) that listed all the archives in some complete, standardized way. But, to be honest, I don't imagine that you really get that many inquiries like mine.

I have gone back (well, as far back as 2006) and looked at some of the more involved cases (Scientology, TM, Eastern Europe, cases involving specific Editors/Admins, and, of course, Ebionites2) but I probably need to look at some more "ordinary" cases that don't involve a dozen involved parties. I'm guessing that prior to 2004, disputes were more or less handled privately?

Since July, I've been diving into Wikipedia (policies, disputes, projects and organization) and I think the most consistent element I've found (well, besides the Five Pillars) is the constant complaint by some Editors that conditions have deteriorated since they first joined, specifically that there was a higher quality of Admins and Arbitrators. But I've seen comments saying basically the same thing in 2005, 2008, 2010, 2011 and now. It makes me wonder if this Golden Era actually ever existed.

That's why I asked Risker the other day if she could put together some thoughts and reflections about ARBCOM as she is leaving because so much of your work is done behind closed doors. People just see the final decisions on a few cases, they aren't aware of ways that ARBCOM has tried to reform itself or become more balanced, efficient or fair. Editors see authoritative words coming from you admonishing Editors (or not) but, to put it bluntly, they don't see you sweat, they aren't aware of activities that fill your days. Of course, the details of most of this can't be posted publicly but I think there should be some record of how ARBCOM has evolved and changed that doesn't involve reading between the lines. And I don't see it as navel-gazing but as preserving institutional history. There is going to be a big turnover of Arbitrators this year and I think it would be helpful for them to have some idea of what changes have been tried, what the common obstacles are and what projects you wished you'd have had time to get to.

Just some thoughts, for what it's worth. ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

@Liz: "they aren't aware of activities that fill your days": I did write some thoughts up last year that may go some way to answering that question. See User:AGK/ACE2012. And Risker also wrote something pertinent in 2009. However, you are correct that there is an enormous amount of behind-the-scenes work to this role; for example, our to-do list contained 21 items up until a week ago! AGK [•] 23:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

That's what I'm looking for! Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.

You know, all of the calls for transparency aren't just coming from people who want to see dirty laundry or to put you on the spot. I think, frankly, the average Editor doesn't have a clue what you all do (beyond the case files they see) and I think ARBCOM would get less grief if users knew how hard you work. Where there is a paucity of information, people just project on to you whatever ambivalent feelings they have about authority. I've no doubt that there are some who have created entirely fictitious conceptions of how ARBCOM operates based on the information they do get to see and their own suspicions. Transparency not only educates those on the outside, but it also helps them see you as well-intentioned, hard-working users. It's a win-win situation! ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Liz, as you probably saw, I commented at Risker's talk page as well. I've only just noticed this conversation here. I think what you been provided with above is enough to give you an idea of some of what goes on. It has already been pointed out above, but this report from 2009 was compiled by me (it is worth looking at the numbers there), and AGK has pointed out several pages (I wasn't aware of his timekeeping one - that is interesting). Reading over some of the election questions asked by former arbitrators may also give you some insight as well. In that vein, you might be interested in the (slightly tongue-in-cheek) questions I posed for the December 2010 elections. One more link: Reflections on the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee, a set of interview responses posted in June 2013 on the WMF blogging site. Carcharoth (talk) 13:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Carcharoth. I knew I wasn't the first person to ask these questions but, frankly, there are many pages in Wikipedia that one will never stumble on to without having a direct link. Hence my interest in categorization which is often the only source of navigation to pages like these. I greatly appreciate you taking the time to provide me with links and I'd like to encourage ARBCOM to collect statements and articles that have been written about it (sort of an ARBCOM oral history project). I'll start a page but, frankly, if the information in located on a subpage of mine, no one will ever know its there. But if ARBCOM doesn't do this on your own, maybe when I'm complete, you could move the page to Arbitration space. Thanks, again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I also stumbled on to User:FT2/Arbcom the punchball so it might behoove me to check the subpages of former Arbitrators for more statements and assessments. By the way, this has been such an informative and productive conversation. It's nice to be able to ask a question on a Talk Page that isn't adversarial. It's probably because it's the Archive Talk Page and it doesn't receive a lot of traffic.

Thanks again, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps y'all (the committee) should provide Liz and other volunteers a subpage in the WP:AC space to collate the various links? e.g. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Informal historical notes. NE Ent 23:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, NE Ent, I worked for years in a library and for two in an archive, so locating and collecting information is a task I'm familiar with. I'd need to get approval from a majority of ARBCOM or, in lieu of that, collect it on my own subpage. The latter case would be easiest but it also means that the material will likely never be seen. At the very least, if the pages aren't copied or moved to ARBCOM subpages, there could be an index where the pages are listed (maybe an annotated listing). Of course, that rests on the assumption that the authors want their words to be seen. It could be that they were meant to be private reflections. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

As a first step, I think categorising these pages would be good. There already exists Category:Wikipedia history which is where I put the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Loci of dispute page I boldly created. If there are several pages then a subcategory Category:Wikipedia arbitration history (also in Category;Wikipedia arbitration) would make sense and wouldn't require or prevent a page (or pages) about the history. Thryduulf (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea Thryduulf! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy to assist but I think Clerks like Callanecc have a better idea of how AC pages are organized. I'm will to do that actual category tagging myself if that helps. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 October 2013

Collapsing as suspected sockpuppetry. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)}} {{edit semi-protected}}

Statement by 80.174.78.40

So an admin writes "I blocked him for being useless. Blocking is a joke anyway". An editor brings these comments to the attention of arbcom. Arbcom responds with "Yeah, and?".

How would you explain this case to someone who knew nothing about Wikipedia? For example, how would you explain it to one of those coveted New Editors? What would you tell her? Assume that she read The Pillars, read the policy, witnessed the block, and then came here?

No doubt you would let her know that she needs to understand the WP culture, needs to understand how things work here. Only then would she understand that an admin can block an editor for "being useless" if, and only if, arbcom likes the admin and doesn't like the editor; that had the blocked editor himself been an admin, then all hell would have broken loose, and the blocking admin would have found himself an ex-admin muy pronto. Of course she would also understand that all editors are equal and being and an admin confers no special privileges, that in fact admins are, if anything, held to higher degree of accountability than non-admins.

Above all she would understand that millions of Wikipedians voted for the admins and for arbocom, and in doing so they expressed their desire that admins and arbcom should do whatever they see fit in any given situation, should use their Solomonic judgement, should make no attempt to base their decisions on, nor make any reference to, the policies they were elected to enforce. 80.174.78.40 (talk) 11:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC) 80.174.78.40 (talk) 11:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Given you have only one edit from this IP address, I find it quite hard to believe that this is a legitimate comment from a legitimate user. Please log into your account and add the statement yourself. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• I always edit as an ip. My ip changes regularly. I'm not a sock puppet. I've had no other involvement of any kind in this case. As a Wikipedian, I'd like to make a statement in this arbitration case. 80.174.78.40 (talk) 12:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 October 2013

Statement by 80.174.78.40

So an admin writes "I blocked him for being useless. Blocking is a joke anyway". An editor brings these comments to the attention of arbcom. Arbcom responds with "Yeah, and?".

How would you explain this case to someone who knew nothing about Wikipedia? For example, how would you explain it to one of those coveted New Editors? What would you tell her? Assume that she read The Pillars, read the policy, witnessed the block, and then came here?

No doubt you would let her know that she needs to understand the WP culture, needs to understand how things work here. Only then would she understand that an admin can block an editor for "being useless" if, and only if, arbcom likes the admin and doesn't like the editor; that had the blocked editor himself been an admin, then all hell would have broken loose, and the blocking admin would have found himself an ex-admin muy pronto. Of course she would also understand that all editors are equal and being and an admin confers no special privileges, that in fact admins are, if anything, held to higher degree of accountability than non-admins.

Above all she would understand that millions of Wikipedians voted for the admins and for arbocom, and in doing so they expressed their desire that admins and arbcom should do whatever they see fit in any given situation, should use their Solomonic judgement, should make no attempt to base their decisions on, nor make any reference to, the policies they were elected to enforce. 80.174.78.40 (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. It is not necessary to use the edit semi-protected template merely to place a comment on this page. Rivertorch (talk) 16:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• It's pretty obvious that the IP wants the statement added to the case -- the Requests page is semi-protected. As a party I won't do that myself, and I express no opinion about whether it would be appropriate to do so. Looie496 (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• As Looie496 says, I would like to make a statement in the Adam Bishop arbitration case. That page is semi-protected so I can't add a statement. As I write this the most recent statement is that by Wizardman. I'd like my statement (i.e. the statement above) adding after his, or after whichever statement is the latest when you read this. Thanks. 80.174.78.40 (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Not done: This is merely a statement of opinion, not a submission of evidence that could help the Arbitration Committee decide whether or not to accept the request for arbitration. The requests for arbitration page is not a discussion forum.  Sandstein  20:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Many, if not most, of the statements on that page are statements of opinion, not submissions of evidence. You've seen enough arbcom cases to know that that is the norm in the initial stages of any case. If I posted the above statement as a registered user, would you or a clerk delete it? If not, then you should honour my edit request and post it to the project page. Edit requests are not a request to whichever editor happens to be passing to make judgement call on the merits or demerits of the content of the request. The role of the editor assessing the edit request is simply to decide whether or not the edit it is within policy. If it is then he should make the edit, regardless of his own opinion of it. Please consider whether I could legitimately post the above statement from a registered account. Consider whether it differs substantively from the statements of, for example, EastShootsAndLeaves or GreckJackP. 80.174.78.40 (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: There is a lack of consensus on adding this to the case request. Editors servicing SPERs should never make changes which lack a clear consensus, so I've asked a clerk to decide whether this is reasonable to add. Regards, Celestra (talk) 04:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• I entirely agree with you that editors servicing SPERS should not make changes to fully-protected pages without consensus. Neither registered editors nor ips can make changes to fully-protected pages. However, this page is semi-protected, not fully-protected. Registered users can make edits to this page without first gaining consensus; I should be able to, too. As an ip, I should be able to make any edit that a registered (non-admin) user can make. When servicing SPERS for semi-protected pages, the sole criterion is : could a registered user legitimately make this edit? 80.174.78.40 (talk) 11:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done NE Ent 12:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. 80.174.78.40 (talk) 12:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Loci of dispute

Possibly inspired by Liz's discussion of Arbitration Committee history at #Archives above, I got interested in which pages had been the locus of dispute for arbitration cases over the years. So, on and of over the past week or I've been through all the past cases (from Theresa knott vs. Mr-Natural-Health to Ebionites 3) and collated the information. It's now at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Loci of dispute for the perusal of anyone who is interested, and do please feel free to verify, correct and improve what I've done.

I've not done any objective analysis, but it's clear that certain areas keep cropping up time and again - Israel/Palestine/the Arab world, Biographies of Living People, Articles for Deletion, Jews and Judaism, Eastern Europe, Climate Change, Alternative medicine, Christianity and US Politics (in approximately that order) are what spring to mind. Thryduulf (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's mainly interpersonal disputes and conflict over belief systems (nationalism, religion, pseudoscience, etc.) but then you get odd ducks like tree-shaping, capitalization and the Monty Hall Problem. You can find a list of all cases that ARBCOM weighed in on at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/All. Glad I could my digging through the archives could inspire someone. ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Is this appropriate?

Because I find it insulting.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm still trying to figure out what it means. Hawaiian dude becomes a desk?!? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Which is why is it appears to be insulting as just an arb com statement. But to me...its rather racist,--Mark Miller (talk) 03:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? It's a pictographic representation of a headdesk, meant to point out that this is all Much Ado About Nothing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Headdesk. Risker (talk) 04:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

So words escape you and tossing around images of specific individuals in this manner is just a great way to confuse people. I'd rather you picked something that represents a head because I still find this racist. And yes.....seriously. (but it is gone now so I will drop this)--Mark Miller (talk) 04:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I had no idea what it was and figured a clerk would come by sooner or later and remove or ask RE to use words. You'd want a pic like [32] with a clean license. I thought the Hawaiian was becoming a very ornate desk. NE Ent 10:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• That this would be racist is probably because the person on the left is not white. He's not white, ergo, this must be racist--if one accepts that white people are the standard and that therefore any deviation of the standard must have a meaning, probably a meaning related to race, behind it. So, really, the claim that this is racist can be taken as evidence of racism--or racialism. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

By that, would you perhaps mean it is about Gwhillickers? KonveyorBelt 01:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Not every hat is a penis, and not every man baking a cake wants to be pregnant and give birth. Drmies (talk) 05:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

First, whether it is, or is not racist is a matter of perspective...mine. Your perspective Drmies, or anyone else's will differ. I did not claim it was an absolute fact that this was intended to be, but that my perception of the manner the image was used was. It really depends on where you are coming from I guess. Also, Drmies, you assume all your points. That because the gentleman on the left side was not white my reaction was that since he wasn't white then it must be racist. No, because it was a misuse of a figure that people may revere or hold in high regard as a symbol of "greatness" of their people (or people that they relate to). In the Manning naming discussion I saw a great many accusations from editors making insensitive remarks that were labeled as Transphobic. Whether they were or were not is a matter of opinion, same here.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

A person who sees racism where none clearly exists needs only to look in a mirror to find what he seeks. Resolute 19:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Timetable?

Having just read through the guideline to Arbitration again and being an uninvolved party in a recent ARBCOM case, I think it would be very useful to provide a rough timetable so that newcomers would know what to expect when they participate in a case. This would intentionally be overgenerous in estimated time periods so that no pressure was on arbitrators but parties in the case would have realistic expectations.

What I'm thinking about is something like:
Evidence period: 2-4 weeks
Workshop period: 2-3 weeks
Proposed decision: 1-3 weeks
...Something like that, just a rough estimate. I know I found myself thinking that the process was moving very slowly only to look at other cases where from the request to the final decision, 3 months had passed. So, the processing of Ebionites3 was actually quite timely.

I know that there are interruptions, like an ARBCOM election or holidays, that slow down a case, but I still think providing a time range would be useful to newcomers to the AC, especially if this information is added to the guidelines page. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

It would need to say that there is no formal timetable, but that as a guide recent cases have typically taken X time when there have been no unusual interruptions. You'd probably want to note that the evidence and workshop phases can partly overlap but other than that it's a good idea. Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I've been reading over some cases, Thryduulf, and it seems like cases typically take longer to finalize than the participants expect. During the process of the arbitrators sorting through all of the evidence and talking among themselves, I've seen some of the involved parties get antsy and dig themselves into an even deeper hole. If, at the outset, people filing requests for arbitration knew it would take 2-2 1/2 months, they might behave differently. I even saw one case where an involved party laid out a timetable he devised so that the whole ARBCOM proceeding would wrap up in 10 days. It shouldn't be a surprise that this is not what happened.

I think that those Editors who have been around a few years know the time involved with ARBCOM hearing a case but I think a generous timetable would be informative to newer Editors and might prompt them to find alternative ways to resolve their disputes. I think it might even relieve some of the AC's burden (plus avoid lots of anxious messages to case clerks) if Editors knew in advance how deliberate the proceedings would be. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Given that the guide to arbitration is quite long (I wish everyone actually read it before participating), did you have any suggestions as to exactly where this note about duration should go? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

There are actually target turnarounds for each phase of a case in our Procedures. These are a bit shorter than those you have, namely:

1. The evidence phase lasts two weeks from the date of the case pages opening;
2. The workshop phase ends one week after the evidence phase closes;
3. The proposed decision is finalised within one week of the workshop phase closing.

These are obviously target times, but some cases do more or less follow them. I hope this helps,  Roger Davies ^talk 19:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the responses, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs and Roger Davies and your patience with an inquisitive, relatively new Editor (first registered account in 2007 but only recently regularly active). You are so right that there already exists this timetable which does exactly what I requested! I guess I would just add that, in looking over old cases, I've seen so much variation in the time to resolve a case. I saw a case involving one Admin that was resolved in one week while other cases lasted over 3 months, much longer than the 4 weeks outlined in this timetable. I believe in one instance, the case was officially suspended for a while before it was restarted but it still seems like 2 months is pretty typical for a case involving a topic (and not an individual Editor/Admin).

I guess the question is, what steps in the process are underestimated, in terms of time. In the case I participated in (Ebionites 3),

• Main page (initial statements) - September 4 - September 16, 2013 (13 days)
• Evidence phase - September 17 - October 1, 2013 (15 days)
• Workshop phase - September 29 - October 24, 2013 (26 days) (Period extended by ARBCOM twice)
• Proposed decision - October 23 - November 4, 2013 (13 days)
• Total (deleting 4 days of overlapping periods) - 63 days (9 weeks)

And, for what it's worth, I think the Ebionites case went very smoothly and there was only one active case during this time period. I can see other cases, with more than 2 involved parties or when there are several cases open, taking much longer. So, it seems like the timetable doesn't include the initial period, where Editors provide statements (I'm not sure if there is a standard time length for this period), the Evidence phase stayed on schedule and the Workshop and Proposed decision phases were underestimated by at least one week. I should state that I don't think going over the estimated time is due to AC clerks or the Arbitrator guiding this particular case, these circumstances seem fairly typical in the cases I looked at. There were not long periods of inactivity so it could be that the standard period for deliberation in each phase is closer to two weeks (but that's just a guesstimate based on one case).

If you like, I can assess the past year's ARBCOM cases and determine the average time spent on each phase of the cases. Or if I'm being a tad over-eager, I can just say thanks again for the replies! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest there might be more productive uses of your on-wiki time than that pursuit (and I'm a statistics junkie), but if you want to toss us some more accurate means or median times for cases (the latter would probably be more useful) by all means go ahead. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, my background is in qualitative social analysis and my last job was analyzing trends in social media. So, I'll probably end up collecting the data for my own interest, along with the regular editing that I do.

I know "we are here to write an encyclopedia" and people are discouraged from spending time on process, but my own interest is in organizational analysis, particularly social movements and nonprofit groups. So, I'm 100% clear, I'm not doing any kind of official study, it's just my area of interest and training and I thought I could put it to use here, on Wikipedia. I think the information might be useful to ARBCOM to better understand itself and how the committee has changed over time.

I'll let you know what I come up with, when it all comes together. All the best! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Recusals from election-related cases

Out of curiosity, if all current active arbitrators who may be up for re-election recuse themselves from cases that have something to do with the election, how many would be left? equazcion → 12:09, 12 Nov 2013 (UTC)

There are 6 arbitrators who are not up for election this year, best shown on this chart. In general though, I see no reason why arbitrators should be making decisions on the elections, that's for the co-ordinators and the community. Arbitrators should stay as far away as possible from the election process, besides the obvious participation. Worm^TT(talk) 12:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks -- I was asking because of this clarification request, which seems to be seeing recusals that I assume are for this reason. equazcion → 12:18, 12 Nov 2013 (UTC)

Mine's not, I'm not up for re-election this year, but I'm long recused on all matters to do with Kiefer.Wolfowitz. Worm^TT(talk) 12:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah I see. I guess that leaves 5 then (assuming those up for re-election do recuse). equazcion → 12:23, 12 Nov 2013 (UTC)

At least a couple of sitting arbitrators whose terms expire this time have indicated that they do not intend to seek re-election. I see no reason for them to recuse. Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrators who are running for reelection (or who are currently undecided whether they will run or not) will typically recuse on any case or other requests directly affecting the election. Arbitrators who are definitely not running again (at least four), or whose terms aren't expiring (six), are eligible to participate. Of course, an arbitrator may also be recused on a given matter for reasons unrelated to the election (as I am on the Kiefer.Wolfowitz matter for example). Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Archives

Where are the archives for clarification requests? There was a clarification request on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes that I am unable to find because there doesn't seem to be a link to any archives on that page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The clarification requests are traditionally kept at the talk page of the case. In this case, it's at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Request for clarification (October 2013). Hope that helps. Worm^TT(talk) 14:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, ha ... I did not know that. Thanks, Worm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Motion granting temporary local CheckUser permission to Arbitration Committee Election Scrutineers

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.

---

For the purpose of scrutineering the 2013 Arbitration Committee elections, stewards User:Mathonius, User:Vituzzu, User:Matanya, and User:Tegel, appointed as scrutineers, are granted temporary local CheckUser permissions effective from the time of the passage of this motion until the certification of the election results.

• Enacted - Bbb23 (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators, not counting 2 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	6
1–2	5
3–4	4

Support

1. T. Canens (talk) 03:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
2. Risker (talk) 03:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
3. Carcharoth (talk) 03:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
5. Courcelles 05:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
6. Worm^TT(talk) 07:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
7. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
8. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Recuse

1. Roger Davies (presumed)
2. AGK (presumed)

   Confirming my recusal. AGK [•] 10:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion by arbitrators

• This is a standard motion made routinely on an annual basis, with sitting arbitrators who are current candidates presumed to be recused. Risker (talk) 03:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
• Request made at Meta[33] Risker (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2013 (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.

Ottoman Empire/Turkey naming dispute

I'm not sure of the process and the widening of this request for arbitration. Is this the time to raise other issues? --Rskp (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi RoslynSKP, you should make that request in your statement and include exactly how much wider you believe the case should be and the reason you believe it should be widened. Pinging AGK so he can comment/delay opening the case if needed. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was talking about the request already having been widened to include links that don't directly relate to the Ottoman Empire/Turkey dispute. --Rskp (talk) 23:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

@RoslynSKP The scope of this case is the user conduct of parties involved in the "Ottoman empire or Turkey" naming dispute. Is that what you were going to ask? AGK [•] 11:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for clearing that up. --Rskp (talk) 23:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The_ed17's behavior

I've been debating whether to comment on this or not, but I noticed that The_ed17 took a series of, uhm, "strange" actions after I filed my clarification request on 18:21, 27 November 2013 ([34]). To list the actions:

• [35] (23:10, 27 November 2013): Comments on a stale discussion over my block removal, which is watched by various users who voted to uphold my block.
• [36] (23:46, 27 November 2013): Leaves a "courtesy note" to Laser brain (who voted against my block removal) pointing him to this discussion.
• [37] (23:54, 27 November 2013): Directs Sandstein (the admin who blocked me) directly to this clarification discussion.

These actions would have no merit for suspicion on their own, but (added together) paint an ugly battleground and gaming situation. These kind of actions are unbecoming of an administrator.
Perhaps the biggest evidence of a grudge taking place is his comment on Sandstein's talk page. Anyone who has interacted with Sandstein knows that the user is a hard worker and has eyes all over the place. There was no need for Ed to contact him about this clarification request. Ed's actions reflect an attempt at forming a posse.
I honestly don't even know what is Ed's problem with me. The only negative connection between us is the problem concerning his close friends (and what led to my topic ban in the case "Argentine History"). Given that, it's not unfair to also consider he might be serving as a meat for his friends, which is also a concerning situation.
I don't know how else to address this matter without causing a drama at AN, so this seemed like the optimal place (given the clarification request is still active). Hopefully this is also a good way to start burying several hatchets. [:o)]
Happy holidays.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems a case of WP:Votestacking Cambalachero (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The first comment doesn't seem to relate to the clarification request. The second comment is a courtesy note that a user has been quoted; this is common practice on Wikipedia. The third comment was a mandatory notification of an administrator whose actions may be reviewed during the request. I see no vote stacking, and indeed no ballot box to stuff: only committee members can "vote" in any meaningful sense on the outcome of a clarification request. AGK [•] 13:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The first link concerns a discussion over the block enforcement that led to this clarification discussion. All users in that talk page discussion (with the exception of a couple) were in support of my block. The discussion had reached a stale point when Ed commented in it; Ed commented only after my clarification request was filed. Therefore, there is indication of a connection between his action and the clarification request.

The second comment was a second "courtesy note" that followed an earlier one (for the early one, see [38]).

Independently, the actions are procedural, but the timing and link between them is what raises my concerns.

All I ask is that Ed please stop this behavior towards me.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a problem with the edits. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Marshall, Ed's edits are simply not that problematic. If his edits are annoying you, the best advice I can give is that you try to ignore them; and if the problem seems to continue or worsen, you can always ask us to reevaluate. Regards, AGK [•] 11:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I appreciate the responses. Maybe I am being a little too paranoid about the matter. I simply want to get along with Ed, and even all the other people I may have angered (for whatever the reason). Sometimes we can be quick to judge someone, but we're all complex characters with different opinions; arguably even more complex than the events and people we write about in our WP articles. But this doesn't mean we can't co-exist or get along as professionals. Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Can I please be notified by someone when I'm brought up? I followed a link in the middle of an unrelated discussion to find that I'm being discussed on an arbitration page, which is decidedly unsettling. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

Regarding Neotarf's request, I'm sorry I am a bit late. I wanted to make a point that the template used in this case, Template:uw-sanctions, contained the phrase If you continue to misconduct yourself, which clearly is a judgment about the recipient's behavior. In that sense, this warning served as an admonishment sort of a thing that had no appeal. Sandstein's warning didn't actually accuse Neotarf of casting aspersions, it just said don't do it in the future. The wording of the template has fortunately changed now, and it is simply a notice that DS are applied to the articles noted. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no question that Sandstein has accused me of misconduct, on multiple occasions. The exact warning, typed by Sandstein himself and not a part of the template, said

• [39] "Please take care, in future disputes concerning the issues mentioned above, not to misuse the arbitration enforcement noticeboard (or other fora) to cast aspersions against others or to otherwise continue personalizing stylistic disagreements, as directed by the Arbitration Committee's reminder." If there was no assumption of misconduct in the past, why the reference to "past disputes"? And "continue" removes all doubt.

Six months later I am again accused of misconduct,

• [40]Sandstein: "I hope that you will continue to do good work without getting into trouble again."

And:

• [41]Sandstein: "If a mere warning or a minor sanction makes them quit, then they're not here for the project, they're here for self-validation or other purposes of their own [[WP:DIVA]], which are not our concern. And their departure will help many more others find a place in Wikipedia who are just as good writers but who create less trouble for others."

In the AE request against Noetica, Sandstein apparently issues the warnings instead of the sanctions requested by Apteva, since

• [42]Sandstein: "Applying discretionary sanctions requires a warning that meets the requirements of WP:AC/DS#Sanctions, and no diff of such a warning is in evidence."

That these warnings did indeed meet the requirements for sanctions, which specify misconduct, SMcCandlish's warning (with wording identical to mine) was later cited in issuing SMcCandlish a topic ban.

And finally:

• [43] Sandstein:"I was at the time of the warning of the opinion that you and others conducted a dispute related to the manual of style in an inappropriately personalized and confrontative manner, in contravention of the Arbitration Committee's findings that this should be avoided, and accordingly I warned you not to do so again, also informing you about the discretionary sanctions that apply to this topic area. This appeal does not contain any new arguments or evidence that would lead me to reconsider that assessment." Diffs?

But this statement is a more positive sign for a resolution

• [44]Sandstein:"In retrospect your statement does appear comparatively tame and would not ordinarily merit a warning on its own".

So what next? I don't know what it would take to convince Sandstein there is no misconduct here. Does Sandstein want to look for new diffs to support his statements, or can we get this stricken?

—Neotarf (talk) 13:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so some editor has said a few bad things about you. Who cares? Happens all the time. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Is there anything wrong with slapping an editor in the face, again and again and again, especially in the official voice of the Arbitration Committee? It was Sandstein who created the WP:ASPERSIONS shortcut. Perhaps it is Sandstein who can answer. —Neotarf (talk) 02:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, without getting into whether it is wrong, my point is mainly that this wasn't the official voice of Arbcom. And, anyone can place that template on anyone's page; it doesn't even imply wrongdoing. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The template does not just “imply” wrongdoing; the purpose of the template is to *document* wrongdoing for further sanctions.

• [45] "This template message serves to inform disruptive editors about general sanctions applicable to the area of conflict that they edit in."
• [46] "The template is intentionally worded to apply only after an editor begins to misbehave; preemptive warnings are considered hostile[[WP:BITE]]."
• [47] "Warnings should identify misconduct".
• [48] "{{Uw-sanctions}} can be used to satisfy the "Warning" provision of the discretionary sanctions process".

The template is pre-configured to be used by an “uninvolved administrator”. There is no reason for anyone else to use it. The civility policy discourages the use of templated messages in disputes and recommends using a personal message instead. The admin WP:INVOLVED policy prohibits involved administrators from using their tools in content disputes.

The accusations of misconduct against me were all made by Sandstein in an official AE administrative capacity.

From the AE notification template on my talk page:

• [49] "This warning is made as a result of the arbitration enforcement request made on 27 January 2013 concerning Noetica."

From the request closure on the AE request page:

• [50] “Noetica, Ohconfucius, Neotarf and SMcCandlish are warned about possible sanctions pursuant to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation."

From the closing statement of the AE enforcement request:

• [51]"I'm inclined to issue a warning also to The Devil's Advocate, Ohconfucius, Neotarf and SMcCandlish. Their comments here serve no useful purpose with regard to deciding whether the reported edits are sanctionable, and are also mainly concerned with casting aspersions on others, further personalizing the underlying dispute(s)."

The rest of the comments cited were also made in Sandstein's official AE capacity. They were taken either from an RFC at ANI on his enforcement of the provisions of the Scientology case:

• Abuse of admin powers and Violation of WP:INVOLVED by User:Sandstein

or from my recent RFAR at

• Arbitration/Requests#Discretionary sanctions.

Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 10:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Is this a mistake; indefensible?

Considering the definition of a recusal, it is my opinion that Silk Tork significantly erred in posting such a clearly prejudiced case summary and predisposition. I also believe its unambiguous nature precludes justification; hoping this thread does not become a bankrupt strawman—full of eloquent, and dutiful, rhetoric; proffered to defend the indefensible. A professional amends reflecting agreement is required. I hope this is an insightful given when laid before the caliber of user I presume this committee is comprised of. If it is not, I am not only wrong; but very wrong; about too many things—perhaps even completely wrong. Do tell!—John Cline (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

John, except for being sort of clear that you aren't happy about SilkTork's statement, I really can't figure out what you're saying. What does recusal have to do with it? SilkTork didn't recuse; are you saying he should have? "A professional amends reflecting agreement is required"? "I hope this is an insightful given"? Do you mean "I think it should be obvious to everyone that he should apologize"? It appears this is important to you. If that's the case, it would be worth it to take a few minutes and state more clearly what your point is, even if it doesn't sound quite so lofty and dramatic when you're done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I do believe SilkTork should have recused in lieu of posting such bias. I do not expect an apology, although an apology would be in context. I do expect some form of comment to acknowledge a mistake was made. Yes, this is important to me, but furthermore, I think it is important. And yes, I did mean to imply this matter seems rather obvious. Thank you for pointing out the ambiguities in my prose. I hope this clarification has answered you well.—John Cline (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Draft writing guide for filing AE requests

In an effort to get higher quality AE requests and to do a small amount of hand-holding for editors new to this proccess, I've drafted a guide that I would like comments and edits on.--Tznkai (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Classic policy fallacy. NE Ent 15:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes clarification request

Why isn't the Clarification request: Infoboxes, initiated by RexxS on 28 December 2013, showing up in the box named "Arbitration Committee Proceedings" at the top of the Project page? --71.163.153.146 (talk) 04:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It's there now. Thanks. --71.163.153.146 (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't know for sure, but I'm guessing it had to do with page caching, as discussed at wp:purge. NE Ent 17:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Now it's been archived. I didn't realize there had been any "decision" made. Guess I'll have to read the archive. Thanks, NE Ent. --71.163.153.146 (talk) 19:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I see now. RexxS withdrew his request after discussion and more editors coming to the Deepika P article. So, the closing and archiving to the bottom of the original case is appropriate. --71.163.153.146 (talk) 19:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Adminitrivia: Separate pages

The page Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment should be split, with a separate page for each case (which could then be transcluded onto one parent page. That way, interested parties can watchlist only the sub-page which is of interest to them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

That would make sense to me, because now the watchlist only shows who made a comment, but not to which topic, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

AE history / charter

The context of my question is the ongoing DS review; what policy / precedent / RFC / what have you lead to the creation of WP:AE and the protocols under which it operates? I only found a reference on the procedures section. NE Ent 23:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

AE began as a sub-page of the administrators' noticeboard. Its protocols exist mainly as a result of convention, which is why even today the use of the prescribed template is not mandatory. AGK [•] 13:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Filing as a third-party

There's currently a series of disputes that the community has repeatedly failed to resolve. These disputes are all over Wikipedia, from WP:AN, WP:ANI, WP:BLPN, WP:RSN to WP:3RRN and are a huge drain on the community's resources. However, no involved editor has of yet filed a request for an ArbCom case. What's ArbCom's feeling about third-parties filing requests for arbitration? My understanding is that this is frowned upon, but the community has clearly failed to resolved the disputes despite numerous attempts, and there doesn't seem to be any end in sight. Thoughts? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I've been wondering about this myself. I know of one dispute in particular that was the subject of a past ArbCom case but the behavior of many of the parties is just as nasty now as it was then. I think none of the involved parties wants to request a case because they are scared of the scrutiny that would result. In this case, is it ok for a third party or marginally involved party to request a case? Cla68 (talk) 02:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I've filed third party requests successfully. The pattern to use is, "I noticed this conflict. It's disrupting my ability to improve these articles (list them). Efforts have been made to resolve it through Dispute Resolution (list discussions), but that hasn't work. Can you help put an end to this nonsense?" You don't have to be involved as a disputant in the conflict. If you tried to mediate it, or if the conflict is impacting you in any way, I think the Committee would seriously consider the request. Jehochman ^Talk 03:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It is certainly possible to file the case as a third party. However, the challenge is presenting the dispute in a clear way, since you aren't involved in the dispute and may not be the most familiar with it. --Rschen7754 03:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Involved editors have often lost perspective, or else they would have resolved the dispute themselves. It can be very useful for somebody uninvolved to present a neutral summary of the problem. Jehochman ^Talk 03:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a clarification of what is meant by "involved" and "uninvolved" editors is in order. Editors who are parties to a dispute, as Jehochman says, are likely to have lost perspective, in that they do not see the case objectively or neutrally. In many cases, an editor who is not a direct party to the dispute but has observed the dispute, and possibly attempted to resolve it until they concluded that conduct issues prevented the content issue from being resolved, can best explain what is wrong. Many ArbCom cases involve a combination of a content dispute, which ArbCom does not resolve, and conduct issues that prevent resolution of the content dispute. I agree that third-party filing may sometimes be useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Combine the fact that WP:DRN is often the first step in resolving a dispute (and DRN only deals with content, not conduct) and the fact that arbcom is the final step in resolving a dispute (and arbcom only deals with conduct, not content), it should always be true that before a combined content/conduct case gets to arbcom, there should be some sort of a failed attempt to resolve the content dispute (often this is DRN or an RFC). At DRN, solving the content dispute often solves the behavioral problem. Misbehaving editors usually misbehave for a reason; they exhibit behavior X in order to win content dispute Y. Take away the reason for the behavior and the behavior stops. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

For the record, AQFK and Cla68, what are the disputes in question?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. What are the particular issues being referred to? Are they disputes that combine a content dispute and conduct issues? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Message for the Arbitrators

This is a message for the Arbitrators. If you are not one of them, please refrain from saying anything. The less is said, the better.

More than six months ago I requested an arbitration for a case that became known as "Argentine History". For the ones who are not familiar with the topic, it was about the outrageous use of Fascist sources across several articles related to Latin American history. In the end the Arbitrators agreed with me.

Well, six months ago that case is still not dead. For some reason that I really cannot understand the Arbitrators have refused to do something about it. When I made a comment sometime ago which began with "I asked for an interaction ban regarding Marshal and Cambalachero, but since this has direct relation to the ArbCom which we were part of I believe I'm allowed to comment. If not, let me know" I was blocked. Instead of someone explaining me that I was not allowed to make any comment even in the ArbCom case which I was part of and that I shouldn't do that I was blocked for a month by Sandstein. An entire month.

No one among the Arbitrators did anything to oppose the arbitrary use of powers by Sandstein. A one month-block for a good faith comment by an experienced user who made invaluable contributions for this encyclopaedia is "okay". I saw vandals, disruptive editors and other people get countless warnings or at most a 24h block. I was blocked for a month. But that had nothing to with the source of problems related to the Argentine History case.

Still, the Argentine History case still lives. Month after month it's still giving headaches to people around. The case was settled. The Arbitrators supposedly gave their final saying and punishments. But the case is still around. Why? Will there be a moment when anyone among the arbitrators will wake up and do something? Will someone tell that the case is done and that the result has to be accepted once for and for all? Or are you just going to sit idle and pretend that nothing is going on? --Lecen (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I was very disturbed by that block and stated at the time that if you had appealed it to us, I would likely have voted to reverse it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

What Brad said: nemo judex sine actore (no judge without a plaintiff). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the words, but that's not the point. Why is "Argentine History" still alive? Why there are countless amendment requests and ANI threads related to it? Will any arbitrator tell people to stop and accept the case outcome once and for all? --Lecen (talk) 13:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

@Lecen: A good question. Hopefully the actors in this particular dispute will realise that further fuss may leave the committee with no option other than to site ban them. "Community patience has been exhausted" has led to countless bans in the past; this case is presumably no exception. AGK [•] 23:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I see. Then the Arbitrators are keeping an eye on what is going on. Thank you all. --Lecen (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• A request for action against Lecen has been raised at WP:AE#Lecen due to the post above. Johnuniq (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• That request was declined as without merits. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 15:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

No semicolon to bold, please

Throughout this page, semicolons are used in the code to bold headers. This is not a good idea in terms of accessibility for screen readers, see To boldly bold? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: That's not good at all, indeed. If you provide us with a list of arbitration pages using the offending markup, then start an {{edit request}}, any administrator may mass-fix the pages. (I'll even do so, if I notice the request in time.) AGK [•] 23:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

What do I know about arbitration pages (you should see me grinning now). Andy has more experience ;) (Did you see this?) RexxS could word the edit request better, and it should be for all "official" pages, not only arbitration, - it's just here that I noticed. Proudly, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement request template

I'd like to change the AE request template so that it gives userlinks for the user submitting the request as it's generally useful to check the history of that user. So User:Callanecc/sandbox2 will replace Template:Sanction enforcement request header, which when substed will look like this (original on top, User:Callanecc/sandbox2 at the bottom). Before I make the change can I just get a nod from at least a few regular AE admins since it'll change how it looks and works, pinging regular AE admins (sorry if I missed anyone) (Sandstein—HJ Mitchell—Georgewilliamherbert—EdJohnston—Guerillero). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a good idea to me.  Sandstein  09:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Support. EdJohnston (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a regular AE admin by any stretch of the imagination, but it looks good to me too. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 14:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The requester's signature would normally contain a link to their user and talk pages, but I certainly don't object to this. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any issues with this change --Guerillero | My Talk 00:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Having recently filed two requests (both found to be valid), the process was: Sanction -> link. Violation -> diff. Sign, Save Page. Notice on user talk, copy diff, back to AE: Notice -> diff. Done. What does the number of contributions I've made or my block log or any of that have to do with the sanction, and what does the same information on the editor I'm reporting have to do with anything? The top of WP:AE says: "Most editors under Arbitration Committee sanctions are neither trolls nor vandals and should be treated with the same respect as any other editor. We should still assume good faith. Arbitration Committee decisions are designed to be coercive, not punitive." {{userlinks}} are for ratting out vandals at WP:AIV, not use among polite company. NE Ent 00:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I've made the change.

This change won't make any difference to the user submitting the request. Nitpicking but WP:AIV uses {{vandal}} and {{IPvandal}}. {{Userlinks}} is a simple and easy way to check the history of the user submitting the report. Whenever any user submits an enforcement request I always check their talk page history and block log mainly for AE sanctions and personal attacks or harassment blocks or warnings. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

If there's an objection to using {{Userlinks}} for the filer, then it should be applied just as much for the reported user, since they, too, are expected not to be mere vandals. That is to say, either the template should use userlinks for both or neither. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Concur, it should be used for neither. NE Ent 03:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Should the WP:AE contain {{userlinks}} for the submitter of a request?

• No Reports should be evaluated on their merits, not the wikistatus of the filer. NE Ent 03:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
• Yes, {{userlinks}} in no way prejudices the outcome; it only allows an easy way for admins to check if the filer has clean hands (something they would do anyway). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Though I wouldn't really complain if {{userlinks}} were instead used for neither. Only a couple clicks' difference. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
• Yes this is about saving time not about prejudicing the outcome as I said above. Admins are going to check anyway (and definitely have to check for the reported user) so not including them just makes it harder and take more time to check the things we have to check before we can do anything else. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
• Sure, it is normally necessary to check both parties' conduct, and this helps to do so quickly. Frankly, this doesn't need a RfC in my view, it's not as if this is policy or anything of importance.  Sandstein  07:03, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2014

Please add the following as a statement in the Kevin Gorman—Eric Corbett case

---

So this is what we have from the arbs:

Commentary:

Salvio: Kevin made a personal attack on Eric and, when this was pointed out to him, he not only refused to apologise but actually doubled down on the attacks. [His subsequent comment] is unacceptably arrogant.

Seraphimblade : I agree with Salvio

T. Canens: I agree with Salvio

Voting:

Salvio: decline

T. Canens: decline

Do you not see a disconnect between words and actions here, guys? You are all wrong when you say that his behaviour is unacceptable. It is perfectly acceptable. You have just voted to accept it. In doing so, you remind every admin, yet again, that it is acceptable to make personal attacks on editors. You reaffirm that in the highly improbable event that they somehow find themselves brought to account for such an attack, ArbCom will do nothing about it. 188.29.34.199 (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC) 188.29.34.199 (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The request has been declined and removed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

This seems odd

Without commenting on the merits of the arbitration request "Kevin Gorman attacking Eric Corbett", I note that at current there are six responses, three by clerks and the by arbs, and they are all recusals. What's up with that? What's up with clerks recusing? I thought clerks were mostly technicians. Why would you need to recuse if you're just basically looking stuff up and verifying data and technical stuff like that?

I'd understand if it's something like "This person is my landlord" or "I'm married to his sister" but how many sisters do the involved parties have???

Floquenbeam was like "Recuse, as I've promised to do in all things related to Eric Corbett". Could we get more info here? Is he your cousin or what? AXE is "Recuse I feel strongly about this matter"? What... is this a bad thing? Should we be warned to only bring up matters that nobody cares much about? NativeForeigner is like "I've interacted with this editor on another matter, so I'm done here..." Beeblebrox is at least succinct: "recuse".

This is not showing a lot of bold leadership... can we not get a straight decline or accept? IIRC in the real world recusal is usually used for instances of potential for significant conflict of interest. I'm not saying that any of these of these are in play, but "I really like/don't like one of the parties" or "I had dinner with one of the parties last August" and so forth are not grounds for recusal, and neither is "Would rather not deal with this" or "Would prefer not to be recorded as voting to either accept or decline". Arbitrators are expected to brush stuff like that aside. It just strikes me odd. Herostratus (talk) 06:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I generally recuse when I think that I cannot be neutral or may not appear to be neutral wrt the issue at hand. For instance, if I feel strongly about an editor, I need to recuse because, otherwise, I might let my bias influence the way I vote on the final decision (for a concrete example: a couple of years ago, before being elected, I participated in an RFC concerning the conduct of an editor, who would then be sanctioned by ArbCom; now, whenever this editor appeals his restrictions, I recuse, so as not to give the impression I am letting my bias influence ArbCom's decision).

Clerks broadly follow the same recusal standards, because they don't do only "technical stuff": clerks have the power to remove or modify any submission which violates Wikipedia's behavioural standards and may also ban editors from case pages. For that reason, they need to be neutral and appear to be neutral as well. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand, but with all due respect I don't really buy it. It depends on why you feel strongly about the editor, I guess. If it's something like (say) "I cannot be neutral because I really like this editor, because I think this editor is a really good Wikipedian, and I believe that it's wrong for me to take that into account, but I can't help myself" (or the converse, "Hate her, she's a tendentious editor...." etc.) then... are you really not able to work past that?

(I'm not even sure why you wouldn't want to take stuff like "She's an excellent editor" or "she's a destructive troll" into account; I would/. But that's how the ArbCom rolls I guess, and there're reasons for that, so OK.)

But if wanted to... it's not that hard. If I can do it you can. I'm perfectly capable of thinking like "Well, the plaintiff is a destructive troll and blackguard and I loathe her and the defendant is a huge asset to the Wikipedia and I just really admire him, but the plaintiff is correct on the technical merits of this particular incident, so I'll vote to banish the defendant." I believe that any person who wants to think like this can think like this if they try.

Not to be able to do this is... not excellent, in my opinion. We all should strive to be excellent I think.

As to the second part ("may not appear to be neutral"), that's a totally nother thing and Its a valid point but complicated so I'll let it lie. Herostratus (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I suspect most of the clerks (and many of the arbs) could work past individual bias and still do their jobs. Many of us are capable of doing the same in our editing. But it is better for all if the perception is avoided. Especially given anything related to an arb case is almost always a pre-existing drama pit. You just open yourself up for attacks by the side that didn't 'win' the case. Resolute 19:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Just like notability on wikipedia is rather different from dictionary definitions of notability, arbitrators and the arbitration process on Wikipedia are not much like what goes on at Acas, and arbcom clerks' roles can be very different from the dictionary definition of a clerk or even the role of a Justices' clerk. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

(belatedly) - just noting now (as I have had too many RL headaches to devote to non-fun things on wikipedia lately), if someone had accused me of gravedancing or violating BLP policy I'd be incensed...and much much more so than if someone had called me a cunt or any other Anglo-Saxon cuss word. I sorta think an official admonishment was warranted, though I note there has been some contrition. Anyway, just saying. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Admonishment?

Has the committee ever studied or discussed the effects or effectiveness of its admonishments, including do they work and whether such is made manifest by the admonishment's degree (strongly, not strongly, grudgingly after a few tries, etc.)? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

How could you even compose a testable hypothesis about it? EllenCT (talk) 09:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Like one does most hypotheses, study evidence first. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

It's about precedent really, and is therefore on record if future problems occur. Hopefully it is a deterrent. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAHA, no. bishzilla _ROARR!! 10:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC).

Rather doubtful since the committee does not really follow much precedent, except by choice sometimes and members will just as easily say the past does not matter for this or that reason as it does. Moreover, if a member "disagrees" with a past action of the committee, they are rather unlikely to defer to it. They don't even defer to a decision made last week. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to see a retrospective study done of a random sample of our cases, to examine which approaches have tended to prove more or less effective (although one problem is that cases each have their own idiosyncrasies, so it is hard to generalize, and another is that editors sometimes come and go from the site for outside reasons). This would need to be done, though, without reincarnating the ancient disputes being reviewed. Maybe I'll take a look back at old cases I worked on next year when I'm off the Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

(And maybe you'll write articles, huh, nudge nudge?) I don't think there's any point, you know. Cases are just too few, and especially admonishments are too few, for you not to be wasting your time by trying to isolate some statistically significant "effect" of sanctions, especially admonishments, from the whole luxuriant jungle of human foible and emotion and, as you say, idiosyncrasy. With a strictly randomized sample of 300 or so, wielded by a savvy statistician, there might be a point. Bishonen | talk 15:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC).

You're probably right. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Clarification request: BLP special enforcement

Permalink to original

Initiated by HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? at 10:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

this display of infinite wisdom

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

• HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

• Kevin Gorman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (notified)

Statement by Harry Mitchell

I would like clarification of the above linked decision, in which five arbitrators, demonstrating their apparently infinite wisdom, declined a case regarding Kevin Gorman's application of an active arbitration remedy, BLP special enforcement. Specifically, I would like ArbCom to clarify:

• Whether all the sensible arbs are on holiday, and how future such holidays affect case requests;

• whether it finds Kevin Gorman's invocation of BLP special enforcement acceptable;

• if not, why it saw no need for even so much as an admonishment of Kevin Gorman;

• why it felt that a novel interpretation of one of its own remedies did not merit even a motion, much less a case; and

• how your failure to act regarding the invocation of an active arbitration remedy affects future enforcement of that remedy,

• • specifically whether admins are entitled to make up policy as they go and expect their actions to enjoy the protections afforded to arbitration enforcement actions.

On Kevin Gorman

I've seen a lot of absurd decisions in my time, but Kevin's warning to Eric Corbett, citing the BLP special enforcement remedy, is the single most ludicrous interpretation of an arbitration remedy by an admin I've ever seen; similarly, ArbCom's abdication of responsibility for the actions taken in the enforcement of its remedies by refusing to accept the case is possibly the single worst decision I have ever seen from that body. Both titles have no end of competition. Although Kevin has since admitted that he erred, I do not feel that he fully understands what a monumental lapse in judgement his actions were (for the record, I made some stupid decisions when I was a baby admin, but none of them to do with arbitration remedies) and so a desysop or at least formal, severe admonishment is necessary. By refusing to promptly acknowledge his error, and by repeatedly insulting and attempting to denigrate the subject of his action, Kevin failed to adhere to the policy on admin accountability—a policy which, unfortunately, only ArbCom has the power to enforce—and arguably brought the entire admin corps into disrepute.

On BLP special enforcement

Leaving the admin accountability issue as an entirely separate matter (perhaps this should be treated as two clarification requests arising from the same demonstration of infinite wisdom?), Kevin explicitly invoked BLP special enforcement, an arbitration remedy, which puts disputes over the propriety of such action squarely and unambiguously within ArbCom's remit; the only explanation I can think of for your failure to accept a case so obviously within your remit is that the five of you have taken leave of your senses. BLP special enforcement is an active arbitration remedy, so allowing novel interpretations to pass without so much as a bat of an eyelid is bound to lead to creep by encouraging other admins to make similar novel interpretations to shoehorn their actions into the protection of arbitration remedies. I note also that it is in contrast to the actions of your more sensible colleagues at the discretionary sanctions review, where arbitrators have made a conscious effort to prevent such creep and to narrow the gulf between the admin corps and the community as a whole. ArbCom needs to clarify its position, not give one message in one forum and a contradictory message in another, and most of all, it needs to clarify the bounds of admin discretion on BLP special enforcement as sane arbs are trying to do with discretionary sanctions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: I'm not upset (though that's the wrong word) about Kevin's actions, but unfortunately about yours and your colleagues'. Regardless of the merits of Kevin's actions and his fate, we can't have admins just making things up as they go and using arbitration remedies to protect their actions. Your answers to my questions are, of course, the answers I hoped I'd hear, but without a motion or similar, what's to stop another admin doing the same thing in a fe moths' time? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

@Roger et al, would you consider adding a clause like "admins are expected to exercise care and judgement in the enforcements of arbitration remedies" or word to that effect? Personally, I'd like to see ArbCom expressly state that shoddy enforcement in general will not be taken lightly rather than just noting that Kevin's interpretation in particular was shoddy. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Writ Keeper

In brief: what Harry said (though maybe not quite as emphatic?) At length: well, I'm not going to rewrite this whole thing, so I'll just copy and paste my comment from last time: The...thing, which is one that I really do wish Arbcom would take on, is the fact that Kevin invoked BLP, and particularly the AE sanctions around BLP, to make his sanctions on Eric "stick". For my part, I can't see any plausible way that Eric's original comments are in any way a BLP violation, as he said nothing about the subject of the thread. The (mis)use of BLP and AE sanctions to make one admin's actions stick and exempt them from the usual processes of review is cynical, misguided, and (to me) deeply arrogant, and I think that, if nothing else, it alone warrants some kind of response from Arbcom. Admin authority is enough as it is; apparently calculated maneuvers to further increase one admin's authority without cause needs something. I understand the desire to make a sensitive topic go away, but I don't think this angle of it is a good one to go uncommented. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 11:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker

It is hardly mystifying why BLP was invoked. BLP covers controversial, unsourced statements about recently dead people. The admin evidently thought in a conversation that prominently involved thinly veiled referrals to a recently dead person, that the statement was in that vein (controversial and unsourced), others disagree that it was in referral to the recently dead - but the objected to comment actually invoked an action (placing a mental health template) that the recently dead was explicitly said to have taken. So, a discretionary warning was issued, and as far as tools are concerned, it went no further. A problem with discretion is that others will see it differently, and even if "wrong" to others that does not mean a warning was not in discretion. As for the subsequent incivility of the admin, multiple users have rightly admonished the Admin, but a clarification request won't clarify that the admin was incivil and that he and all admins should not repeat such incivility. If this committee wants to own the admonishment or defer to a lower level of dispute resolution, like an RfC/U or RfC on BLP discretionary warning, well and good, but as it has already essentially done the later, then what more is there to do.

Leaky Caldron is making a category error, along with his accusation of bad faith. The only post that could be said to be critical of the dead was the one objected to. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Whatever this commitee does, it cannot endorse the illogical notion that a statement that an edit violates a policy is an impermissable insult. Otherwise, we can never discuss breaches of policy. Criticisms of edits (no matter how much a person invests themselves in them) is the way the Pedia developes. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• @Roger Davies:; @LFaraone:; @Salvio giuliano:; @GorillaWarfare:; @Carcharoth:: To avoid having to open another clarification request per Nuclear Warfare's comment - what do you mean, here? BLPBAN links to BLP which contains WP:BDP, so recently dead people are covered by its terms - but are you saying you are amending it to give BLPBAN a new meaning? Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
• @AGK: You made the rather dramatic and as far as your statement went utterly vague and unsupported claim that "real damage could be done to the project if last week's decision stands." So, the case has been "reopened" to pass an "admonishment", which because of the way that reopening has turned out literally no one respects, nor will ever respect -- now, that's damage to the project. So, in the future, you should consider the wisdom of the ancients: 'let sleeping dogs lie.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent

I wasn't overly concerned with the decline.

Neither you, Simon,

nor the fifty thousand,

nor the Romans,

nor the Jews,

nor Judas,

nor the twelve,

nor the priests,

nor the scribes,

nor doomed Jerusalem itself

understand what power is,

understand what glory is,

understand at all.

Tim Rice, Jesus Christ Superstar lyric.

The simple fact of the matter is that, following Kevin's misjudgement, and more so the bobbing and weaving non-apology apologies which followed, he has painted a huge wiki-target on his back, and if he ever tried to pull another stunt like that again, the reaction from the community would be rapid and extreme, regardless of what the committee did or failed to do. And I had decided to sit this one out -- until I saw the first arb comment.

Give the committee Scope and responsibilities explicitly states it's the committee's duty to "To resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons." (emphasis mine), Carcharoth's explanation "there was no desire to end up with formal proceedings taking place arising from the mishandling of a sensitive topic." is inadequate. You could have easily directed Kevin and all editors wishing to submit evidence to do by email and hold discussion off-wiki. Concurrent with your claim of "admonishment in all but name" is an arbcom clerk arguing [52] 'it's important to announce motions ... and cases being closed as they change or introduce arbitration policy or restrictions on editors or pages. However declined cases and requests for clarification and amendment don't. ' (emphasis mine). Being listed at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee#Members isn't like being listed at Wikipedia:Editing Restrictions "following discussion at a community noticeboard." Ya'll volunteered and campaigned for this -- so do your job already. NE Ent 14:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

So are ya'll seriously gonna to announce that "an out of process sanction which has no effect is rescinded?" You might want to think this through before wrapping this this up. NE Ent 21:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Statement by EdChem

I'd like to thank Harry Mitchell for raising this clarification. I was appalled by the Committee's handling of the request and see that there are unresolved issues which it is the Committee's, as well as the community's, best interests to handle. These include:

• the claim that secret evidence provided to the Committee justifies Kevin's actions – obviously you cannot (and will not) reveal private communication but you can (and should) tell us whether it influenced your decisions and whether there are facts not publicly known which are significant in evaluating this request.

• the block on Giano – yes, he was edit warring, but he was asked by arbitrator NuclearWarfare not to revert again, responded (so he clearly knew of the request and that he had been reverted again) and as requested did not revert, instead retitling the thread on his talk page but was still blocked by arbitrator Seraphimblade shortly afterwards. Blocks are supposed to be preventative. Giano had not acted to revert after NW's request, and indeed had responded to it. His response clearly communicated his irritation but did not indicate any intention to revert again, nor did his actions – certainly he had time to revert again and knew his change had been undone, but this he did not do. NW would have been acting within administrator discretion by imposing a block as preventative, but given the subsequent events I feel that Serpahimblade's actions in usurping NW's discretion and imposing a block after Giano did not respond with a revert feel much more punitive than preventative. What was going on here, and has there been discussion amongst the Committee of one arbitrator overruling the discretion of another in their respective exercises of administrator discretion?

• • Addendum: I had forgotten that NW is actually a former-arbitrator rather than a current one, which significantly reduces my concern over Seraphimblade's decision and eliminates the inter-arbitrator conflict issue. I am adding this rather than just editing my comment in case it has been read, it seemed more appropriate to acknowledge my mistake. EdChem (talk) 12:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Kevin Gorman's comments subsequent to the case decline are quoted here "After two ANI's without action taken, and an RFAR as well, I think it's reasonable that I request you be productive and truthful here or elsewise go elsewhere" – to me, these torpedo any suggestion that Kevin really does believe that he has been admonished in all but name. Kevin sees an RfAr declined "without action taken", as do I and many others, I suspect. You can state that you do not endorse his actions, but that is how it looks in that you declined to take action, just as happened with Philippe and in pretending that FPaS did not clearly breach INVOLVED by reverting to a preferred version before fully protecting.

• This request does not only reflect on the actions of Kevin and on the freedom of administrators to act as they please and without serious restraint (especially against editors like Eric and Giano), but it also reflects on the Committee that took this decision and it discourages editors who feel issues of fairness are important. Eric has left over this, a valued content contributor. Kevin asserts that Eric does more harm in chasing away editors but I vehemently disagree, I for one am far more discouraged by admins treating editors poorly and ArbCom acting poorly and I become disillusioned and quietly depart for some months over issues like this. You should act to protect the integrity of the community, and if not for that reason, at least to protect your own reputations.

@Carcharoth: I was very disappointed that you would instruct archiving of the Kevin and FPaS requests, both raised important questions which you chose to dodge. You wrote that "we all have better things to be doing"; I disagree. ArbCom should not view misuse of its own procedures to threaten an editor and then refusal to really engage with what he had done wrong and to offer a sincere apology by Kevin as unworthy of its attention. As for "admonishment in all but name", look at the subsequent comments by Kevin (he has not archived them, you'll have to look in his user page history)I do mean "not" here, Kevin has a selective approach to archiving, which is allowed under policy but leaves an archive that is incomplete and potentially misleading. Adding this comment following this discussion EdChem (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC) and the 'apology' he quoted from another user. I do agree though that declining a case "means things are obvious enough already that no further action is needed", but I suspect we disagree about what is obvious. To me, it is that this ArbCom is unwilling to say that Eric was mistreated and that Kevin deserves sanction. Worse, it says that poor behavior from administrators will continue to be tolerated. If you want the things that are obvious to be different, then the community will need to see actions, not words. @Roger Davies: I am encouraged by your comments, they remind me a little of the election platform which persuaded me to vote for you. The two aspects that you would seek to address in a motion certainly do need to be addressed, and beyond that if possible. @Salvio giuliano: Your comment at the case request indicated that Kevin's actions were problematic, and so you voted to decline a case, a decline that allowed Carcharoth to direct the request be archived. Your reasoning was supported by other arbitrators to take no action. If you really wanted a motion, you needed to act as Seraphimblade did in stating a motion was needed prior to decline and archiving. You could have objected during the four hours after Carcharoth issued the instruction (assuming you were active in that period). A motion now is better than nothing, but only arbitrators could propose a motion and none did; it certainly appears that there was a view that comments are enough, and they are not. @AGK: You state that the reasoning at the case request from some arbitrators was unsound. Your reasoning that acting now might be capricious is equally unsound, though Kevin might see it that way. It would, in fact, be good for the Committee to openly declare that they had made an error in judgement and were acting to correct it. I would also prefer that you feel equally appalled by the poor actions of Kevin both in invoking special BLP protections and then accusing Eric of grave dancing as you are by your colleagues implications of your own insensitivity towards the deceased. @Newyorkbrad: as probably the most respected arbitrator and one with a reputation for sensitivity towards issues, I was shocked and disappointed by your vote to decline the case. Your reasoning was unsound, there was much that the Committee could have done that would have been positive, and the focus on the request name was legalistic. Yes, the name was non-neutral, but was that really the only issue you saw as warranting comment? Before you comment here, please, stop and think carefully about what Kevin did to Eric and what that means for Kevin's judgement, for Eric, and for everyone watching who has taken a view following the events. Did Kevin's use of special BLP meet the Committee's expectations? Were his gravedancing comments and subsequent refusal to respond adequately consistent with expectations of administrator behavior? What does the Committee doing nothing signal to the community? How will declaring that there is secret evidence available only to ArbCom, coupled with ArbCom saying nothing and doing nothing, be seen? Does the project need more editors who see administrators acting as a privileged and unaccountable class? Yes, my questions reflect my view and sure, there are others worth asking. Please, answer some of them. Just to conclude: I have a mental health condition. At times, my ability to edit is not good which is one reason for taking breaks. I disagree with Eric that I should stay away from Wikipedia and I think the community can do much better in supporting editors who have difficulties. That said, making a disclosure is also difficult as it reveals a weakness that can be exploited. Also, I agree with Eric that Wikipedia is not the place to get medical help; for that, I go to medical professionals. I can contribute here at times I cannot handle working full-time, and I do think Wikipedia is important. I am far far more likely to leave over poor treatment by administrators and ArbCom refusing to act in such cases than I am over robust (and even Eric's brand of sometimes over-the-top) discussion / debate. I am certain that I am not alone. ArbCom have mishandled the FPaS, Philippe, and now the Kevin Gorman case requests. You need to do better. You can start by fixing one mistake and prove that administrator mistreatment of editors is unacceptable – no matter who the editor is – and that the Committee will not reflexively support administrators invoking its procedures in unjustified (and worse, in unjustifiable) ways. EdChem (talk) 03:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Kevin Gorman

• EdChem's quote from Giano's talk is taken out of context. You can see most of section that EdChem's quote is from here. User:Ihardlythinkso used half-quotes from previous posts of mine to try to show that I was not being truthful. I replied pointing out that IHTS was taking half-quotes out of context and that my comments when taken in full were true. After IHTS continued using half-quotes from me, I asked him to stop or leave my talk page. I do not believe that asking someone to quote my comments in full indicates in any way that I don't realize my initial actions were inappropriate.

I made large mistakes and would not handle the situation in anything approaching the same way again. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• Participants please note that the RFAR has been reopened out of process, so there are currently two pages discussing this - here and here. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• IHTS: you had plenty of time to respond to me pointing out that your comments were not accurate representations of what I said, given that I pointed that out almost immediately after your first post and left the thread intact for more than an hour. If you cannot figure out how to reply to someone asking you to stop misrepresenting what they've said in less than an hour, something is off. Almost every single statement you made contained direct misrepresentations of what I said, which you still continue to make. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Response to Kevin by Ihardlythinkso

Oh that is totally wrong, Kevin. The fact is I had no opportunity to address or discuss with you your complaint about quotations being misinterpreted because 1) Cullen328 zoomed into that thread from nowhere then and started criticizing me, causing deflection to the topic and delay in my ability to respond to you since I had him to respond to as well at that point (I'm only one person with one keyboard and one set of hands), and 2) even as quickly as I responded to Cullen [53] I found it was impossible to post a prepared response to you, since one minute after my response to Cullen you deleted the entire thread and gave editsum instructions to the world to delete any further posts of mine on your user Talk [54].

I can't believe the dodgy and manipulative way you handle things, Kevin, including your pat "no good will come from this" when you delete editors' valid concerns as a way to sweep away criticism and maintain your false posture of being "right". The fact that you have chosen to bicker with me dishonestly over irrelevancies when you have many more serious issues to deal with in this important RFAR shows a continued thin-skinned brittleness and lack of judgement on your part that demonstrates your unsuitability to hold the title of admin.

I would like to know from User:Cullen328 if he is one of the admins who adivsed you that spurred you to take action at Jimbo's Talk against Eric Corbett, since Cullen was both quick to defend you both at Jimbo's Talk and at Eric's Talk, and quick to get involved with me (chiding me to "move on" and "work on improving the encyclopedia" and "What is accomplished by continuing to question Kevin on this?") when attempting to followup with you at your Talk after the previous RFAR had been closed. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

@Cullen, I made it clear to Kevin at the outset of the thread opened at his Talk, and to you in the same thread, that my focus was on the on-wiki part of "flood of comments I've received, both on and offwiki". There was only one admin who gave criticism that Kevin potentially took to heart, not the five admins he implied by listing in the previous RFAR. In spite of limiting my focus and making the limitation painfully clear, you choose to "not understand" even into this RFAR?! (That's amazing.) The one of the five (User:Writ Keeper) admins whom Kevin potentially took criticism to heart, detailed to Kevin how his reasoning was a misapplication of BLP [55]. In subsequent comments Kevin has still insisted that his BLP concerns were consistent with "the spirit of BLP/BDP and the WMF resolution on BLP" [56], so, I guess that leaves 0.5 admins out of the 5 admins Kevin listed at the previous RFAR. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Response to Ihardlythinkso by Cullen328

I am not an administrator, and have never been one. I am proud to be an experienced editor on this project and hope that my peers consider me a productive one. I commented on Jimbo's talk page early in the disputed thread, before either Eric or Kevin got involved. My comment was in favor or kindness and compassion in the interaction between all editors. In no way, shape or form did I encourage Kevin to intervene. When the dispute between Kevin and Eric developed, I stepped back, though I did remind Eric that BLP applies also to those who have recently died. I have known both editors for several years. Eric gave me great help bringing an article I worked on to Good Article status. I have met Kevin at several Edit-a-thons, and encouraged his Wikipedia participation. I am not taking sides in the dispute, and wish both editors well. Kevin approached me on February 11 to discuss the matter off-wiki, through a Facebook private message, and I advised him to take it easy and not escalate matters. I was advising caution and restraint, gently criticizing some of what Kevin had done. When Ihardlythinkso came to Kevin's talk page and said that Kevin had been misleading when he said a "flood" of editors had offered critical advice to him on and off-wiki, I stepped forward to confirm that I had myself offered such advice off-wiki. Ihardlythinkso seemed to argue that any off-wiki advice was irrelevant. I simply responded that I thought it was relevant to the substance of Kevin's quoted words that I had offered Kevin off-wiki advice, and that pointing that out was both logical and fair, and that analyzing what a "flood" was in this context was not helpful. Ihardlythinkso was, shall we say, unpersuaded by my attempt at logic and reason. Others can read the exchange and judge for themselves. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Cas Liber

My piece I said here. I understand Kevin has now apologised but it was such a prolonged and destructive (and entirely avoidable) train-wreck of an interaction on his part that at minimum I think there has to be an official admonishment (sorry Kevin, but the whole episode really sucked). If this place acts on precedents etc. then there needs to be some sort of consistency and line drawn in the sand. Salvo or AGK, or whoever, just make a motion already. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Leaky Caldron

Between Kevin and Arbcom. the processes for regulating behaviour and adhering to policy have been brought into disrepute. Some clear, simple and definitive action is required to begin to restore confidence. In particular this applies to Arbcom 2014 who's multiple decisions last week in dealing dismissively with unacceptable behaviour by Admins. sets a worrying trend. Leaving aside the added complexity of the quoted BLP special enforcement, Kevin's first and most serious lapse of judgement and a question he is still yet to answer, is why he thought Eric's comment in the original discussion was the appropriate target for Admin. action. It was the original post by an anonymous editor that violated WP:BDP. BDP affords BLP style protection where "contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide.." That thread on the founder's page infringed BDP in that the person referred to was readily identifiable from immediately available resources here on WP and subsequently on the wider www. It takes less than 2 minutes and the attempt to disguise the identity of the deceased using a pseudonym was fatuous. Blaming Eric for a serious BLP/BDP violation while ignoring the same clear behaviour by the IP made no sense then and despite numerous attempts to justify it, will never make any sense. The fact that in some people's view Eric walks around with a large target on his back in no way justifies the action pursued by Kevin, and allegedly supported by other Admins and Arbcom. members off-wiki. The allegations of tacit support by other functionaries must also be explained. Frankly it looks like a simple attempt to deflect blame and have not been satisfactorily explained despite repeated assurances by Kevin that he would do so. Finally, the case request was declined was because there was no desire to end up with formal proceedings taking place arising from the mishandling of a sensitive topic. is just plain unacceptable, as is Decline expeditiously. Every aspect of this situation is unfortunate, but it is undesirable to publicize it further, and there is little value we can add. Arbcom was not (re-)elected to abrogate responsibility because matters are "sensitive" and "unfortunate" and while some matters might be "undesirable to publicize further", you need to be careful that you are not open to the accusation of just brushing unpalatable matters under the carpet. Leaky Caldron 11:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC) @Alanscottwalker:. Well I have no idea what a "category" error is and I have made no bad faith accusations. I have pointed out that the original post enabled the family and friends of the unnamed victim to be readily identified, an action which could lead to implications for them and therefore a breach of the WP:BDP extension to WP:BLP. The sort of implication I'm thinking of is unwanted attention, possible contact from the media, etc. Unless they had provided express consent for that discussion to take place on the founder's page they might have every reason to distressed. I would be. To be clear, our words here do not need to express hostility to cause an adverse implication on close friends and family. Simply raising the subject, even in an indirect fashion, may cause distress if (a) the subject is identifiable and (b) the subject matter contains details that refer to events that the friends and family would prefer not to be discussed here. We don't know, we must assume that distress would be caused. Maybe why Eric was appalled by it? Leaky Caldron 15:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by 188.30.20.92

@Carcharoth. Let's look at the comments of the arbs who voted to decline the case.

• For NewYorkBrad the whole thing was "unfortunate".

• For David Fuchs Kevin deserved a "trout-slapping".

• For you the actions of several "were not ideal" but it was best to move on.

• For Salvio, Kevin had made a personal attack and doubled down on it. That, for Salvio, amounted to "conduct unbecoming".

You inform us that it should be obvious to anyone reading those comments that Kevin will be desysopped if he pulls a stunt like that again. What! Whatever you're drinking, I want one. The message you sent to the community, and especially to the admins, was not that Kevin would be desyssoped; it was this: We reaffirm that you are free to make personal attacks on editors and to subsequently double-down on those attacks. In the extremely unlikely event that you are brought to account for such an attack, we might say that it was unfortunate, we might make hilarious jokes about trout-slapping, but under no circumstances will take any action against you, nor make any official, on-record criticism of your attack. And all this stuff about Kevin being a hapless newbie admin is nonsense. He picked a fight against Eric Corbett on Jimbo's talk page. He knew exactly what he was doing. In fact, given his fantastic interpretation of BLP, it's difficult not to believe that he thought he'd found a loophole which would allow him to deal once and for all with the editor he habitually refers to as Malleus, and was looking for an opportunity to exploit it. 188.30.20.92 (talk) 14:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

@Resolute. It's true that had Kevin picked on a low profile editor, or an ip, it's unlikely he would have ended up here. That doesn't excuse his behaviour. This is about cavalier admin action, and arbcom's distaste for addressing it. It doesn't have much to do with Eric. 94.116.160.101 (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC) (aka 188.30.20.92)

@Resolute: I don't want to get dragged in to the Eric saga. Eric is one editor. The real issue here is that Kevin could do what he did and very nearly get away with it. It's not about Kevin vs Eric. It's about ArbCom failing yet again to get a grip on the loose cannon admins. They're a minority, but they're a significant minority. They're the ones who damage the project. They're the ones who drive away editors. Even if Kevin does finally get a slapped wrist, the take-away for the admins is that even if you go bezerk on Jimbo’s talk page, ArbCom will still do its best to look the other way. Anyway, as this is probably not the venue for you and I to discuss this, I probably won't respond further here. 94.116.160.101 (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by NuclearWarfare

The BLP policy is quite explicit about whether it should apply to the recently deceased:

Anyone born within the past 115 years is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death. Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death - six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime. In the absence of confirmation of death, anyone born more than 115 years ago is presumed dead unless listed at oldest people.

Now, it is true that WP:BLPBAN is a rather useless policy. Regardless if the remedy is repealed or not, I would, in some circumstances, be OK with blocking and wheel warring with another administrator who overturned my action with regards to a biography of a living person. But if we are going to have it, there is no good reason to use this one hard case to make a bad divergent exception from the status quo. Review the whole policy, yes, but don't make this piecemeal change. NW (Talk) 23:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Snark from Resolute

I think 188.30.20.92 inadvertently hit on Kevin's biggest mistake. He ended up in a fight with Eric. That never ends well because of the number of enablers and hangers-on Eric has. As Roger's motion on the case page shows, even several members of Arbcom will act to enable Eric's behaviour and placate him any time he runs off in a huff. Resolute 20:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Kevin did not act in a vacuum, 188. Eric's own behaviour was dramatically poor in this, and he has a far longer history of similarly poor behaviour. But it looks like ArbCom has chosen to not only continue it's head-in-the-sand routine on that front, but to double down and reward an editor who pulled a WP:DIVA act. In my view, both should be sanctioned/admonished, or neither should. What is happening right now is Arbcrom, led by Roger Davies, playing favourites to the detriment of this project. Resolute 21:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

No, 188. The takeaway, as these motions are currently framed, is that you can do what ever you want if you have enough friends. You can drop as many vulgar personal attacks as you want and pull a ragequit Diva routine - and ArbCom will not only turn a blind eye to your behaviour, it will go out of its way to soothe your ego. Can't wait to see this happen again the next time Eric pretends to quit because he didn't get his way. Resolute 21:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, Resolute. I've seen some questionable behavior by admins that never made it to AN/I, much less ARBCOM. I can't help but think that this case wouldn't have even been brought if it hadn't been action against a long-time, high-profile editor. But Kevin was in a fight with Eric and so this ended up at ARBCOM. He was admonished and life goes on. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Tryptofish

I think that Gorilla Warfare's comment at 01:26, 24 February 2014, about declining the case, gets it exactly right. I feel like some of you on the Committee are letting yourselves second-guess yourselves too much. It sounds like you are getting so wrapped up in parsing the boundary between BLP and BDP that you are losing sight of the fact that wanting to see a dead editor spoken of with sensitivity is not exactly a high crime. I'm not defending everything that Kevin did, please understand, but as cases of administrative overstep go, this is a borderline one. Unfortunately for Kevin, his minor oversteps stepped into the buzzsaw of those who are looking for an administrator to make an example of. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Given how the motions are going, my suggestion would be to stop making motions, and just close this without a motion. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Question from Beyond My Ken

Regarding Motion #3 - shouldn't any re-evaluation of WP:BLPBAN come from the community, and not ArbCom, or have I misunderstood the extent of the committee's remit? BMK (talk) 06:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to associate myself with Dennis Brown's second comment below - there is no overwhelming need for BLPBAN to be overhauled, but if it is going to be re-examined, I'd much prefer that it be done by community discussion and consensus, and not by the committee, which is charged, I believe, with interpreting policy, and not making it. In any case, the rush to "fix" BLPBAN appears to be an over-reaction to the re-opening of the original case. I urge the committee not to adopt any of these motions. BMK (talk) 05:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

@Carcharoth - The problem is that the "implicit" involvement of the community is not spelled out anywhere in any of these motions, and because of that the motions appear to be reserving to ArbCom the authority to overhaul the BLPBAN policy, a power that I do not think the committee has. It may act to help prompt or goad the community into taking action by setting up the circumstances of a discussion, or even initiate one and then back away (to comment as regular editors) but I don't believe it can set-up a committee-run and -regulated review of a policy, and relegate the community to second-class participants or, worse, observers. BMK (talk) 05:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Since I was in error about the provenance of WP:BLPBAN, as pointed out by T. Canens, I have struck out my comments about it, which are clearly in error. As a remedy created by ArbCom, it is obviously within the committee's remit to re-examine and alter if they feel it necessary. BMK (talk) 05:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Motion by Court jester NE Ent

I'd noted this many days ago, but refrained from bringing it up 'cause no one likes a wikilawyer. But since ya'll seem to be in wikilawyer modality, here's a motion: The BLPBAN warning by Kevin doesn't count because he didn't RTFM and log it on WP:Editing Restrictions, it just doesn't count, it didn't happen, we're done with this morass, and we hope to hell March is kinder month to Arbcom '14 NE Ent 12:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Note by Dennis Brown

Motion 2, section i is fatally flawed. If BLPBAN only applies to mainspace, then articles in user space, at WP:AFC or other quazi-article locations would be wide open. Articles/pages outside of mainspace are implied to be covered by BLPBAN as it is worded, but this motion would remove that protection by setting a clear precedent that removes BLP protection for those pages. I encourage the Arbs to strike their support and instead oppose Motion 2 based on this flaw. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Afterthought: Is any motion really necessary at this point? Arb doesn't need to demonstrate that it is "on the ball", I just don't see the utility of a motion after the RFAR, and knowing many of the details are understandably private. Everyone knows his evocation of BLPBAN is null and void, no one is even arguing otherwise. Worse, redefining BLPBAN via a motion here isn't a good idea. The cliche "Bad cases make bad law" exists for a reason. Fix it outside of a case, not during. Kevin more or less gets it, and a motion isn't going to improve his comprehension nor do anything for the community. Maybe it is time to drop the stick and just move on. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• @T. Canens You make part of my point in your last statement, but I would also argue that the wording of BLPBAN also applies to AFC and other "articles" even if they aren't yet in mainspace, ie: anything in mainspace, OR is obviously designed to eventually be put into mainspace (sandbox, AFC) but nothing else. That is the problem with M2, it too narrowly defines where the article can be, creating a bit of a loophole that can be used for soapboxing/POINTs. IMHO, any needed change to BLPBAN should be made outside of a motion in a heated case. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Pine

I rarely involve myself in arbitration matters but I'll make an exception here. I oppose Motion 2 for reasons similar to those of Roger Davies. BLP policies should also apply on talk pages and anywhere else on the Wiki although perhaps with less rigor than they do in article space so that there is room for some informal discussion among editors relevant to article content and people relevant to Wikipedia who are living persons. I support Motion 3 and am leaning oppose on Motion 1. --Pine^? 07:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

• I recused on the case request, and I probably should here as well. --Rschen7754 20:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Harry, I appreciate you are upset at what Kevin Gorman did, but the reason the case request was declined was because there was no desire to end up with formal proceedings taking place arising from the mishandling of a sensitive topic. This is the sort of thing where what would normally be done is taking someone to one side and privately admonishing them. This has in effect happened. Kevin has been left in no doubt, by comments made on-wiki and elsewhere, that if he pulls a stunt like this again (in particular, the misuse of BLP special enforcement), he will be desysopped. That should have been obvious to anyone reading the comments made by the arbitrators who declined the case request. It was an admonishment in all but name. To specifically answer your questions: No, Kevin Gorman's invocation of BLP special enforcement was not acceptable. No, admins are not entitled to make up policy as they go and expect their actions to enjoy the protections afforded to arbitration enforcement actions. Does this warrant a formal motion, admonishment or case? In some cases, yes. In this case, no. Declining a case does not mean that the committee is endorsing the actions that were taken. It means things are obvious enough already that no further action is needed. Carcharoth (talk) 12:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• @BMK - all three motions neglect to specify that such a review would be done in concert with the community. The point I made here (before your comment above) was intended to make clear that community consultation is implicit. The current discretionary sanctions review are being carried out in consultation with the community. If community members have strong views on the current BLPBAN provisions, they can start a discussion right now (at the appropriate talk page, providing a courtesy link from here to the discussion) without waiting for the committee to start a discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 06:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Simply put, the community does not expect the committee to toss seemingly straightforward cases which fall squarely within its scope. In this instance, the issues embrace four of the five prime areas of committee responsibility. While the tragic event which triggered this dispute requires handling with sensitivity and circumspection, that is not alone a good reason for sweeping the whole thing hurriedly under the carpet. It is well within the committee's ability, for instance, to put restrictions in place, reinforced by robust sanctions if ignored, to enable a case to proceed without visiting inappropriate areas. That said, the essential facts do not seem to be in dispute and the committee can discharge its obligations to the community in full by handling this by motion. As a minimum, the motion must clarify the BLP issues raised and also comment on the actions of the administrator at the eye of the storm.  Roger Davies ^talk 22:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• • NOTE: I shall be proposing motions shortly both here and on the case request itself,  Roger Davies ^talk 14:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• I've long thought we should substitute standard discretionary sanctions for WP:BLPBAN, which is a relic of the past and which, technically, only applies to mainspace (although I believe that the remedy in question has also been invoked – correctly, in my opinion – with regard to edits made elsewhere, such as WP:ANI, cf. teleological interpretation), whereas WP:BLP applies everywhere. This, however, can be done by motion, if there's any appetite for it. I also still support an admonishment for Kevin and believe we should have admonished him before declining the case request. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• • @EdChem: had I seen my colleague's instruction to the clerks, I'd have acted (either by striking my decline vote or by proposing a motion), but it all happened while I was asleep and by the time I woke up the request had already been archived. I probably should have proposed a motion myself earlier, but didn't get the chance, because quite frankly, sometimes, life gets in the way. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• • • @T. Canens: yes, I was thinking something along the lines of "standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all edits concerning living people across all namespaces"... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• • • • There is a potentially cataclysmic unintended consequence of that. It would mean that users editing under their own names would be able to claim BLP protection and DS enforcement for anything detrimental said about them anywhere on wiki that wasn't supported by RS. While I agree that WP:BLPBAN needs updating, we need to move carefully on this to avoid paralysing the encyclopedia.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• • • • • Whoa, you're right. I hadn't thought about that. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• While I cannot claim to be "sensible", I was an "arb on holiday" during the original RFAR. I disagree with the committee's decision to decline the case request, and agree action ought to have been taken against Kevin Gorman.

  A couple of arbitrators deployed a shocking piece of casuistry which wormed its way into the rationale for a number of other decline votes: that we should not act due to the nature of the incident giving rise to the dispute. The case could have been easily handled without further exposing the original incident. Moreover, these arbitrators were implying, deliberately or unthinkingly, that the rest of us who would have acted on the request demonstrated a lack of respect for the victim. This appalled me. Those particular arbitrators know who they are, so I will merely say that this line of the committee's thinking at the RFAR was completely unsound. The other major line of thinking was that Kevin's action was a one-off mistake unlikely to be repeated. This ignores the danger posed to the project when an administrator illegitimately claims special enforcement protection for a wrong action. The committee cannot overlook such a breach of policy, even if the administrator himself promises it was a one-off mistake.

  These were the two major lines of thinking in last week's RFAR; both appear unsound, and ideally the decision would be overturned. However, the moment for action may now have passed, and the good we could do may be outweighed by the drama/confusion overturning the decision to decline might generate. Also, if we overturn last week's decision, Kevin Gorman could accuse us of acting capriciously (with some justification). As none of this changes the fact that real damage could be done to the project if last week's decision stands, I am nonetheless willing to open a case. AGK [•] 00:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Carcharoth (talk · contribs)'s statement that declining a case does not constitute approval of the actions at issue per se, however it certainly does give that appearance. I feel that at a minimum an admonishment was warranted in this circumstance; enforcement actions were taken by an administrator incorrectly in the name of the Committee. I apologise to the community for not being an active participant in the discussion of the case, as I believe a more correct action could have been taken then. We do have the opportunity to fix this now, however, in a way that is appropriate given the sensitive nature of the incident. LFaraone 00:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• I think declining the case was the correct decision, and I would have voted accordingly had I been able to finish looking through it before the case was closed. I believe that Gorman was truly acting in an effort to protect the subject of the discussion, which I respect. He definitely stepped over the line when he tried to apply BLP special enforcement to the issue, and I am also convinced that he knows that. I don't think a formal admonishment is necessary to drill that in further, and I have no concerns that people will forget this issue should Gorman make a similar misstep in the future. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• The Clerks should not have been directed to remove the request as declined, as Salvio's decline vote, necessary to make acceptance mathematically impossible, was implicitly conditioned on a motion being proposed. (Maybe we should make "deal with by motion" a separate category of votes, to avoid future confusion.)

  I agree that WP:BLPBAN could use updating, but if we are updating it to standard DS, what's the area of conflict? All BLPs? I'd welcome comments on whether BLPBAN should be updated and what the updated version should be.

  I still think that a case is unnecessary, and I assume that, based on Roger's comment above and the original votes in the case request, that a majority of the committee not recused in this matter is still of this opinion. Under these circumstances, I think the best way forward is simply for us to propose and vote on the necessary motions in this request. T. Canens (talk) 02:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• @Beyond My Ken: Can you explain why reviewing WP:BLPBAN is outside our remit? It's a remedy passed by arbcom in the Footnoted quotes case, not a policy or process created by the community. T. Canens (talk) 13:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Motion 1 (Kevin Gorman)

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators, not counting 4 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	6
1–2	5
3–4	4

Proposed

Further to the current Request for Clarification, the committee notes that:

1. WP:BLPBAN does not apply to recently deceased people;
2. the formal warning issued by Kevin Gorman was out of process and therefore has no effect;
3. the provisions of WP:BLPBAN will be urgently reviewed by ArbCom and where necessary updated.

Support

1. See also the companion motion at the case request page,  Roger Davies ^talk 17:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

   LFaraone 17:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

   Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

2. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

   (moving to oppose, per Seraphimblade and others - leaving original comments in place. Carcharoth (talk) 06:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)) Noting in passing, FWIW, that Kevin did strike his formal warning. Roger is right that WP:BLPBAN does need to be urgently reviewed. I hope he will take the lead on this and ensure it is done in a timely manner, co-ordinating with the rest of the committee and the editorial community as needed. Carcharoth (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. As NW points out, WP:BLP is quite clear that it does apply, in some circumstances, to the recently deceased. I see no justification why we should single out this one aspect of the BLP policy and declare it to be unworthy of the protections afforded by the special enforcement provision. If we have to limit BLPBAN before the review takes place, I'd rather limit it to article space and discussions directly related thereto, consistent with the original case's concern about the impact of BLPs on their subjects. T. Canens (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

   That is certainly another approach and I did consider it but went for the simpler option. BLPBAN is not the most used of our sanctions, and the circumstances under which the recently deceased are covered are limited, the change is probably academic. That said, if you want to put up an alternative motion, I'd probably support it. HJ Mitchell has suggested some additional text above, which could be usefully incorporated. On the whole though, this is probably all best left to be thrashed out in a thorough review.  Roger Davies ^talk 00:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

2. I perceive no need for us to "urgently review" the availability of special authority for administrators to deal with BLP policy violations, unless it is to consider reasons why the authority may have been underutilized over the years. The two recent instances in which this authority was misapplied were immediately recognized as outliers and widely criticized as such, and they no more impugn the general validity of BLP special sanctions authority than they do of the BLP policy itself. Any appropriate tweaks to the scope of the BLP policy, if desired, can be addressed through ordinary community discussion. (See also my comments on the motion in the Kevin Gorman case.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

   In a few weeks, NYB, it will be six years since the enforcement remedy was put in place. The community expects us to review our sanctions from time to time to ensure they're still needed and still fit for purpose. As this one is clearly being underused/misused/misunderstood, it could well need some updating. What's more, in the intervening six years, much has changed: for a start, we now have "Draft" namespace. Does WP:BLPBAN apply there? (Yes, it should as it's for articles in the making.) Should WP:BLPBAN apply also to the talk pages of articles within main namespace? (Less obvious, but worth considering.) For the existing remedy, does par. 2 apply only to the defined area in par. 1, or is it a separate broader restriction? Is there anything from the current in-depth review of WP:DSR which could usually improve WP:BLPBAN? In short, I suggest there is much to review, and no time to lose in doing so ;)  Roger Davies ^talk 10:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

   We can certainly discuss whether this sanction should be modified in some way at the appropriate time, either by us or even better in a community discussion. Although I understand the concept of including the special BLP enforcement authority created in Footnoted quotes in the ongoing discretionary sanctions review, I wouldn't want substantive discussion of BLP policy enforcement to be swallowed up in the largely procedural (albeit important) discussion of DS procedures. What I really oppose more than anything in this motion is that some urgency about reviewing the entire BLP special enforcement authority has been created by the isolated misuse of that authority in one or two instances. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
4. The wording of BLPBAN is that "Administrators are authorized to use any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Wikipedia article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy....". As the biographies of living persons policy does specify that under certain circumstances it can apply to the recently deceased, I think this would create an inconsistency. Admins enforcing in that manner would be following both the letter and spirit of BLP. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
5. Indented original support and moved to oppose. Seraphimblade (and others) are correct, though given the disagreement among arbs I still think a simpler motion 3 (proposed below) would be best. Carcharoth (talk) 06:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
6. Switching to oppose per comments by others above. LFaraone 20:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Abstain

1. To add to the confusion, unlike Newyorkbrad I do agree with iii (it'd be convenient to tack BLPBAN onto the back of our DS review). ii is fine with me too. However, I don't comprehend point i of the motion. BLP covers many recently deceased people, including the subject of the original incident here. If BLP covers them, why are we saying BLPBAN does not? The inconsistency in i doesn't compel me to oppose, as BLPBAN is so underused, but I can't endorse this. AGK [•] 10:29, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments by arbitrators

Motion 2 (Kevin Gorman)

Proposed

By way of clarification:

1. WP:BLPBAN applies only to articles within the main namespace; and
2. Accordingly, the formal warning issued by Kevin Gorman was out of process and therefore has no effect.

The provisions of WP:BLPBAN will be urgently reviewed by the Arbitration Committee and where necessary updated.

Support

1. Different approach, but equal to #1,  Roger Davies ^talk 10:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

   AGK [•] 10:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

   Opposing because I prefer M3. AGK [•] 14:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

2. Only choice. T. Canens (talk) 13:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

   Weak support; as Kevin removed the restriction himself I don't see the need to mention it here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

3. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
4. WP:BLPBAN makes clear that it applies to "articles", not all pages. Therefore, this clarification is in line with how the remedy is in fact worded. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. It is not at all clear to me that "WP:BLPBAN applies only to articles within the main namespace," or, for that matter, that it should apply only to articles within the main namespace. To be sure, this authority is not intended to limit legitimate discussion of contributors, sources, and so forth, and I imagine that its primary impact will and should be felt within the article space. However, for example, a few months ago I invoked the special sanctions authority to stop an editor from repeatedly inserting the false allegation that a BLP subject gave the order to destroy one of the World Trade Center buildings. When I did so, I meant that the editor had to stop making that assertion anywhere on Wikipedia, not that he had to stop doing it in the BLP itself but was free to continue making this defamatory claim in his userspace or on the noticeboards. In another context, I imposed a BLP restriction that prohibited an editor from (among other things) uploading files concerning a given individual, which I found were being used to harass that individual, and I think that was also within the scope of the authority. It is true that the actual remedy language from Footnoted quotes, referenced in the administrator instructions, refers to "articles," but that remedy was written at a time when topic-bans often used the phrase "article" rather than "page" and were later clarified to mean any page in Wikipedia (excluding special contexts such as appeals from the topic-ban itself). Most important, if we are going to have a review of the BLP special enforcement authority as both this motion and motion 1 suggest, I don't see why we want to prejudge the outcome of it with respect to this issue. Finally, as has been noted, Kevin Gorman struck the wording he purported to impose against Eric Corbett several days ago, and it was clear even before that that the consensus of uninvolved administrators had rejected it, so we don't need to clarify that it has no effect. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

   Firstly, even if "article" has that very broad meaning the fact that the language has moved on so much that needs reflecting in the text. Apart from the ambiguity you highlight what about "article" means, the word "warning" has also become both charged and ambiguous. Your argument, it seems to me, strongly reinforces the opposite of what you say and that, in fact, this provision really does need urgently reviewing. Secondly, the warning needs to be formally withdrawn because KG's striking through of the warning has no effect. WP:BLPBAN does not recognise administrative discretion to withdraw warniongs or sanctions. What it says is: "Where an action has been reversed or modified, this should be clearly marked, and must be accompanied by evidence of explicit approval from the Committee, or of clear consensus from the community". This motion provides that explicit approval. Thirdly, it is unfair on our administrators, and on the community, to leave in place enforcement provisions that leave so much to individual interpretation. (I think this covers David's point as well). Finally, if it is meant to be applied much more broadly than just articles, it raises all sorts of interesting points. If it applies also to userspace, do the users have to prove that they are who they claim to be (for instance if I started editing as User:Reginald Davis) to be covered by the provisions or is mere assertion enough? And may editors seemingly editing under their real names claim BLP protection during AN discussions and insist everything not covered by RS is deleted? This one could keep us and the community busy for decades. Nope, it all needs sorting out.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

   Your questions about scope would apply equally to the BLP policy itself. See also my added comment on motion 3 below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

2. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
3. Switching from abstain to oppose. Per below, this needs discussion to work out exactly what BLPBAN means in today's editing environment. Carcharoth (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
4. AGK [•] 14:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
5. LFaraone 15:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Abstain

Abstaining. Carcharoth (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)Switching to oppose. Carcharoth (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments by arbitrators

• Initial abstain was because I was not happy with the changes made to part (i). Proposed third alternative below. Later switched from abstain to opposed on motion 2. Carcharoth (talk) 10:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Motion 3 (Kevin Gorman)

Proposed

By way of clarification, the formal warning issued by Kevin Gorman was out of process and therefore has no effect. The provisions of WP:BLPBAN will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee and where necessary updated.

Support

1. Proposing third alternative, since there is disagreement among arbitrators as to the scope of BLPBAN. Better to hash it out at a review than at these motions. I've not explicitly stated that the review will be in consultation with the community, as that should be implicit and obvious. Carcharoth (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
2. Yep.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

   Tweaked first sentence from "the formal warning issued by Kevin Gorman under WP:BLPBAN is rescinded" to "the formal warning issued by Kevin Gorman was out of process and therefore has no effect". Revert if you disagree,  Roger Davies ^talk 11:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

3. Equal choice with M2, but I take Salvio's point below and would prefer we reword from "rescinded" to something like "overruled" or "invalidated" (as warnings cannot meaningfully be rescinded in this way). AGK [•] 14:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
4. Support, although I too would prefer the reword. GorillaWarfare (talk) 11:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
5. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
6. I don't see the need for this with 2 passing, but also don't see any harm. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
7. LFaraone 20:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. On second thoughts, let's not start rescinding warnings: in the DS review we are currently saying that warnings/alerts can't be appealed. Rescinding Eric's warning now can only send a mixed message and we'll end up with more appeals of warnings/alerts. Let's just close this and review this remedy along with the other discretionary sanctions. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
2. Prefer M2. T. Canens (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

   In reply to @Dennis Brown's comment above: there is no doubt that BLP policy applies across the whole project and all namespaces. BLPBAN, however, is a grant of extraordinarily broad powers to administrators (beyond even the normal discretionary sanctions), and how such broad and difficult-to-overturn individual admin authority would interact with a policy that applies to every page in every namespace in the project was never fully considered when BLPBAN was originally written, as the present case demonstrates. The committee that passed BLPBAN seemed to be primarily concerned with the harm done to article subjects, so it makes sense to limit the extra tools granted by BLPBAN to mainspace, where BLP violations can do the most harm, until the review is complete. Administrators are still able to enforce BLP outside of mainspace with their normal tools. That there are only two dozen or so admin actions logged under BLPBAN clearly demonstrates that the normal tools are generally effective for BLP enforcement. T. Canens (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

   In my administrator capacity, I invoked the BLP special enforcement authority three times last year. I've described two of the instances above. The third was a topic ban of User:Qwerty from commenting about BLP subjects (before additional bad behavior was discovered and led to the community ban). Do you, or anyone, question the validity of these actions because they extended beyond article-space? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

   I remember at least two of those, NYB. Though I think you mean User:Qworty, not User:Qwerty. And I can't find any log you made of your topic ban against User:Qworty at the sanctions log. One of the reasons for that log is to enable 'big picture' review of the special enforcement authority. Was your sanction against Qworty logged somewhere else? Are there other unlogged sanctions that should be logged there? Carcharoth (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC) OK, my mistake. I see the Qworty sanction there, but logged by NE Ent, not by Newyorkbrad. I was searching on NYB's username, rather than on Qworty. Carcharoth (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

   BLPBAN, as it is currently worded, allows admins to ensure BLP compliance of articles by, among other things, banning editors from pages. In other words, misconduct in mainspace is required for sanction, but the sanction imposed can go beyond mainspace. T. Canens (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Abstain

1. I can live with this per Douglas Adams, but I really perceive no need to adopt any motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments by arbitrators

Arbitration motion regarding Clarification request: BLP special enforcement

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

• By way of clarification, the formal warning issued by Kevin Gorman was out of process and therefore has no effect. The provisions of WP:BLPBAN will be reviewed by the Arbitration Committee and where necessary updated.

For the Arbitration Committee,--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)