This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Is there any way I can get some assistance? Maybe I'm just a "nice guy", but I'm not keen on presenting offensive evidence of "this person has done this" etc. Should I be doing this, and possibly escalating the dispute further? Is behavior like [1], at least if repeated, something that can be presented and acted upon? Thank you. --NE2 09:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The folks at WP:EAR will be happy to listen to your concerns in detail and send you to the right place. This is probably the wrong venue. JehochmanTalk 22:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
No doubt there was a meltdown there over the last day but you just can't lock down the talk page of a proposed Arbcom decision like that. I understand a quick freeze to shoo everyone away for a bit but not a lock until after the decision is final. I understand there was a condition under which it could be unprotected but I think making people promise to be nice is just allowing them to hold it hostage against those of us that do have something to say in a civil manner. RxS (talk) 06:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The Committee can do whatever it likes, in theory, especially with regard to arbitration-associated pages. I have no idea whether FloNight was acting on behalf of the Arbitration Committee or merely as an arbitrator, but regardless I'd strongly caution any non-arbitrator administrator not to undo this without assent from an arbitrator. Daniel (talk) 06:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I thought it was clear I was asking a member of Arbcom to do it, this is their talk page. But if it wasn't clear, my mistake. And I would agree that it should come from that group. RxS (talk) 06:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, never mind. If you guys (arbcom) want to review the conversation I was having with Phil go ahead, I didn't get to respond to his last comment but you get the drift. Apparently that page is just a courtesy provided by the Arbitration commitee anyway. RxS (talk) 06:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
It's sometimes useful. More than once, ArbCom decisions have been influenced by behavior on the proposed decision talk page. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying that the page should be unprotected? You and Mackensen were happy to contribute to that page. Carcharoth (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
We don't need yet another venue for the nastiness that caused this case in the first place. There appear to be plenty of places for the principles and their friends to snipe at each other. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Not the only people given to sniping it seems JP. Giano (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
If users would stay civil we wouldn't need arbcom so often or page protection. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Sometimes it does not hurt to state a truism. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
It is never helpful to state an untruth. It's "civility" that ArbCom is for? I thought it was for violations of policy that were intractable. Silly me! It's about manners. I should very much like to see how "sniping" on Wikipedia "caused" the case. I see a previously unheard of user lodging a case on grounds with no basis in policy, and then an acceptance, and then a potpourri and fishing trip to find what could be said. Find "civility" in the complaint. Find "civility" anywhere prior to the Workshop going and going and going and going. Meanwhile, this is getting mischaracterized, and we have continuing insults from arbitrators as well as the people trying to get a verdict. Altogether evil, but "protection" is absurd. That's not how you hear from parties. It's how you create an echo chamber. Geogre (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
One of the abuses that should have been considered already in this case was the misuse of page protection by David Gerard. It was, as he has said, aimed primarily at keeping the single non-administrator from editing. Here we are in a similar situation. The protection, after all, is more of a courtesy than a software wall for administrators. It came about when Snowspinner made an absolutely guttural statement (all the while complaining that everyone else is using "hyperbole"). It would be easier to give Snowspinner an official warning to remain polite, to offer apologies, and to avoid edit warring. I, in fact, did warn him about edit warring, when he set about to erase his comment (but leave the responses), without apology. Protection was hardly necessary, and, on Wikipedia, we use protection only when absolutely necessary. Using it freely is a bad idea. If the persons cannot refrain themselves, then the persons should be spoken to, directly, in person. Protection is not the answer. It's not even a decent plan. I thought FloNight was making a stopgap only, and Gordon's support of permanent protection is an indictment of his judgment. Geogre (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The drama caused by Phil's poor choice of words had largely died out with strikethroughs and apologies on several sides, when the edit war started over Phil's attempt to remove or archive his comments. Rather than edit warring, the situation could have been handled by an appeal to any of the clerks or to an Arbitrator; leaving the page in either disputed state for a few hours while awaiting an answer would have hurt no one. As the nominal clerk on the case I have considered conditions under which I would unprotect the page, despite the opinions of some Arbitrators to the contrary, and I will continue to consider the matter, but statements like the above make me wonder why I should stick my neck out. Thatcher 23:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Why? Are you suggesting, Thatcher, that one person trying to cover up what he said (if he had used strike through, there would have been no controversy, and if he had apologized or promised to be respectful, it would have been well done) by removing information from the page requires a Clerk or Arb to deal with? You're redefining what administrators do, then, and you're making a special page. Both are unprecedented. I still don't understand why, when one person is removing comments, that person cannot be warned? As you say, the controversy over the comments had died, and to highlight something, Snowspinner reignited it with trying to remove his comments. See one person's name over and over? What you're suggesting, Thatcher, is neither the better way nor the easier way. Geogre (talk) 15:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I was planning to unprotect the page soon-ish...but feel less incline to after reading some of justifications for the actions on the page that lead to the protection. I personally do not have time to police the page. For now, I'm going to leave it protected. I already asked the other arbitrators to unprotect if they were so inclined. If Thatcher wants to unprotect of course I trust him to do so. FloNight (talk) 00:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I totally support Flo's actions and rationale here. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Not having time to deal with something is often a good indication that it would have been best to leave it to those who do have time to deal with it. Protection might seem a good way to stop one group of people arguing with each other, but you are surely aware that other people were using, and may still want, to use that talk page? And page protection is not a carrot to be used in the sense of "play nice and then I'll unprotect" - again, that misses the point that other people use the talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 00:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
(Note: this was written at the same time as FloNight's comments above - so some of the comments about being unresponsive no longer apply, but it took me long enough to write it, so I'm just saving it now anyway). Thatcher, I'm pleased to see that as the clerk in this case you think that unprotecting is not such a bad idea. What I see here is some people protecting because they don't want the dispute to flare up again while the case is still going on (this ignores the fact that the dispute could still flare up again on any other page on Wikipedia), and some people seeing the function of the talk page being successfully disrupted by the brief edit warring and the overlong protection. If I had, for example, protected the page for only a few hours, would FloNight have stepped in and upped the page protection to 6 days? I'm extremely unhappy with the way this has been handled, and my question is fast becoming "How is dispute resolution handled during an arbitration case?" FloNight carried out the protection, and since then she has only made two responses to questions about the protection, and has continued to edit on other matters. (1) Here, FloNight says to Rx StrangeLove that "temporarily protection is needed" - since when was six days temporary? (2) Then here, FloNight responds to Lawrence Cohen saying that she will bring Lawrence's comments to the attention of the rest of the committee. What it looks like is that FloNight has ignored the other comments in that active section on her talk page, namely User talk:FloNight#Please unprotect the Arbcom decision talk page, and only responded to Rx StrangeLove. If FloNight will not respond on this matter, where do I go from here? I am happy to be persuaded that protection is needed, but just being ignored is not productive for a collaborative editing environment - at least you and Mackensen took the time to respond and attempt justifications for parts of this. I've yet to see a convincing reason from FloNight, or anyone, that a six day protection of that talk page was needed. I would like to stress that my aim here is, as I said before:
"[to] help move the situation forward, and enable the talk page to be unprotected (with any necessary warnings added) so that any editor (including those uninvolved in this) can comment on the proposed decision."
The worst that could happen is that the page might need to be protected again, or certain people warned. Are the arbitrators and clerks saying that they can't handle that, and that protecting the page is the easiest way of handling the situation? One final comment, or rather plea. If the protection is going to remain on the talk page, please don't let the proposed decision dribble out in dribs and drabs. Shut the whole page down. Draft a complete proposed decision somewhere else and then move it and the page history over here. Open up the talk page for discussion, and proceed from there. What would be a bad precedent to set is that people commenting on a talk page (as Rx StrangeLove was) will now be perpetually worried that if an edit war erupts on the page (even if it doesn't involve them), that the talk page might suddenly get shut down by an arbitrator for days at a time, and questions about the page protection may (as is happening here) get little response from that arbitrator. I apologise for the length of this, but I hope that at least some of my concerns are justified. Carcharoth (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
We're not afraid of it, we're just making it know that we won't tolerate such behavior here. It's bad enough people get away with it elsewhere on wiki, but it won't work here. If people behave themselves they wouldn't have these problems. Just as such behavior is not tolerated in law courts, it won't be tolerated here. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure. And FloNight should have said that on the talk pages of the people concerned, and on the page itself. What she in fact did was to write this (with typos) in the edit summary after the page protection. She protected but made no attempt to communicate what had happened or to resolve the dispute. Which is what I've been trying to do. Editors on-wiki are not aware that FloNight may have sent e-mails to other arbitrators, so she has communicated the situation to them, and left only a badly written edit summary on-wiki for everyone else to puzzle over. Carcharoth (talk) 00:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Everyone who participated at that page is a very experienced Wikipedian. We ought to be setting the standard of conduct for newcomers. Is this really the example of conduct we want them to emulate, when they get into conflict? DurovaCharge! 01:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I have unprotected the page. I have every confidence that the parties are capable of conducting themselves with grace and dignity. If they choose not to, I am prepared to levy page bans enforced by blocks, as I originally warned at the top of the workshop page when the case opened. Thatcher 02:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank-you. Carcharoth (talk) 11:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Thatcher, you really should address the users not go to blocks and bans. Also, you really should allow ArbCom to be responsible for any bans or blocks in a case like this. I don't know what Snowspinner will say for himself, if he goes over the edge, but I can tell you that all of the folks who have been horrified by his actions have pretty solid justifications for it. Please use user talk pages. As I say to people over and over again: more discussion, not less, more talking to people, less talking about people, is the way. Geogre (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Archiving extensive requests
Obviously it is a bit arbitrary which declined requests should be noted for posterity, but I thought this one here should be:
I did this in the past with the Kmweber request for arbitration. The criteria tends to be when a request attracts a lot of community input. The idea is that the request becomes part of the record of attempts at dispute resolution, along with some often important points that should not be merely lost to the page history. Any ideas on how to better handle things like this? Carcharoth (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Friendliest arbitrator EVAR![2]MilesAgain (talk) 10:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. :) I actually think it's very important to provide these kinds of explanations sometimes. The arbitration process and pages are complicated, especially for newer editors, and when someone is making a mistake or is seeking dispute resolution in the wrong place, we really ought to be steering them to the right place rather than just say "go away." I'm not the only one to do that, by the way; FloNight, for one, was doing much the same thing months before I was elected. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I suggest somebody should come up with a list of which articles are under the ruleing of this arbcom case, so as to not confuse anyone in the future. There are some articles that are borderline as to whether or not they are considered part of this topic. YahelGuhan 04:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Considering the breadth of the topic area, I can't see it being practical to compile a list of individual articles covered by the arbitration. As far as I'm aware we've not done anything like that for other topic area arbitrations such as Kosovo, Macedonia, Armenia-Azerbaijan etc. The arbitrators have made it clear that they consider the scope to be a broad one in this case. Given that, I think editors will need to assume that any article with a conceivable link to the Arab-Israeli conflict is covered by the arbitration, and behave accordingly. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Highways
With all due respect, I am wondering why the Arbitration Committee has been mostly silent about this case. This case has been here for nearly three weeks, and only one Arbitrator has commented on this case (except for the temporary injunction). --Rschen7754 (TC) 02:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Anybody? --Rschen7754 (TC) 00:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I can't speak for the arbitration committee, but they seem to be busy dealing with the IRC case at the moment. I would advise patience. And don't spend too much time making proposals. Clearly-laid out evidence is the most important thing. The arbitrators should be able to come up with a final decision from the evidence, and the workshop proposals will help guide them in that. Carcharoth (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
As a non-American I've taken a supportive role in the highways case but I can tell you that we are currently dealing with the vexed IRC case and also sifting nominees for the working group on nationalist editwars. Highways has not escaped notice, though. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks :) --Rschen7754 (TC) 00:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Addition of parties
I reversed Fedayee's addition of my name to ArbCom case, since I am not an initiating party, not the blocked user, not the blocking admin, and not the facilitator of the disputed block. Atabek (talk) 10:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but you can't just remove yourself. Let the Administrators decide if you're uninvolved. VartanM (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
VartanM, I don't believe you're an administrator, so we will let administrator decide. I expressed my stance on Ehud Lesar case, but I wasn't involved with blocking neither with producing frivolous evidence to support the misattribution of identities nor was I the initiating party for the ArbCom case, so don't see how I would be involved party. I don't mind either way, but I do mind your addition without any authority. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
You are a party to the case because of your heavy involvement and conduct.--ΕυπάτωρTalk!! 20:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
And by what authority did you remove yourself?. If you think you're uninvoled you should stop defending "Ehud", and stop your accusations of Fedayee. What are you afraid of? Don't you want Adil/Ehud unblocked? Let let the arbitrators decide if your involved or not. They will remove your name if they think your not involved. Thanks for understanding. VartanM (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Atabek can be considered a party, yes. But unless the subject of this case is expanded to the continuing disputes between some of the parties to the first two cases, as opposed to just the Baguirov/Lesar issue, Atabek probably won't figure into the final decision. I don't think anyone here wants Armenia-Azerbaijan 3. Picaroon(t) 20:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Take a look here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Ehud Lesar. Atabek is clearly heavily involved within the scope of the Baguirov/Lesar issue alone. Otherwise how is everyone else involved? I'm not counting the people who just made a comment or two. John Vandenberg should be added as party as well.--ΕυπάτωρTalk!! 21:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Before we jump the gun, lets see how the newly amended remedies work out. Otherwise few other users would have been added if this was about AA3 VartanM (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
VartanM, I think you're still under a wrong impression of being any kind of authority on application of remedies. But if it makes you satisfied making 2 reverts on ArbCom page adding my name, by all means :) I hope you have achieved anything useful spending your time doing that.
Just to highlight on what Picaroon already emphasized, Ehud Lesar case is not about Armenia-Azerbaijan ArbCom essence, it's about the case of a user charged and blocked as a sock without checkuser or identity proofs. So involved parties in this case would be those who blocked and those who produced frivolous reports, with a particular emphasis on the intentions of the latter. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I have added you because you used sufficient part of your statement to accuse Fedayee of harassment against yourself. You are involved as the alleged harassed. Secondly, I think you are involved in that you could not have not known he is Adil, since he meatpuppeted to revert for you and other estabilished Azeri users, as his sole edits in several articles. And thirdly you are involved because you were very much active in answering to the evidence provided and your counter answers with WP:POINT and abuse of process as a result of the evidence posted. On the other hand, another retaliation from your part by adding two other users, I hope will be noticed by arbitrators. VartanM (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Atabek has added me as an involved party to the Ehud Lesar case however I haven't taken a position on Ehud and the Arbitrators have not taken a position on whether this case will be broaden to include a ruling on other WP:DUCK type ban on other Armenia-Azerbaijan former editors and also to include a ruling on Atabek's and Grandmaster's behavior with respect to the WP:RFCU process so I am leaving myself off the involved party list for now. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why you would be posting a statement on Atabek and Grandmaster's behavior in case strictly related to whether Ehud Lesar is AdilBaguirov or not. Or were you trying to take community's time on an unrelated concern of yours and thus distract attention from resolving the situation with Ehud Lesar?
You're welcome to bring your baseless claims at WP:ANI, and please, do not get under impression that the RFCU process is over. The report will be further pursued until checkuser, as there are not just myself and Grandmaster but also Kober who provided details and additional suspected users. Checkuser is a formal procedure, and unlike unfounded accusations, as in the case of Ehud Lesar, it does help to establish the evidence of sockpuppetry. I don't see why you were and are opposing the running of checkuser in Wikipedia:Requests_for_Checkuser#Artaxiad_12 so much, if you are confident of not violating WP:SOCK. If at all, your repeated comments in this regard only serve to reinforce the suspicions. Atabek (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Please do not consider this as an official statement by the committee. If it is so obvious that the article should be on article probation then there is no need for an arbitration hearing. The Arbitration Committee is here for the difficult decisions, and the decisions that need confidentiality. All uninvolved administrators are empowered to use their tools to prevent disruption, and if there is obvious disruption then they should go ahead and use their discretion to decide what to do. You were chosen for your judgment. If it is obvious that this particular article is the site of disruption, and there's a consensus that it should be on article probation, then put it on article probation, dear Liza. Wikipedia is not bound by bureaucratic procedure. If you need a procedure for putting articles on article probation, then agree one. If you don't want anything on article probation except if the Arbitrators say so, then agree that. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Good idea. Would somebody like to propose this remedy at WP:AN? JehochmanTalk 00:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I have noticed that people are still adding comments to the page above, despite the fact that the case is closed. Would it be appropriate to add some sort of comment there to indicate that the case is closed? John Carter (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Arbitrators may impose article probation without taking a case?
Per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/W. Frank, the User:Alice sockpuppet has been used disruptively by User:W. Frank. The W. Frank account stopped editing in mid September (save for a few votes in ArbCom elections and an RfA in December), and the Alice account started editing in late September. At this time the ArbCom case was still ongoing and W. Frank may well have ended up on probation or another sanction.
Recently, the Alice account has been used to harass and attack editors involved in the case, something W. Frank had done previously. This led to the checkuser request, which confirmed Alice and W. Frank were one and the same. The Alice account has been blocked, and there is a general consensus amongst admins that W. Frank should be placed on the probation remedy from the case.
However due to security concerns W. Frank may not wish to carry on editing using that account (although that's speculation). So, do editors on probation have the right to start editing with a brand new account? If so who, if anyone, do they need to inform of the account they are using? Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 03:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
An important aspect of this situation is that User:W. Frank is the user's real name. His address was posted on wikipedia in what he saw as a threatening way. He was not alone in this interpretation.[3] The account Alice was created after this event, but is now compromised as it is known that it is being used by W. Frank. There was not an abusive use of socks in the standard sense. The posting of personal info about him occurred around 19 August 2007. The edits in question were oversighted. W. Frank started editing as "Alice.S" on 28 September 2007, presumably as direct result of this with the aim of creating an anonymous user ID. The name "Alice.S" was subsequently changed to "Alice" by usurpation, but that's neither here nor there and the contribs history is the same: there have been 2827 edits by Alice/Alice.S. Most have been to other areas and, from what I can make out, he has only re-entered the Troubles arena in the last 2 weeks, presumably feeling that his RL ID was sufficiently disguised. W. Frank was not placed on probation by ArbCom and is not on probation now by admin action, but this is being discussed. To forbid him to create a new account so he can edit anonymously is to force him to use an account which has been compromised. Tyrenius (talk) 03:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The problem is also that if W. Frank wanted a fresh start, there was other ways to go about it then ending up harassing the same editors. The probation which they have likely earned (to date, there is no one on the thread that discusses it that disagrees with it as a a sanction) makes things difficult. The way I see it, the way we have three options. In order of preference:
A) Allow W. Frank to create a new account, but place it under probation. I don't think this will work for the very same reason the reason Tyrenius says above, since the account has been tied to a RL identity, all we're doing is changing the name of the account involved.
B) unblock the Alice account, and let W.Frank edit on that account, under civility parole and 1RR/week on Troubles articles. This is less then optimal.
C) Block the W. Frank account, let him create a new account that does not have the probation underneath it, however, W. Frank will have to agree not to edit on Troubles related articles (a defacto topic ban). This is to prevent any new editors in the Troubles related areas from instantly being accused of being W. Frank. ArbCom would have to be aware of this new account's name.
All in all, I am sympathetic to the fact that W. Frank's RL identity has been exposed, and I considered it a horrendously bad action by the person involved. However, that does not change the fact that if W. Frank had continued to make trouble on the Troubles ArbCom case, he likely would have been placed on probation at that time, and he had his clean start, but drifted back to his old, bad behaviour and more then the checkuser itself, provided the link to his old identity. SirFozzie (talk) 05:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I think this matter should be handled by direct email to Arbcom-L from Frank/Alice, and I have no problem leaving both accounts blocked until something is worked out. Unfortunately, editors who both (a) use their real names and (b) get in trouble with Arbcom are in a real bind. If the user wanted to disappear and reincarnate, and managed to avoid Troubles articles and editors, no one would ever know. The fact that Alice is harassing other editors proves that he/she needs to be under probation. At this time, blocking the Frank account and placing Alice under probation leaves an identity trail that he/she does not want left out in the open. This person could create yet a third account, but if it too returned to the same bad behavior, we'd be looking at the possibility of a community ban for repeatedly evading the Arbcom sanctions through sockpuppetry. One possibility is a new account approved by Arbcom but kept confidential and known to a small number of admin monitors who would administer "secret probation"; watching the user and applying sanctions as needed without publicly disclosing his identity. But that would have to be approved in advance by Arbcom. Thatcher 07:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Franco-Mongol alliance
Could we get some more votes so this case is either accepted, or properly shot down? JehochmanTalk 16:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Jehochman, we've already talked about this off-wiki, but I guess I need to repeat it on-wiki. I am extremely uncomfortable that you're involved with this case at all, and wish that you would withdraw from participation. I do not feel that you are an uninvolved administrator here. You repeatedly threatened to start a case, and I repeatedly told you that I did not want you getting involved (for or against) in any way. And though I specifically told you on multiple occasions that I did not want you to start the case, you went ahead anyway. I then told you (again) to stay out of it, but I see that you are still poking around. In some circumstances I might see this just as a "difference of opinion," or good-faith efforts that I disagree with, but I am seeing now in other cases that other editors too are raising concerns that you seem to be having a tendency to jump into everyone else's disputes. I can't speak for the details of the other disputes, but it is my opinion that in terms of the Franco-Mongol alliance issue, that your behavior over the last few months has escalated this dispute, not de-escalated it, and I would again ask you to please stay out. --Elonka 18:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how Jehochman's comment warranted that kind of response. Anyone -- involved or uninvolved -- could have made the rather decent request to expedite the acceptance or rejection of this case. -- tariqabjotu 16:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Workshop pages
Several people have commented here or here (depending on whichever page the thread ends up on when they stop reverting each other) that the new workshop template is rather unweildy and difficult to work with. Per Daniel's comment here, I have come here to request that, because of this, the Arbitrators take the comments under advisement and consider changing it back. Perhaps ask what people on the othertwo cases with this format what they think? A thought. seresin | wasn't he just...? 01:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
New Private ArbCom mailing list?
I've started a discussion on the ArbCom mailing list about adding a new arbitration committee mailing list only for current arbitrators. On the new list, we would discuss issues that only the arbitrators want to discuss among ourselves. And on the new list we would have our discussions and receive evidence in cases where one member of the current list is involved. Thoughts? FloNight♥♥♥ 01:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Fully support. This should have been done long ago. Cla68 (talk) 03:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems all upside from the peanut gallery, only you folks can decide if it has a downside. Thatcher 03:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
It sounds like a good idea. Would this become the official mailing list to which people would send evidence, the privacy concerns Arbcom has said it will accept, and general queries; or will the current extended mailing list (including former arbs) continue to exist and to and receive that information? As well, I am curious as to how the new list will manage to separate out what information an arbitrator involved in a current case needs to be excluded from, without excluding them entirely from the list and the rest of the cases being discussed. Thanks for bringing this up, FloNight. Risker (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Risker, those are the issues that we are discussing. I'm suggesting that we use it for cases that a member of the main mailing list is truly an involved party. FloNight♥♥♥ 04:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Flo, I really think this is an issue that arbs need to decide for themselves. The rest of the community simply don't have the information to weigh up the pros and cons. FWIW I'm always suspicious that compartmentalising communications is detrimental to proper communication, but if this is being done to address real (and not theoretical or perceptual) problems with the status quo, then go to it. But there really is no point in inviting community input here, all it will do is foster drama and uninformed opinion. And at that, since I have admitted I don't know what I'm talking about, I will leave it.--Docg 15:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I spent ages looking for the thread I started on this. I finally remembered I had started it in the more logical place: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#ArbCom mailing list - access issues. Two former arbitrators and a current arbitrator (Raul, Mackensen and jpgordon) all said (in effect) "no". Interesting to see the different response here. I think my proposal is more logical, in that it moves the emeritus arbcom people to a new mailing list (which would also include the current arbitrators), and restores the main arbitration committee mailing list to current arbitrators (as it was when first created - when there were no ex-arbitrators). FloNight's proposal is, though, just as good, and I hope one or the other change eventually gets implemented. FWIW, there is absolutely nothing to stop the current arbitration committee setting up a private mailing list and either reducing, or stopping, the amount that they use arbcom-l. The downside would be a lack of archives, but I think Doc has in the past argued against the existence of such archives. Carcharoth (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm with Doc that this is largely an internal matter, but I see no reason why the default list, whatever it is called, shouldn't include the former arbitrators and others. Except when considering conduct within that group, I can easily see that input from other high level trusted users is a good thing--avoid narrow groupthink and all that. Thatcher 15:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Flo, I'm guessing you guys are curious for outside opinion or views, or else this wouldn't have been posted here. Being an ignorant person, I'd only suggest that 1) the list be limited (as you mention) to just the sitting arbitrators as selected by the community and no-one else; 2) it be available like the current list for outsiders to post to, if they want to use their discretion to exclude ex-arbiters and Jimbo from private communications with the Committee; 3) all grumbling on the various pages I see from various people, the general list with a million people isn't a bad idea for feeling out issues if the seated AC chooses to request private input from Jimbo or the ex-Arbs; 4) I'm guessing this is all coming up due to various issues related to the IRC case, and "feedback" from some individuals that I'm guessing the current arbs based on this didn't find helpful (again, just me being ignorant here and based on the timing of this discussion). If the currently community-chosen Arbs think this is a good idea to streamline process and things, go for it. It's your choice in the end. The most important thing is that if the "new" list is limited to literally just the standing AC--i.e., no Jimbo, no ex-arbs, no outsiders controlling the list as owners/moderators--you will probably get better or more useful confidential information and have a smoother discussion with just the voices that we chose to pore through. Again, all just ignorant guesses here. Lawrence § t/e 16:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea. If sitting arbitrators want input from former arbitrators that's their business, but it doesn't make a lot of sense for special inquiries to be sent to both groups for discussion. The former arbitrators currently on the list are certainly in decent-to-good standing, but there are reasons why they're former arbitrators and not current arbitrators. — xDanielxT/C\R 08:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Below what line?
I have filled out a request for arbitration, but I can't figure out where to put it. The steps say to paste it "below the line." What line?
Angela Harms (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Your request is posted correctly, so you don't need to worry about the formatting. Could one of the Clerks please check the request for arbitration template to make sure the instructions are clear. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Suggest a change to "...below the "Current requests" line..." (or even "header" instead of "line", but "header" might not be clear either). Carcharoth (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I fixed it already, using the exceedingly literal description, "immediately below ==Current requests==". JehochmanTalk 22:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Please see my response there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
IRC case not listed at Completed Requests
Resolved
– Stifle added the case just over one day ago (thankyou!). I promise to boldy go in future. Ta all :-) 59.167.51.178 (talk) 08:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that the IRC case has not been listed at completed requests. Assming this was accidental, would a clerk be able to correct this please? :-) 59.167.51.178 (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I doubt any case would be intentionally omitted. You could easily, you know, fix this yourself. It's a wiki (tm). :-) — CharlotteWebb 05:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, but the Arbitration Committee Clerks can probably do it faster as they are familiar with the formats, etc. If one of them doesn't get to this in a day or two I'll leave a note on their noticeboard. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid the clerk in the case was rather out of practice, and has since been busy with other trivial matters like Archtransit. I shall administer a stern reprimand, and maybe send him to bed without dessert tonight. Thatcher 11:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Disclosure
"Mantanmoreland" case:
This case was presented to the community as a high profile RFC, around 24 hours ago. A number of experienced administrators scrutinized the same evidence presented at arbitration, and gave opinions. I noted that I felt there was a very strong basis of evidence of a connection. I also noted that "Open to an explanation, as always. But this does not preclude forming of a working conclusion given the evidence".
Before the last 24 hours, I have no prior involvement, interest in, or awareness of the actions of Mantanmoreland or Samiharris, and no prior conception of any standing or roles of these parties. My involvement in the last 24 hours was:
24 hours preview of what is now the RFAR evidence, and comment
Explanation of an administrative nature covering communal norms, following the start of a thread on WP:AN[4] etc.
Addressing a statement that the evidence might be incomplete in one area, by reviewing and creating a more valid summary table for that area. (But no advocacy [5].)
Besides these actions, I am not aware of any involvement in, or knowledge of, the case, and if different evidence shows different interpretations, I feel my ability to be neutral and consider all sides is unchanged from when I wrote "open to an explanation, as always".
I disclose this, in the view that it is appropriate to do so, and that all cases should be transparent. But after due consideration, I do not feel my neutrality or ability to reach a balanced fair conclusion has been affected by essentially a 24 hour preview of Cool Hand Luke's presenting evidence, and explaining from an administrative viewpoint why the venue was best treated as acceptable. FT2(Talk | email) 22:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with FT2's reasoning and thank you for the full disclosure. I do not see any reason for recusal by FT2 from arbitrating this (should it be accepted). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Similarly, I am of the opinion that there are insufficient grounds for recusal, in accordance with the spirit of the Arbitration policy, on FT2's part. Of course, recusal of arbitrators is historically a grey area in the Committee's operations, and there really is no choice but to follow the spirit of the policy, on the basis that there is nothing but spirit and vague boundaries :) AGK (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Curious
Just a question as to why the Highways discussion has been pushed to the backburner. Why? --Son (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I second the motion. Since well into last month, the case has been ignored. --Rschen7754 (TC) 05:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, we have been pretty well-behaved compared to most of the cases... --NE2 23:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but I would like to get the case over with. --Rschen7754 (TC) 01:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The committee is behind schedule on both Highways 2 and Episodes and characters 2. I will push to have things moved along. We do note, and appreciate, when parties to cases conduct themselves in a fashion that facilitates rather than impedes dispute resolution. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I think in this case there never really was that much of a dispute; it's just been slowly festering and nobody knows exactly what to do or whather something can be done. All the parties that I've noticed have continued to work constructively on articles. I, for one, am not complaining; you have tougher stuff to deal with (I was just looking through the Mantanmoreland case...wow.) --NE2 03:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The Committee can occasionally lapse into inactivity, and it is important that both the Arbitrators as individuals, and the Community at large, work to stem any such slow-motion progress, should it arise. I myself have previously contact the ArbCom through their mailing list, regarding a considerable lack of progress and contribution at a case I was Clerking, although it did not appear to receive much of a response, and I suspect the eventual contributions were part of the Arbitrators' own routine, so to speak, as oppose to a proactive solution to my email.
Nevertheless, life goes on, and we can only hope that cases receive enough attention as to be resolved quickly and efficiently, rather than the "stop-start" phenomenon which, in my opinion, can impede a case significantly. Of course, I say this as a passing observation, rather than any direct criticism or "dig at" the Committee or its members—I do still, nevertheless, view case efficiency as one of the Arbitration process' areas requiring progress and change. AGK (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Idle question
Just out of curiosity, what is the record for longest-open ArbCom case to date? —Scott5114↗[EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Probably Matthew Hoffman, although Highways 2 is taking pretty darn long... --Rschen7754 (TC) 06:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I recall that one on topic of scientology went for a full two months in the spring summer of 07. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The longest in the last year was probably around 2½ months (11 weeks): Allegations of apartheid. FT2(Talk | email) 14:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Westminster Committee on Iran
Statement by {Party 1}
Whilst we understand that Wikipedia is not a place for promoting businesses or advertising organisations, we fail to see how the page fell into either of these categories. The Westminster Committee is the only international organisation of its kind. The page described the background, guiding principles, activities and coverage of the group which has been in existence for over 2 years and has received press coverage in the Economist, LA Times, Times, Guardian, Independent and has been recognised by the UN’s InterParliamentary Union. Members of the group have been interviewed on BBC, PressTV, Irna and Saha television. I would therefore suggest that the group is deserving of a mention within the terms of the encylopedic function the Wikipedia proports to provide. I would request that you look again at the page. If there are elements that you feel are “blatant promotion or advertising” please delete them, but perhaps you could leave the main body of the text there. I recognise that you are an experienced and qualified editor but I would request that this matter also be referred to the ajudicators for further assessment.
Statement by {Party 2}
The page for the Westminster Committee on Iran was deleted on 15th February by an editor called Lara Love. The Committee is an organisation that attempts to increase dialogue between parliamentarians in Tehran and the rest of the world with a view to avoiding conflict. It has been around since 2006 and receives substantial coverage in the mainstream media. The page that was up seemed to conform to the Wikipedia rules and we are uncertain why Ms Love deleted the entire page.
We have tried to contact editors and Ms Love but since we are no longer to 'log in', it is quite difficult to contact people. If anyone can help retrieve our page or get to the bottom of the mystery of why it was deleted, it would be much appreciated. If the content could be sent to the Committee it could at least be salvaged.
Kind regards
Convener, Westminster Committee on Iran (London
Other notes
I have left a message for this user explaining about usernames/pages and arb com. etc at [[6]] Slp1 (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Should we remove this from the talk page, or just leave it here as it isn't really doing any harm? --Infophile(Talk)(Contribs) 17:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Moved to bottom of page and reformatted. Since the main page is semi-protected, it was posted here, and does no harm. Thatcher 17:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
User accounts must belong to individuals, not groups
User accounts are not articles
User account pages are not substitutes for article pages.
Now, should you believe that Westminster Committee on Iran deserves an article, you should create a new account (or one per each individual) and create the article. Start by reading Wikipedia:Your first article. Be aware that people associated with articles often run into problems with Conflicts of interest. A conflict of interest does not bar you from editing the article, but you should defer to uninvolved Wikipedians on matters such as style, formatting, and Importance of the topic. Thatcher 17:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Another week goes by...
Another week goes by, and the Arbitration case relating to Highways falls through the cracks. Does the Arbitration plan to do anything about the case soon? --Rschen7754 (TC) 22:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Probably it means the Arbs are failing to come to a clear consensus on their email list and private wiki. It also probably means you haven't had administrators getting blocked due to edit warring on the case pages, which at least one other case has had recently. Take solace in the latter. GRBerry 23:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I have been tied up in our internal discussions on the Mantanmoreland case, in which I will be posting a proposed decision tonight or tomorrow, but I will push (again) for Highways 2 to receive priority attention. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you to the committee
Being an arbitrator is a tough and thankless job, that does not often do much to endear one to others. They have a heavy load both on and off wiki, and commit significant amounts of their volunteer time to this duty. They deserve a thanks every now and then. I looked in on RFAR today and saw it to be nearly empty, with only two pending requests, both speedily on their way towards being declined, (as opposed to hanging around in perpetuity until enough votes get in). I look at the cases, and apart from the incredibly complex ones, which are getting the attention they deserve, the standard cases are proceeding through arbitration rather quickly. Some of the new arbitrators ran on a platform of "speeding things up" and it's good to get the feeling that this has taken place. Anyway, I just wanted to drop off a word of thanks.⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender 23:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Mikkalai
Re this change to "accept" by Newyorkbrad: I hope it's not out of line for me to comment on this here, and I make no comment on whether you accept the case nor on whether you consider Mikkalai's behaviour to be acceptable, but your comment "no indication that Mikkalai is willing to consider modifying his behavior at this time" does not seem to me to accurately reflect the edit by Mikkalai which came a few hours after the edit you referred to but before your post, so I wonder whether you hadn't seen this edit, or perhaps you didn't understand what I think Mikkalai meant by it. By (almost completely) blanking his talk page, Mikkalai was making a move towards conforming with the requests being made of him. When I saw that, I thought that you had been wise to wait. But I was disappointed that in your response you gave no indication of recognizing this gesture from Mikkalai. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed it and I hope that the fact that Mikka has reacted negatively to my reluctant accept comment won't undo any progress that has been made. I don't want to lose the services of any editor or administrator, so long as he or she is willing to maintain a reasonable level of civility and adhere to basic elements of policy. If there can be a drama reduction and avoidance of the need for a case right now I am all for it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, the edit that Coppertwig refers to looks quite different in isolation than it does in the context of the previous several edits Mikkalai made to that page. Following the notification of the ArbCom case, he made a succession of quick edits to his pledge of muteness, refining the text. Then a couple of hours later he blanked the page. Some eight hours after that, he restored the page, adding a comment at the bottom that attacked Newyorkbrad specifically. An hour later the page was blanked again (this is Coppertwig's link). These actions, plus the comment in his subsequent edit don't suggest to me that any of this is reflective of someone "conforming with the requests being made of him", as Coppertwig suggests. Quite the contrary, in fact. -- Hux (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I apologize -- I linked to the wrong diff by mistake. I'm not sure whether it makes any difference, but I meant this diff, where Mikkalai "simplif[ied]" his talk page, which is the edit which came, as I said above, before the post by Newyorkbrad that I referred to above.
What Hux refers to as the "comment at the bottom that attacked Newyorkbrad specifically" appears to have been in response to Newyorkbrad's post that I mentioned above, which seemed to ignore Mikkalai's action of erasing. It mirrored Newyorkbrad's language ("bizarre"), and was deleted less than an hour afterwards, presumably as a regretful retraction of the comment. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
When Mikka talks about "witch-hunting", "[]loaded question" and "cornered wolf", he seems to be telling us that he feels he's being put in situations where he has no viable options. I don't know the whole situation and I don't know why he feels this way, but I feel his desperation. Everybody, I think it's time for A nice cup of tea and a sit down. (See March 2008.) --Coppertwig (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Ignore all rules
The original version of Ignore all rules was, "If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the Wiki, then ignore them and go about your business." (Lee Daniel Crocker, April 17, 2002)
Apparently rules bother Mikkalai; or the mechanisms for enforcing rules bother him. In the spirit of Ignore all rules, the primary Wikipedian policy, I think perhaps it is incumbent on us to use our powers of creative thinking to try to come up with some way, consistent with the goals of the project and the comfort level of other users, to allow our cornered wolf Mikkalai to edit without being bothered by a lot of rule-enforcing actions. Mikkalai is helping with this by raising his level of civility and by inviting others to revert his actions, which he says he will not dispute.
I invite everyone to do some brainstorming and try to come up with solutions or with partial solutions which can be fit together like the pieces of a puzzle to make a full solution.
As soon as I thought about posting this call for creative thinking a few hours ago, an idea occurred to me, and I present it here as my proposal. I had mentioned a few days ago that I had been thinking about it, and just realized a few hours ago that, given the current state of Mikkalai's talk page, which still discourages communication but is more civil, that this idea is both necessary and relatively acceptable.
Proposal: that a banner be posted on Mikkalai's talk page inviting people with questions or complaints about Mikkalai's admin actions to post their comments on my talk page. I will then try to explain the reasoning behind Mikkalai's actions, or if I am unable to do so to my satisfaction, then I will try to find someone to either explain or revert the action. People with complaints about ordinary editing by Mikkalai can simply revert the edits, since Mikkalai has invited them to do so. I hereby offer to take this on as an ongoing responsibility, reserving the right to resign at any time.
I would post such a banner now, (example), except that I'm not sure whether Mikkalai would perceive it to be a grave disrespect. I'm now posting a notice on my talk page stating that questions and complaints about Mikkalai's admin actions are welcome there. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I am Russian, that is I was born in Russia but grew up all over the world. That helps me understand where Michaeli is coming from and what he is trying to say. Rules are not made of stone! We need to be flexable and consider human feeling and not just go by the book. We should think of the spirit of the project not the letter. How do good editors who are familiar with a aprticular are come to the project and stay here, if at their first visit we bite them call them Trolls, Spammers, vandals, and etc. If anyone protests we invoke civil and call them disrupt. We wave a flag of COI if any one has any relationship to a give n topic. Should we have donuts backers write abour Medieval history? Rules are great and necessary but IGNORE is just important and needs to be respected. Igor Berger (talk) 02:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Igor: I have a lot of respect for your argument that the spirit of Wikipedia's policies is more important than the letter. The trouble is that it overlooks the fact that Mikkalai is all too happy to ignore policy one minute, in order to justify his own actions, and then throw the rulebook at someone the next, in order to justify the wrongness of theirs. I also think that it's been made plain that he's done a number of things that ignore both the spirit and the letter of "the law". Imo, nobody should be allowed to hide behind IAR and then accuse people of being "wikilawyers" whenever they point out that the editor is acting far outside the spirit of Wikipedia. -- Hux (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I just think he needs some time to cool down and blow off his discontent. It's like he is on strike for too many things that went wrong or too many chalanges to his POV. I say give him some breathing room and he will be back to his own Michaeli, whatever that is..:) IMO, just starting this ArbCom request may not have been such a good idea because that is what he expected us to do and we are proving him right. When someone puts your back to the wall, what do you do if not fight back for your own survival. Time heals all wounds! Igor Berger (talk) 05:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Think of him as a big Grizzly bear on whom you have stumbled on while walking in the woods. The bear gets on his hind paws and is formidable. You are scared and start screaming at the bear but the bear gets very angry and launches at you. Why? Because the bear feels threatened by you, and Michaeli feels threatened by the system. Now if you would be quiet and just stand still for a while the bear would come back down on all his paws sniff a bit at you turn around and walk away. Hence, when attacked by a bear play dead! Same here, if we leave Michaeli alone he will back down and see us as wikilove people not like someone who questions his authority and his rights to exist. Do not wrestle with a Russian Grizzly bear! Igor Berger (talk) 05:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, good. Mikkalai has posted instructions on his talk page which (arguably) make my proposal above unnecessary. (Thanks, Mikka!!) I think he has managed to design his talk page so that everything can be worked out comfortably without conflict and without needing communication from him. Inviting people to revert and stating that he won't dispute the reverts is a key element of that.
I think our goal here is de-escalation. I think we need to agree on an arrangement which, while possibly not 100% satisfactory in all ways, is nevertheless sufficiently satisfactory that we can close down the arbitration request, stop having AN/I threads (unless something serious arises) and leave Mikkalai in peace. Then after a period of time maybe Mikkalai will feel comfortable and resume "normal service" and we can, I hope, arrive eventually at a completely satisfactory solution.
Is it now sufficiently satisfactory? People could argue that we don't want a lot of admins doing the same thing. Never mind -- that's one of these OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments. And possibly it would be fine if other people do the same thing, including the part about inviting reverts and not disputing them. People could argue that it adds more work for the people monitoring the noticeboards Mikkalai is directing his complainants to. Maybe the amount of work will be small; maybe the people won't mind. Maybe it will only be for a short time. People could argue that one problem with this system is that Mikkalai won't get feedback to prevent him from making similar mistakes many times. I argue that Mikkalai can choose to get feedback by looking to see whether his actions were reverted; this may feel more comfortable than actively getting involved in conflicts. I also argue that since Mikkalai is said to have had "years of excellent work as an editor and as an admin" that little or no feedback is necessary; that he already knows what's acceptable, what's mildly annoying, what's out of line etc. and can continue for a period of time without feedback, especially if given space to calm down. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe that in general, admins should follow high standards, communicate etc. I'm asking for special consideration in this case out of compassion because it seems to be needed. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Admins are allowed to make (a small number of) mistakes. One of the four issues you raise is a page deletion which Mikkalai subsequently undeleted after it was brought up at AN/I. Resolved; no need to bring this up at arbitration. For the other three, you give no indication that they were mentioned either on Mikkalai's talk page or at AN/I. It seems inappropriate to me to bring them up here without discussing them at one of those places first. For all four of these problems, I think Mikkalai's current system would work to allow such actions, if inappropriate, to be reverted. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I've changed my vote on the main RfAr page to declining the case for now because it seems that some progress is being made, and in light of the factors mentioned by a number of users. If the problems recur or continue, then a new request for arbitration can be filed, but I truly hope this will not become necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
That was why I elaborated what I felt the issues were. Since the arbs were saying they were basing accepting on the allegations of admin abuse, and someone had pointed out that the blocking feature already provides a form of notification, I figured I should list what I believed were the improper actions, so no one would claim I exaggerated to get the case accepted. MBisanztalk 21:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
A proposal - Matthew Hoffman solution
Seeing as the Arbitration Committee has decided to abandon the Highways case (a shame, really) would they be open to suspending the case for 30 days so that a formal mediation can take place? If the mediation fails, then the case can be resumed. --Rschen7754 (TC) 01:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I would not hold up Matthew Hoffman as a case worthy of emulation. It was a mess from start to finish. JehochmanTalk 01:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Some editors disagree. I think that case was handled very well under the circumstances. —Whig (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
It was messier than it should have needed to be. I think Vanished User missed several chances to keep it relatively neat. Heck, we didn't even need a case, IMO, but Vanished User also managed to make it sound as though there was still a dispute between admins before the case was even filed. Had he not done that, there would never have been a case. GRBerry 02:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This is the case, in my opinion. Vanished User set the pace of the proceeding and the result. —Whig (talk) 02:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Well I'm only suggesting a case suspension and a formal mediation. Not anything else from that case. --Rschen7754 (TC) 03:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Could the committee please respond? --Rschen7754 (TC) 06:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I preface this statement by noting that I have zero knowledge of the Highways case, but plenty of knowledge of Matthew Hoffman. If the Committee were to allow a suspension for mediation (or anything else), Rschen7754, you should ask for some sort of undertaking that they will the slightest bit of attention to the results. After all, the MH precedent is allow the community time to put forward a view and if it shows that the community believes that the case is going in completely the wrong direction, then ignore them and keep going. EdChem (talk) 09:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
It also shows that failure to work with the Arbitration Committee, and failure to accept the best of a bad situation, doesn't really help. There is a danger here that a myth will be started that Arbcom were completely in the wrong in the MatthewHoffman case, when in fact they did several things to try and fix or improve the situation, and several reasonable solutions were offered, but for various reasons things spiralled out of control. That arbitration case going out of control was due to many factors, not all of which were under the control of the Arbcom or the community. That's my reading of what happened there. Carcharoth (talk) 10:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Out of respect for Newyorkbrad, I'm not going to comment further on the MH case here. EdChem (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I was planning to take a close look at the Highways case (which has indeed dragged on too long) this weekend and make some proposals. If editors feel that mediation wouild be as or more likely to bring about progress, then a proposal to that effect on workshop with widespread support would lead me to a motion to that effect instead. Let's not post-mortem the Matthew Hoffman case, which was a very different type of case, in this largely unrelated context. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd prefer for the Arbitration Committee to review the case instead. However, as the motion for dismissal is gaining support, I figured that the mediation would be a better alternative to the case being dismissed. Thank you for your willingness to continually update us as to the progress of the case. --Rschen7754 (TC) 01:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Questions for the Arbitration Committee
In the recently dismissed application of "Linguistic/Cultural Bias Towards United States in the article "Hacker", I specifically asked three questions be answered with regard to how English Wikipedia is governed and policy is enforced by people such as the Arbitration Committee. Seeing as the entire post has been deleted, I repeat the three questions here:
1) In terms of content, is English Wikipedia considered to be a vehicle for documenting the United States, or for documenting the entire English-speaking world?
2) Does the removal of a {{globalize}} with the reason of "spam", or non-US editors being told to "fuck off" when voicing their opinions just because they don't conform to the majority of the US editors already present, constitute a content problem?
Question (1) was not answered. Question (2) was directly answered as "Yes, we do think it's a content problem" as all ArbCom members who commented stated the same thing unanimously (as opposed to there being a problem of prejudice, racism, or intimidation, as claimed by me the filing party). Question (3) was not answered.
This is an important issue and requires a formal statement. Should ArbCom be made up of (and this seems exceptionally likely) people predominantly from the United States, how do the hundreds of millions of native non-US English readers actually know that their articles are monitored by people who know their culture and therefore are able to neutrally determine that bias is, or is not, actually occurring?
So, again, I am politely asking for anwers to questions (1) and (3).
By my reckoning six out of the 15 arbitrators are British, and two of the remainder are not Americans, so only a minority are from the US. However, please be aware that the Arbitration committee does a very specific job and it does not include decisions about content. They are handled by the whole community collectively, under the 'five pillars' fundamental policies. As an observation, not everyone seems to have accepted that your interpretation about British usage of the word 'hacker' is a fair representation of the actual usage and interpretation. Guidance on the form of English to be used in articles is given in Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. Some disputes over British vs. American spellings have ended up in the list of lamest edit wars. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
is English Wikipedia considered to be a vehicle for documenting the United States, or for documenting the entire English-speaking world? The English language Wikipedia aims to have useful claims backed by reliable sources on as many topics as we can manage.
Does the removal of a {{globalize}} with the reason of "spam", or non-US editors being told to "fuck off" when voicing their opinions just because they don't conform to the majority of the US editors already present, constitute a content problem? Sometimes.
How does Wikipedia guarantee that the content of other English-speaking countries, and non-IT people who don't edit on this system, makes it into articles when those kinds of editors are not present in the system in nearly as heavy numbers as the United States IT/Academia-related editors? Who actually enforces policies like Naming Conventions, Neutrality, and "Not a Democracy"? There is no guarantee. Anyone who wishes to try to enforce our policies and guidelines, or change them, is allowed to try. It is useful to gain consensus, find allies, give convincing arguments, and contribute to Wikipedia in other ways if you intend to be successful in doing this; because just as anyone can make an edit, anyone can revert. You don't have to be an admin. You do have to work well with others.
Should ArbCom be made up of (and this seems exceptionally likely) people predominantly from the United States No.
how do the hundreds of millions of native non-US English readers actually know that their articles are monitored by people who know their culture and therefore are able to neutrally determine that bias is, or is not, actually occurring? They can't know, anymore than they can know that is true of the New York Times or Britannica. WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your responses. I must stress that when I asked these questions I wasn't asking about whether there is a "British contingent" on the committee or not; they were general questions aimed at establishing how Wikipedia can justify maintaining its highly respected international reputation for neutrality and self-governance. My observations are as follows:
"There is no guarantee. Anyone who wishes to try to enforce our policies and guidelines, or change them, is allowed to try." Given that there is no guarantee that the policies within the system are actually enforced by anybody, it is down to the editors themselves to adhere to the policy out of their own sense of obligation. Therefore, whether you can work well with others or not, should the majority of editors on a single article all not share that obligation, then consensus may be used to enforce any kind of content, regardless of what is actually going on in the world. Furthermore, there are no safeguards (over and above more editors from opposing viewpoints joining the system) for making sure that this situation doesn't happen.
"The English language Wikipedia aims to have useful claims backed by reliable sources on as many topics as we can manage.". It appears to me that Wikipedia is now unable to manage the neutrality of its English language content any more, and so should maybe change its name from "English" Wikipedia to something else. I can say this because no system that can manage its content would force a person to give up four months of their life (longer, actually, as ArbCom said that editors should return to lower-level mediation) to argue about something which, in their own country, is widely accepted. Requiring people to go through that kind of upheaval for the sake of documenting something which they don't have to argue about in their own country is a serious failing of the system.
"it is useful to gain consensus, find allies, give convincing arguments, and contribute to Wikipedia in other ways if you intend to be successful in doing this.". The most important part of that response for me is that consensus, and allies, should be found from among the majority of people currently outside of the system. The more people from outside the system who know how the system works, the more there will be who can potentially join, and the more editors there will be to ensure the neutrality of the system.
"They can't know, anymore than they can know that is true of the New York Times or Britannica." The New York Times is a US publication so people from all over the world know it is is a US-only publication so they know to caution all content within as being US-biased. This is of course correct, but question (3) wasn't about whether a publication with a specific national audience has to be neutral with respect to other countries. The question was about how Wikipedia, a service which specifically reaches out to an international audience, makes sure it actually is a neutral repository of information from the entire English-speaking world. Whether the predominantly IT-based people within Wikipedia think an interpretation is "fair" or not is not really the issue; the issue is about the fact that when it comes to documenting information, everything is what it is. It's that simple. Question (3) was about whether Wikipedia's administrators have the ability to apply the "everything is what it is" mentality over and above their own beliefs regardless of which country or industrial sector they are from. For example, Oxford University Press in the UK, Mirriam-Webster in the US, make it their business to make sure that their publications document what is and what isn't from the view of everybody (not an IT-based minority) within whichever region is being documented, which is why they are the most solidly verifiable sources in existence. It appears in some casees that documentation of "it is what it is" has all but been forgotten.
Wikipedia's biggest intended (and actual) audience is non-IT people who make up the majority of the English speaking world and teachers and local governments around the world are clammering to use it. As Wikpedia editors, though, all these people are effectively eunuchs as they don't know how to login to a computer system, mark-up a page, use a version control system, and effectively argue against professionals who spend their entire waking lives doing just that in chatrooms, bulletin boards and on academic networks. Ordinary people may not have the time to contribute, or employment/other local restrictions may prevent it. However, every single one of those people is a contributor to their communities and their culture, and so guarantees must exist to ensure that everybody can be documented neutrally within the system should Wikipedia actually be aspiring to be such a service in the first place. I (and indeed, everyone in the world) assumes that Wikipedia is aspiring to be such a service, and that these guarantees already exist, but your statements say that they do not and this misunderstanding ought to be corrected within the community at large outside of the system.
Any kind of system that relies on consensus is a democracy. Consensus and Democracy go hand in hand; you can't have one without the other. If Wikipedia is not a democracy then it should be possible for a single editor to still (with appropriate sources) override the majority simply because that editor is documenting "it is what it is". Being able to "convince" has virtually nothing to do with a single person's reasoning skills and virtually everything to do with whether the people listening want to accept what is being said. People can ignore anything they like, even if it's right, is actually happening, and is documented and believed as such by hundreds of millions of people. Therefore, being able to "convince" is a fairly ineffective and difficult tool to use given the ease with which a big stick like "consensus" can be wielded. This leads me to conclude that, given the deliberate omission of overall control in the system, Wikipedia's core policies are contradicting each other and it is affecting actual content correctness. I don't have enough time on this earth to be checking (and possibly arguing about) the 2,000,000 or so articles currently in English Wikipedia and devoting up to four months of my life fixing each article. That would take up to 700,000 years. But then one person shouldn't have to do the work that a system expects an entire nation to be doing. A system that claims to be aimed at everybody should not be prohibitively difficult to edit (and therefore inaccessible) to the majority of its own audience. However, if that is the reality, then such a system should have enforceable controls in place to make sure that the entire system can be fixed at least within the lifetime of most human beings.
This concludes my observations, and my questions with regard to this thread. I thank you all for your time.
Wikipedia is not dominated by IT people. I'm not sure what caused you to come to this conclusion, but as far as I am aware there is no data or anecdotal evidence to suggest that most contributors come from an IT background. Wikipedia is not difficult to edit. It requires a basic familiarity with web browsing, and not too much more beyond that. That would be why many millions of contributors have edited - far more, I suspect, than you will find in the IT community of the English speaking world.
There are no guarantees on content, nor could there be while still maintaining the principle of an "encyclopedia anyone can edit."
If you find that there is a problem with an article, then engage in fixing it. You may run into opposition. Since your opinions do not dominate, it is incumbent upon you to convince others to adopt your point of view. If you fail to do so, it does not point up an inherent problem in the concept of "convincing" (though there may be many). It simply means that there are those who disagree with your view of "what is is." If you can't see that content is more complex than "it is what it is" then you are missing more than anyone here can explain to you. No one required you to spend four months fruitlessly arguing that "Hacker" should be used in a particular manner, or based on a particular definition with which you are familiar. You complain that you should not have to convince others of a fact which is simply accepted in your country, and yet this mindset is ironically exactly what you seem to rail against.
Finally, while we appreciate your contributions you must know that while Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone is free to edit, it is also the encyclopedia anyone is free to not edit. It is not uncommon for editors to take issues of WIkipedia content far more seriously than is perhaps advisable. This seems to be the case here, and perhaps you should take some time away and return to Wikipedia with a new perspective. We recognize that there is an issue of system bias, and that the prevalence of editors from a small number of cultures can introduce problems of perspective in our content. You are welcome to join us in combating this problem, but its existence is human nature and a product of reality and not our great failure. Avruch T 00:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is not dominated by IT people" According to the Systemic Bias project within Wikipedia, which was based on actual research, "The average Wikipedian on English Wikipedia is (1) a man, (2) technically inclined...". Seeing as this is a computer system, and not (1) a mechanical based system involving gears, pulleys, or any kind of automotive component, or (2) a biochemical system containing elements such as gasses or liquids or any geneticly-derived material, the phrase "technically inclined" can be reasonably asserted to mean "those with technical knowledge about, or connected with, computers", or more simply put, IT-familiar or IT-industry related people.
While Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone is free to edit, it is also the encyclopedia anyone is free to not edit That is perfectly true, providing that the equal and opposite message is actively promoted amongst its readers. That is, that readers are free to accept or not to accept information that appears due to the fact that editors may all come from one region and so can bias or influence any and all information that appears on it. Readers cannot make a proper choice to ignore content on Wikipedia if they are not made aware of the choice in the first place. And seeing as I see no such cautionary note on the front page of Wikipedia it can be reasonably argued that the desperate situation that exists with a lack of editors is not being transmitted to the readers. As Wikipedia actively promotes itself into schools and local government, children around the world are allowed (or are actively promoted) to use Wikipedia instead of consulting local works. If you already have children, or choose to have children in the future, I am sure one of your primary concerns is making sure that what they learn at school is in line with what you, as a parent, think is best for your child. Teachers who implicitly trust Wikipedia are using it to teach our children something that really could have no bearing on what goes on in the area of the world where we live simply because of the bias created by editors of the system, and the system itself supporting such bias. While you as a parent have a choice then you can always correct anything your child learns once you have an opportunity. However, should usage of information on Wikipedia become government educational policy (e.g. exam moderators being allowed to consult Wikipedia to check "university entrance" exam responses), your right to teach your child whatever you like will effectively disappear as they will have to answer questions on exam papers in a way that corresponds to what appears on Wikipedia. And you will then have to implicitly trust that Wikipedia delivers the neutrality and balanced information that its policies were designed to deliver, regardless of what you actually want to teach your children about the environment in which they are raised and grow up in. Within this context, do you think that anybody is free "not to edit"?
You may think that the information on Wikipedia may reflect your particular environment, and reflects the culture that you wish to instil into your children, but are you really sure? The only way to be sure is to check all 2,200,000 articles which would take up to 700,000 years (as I said). Of course, you don't have to check them all, but then you only have yourself (and human nature) to blame if United States educational policy (for example) advocates use of Wikipedia and your child is being force-fed (for example) United Kingdom culture because the bias in certain articles wasn't able to be fixed.
This is why I said that Wikipedia has potentially already become a system that cannot control itself. However, it isn't necessary to control the system if readers are armed with choice, and are made aware of having that choice in the first place. If my efforts within the system to simply document what goes on in my country are meeting with such opposition from other editors within the system, then perhaps I should take a break and devote my time to making readers in my country aware of how content is constructed, thus empowering them with the choice of whether to accept information regarding things that they generally turned to Wikipedia in the first place to find out about. Seeing as such people would be coming from my community, I wouldn't have nearly as much trouble relating my thoughts due to the "lack of skill" in being able to "convince" people that has been remarked upon in my dealings with other editors within the system.
I don't know any teachers, and haven't heard of any, who "implicitly trust Wikipedia." Quite the opposite, in fact. I think we are far, far away from the point where entrance exams are based on or checked against Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't gospel - its words are not revelatory, and anyone is free to ignore anything on any article. You are making the argument that because some people won't think to take something written on the encyclopedia anyone can edit with a grain of salt, we should post giant disclaimers on every page saying "CAREFUL, AMERICANS MAY HAVE WRITTEN THIS!" Sorry, no - this is a free to edit website. Parsing it further, it is (a) free, (b) editable by anyone and (c) a website. Any one of these three things by themselves typically clue folks in regarding reliability. That you or others lack this clue perhaps points out a problem with your pre-Wikipedia education system, not Wikipedia. Coming from my biased, American and IT-related background perhaps I have an advantage in this area - but nothing on or related to Wikipedia has anything to do with the "culture I want instilled in my children" - except, perhaps, the principle of freedom that you are implicitly arguing against.
Regarding technically inclined and my dispute of your assertion that Wikipedians are generally or universally members of the IT-community - the research you refer to is a single survey from 3 years ago on the German Wikipedia. Attempting to apply broad conclusions from this research to English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project, 3 years later, is doomed to fail. Arguments for controls and sweeping changes to inculcate some sort of objective truth should be based on an accurate reading of the research you cite.
You don't address my point specific to your complaint (the Hacker article). You say that you shouldn't have to spend 4 months arguing to have an article reflect what is commonly accepted in your country, and I am telling you that this point of view is exactly why you have lost that crusade. Further, you appear to be criticizing that position and taking it at the same time.
Take a look at WP:DEADLINE. The policies here aren't "designed to deliver" Wikipedia as if it were a finished product on an assembly line. They are ad-hoc (but well thought out) attempts to add to and improve upon our content over time, a task that will not result in a perfect product anytime soon if ever. Feel free to read Britannica or some other reference in the mean time, only Wikipedia is subject to the biases we've identified here. Avruch T 15:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Response by Coppertwig
Not a member of the arbcom, but I would like to comment on this question: "In terms of content, is English Wikipedia considered to be a vehicle for documenting the United States, or for documenting the entire English-speaking world?" My answer: No. English Wikipedia is for documenting everything that is notable. It is not restricted to topics in the English-speaking world nor to topics supported by English-language sources, and certainly not restricted to topics in the United States. The English language is merely the medium in which the documentation is expressed, not an indication of what topics will be covered. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Response by Andrew81446
Response to Avruch: I have some things here that will help you understand the world of teaching that you openly confess - rather shockingly, given the weight which you give your subsequence points - not to know anything about: see this history teacher in a UK school. You'll notice he asks a very pertinent question in fact:
I don't know how they deal with differing interpretations though - it will be interesting to find out.
Well, I personally shall be emailing him to tell him exactly how Wikipedia deals with differing interpretations: by being shouted down, intimidated, and generally being worn out to the point (in most cases) of being forced to give up by a very vociferous predomimantly US-based community who exercise consensus to get what they want. You think my analsys of my experience is unfair? Have you read the entire archived history on the Hacker (computing) article? By the way, he also makes a reference to the article Hutton Inquiry. Such UK-only institutions of course are not going to invite a lot of outside contributions. However, even given that, the (I assume) predominantly United Kingdom contributors made sure that the article was disambiguated from the start, to prevent all readers from outside of the United Kingdom, English-speaking and non-English-speaking, from thinking that there is a Hutton Inquiry in every English-speaking country. It begs the question why is it that United States contributors cannot do the same thing with regards to their articles.
Incidentally, if you think that my appraisal of "glossy" and "wholesome" is incorrect then maybe you should read this (BBC, 7th December, 2007) from Mr. Wikipedia himself, Jimmy Wales. Of course, not everybody agrees with him and Wikipedia's Co-Founder Larry Sanger actually criticised the United Kingdom Education Minister (United Kingdom: The Times, April 11th, 2007) for encouraging national education policy to accept Wikipedia given the bias that is known to exist within it. People outside of the UK (e.g. the United States) may not know about these events that happened just mid- to late last year but then, as I have been advocating on the "Hacker" article talk pages, people rarely talk about, or care about, things that don't concern them. However, that itself does not mean such things do not exist or are wrong. Read the twoarticles as they are very important.
Wikipedia's Founder openly derides teachers, in a country which he doesn't live in or contribute to, who actually teach your "take it with a grain of salt" principle to the students. If there was ever an attitude of arrogance and disrespect for another country's culture then that was it. And coming from the very top of the Wikipedia instution. It seems that even though he has officially delegated respsonibilities to ArbCOM, his arrogance appears to be living on within the system through its editors. So yes, the effects of protagonists like Jimmy Wales require exceptional solutions and your idea that a warning that "CAREFUL, AMERICANS MAY HAVE WRITTEN THIS!" is actually a very good, if not a little extreme, as that would be documenting the current situation with regards to the ratio's of editors. However, that is not actually necessary as simple disambiguations in well positioned places within the articles (like that in the article Hutton Inquiry) would make all the difference. You can see for yourself what I am talking about by comparing the opening paragraphs of this (disambiguations inserted) with this (no disambiguations).
From my experience, the only thing that all Wikipedia editors have in common is that they are afraid to actually document "as it is". You, as an editor, may have the right approach, but I can dig up thousands of teachers like the one quoted above who implicitly just trust that it correctly governs itself. Unfortunately, it takes an exremist to bring light to a problem which, as I found out, can often damage credibility. However, readers of Wikipedia are not currently aware of the real situation, nor of the real "grain of salt" thinking some (yes, some, not all) of Wikipedia's editors, and that is a fact that needs to be addressed. People inside Wikipedia may not like to believe it, but the situation I talk of is already happening and is much closer than you think and people have a right to know.
As I said before, this situation could, and probably will apply to other countries as well. In the future, for example, should any United States student refer to soccer instead of Football they could be marked down in an exam. I can't speculate about how normal, everyday United States citizens, who don't use computers and don't know much about editing Wikipedia, may feel about having their traditional game renamed because of a Wikipedia article, but it is an example of the kind of anger and sentiment that such a progression will inevitably lead to should English Wikipedia not fix its deep-rooted problems now.
The above is a long comment that doesn't actually address what I've written, so I wouldn't really call it a response. I have no intention at this point of engaging further in this rather fruitless debate. Avruch T 15:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I guess I see this as addressing a few issues. First of all, the question of regional bias. I'm an active Australian editor and spend a large amount of my time on Wikipedia writing or editing articles on Australian topics using Australian sources. Our "bit" of Wikipedia, with about 44,000 articles and about 2% of Wikipedia's total content (see WP:AUS), functions almost like its own entity at times, with some even going to the extent of criticising us as being a cabal. Most of our problems (where they exist) come from local editors and local differences of opinion, rather than any sort of systemic anti-Australian bias. More recently, we've been working with smaller nearby nations with little or no representation on Wikipedia (and often with relatively poor access to the Internet and technology) to enhance their coverage. (Most of these things apply equally to most regional projects - Canada, New Zealand and India all come to mind.) While on general topics, due simply to the weight of American editors, one may find some level of undue weighting (not so much bias, as in general the articles in question are fairly neutral but lack scope), this should be addressed by more people editing them. As for ArbCom, the current mix has one North African, several Americans, several Brits and I believe two Australians at the present.
Secondly, to the IT/technical bias. While I plead guilty as charged as an IT-literate person, graduate and former IT worker, many of my fellow editors are subject editors and relatively non-technical, including people with several Featured Articles, the "pinnacle" of Wikipedia achievement. Obviously through use, one acquires a level of comprehension and familiarity, but anyone who can master APA or some other citation system for academic work can master our citation system, and it's pretty much the only complex issue one will ever come across. Wikipedia is packed full of people eager to teach others, run workshops, and of course there's all the links from the typical (and ever more colourful) welcome messages for new editors. Once one knows the basic policies (WP:5), that [[ is an internal link, [ is an external link, the heading levels, bold/italic, that {{ means the page is in the template namespace, how to plant an image, interwiki links and the citation templates, one could write a featured article with those alone and it may not even be necessary to learn more.
And finally, as an educator myself, to the reliability of Wikipedia - I think most educators acknowledge that Wikipedia is a tertiary source and can be unreliable. It is useful as a general guide and pointer, but many topics are not covered, some are inadequately, others have what we might call issues of various characters, while others are excellent, are written by subject experts from good sources and could be regarded as reasonably reliable. On many major and especially historical and scientific topics I generally find the latter case predominates - the only problem can sometimes be that the level of the article is pitched way above the processing level of my students! I am studying Politics at university and our unit guide has a clear warning about using Wikipedia as a source. Orderinchaos 15:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Inactive Arb removal process
Around the last election, Jimbo encouraged the community (IIRC) to develop a method for removing inactive Arbitrators between elections. I don't know if this has been discussed and resolved already, if it has can someone point me to where? If it is still unresolved, it seems like now is the perfect time to bring this problem to a close. All Arbitrators are currently active, and any decision on future inactive Arbitrators will not be seen as directed at a particular member of the Committee. Additionally, of course, any decision that requires the assent of the Committee on its own constitution will have the benefit of a majority of the entire panel rather than a subset of those who are active. Thanks, Avruch T 00:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
This was being discussed internally by the committee, and I had circulated a draft proposal, but no conclusion has been reached. I agree that the matter should be discussed now when it is hypothetical, rather than later on in the context of a specific arbitrator who encounters availability problems. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Would you be willing to publicize this proposal? And for clarification on how to proceed, would you say that this issue will be decided by a consensus of the Committee or a consensus of the community, including the Committee members as individuals? I'm not too bothered by it as no action has been taken, but I'm not sure a private discussion about a community policy is necessarily the best choice. Avruch T 00:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
It was part of Jimbo's instruction when appointing the new arbitrators that we formulate such a policy. If I remember correctly it was the arbitrators who were instructed to come up with something workable; remember that the Arbitration Policy is not under the control of the community. The new arbitrators needed to settle in and there were some very intense and difficult discussions which have taken a great deal of time. I personally feel that a simple process is the best. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thank you for the clarification. I've been peripherally involved in both intensely difficult cases, so I can understand the delay. I agree, too, that the process should be as simple and straightforward as possible. Avruch T 01:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing inherently confidential about the inactivity policy (though there could conceivably be a private reason for temporary inactivity of a particular arbitrator), so I'd have no problem posting a proposal here, subject to what my colleages have to say about the matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Any progress on publicizing this draft, or progress as far as consensus on the draft itself? Avruch T 15:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Trusted Users
I see the phrase bandied about (now in the Betacommand RfArb) but I can't find any reference to what it means, except for a failed proposal WP:Trusted Users that doesn't seem to have meant how the term is used anyhow. Is there a reference to who these people are? Jd2718 (talk) 13:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The phrase has no special meaning here beyond its ordinary English meaning. --bainer (talk) 13:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
In proper context, a "Trusted user" is someone that I am will to trust enough to give my bot code to. βcommand 15:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see why standards of trust are being set for this Bot; granted, it can be misued—but surely anybody with intentions malicious enough to facilitate their disruption of Wikipedia with bot code would have enough determination to go out and author code themselves? AGK (contact) 15:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I dont like handing code that can edit at 700 edits a minute to very vandal who wants it. βcommand 16:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
BC, you know as well as I do that speed of editing is simply a number entered in the code. Your code isn't top-secret for that reason, it's top-secret because you want it to be for some reason. And that's fine, apparently, as no one with the authority to do so is forcing you to open it up to community improvement. BellwetherBC 23:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The connection between BC's "trusted users" and any other policy or convention is irrelevant, its simply the personal standard under which he'll release his code. I don't believe he can be forced to do that, so debating his standards seems to be not worth the time. Avruch T 16:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
So maybe the better phrase than "trusted users" would be "users I trust"? Franamax (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Arbitrators, please tidy up
The rather-inexplicable Episodes 2 case has had a majority on all its passing items for some time. Yet the case lingers open like a festering wound. For some reason, even the most recent two arbitrators to vote have neglected to vote thence to close. Since the injunction is already out of the jurisdiction of the committee (you are not invited, imo, to inject yourselves sweepingly into consensual processes), has been hanging around for ages and continues to bite unsuspecting editors who probably aren't aware of the speakings of the committee, please would someone get this thing tidied up? Splash - tk 22:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I should point out that there might be further findings or remedies presently being discussed amongst the arbitrators, and that is why even the voters may not have yet chosen to vote to close. Currently, there are three net votes to close (the opposition comes from an arbitrator that specifically asked to be given more time to consider further possible evidence). The case should close fairly soon, you'll probably just need a bit more patience. — Coren(talk) 23:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
A couple of us have been discussing whether any more proposals should be made. Editors on the case have expressed the view that the committee has not done enough to address the issues, and we want to make sure that we have done all we can, without crossing the line into making content rulings (please see the comments I left last week on the talkpage of proposed decision). I will withdraw my opposition to closing and put the case into closing immediately unless an arbitrator offers some substantial new proposals in a day or so. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
If you do decide that further items are going to be considered, please simultaneously consider fixing the injunction which is causing actual problems on AfD and DRV, where it is questionable if the committee may even speak (they are consensual content venues). Poor decisions cannot be reversed, and good ones cannot be made; housekeeping cannot proceed and debates around the questions are stifled. Most of us have never misbehaved wrt to 'episodes and characters' and to summarily injunct every editor is rather extraordinary. This has been raised a number of times on the proposed decision's talk page by several different editors and admins, but not so far dealt with. I fear the injunction is approaching, or already past, its sell-by date, and is likely to find itself disposed of by being ignored by most of us before very much longer. Allow the case to linger if you must, but please either dispense with the injunction, or scope it to the parties to the case. Splash - tk 23:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
That's a fair point. If the case isn't closed tomorrow, I'll make an appropriate motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's been closed now. Daniel (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: Comments by Locke Cole (BetacommandBot RfArb)
Threaded discussion removed to talk page from here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
No, you should read WP:SOCK, that's an interesting page. His secondary account is a legitimate use of a secondary account.He is definitely not using his second account to give a false sense of greater support of his views, or stir up controversy. -- lucasbfrtalk 23:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
His actions are a direct violation of WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY. Special:Contributions becomes unusable when you have an editor partaking in identical discussions from multiple accounts. See also User:Betacommand2, where he suggests ("this is my Test & VandalProof account") this doppelgänger account is only for test purposes (but a quick perusal of the contributions indicates otherwise). —Locke Cole • t • c 23:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Wikipedia:SOCK#SCRUTINY states clearly that "Using alternative puppet accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors cannot detect patterns in your contributions." I've been confused more than once by this, and though I now know to look out for whether he is editing using Betacommand or Betacommand2, it is probable that others have been confused by this as well. Carcharoth (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
You are both overlooking Wikipedia:SOCK#Segregation_and_security, account security is a good reason for using an alternate account. That's the reason why many admins have an alternate account (javascript issues, as I think is the case here, would be an other valid explanation). Perhaps you should ask Betacommand to update his user page instead of assuming he is doing so in order to escape scrutinity. -- lucasbfrtalk 00:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
He hasn't stated that the account is being used for segregation and security; as per the user page, it is for "testing and vandalproof". Again, this is a clear cut violation of WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY; his contributions are being split between two accounts without even an attempt at a valid reason for doing so. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I've asked Betacommand here. This threaded conversation really should stop here and now, as such threaded conversation is frowned upon. If neither of you two objects, I will move this to the RFARB talk page (and link to it from here). Carcharoth (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
End quote. Further discussion should be added below. Carcharoth (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Come on Locke will your trolling never end? how am I deceive anyone I redirected the talkpage to my main account. that is anything from deceptive. I have never denied that I use the alt account. WP:SOCK#LEGIT covers it fairly well there are tech reasons that I dont use my main account at times, and a little bit of the security also. βcommand 00:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Three points. (1) Locke is not trolling. (2) People are being confused by this - they are looking for edits they remember you making, but are looking under the wrong account. (3) You should update User:Betacommand2 to state that there are technical and security reasons that you sometimes contribute to discussions using this account (ie. it is more than just a test and VandalProof account). There is no way to avoid (2) if you have security or technical reasons for using the alternate account, but it would be good if you could minimise the use of the alternate account and thus minimise any confusion it causes (eg. someone trying to find some diff where you stated something about some phase 4 stuff, but forgetting to look under the Betacommand2 account). Carcharoth (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Further incivility (referring to my concerns as "trolling") noted at my RFArb comments. At any rate, posting from a sockpuppet account in the manner you have been (alternating back and forth) makes using Special:Contributions nearly worthless when trying to find when you said something. I also wonder if there really are legitimate reasons for using a 2nd account in this manner, as it really only leads to confusion by other editors/the community. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
This seems unnecessary and not really appropriate for this page (although mea culpa, I got the same pointer above). If the case is accepted, which it seems like it might not be, you can snipe at eachother where the sniping is usually done - WP:RfAr/BetacommandBot/Workshop. There is a reason RfAr is structured the way it is, without threaded discussion between parties - the point where something will be resolved by further arguing has been passed, according to those advocating the case's acceptance. Unless you for some reason think the back and forth is going to be constructive, you should leave off and let the process work itself out. Avruch T 01:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for moving it, I apologize for starting the discussion, Locke's assertion just seemed too crazy at first glance. I understand his concerns better now (even if I strongly disagree with him). -- lucasbfrtalk 10:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Suggestion regarding the appeal of community sanctions
Editors who are subject to a community sanction established by a discussion at WP:AN are entitled to appeal to the Arbitration Committee. It seems overly bureaucratic to start a case for a simple appeal. I think it would be better if any editor in that situation could file an appeal at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Clarifications and other requests. This would allow for an expedited review that would either 1/ endorse the community decision, 2/ overturn the decision, or 3/ establish the need for a full blown arbitration case. If this makes sense, can this process be recorded in the section header, and perhaps also at Wikipedia:Community sanction. JehochmanTalk 01:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Jehochman that a low-bureaucracy approach is desirable, but suggest that the present proposal needs some careful consideration. For example, is the function of this review to consider whether the community decision was made appropriately (consensus reached, etc), or to review of all the evidence? If the latter, will this review take in only the evidence cited in the community decision, or also the evidence that editors contributing to that discussion would have submitted had a full ArbCom case been necessary? If the 'appeal' can be decided with an overturn decision, but there is no prospect of the sanction being increased (as would be possible in a full case, and is arguably justified in the case which prompts Jehochman's question), isn't there a risk that every community sanction will be appealled? The Committee's present direction in MM seems likely to be followed by community sanctions of some sort shortly after its closure; there is argument around that case about whether community action should be taken in place of ArbCom proceedings. That being the case, the provisions implemented could well be seen as encouraging or discouraging community sanctions being imposed. It is also worth considering whether the endorsement or overturning of a community sanction in this way would prejudice a full case being requested by dissatisfied editors. I am unsure how these issues should be resolved, but do believe that there are issues here requiring some careful consideration of procedure and (more importantly) potential outcomes going forward. Jay*Jay (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I think expedited review would involve reading the community discussion thread and making a determination as to whether the process was fair, and whether the decision accurately reflected the consensus, in which case the appeal can be rejected. If process was not fair or if there was no proper consensus, the sanction can be overturned, and then it is up to the community to either redo the discussion properly, or file a request for arbitration. JehochmanTalk 02:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a high disruption cost to a process whereby an editor that was of concern enough to be community banned, having the ban overturned by Arbcom in order that the community may then debate whether to refile for an extended duration arbitration case against the unbanned-but-doubtful user instead.
It would be much better that Arbcom would determine either the ban was incorrect or unlikely to be reasonable, and remit it to the community to reconsider, or that it was likely to be well founded, or that a full case would be needed to fairly evaluate it. In each case, given the community performed the ban, unless it is manifestly unfair in the view of the committee, my preference would be some approach involving a decision, that was in most cases (if a basis of concern existed) then remitted back to the community to discuss what next. If Arbcom say "the ban is a concern for reasons XYZ", I'd much rather the community debated it, and I would normally trust them to do so taking the extra views into account, given that the "heat" will have significantly dissipated in many cases. FT2(Talk | email) 02:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
That makes sense. Shall we try a test case, or do you want to discuss this amongst yourselves for a while? JehochmanTalk 02:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
What's needed is something in between the very quick and rough "justice" of an ANI discussion and the formal involvement of ArbComm. Mediation? I started to follow a recent case and was disturbed to see what was far from a sober consideration of the issues. ANI is "hot." Most who follow it have little patience for a detailed exploration of the situation, and so snap judgments can be made. Charges and countercharges fly, and are never examined in detail and resolved, so, for example, we don't know of sanctions are resulting from false charges. I think we need to treat these incidents somewhat as we might an article. A case page should be built and should follow NPOV standards. Opinions should be stated as attributed opinions. There should be "findings" that have consensus. Talk for this page would be where editors can rave, within normal rules of civility and AGF, but the project page would summarize it and focus it and find consensus, if it can be found, or report the varieties of opinion, if consensus can't be found. In some cases, ArbComm might be able to take such a page and simply bless it. Or tweak it. The difference between this and ANI is that ANI is over very quickly, and may establish what ArbComm considers "temporary injunctions." I.e., bans or blocks can be imposed, pending further process, if any. The difference with ArbComm is that ArbComm is binding, by precedent, not all cases are accepted, and there is a formal body making decisions by vote. This intermediate process would be similar to article or project process. So many times I have seen editors make claims, say, on ANI, that they would immediately recognize as POV with an article, imputations of bad faith without clear evidence, unsourced and unsubstantiated opinion. And redundant. There is a basic rule of parliamentary procedure that ArbComm follows, but the rest of Wikipedia decision process does not: voting on a question doesn't take place until the question is clear and settled. Voting doesn't start until the evidence -- form all involved parties -- has been presented. With so many processes, a nominator makes a proposal, and then editors comment with their !votes, and at the same time present new evidence, etc. It's backwards. Yes, it starts with a "motion" (and really there should be a second, someone willing to stand up and support dispute resolution for the case at hand, taking responsibility for not supporting a frivolous appeal), and then collection and presentation of evidence, and it is this part which should be NPOV. At any time, the proposed action can be amended, and, if necessary, polling would take place on the amendment; in the end, though, it should be a single proposed outcome that is voted on. As with all Wikipedia process short of ArbComm, votes aren't binding.... In what I'm suggesting here, though, they would indeed be votes. The argument part preceded them, so what is left at the end is pure vote. It still doesn't bind, but measures consensus, at least among the community of those participating. --Abd (talk) 03:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
We have a variety of methods available for hearing requests, from full cases to reviews by email correspondence, and we can select whichever method best suits the situation. A full case may be immediately useful to allow for maximal input from the community, for example. --bainer (talk) 08:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Enforcement requests
As the person who initiated the arbcom case I strongly agree with Thatcher and think it is essential that it is the arbcom enforcers who deal with the case rather than admins who have been involved in the Troubles squabbles since way back when. Thanks, SqueakBox
If you do, get ready for a flood of neverending AE cases. It was set up because we were the only folks willing to give a damn to try to keep this thing in bounds and because the usual suspects were running to us anyway. If AE wants to take it off our hands, well, not quite "good riddance to bad rubbish", but I'm glad someone else will be dealing with them. SirFozzie 128.222.37.20 (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Let me emphasize that it is not my intent to "take things off your hands" but to put these requests in the same place with the rest so they will attract a wider admin attention. Any admin uninvolved in the case is still welcome to patrol WP:AE and act on these and/or any other enforcement matters. I have been the most active admin at WP:AE (up to a month ago maybe, and boy do I appreciate the help) and do not recall any Troubles related requests that were made there and ignored, and I certainly never knew about this subpage before. (If previous requests were ignored, I apologize.) Second, there is no particular reason to tolerate extensive argument on enforcement matters. (See the page header there.) The case is decided; reports can be evaluated with reasonable input from the complaining editor and the subject of the complaint, and then acted on. We (I at least) try to treat it a bit more matter-of-fact like WP:3RR, no need or desire to refight the entire arb case again. In any event, past efforts are most appreciated, and please drop by WP:AE if you want to help out. Thatcher 22:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Reading through Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles, the remedies appear unnecessarily complicated. Reckon we'd be better off with jolly old discretionary sanctions a la ARBMAC? The conflicts here don't seem to have slowed down so much as to make discretionary sanctions redundant. This is a disinterested suggestion: being English, I make it a personal policy to avoid the Irish-British dogfights as much as possible. Moreschi (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Issues with BetacommandBot - ArbCom case?
I think everyone in ArbCom knows about the issues with BetacommandBot.
BetacommandBot was blocked many times because of bugs and other things. Many users complained about BetacommandBot. You can see many AN/I threads about BetacommandBot. Last time, there was a page for discussion about BetacommandBot, but it got deleted as an "attack page".
Suggestions to improve BetacommandBot, like making the bot "open source", got ignored by Betacommand. Last time, there was a case about Betacommand and ArbCom found that he abused bots and desysopped him. He still abuses bots. For example, he used BetacommandBot to spam a user's talk page and make 5000 edits to the Main Page so it cannot be deleted. Also, he is incivil and attacks people who complain about BetacommandBot.
It is quite clear that Betacommand will not fix his bot. When anyone complains about Betacommand or his bot, there is a group of users who will always defend him and accuse them of a lot of things, like incivility, harassing and trying to destroy the fair use policy.
There is a huge mess. I hope ArbCom can help with the mess. I want to file a case, but I am not sure whether ArbCom thinks there is enough "content issue" and "conduct issue" to look into. So I want to ask ArbCom for some feedback here, before I file a case. If ArbCom says "go ahead and file a case", I will file a case. I can find a lot of evidence for all the things I say above.
Maybe ArbCom can also clarify what (issues with BetacommandBot, Betacommand's conduct and other's conduct) they think is "conduct issue" that they will look into and what is "content issue" that they will not look into. The group of users who defend BetacommandBot, I must say to you, if there is an ArbCom case, I think ArbCom will also look into your accusings of incivility and harassing and if those who complained about BetacommandBot really did that, they will also be punished.
Whether or not Arbitration is to be filed is immaterial, but I just feel that there isn't a real problem with BetacommandBot. There's also my concern that filing an Arbitration case would prevent BetacommandBot from meeting the deadline. I feel there is a lack of communication from both "sides" if you will and nobody is clear about what BetacommandBot is planning (other than phases). I feel people are still mostly concerned with the fact that the deadline is pretty much solely being dictated by BetacommandBot and that BetacommandBot and the operator tend to draw a lot of problems - some for good reason, some for bad reason.
That said, if there is to be a case, then I think an RfC would be filed first. And if there is to be a case, I hope that the case is done quickly because there is a deadline to meet. x42bn6TalkMess 15:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
x42bn6, I welcome an ArbCom case, it might finally mean that I can get concrete proof that BCBot is correct and is enforcing policy. This would allow me to point to the case and stop the harrasment and constant request for me/BCBot to be blocked and or banned. and I can get back to doing what I do best, improving Wikipedia. βcommand 20:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
It would be more correct to say that BCBot is enforcing policy for a small subsets of images where failure to conform to a specific part of the policy can be detected by a bot. This is valuable work, but by no means enough. For true, Wikipedia-wide enforcement of non-free image policy, much more is needed. Summarising that as "BCBot is enforcing policy" is, in many contexts, misleading as people (wrongly) take that to mean that BCBot is enforcing the entire policy for all images. Betacommand, if you feel that people are harassing you, would you consider filing an arbitration case against them? Carcharoth (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
x42bn6 - regarding meeting the deadline (23 March 2008), Betacommand has said that most of the tagging of older images is now complete. The only thing that would be affected by an arbitration case would be the checking and tagging of current uploads. That doesn't require as large a volume of edits, so could be done by another bot. For the record, I don't think any arbitration case is needed, but am also on the record as saying that it is still, in my opinion, an open question as to whether BetacommandBot's tagging of images under NFCC#10c has overall improved Wikipedia. On balance, I think it has, but only just. And I am currently trying to document what happened and what the impact was, though that sort of thing is difficult, if not impossible, to quantify. Carcharoth (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I think someone from ArbCom should say something. --Kaypoh (talk) 05:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment. The question that must be considered in this matter is: would asking the Arbitration Committee to examine this case benefit the project as a whole? For the most part, I would agree with that question: whilst the often intense nature of Arbitration would make it difficult to notice an immediate improvement in the situation, I believe, out with the short-term, a ruling on the case would help—either, if abuse of the bot has taken place, to take down a troublesome bot (that word choice used as a hypothetical for a ruling against BC), or, if abuse of the bot has been deemed not to have taken place, then, as Betacommand states above, to resolve the situation once and for all, and to allow him to return to running his Bot.
As to whether the Committee will/(in my opinion) should accept this case, then I would also suggest that they should—whilst this is only my humble opinion, the Community has been divided on the matter of this Bot for some time now, and prior dispute resolution has been all but exhausted. This dispute is very much reaching its last legs, and is now reaching the point where an Arbitration case is prudent. AGK (contact) 07:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
And as I've said before, I think the question is moot. The big tagging runs of 10,000+ images are over, and it is only current uploads that are being tagged. Most of the problems were from legacy images, and that is mostly a done deal, and there is not much point going back over that. However, if Betacommand came up with another way to find and tag images, and he continued to run his bot in the same way with the same problems (sporadic large-scale runs without notifications of the runs, and the same standard of explanations and communications) then there may be a case to answer. His phase 4, for example, where he proposes using the bot to remove images that "have a rationale" in one or more other article from any articles for which they "lack a rationale" (where, of course, "lack a rationale" refers to images that fail mention one or more of the articles they are used in - which is only a subset of those images lacking rationales). Or his proposal (based on a suggestion of mine, though it is not a new idea) to find images that don't use rationale templates, and get humans to check those to see if the rationale is OK. I would hope that whatever non-free image work BetacommandBot does next, over-and-above the normal 10c tagging, gets discussed and properly implemented this time. Doing a full analysis of the numbers first, using more informative and less aggressive tagging, doing things at a slow enough pace to avoid backlogs building up, and working with and finding humans to help do the work needed. What I think is really needed is a way for people to indicate that an image has been checked and its rationale deemed OK. There needs to be stability at some point. Carcharoth (talk) 09:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Okey, NFCC 10c was over, several days ago in fact, in fact, its now split off into a separate bot function. That question is moot. But now the issue of cat changing has come up. Per this diff, if admins are forcing a user to violate the BLP policy (I'm still trying to figure out how, given that Bot policy specifically prohibits bots from editing categories relating to people), that seems like something Arbcom would be very interested in. Also, I'm beginning to wonder why this same bot keeps causing these real and unrelated issues (NFCC spamming, mainpage run-up, catting and not fixing it till blockd again). Once is a mistake, twice is explainable, but by the Xth time, I really have trouble understanding. MBisanztalk 20:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Someone else already filed an ArbCom case about BetacommandBot. --Kaypoh (talk) 07:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
A threaded discussion on the Mantanmoreland blocking controversy
I'm assuming a threaded response is allowed here as it's not an RfAr. SirFozzie, I count 30 people in favor of the block and 18 against. By what definition is that a consensus in favour? SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs) 14:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Is that your answer? Please provide evidence of concensus. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The block, not the ban, was supported 12 to 5. For any other editor, that would be a consensus to block. There are some editors who would support a block but oppose a ban. JehochmanTalk 14:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you counting the arbcom members who chose not block him in their decision that hasn't even been formally closed yet? I'd like to see how an editor can support a block but not a ban for someone who is about to be told by the AC that he can edit using only one account. How would that work? We are not saying that you cannot edit here but we are saying that we will prevent you from doing so by blocking your account? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
In what other situation has there ever been a lack of consensus to ban, a block (the technical implementation of one) imposed anyway, an unblock due to said lack of consensus, and then an argument that the "block" had consensus? What you are talking about is revoking the editing privileges of the person, not the account, so refusing t call it a ban is making a distinction without a difference. Calling it something else doesn't mean lower standards of consensus apply. Dmcdevit·t 15:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Might I just politely draw your attention to here, where editing of each other's sections (and thus threaded discussions) are prohibited. (And I'm invoking WP:IAR for my violation of this prohibition - I judge that stopping the threaded discussion to be in the interests of keeping the heat from growing at an even faster rate.) Jay*Jay (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Dmcdevit, blocks and bans are two different things with two different standards. Let me turn your logic around. Has any repeat puppetmaster ever before, when confronted with so much evidence, been allowed to continue editing? There is a lot of uniqueness in this situation. JehochmanTalk 15:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, certainly that has happened before. Not all cases of sockpuppetry result in bans (or indefinite blocks). Some of them result in other resolutions. For example, an arbcom limitation to one account and a parole, much like this case. Much like this case, except that was a case where the sockpupetry was affirmed by ArbCom. Dmcdevit·t 15:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I have better things to do than search the archives for cases where an account was blocked, a ban was requested, and failed, yet the account remained blocked. However, I think multiple such cases exist. There is nothing that says blocks must be lifted if a ban proposal fails. JehochmanTalk 15:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
As I understand it there were some mitigating factors in that case, so that it is not necessarily a good precedent to use here or elsewhere. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
(deindent) I made a full count and listed names (see my statement on the main RfArb page) - I counted 31 in favour, 12 against, and 4 "others". I don't think I missed anyone. Based on that, I don't think that there was sufficient consensus exhibited for an indefinite community ban, although there was a strong majority in favour. 31 to 3 or 4, maybe, but not 31 to 12 (or 16, depending how you count the "others"). If the discussion had lasted longer, that may or may not have changed. If a community ban falls through, then the ArbCom should step in. As they have already shifted this onto the community, we're at an impasse. A significant majority of the community want (the user behind?) Mantanmoreland banned, but a vocal and not insignificant minority do not. What happens then? Presumably, no block, and Mantanmoreland is free to resume editing. Neıl☎ 16:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Which is an utter mockery of Wikipedia's rules, mind you. The obstructionists win. Victory by argumentum ad nauseum SirFozzie (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
We have to have agreement before we take big decisions. Where, precisely, is the mockery of Wikipedia's rules? Sam Korn(smoddy) 16:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
"The obstructionists win. Victory by argumentum ad nauseum" - this works both ways. I've sometimes seen cases where a few people object to a block on valid grounds, but they get shouted down or stonewalled and the block stays in place. This tends to be those admins who ask the blocking admin first, and then are left hanging in the breeze when the blocking admin politely (and sometimes not so politely) says "no" to the suggestion that they unblock. Carcharoth (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Fozzie, if you dislike the convention that "community bans do not hold if there is sufficient dissent that a single administrator is willing to perform an unblock", then get it changed - I'd support such a change. I want Mantanmoreland blocked, too, but I recognise that there's a small cadre of veteran admins who do not, for whatever reason, and under the current community norms, they have succesfully derailed such a block. Sam Korn, there is an agreement - just not a strong enough one to block Mantanmoreland indefinitely. 31:12 - to delete an article, yes, to promote a user to admin, maybe, to indefinitely block a user, no. Neıl☎ 16:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, that's what I said :-) Sam Korn(smoddy) 16:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Make a decision, please. DurovaCharge! 16:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, the count of 31 - 12 is wrong. For a start, I am not in the 31, but should be. Then there is the fact that the 12 includes several people massively involved with the case, and at least one who changed views later in the discussion.
Secondly, since when has 'no one willing to unblock' been the standard for fixed-term bans imposed by consensus?
Thirdly, on trying to change the WP:BAN policy, maybe joining the discussion at WT:Community sanction would be an idea?
Fourthly, several of the obstructionists should be ignored for their refusal to look at the evidence and present any vaguely plausible explanation for the evidence. Stating that the evidence isn't convincing over-and-over-and-over is stonewalling.
Finally, this isn't just about abuse of community trust through sock puppetry, it's also about admin protection (which continues - look at today's block of Mackan79), and tendentious or disruptive editing. Would someone please explain to me why having to watch every single post made by an editor who has been deceiving the community for years is better for the encyclopedia or the community than would be just getting rid of them? Jay*Jay (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
If #2 was a serious question, the answer is "the beginning of time", or as near as makes no difference. That has always been policy. Sam Korn(smoddy) 17:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Mantanmoreland has no history of tendentious and disruptive editing. Apart from deceptive socking, there is no known issue with his editing. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Now I KNOW you're taking the mickey, Tony. What do you call WP:OWNing a section of articles on finance? Or importing an off-WP controversy on to Wikipedia? SirFozzie (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Decorum, please. Thatcher 17:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. There were accusations of ownership, but having examined the articles in question I find no credible evidence of inappropriate editing. At most, he might be accused of over-eagerness to revert the pov-pushers and trolls who at one time paid attention to those pages, rather than call an admin to protect them. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Does a billionaire's blog count as a reputable source?[7]DurovaCharge! 17:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Durova, did you know they have a name for people who take short positions in a company and then trash talk it? We have evidence here that somebody wanting to make trouble for Mantanmoreland and Gary Weiss claimed that they were the same person and were editing Mark Cuban's bio. We also see that Mantanmoreland stated, correctly, that Cuban had been criticised for taking actions that look very much like a bear raid. Cuban has justified his position by pointing out that he's disclosing his interests fully. Which is legal, but still rather controversial (I'm sure Cuban would agree on the latter too). If Weiss is Mantanmoreland, it's at most a little odd to be editing Cuban's bio, but if the edits were as Cuban describes them there is no issue. Those edits are perfectly fine. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
In case it matters, the 18 opposes I counted were 16 admins (Sam Korn, Random832, Guy, Doc Glasgow, WjBscribe, Dmcdevit, Blueboy96, Kingturtle, David Gerard, Mastcell, Addhoc, Carcharoch, AGK, Georgewilliamherbert, Fayssal, Theresa Knott) and two very experienced editors (IronDuke, Anticipation of a Lover's Arrival, The). The only one of these that I wasn't sure whether to count was Fayssal, whose oppose wasn't completely clear, but he did say he wished people had stuck to the ArbCom decision, or had waited for it to close, or words to that effect. The other 17 opposes seemed clear to me.
SirFozzie, I know it's not a vote and that numbers aren't all-important, but when you have 18 established editors opposing a block or ban, there really can't be said to be consensus. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs) 17:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
And it's been proven on the main page, that your numbers are so much hokummisleading. SirFozzie (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
In what way are they hokum? I've given the names. Look them up for yourself. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs) 17:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
* Clear:
o 31 firmly in favour of ban (Lar, Lawrence Cohen, SirFozzie, Jehochman, Naerii, Durova, Alanyst, Amerique, 82.19.1.139, R. Baley, Wizardman, WAS 4.250, Rocksanddirt, Krimpet, Mackan79, GRBerry, JoshuaZ, Sceptre, Hmwith, Noroton, Daveh4h, Achromatic, LessHeard vanU, MPerel, Crotalus horridus, Neil, Eleland, Pascal Tesson, Bigtimepeace, Cla68, Viridae)
o 12 against (Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, Sam Korn, Theresa Knott, David Gerard, Doc Glasgow, JzG, IronDuke, AGK, Dmcdevit, Blueboy96, Wjscribe, Addhoc)
* Others (7):
o 1 comment that block may not solve issue (Kingturtle)
o 2 prefer topic ban (Random832, MastCell)
o 1 "wait and see" (Carcharoth)
Blueboy96: "Having read Coren's statement that he does not intend for this to be a ban at present, I endorse the indef on Mantanmoreland as well" - that's an "oppose" statement, SV? Jay*Jay (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Tell SlimVirgin, who is not only counting votes, but adding in bonus points for "respectfulness". daveh4h 17:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, the latter actually counts more than numbers, which is what's meant by saying it's not a vote. Where you have a significant number of established editors saying no to a block or ban, then it really ought not to go ahead. SlimVirgin(talk)(contribs) 17:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
SV, you miss the point I am making, which was that the count has problems: "For a start, I am not in the 31, but should be. Then there is the fact that the 12 includes several people massively involved with the case, and at least one who changed views later in the discussion." It also ignores what comments would have been added had the block and unblock not occurred. Anyway, perhaps you can help me to understand by answering the question I posed above, which was: Would someone please explain to me why having to watch every single post made by an editor who has been deceiving the community for years is better for the encyclopedia or the community than would be just getting rid of them?Jay*Jay (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Possibly the experienced editors have seen what happens if you allow an attitude of "just get rid of people". Two things: (1) they come back anyway; and (2) eventually the community turns and someone calls for people in a borderline case that you end up on the wrong side of to be "got rid of". Now, I'm not saying that this is the case here (far from it), but you do have to guard against remedies enacted in the heat of the moment and with the capriciousness of mob rule. This leads to a philosophy of minimalist intervention, which clashes with the philosophy others hold of "maximal intervention". Carcharoth (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
This is fascinating! It would be interesting to see "support and opposition" by year that the editor joined wikipedia. I have this feeling that there's something up with that. (no, I don't really intend to dive into this, I'm busy enough as it is ^^;;) Just wanting to point out that this is setting off my spidey sense ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
By year appears to be one dominating factor, another one I suspect is "previously involved" and friends of the "previously involved" (and by previously, I'm thinking prior to December 2007). But that's just my opinion. There also appears to be something else going on here, and while I am somewhat familiar with most of the editors currently involved, I can't quite put my finger on it. R. Baley (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The "final stage" in dispute resolution
Leaving aside the specifics of the case in hand, I think we need to clarify how we make decisions on "user conduct issues". My understanding had been as follows.
Any admin can block, as per the blocking policy. In most case (vandalism - obvious disruption etc) the action will be uncontroversial and the debate ends here.
If there is disagreement after the fact, or anticipated by an admin beforehand, then there is admin/community discussion. This is generally (although not necessarily) on WP:AN. Admins reach some form of consensus, and that is generally accepted.
There can't be a direct decision to ban, a "community ban" happens only when no-one will unblock - it is a verdict that's only shown by time.
Although admins should not unblock without discussion. The default position for a user while discussion continues is generally "unblocked", unless disruption is ongoing.
If admins cannot agree, then the case goes to arbcom. Arbcom are the final stage in dispute resolution and should only accept a case if all other avenues are exhausted, and the community is unable or unlikely to agree. Their word is final, with only a theoretical appeal to Jimbo.
If arbcom cannot reach an agreement on a sanction, then there is no sanction. It does not go back to the community, as if the dispute /could/ be resolved by the community, arbcom should not have accepted it in the first place.
Yes, Doc, you are wrong. ArbCom was told several times that a majority of the community had a problem with the decision in the way it came out. See this question and answer from the 2nd archive of the Proposed Decision Talk Page:
Do individual arbitrators (or better you, the Committee collectively) anticipate that Mantanmoreland will be community banned within days of this case closing? (Note: question predicated on a closure with no block of MM.)
Here's Jpgordon's answer: It wouldn't surprise me; given the nature and volume of the evidence, the community doesn't really need our help to make that decision.SirFozzie (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem here is that the AC saw it from the blocking/puppetry perhaps as open and shut, and that any lack of action on their part would be picked up by the community. However, the enablement of Mantanmoreland here has instead continued, surprising AC members by their own admission. It all comes down to that. The AC remanded the issue to the community, and the scores of evidence have NOT been countered or dispelled, but a small group of users have decided to now give Mantanmoreland a (record?) fourth chance. Lawrence § t/e 18:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with SirFozzie on this one. However, the caveat that I would add would be that it is something extraordinary to overrule the Arbitration Committee and thus requires something special by way of level of agreement. Sam Korn(smoddy) 18:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The community of course, though, is not overruling the AC in any way here. Lawrence § t/e 18:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
That's one way of reading it. Jpgordon's word, while important, is not gospel. Sam Korn(smoddy) 18:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Image:Coriolis.gif
Doc, I didn't intend that as an edit to your post. Apologies if it gave offense unintentionally for that reason. I do intend it as an illustration of my point: SirFozzie brought the case to arbitration in the first place because we wanted an orderly proceeding, with a proper chance for Mantanmoreland to give his side of things, and it was looking like a wheel war might follow the premature community ban discussion that was starting up during the RFC phase. Some of the arbitrators themselves hinted that a community siteban might follow the case, and offered the Archtransit precedent. Other arbitrators who disagreed waited until the suggested ban discussion was already underway before they voiced their objections. There are unaddressed systematic issues here, such as how to define and implement a community ban and what constitutes a wheel war. This site really needs to work out these matters better. DurovaCharge! 18:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The idea that arbcom isn't the final level in dispute resolution send shivers down my spine. I'd really not be interesting in editing if we move away from that. It means that there can never be closure of any dispute. If, and I say if, that's what jpgordon said, I respectfully suggest he's dangerously wrong. That leaves anyone anytime to go to ani and round up a posse to deal justice when arbcom sees no justice needing dealt. Woah, no please, no.--Docg 18:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Every level of a system of society must be accountable to someone above them with more authority, to undo bad actions. As only the community itself is higher ranked than the Arbitration Committee on the English Wikipedia, and the community is answerable to itself and the WMF, where else is the AC answerable to? Lawrence § t/e 18:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Wait, am I part of a "posse", or a "lynch mob"? (or hell, maybe I'm one of the many paid secretaries acting on WB's behalf, as noted by one of the open minded arbiters here; happily, that was never retracted). I love the characterizations of/attacks on the many editors who have followed this case, most of whom had no opinion at all on the issue before about January of this year. R. Baley (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Doc, I can understand where you're coming from (it can seem like it's Wild West-ish), but I invite you to read the whole section. [8]. Especially as the Arbitration Committee gets its mandate from the community, I don't see a problem with it SirFozzie (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't my idea, Doc. And I agree, there are policy issues here that the community needs to work out better. Periodically we run into it-is-or-it-isn't-a-community-ban turning into it-is-or-it-isn't-a-wheel-war. Community sanctions are so poorly defined that there really is a danger of mob justice, and that's unsettling. DurovaCharge! 18:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I do not contest the sovereignty of the community. I hold that the community can sack arbcom and appoint a different process. But to say the community is sovereign does not and should never mean that a community discussion (which by nature will involve only a small percentage of the community) should be able to second guess our elected arbiters (elected by a much larger percentage of the community). To take a real world example, the people may be sovereign but that does not mean Jerry Springer can organise a phone in to overturn (or improve upon) a Supreme Court decision. Popular sovereignty and mob rule do not equate. Even democratic parliaments get to make and enforce (or decline) unpopular decisions.--Docg 18:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
But the community also has the means (here, or in "IRL") to sack a government. In some parts of the world we see it annually. In some states in the United States, the community can issue referendems which are circulated and ratified by a poll. For example, in my state, I can start a poll to overturn a law. If I get a number--I forget, something like 10,000 signatures on a poll--I can then get my referendum turned into an initiative immediately, and it gets put on the general election ballot in the next cycle. The community can thus enforce new laws, change existing laws and decisions, and/or overturn nearly anything in the form of government here, as long as the changes are legal to a higher Federal authority. I believe 8 or 9 states in the USA have similar systems. It's the same thing we have here--everyone is answerable to someone or able to be overturned by someone, from the mundane choices to the hard ones. Without checks and balances you'd have a situation where one group or person's unilateral decisions would be immutable, and no long-term, constantly scaling and growing society can function like that. Lawrence § t/e 18:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
You are entitled to propose a change in any wikipedian policy, if you get consensus it changes.--Docg 18:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
(a couple of ecs) If I had been active on the boards when Archtransit's ban got proposed I would have referred it to ArbCom procedurally. Wasn't the first time an action like that was attempted. At one point last year some people started trying to "vote" on Runcorn's ban. Anyway, we're here now. Let's figure out how to set things right. DurovaCharge! 18:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Not just policy, but decision. No group or user's action on this website is immutable with enough consensus against it. Lawrence § t/e 18:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that "consensus" is just the last result of some discussion and is often unclear. Where there's a clear community consensus on what to do, that's fine - you don't need arbcom. 90% of bans and blocks don't even need discussion - 9% will be solved on discussion. it is how we resolve the the 1%. And we've got an agreed process - we send them to arbcom, and we abide by the decision. The community has chosen that as their method (or at least has never sought to change that). No, we'll not like every decision, but the net gain is by doing that we can end arguments in a fair way and get closure rather than endless debate. That's what we do. We unpick that at our peril.--Docg 18:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
And I agree, but the AC here has declined to decide, and gave it back to us, and now another impasse has erupted, so the AC needs to decide. If they won't even address the question now that its been directly put to them, the entire system breaks. The AC in the current setup must decide one or another with an up and down vote: if they say the decision is back to the community in that up and down vote, they have shirked their duty. They need to decide this matter, and stand by it. Or else, well, it's time for an enforced change of some sort. They chose to take on the mantle, they have to live with those responsibilities or step down. Something has to give and under the present situation the duty lies with the AC to make a call with a vote and stand by it. Lawrence § t/e 19:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The idea that arbcom isn't the final level in dispute resolution send shivers down my spine. I'd really not be interesting in editing if we move away from that. - the problem is, they are not BEHAVING as the final level in dispute resolution. If they really are the last word, they need to step up. The decision was made specifically under the belief that they didn't need to deal with the sockpuppetry because the community would do so. —Random832 19:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I see this being thrown out willy-nilly. I did not sign to any statement that said we did not need to deal with sockpuppetry because the community would do so. In fact, that was the main focus of the case in the first place. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
What the current formulation of the AC must do to end this
Specifically, given how nasty this is, the AC needs to do two standard up and down votes on the Proposed Decision to end this. There is no other way out unless we decide to have an insurrection, which would be dumb without a viable alternative to the AC in place. Vote 1: is MM=SH? Vote 2: Is MM blocked for x duration for being caught puppetting three times? Lawrence § t/e 19:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
But arbcom could decide (as I thought they had) that the evidence is not conclusive enough for any remedy. That may not be a "definitive answer" but it is a place to stop. Not every question can be answered. "It can't be known for certain" is perhaps the only correct answer.--Docg 19:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Precisely. If an argument cannot convince a majority of the arbcom to pass, there's a fair possibility that it was because there is simply no way to be certain. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
And brings us back to the core of the problem on another angle--why is the standard of evidence so high for Mantanmoreland, but not for anyone else? Lawrence § t/e 19:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
As I posited near the beginning of all this, Lawrence, the better question is why is the standard of evidence is often so low? --bainer (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The level of certitude required here is beyond anything that has ever been required for any other user. I guess I was wrong to 2nd guess myself about the willingness of editors to protect MM (struck comment). R. Baley (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Just because you state it so, doesn't mean that it's true. We were dealing with two users with no checkuser matches, no slipups in a long period of editing either in terms of IP use or ever seeming to answer for the other, and basically no 'smoking gun' evidence. This was also a pair of users who maintained radically different personalities and online conversational styles, not only on-Wiki but on mailing lists and in personal communications. While they had some similar editing interests, their behavior on-Wiki did not mesh in any way that would give concern that the two were socks.
The evidence for sockpuppetry consisted of textual comparisons that many of us found unconvincing and a statistical analysis of edit times that claimed their edits did not overlap, which was more convincing than the textual comparisons but was insufficient to convince a majority of the Arbcom that sockpuppetry was proven.
We do not regularly block well-established users on evidence like this. In some cases we've accepted such evidence as part of a case for sockpuppetry, but the evidence as a whole has been more overwhelming than in this case. We are also much more likely to block editors without an established history of good-faith editing. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
It isn't such a high level of certitude. Moreover socking even if it were proven does not mean a mandatory ban. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
My feeling is that arbcom have a higher standard of evidence than the community or some of our, how shall I put this, more 'trigger-happy' admins. There are many cases where I and others (including I suspect many arbcom members and checkusers) would conclude "not enough evidence - not possible to say one way or the other". The normal reaction then is to look for other ways to resolve the incident. Some people, however (and I need to stress that I am talking in general here, not about this specific case), either accept the flimsiest of evidence, or try and squeeze too much out of the evidence. I'm sure I don't need to remind people of the many cases (please note, once again, that I am not talking specifically about this case) where editors and admins have been too quick to cry "sock-puppet" without first stopping to think whether (a) they need to make such accusations, and (b) whether they can prove such accusations. So in conclusion, had some of these other cases that led to bans on lower standards of evidence been brought to arbcom, the result might have been as we have here - a different result to the one that some people would have imposed if they could. Morven's response sums it up well - the arbcom require compelling evidence. It seems that the community standards of evidence are lower. Carcharoth (talk) 20:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Carcharoth, you might want to familiarize yourself with sockpuppetry by working on a few cases at WP:SSP before dispensing advice. Additionally, generic criticisms of people unspecified should be avoided. Which admins are trigger happy? Which sock puppetry cases have been badly resolved? Let's look into these problem areas and resolve them without delay. JehochmanTalk 21:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
You do great work on sockpuppet investigations, Jehochman. I am talking in general about random accusations thrown about on article talk pages. The general air of suspicion and paranoia that sometimes raises its head when a new editor turns up in a controversial area. One example (well, the only one, as you say, I'm not as active in this area as I should be) is Wikipedia:AN#Hou Yifan -- mass redirect creation (may archive soon). The editor who posted the initial report said "I suspect there is sock- or meat-puppetry going on (although probably sockpuppetry as the users have very similar edit patterns, including creating a user & user talk page before going on the redirect spree), and I could use some help in dealing with this", the response was "The above accounts were also indefblocked, though anyone can remove/reduce the blocks if they feel I'm too harsh - stress from real life might be getting to me." The response was "Indef block seems mostly justified to me considering that puppetry was probably going on, and in particular due to Gfeig's use of deliberately misleading edit summaries.". We see the same pattern here as in previous cases. Initial report makes vague (even though good-faith) allegations of sock-puppetry. There is only a small response (in this case one admin). The initial user and admin agree that sockpuppetry "probably" took place. No checkuser. Indefinite block (though there were other reasons given). The block logs gave "vandalism" as the reason, but didn't mention the overtones of sockpuppetry alleged in the AN discussion. I wasn't convinced, and asked the blocking admin if they would consider unblocking, and they did. Maybe the accounts will never edit again, and were trying something on, but let me ask you, Jehochman, as someone experienced in such things, how would you have handled that incident? No-one else at AN seemed interested in it apart from Pegasus and me and the IP (who seems fairly established as an editor despite not having an account). Carcharoth (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I do not have time to review that particular incident in detail right now. In general, I see plenty of unworthy sock puppet reports and close them with no action. People should not swing sock puppetry allegations like a club to gain an advantage in editorial disputes. If there is a suspicion of sock puppetry, the incident should be reduced to a WP:SSP or WP:RFCU report. Otherwise, editors should keep their suspicions to themselves and watch for better evidence to present itself, as usually happens when there is true sock puppetry. I generally avoid fancy analytical methods because we have so many simple cases that can be resolved directly. Through one of these simple cases I exposed a sock of Archtransit and set in motion a chain of events that would ultimately resolve one of the worst cases of sock puppetry ever discovered on Wikipedia. JehochmanTalk 22:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Give me a moment to find a barnstar for that... :-) Carcharoth (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: Morven's comment no slipups in a long period of editing either in terms of IP use or ever seeming to answer for the other, please refer to Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Samiharris and also the case evidence regarding Tomstoner. DurovaCharge! 21:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Unconvincing. What does "seems to answer as Samiharris" mean? Mantanmoreland was a frequent editor of that article and, despite the claim of the person who asked for a sock check, had edited it the previous week. [9] Significantly, the troll that set up the sock check was in turn identified as a WordBomb sock by checkuser.--Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Which account are you calling a troll or sock puppet? I want to check if they have been blocked yet. JehochmanTalk 21:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Anticipation, your objection is true but beside the point. Morven claimed it never happened. This occasion was credible enough to file a checkuser and get it fulfilled, and the Tomstoner incident was based almost entirely upon referring to a suspected sock in the first person. Note that MM never answered questions regarding the Tomstoner edit summary issues. DurovaCharge! 22:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Durova; I forgot this one - but did not find it wholly convincing, either. Note that I am not saying that I personally found the evidence as a whole to be utterly without foundation. I felt, rather, that it indicated possible sockpuppetry but that it wasn't solid enough. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand where you're coming from. If there had been a plausible alternative scenario I might have remained unconvinced also. But persistently evading even the basic questions, such as Fred Bauder's checkuser warning--I couldn't continue extending good faith when Mantanmoreland wouldn't provide a nail to hang it on. DurovaCharge! 02:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
You definitely have a point there, I'll agree. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Betacommand RFAR: Extremely Disappointing
Copied to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2, including sub-headings "Further evidence of ongoing problems", "Yet more evidence of ongoing civility issues", and "Betacommand vs Abu badali comment". Daniel (talk) 02:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
It was requested that I cross-post this feedback request here.
Hi, if you have a moment, would you mind reviewing User:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft? I'm just beginning to draft this, but given the recent situations I think this could be valuable to see what community mandates if any exist for changes the Arbitration Committee could be required to accept. My intention was to keep the RFC format exceptionally simple, with a very limited number of "top level" sections that were fairly precise. Please leave any feedback on User talk:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft. Note: This is very much a draft and still probably several weeks I'd guess from being "live", so feedback is requested on the formatting, nature, and structure of the RFC. I do very much intend to put it live, but I want it to be as near to correct and balanced as possible before that. Thanks. Lawrence § t/e 17:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure if I have to answer this elsewhere but since I encountered this thread here I decided to answer here. Thanks Lawrence for the initiative. It is like being bold. I have nothing against it - I appreciate it indeed. But believe it can evolve to become an ArbCom arbitration case with no positive or negative results. In my opinion, it is better to discuss the role and the functioning of the Community first. After all, in theory, Wikipedia can work without an ArbCom but not without a community. It is for the Community to decide what to do in both normal and complicated cases - answers to questions like 'what is the role of the Community', 'are there any limits to those roles', 'what do we have to achieve', 'which policies need immediate revising', etc have to be answered. Once that is done, the Community can decide what to do with the ArbCom. At least, the Community would be assured that it is taking the right steps without risking anything.
But again Lawrence. It is up to the Community to decide if this would-be RfC would be productive. The above was just my personal opinion. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Past case on Moby Dick had been completely ineffective in getting Moby Dick off of me. The ban of Diyarbakir and Moby Dick kept Davenbelle off of wikipedia for something like a week or less if Jack Merridew is ruled to be yet another sockpuppet. This would mean Davenbelle had been stalking me for a full three years in about 1.5 months it will be the anniversary of Moby Dick's indef block. I do not need to express my frustration in words I hope.
I am bringing this to arbcom rather than ani or arbcom enforcement because every person I have asked to date refused to even look at it. I could have named it "Davenbelle 2" but that felt like a movie title for some reason.
That would require me to have a level of faith in this community. I do not. The community had a consistent hostile attitude towards me any time I bring up "Davenbelle".
Also indefinitely blocking him alone is not an adequate way to get rid of Davenbelle as it has been the case time after another. Additional remedies may be warranted if I am right in my assertion that Jack Merridew is Davenbelle
Checkuser has CONFIRMED Jack Merridew's geographic location to be compatible with Davenbelle. Kirill Lokshin's insistence on ignoring this simply baffles me.
It takes very little effort to notice this edit or these edits. I do not need to waste time and study your edits to notice them. Both cases are threads you should not even be aware of. It is a big wiki after all. While your presence on the ANI thread may have some other rational explanation (mere coincidence), your presence on User talk:Johnbod does not.
Response to statements claiming I have a vendetta or grudge against Jack Merridew (or anybody)
Such people with vendettas and/or grudges are unwelcome on wikipedia. Arbcom should accept this case and ban me indefinitely if such is the case. If that is not the case perhaps evidence can be analyzed and not dismissed without being given a second thought.
I also challenge such people. If they do not even find any of this evidence vaguely suspicious, perhaps they have an alternate rational explanation.
While my comment wasn't aimed at your post and instead more of the overall response by several parties, I apologize for the confusion. My motive behind this is not spite. I just want arbitration committee to review the conduct of a user whom I am convinced is a sockpuppet of an indef banned User:Davenbelle who to date had two sockpuppets (User:Moby Dick, User:Diyarbakir) strictly to harass me and on occasion several others.
Since blocking him indefinitely has proved to be inefficient in maintaining the ban placed on Davenbelle, I seek arbcom to perhaps add remedies - not sure what they can be. My discussion with FayssalF gave me the understanding that such an issue would need to be discussed among arbitrators.
I think each appeal and proposed case should be on a sub page - that way I can follow an individual case w/o paying attention to everything else. Much like how RFAs or AFDs are held in sub pages.
Any rejected case can be either archived or deleted.
To expand on my discussions with a few folks on IRC of late (and, I have just noticed, White Cat's similar note), I'd like to put the idea out there, regarding subpages for WP:RFAR. The current page is extremely cluttered, and is quite tricky to keep managed.
My experience with case management at WP:RFM and WP:RFCU has shown that subpages really do work: they help give a very brief "overview" in the editing window, whilst simultaneously allowing for a more sensible approach to the bytes of data in these oft' busy processes.
Subpages would be relatively easy to set up, and the "recycling" of the subpages would be very easy to set up: rejected requests are simply removed from WP:RFAR (and perhaps into a subpage, similar to WP:RFCU, or a subsection, similar to WP:RFM), and deleted after a reasonable period (all the Clerks, Arbitrators, and most of the folks that hang around RfAr are administrators); accepted requests are effectively "converted" by the opening Clerk into the full-case format, per WP:AC/C/P.
The downsides are very limited: one could argue the workload will increase, although I believe the organisational benefits will cancel this out; additionally, many arbitrators tend to "run through" all the present requests, voting on each at once. However, I am sure that a little adapting would not be a huge step?
I invite thoughts on the logictics, and the advantages/disadvantages of this process. I am not calling for an immediate implementation—rather, as I stipulated in my opening sentence, I'm simply "putting the idea out there", for general consideration and, hopefully, consensus-building. Regards, Anthøny 23:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
It has been suggested before. A major problem is that arbitration requests or comments contained in them are frequently stigmatizing, or just plain frivolous, and keeping such requests rejected by arbitrators around indefinitely is not really a great idea. Dmcdevit·t 23:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Frivolous subpages could be deleted, or an approach like that at WP:DRV could be adopted. Don't ask me how the DRV approach works, but it could be another option. But I do like the idea of a set of permanent subpages (1-8 maybe) that are recycled as needed. You file the case at the subpage and activate it on the main page. Carcharoth (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
A user RFC will get deleted if it doesn't get accepted within 48 hours. An rfar case if rejected by arbcom can be deleted in a similar manner. There actually are license issues in copy pasting accepted requests. Page histories are not carried for example. RFAR and RFAR appeals should be on seperate pages. -- Catchi? 13:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how the comments in a rejected RFAR could be any more "stigmatizing" or "frivolous" than those in a rejected AFD, or a rejected RFA, or anything else that is rejected, marked as such, but very rarely deleted or blanked. — CharlotteWebb 17:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Reply to Dmcdevit: I am thinking along the lines of the system used in WP:RFM—old RfMs are marked as rejected, and delisted from the main requests page. They are then "subst:"-ed onto a rejected cases archive, which allows a permanent log of the requests to be kept, yet simultaneously allowing the (now defunct) request page to be deleted. With regards to disruptive comments, I reiterate Charlotte's comments: if the need arises, a {{courtesy blanked}} can always be employed for that particular section (or, as it's a section-only action, and thus courtesy-blanked is probably ill-suited, a related template that could very easily be drawn up). Thoughts? Anthøny 19:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The major problem I see with all this is that it will make it considerably more time-consuming for us to keep track of comments, since we won't have the subpages watchlisted. Kirill 23:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Nope, that (a) doesn't include translusions, only links, and (b) will catch all links—including articles, user sigs, and so forth. What we'd need is something like {{ArbComOpenTasks}} but listing the open requests (and someone to maintain it!). Kirill 23:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I see no reason why cases in the "currently voting whether to open it" phase can't or shouldn't be added to the ArbComOpenTasks template, regardless of whether said cases are being discussed on the same page or on separate sub-pages (usually only need to change a "#" to a "/" or vice versa). — CharlotteWebb 18:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
If you have, say, four permanent subpages, it isn't that onerous to watchlist them all. Arbitration cases already have the option to watchlist all four of the associated pages, and no-one seems to complain about that. Carcharoth (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
How many open arbitration case requests are there at any given time? Never seen more than 5 or 6... The number of cases did not increase a whole lot, the number of involved people however has. I think arbitrators following every post can watchlist new cases. Any new case would still be announced on the main rfar page. -- Catchi? 12:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Where do you get "four permanent subpages"? If this is done like RFCU, there will be a subpage for every new request. Lately the RFCU clerks have been incommnicado; I've archived the last 40 cases or so. Not anxious to add to my already busy schedule. Ultimately this page is run according to the desires of the arbitrators. Thatcher 23:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
You do /1, /2, /3 and /4. People file on those pages (with some sort of natural size limit) and link into there from the main page. Stuff then gets moved around as needed. The main page just becomes a contents page. Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Eh, that's even sillier than the "==Arbitrary section break (\d+)==" headings that keep appearing everywhere. If we're going to use sub-pages at all, they should be divided by subject, not byte count. — CharlotteWebb 18:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The real solution is to enforce the 500 word limit for sections in requests (maybe provide a more chaotic overspill area somewhere), and to deal with cases properly at arbitration, thus avoiding the need for amendments and clarifications! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
We try, but people in disputes tend to lack cooperation skill and take direction poorly (otherwise they wouldn't be in disputes. Thatcher 23:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
If this is enforced, people will have to learn to post their actual argument elsewhere (such as in user-space), link to it from the RFAR statements page, and hope the arbitrators actually follow such links when deciding whether to open a case. Of course I'm sure somebody will say this would just be "gaming the system" (well, hmm...). — CharlotteWebb 18:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I always wondered why "clarification" discussions for a particular case take place on the main RFAR page rather than on the talk page the closed case. A brief boilerplate note here pointing to "Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lizzie Borden#Clarification" or whatever would be more appropriate. — CharlotteWebb 17:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
That would be hard to follow though. -- Catchi? 12:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually I think it would be easier as the discussion is all in one place. Ideally the "final decision" section of the case would be modified (i.e. clarified) to reflect the result of the discussion, as opposed to holding the discussion in Grand Central Station (a.k.a. the main RFAR page) and hoping everybody who cares will bookmark the final diff before everything gets blanked. — CharlotteWebb 18:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The proposal is to create a sub page that can b transcluded anywhere which can include the talk page of the case in question. -- Catchi? 10:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I've copied the request (sans the expansive evidence) to RFA. I make no call as to the merits of the request— that's a job for the arbs themselves. — Coren(talk) 14:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
While I applaud Coren's good faith in submitting the case in the proper venue, in my view the case has no merit. I see the suspicion I had that Harry59b is an Archtransit sock turned out to be warranted. Orderinchaos 03:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I had voted to decline the case before it was removed from the page. The committee has a mailing list post concerning the matter. In the event any arbitrator wishes to take any further action concerning the case, it can be restored, but it appears to be trollish in nature. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Whistles - Clerks needed
User:PHG has been disrupting the arbitration page by posting in other peoples' sections. Please put and end to this, with a block if need be. JehochmanTalk 17:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Why couldn't I, when other users routinely respond in other people's section? PHG (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Then, correct the others as well, instead of just correcting me. Rules have to be applied fairly. PHG (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Give it up, we're "wrong". He did this throughout the entire Arb case and argued with the clerks (and they were "wrong" too) when they moved his statements to his section. Shellbabelfish 17:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I just checked his user page to see what type of character would use such flimsy and disruptive arguments. I must say that this all makes his impressive contribution history a sham. Too bad that a user with so much experience still acts like a classic newbie disrupter who doesn't understand anything and refuses to meekly accept good advice. -- Fyslee / talk 17:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Motions page?
Does the committee use the separate motions page anymore? It seems to have been used for two cases in January, and not used since. Over the last few months, I believe a few motions have actually been handled on WP:RFAR itself. If there's no use for this page anymore, perhaps it should be redirected to WP:RFAR in order to avoid confusion. Ral315 (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
At the moment, most motions in closed cases have arisen after someone outside the committee raised a question of clarification or asked for an expansion of the remedies. The motions then come in below the appropriate section of the request. It's not inconceivable that an issue will come up when an arbitrator discovers them, or the committee is alerted privately; in this case the transcluded page for motions would be used. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it make more sense to move clarifications and motions completely off the RfArb page to the seperate motions page? The main WP:RFArb page can get rather long and confusing at times - having a seperate page would probably help. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Would make sense to me. Easy enough to add another page to the watchlist. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I support the move, as I agree that the main RfAr page was getting much too long. The only disadvantage that I can see is that it might make more of the amendments easier to "backburner". As it is the motions tend to get very slow responses from the already overloaded Arbs, and having the motions on an entirely different page might exacerbate this problem. But that's really up to the Committee, as to how they want to organize their workflow. --Elonka 23:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Follow up to BDJ arbitration
It is acceptable to list at the BDJ arbitration pages the cases where the arbitration case has been directly cited? Is it also acceptable to draw the attention of the arbitrators to cases where the working of an arbitration case remedy "on the ground" is leading to disputes? In other words, point this out without filing a new request, clarification or a post at arbitration enforcement? I would like in particular to point out the following:
Wikipedia:AN#Sigh... (AN thread about the incident that involved a redirect and protection)
At the DRV the following comment was made: "On the upside, summary BLP deletions (or protected redirections, I suppose) of this sort, citing the Bdj RfAr and suggesting that DRV is the proper venue to seek to overturn those deletions, are increasingly seen as inappropriate except in extreme cases, and it may be that the community will soon, as I advocated it do in the wake of the Bdj RfAr, make explicit in BLP that certain principles of that RfAr should not be understood as mandated by or consistent with policy, in order that we address a bit of well-intentioned ArbCom overreach."
I think my question is whether a clarification or other request filed now would save time and effort in the future? Essentially I am looking for brief preliminary guidance from one or more arbitrators, especially in light of the current debate about John254 and people being too quick to file at arbitration. Carcharoth (talk) 11:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
If anyone want to add something to the BDJ case pages, the following seems to have been the upshot of all this: okay, you win, sheesh, sheesh, and Overturned by only person who suggested endorsing deletion (but begrudgingly). The admin actions have been overturned but there has been no response from the admin yet, though one editor has warned the admin in question. This is still a sensitive area, though, so guidance from the arbitration committee might be helpful (or maybe not). Carcharoth (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Removal of case in tendentious terms
This edit [10] by John254 (talk·contribs) is troubling in a couple of respects. First, it includes an edit summary which assumes that his assertion in making the case was valid, based on musing by one arbitrator, yet it entirely ignores another arbitrator's unequivocal comment that I find the request to be distinctly tendentious; there is a minor content dispute and an issue over whether a source is reliable, but there's certainly not the egregious BLP violations claimed. Few if any of those commenting on the case appear to agree with John254's assertion that this is an egregious BLP violation, and most appear to believe that it was another in a series of vexatious cases brought by this user. Second, it's removing a case on which arbitrators were actively deciding. Yes, it was not going to be accepted, but there was at least some chance of a resolution in respect of John's repeated vexatious use of process. Third, one is not, unless one is an ArbCom clerk, supposed to interfere with the statements of others in requested cases - I am as rouge as they come and I would not remove a case or anyone else's comments, I'd simply comment that I withdraw the request. Fourth, by removing the case in this way, no archive or record is made of the case's rejection. I don't know if we even keep records of rejected cases, I'm not much of an arbitration watcher, but it seems to me that the clerks are there for a reason and if you want something quietly nuked because you've made an ass of yourself then you should ask the clerks, who are nice people. In this case, John seems to be asserting the opposite: that everyone but him is the ass. Guy (Help!) 20:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, sorry, strike that - the edit has been reverted, the sky is no longer falling, and I am over-reacting to trivialities once again. Apologies, all, normal service will be resumed as soon as possible. I just hope that wasn't normal service. Guy (Help!) 21:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
In this particular case, I would have reverted the removal had not Nick intervened to do so earlier. The procedures are fairly clear that only clerks (and arbitrators, obviously) should be removing requests from this page, and there is no exception for cases one has initiated: in many cases (and, indeed, in this particular case) there can be counterclaims that other editors have raised that need to be addressed regardless of the initiating party's desire to withdraw their original request. — Coren(talk) 15:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Very disappointed
I just want to say how disappointed I am to see comments like "It was a bad block" in Arbitrators' comments about whether to accept or reject the case. You should wait until you've actually heard the case before making judgements like that, otherwise what's the point in having the case at all? Just pass summary judgement and be done with it. --Tango (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, I find it hard to believe that one can come to a decision before reviewing the evidence. Now you may be able to get some context by yourself, but unless both sides have presented what they see as relevant evidence then any such statement is premature. (1 == 2)Until 14:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Committee members know how that they intended for discretionary sanctions to be used and want to communicate to Community their thoughts about it, I think. Personally, I never intended for them to be used when an editor removes a comment from their own talk page with a snarly comment in the edit summary. I'm quite concerned that other admins are going to duplicate this approach to enforcing our Committee sanctions and what to nip it in the bud, asap. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
There are other ways of making official general comments on your interpretation of previous rulings. It is inappropriate to do so by passing judgement on a case before hearing it. --Tango (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh I don't know, there's no reason to assume they haven't reviewed the same evidence that's available to everyone else. It's not a complicated case and anyone can get a pretty clear picture of events behind the block itself in 5 minutes. If a case is opened, it's not going to be opened to see if the block was bad but to see if sanctions are appropriate and/or there is a pattern of inappropriate use of admin tools. No one is going to open a case to just get Arbs opinion on a block...RxS (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Nods in agreement to Rx StrangeLove's comment. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
People with cases filed against them should still be given a chance to defend themselves before judgement is passed. --Tango (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Tango certainly has a point, and it's why if I see a case that I feel definitely should be accepted I will only note my acceptance and not explain reasoning in detail. However where cases are not accepted it is necessary to explain whether what went on was appropriate or inappropriate. A simple statement of 'decline' is liable to be misinterpreted. If an arbitrator declines a case and says that a particular block is bad, the opinion is obiter, as the lawyers would say. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Since a case may be accepted even when a given arbitrator has voted to reject, such comments should be saved until after the case is actually rejected. Not all such comments were even made as part of a rejecting - Matthew Brown was making purely a comment without a vote. --Tango (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
If you have something to say in defense of your actions that you haven't already said elsewhere, by all means, avail yourself of the opportunity. You've made so many statements attempting to defend your actions that it would be odd to think that you're saving the really good stuff for after the arbitration case opens against you. It is hardly unreasonable for arbiters to arrive at and publicly state a preliminary judgment in the face of such overwhelming evidence. This isn't moot court. ➪HiDrNick! 16:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the phrase "moot court", could you explain? It's really a matter of principle - arbitrators are expected to be impartial. Making such statements before the case (and making them as absolutes, not just statements to current opinion) does not appear the slightest bit impartial. --Tango (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Ooops, sorry. "Moot court" is a sort of practice court that is held in law schools to help prepare lawyers for the real thing. My point was that our arbiters are volunteers, not judges, and I wouldn't expect them to remain silent on the merits of a case when the evidence is freely available on-wiki. ➪HiDrNick! 16:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. I should have thought of just looking it up on Wikipedia! --Tango (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The main RFArb page (where cases are filed) is a public discussion between Arbs and the Community about whether a case is needed because the Community needs assistance dealing with a situation. Often the comments of an arbitrator shortly after the case is filed will differ from those made later because of the feedback of the first arbitrators commenting. If the community adds material that better explains the reason for a case, it is not uncommon for arbitrators to change their votes from reject to accept. Also as events unfold, accepting the case might be the best approach. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Certainly true, but what does that have to do with anything? --Tango (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
If an arb write, ...I think this was a bad block but I rejecting because..., this gives the Community an opportunity to clarify the reason that a case is needed. Censoring their comments as you suggest does not change that fact that arbitrators are forming opinions based on the information presented. This approach is only a problem if the arbitrators are not willing to be open minded as more information is presented during the case. I do not find this to be true, as arbitrators that vote to reject may vote for sanctions later or vice versa. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
A lot of it isn't to do with actual impartiality, but rather the perception of impartiality. If it is perceived that the committee has already made its mind up, people will be less willing to take part in the case, particularly if they are on the side that has apparently already lost. --Tango (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand your concern (as do other arbs) and that is the reason that I'm discussing the issue. If you read comments on our case pages, you see that us and the community regularly struggles with how public our discussions about our cases should be. It is not a simple issue. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
My $0.02. You can fight their perception about whether the block was good or bad. That is in the face of the overwhelming comments by both editors, admins and arbiters that it was bad. Tilting at Windmills however is rarely successful. Or you can accept that it was a bad block and apologize to MONGO and absolve SlimVirgin of Wheel Warring. From a pure process standpoint, the question about the block is over. The only question remaining is whether you should be sanctioned or not. You can't unring the bell so MONGO is not going to be reblocked, you are not going to be able to ever block him again or leave warnings on his talk page in any official capacity. From a pure Prisoner's dilemma, your only logical course of action is apology/forgiveness. That will go a long way to healing the wounds created by the block and it would be alearning process in return. Don Quixote wouldn't approve but the community would. --DHeyward (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with pretty much all of that. Since you haven't stated any reasons for you opinions, I have nothing to respond to, so I'll leave it at that. --Tango (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding Arbs passing public opoinions before consideration and presentation of eveidence, for once, I am complete agreement with Tango, but unlike Tango I have never been under any delusions regarding this present Arbcom for whom, as a singular body, I have not one jot of respect. When voting. with almost obscene haste to accept the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC case Morven voted:
"Accept. Such behaviour from users and admins who should know better is unacceptable. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC) Note: I support renaming this case if accepted; it does not appear to be purely about Giano. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC) "
Note how it was only several hour later he mad his minor amendment, at the time of his initial comment the case centred entirely on me. This was for a case they had no right to accept in the first place, let alone pass judgement on. Which is why I do not accept, heed or even notice their sanction of me. I dismiss them as they should have dismissed that case.
Morven made his comment before even having made even a pretence of study or evaluation. That alone should have been enough in any civilized society for the judge to be dismissed, but no, this is Wikipedia. So I'm afraid Tango, you must just clench your teeth and shut up and put up, because you have supported this amazing system. Giano (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
While I agree that Morven's comment in that case was equally unacceptable, we differ in that I accept that ArbCom has power over me whether I like it or not. I will respect any rulings against me (I may do that by simply leaving the project, of course). I may decide not to take part in the case if I object too strongly to how it is being carried out, but that's as far as I have the power to go. --Tango (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
To say DHeyward's point a little differently: Regardless of merit, you have nothing of substance to gain and much to lose by an Arbitration case going forward. Since opinions are, at best, divided over the merit; it would be in your best interest to act contrite about the whole situation and put it behind you as quickly as possible (putting it behind you means avoiding the other parties in the future). Basically do everything you can to convince the arbs to reject this case (i.e. don't argue with an arb on the talk page). What I have said above is equally true whether you acted appropriately or not. Many former admins have been correct about an issue yet continued to march down the path to desysoping anyway because they made the mistake in believing that their personal correctness about issue X was the only thing that mattered. --BirgitteSB 18:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Just in case this becomes an issue I'll be proactive here. Matt Sanchez, who edited as Bluemarine and is sitebanned from Wikipedia, is an editor in good standing at Wikimedia Commons. After the en:Wikipedia arbitration case closed he accepted my standing offer of mentorship and has been making productive contributions there. He has also made requests about the Matt Sanchez article. At first I advised him about policies and procedures and directed him to OTRS. Due to a lack of response from OTRS and several bright line policy issues at the article I chose to involve myself directly. The article had problems with contributory copyright infringements, negative material sourced to non-notable blogs, etc.
I don't want to cross the line regarding proxy editing so I'm proceeding quite cautiously. At WP:AE I have already disclosed my interaction with Mr. Sanchez. When he requests a change I ask him for reliable sources, explain policies, and evaluate the request. Then I propose reasonable changes to the talk page. If no one objects I implement the change. If someone does object we discuss it, and if no agreement is reached then I seek independent evaluation at a noticeboard. I am not Matt Sanchez's partisan; several months ago I blocked him and I endorsed his siteban. If there is any problem with the approach I'm taking now, please advise. DurovaCharge! 19:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
That sounds perfectly reasonable to me; with the (generally applicable) caveat that by accepting to proxy the edits you take personal responsibility for their contents— in this particular case you seem to be applying careful editorial precautions accordingly. — Coren(talk) 15:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
<shrug> makes sense to me as well. I keep one eye on that page and think that Durova's doing a reasonable job dealing with it. As long as she's willing to take personal responsibility, I'm okay with it. - Philippe 15:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Follow-up: Matt has begun making audio recordings of Wikipedia articles and uploading them to Commons. This isn't editing; it's making articles accessible to the handicapped. He has an excellent voice and has recorded radio shows. As long as there's no objection, I'll be posting these recordings to Wikipedia. DurovaCharge! 15:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Well that is unexpectedly pleasant. I certainly don't object as one of the people that was involved in the RFAR fracas and hostility from him. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
But one aside, he should probably avoid articles like Matt Sanchez for this, or anything directly related to his notability. It will just inflame people. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
It'll be on other topics. He's fluent in four languages and when he gets off a couple of hot button issues he's all right. His uploads to Commons, besides .ogg files, have been photography of France and Iraq. DurovaCharge! 17:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Inactive arbitrator removal process - any progress?
Hi folks - has there been progress on the process for removing and replacing inactive Arbitrators? I know Brad mentioned that there were some proposals floating on the mailing list, but I haven't heard if there has been a resolution of the debate yet. As I mentioned last time I brought this up, I strongly believe that it is better to complete this decision while there are no inactive Arbitrators (as I think is still the case at the moment, correct me if I'm wrong please). 14:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Nope, no substantial progress since last time. We have a certain tendency to be too busy with short-term flare-ups to be able to devote sufficient time to discussing long-term matters, unfortunately. Kirill 02:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Question about an old thing - Arbitration policy amendment ratifications
Worst case scenario, you wait until the next election and elect some people sympathetic to your point of view. --Tango (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that's necessary, actually. Discussion is the way we do things, rather than putting our heads together and electing "one of our own". Personally, I think getting in touch with a few arbitrators, describing what you see as the flaws of the arbitration policy, and how you would envisage it as in its improved state, and get feedback. The next step would then be the Committee itself; the arbitrator aforementioned could pitch your changes to the ArbCom, or you could simply email their mailing list. The process would not be, I imagine, a fast one; the Committee seems to be somewhat preoccupied with its work, to be able to devote enough time to the operations by which it undertakes its work–an understandable situation.
But, even better, why not run yourself? Some of the best politicians are those that got sick of the lack of change, and decided to do something about it. Of course, I'm not saying that the arbitrators are politicians, by any stretch of the imagination :) But, the elections system is similar: selection is based on competence, experience, one's platform, and general popularity (by that, I mean people respect you as an editor, rather than they're your "mates"). I would not, however, go by the ratification vote: that was held some years ago, when the arbitration system is very different. If you're setting out to change things, a fresh approach is what's needed. Anthøny 15:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
RfA - request for arbitration or request for admin?
I was going through this RfC by Cla68 and he mentioned a previous RfA. Is he talking about a request for admin or request for arb? Given that I couldn't find him on the request for admin, I figured he was talking about requests for arb. Is there an easy way to search these things? I've done a find on all these pages for Cla68 and I can't find it. I think we should make some sort of distinction between the two acronyms; they should not be used interchangeably. Maybe request for admin could be RfAd or requests for arb could be RfAr. Also, where would I go to make this a formal request or whatever? OptimistBen (talk) 05:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
RFA typically means Requests for Adminship, while RFAr is usually used for Requests for Arbitration. Heimstern Läufer(talk) 05:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Optimist, there isn't really a need for a change here. RfA is requests for adminship; RfAr, or RfArb, is Requests for arbitration. Does this eliminate the confusion for you, or do you still feel the two overlap? Anthøny 14:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there is any harm in changing it though - Optimist's view seems more logical. But it's not worth losing sleep over. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
MONGO
I've noticed that MONGO has been listed as a party to the ArbCom filed by Bishzilla. By the rules, all parties to ArbComs have to be notified that the discussion is taking place. I contacted MONGO by e-mail shortly after he retired, and he responded in a way indicating that he was aware the ArbCom was taking place. I have sent him another follow e-mail just recently, indicating, among other things, that he has been listed as a party to the request. I don't know if that's sufficient under the circumstances, but just wanted it to be known that there is evidence that he knows the ArbCom has been filed, and that he has received a form of notice that he is now listed as a party. John Carter (talk) 19:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Shrug. Zilla list Tango only, request de-sysopping. Wizardman add MONGO as party and omit notifying him. bishzillaROARR!! 20:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC).
Just curious... You don't think that if you are going to be filing Arbs, communicating with blocked folks, participating in policy discussions, etc. that using normal English instead of zillaspeak might be a good idea? Avruch T 21:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Its been pointed out to me that this is being discussed at length elsewhere, you needn't respond here if you've made your position clear on some other page. Avruch T 21:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Unanswered question
The ArbCom has still failed to answer the question I posed concerning the Iantresman case. Some admins are willing to unblock, others oppose this. Iantresman cannot be considered community banned any longer, as the definition of a community ban is that no admin is willing to unblock. How are we to resolve this? Heimstern Läufer(talk) 22:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
As the committee declined to take the case, there is no formal answer. My individual opinion goes like this: in this case, contacting the blocking admin is not practical since the indefinite block was a result of a Community Sanction Noticeboard discussion, and also the admin who performed the block appears to be away. If an administrator unblocks Iantresman, they should be aware that such a move may be controversial and everything reasonable should be done to avoid wheel-warring. Likewise, an administrator opposed to an unblock should not reblock except as provided under blocking policy to prevent disruption. In all the circumstances it would be best if the matter proceeded with discussion; this could take place on the administrators' noticeboard, or via a request for comment. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Arbitration: The first stage of the next round of dispute resolution?
So part of this weekend's excitement arises from some these newly-trendy 'discretionary sanctions'. I would like to appeal quite strongly to the committee to stop using these. Let's take a look at the one I just linked. It says, in reasonable summary:
Administrators may block users in accordance with the blocking policy and the prevailing consensus of the community. Such blocks may be appealed via the usual channels (excepting unblock-en?). Administrators may only so block in situations where they have no prior content involvement.
Well, thanks for that: you just stated the standing policy and practise in about ten times as many words as I did. It changes nothing: admins do not need the committee's permission to block for any duration subject to the block finding consensual community support, and the 'appeals' process is empowered to remove, lengthen or shorten any block anyway. The remedy changes and resolves nothing. It constructs no new limits on behavior, and it creates no new tools with which to confine behavior to acceptable limits. In short, it says that editors must behave and administrators are empowered to see that they do. It fails in the committee's responsibility to end disputes, to be the final stage in dispute resolution. Such remedies merely chew the cud and limply hand the dispute back to the community for another iteration - they re-spin the wheel and nothing more. However — and this is important — because the arbitration committee has cleared its throat with respect to a particular editor/article/etc., admins with a little bit of a desire to exercise some 'actual' power take an amplifying effect from the remedy and, sheltering behind the committee's greater authority, over (re)act. Thus, 'discretionary sanctions' light fires under disputes rather than dousing them, and abdicate the committee's responsibility to reach decisions that the community has not been able to. Please stop using them, along with all the other empty platitudes that dominate arbitration outcomes at present. Regards, Splash - tk 16:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't think your summary is a particularly reasonable one, as that's not what the sanction actually says:
The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
(emphasis mine). We are not merely (re-)authorizing people to "block" in accordance with the "blocking policy"; we are authorizing admins to do, quite literally, whatever they feel is necessary, for whatever reason.
Not that you don't have a good point regardless, of course. The discretionary sanctions were, at least in my initial conception of them, an answer to two major weaknesses of the current dispute resolution system:
The Committee doesn't rule on content—probably our last major taboo—and yet a significant number of disputes boil down to questions of POV-pushing that are intrinsically tied to content. The discretionary sanctions basically push the responsibility for sorting these out to the administrators, who have no prohibition on using content in their decisions; but this admittedly comes at a certain cost.
Both the preliminary portion of system, and even arbitration itself, is generally incapable of dealing with valuable or popular editors that are acting inappropriately. Normal blocks against such editors tend to be quickly reversed by friendly admins, and the Committee has traditionally been reluctant to sanction them. When I first drafted the original discretionary sanctions proposal, I tried to come up with a system where sanctions were easier to impose than to remove, in order to combat this effect; the original proposal, if I recall correctly, called for summary desysoppings of anyone reversing such sanctions without adequate consensus. Obviously, the text was watered down in the final version, but the general idea remains.
These sanctions are, however, very crude tools, as you point out. It would be much easier to work with a system properly designed for handling these sorts of disputes; but the initiative for major reform must, on some fundamental level, come from the community as a whole rather than exclusively from us. Kirill 17:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
No disagreement. I do wonder however as to what sort of "reform" could be proposed. I think we'd be clearly talking about some sort of policy proposal, but what would it incline? Binding penalties, perhaps imposed by specifically designated parties, maybe some sort of ArbCom "deputies" or a subordinate, quick-resolution process? I wouldn't oppose such measures, but don't entirely know whether that's what you're thinking or not. John Carter (talk) 17:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure, to be quite honest; at this point, any idea for improving things would be welcome. (That's one of the things the ethnic disputes working group was supposed to work on, but it's not gotten very far in that regard.)
My initial thought would be to have some sort of system for evaluating content-based claims. We've tried to weasel our way around such matters in the recent Sadi Carnot and Franco-Mongol alliance cases, but that doesn't work in the general case (if at all). We almost need some sort of advisory "content expert" body that can evaluate claims and issue opinions on whether parties to a dispute are misusing sources, pushing for undue weight, and so forth. Then, the Committee could make rulings referencing such opinions (e.g. "According to the Content Group, User:X has misused sources on topic Y..."). But this is merely brainstorming, at this point.
Fundamentally, the community needs to determine how it wants disputes to be resolved, and then create a system to match, in whatever form. Kirill 18:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
In response to Kirill, and I know this is a dubious idea, particularly for someone who is currently a candidate for a coordinator position, but maybe it might be possible to encourage development of coordinators for some of the larger content themes of wikipedia, and occasionally call in them for the semi-expert opinions Kirill mentioned above? It would probably result in some changes to coordinator votes and elections, but I don't think that this is likely to be finalized within the next few months anyway, so we probably won't be "grandfathering in" too many potentially prejudiced parties if something like that were proposed. It might make some parties a bit less popular to their constituencies, though. John Carter (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I reckon the main outcome of this would be the acceleration of disputes to arbcom just so that that the disputants can 'prove their case' before an expert jury. (And I can think of one or two experts in the recent past not suited to that jury, so we must be careful). I think things are simpler though: the committee should get back to passing remedies that target the individual behaviours of the editors/admins involved and be more gutsy about it. As you have said, the system you have is fundamentally not suited to squashing decades of international tension etc., so you must use the more limited tools at your disposal with greater confidence and less timidity, and sanction editors who clearly need it. You have escalating blocks and bans, revert restrictions and ratchets, mid-term bans, topic bans, the list goes on. Consider that when you close a case with toast-and-marshmallow but without actionable remedy, you have reversed your earlier judgement that the case needed resolving; you are extremely unlikely to have achieved your own goals in such situations (unless there are problems in the case-acceptance procedures). Splash - tk 20:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
So I'm guessing you prefer the exhaustive-list-of-sanctions approach of, say, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan? It's doable (albeit much more time-consuming), but only if we get people submitting sufficient, organized evidence. In a number of later cases, we've had a problem with there not actually being enough evidence presented against any particular user to justify directly sanctioning them. Kirill 02:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
In general, yes, I think they are more effective even if they do sometimes cause a little indignation. (From a paperwork pov, they could be more easily bundled by remedy than by editor). The poor evidence collation problem is difficult, I agree. One approach (which I think has been taken at least implicitly in the past) is to conclude that the standard behavioural bounds aren't working on Article/TopicList X and thus to apply some new ones. For example, a blanket N-revert restriction on all current and future editors to the article for M months. This is not punishing the innocent, but drawing lines to contain and reduce the problematic nature; it is essentially 'article probation' with teeth. This could be coupled with tougher sanctions against identified editors. Splash - tk 12:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I have not given up on the use of discretionary sanctions, either. I did not support them for exactly same reasons that Kirill names in his above comment, but never the less, I support them. I think that empowering more admins to be more active in arb case enforcement is a good thing for the Community. It is not possible for the Committee to spell out in detail exactly what is needed in every content dispute on these contentious articles. I feel that it is best left in the hands of uninvolved admins that have educated themselves about the issue, and are actively trying to help all the article's editors resolve their conflicts so that a good stable version of the article can exist. We need for the admins to enter the issue with an open mind and a willingness to show patience with all the involved editors. The use of blocks should still be a last resort after attempts to deescalate a particular situation does not work. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I suppose my thrust is that, even before arbcom passes such wide-sounding remedies, the admins can act in any appropriate way they can gain support for. The point is that the community has been demonstrably unable to reach agreement on what the appropriate ways are. Simply mandating the question back to AN/I is therefore very unlikely to change much. I don't think that even FloNight's comment immediately above connects with this: those noble admins trying to help have certainly failed to do so despite their best efforts or the matter would not be before the committee to resolve , assuming the committee is accepting only thus far irresolvable disputes (one need only look at the combined block logs for the editors involved in the ethnic disputes to see this). It is therefore a matter of some importance that arbitration remedies be maximally prescriptive, for that is the only way to achieve the two key goals: 1) Setting narrower boundaries for acceptable behaviour that the 'remedied' parties are clear on and 2) Providing clear disincentives for outstepping those bounds. This relieves the enforcing admins of endless further disputes about proportionality et al., and the offending editor of uncertainty regarding how arbitrary today's passing admin might be. Remedies that fail in either of these respects are not useful. Splash - tk 20:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I have thoughts on all of this—unfortunately, I am tied up with real-world work for the next day or two, but Splash has raised some good points and I intend to contribute to the discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I've always thought the real way to resolve disputes and improve articles is to get more people editing the article and discussing things on the talk pages. Kirill says "The discretionary sanctions basically push the responsibility for sorting these out to the administrators, who have no prohibition on using content in their decisions" - which surprises me. I've always thought that administrators were meant to stand aloof from the content issues, and instead help deal with disruptive behaviour - keep the extreme behaviour under control and leave the mature and calm and sensible editors (from whatever POV) to discuss things and move the article forward. Admins clamp down on misbehaviour, while editors discuss and write the articles. What this does require though is a certain critical amount of sensible editors to be present over time, and a critical mass of uninvolved admins willing to stay out of the discussions, but still ward off the disruptive behaviour. Most problems arise when there are too few sensible people willing to get involved as editors, or too few admins willing to reduce disruption to allow normal editing to resume. There is also a lot to be said for nipping problems in the bud, before they even get to this stage. Carcharoth (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
It's expressly written that admins can't use their tools to advance their position in a content dispute. Where's the line if you (Kirill as quoted above) are saying that an admin is supposed to chose a side of the content dispute and then use their tools to enforce their decision?--Cube lurker (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The full quote from Kirill is here: "The Committee doesn't rule on content—probably our last major taboo—and yet a significant number of disputes boil down to questions of POV-pushing that are intrinsically tied to content. The discretionary sanctions basically push the responsibility for sorting these out to the administrators, who have no prohibition on using content in their decisions; but this admittedly comes at a certain cost." It is possible that Kirill meant his comment only to apply to discretionary sanctions, and not to admins actions in general, but obviously he is the best person to explain what he meant. Carcharoth (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The distinction is between participation and awareness. Admins are, indeed, prohibited from using their tools to advance their position in a content dispute; but this is traditionally interpreted quite narrowly, and has never been taken to mean that admins must blind themselves to content issues when making decisions—merely that they cannot pursue both an editorial role and an administrative one in a dispute. There has never been a prohibition—as far as I'm aware of, in any case—against admins blocking people for, say, misusing sources, pushing fringe viewpoints into articles, or otherwise violating content policies (although these blocks have become less common as the centralized community sanction processes have collapsed).
The Committee, on the other hand, cannot really do anything about editors who violate only content policies—not conduct ones—since doing so would implicitly involve ruling on the validity of the content generated by said editors. This is, in large part, why we get cases where editors who were arguably correct in the dispute get sanctioned for conduct violations, while the POV-pushers get away with it by being polite. Kirill 02:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Ouch? Are you supposed to poke your finger like that in Wikipedia's most gaping, bloodied wound? — Coren(talk) 02:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
So basically you admit that ArbCom is unable to take appropriate corrective measures in these cases, because they are bound by their inability to rule on content, and so they ignore the far more egregious offense of trying to subvert the NPOV of the encyclopedia in favor of imposing civility restrictions on the very people who have been doing their best to stop the POV pushers themselves? So why rule at all? You're admitting you can't fix the situation, so why not do nothing and let the community handle it the way they have been? If the community could determine what constitutes appropriate action it would have already, in my opinion giving admins wide latitude to take whatever action they unilaterally deem to be appropriate does nothing but generate controversies like the ongoing MONGO fiasco.--Dycedargж 03:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The whole problem is that the community mostly doesn't want to handle it—and sometimes can't even if it wants to. The last significant attempt at community-driven dispute resolution—WP:CSN—was shut down a while ago. Any dispute involving admins on both sides tends to degenerate into pseudo-wheel-warring ("unblock per consensus [among editors I agree with!]"); and much of the community simply assumes that ArbCom will handle things (never mind that we're not actually authorized to resolve them in the expected way). And there are issues of improper conduct that do need to be dealt with, even if the underlying disputes get left to fester.
(And thus my point about us needing a general reform of the dispute resolution system.) Kirill 03:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, Kirill, it is a problem. You once basically called me a fringe POV pusher, or I thought you did. I would fear giving admins more power than they already have: they often don't know what the heck they're doing, and indeed it would be hard for them to learn. So what you have there is the involved are POV and the uninvolved are ignorant. I would fear even high ranking members of the community, as I have seen some of them willing to block, edit, and OWN purely out of their own POV, and against sourcing, and also against the ruleings of the ArbCom. But I'd have no fear of a committee of true or even sorta experts: in my area, even if you chose some of the top people from CSI I'd still be ok. But I'd fear a committee of experts who are either 1) purported experts such as mostly appear on WP or 2) didn't know the field at all. So if expert committees won't work, what do you suggest, if anything? I admit, short of changing basic policy (to WP:SPOV for example), I haven't been able to think of anything. ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, there is an important concern to be extracted from Martin's post: the fringe would demand that their "experts" be given sway over their fringe topic. The expert committees would have to be formed from extraordinarily broad fields (science, humanities) to avoid this institutionalization of fringe views on Wikipedia. If the community could come to a consensus on how many committees (covering which broad fields) should exist, this could still be done. Antelantalk 03:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about your points at all - in reading your post, I extracted a concern that you hadn't mentioned. You're labeling them unimportant, not I. Antelantalk 04:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, at least a start of "fields" to be considered would be: Anthropology, Astronomy, Chemistry, Geosciences, History, Literature, Media, Medicine, Music, Physics, Politics, Pseudoscience, Religion, Sociology, and Visual Arts. I think it might be possible to find editors familiar with each field who are at least generally considered trustworthy who could be called in as individuals capable of reviewing sourcing of articles. I can't imagine that they will necessarily be able to prove anything one way or another, but at least they might be able to produce information regarding what seems to be the current academic consensus or alternately be able to agree upon an outside expert in the field who could be contacted as an expert in the field. It still wouldn't be easy, but it would be at least potentially possible. John Carter (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
If anyone seriously has particular method(s) in mind for handling content disputes, I have a practical suggestion. Category:NPOV disputes has over 8,000 articles stretching back over a year. I think the "cold cases" found there would be appropriate test subjects for any bold experiments. Of course many of the older articles are abandoned so any methods that rely on work being done by the parties in a dispute will not be compatible. But any methods that ignore the editors and focus on the content would be a good fit. Such a method would fill in a big gap that is left empty by both Arbcom and Mediation.--BirgitteSB 04:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
One thing that would definitely help is if the various Projects out there all kept "todo" lists of the content problems falling within the scope of their projects, including POV. I know I'm probably one of the worst offenders in terms of failing to keep such lists, but I'm at least going to start a todo list for the Christianity project, and try to include the relevant POV articles in it. One question, though. Do the rest of you think that, if a variation on the standard "todo" template were included somewhere on each project page, it might be possible to have a bot automatically update the contents of the template on a comparatively regular basis? That alone might help address some of the problems we face in this regard. John Carter (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
If any wikiprojects want to work on these things I am quite willing to keep a list for them updated manually. I am looking through these categories anyways. I can easily post five of the older cases that corespond to their topic and rotate them once a week. Contact me on my talk on exactly where you would like the list. And if you want any backlogs besides NPOV.--BirgitteSB 17:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
From my experience of discretionary sanctions - lengthy experience with WP:ARBMAC and WP:ARBAA2 - they work. They do give administrators abilities we did not have before: to put users on revert parole, civility parole, apply topic-bans and so on, without an arbitration case beforehand or a massive palaver trying to get community consensus at AN. This does require, of course, a certain amount of clue. It requires the ability to stand up and say "You're completely wrong about the content, so either put up or shut up". It is my opinion that many administrators are suffering from irrational fear of the arbitration committee. There is no problem, at least in my book, with taking content issues into significant account when deciding who is editing disruptively and who isn't. POV-pushing, wherever it may occur, is the ultimate in disruptive editing. So deal with it.
The problem with cases such as WP:ARBAA is that they would work fine is Wikipedia was perfectly static - but it isn't. New editors from Armenia and Azerbaijan come in all the time who are not subject to restrictions. They may often be meatpuppets - trolls recruited off nationalist forums. Cases such as WP:ARBAA mean they cannot be dealt with without a new case when all they are doing is continuing the disruptive editing of their predecessors. AA2 means that they can be. This is desirable. Moreschi2 (talk) 09:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Once again Moreschi2 makes more of his casual references to editors from "Armenia and Azerbaijan", and gets close to racism. He once banned all "Armenians and Azeris" from making comments on a talk page for 5 days. If he had changed that to, say, "Negroes and Asians" would he have got away with it? Admins that are going around advocating or justifying restrictions on editors solely based on race should not be Wikipedia administrators. Moreschi's support for the mess that is AA2 is (like his crude dismissal of editors by referring to their alleged ethnicity) based on what makes his life easy as an admin rather than what is best for Wikipedia. If admins can't stand the heat then they should resign from that position and let others more suited to the post take their place. (BTW, I'm neither Armenian or Azeri) Meowy 21:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I want to respond to this topic too - will add my response here when I have finished writing it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
One option comes to mind. It ain't even close to perfect, but it might be a start.
First, we can and should have most WikiProjects keep track of the articles being discussed, challenged, or whatever. I can and will try to add todo templates to most of the projects I'm involved with to help them keep up on such material. But that's a bit of a side matter.
What we really might be looking for here, and this is the dubious part, is something like formally designated ArbCom ruling enforcers. Maybe a way to institute it would be for either the community to nominate a group of editors, not on the ArbCom, whom they think could be trusted to review material posted on WP:AE and be able to fairly decide whether there are grounds for enforcement, and then have the ArbCom itself "confirm" a group of those nominated. Or it might be done the other way around, with ArbCom nominating and the community confirming a select few of the nominees. These designated individuals could lose their status easily, at any time, without prejudice, just by having their name removed by any arbitrator from the list.
Clearly, there could be and are ways in which the system is less than perfect, and I can think of a few of them right off. But it might be a step toward what we;re talking about here. John Carter (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
CAMERA & Arbitrator participation
I'd appreciate it, as I'm sure others would as well, if the other active Arbitrators (seemingly all of them, at the moment) would consider weighing in with a reject or accept on the CAMERA arbitration request. It would be unfortunate to have it die at the time limit based on a 5/2 split, resulting in no case and no definitive resolution despite the opinion of 5 arbitrators to the contrary. Avruch T 17:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
For the record, the CAMERA case has been accepted, and is now live. Check out here for the case page. Regards, Anthøny 22:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Motions page
I think it's time to move it back to the main page (or transclude it). Yes, it clutters the main page, but I don't think it gets adequate attention anymore, either from us arbcommies or from the community. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree, activity has been below the necessary standards. It was a very good experiment, and I'm glad it was undertaken (I was originally in support of it), but it's not worked, and a revert to the old approach is required. I have reverted the fork: clarifications and motions in prior cases are now handled directly on RfAr, and not via a subpage or transclusion. Regards, Anthøny 21:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Certainly an interesting trial and the arbs are the best people to say whether it worked or not - thanks AGK for undoing my experiment :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 22:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I feel abashed now =) In all fairness, Ryan, it was very well set-up ;) Anthøny 22:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Where are these comments now? I would like to have them available to let the discussion go on, can I move them here?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd imagine here would be the most obvious medium by which to continue those discussions, yes. However, I would encourage you, Pokipsy, to merge as much of the points from those discussions as possible, to the relevant thread on the motion in prior case/request for clarification at RfAr. Doing so minimises the amount of reading necessary for an interested party and/or arbitrator, and also centralises discussion as much as possible. To re-answer your query, however: yes, continue discussion on this page seems like the best course of action. Anthøny 16:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Anthony, however it's still not completely clear to me whether it is ok to copy and paste those discussions here... Is it ok?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
It is okay to do so, yes. Anthøny 20:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Arbitrators - please look through the request for appeal: Topic ban of Thomas Basboll, and add your views, and slowly work your way up the list.
Would request one of the clerks to please archive (if it is ready to be archived) the IRC case clarification.
Requested discretionary sanctions on pseudoscience
If full consideration and/or action is being held until the resolution of the homeopathy case, is it appropriate for the discussion to continue here? Would it be more appropriate to raise the dicussion on AN or the village pump? Should the discussion be put aside until other pending cases/issues are resolved? I am willing to roll with whatever the arbitrators and clerks suggest. For example, if the arbs and clerks feel that discussion should be on-hold until the homeopathy case is resolved, they may consider the motion withdrawn for the time being. I would not object if the request were archived or removed, as such. I understand there is a related dispute and similar issues pending in the homeopathy case and I'm just looking for a bit of guidance. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Interesting point, Vassyana. I would suggest that whether or not the issue of discretionary sanctions should be applied should be put "on hold" should be based upon whether that discussion continuing is actively causing disruption. Perhaps you're well suited to answering that :) What would be gained from placing the discussion on hold, and conversely, what would be gained from continuing the discussion (and relevant motions)? Anthøny 20:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd let it continue until people were done commenting. The reason for that is because Kirill expressed a non-opposition to considering it after the Homeopathy case, presumably because it and the Homeopathy case are related. Comments here, of possible future application, may affect their decisions there. --Nealparr(talk to me) 22:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think either approach would particularly cause harm. "Pausing" the discussion for a short while until the completion of the homeopathy case would allow the arbitrators to resolve a related case. The arbitrators are looking into modifiying discretionary sanctions in the homeopathy case. The discussion could also be moved to the workshop talk page. Either way, it would permit the arbitrators to keep their focus on the resolution of the standing case, in the context of previous cases and continuing issues, without yet another discussion about the difficult area.
Continuing the discussion as-is would allow the arbitrators to get a feel for how people feel about discretionary sanctions and this broad problem area in the wiki. People will generally be more prone to discuss a general motion on the requests page than on a specific case's workshop talk page. Letting the comments continue unrelated to the homeopathy case may present the arbs with a broader perspective from the community of many issues present in the multiple cases, including the homeopathy case.
Some thoughts, for what they are worth. Vassyana (talk) 00:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I think any action similar to this needs to make clear that admins need to follow the wording of the ArbCom decision closely. I was blocked once "per my ArbCom restriction" when it actually had nothing to do with what the ArbCom said. Care needs to be taken. For example, as phrased, in the decision on Homeopathy, "purpose of Wikipedia" would be interpreted "to convey the scientific truth," and editors blocked accordingly. In other words, I'd be happy to see some of the disruptors go, but there's too much hate around. Be careful. There are "uninvolved admins" such as .....never mind...... who are in fact heavily involved or biased, but don't edit certain articles themselves. This applies to Homeopathy as well. I'm hated by admins uninvolved in pages I edit. Not to be narcissistic or anything.
Ok, now something I'd like Kirill and other Arbitrators to consider even more:
I suggest that some kind of mentorship should become optional for editors seen as problematic. This would allow an admin whom the person can agree is neutral to become intimately knowledgeable about the user, and thus to have an expert opinion on a user's behavior. A similar situation took place in the case of Dana Ullman, where LaraLove mentored him. It failed. But her giving up on him should have counted heavily in the case. I, for one, want someone involved who is neutral and actually knows my edits. ——Martinphi☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Such a rename would not be appropriate. Your disruptive editing was also covered in that case. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
For someone who threatened me on IRC not too long ago you should not be lecturing me. Do you HAVE TO stir a controversy all the time? -- Catchi? 14:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Me? Stir controversy? You started the thread :) Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Good god... How dare I initiate a discussion? Maybe I should be banned from it, huh? -- Catchi? 15:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Why would we want to rename that? Three of the four remedies pertain solely to Coolcat. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The comma looks odd in the url. I guess I am a perfectionist. :) We can name it "White Cat" if mentioning my name would satisfy others. Linking to long titles looks ugly in wiki markup. It is not like anyone cares what the name of an arbcom case from 2005 happens to be.
Also I do not like the old username references. It is rather tiring to explain who is who. In my view RfArs should represent the most recent username if the user is legitemately editing. "Coolcat" would be "White Cat", "Stereotek" would be "Karl Meier", "Davenbelle" could be "Jack Merridew". It has gotten rather complicated.
No, let's not go down the path of trying to change history here. The case was heard under a particular name, and that's the name under which it should be archived. Kirill(prof) 17:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
What history am I changing? Seriously... This is a very serious accusation and I want to know the reasoning behind it. I am merely suggesting a little tidying. I am not removing remedies or anything. -- Catchi? 18:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll give my two cents as a Clerk. There are two sides of this proposal to be considered. Firstly, whether the precedent of old arbitration cases being "left be" (I can't think of a single closed case being edited, except for 1/ amendment by motion of the committee; 2/ updating of logs of blocks/bans) should no longer be left to stand. That would open up the Committee's archives to, potentially, a new wave of ammendments, which I personally think to be quite problematic and concerning: by-and-large, I think closed cases are best kept untouched.
Secondly, does the Committee agree to cases being tweaked post-closure, outside of the usual permissible boundaries (i.e., entry to ban logs; updating further to amendments)? This really isn't an area for the clerks, but for the AC: case pages essentially "belong" to them, as they are established as necessary for their efficient functioning. My final view is this: permission from the AC is required, White Cat, to implement the changes you have proposed; whether such permission should be granted, in my opinion, is something I will make no comment as to. Anthøny 18:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
An arbitrator or two can approve the change, thats fine by me. We shouldn't just randomly mass rename pages. I also do not want to invent an entire new process wasting arbitrator time. I think clerks can deal with such renames if arbitrators agree to delegate this. It would be nice to tidy some old cases that are poorly named. -- Catchi? 18:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
My point is that it is probably best that cases, even if "badly named", it is best to leave it be. Anthøny 19:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, what do we mean by "case name"? A single header = header = could hold the long official full name of the case and the page name (article name that appears on the top of the page could be some shorter name. An array of redirects can be used:
Let's consider my 2005 arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek. The title of that case is inaccurate because User:Fadix has gotten remedies too even if he isn't mentioned on the title. Right now the names of arbcom cases are typically determined by the person filing them. Typically people pick decent, understandable, acceptable names.
I'm sorry, but I don't believe for a second that you want that case renamed because it has a "rather long name". Perhaps if you were more upfront with us, we'd be more willing to hear what you say. --Deskana(talk) 19:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
In fairness, White Cat did state that his primary motivation for a rename is that the name is not reflective of the issues decided therein (in his opinion)–that is to say, he believes that the name suggests that he was held as having bad conduct in that case, which is not true. Anthøny 20:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
As a further point, I don't think the rename you have suggested, White Cat, is suitable. That arbitration case involved you as much as it involved the other two accounts, and indeed, contained numerous remedies pertaining to you. I've thought about it for a while, and I must say, this rename really isn't suitable. I for one, for what it's worth, oppose this proposal. Anthøny 09:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
We can pick a different name and perhaps reach a compromise but you should also come up with a suggestion. Please also see my above post. I was honest enough to go directly to the point, please do not shoot me for that reason. :) -- Catchi? 10:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
(In reference to deskana) Please assume good faith. People typically do not want to be accused of a hidden agenda. I am such a person. What other reason could I have to be renaming the case in question?
(In reference to AGK) When the case was filed (and a name was picked) my only involvement was being the victim. Arbcom ruled of wrong doing on my part as well - no doubt. But had I filed the case, I would probably pick a different name. The case name should represent the accusation or the dispute. It was at no point intended to list the involved parties. In addition the past remedies and findings are more important that the cases name. While I do believe I got more than what I deserved in that case over the course of time other involved users got infront of Arbcom for continuing bad conduct. Fadix was in front of arbcom with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan, Davenbelle with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick (as Moby Dick - current username: Jack Merridew). Stereotek with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Irishpunktom (as Karl Meier).
(in general) I was very involved with "/Moby Dick" rfar, my username isn't listed in the case name. I guess what I seek here is having a consistent naming scheme while making good use of redirects. Currently old cases are hard to find and hard to link to particularly if the involved user(s) change usernames. Some old case names are rather complicated and are hard to link to as well. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests lists all old cases. Each case is followed by a list of involved users.
The case concerned interpersonal issues, not tied to any particular article, and not limited just to the issue of stalking, and made findings relating to all three editors named in the case title. I don't disagree that some case names could probably be changed, but in this situation the title is apt and is a good descriptor of the case's contents. --bainer (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Interpersonal issues? Someone was accused of policy violations. The case has been and still is predominantly about that. It is very annoying to constantly type one of the longest arbitration cases name.
As for the general issue a general cleanup is necessary, I obviously will not be allowed to make such edits... Some parties will not allow me to edit like a regular user...
Drive for action: current clarifications and prior-case motions
Folks, we have a number of current requests for clarifications, and motions in prior cases, which require a response from the Committee. I'm willing to undertake any Clerk action required to get the various threads on Requests for arbitration processed and archived.
That list deals only with clarifications of prior cases, and with requested amendments to prior cases; it excludes ordinary requests for arbitration, of which there is only one. For each entry in the above list, I would like to open discussion as to which of the following categories it should be placed in: 1/ requiring arbitrator proposals; 2/ stale and requiring archiving; 3/ new, and no action currently needed. I'm also open to further categories as required.
Note, by category I simply mean what stage it is currently in; I'm not proposing placing it in a category, tagging the request itself, or anything. Rather, I'd simply like to have a list in this thread, of which stage each is in. For example, an entry in the finalised list at the bottom of this thread would take the form of,
Request to amend prior case: Example case is requiring arbitrator proposals and voting.
Suggestions on what stage each thread is currently in? Anthøny 21:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
My appeal seems not be listed, but I would suggest putting it category 1.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
PS: The following statement, made in a related discussion, suggests (at least to me) that this case is somewhat urgent: "Basboll is an SPA who is here to promote conspiracy theories about 9/11 and has been indefinitely topic banned from those articles." [11] Its author makes the reasonable assumption that the topic ban licenses the characterization, which is, of course, a character assassination in the specific sense of terminating the assumption of good faith. I have only one name. It is quickly turning into mud around here.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 23:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest that the two IRC ones are somehow combined or partially archived, or that advice its sought from the arbitration committee on whether these (or other threads) are truly stale. I think it should be the job of clerks to occasionally (on their list) forcefully remind the arbitrators of these outstanding issues. It would be silly if inactivity on such threads became evidence in future arbitration cases. Better for the arbitration committee to deal with things properly now. I also share Basboll's concern that the support of single arbitrator (Morven) and the silence of the rest of the committee (apart from the recusal), has led to MONGO's comment about Basboll at the Tango arbitration case. Basboll is attempting to defend himself, but the slowness of the arbitrators in dealing with the appeal is making it difficult. It is the equivalent of keeping someone locked in jail for x days before charging them. Carcharoth (talk) 09:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
As an addendum, I'm also looking at proposing some sort of ongoing version of this list, which could be dynamically updated by arbitration frequenters as necessary. Anthøny 15:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I've recently been trying to help out (with some nudges/questions/comments to arbitrators) in making opened cases move just a little more quickly. If arbitrators/clerks don't mind, I can likewise do the same for these requests for clarification/appeal? Of course, as with the opened cases, I will only give a certain number at a time, and after a certain period of time has lapsed from when the case/request was opened. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Check out {{RfarOpenTasks}}, which is in development (the statuses are not yet accurate). Anthøny 08:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Very nice!--Pokipsy76 (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
How about clearing out the ones that are not going to go anwhere first? There are at least 2-4 of them. That'd at least get the numbers down. This is the highest I recall clarifications ever being. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Can you be specific? I've listed some suggestions in the categories. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
"This is the highest I recall clarifications ever being". I concur; I do not recall there being a greater amount of clarifications present on Requests for arbitration than the current count of 10. Curiously enough, I also believe the current ratio of clarifications to ordinary requests to be exceptionally high; there are five clarifications to every ordinary request (5:1, simplified from 10:2). Times have certainly changed on the arbitration tableaux. Anthøny 18:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I closed the other 9/11 one too. I'm not so sure we should close the IRC one. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree, but you should close this-one - Deskana has confirmed (on the requests page itself) that no action will be taken. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, clear arb consensus on that one. I'll close it right now. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
With all respect, saying that no arbitrator input is needed on the request I filed after two weeks, and when it just needs a few words to say, yes, we're happy with this, or no, they shouldn't do that. We will warn them. - is really rather annoying. Does this mean I'll have to wait another couple weeks before Arbcom bothers to deal with it? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Users, including arb clerks, can not control when the arbs respond, but we do ask them about these situations. They are well aware of the current situation. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I was talking more about being put in "Category 3 - new, and no action currently needed". Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, that list that I've written above is no longer accurate. Please check {{RfarOpenTasks}}. Re: your case specifically, it is not marked as 'arbitrator attention needed' because it is still being discussed among ArbCom. Therefore, it already has their attention (they will be forming their responses after the discussion). Those that have no response (or a sufficient one) after a reasonable time, and appear not to have their attention are marked with 'arbitrator attention needed'. I hope that clears it up. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
If "stale thread" means that no comment will be made, I have to strongly protest that happening to either of the "Episodes and Characters" requests. The storm on WP:AN over the last few days is a sign of how important clarification is. Responsible editors and admins are in pretty severe disagreement as to how to apply those sanctions, and we have an editor blocked for two weeks under a sanction that called for blocks of under a week. It's not a case of refusing to overturn the community, it's a case of the community divided.Kww (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Only one of them has been marked that way - but it will be kept on the list so ArbCom can deal with them simultaneously. I don't think there is enough to separate them as 2 separate cases. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Deadline proposal on clarifications
Similar to the way a proposed RFAR has a 7-day limit, I propose setting a 3-week limit on requested clarifications, as in if the clarification/motion/amendment has had not any comments in 3-weeks, the clerks should close it. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm opposed to this and not only because I feel my situation has been mishandled from the start. Everything to do with the Arbitration committee is full of protocols and wiki-speak which those who are experienced are more likely to prevail while newbies are at the mercy of a confusing process. I have been waiting patiently nearly a month and tried to navigate the waters at the AE board before that. I feel deadlines on justice might be well-intended but have less than positive consequences for the project as a whole. It would be nice to know what is going with my case but near silence has been my experience so far so I can wait until they get around to it. Banjeboi 22:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps more relevantly, it's been a week since I opened a Request for clarification. Many people responded. No clerk, and no arbitrator has commented yet.
In short, I think that the 3-week limit for a part of the page that Arbcom seems very slow to deal with is... probably not going to work. Things would get arbitrarily dumped because Arbcom didn't get off their arses, not because they lacked merit. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
It may be useful to have an AC calendar of sorts. That way clerks can simply schedule cases to move forward. The arbs would of course have to agree to be "managed" a bit, but a good team of clerks could ensure that their attention circulates in an orderly manner. This wouldn't require deadlines (especially not for a final decision). Just a date and time period where the arbs are expected to grant a few minutes of their attention to the case and state their position so far (always open to be revised and even a "still thinking about it" comment would do.) If involved parties knew when the arbs would look at a case, the waiting itself would be much easier (and less time consuming. I check back every day, for example. The watchlist doesn't help much, for obvious reasons.)--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The goal of this is to get quicker repsonses from the arbs. A clerk repsonding is nice, but generally speaking, until the arbs decide what to do, it can't be closed. I feel the requestors, in most cases, are entitled to a resolution quicker than a month. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
After discussion with ArbCom, I've updated the template created by AGK to reflect all of the threads that are stale. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Ncmvocalist, and good work. ;) Anthøny 18:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
"The goal of this is to get quicker repsonses from the arbs". Arbitration elections aren't that far away; if anybody believes they can push the Committee forward in terms of efficiency, workflow, and turnaround, please do nominate yourself. :-) Be ready for a surprise, however; we're all to eager to say "those arbitrators, they're too inactive", yet the Committee's backlog is rather astonishing, when the finer details, and the intensity of each individual task (of which there are many in theirselves), are examined. Anthøny 18:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe they need more arbs or to split their tasking somehow. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm distressed that the thread concerning my ban is now considered "stale". Does this now represent their decision that my concerns are so insignificant they merit nothing but one Arb's comment and nothing more? Banjeboi 20:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Email the arbs and ask them why it's had so little response. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
In my view, appeals against topic and article bans imposed as part of an arbitration finding need not, and should not (except in truly exceptional circumstances), be heard by the Arbitration Committee itself. They can be determined by consensus among administrators. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Appreciate the feedback...but (to Rlevse) I've emailed the Arbcom committee twice and got no reply and (also to Sam Blacketer) was directed here as the only way to overturn an admin topic ban. If there is some other route I should have taken or indeed should take now please let me know. For future users it might help to clarify this somewhere as I looked for where to turn and kept getting pointed here. Banjeboi 00:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
About the deletion of my RFC
May I ask why does my Request for clarification have been deleted before any official expression of the arbcom? The explanation given in the summary seems a bit weak: I have asked four quaestions and the alleged "result" has nothing to do with *any* of my questions and is desumed from the expression of two arbitrators speaking for themselves.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 13:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom agree with the statements of Sam Blacketer and Thebainer and no further replies will be made - as far as I can tell, they give an answer to all of your questions too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's disputable whether they actually answered all my questions. However thank you very much for your informations.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 08:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
If you specify the questions you feel weren't answered, someone else may be able to help. Alternatively, you can mail the ArbCom. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Appeal process
Does someone know what the process is for my appeal? Is ArbCom deliberating? Or are they waiting for something? Is Morven's view representative? Etc.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully this matter should be addressed by the outcome of my below thread. Anthøny 21:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I had asked for some more input from another arbitrator (FloNight), as well as Morven, whom made a (rather unsubstantiated) view on this particular appeal - I only today realized I have got a reply from FloNight whose view was also that there appeared to be no reason to intervene, but she did guarantee that she will look into the issues further as she was unsure that inappropriate admin action had happened in the case.
If you still feel your grounds are solid for an appeal, I will ask 2-3 other arbitrators for their input also. Prior to your reply to this, you may want to consider making any necessary modifications to your statement/evidence accordingly. Evidence may include whether the blocking admin has exercised questionable judgement in other instances - WQA, AN/I, certain article talk pages and certain user talk pages are most likely to contain them if they do exist. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
We could even revisit the perennial question of whether the question of former arbitrators having access to the arbitration committee's mailing list is handled transparently enough. Wikipedia:ARBCOM#Mailing list confirms that Raul654 (the admin who gave Basboll the topic ban) is subscribed to the mailing list. I shouldn't have to ask whether Raul and the arbitration committee have discussed this topic ban on the mailing list. I presume they haven't, but because we don't know for sure, the question is always there in the background. In Basboll's favour, I note that he appears to have kept to the terms of his ban, and (as far as I know) is not trying to edit the 9/11 articles by other means. I also note that Raul's ban of Basboll from those articles appears to be indefinite until further review (Raul said "I am banning you", not "you are banned for a month" or "you are banned for a year"). Whatever the truth or rights and wrongs of the matter, leaving the matter in limbo for this long is completely unacceptable. As Basboll has said: "Almost three weeks later, I am still waiting to hear the Committee's position, and Raul has not yet made a statement." How can that be acceptable?
As if that wasn't of concern enough, we get an Jehochman coming up with the following (I would have said something at the time, back in April, if I had noticed): "The community has been put on notice. Enough is enough. Let the administrators do their work." That seems to be saying that admins should be chosing sides in an intractable content dispute in order to resolve it, and if that is what is being said, and if that is what "discretionary sanctions" ultimately leads to, that is just as unacceptable.
Finally, people have said that the main article in question has improved immensely since the topic ban. Well, I think that the article would improve even more if everyone currently working on the article was banned from working on the article, and 4 or 5 completely new editors (with experience elsewhere) were brought in to edit it. I think they would do an excellent job of editing the article to a very high standard. If one "philosophy" of dealing with problematic articles is allowed, why are others not? Sometimes re-starting an article from scratch doesn't just mean re-starting the article itself from scratch. Sometimes it means removing all the editors that got involved and letting other editors have a clear run at writing an article. The end result might be the same, but the difference in process might make all the difference. Carcharoth (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
This is puzzling. I am not going to base my defense on an attack on Raul654. Raul has made a mistake in this case. If ArbCom does not agree with that, I don't see what good it will do to introduce evidence that he has made mistakes in other cases. I don't understand Flo's suggestion that there is "no reason to intervene". I am not asking for an intervention; I have appealed a ban, which is part of the remedy in the 9/11 case. My appeal should be rejected or granted, not ignored [or "intervened" in]. That was actually my question. Does Morven's remark and the absence of any other remarks, constitute a rejection of the appeal? If so, a clerk could note that the appeal has been rejected and the case could be archived.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 05:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I shouldn't have brought up the mailing list issues or gone on about stuff in general. It just frustrates me when I see this sort of thing going on and, as you say, the inaction. The inaction is particularly galling because ignoring someone is not only injust, it is rude as well. I would say mail the arbitration committee mailing list, but I think you said you had done that, and from what I've heard, it doesn't get much more of a reaction. Anyway, I'll let a clerk weigh in and respond to you, but it would be nice to get a clear answer on whether unanswered or "one answer only" appeals really mean anything other than "the committee is overloaded and unable to deal with the volume of work". Just a regular update every week (eg. this has been discussed on the mailing list, we will get to it at x date) or a date for when to deal with it (eg. we have lots of other stuff to deal with, but we have scheduled a discussion of your case for x date) would help. Everyone knows that we can't have instant responses, but it is annoying when some incident blows up somewhere, resulting in an arbcom request, and suddenly arbitrators find the time to comment on that, but not on more, dare I say it, mundane (or complex, your mileage may vary) stuff like this. I really will stop here, as I am still intensely frustrated by this. Carcharoth (talk) 07:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I think your suggestion to leave a note that it is being discussed on the mailing list would have been helpful (I haven't used that channel). Also, it would be good to say when ArbCom has all the information it needs (no further statements needed). The procedure could then be to deliberate (announcing a deadline would be useful but not necessary) and a clerk could simply notify me on my talk page about whether may appeal has failed (as it seems it will) or been successful.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, it is confirmed that the rest of the arbitrators agree with the conclusion, i.e. ArbCom is not going to overturn the community in this case. Of course, you may make an appeal directly to the community (i.e. at the appropriate administrator noticeboard). Regards - Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts, Ncmvocalist. That's the end of it. Can you make a note of it (under clerk notes, I guess) and archive it? Happy editing.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me but isn't there a procedure to be followed? How is it possible that a request of appeal is closed without any official expression of the Arbcom and based in the information provoided by someone not belonging to it? How does it work?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Sam Blacketer - arbitrator (somewhere below) has clarified and summarised the view of the ArbCom - appeals are left to the community - they will not be handled by ArbCom unless it is an exceptional case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation. But if this is the case it seems incorrect to say that the arbcom "rejected" the appeal: they just considered themselves not the right authority to make such a decision.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 08:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
There are people here and here claiming that arbcom "refused to express because the appeal was groundless", that the matter must not be reviewed and that now I should be sanctioned for having asked a review in WP/ANI.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 13:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Uhm, ArbCom, I think you have screwed up here. Thomas Basboll was discussed at WP:AE, the designated place for handling such matters. They have the right to appeal to the committee. I think you either need to say "yea" or "nay". Passing the buck to WP:ANI is a very poor solution because it leads to more drama, more hurt feelings and more time wasted. JehochmanTalk 13:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Round and round we go...I suppose all that will remain if the topic bans are lifted will be to demonstrate to arbcom that those who have been trying to misuse this website to promote conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 have had a negative net effect on our effort to build a reliable reference base on those events.--MONGO 16:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
TTN
Is an arb going to clarify anything regarding TTN's case? HidingT 18:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Is it just me, or is Kirill's proposals regarding User:Kww completely inappropriate? Kww was given no restrictions during the cases, and hasn't had so much as an RfC or an AN/I thread. I'm not even sure if ArbCom is allowed to make restrictions like this, outside of a case under the guise of clarification. -- Ned Scott 02:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
A related discussion at User talk:Ned Scott#TTN might be of some interest to some people here. Please feel free to comment, even if you disagree with my comments to Kirill (a sanity check, perhaps). I'm very troubled by the proposals being made here for the EC case. -- Ned Scott 07:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
You're not the only one, Ned. SirFozzie (talk) 07:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The Kww thing was a surprise to me. I probably don't have all the relevant pages watchlisted so I'm curious as to how the Kww thing happened. Anyone know? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, Kirill's statement is As far as Kww goes, you may feel that equating the editors that worked on Bulbasaur with penis spammers is acceptable, but I do not. Were it up to me, he'd be off the project for that little burst of odiousness alone. The least I can do is keep him away from the areas where he's likely to actually put such an ideology into practice. I suspect that my frequent advocacy in favor of TTN weighs in as well, as well as my opinion that the sanctions from E&C2 are being misapplied, and my vocalness in that regard.
As for the evil comment itself, I'm surprised that people skip over that word would. I would, but I won't, because I can't. I campaigned for a while to get "article is about a single television episode" added as a CSD category. Didn't work, so I don't go nominating episode articles for deletion. I obey process, even when I believe it to be wrong.
As for Bulbasaur, it and Dammit, Janet! are two of the worst articles on Wikipedia, and I won't apologise for thinking that way. At least when an article reads Fred discovers the secret of the ultra-gamma-neutron device, and brings the Emerald Space Station into danger you know you aren't reading a real encyclopedia article. When you read something with 40 or 50 footnotes, you assume you are reading the real deal. Very few readers take the time to actually check the footnotes out. In both cases, you would quickly find that the outside world references are nothing but passing mentions that do little or nothing to support the information presented. In Bulbasaur's case, they are nearly 100% self-published references, from official game guides and graphic novels. I've taken Dammit, Janet! to AFD, and filed an ANI report when Bulbasaur was unredirected while under protection. Have I edit warred? No. Have I vandalised the articles in question? No. Do I participate discussions that will hopefully someday change the rules so that both articles can be removed? Absolutely yes.
My contributions speak for themselves. I spend most of my day undoing vandalism (even to Bulbasaur, when it occurs). I keep an eye on articles about the Netherlands Antilles, because I like the articles about my home to be accurate. I keep unsourced and slanderous material out of pop culture articles. When I see articles like Lindsay Lohan's untitled, unannounced new album that I heard a great rumor about, I nominate it for deletion. I keep an eye out for edits by User:JoshGotti, User:Soccermeko, and User:Editor652, and report their latest socks when they occur. I rarely wander into television episodes, but I have been involved in the Scrubs mess. Don't think anyone would consider my contribution there to be disruptive, however.Kww (talk) 11:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Homeopathy /Evidence
Would some arbitrator/clerk/etc. be willing to make a scrubbed version of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence? Given the significance of some proposed decisions, it seems a little odd to have so much of the case carried out in secret. Thanks, Gnixon (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
No current requests?
Has this happened before? Carcharoth (talk) 09:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
A couple of times earlier in the year. Dunno before that. The fact that there are five open clarifications spoils it a tad :) Daniel (talk) 09:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
At the request of retiring Lawrence Cohen I have moved this page from his user space to Wikipedia namespace and brought it live. I have notified Jimbo Wales of this at his user talk page and invited him to make a statement. Likewise, I encourage the members of the Committee (past and present) who have not yet commented publicly to make a statement. Although it is probably impossible to arrange a comprehensive statement on short notice, a short provisional declaration signed by as many people are available tonight may provide a welcome stabilizing force. The community would like input from the people who know the background on today's developments. A baseline statement would help settle the present confusion. With respect, DurovaCharge! 01:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I archived the case because it was stale - there had been no comments from arbitrators for 3 weeks, and it didn't look like there was going to be a real attempt to create an unban motion. Two arbitrators said no to an unbanning, two were vice versa - but given the lack of further comments, it was archived. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply, but I would like to understand better how these things work. Who had the right to create an "unban motion"?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
It's the arbitrators that do that. Given that the request was open for a long time, with no comments for three weeks, I presume it's because no-one felt strongly enough that an unban was warrented, or perhaps they were just too busy to look at it. You could always request a new clarification and request an unban - maybe more arbitrators would comment on the side of unbanning and choose to take it to voting. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure I can? In the past I have been accused of forum shopping when I tried to re-ask a request which was archived before any formal conclusion was reached (actually there were admins who suggested I could have been punished for that).--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Repeating the exact same request for the third time in what, a month, is pointless. It's clear the Arbs are not ready to unblock him at the current time. If they feel like they want to unblock him before some reasonable amount of time has passed (I suggest three months w/o socking, then unblock with restrictions), I'm sure they will let us know. - Merzbow (talk) 01:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
If the arbs are not ready to unblock why didn't they reject the request?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 06:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
The new case was rejected. The motion was rejected in the sense that the Arbs chose to take no action on it. This is what happens to many motions. You seem to think they are not aware of SoD's situation. They are, and have said they are discussing it. Badgering them for the nth time about the issue will do no good. Bring it up again in a couple months when the passage of time will have made a material difference, or let them come to a decision internally. - Merzbow (talk) 14:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not supposed to think anything about their awareness or interest about the case, even if a third person say he know what is happening behind the scene. The decision of the arbs are the result of their vote. If there is no vote there is no decision. Why didn't the arbs voted to reject if there was cosnensus on rejecting?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
We generally don't do that -- there's no such thing as a vote to reject -- there's just the absence of, or the impossibility of, a vote to accept. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok but I still do not think it is appropriate to speak about "rejection" when a request recieved few comments without a clear consensus: rejection means "I disagree", not "I'm not going to express on this".--Pokipsy76 (talk) 08:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not clear what do you do then: Don't you vote? Can the vote result be "reject"? So the question is still open: why didn't you vote to see if the result was reject or accept? Isn't there e difference between the case when a request is ignored and the case when there is a vote and the result is "reject"?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Red pill, blue pill
You know, a lot of nonsense is talked about the Arbitration Committee. Supposedly it's failing and the place is all falling to bits because it's too heavy-handed, too lenient, too impotent, legislating from the bench, or name your own pet hate. But looking at the cases it's been running lately I'm seeing some pretty good stuff. Article probations handed out, lots of power devolved to administrators, incoming case loads diminishing by the week. At this rate the arbitration committee will have remedied itself out of a job in a couple of years!
I would have advised arbcom not to touch this latest case, except maybe for some aabitrators to clarify wheel warring in some pretty stiffly worded "this is the last chance saloon"-style case rejections, and perhaps some behind-the-scenes work to give everybody that patented Wikipedia "I'm a fluffy bunny and I will make the internet not suck" glow.
But nyah, what do I know? I think it's time for the Committee to revisit wheel warring.
Widely criticised for some reason that isn't clear to me, as "making policy", the BLP special provision (BLPBAN) of the "Footnoted quotes" arbitration case is actually a lovely hybrid of two quite different remedies, the red pill and the blue pill, to be taken both together.
The red pill component of BLPBAN is a very broad topic probation. Articles containing statements the fall under the BLP are subject to an enhanced focus, and admins are to counsel and warn users not complying, and may take extensive further action, at their discretion, if that fails.
The blue pill component of BLPBAN cuts in if the red pill starts to kill the patient. Its purpose is to kill incipent wheel wars. Actions under the red pill may be appealed directly to arbcom. Failing that, they can be overturned by community consensus after an appeal on WP:AE. Admins reversing or modifying such an action without a successful appeal face dire consequences.
This is a lovely combination. It gives admins their head to resolve a problem, but makes sure they don't go mad and shag the goldfish.
Perhaps a similar blue pill could be tacked on to Giano's civility restriction in the IRC arbitration. If Wikipedians know they can appeal a bad block under that remedy directly to arbcom I suspect they're far less likely to get itchy trigger fingers and want to reverse or modify the block without consensus. If they really feel that the ban is wrong, an appeal should be all that is needed.
And if they're feeling especially bold, retrospectively add a blue pill to all extant editing restrictions, probations, etc. --Jenny 04:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/William M. Connolley
I'm just wondering why the Giano wheelwar case was opened when it was? It's supposed to be after 24 hours after four net votes are cast - well, yes it was at 4 net votes to accept 24 hours ago, but this has changed throughout the day. Surely it should be 24 hours after the current four net votes to accept? I'm not sure I understand the logic otherise - we have a 24 hour grace period to make sure no other arbitrators are going to reject the case and this was clearly a case where more arbitrators could have rejected it. I did bring this up with Daniel privately, but he said this is how it's always been done - I'm not sure it has though, but if so, it might be time for a change. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
It looks like the arbs are at pains to find a case that would enable them to shove the OM bruhaha under the carpet as quickly and quietly as possible. This is a familiar tactic. It's astounding how many devoted wikipedians the arbs ousted from the project (where's Worldtraveller, Bishonen, anyone?) The only way out of the current spiral is to resign. The guys know it and cling to their position for what it's worth. Can you blame them? Not me. --Ghirla-трёп- 11:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
You'll have to explain to me how Worldtraveller's departure is the Committee's fault (maybe you meant InShaneee (talk·contribs)?); as for Bishonen, she appears remarkably active for someone who left the project. Mackensen(talk) 16:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The last time it was under 4 net votes was, I believe, 0145. It's fluctuated between 2 and 5 net votes to accept, but hasn't fallen below 4 for nearly18 hours. Given that, the fact that all bar two active arbitrators have commented (with the only other two being Jdforrester who hasn't edited for two weeks, and FT2 who hasn't participated in arbitration matters on this page as an arbitrator since the incident), and the fact that the four net votes counter starts from the first time it rezches four net votes (the idea is to ensure that it isn't opened without everyone from the Committee having a chance to look, not simply to have 24 hours since the last net vote for having the time period's sake), meant that it is (and has always been) acceptable to open cases in such situations. Daniel (talk) 01:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I disagree that the counter starts from the point that it first reaches 4 net votes, or at least I don't believe it should be that way. When arbitrators accept a case, there should be a 24 hour period from when it last reaches 4 net votes before a case is opened. I can't recall a case where this has happened before, or where it's written in the arbitration procedures that it should be from where the first net 4 occured. Logic would suggest it should be 24 hours after the latest 4 net votes. Of course some arbitrators haven't commented yet, but that doesn't mean they aren't going to. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The 24 hour period is given to ensure all arbitrators have a chance to look at the case. The mere fact that it dips in and out of 4 votes for a very short period of time does not mean that, all of a sudden, those non-commenting arbitrators need another 4 hours. Their reading time doesn't need to fluctuate in the occurance of when a voting suddenly falls below 4 votes to accept and then jumps straight back up again. Furthermore, I find it worrisome you haven't declared your COI here. Daniel (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd appreciate outside comments here so we can clarify this for the future. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm not sure this particular scenario comes up often enough that we have a very well-defined approach to it. The written documents are of little help, unfortunately; the arbitration policy calls for the case to be opened 24 hours after the fourth vote to open, rather than the fourth net vote to open, and makes no mention of when the net-four is to be attained. Our procedure for closing cases, which uses a similar net-four setup, allows for a closing 24 hours after the first vote, so long as the votes are present. Personally, I think Daniel's approach is a reasonable one (if not, perhaps, the most elegant that could in theory be devised).
(It's also not clear how many votes are needed for an expedited opening, so this whole setup is something of a mess in any case.) Kirill(prof) 02:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I did find the motion to close procedure to be the persuasive authority here, given the lack of explicit documented procedure for opening with regards to this circumstances. They share many similarities, so it made sense to extend the principle to opens. That, plus this is how we've always done it. Daniel (talk) 02:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The requirement to open a case has fluctuated between 4 votes (regardless of opposition) and 4 "net" votes. There has never been a serious public discussion of the opening procedures in my memory. I gather it was probably originally set up by the first Arbcom (who did all their own paperwork for the first year) then shifted to the clerks. We/they have adapted and tweaked things here and there, but the principle is as Daniel indicated; a delay to make sure any arbitrators who want to have a say can have it. There has never been a set precedent on whether the 24 hour clock resets if the tally drops; here with nearly all active arbitrators voting one way or the other, Daniel's action seems reasonable. Thatcher 02:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Couldn't this be discussed at the clerk noticeboard? And what COI? Avruch 02:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The clerk noticeboard is for coordinating and discussion clerk tasks; here, where the task impacts the community and since it has been raised here, this seems reasonable. (It's not a question of which clerk is available to pick up a specific case, but rather are the clerks acting correctly and within their overall discretion accorded them by Arbcom. Thatcher 02:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The fact that Ryan has unblocked Giano II in the not-too-recent past. From my interpretation this makes him favour rejecting the case. Daniel (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
You obviously haven't seen my other past interaction with Giano then - it's not pretty. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah it could, but I wanted to clarify it for everyone and I'm not acting as a clerk in this - I have a "declared conflict of interest" because I unblocked Giano - not sure what it has to do with this case and the fact I'm just asking a question.... Ryan Postlethwaite 02:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Ex-clerk speaking; it is usually based on the judgment of the clerk. If the situation is stable with no new information added to the case then opening sooner is okay. If the community is posting new information, for example that the user in question is given a community sanction or banned, then the clerks wait to see if arbs change their votes. This is even if 24 hours are up. The time period is suppose to reflect enough time for it to be obvious that arbitrators are interested in hearing the case based on the information given by the community. FloNight♥♥♥ 02:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, that was certainly a consideration that I acknowledged and acted upon; "all bar two active arbitrators have commented (with the only other two being Jdforrester who hasn't edited for two weeks, and FT2 who hasn't participated in arbitration matters on this page as an arbitrator since the incident)". Otherwise, per Thatcher below, I would have probably let this go beyond 24 hours by either definition, rather than opening per the first one. Daniel (talk) 02:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec) to Ryan, no reason not to ask the question, no matter what hat you are wearing today. Thatcher 02:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
In re Flo, yes, sometimes cases are held longer than 24 hours if the matter is in flux. It is a matter of judgement, and I recall at least one time where the clerk was corrected for opening a case too soon. (It opened the next day, which rendered the exercise somewhat silly in my view, but there it is. Thatcher 02:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Daniel and Kirill and Thatcher are all correct, the current policy is after the 4th net vote and the policy is hazy as to what happens when it fluctuates. I say it was a good opening. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Could whatever is decided here actually be used to update the policies and guidelines? Several people in this thread (especially Kirill and Thatcher) have pointed out that the written pages are unclear or contradictory. I raised this point with a clerk yesterday on a related matter (when to remove a rejected request - specifically the OrangeMarlin request, which was initially removed at 0/4 and then restored, commented on some more, and has now been removed at 1/6/0/0). After some discussion on that clerk's talk page, I posted at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks and Wikipedia talk:Arbitration guide. As yet, there has been no response there. I have also added a section there asking about the right place to ask an arbitration clerk about their actions (case page, noticeboard, clerk guideline page, clerk noticeboard?). This issue of where to discuss a clerk's actions has come up in this thread as well. Please see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration guide#Synchronising this and the clerks page and Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks#Asking arbitration clerks about their actions to comment on what should be done in the general cases. Carcharoth (talk) 12:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
A word or two from another former arbitration clerk.
One significant point is that last year the criteria for deciding whether, and when, a case has been accepted changed radically, apparently after some discussion on the arbitration committee mailing list. The procedures are undoubtedly in some disarray because prior to that there was a different criterion where the declines did not subtract from the accepts, so the question of what to do when the vote goes up to acceptance level and then dips down again never arose. I agree that the current procedure of opening twenty-four hours after the first time it reaches four net accepts (which makes sense to me as explained by Daniel) should probably be written down somewhere. --Jenny 13:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, changing to 4 net votes officially changed the quickness that cases opened. But the timing has always depended just as much on what is happening in the comments of the involved parties and the community, as well as the votes and comments of the arbs. If one arb strikes there accept vote based on new information, or giving a compelling reason for a reject; then the clerks should generally wait past the 24 hour deadline to see if more changes in votes will happen. In my opinion, the 24 hours was never suppose to be a rigid policy, rather it was a reasonable time period to use in most cases. The wording that is used need to allow for flexibility based on breaking events. As for the opening of Requests for arbitration/William M. Connolley, it was done properly since the active arbs had voted and it was unlikely for a change to happen. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
This request is moved from above talkpage to this one, because I was not able to edit into the mainspace. T.à.v.: D.A. Borgdorff PEng FRIEN = 86.83.155.44 (talk) 18:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
→ Request for arbitration
Case submitted by email 20080711 20:03 GMT+2
The RfA has been appropiately removed into the mainspace for further treatment by the kind response of the Hon. Privatemusings (talk). With thanks: dAb +> 86.83.155.44 (talk) 09:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Dear and very learned: Future Perfect at Sunrise , I'd herewith kindly request the unblocking of my well refined colleague dr.user:Guido den Broeder MS, who here apparently at present is innocent blocked up by you, though already by the same mistake in the Netherlands too. His tiny protest against this unfortunate execution is by some of your colleagues alas expressed with rather exaggeration. Hoping to revision of your verdict still being possible, I'll remain sincerely Yrs: D.A.Borgdorff - PEng E.E. = 86.83.155.44 (talk) 12:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Question on my sanction
Since I'm not supposed to interact with MONGO as I suggested myself to the Arbs when asking to be unblocked (even if that wasn't a condition, I sure as heck wouldn't), what am I supposed to do when he responds to me? Out of his last 10-20 project space posts, several have been unsolicitedreplies and comments to me, chiding me, when my posts were not directed to or invoking him. If I respond someone could take this as carte blanche to block me. Can I please have a public response posted by an arbiter in regards to this? It's completely unfair if he can toss off replies, criticism, or hostility to things I say, but I have no ability to respond without fear of someone randomly blocking me. I'd assumed that in return for my not interacting with him, there would be some reciprocation for good faith and common sense. After I posted that suggestion in regards to Sidaway, who many agreed was being disruptive, many people chided MONGO for coming after me when I had no ability to defend myself.
If there is a problem with my comments on Wikipedia project space any number of a thousand plus admins or thousands of uninvolved users could let me know, and not one single person has so far in three months. There was no restriction on my contributing to project space, and I've barely even done that in the 3+ months since I came back. All my comments have had nothing to do with MONGO in any way, shape or form. Can I reply if he initiates? Was Everyking, who was under a similar set-up with Cyde, allowed to reply? If MONGO posts on my talk page, am I allowed to reply? Am I even allowed to archive his comments or remove them? Would it be better if he didn't initiate anything with me at all and vice versa? I'm at a loss here. rootology (T) 17:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, FT2. rootology (T) 01:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The exchange between FT2 and myself is reposted here from my talkpage--MONGO 01:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a difficult situation. As you know, rootology is hoping to avoid a return to old problems by not interacting with you, as his unblock notice states. he's done right and asked others to intervene rather than reply himself, which is good judgement too.
It's going to be hard for him if he gets addressed with critical or skeptical comments whilst trying to reacquaint himself with editing. That tends to be hard for anybody. I think your point's made, that you have concerns whether he should be considering proposing remedies, but I'd ask that the concern is dropped. It's been stated a few times; doubtless noted too. He'll have a fair chance, same as anyone else unblocked. If you'd be able to avoid interacting with him, it would possibly make it easier on him to avoid interacting back with you as well. If you have concerns about his posts at the RFAR case and they haven't been stated sufficiently, can you consider if they really need saying? He is a fully welcomed back member of the community, he's unblocked, and he's entitled to do all he can to make good contributions and be judged by those alone; it would be easier if he shows by his actions if those are good or otherwise and you and he continue in separate ways.
I debate that he is "fully welcomed". As far as I am concerned, his past behavior was so shitty that I think he would be best off NOT proposing remedies on someone he had prior disagreements with, certainly not until he has demonstrated over a long time that his intentions here are honorable. I also know you supported rather strongly the recreation of an ED article...the very website that Rootology was so adept at adding his pearls of wisdom to. I will call a spade a spade and if the arbitration committee is now allowing recently unbanned editors to have the arrogance to propose remedies be brought forth on someone they had disagreements with before they were banned, then that is just loony. What the heck is a recently unbanned person...(did you look at the crap this guy put me through at RFAr MONGO...or his ban evading appearance at RFAr Seabhcan as User:XP) doing at arbitration cases????? Are you people going mad? Maybe you need to reevaluate what his rationale for being unbanned is. My understanding is that he was going to stick to article space unless he got into an independent dispute and then needed dispute resolution...not so he could return and propose sanctions on those he had prior dealings with. This is simply bad news and you guys need to look into it. Hint: Recently unbanned editors should do all they can to stay away from arbitration cases...is this some kind of revelation?--MONGO 01:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
MONGO's bolded statement makes a heck of a lot of sense. I don't care if there was no explicit restriction, recently-paroled high felons (and an indef by ArbCom is perhaps the highest felony an editor can earn here) should not be allowed anywhere near unrelated Arbitration cases. I suggest it become practice to let such returned users know they have to earn the right to create drama with a year or so of productive work first.- Merzbow (talk) 02:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the point to be made is that MONGO's actions -- even if correct -- need not be taken by MONGO himself. Indeed, it would probably be helpful if they were not. The community can police Rootology -- MONGO himself need not. The point Merzbow makes can probably be more happily worded in terms of "assume good faith" -- it makes it a lot easier for people to assume good faith of Rootology if he has dedicated himself to encyclopaedia-building rather than internal politics. He isn't banned from this behaviour -- just as MONGO isn't banned from his -- it's just a pretty good idea. Sam Korn(smoddy) 00:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe that if Rootology were being policed adequately, those that believed he deserved to be unbanned should be encouraging him to stay away from offering arbcom workshop remedies regarding someone who is not only not named in a particular case, but also someone he had prior misdealings with. Rootology should stay away from arbcom cases, period. I could understand him being involved if he was working in article space, encountered a problematic editor and had to go through the procedures...but to show up as he did, out of the blue, in a case neither he nor Tony Sidaway are named in, is something that needs addressing. However, I can't disagree that it probably is best if I don't respond to Rootology directly.--MONGO 23:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Mongo, if you think Rootology has acted inappropriately, then take things up using normal dispute resolution processes. He's 'served his time' for past behaviour.
The community has decided to give Rootology another chance. And no restriction on his ability to suggest things on arbcom workshops has been made. If you continue to try and goad and harass Rootology, you are acting in direct position to community consensus, being aggresive, disruptive and harming the project. And you may well earn a block for it. --Barberio (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Wrong. Arbcom and I decided to give him another chance....the community had zero to do with it. Oh and good luck with the block.--MONGO 04:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm amazed at your Chutzpah. Are you really saying you feel yourself higher than the community, and that consensus building doesn't apply to you? If so, the project would be better off without you. --Barberio (talk) 10:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The community wasn't involved in Rootology's unblock...he emailed the arbcom and me, asked for clemency which I initially disagreed with, but arbcom convinced me that he would be well supervised. Rootology's article space contributions since his return have been excellent. However, when he then comes to an arbitration case in which neither he nor Tony Sidaway are named parties (and lest we forget that he had prior dealings with Sidaway before he was banned)...and then proposes sanctions be brought on Sidaway in a case, again, that neither are named parties in...that is an issue. Recently unbanned editors shouldn't be seeking any form of sanction on someone that they had prior dealings with. As far as your insulting commentary, you don't deserve a polite response. Your editing history of late is full of bad assumptions regarding arbcom and I can't see how anything you have to add here has anything worth paying attention to.--MONGO 23:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
MONGO, again I restate, your actions are damaging this project. Please stop. In interests of not giving you any ammunition to start another personal campaign, I will no longer respond to you. --Barberio (talk) 02:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
No, my actions aren't damaging this project in the least. Recently unbanned editors should tread lightly...full stop. Rootology is recently unbanned...fact...he was banned for damn good reasons...fact...he proposed sanctions be brought on someone who was not even a named party in an arbcom case...someone that he had disagreements with before he was banned. THIS IS A PROBLEM...that you fail to see it that way is your problem.--MONGO 04:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Without commenting on R directly, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of saying generally that any editor should avoid "internal politics" and stick to mainspace. That sails far too close to "work more slave!" for my comfort. (Of course with the caveat that is someone has been specifically found to be disruptive in that area, yadda yadda.) brenneman 05:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
RFAr Seabhcan...where Rootology used a ban evading sock (User:XP) to seek vengence for his original banning in RFAr MONGO. I am still waiting for full reform...I have yet to see it. I could surely understand if Rootology gets involved in a dispute situation that he is a nammed party in and him having to defend or present evidence of another party. But when he shows up at a case that has nothing to do with him and proposes sanctions be brought on someone that he had prior dealings with before he was banned, then I call a spade a spade.--MONGO 23:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Again, without referring to R's conduct and limiting myself to speaking mroe generally: having drive-by editors propose sanctions is part-and-parcel with having a workshop page. - brenneman 01:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Recently unbanned editors should do all they can to avoid arbcom cases. Otherwise, I concur.--MONGO 04:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I think maybe you have made your point and this should be left to the arbitrators to clarify. ++Lar: t/c 23:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Page semi-protection
I declined a request to remove the semiprotection on the RFAR page a couple of days ago on the grounds that IPs and new users probably have little or no reason to edit this heavy-traffic page. The IP who requested it as well as User:Tanthalas39 have asked me to review the decision. I'm not sure either way, so I'm bringing it here. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't recall this situation. What IP? Diffs? Tanǀ39 16:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
See my talk. Stifle (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, yes. I was confused because on your talk page, I was agreeing with you, so I suppose I wasn't asking you to review the decision. Tanǀ39 18:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
That IP wasn't me, but I'd also prefer unprotection unless the page is being heavily vandalized, just like any other page. I'm not a new user but I don't use an account and I do stop by pages like this from time to time. 76.197.56.242 (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
There is a is now a Summary of statements from the RfC which had significantly more support than opposition, which clearly identifies suggested changes to the Arbitration Policy. And where further discussion is needed over the choice between some contradictory suggested changes. --Barberio (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, what's up?
Since when does arbcom not decide the direction of its own cases? "Start us off with something we can't touch and we probably won't touch it"? Uh, why can't you just "accept the case to look at the behavior of all parties" - it's not a binary choice between "accept to look at the recall" and reject. I see this as yet another example of arbcom shirking its responsibilities to the community. --Random832 (contribs) 12:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
In this particular case, I see no indication that the behavior of "all the parties", or even most of them, are involved; those are the sort of cases I accept for "all the parties". Besides which, we're rarely asked to make a specific judgment on a specific issue, as we were here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom has always had supreme authority over which cases to accept and which to reject. It doesn't have to follow WP:AP if it doesn't want to: it has, in the past, accepted cases which are clearly outside the remit it defines for itself on the pages under its control. If the supporters of the request against Elonka don't like this, they should be calling for arbitrator recall rather than admin recall! I mightjust support them on that one ;) Physchim62(talk) 00:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Might not be a bad idea. Might be easier simply to reframe the case. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I really don't like the implied obscenity in the section header. It suggests a level of casual coarseness that is not good for us all, and is something one might say when one loses sight of the fact that most disputes here are between people acting in good faith. Second and to the point, the case is framed as, "Elonka is a bad admin because she broke her promise to accept recall." That case has been declined for a number of good reasons, most voluminously explored by Newyorkbrad. A case framed like, "Elonka is a bad admin because of a, b and c" might be accepted. The problem with the arbitrators voting to accept that case out of the present frame is that is does not give Elonka an opportunity to respond to the direct allegations. When you say, a, b and c; Elonka can respond with 'a, b, and c (i.e. her version) and then the arbitrators can evaluate the arguments on both sides and make a decision. You are asking arbcom to accept a case that you haven't presented and that Elonka has not had the opportunity to defend herself against. Thatcher 02:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
What Thatcher said. --bainer (talk) 04:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Question: is there a way to salvage the RfAr and refocus the issues as per above, or are we better off just deleting this one and starting a new one from scratch (salvaging the case, if possible, may save time, as I suspect a new case regarding Elonka's behaviour will get filed should this one (currently considered from what I can see as strictly related to her AOR promise) get turned down.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Based on what the arbitrators have said, it seems to me that the answer is no, there is no way to "salvage" the case -- or more accurately, to turn the case that has been filed into a different case that hasn't been filed. (See for example, Jpgordon's comments on his ""vote".) The arbitrators responded to the request that was made, and for all practical purposes (though not yet officially) have rejected it. I also doubt that attaching other claims onto this case would save time, because there are a number of procedural issues involved with that hypothetical "other case." These issues may include who the correct parties would be, whether there has been sufficient "dispute resolution" prior to an arb request, and who else's (besides Elonka's) conduct is going to be scrutinized. Due to the nature of the issues involved, it is important that whoever wants the ArbCom to consider the "other case" be required to go through all the steps and not just piggyback it onto what is, in effect, an already-rejected case. 6SJ7 (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
And now it has been officially rejected and removed, so the question is moot. As for the possibility that a new case will be filed, I can only remind everyone of that great old saying: Be careful what you wish for, you may get it. 6SJ7 (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Some of you guys clearly have it out for Elonka, yet many editors here on wiki value her input, her judgments and her impartiality. Just what exactly makes some opinions here in relation to her more valuable or correct than others? And if some of you don't like her methods and some do, wouldn't it make more sense for those who don't simply not to submit themselves to her arbitration? Unlike ChrisO, who said he appreciated Elonka's uninvolved help, and called on her regularly to discipline other editors, and who only complained (and I use the term loosely) when he himself was affected by the arbitration rules? Something seems very wrong with that picture. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
New to the argument here. I have never had any interaction with Elonka, but I did take the time to review the AfCs, AfAs, diffs, etc. yesterday. (Someone suggested I start participating in AfCs - I got sucked in). I believe the issue was people were looking for examples of an abuse of admin tools. I don't think I ever saw an example of that. What I came across was an abuse of admin authority. When an admin tells a user something, it carries more weight then a user telling a user. When an admin lies to the community (which very clearly has done), they loose credibility with that community. I also saw repeated bad judgement calls made by Elonka. Not in articles themselves, but with how she dealt with people and situations. All of this, as a user, concerns me. Turlo Lomon (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the MZMcBride request for arbitration currently pending: I strongly disagree with the calls made to fast track this matter to the decision stage. There is no emergency aspect here (if one had arose: an emergency request from the committee could be made at m:RFP), and so rushing things is likely to have us breeze over important matters.
Take things slowly, eh? Anthøny✉ 20:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Sarah Palin RFAR injunction request - could the arbs look?
Just posting this here so that they're more likely to see it in case they weren't looking at the workshop yet. rootology (C)(T) 16:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Help
Hi, I want to request for appeal, but I don't know where and how to do it. Could someone help me here? I have sent an email to arbcom-lATlists.wikimedia.org some days ago but I received no answer. Thanks beforehand. --Vacio (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I dropped a short note on your talkpage, Vacio :-) Privatemusings (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
It is an unfortunate characteristic of ArbCom-l that emails often go without any response or indeed a simple acknowledgement of receipt. I suspect a number of emails are simply lost amongst the huge volumes of emails that are sent to the mailing list per day. With no effective system of marking threads as being closed, resolved, responded-to, and so on, I fear this will be a recurring bee in any future Committee's bonnet for a good while to come yet. AGK 22:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Formatting
Resolved
– Renegade comments removed. AGK 22:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the comments. If Kuban wishes to re-comment, he is welcome to do so in his own section. Thanks for drawing attention to this. AGK 22:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Matthew Hoffman case
I'm adding further discussion here instead, where it's easier.
The request is to vacate the case in toto (ie, completely). That is a lot more than just "one or two findings could be improved" -- in fact cases are always intended to be pragmatic to an extent and given additional time could always be refined or improved. A request to vacate a case suggests that the case was fundamentally at heart, so wrong as to not stand up. For reasons I've given, I don't feel the Matthew Hoffman case comes anywhere close to that. The acceptance, the main findings, and the final decision, were all procedurally appropriate.
Opening and basis of the case
The opening statement says clearly that the concern leading to the case was:
"A review of admin actions in the matter of the indefinite blocking of User:MatthewHoffman; the indef block has been lifted, but the matter is still contested after serious discussion, and there are wider issues, such as the biting of newcomers of unpopular views..."
"I believe it is important to know to what extent such decisions have become endemic, as a workaround of the gathering of hard evidence confirming sockpuppetry..."
"In particular I'm calling for Vanished user to lose his sysop powers. He admits no fault here..."
"It seems plain to me that his actions were in fact affected by the opinions being expressed by User:MatthewHoffman; his comments placed on User talk:MatthewHoffman are contested for accuracy by other admins."
This is a reasonable basis to open a case, and was properly accepted under usual procedures which operated without hitch. A request to open a case should include an indication of the matter, and enough grounds to see why it may need RFAR, and cases may be more readily accepted when they appear to relate to a division between administrators, apparently credible concerns over admin access misuse, or other serious matters that need that kind of review.
I cannot easily accept a view that somehow the acceptance was flawed, mainly because there's actually no evidence that acceptance was procedurally incorrect. If the above concern was posted on a different case today, and accepted the same way, I would not express a concern my colleagues had acted badly wrong in accepting it (such that their decision to do so should be demolished and the case abandoned for wrong acceptance).
Administrative actions that were considered in the case
When a case opens, it is often opened (with or without saying so) to look at the conduct of all involved, any evidence of their behaviors, and so on. The admin conduct of Vanished user was one of those, and that admin conduct was very seriously a problem.
As a new Arbitrator I noted that Vanished user wanted the Committee to reshape a draft decision (#9) that he had complaints about. I reviewed his admin actions carefully, as someone with absolutely zero prior involvement, discarded one cited issue as "too uncertain and too old" (April 2008), and gave fully details on the others. Redrafted finding #9.1 was the result, which was far more specific.
Vanished user's administrative actions
Example selected by Shoemaker's holiday - review
To take the very block he picks out himself, that of Nov 30 2008, the finding of fact #9.1 states (as he rightly quotes) "semi-protected Homeopathy a second time, citing IP "vandalism". A review of IP activity from Nov 27 - 30 2007 shows the edits related to POV differences and minor edits, not vandalism (WP:VAND refers)". To disprove this, though, diffs are cited from Nov 25, close to a week (5 days) before the protection was applied, to show that edits then were vandalism. The finding #9.1 is then also (wrongly) quoted later as saying there was "no vandalism" (in fact it says there was no IP vandalism in the period Nov 27-30 prior to protection on Nov 30 which justified that protection per WP:VAND).
The admin action was very much in breach of WP:PROTECT#Semi-protection, which anticipates semi-protection for current and reasonably heavy IP vandalism, not for IP vandalism almost a week prior when the only current IP activity is copyediting and opposing editors' views. A request for semi-protection at WP:RFPP would have almost overwhelmingly been declined on Nov 30, for that reason. (See eg [13][14][15][16] and note "{{RFPP|nea}}" == "not enough recent activity").
Vanished user had been a heavy editor on that article at the time he used admin tools to apply protection himself. The effect of that protection which 1/ was said to deal with vandalism though none was present and 2/ was applied to an article he was a highly active editor on himself, was 3/ it removed opposing and copyediting voices. That was one incident alone. Other actions which took place included direct blocking of editors with whom he had been in a revert war or other content dispute, reverting to a preferred version then protecting against opposing user edits, and protecting an article he himself was editing, to exclude opposing editors described as "POV pushers".
(cont.) These other examples, all in the same period of October - November 2007, are then ignored with the note that "We could review the others". They were indeed reviewed -- and the view was they all were improper, or had the actual effect of wrongly excluding users, often those in a content dispute. There was easily enough evidence to conclude admin access was heavily misused by Vanished user, and easily enough to justify a case.
That some of those matters were known before the case opened but not cited in the case request, or others arose after the case opened or in response to Vanished user's contentions (which led to a review of his admin actions to check if the objection was valid) is just not relevant. Many RFAR cases open to examine wide ranging behavior, of which some is raised at the time of opening, and other is raised at ANI beforehand, or raised at RFAR after. Arbitration considers all evidence, we aren't going to ignore highly relevant evidence just because they weren't named in the opening statement.
Even if both findings about the Matthew Hoffman block (#3 and #4) were completely in error, then at most those two points would be affected. The opening of the case, the seriousness of misuse of admin access, and the final decision would frankly be almost identical, and the case would still very easily stand.
Summary
For this reason, the view that the entire case should be vacated doesn't work for me. There was clear evidence of serious repeated and major misuse of administrator access. Users in a content dispute were either targeted, or bore the brunt of this by being blocked or prevented from editing. I've just now re-reviewed the evidence and it still says the same conclusion on Vanished user's use of admin access. So I do not consider that a finding that the case was so fundamentally flawed as to need vacating is anywhere like "proven". It may be that some individual findings could be revisited, but that's true of many decisions, and we aren't a court or legal-wonk forum, I've yet to see a single piece of evidence to suggest that the case itself needs vacating.
As I have posted at RFAR:
"It is obvious and clear that the case process, handling, and so on, was extremely upsetting to Shoemaker's Holiday, some of which I agree with him on, some of which I think he's leaning on too much and isn't merited. Most of the case is history, and that's good. Shoemaker's Holiday has gotten past the issues mostly and that's good. But vacating the case would be asking for agreement the case was not valid, and should never have been heard, and I can't agree on that. I can only agree it should have been heard better in terms of handling than it was - a state of affairs for which numerous statements of apology have been sought and given and I'm at a loss to see what yet another can do. The case (and its final decision) were viable; the "how it got there" which is the issue, is secondary and has been discussed at length. The notion of "I need this case vacated for my own personal peace of mind" doesn't work for me since arbitration cases exist to serve the project, and there was a clearly reasonable and well evidenced project need for it (since bad adminship is a serious concern), even if this could have been processed, documented and followed up a lot better than it was." - RFAR
FT2, first off, you ignore the unambiguously incorrect Finding of Fact #4, which claims I was in a content dispute with Hoffman, citing that I edited the page 7 months previously, showing I had views on the subject. WP:BLOCK makes a firm distinction between blocking because of content disputes (forbidden) and being aware of potential conflicts of interest (which are left to the administrator's judgement).
Secondly, Finding of fact #4 sasys cool down blocks are against policy. This is untrue, per WP:BLOCK (emphasis original)
Blocks intended solely to "cool down" an angry user should not be used, as they often have the opposite effect. However, an angry user who is also being disruptive can be blocked to prevent further disruption.
Hence Finding of Fact #4 - a key finding in the case - is completely and totally wrong. It was, of course, an error of judgement to block Matthew Hoffman, but the Arbcom's attempts to make it a policy violation are an error and a misapplication of policy.
Secondly, Wikipedia:Protection_policy does not anywhere give a three-day timescale, and, in a case where the Arbcom misread a seven-m,onth-gap as a content dispute, I hardly think that misjudging the likelihood of further IP vandalism after 5 days is particularly relevant, or a moral failing. Also, every single thing cited in the case was at least two months old at the time it was cited, and many were older. There was no pressing need for immediate consideration of my actions by the arbcom, and had it not been initiated by an arbitrator, a two-month-old bad block, which had been fully lifted by the administrator after a somewhat heated discussion, would presumably never have been accepted as grounds for a case.
I have, of course, admitted I was wrong in the cases cited repeatedly. However, the arbcom's claims as tho the extend of the wrongs include severe misapplications of policy in Finding of Fact #4, and, in the end, four or five errors of judgement, all at least two months old, were used to harass a productive editor until he had to drop out of University, and very nearly off Wikipedia, all while talking about how important newbies were, at the same time as harassing and driving off driving off a proven creator of multiple FAs and researcher of historic FPs. I still do not do half as much work on Wikipedia as I used to.
I think this somewhat misses the point. We are needlessly arguing over legal minutae here; the real question is not whether the procedural errors that took place during the case are sufficient to require that it be vacated, but rather whether vacating the case is or is not the most beneficial course for the project as a whole, at this point.
Regardless of whether each individual finding is correct—indeed, regardless of whether any of the findings is correct—the decision has already been put into full effect. SH is no longer an admin, and is not suddenly going to become one merely because we put a different note on the blanked pages. The case itself has no value as precedent—since we don't actually consider cases to be such—and is not needed for future enforcement. We have a choice, therefore, between obstinately (though perhaps justifiably) insisting that the case is not so irreparably flawed as to need vacating, but at the cost of allowing this conflict to continue; or vacating a case that may not require it, but thus ending the conflict at no practical cost to the project. I really don't see why the first option is to be preferred. Kirill(prof) 13:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Whether that was or wasn't so, the request we have isn't to review one finding (FoF #4) in one case. It's to vacate the entire case. The key issue was "use of admin access" - and that's a lot more than just one block. So I've reviewed the entire case rather fully, and explained why I feel the case is valid:
"Even if both findings about the Matthew Hoffman block (#3 and #4) were completely in error, then at most those two points would be affected. The opening of the case, the seriousness of misuse of admin access, and the final decision would frankly be almost identical, and the case would still very easily stand".
I've also reviewed the blocks and pointed out exactly why the one selected as "obviously poorly reviewed" was in fact completely correctly assessed by communal norms.
The aim of a case is to get an appropriate decision, that is right for the project. Whether FOF#4 is 100% right, or 100% wrong, or anywhere in between, not one other part of the case acceptance or final decision (remedies etc) would be affected. I'm sorry if you don't agree. I've looked hard at the case, and yet I don't see even slightly close grounds for this. FT2(Talk | email) 13:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, vacating a case has a lot more impact than you're suggesting. A vacated case declares the entire case never happened. It reverses all findings, reverses all decisions and remedies. That is what "vacating" an entire case would mean. There were multiple users who were blocked improperly from editing by an administrator who used admin powers in a content dispute, or on articles the then-admin was heavily editing, at the time. Whether or not the then-admin user concerned is upset or unhappy at one finding, those admin accesses were misused -- grossly. Vacating declares that this probably didn't happen, wasn't serious, or shouldn't have been reviewed by the committee. "I'm upset" is not sufficient grounds for this, and shouldn't become so. I would be fine vacating specific findings on the grounds of "unreasonable to uphold". That would be fair, if true. FT2(Talk | email) 13:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
You claim that four or five page protections or short-term blocks, all of which were at least two months old, were grounds for a finding of severe abuse of admin tools, in a case where there was no previous dispute resolution, in order to give the admin any sign that he was acting incorrectly? Show me a single other comparable case. You say that this is standard arbcom practice. Demonstrate it. In fact, how about I ask you a personal question, since you think that accidental or mistaken abuses of power or violations of standard processes should be judged so harshly: Does this mean that YOU should be thrown out of the arbcom because of your actions in the Orangemarlin case? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The only actionable part of the case is the desysopping, and we've already established that it's not being "reversed" (in the sense of SH's adminship being restored); the findings are of no lasting interest or value beyond their role in justifying said desysopping. I don't see any practical difference at all between having the case case moldering in the archives in its current state, and having it do so with a "vacated" tag; either way, nobody is ever going to read the thing again unless they're compiling a history of ArbCom—and if they are, they're perfectly capable of looking at the history of the page. We could "vacate" half the cases we've ever written, and I very much doubt anyone would even notice.
This seems, to me, to be more a stand on abstract principle than one with any practical impact. Kirill(prof) 13:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
It may have no impact from the perspective of an arbitrator, but I think that this process you are experiencing right now (in addition to many others you've experienced as an arbitrator in the past) demonstrates that the status and wording of past cases does impact those who were involved. Vacating a case is not without impact - it does send a message about the case, about the committee, and about Vanished user. Why would it not make more sense to specifically identify what about the case was wrong, and rescind only those findings/remedies found to be in error? Avruch T 15:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the thing a lot of people are missing is that "vacating" a case was just a word thought up to explain our resolution of a unique circumstance this summer. It really has no relevance or meaning outside that circumstance. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Then applying a different word that isn't borrowed from legal traditions may be a good idea.--Tznkai (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Tznkai is right - the word wasn't thought up by the committee this summer, it has a common meaning and was used with that meaning in mind. Readers will understand it using the common meaning, not necessarily as a "one time only" meaning created for Wikipedia arbitration. If "vacating" the case isn't what you want to do, then call it something else. It would still make more sense to my mind to simply rescind findings in error, if action is needed. Kirill above seems to be making both arguments - that doing something will have no practical effect, but that something should nonetheless be done. Avruch T 16:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Have a full readthrough of the case. Can anyone point to any aspect of this cas ethat was handled in a fully neutral, fair manner, as concerns me? Voting to condemn me began before I even set up a statement, and then, after everything I said was seemingly ignored, even a simple request that we pause for exams (they were in December, not the end of January) and I gave up, the arbcom began attacking me for not continuing a futile attempt to defend myself that they seemed to have no interest in reading. If the issues about Finding of Fact #4 - that there was no ongoing content dispute, and the merest check of page history would confirm that - could not be dealt with, what hope did I have that anything I said would be listened to?
The handling of this case were such that even an offer to give up my adminship, because of severe health problems being aggravated by the case was rejected in favour of prolonging the agony for two more months, where, after lecturing me on how I should use admin tools, the Arbcom promptly removed them, making the previous two months of lectures nothing but pointless tormenting of the severely ill. The arbcom need to accept that their handling of cases can affect real people's lives, and vacating this case would sereve as a promise to the community that they would not behae in such a manner again. THAT is the issue I want sorted. I don'ðt know how many people were chosen for Arbcom test casews,a nd were driven off the site, unable to ever speak up on how they were treated by the arbcom. But I actually came back, and I will speak up for all the people who no longer can.
The arbcom needs to reaffirm their commitment to proper treatment of the people before them. If the Arbcom wants to say, for instance, that "This case is vacated on procedural grounds, due to the Arbcom's handling of this case making it impossible for the accused to have gotten a fair trial. All findings are vacated. As it has been a year, a new trial to find out which, if any, of the findings were justified, but problems have been pointed out with several." that would be perfectly acceptable. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
(e/c)Just as a note, "vacating" a case declares the original judgment invalid, but not incorrect. It is a negative finding: the case was not, on balance or by a certain threshold proper. In the U.S legal system at least, and I believe most legal systems, vacating a case makes no positive claims on the various merits of the case itself (only the grounds on which it is vacated), it does not declare proper or improper behavior. Often it simply leads to a retrial, a case can be vacated, retried, and achieve essentially the same result.
Although ArbCom is not a court, and Wikipedia is not a government or a bureaucracy, we do borrow a lot of terms, procedures and other artifacts from legal tradition. Its not exactly clear what vacating would do, but my opinion is that the impact on the system would be negligible: it would declare the previous findings not made, and invite the parties and the committee, if they are willing, to arbitrate the dispute again, which I don't think is going to happen. The message it would send is "errors were made."--Tznkai (talk) 13:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Why not just strike out or annotate the bits that were false, or don't most of the arbcom want to admit they did anything wrong which is sufficiently offensive to the person concerned, and to the community, that it should be amended? Patronising statements about someone's emotional response such as the comments by FT2 on the RFAR page seem to me are no help. Anyone would be upset if incorrect things were said about them in a venue which seems to give the ultimate judgement about someone on wikipedia and not amended when seen to be false. As to it not being a legal thing, a remedy of some kind in cases such as this would simply be common decency. StickyParkin 19:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Jehochman belabors the point
I think a better resolution of the original controversy would have been for somebody friendly (non-adversarial) with Vanished user to have contacted them and said, "You seem to be having difficulties with use of tools. What are the circumstances?" To that, Vanished user could have said that they were having personal difficulties. A friendly observation could then have been made that such difficulties could lead to erroneous use of tools and failure to respond adequately to concerns. The natural result would have been for Vanished user to resign the tools (under a cloud) with the opportunity to get them back, once personal difficulties were resolved, via an appeal to the Committee.
There was no purpose in creating a public case, except perhaps that Vanished user was a convenient example to discourage others from improper use of tools. Under the circumstances, which probably were not know to the person bringing the case, Vanished user was exactly the wrong person to make an example of. This is the problem that we now seek to correct. The case should be vacated. In lieu of the case, a statement can be posted that Vanished user has resigned under a cloud and can get the tools back by appeal to the committee. Whether the path back includes RFA or not is a red herring, in my humble opinion, because the chance of a successful RFA at this point is vanishingly small. Should Vanished user wish to become an admin, they need to show the Committee that they understand the nature of past mistakes and provide reasonable assurances that such mistakes will not be repeated.
On the whole, vacating the case and replacing it with such a statement would be a net gain for Wikipedia. Therefore, we should do it. If the original evidence (not argumentation) of tool misuse might be needed for future reviews, it can be saved. JehochmanTalk 16:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
In the interests of expedience, I am willing to enter into a gentlemen's agreement with the committee, but due to the problems discussed with the committee's handling of the case,I would prefer something that is only unofficially binding. Which the committee would have every right to object if I violated (which would sink any RfA anyway), but which would have no official weight, and appear nowhere public.
Should this be a real issue, I could agree to official agreements, but can we at least keep them semi-private? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Possible compromise?
“
The Arbcom accepts that mistakes were made in the handling of this case, that both caused severe stress to the people involved, and led to an unfair trial. In an effort to make amends, and to assure the community that similar mistakes and violations of process will not happen again, this case is vacated. The Arbcom also promises that, except in extreme circumstances, the parties to the case will be given one week to provide evidence before any decisions are drafted, in order to assure the parties of the case that their views will, in fact be read. It also accepts that due care was not executed in the creations of findings of fact, and this led to certain findings of fact containing false statements, such as a claim that Vanished user was in a content dispute with Matthew Hoffman. In fact, Vanished user had last edited the page in question seven months previously, and arbcom misread the dates involved.
All findings related to this case are vacated. Some may have merit, others may have been mistakes, but as it has been a year, a new trial to get at the truth of the matter does not seem appropriate. Instead, Vanished user is asked to have an informal discussion with the arbcom before seeking adminship in future, to map a way forwards.
”
I simply ask the arbcom to accept that mistakes were made in this case, many of them severe, and promise to make every attempt not to do them again. That's all I really ask. If we could have done this in private, that would have been fine. The Arbcom did not respond to my requests to communicate in private. As it has had to be done in public, the statements need to be public. If the Arbcom wanted, we could review all the findings of fact for accuracy and the like, but is there really any point a year later? I do thonk the arbcom should accept that they made a severe error in Finding of Fact #4, as that comes very near to the heart of the poor care that the arbcom used in their handling of this case. However, I'm not after blood here. I just want the Arbcom to, finally, admit that errors were made and promise not to do them again. That having been done, everyone involved can move on with their lives.
Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Forced apologies are not valuable. It will be better if they just erase the case, and you make a binding agreement to contact them if you wish to be an administrator again. There is no reason to discuss private matters in a public forum. I do not think RFA is likely to succeed. Reinstatement via the Committee is your best chance if that's what you eventually want. JehochmanTalk 17:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, fine, cut the apologies, but keep the promises not to make the same mistakes again. Because, seriously, if you go to voting before the party provides evidence, you've just removed any feeling on that party's part that you care what they have to say. This case illustrates another problem with that - the Arbcom, having begun to vote on the decisions, refused to remove provable falsehoods from FoF #4, which shows a lack of due care and actual failure to read the commentary on the case. This case was highly controversial, and caused a lot of discussion, but as far as I can tell, the arbcom ignored all of this. Both these behaviours must change. Furthermore, someone, possibly the Arbcom, has already refused to include the points of action suggested by the RfC as referendums in the elections, thus rejecting accountability to the community (see the 2tTo do" list at the top of the talk page for the elections - if a hugely-participated RfC is not a sign that the community wants change for the arbcom, then what will be accepted as consensus. If community oversight is not going to be allowed, then they MUST show themselves capable of monitoring themselves. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment - I have no knowledge or opinion of this case. However, it seems to me that the problem here is with an objection to what some see as an "unfair trial" - and a discussion over whether it was, or was not. Arbcom should not be in the business of "trials", nor, and this will be contentious, of obsessing with being "fair". They are not a court of law, and are NOT here to make sure that the "rights" of parties are upheld, fairly or otherwise. This is a project to build and encyclopedia. No one has "rights" here. If a user editing or having sysop power is judged to help the project then fine, if that user editing or having sysop power is judged not to be helping, then they ought to be removed. The judgement ought to be "the project's interest" and NOT some notion of justice, due process, natural law, or even the subjective disposition, motivation, or circumstances of the user concerned - except in so far as such factors might affect future benefit or harm to the project. Arbcom ought to be the ultimate in devoted pragmatism. Arbcom's job is to step in when the project is malfunctioning, and the normal process are failing to fix that malfunction. Arbcom's goal should be to remedy the malfunction, and (where necessary) to tweek the system to minimise future malfunctioning - nothing more. Arbs are essentially mechanics, not judges, social workers, or human rights defenders. So, the only question here ought to be: in light of whatever new information we have, or now the dust has settled, are the remedies given by arbcom in this case, still viewed as useful to the project? If they are not, then reverse them. If they are, then don't. Whether the case was "fair" at the time, or whether due process was followed, is beside the point. The case may have been "fair" but the remedy no longer helpful - in which case repeal it. The case may be atrocious - but the remedy (even on other ground) pragmatically useful - in which case stand by it. If arbcom want to make a statement saying that in future they believe that it would be more useful to handle cases like this in a different manner - let them do that. But terms like "vacating" and "miscarriage of justice" have no place here.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
It is very much in the interest of the project not to treat volunteers as disposable fodder. This poorly handled case has had a negative impact on morale, and has damaged the committee's reputation. It should be stricken as a mistake in toto and a suitable replacement statement posted, as FloNight has suggested. JehochmanTalk 20:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
If the remedies are harmful, then I agree.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Scott above says exactly what I would have said a year ago, and I'd have been wrong. The arbcom's devotion to utility over justice is short-sighted. It has not given the community or the parties either fair treatment or the appearance of it, and has contributed to, rather than remedied, the malfunctions. Jehochman says it right - to keep (or rebuild) the community we need to write the encyclopedia, we need to not treat each other like disposable production units. Tom HarrisonTalk 21:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the general sentiment that the committee is not a court of law, and that its ultimate responsibility is not the maintenance of society or preservation of government or any other aims of a court system. On the other hand, fair and just administration of the project is essential to the maintenance of a vibrant and peaceful community, which itself is essential to the future of the project. Avruch T 20:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Just because it's not a court of law, doesn't mean people shouldn't behave as decent human beings and avoid excessive obnoxiousness and not make erroneous statements about other people, and if made, correct them, as most of us are meant to in life- but due to the authority of arbcom, they sometimes behave as if they can talk about people who are already facing the stress of an arbcom case, in any manner they like. StickyParkin 17:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
After talking to Shoemaker's Holiday and getting a feel for some wording that would work for him as a statement, I'm offering an alternative motion that I hope will satisfy all concerns. Additionally, I want to make the point that Charles Matthews was doing the work of the Arbitration Committee when he approached Shoemaker's Holiday to discuss the block. I firmly believe that he waded into the situation with the best intentions. I imagine that no one wishes that it turned out differently more than him. It has been almost a year. Let's try out best to work out a solution and put this issue to rest. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Charles Matthews has asked my forgiveness, and I forgive him. I don't think anything more needs said about him. I apologise if I got too heated before we made up. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
More needs to be said about CM due to his RfC towards Slrubenstein which seems a similar case- attempts at having a go at another user a month or so after the event etc, but this time round they're being met with the reaction they deserve. The place to discuss that is probably not here due to the reaction it will face, but no doubt plenty will be said about both these cases and probably more, in the forthcoming arbcom elections. StickyParkin 17:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, head over to my Candidate questions, if you have a question. It will be in good company. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Archives of rejected requests
I've just been compiling a list of the arbitration requests I've commented on in the past (as one does), and I discovered a few that weren't listed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests (though that page does warn that "many rejected/declined requests are not listed"). Two seemed fairly uncontroversial, so I added them to that page with this edit. One seemed a bit more problematic, so I didn't add it. What do people think? Should this be added to the list or not? If not then, this wording at the top of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests might need tweaking: "Any editor is encouraged to add appropriate diffs to the listing." Carcharoth (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
We are (woefully, or happily) short on procedures for rejected requests, perhaps in the hope that people would stop filing requests doomed to rejection. I'd say that case falls within something worth ignoring even for institutional memory purposes.
What really really needs some TLC is WP:AER, Tiptoety and I cleaned out part of it earlier this year, but there are still a good number of current cases missing from it. MBisanztalk 19:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
If you find rejected cases that aren't listed, list them. I feel all rejected cases should be listed. The procedures for clerk do say list them on rejected cases, BTW, and clarifications that don't have an associated case now have a page, which I started. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Disclosure
This disclosure is related to the SlimVirgin case.
Cases dealing with serious misuse of admin tools, especially at arbitration, may well be met by a very quick response, up to and including summary desysopping in egregious cases. Even at RFAR these have historically tended to be treated with above average urgency.
In such cases, arbitrators may have to balance two roles - as members of the community who may well have commented, discussed and the like, and as arbitrators deciding whether a line has been crossed and if so what remedy is appropriate.
In this case any prior interaction with SlimVirgin is tenuous. We have spoken amicably, not enough to be close, and she has reversed a block of mine enacted to enforce a prior arbitration ruling. That is roughly, the sum total of all involvement. It's truly trivial.
The view that "there is a case needed" is not due to bias, involvement, or past history. Indeed there were a number of complaints of the action, there is history of poor judgement, and at least one other user had drafted a Request for Arbitration beforehand that I was unaware of. Arbitrators are not expected to be free of all history - that would be impractical. They are expected to be free of history that would affect their neutrality. The question I am considering is, would I be able to hear SlimVirgin's statement and that of others, and decide fairly.
I am fairly sure I would, if the evidence is there. I have considered my neutrality in multiple cases - indeed more than any other arbitrator I have been mindful of disclosure even when not strictly needed. This included the original IRC case, and Mantanmoreland. In the latter I was the only arbitrator to express a view in the prior RFC, and yet at RFAR I discounted that and took note only of the evidence presented. I am therefore considering whether I would be neutral here, and my initial view is I would be.
However it is also extremely important to consider other users' perceptions. That also goes without saying. Hence my comment that I would like to consider this, and will do so. FT2(Talk | email) 20:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
"Perceptions" or no, you would not be neutral here, as the very fact that you brought this strange motion demonstrates. You had a block overturned. That's not reason to request removal of the overturning admin's tools. If you are going to press forward with the motion, the least you could do is recuse. The best course of action would be swift withdrawal of the motion. S.D.D.J.Jameson 20:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
The motion isn't at all strange. SlimVirgin is very familiar with Arbitration Enforcement, and knows what exactly the criteria are. Ultimately ArbCom enforces its own rulings. Arbitration Enforcement is a venue where that happens, and as its header says, it is not part of dispute resolution. It is there to answer just one question in a matter. The block isn't personal. Every admin and arbitrator has probably had blocks overturned when others disagree with the block. This block enforces arbitration ruling. The requirements to overturn in such a case are stricter, and very clearly stated. Several times it says the same point. Most administrators involved in this incident probably know it already or read it at the time. Nothing strange about it at all. Oddly enough my initial view was to recuse. The reason for hesitation is to avoid assuming without a moments thought - I have proposed or considered recusing in other cases "for safety", in which the community stated it was not necessary. You may have assumed differently. FT2(Talk | email) 21:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
FT2, this is simply ridiculous. You took an admin action (and yes, it was yours, personally, not the committee's, as Brad has reminded us all); a fellow admin overturned your action; you are taking the fellow admin before the committee. Of course you are a party here. Of course you must recuse. That you can doubt even for a minute makes me very seriously doubt the soundness of your judgment. (And mind you, I'm not expressing an opinion on the justification of either your initial action or SV's.) Fut.Perf.☼ 21:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
See above edit conflict - you may have misassumed a bit, here, though understandably. FT2(Talk | email) 21:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I cannot follow you at all. This is an absolutely clear-cut case. You are a party, period. It makes absolutely no difference whether your action was Arbcom enforcement or a "normal" block. (That may well make a difference for how to judge SV's action, but it changes not one iota of your role as a party.) Fut.Perf.☼ 21:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I've argued in more than one previous case, that recusal was needed, and been told I was probably taking it too strictly (communal consensus agreed with those views at the times). This was a brief "I'm considering and will come back on this" post (exact wording: "On principle, I will be considering the level to which I am involved or otherwise... and whether recusal is appropriate"). As with many issues, when I make a definite stance, then I'm fine if anyone criticizes it, and I will explain or discuss. You've seen that, I'm sure. I'm not averse to speaking my mind. I'm probably one of the most "open" users out there, in terms of willingness to give explanations and discuss if asked. Today I decided to wait briefly, check others' views (as I usually do if there may be a question of what's best) and come back to it as I've done. That's carefulness; credit it as such. FT2(Talk | email) 21:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
This is not something on which consideration was needed. The right course was completely obvious. I'm sorry, but if you don't see this, it casts serious doubt on your suitability as an arbiter. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
FT2, this is simply ridiculous. You took an admin action (and yes, it was yours, personally, not the committee's, as Brad has reminded us all); a fellow admin overturned your action; you are taking the fellow admin before the committee. Of course you are a party here. Of course you must recuse. That you can doubt even for a minute makes me very seriously doubt the soundness of your judgment. (And mind you, I'm not expressing an opinion on the justification of either your initial action or SV's.) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)(borrowed from above to reinforce the point)
Thanks for clearing that up. This being Wikipedia, its best not to get into copying the comments of others without attribution, even if you believe you are making a rhetorical point of some sort. Avruch T 15:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
This entire conversation is moot, as FT2 is recused. Further commentary should be taken to relevant user talk.--Tznkai (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Subpage
Clerks, the lengthy motion and discussion have pushed the associated project page over 500k. This tends to disenfranchise reduce access by, discourage commenting by, and decrease transparency for members of the community on slower connections. Can a subpage be created? JehochmanTalk 13:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Looks good idea, but better speaking of a "denial of access" rather than disenfranchisement? Not a vote, and all that.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I just nudged the arbs to see if we can get more voting on this so we can close it. Three motions are passing and one is close. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I subpaged the SlimVirgin motion. Whatever rationale you use, it's a good idea.--chaser - t 17:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't a clerk have done this, if at all? --Conti|✉ 17:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I was adding a statement at the very moment the page was being subpaged, and got an edit conflict. I have now added my statement to the subpage instead. ElinorD(talk) 17:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
The issue of a clerk doing it asisde, you also should have left a note at RFAR that is was subpaged, with a link. But it's rather moot as I've received a note from the arbs to close it. Since 3A passes, whether 2/2A pass is rather moot. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Can we revert the subpaging before archiving, then? Having a subpage without any edit history doesn't seem to be useful to me. Not to mention the confusion with an actual arbitration case. --Conti|✉ 18:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, the main page is for active requests. Whether it's a permalink or a subpage doesn't make much difference, as long as people can link to it when and if they have to. A subpage is pretty useful for that purpose.--chaser - t 19:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how a subpage with no edit history is more useful than a permalink, but I suppose this is all moot now, anyhow. --Conti|✉ 21:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
A note, Rlevse? Like this one?--chaser - t 19:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Oops, missed it. Sorry, chaser. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Meh, I removed my comments from the thread, and would invite others to do the same. There's far too much noise there, most of it predictable and partisan - and I doubt anyone is listening. It seems to me arbcom is doing just fine without all our squealing. Indeed they'd be advised to ignore all the score settling and axe grinding that's been posted on every side. We chose them to handle this stuff, and although they are not doing it quite the way I'd like them too, they've managed to be decisive for once. They were going to take stick whatever they did - so kudos for their willingness to face it down. Well done folks.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Arbcom math
There are twelve active arbitrators (excluding one who is recused), so seven votes are a majority.
I do disagree with three of the four proposals in question and do not want to help them pass more easily than they should, but I couldn't help noticing this: Twelve minus one is eleven, and six of eleven are a clear majority as no more than five could oppose. Could somebody (clerks perhaps) please clarify this now rather than after it becomes obvious which proposals would be affected? Thanks. — CharlotteWebb 14:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
It looks like the recused arbitrator in this case is inactive in general, so there are twelve non-recused active arbitrators on the motion, not eleven. FlyingPenguin1 (talk) 14:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Flyingpenguin1 is right. There are 12 arbitrators currently active, excluding FT2 who is recused on these motions (and has put himself on the "inactive" list for a few weeks to focus on some other stuff, although I see little evidence of actual inactivity :) ). For anyone ever wishing to verify numbers, a list of the currently active arbitrators can be found at WP:AC. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I remember looking at the sentence and thinking "huh?" at first; then realised what had happened after checking that very list. Was confused for a moment myself. :) The edit summary in the history [17] was also helpful. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Well crap, maybe I was stuck in a jury-trial mindset (I guess you can have the Henry Fonda role, Brad), plus thirteen is unlucky and I totally forgot YellowMonkey was still a member. Maybe the standard wording should be changed to:
"There are currently [X] arbitrators, of which [Y] is/are inactive and/or recused, leaving [X minus Y]. Thus [(X - Y) / 2, rounded down, + 1] votes are a majority.
Would this be less confusing or more so? You could set up a template for it if that helps . — CharlotteWebb 17:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
That was more-or-less the standard wording until about a year ago, when it was changed to be less confusing. The view at the time was "if they are recused or inactive, why are we talking about them?", plus it sounded silly to have to write "of whom none are recused." You can't win.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
No, but I can lose with the best of them (see the main RFAR page if you doubt). A template could of course omit the number of inactive/recused arbcommies if they are zero. Of course if there is a reluctance to mention them at all we could say something like "There are twelve arbitrators participating in this case, so seven votes are a majority.", but this could become confusing for who are inactive and/or recused as arbitrator but still participating in some other capacity. As a last resort we say "There are twelve arbitrators arbitrating this case" but that is tautological, sounds like part of a christmas carol, and still doesn't address those unrecused and listed as "active" but still unexpected to participate. — CharlotteWebb 19:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
How about "There are X eligible arbitrators (excluding Y that are inactive and X that are recused), so ceiling(X/2) votes are a majority."? (Yes, there is still an issue when a supposedly inactive arb recuses, but it's not a serious problem - just pick a category and put them in it, hopefully it won't be too confusing.) --Tango (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
You want floor-plus-one otherwise it's a stalemate with an even number. Plus "recused" supersedes "inactive" in theory because (for better or worse) one must actively say "I recuse" to be considered so. — CharlotteWebb 19:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
True, floor+1 is a better definition of majority. It depends on your definition of "inactive". If "inactive" means "not active" then you are absolutely right. If "inactive" means "on the inactive list" then it's a little more confusing. --Tango (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
"Rounded upwards to the nearest whole number" may be an alternative path to pursue in the pursuit of perfect wording. In practice we do, however, seem to have very little problem with calculating the majority by the arithmetic guideline's current incarnation. AGK 22:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Ryūlóng and Haines
How is this not a ridiculous, petty, thuggish action by Ryūlóng in preventing Haines from editing his own page and extending block because he "removed comments left by adminstrators" (quoting Ryūlóng's stated rationale, note Vandenberg's view of this in this thread)? The later claim that this was because Haines was attempting to "skew" discussion is entirely spurious. John Vandenberg drew Ryūlóng's attention to his response to this action: Ryūlóng's response in full: "Okay". This is simply waving status and tools in the face of the blocked user.
Coupled with the involved status of the original blocker, our first reaction to a block log should be that it is probably evidence of nothing so much as the capriciousness of sections of the admin corps. And of course it is made extremely difficult for any administrator to undo another's action, so these things stick. And administrators practically have tenure. Is this healthy? I think, no. 86.44.25.191 (talk) 02:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Alastair, are you pretending that this isn't you? Ilkali (talk) 13:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Ilkali, this shows once again that you let your actions moved by all your past records with Alastair and you are doing nothing but blaming him for anything. A simple IP trace on this post shows that it comes from Eircom.net: an Irish internet provider. Unless Alastair is taking his Wiki-holiday all the way from Australia to Ireland in 24 hours or so, what proof do you have? Miguel.mateo (talk) 13:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
As you know, a comment from an Irish IP does not have to originate from someone in Ireland. The writing style, the attitude expressed and the tone (one of seething indignation) all closely match Alastair's. And, of course, who else would be posting anonymously here? Let's see if anyone claims responsibility. Ilkali (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
"Alastair is bad reputation for Wikipedia, he is always fighting and entroverting himself in any article I contribute. He should be blocked from Wikipedia for life." ... does that sound like you from Japan now? Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
No, it sounds nothing like me. Ilkali (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
[unindent]No one asked me my opinion, but I don't think that's Alastair. For one thing, he's back from block- I would think if he was going to go anon and post stuff like this, it would not be a few hours before his block expired. Secondly, socking has never, that we know of, been part of his MO. And thirdly, if he was Alastair, an experienced user familiar with the community- he would know that "Ryūlóng"s username is actually Ryulong, the diacritical marks are merely part of his signature. L'Aquatique[talk] 22:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Glad to see you think that way: wannabe a cheerleader? We're hiring ... ;) Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Fascinating how people love to play these stupid games instead of commenting on the substance of the post (or not commenting at all). 86.44.28.122 (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
There's not much point responding to the "substance" here, since we'll shortly see all the same material appearing in your statement on the main page. Ilkali (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
IP user, I encourage you to create an account and give your opinion in the main article, not here in the talk page. IT is just an advice though, it is up to you at the very end ... regards, Miguel.mateo (talk) 03:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I should mention that, should that IP create an account and comment on the main page, it is almost certain that his/her comments would be disregarded. The assumption would be- not without merit I should mention- that (s)he is a sock of either Alastair or one of his so-called cheerleaders. L'Aquatique[talk] 22:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
In Heavens name, tell me why you should mention your assumption and phrase it to imply it would be everyones assumption. Granted their comments may be disregarded but to assume deceit is your determination. Alastair and his "cheerleaders" have ALL proven themselves trustworthy. To "feel" otherwise and then state fiction as fact does harm to the Community...especially in your role as an administrator. --Buster7 (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm telling you how it works. Most newcomers start working in article space, then move to userspace and talk pages... it usually takes a month or two for a truly new user to find out about administrative projects, no less arbcom. A brand new account commenting in administrative areas indicates, 99% of the time- that they're really not a new user at all. Now, I am not assuming deceit- I said above that I didn't think the IP was Alastair. I'm just being realistic here. L'Aquatique[talk] 00:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I know how it works, thank you. I know you (above) claimed that Alastair and his minions would create sock-puppets to falsify testimony. AGF. I also know that new administrators are admonished to start slowly and build experience. Also, that administrative tools are to be used with good judgement. And, that misusing the tools of an administrator is considered a serious issue. More serious that an inadvertant revert by a long standing quality editor.--Buster7 (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
"I know you (above) claimed that Alastair and his minions would create sock-puppets to falsify testimony". Wow. Alastair must be really regretting involving you in this. Ilkali (talk) 00:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
This is a good opportunity to note that although I'm going to spare ArbCom members the TIME and embarassment of having to defend unsupportable process and conclusions in our case, due to my respect for the difficulties of their situation, this does not extend to allowing administrators, who are only users like everyone else, to get away with personal attacks, bullying, edit-warring and deceiving ArbCom.
There is clear evidence, obvious to the community, that certain admins are gaming the system by taking advantage of the courtesy other administrators will show by not reversing blocks and so on. There are important Wiki ideals at stake here: the equality of all users, admins and others, yet a wisdom in admin solidarity that can occasionally lead to a "them-and-us" situation.
Administrators are not licensed to make rules, they are entrusted with the task of exemplifying them. Past good behaviour is never an excuse for present bad behaviour. Edit warring is edit warring even when administrators collude to do it. There is much more that can be said. What source does an administrator have to warrant enforcing removal of cited material from an article? What consensus does said administrator demonstrate having obtained or observed to do so? Administrators are not above the rules and bring fear, uncertainty and doubt when they "buck the system" to pursue personal crusades. However big their cheer-squad, it is the difference to the text of the encyclopedia—improving and maintaining it—that is the ultimate key performance indicator.
It is simply demonstrable childishness for administrators to abuse their tools to "have the last word". It is scandalous personal attack to twist user's words to appear to be bad faith, in order to make Wiki legal threats and try to silence fair criticism.
Wikipedia is an unbelievably good place because of overworked ArbCom members and thousands of generous administrators and editors. It is sad that this perspective can easily be lost, if in the narrow world of an individual editor or article one administrator, perhaps with a friend or two distorts the basic principles that encourage improvement and maintenance.
Others will have noticed how there is a tendency for admins to be held up as superior to sources, and ArbCom as superior to Wikipedia policy. I'm naive enough to believe that ArbCom and admins will lead the charge to remedy this situation. For Wiki's sake I hope I'm not wrong.
I've said enough. Others can see these things. I'll let them work it out. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I would love to see a diff where I accuse anyone involved in this case of socking. L'Aquatique[talk] 00:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused. If your intent isn't to have ArbCom members investigate L'Aquatique, why did you post this here? And if it is, why did you post this here instead of on the main page? Ilkali (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
As requested by L'Aquatique...[[18]] or you could just refer to your recent pejorative comment just above.--Buster7 (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Ilkali, unlike other people (apparently), I want to invest my time in making edits that improve and maintain Wikipedia. In fact, I have made so many of these that people have noticed and want me to continue. Indeed I shall. But what I will not do is actually initiate any action that can lead to enforcement on other users. That is not how I understand Wikipedia, enforcement undermines reliability, because it can be used to silence sources, it also undermines good faith, which is essential for co-operative effort. I did not initiate the ArbCom, and I condemn the restrictions on you and others. I also do not want to see enforcement taken on L'Aquatique or Ruylong, the latter having an edit history I am simply in awe of. I have said many times that I am as easy to satisfy as an apologies as public as false accusations made against me. Any other injuries I simply overlook, but I am concerned that people who have been deceived are freed from false notions they should never have been asked to entertain. I am no longer going to comment in this thread. Best wishes all. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I see no answer to my question. Your actions contradict your stated intentions. Ilkali (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Buster- where in that diff do I say that I believed Alastair was socking? I said people uninvolved in this case would assume that he was if a new account showed up in his favor with a similar style of speech. Ask any administrator what their first assumption in that case would be and I guarantee they would say "sock" because we see it happen all the time. If you read the comment before and all the ones afterward, I said I didn't believe Alastair was socking. If you stopped trying to treat me as the enemy and look at the situation neutrally you might see that what I'm saying actually makes sense. L'Aquatique[talk] 01:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Bonkers! Similar Style of Speech??? Not even close.......
people uninvolved in the case???...where did you say that before?....
in that case....is not the case we are talking about.
If you stop treating Mr Haines as if HE is the enemy...I'll do the same for you!--Buster7 (talk) 02:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
All right, as much fun as this is, you are obviously not getting it. I've got better things to do than waste my time going in circles with you. If you really want to believe I'm the bad guy here- which you obviously do- then fine. It's your loss. L'Aquatique[talk] 02:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
L'Aquatique: we are sorry to tell you that after a lot of discussions we have decided to revoke your application for cheerleading. Respectfully, the cheerleading committee.Miguel.mateo (talk) 02:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Bugger! They told me the same thing in high school. L'Aquatique[talk] 03:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Gender of God ... solved at last!
I'm breaking my silence because the best way to save everyone time is to solve the problem.
After one week, it appears that no one has actually even looked at the content involved in the dispute.
Any reasonable member of the community can see the sense of the following if they bother to look.
The Oxford is written for anyone and is reliable. Regarding the gender of God it says the following about the Gothic language usage from which the English is derived:
"...the words always follow the neuter declension, though when used in the Christian sense they are syntactically masc[uline]. ...the adoption of the masculine concord being presumably due to the Christian use of the word."
In other words, the Oxford claims religious understanding of the actual gender of God, led to usage that was inconsistent in grammatical gender.
Ilkali and Abtract present themselves as credible judges of the relevance of this sourced, and long-standing part of the article. They claim it is "irrelevant" and "Haines" to be pushing himself or his POV by restoring it (or any number of other irrelevant criticisms of the text). However, they have a vested interest in deleting it, because it shows other things they've said and done to be out of line with this source. Hence, that Alastair was representing the interests of readers, Wikipedia and sources, not his alleged own interests (whatever those are supposed to be). In other words, it exposes them for precisely the vandals that they are willing to be. Ultimately, Alastair doesn't care what is said about him, but remove quality text from Wiki and you can strike at his heart. Ilkali and Abtract have only got away with this because nice people have trusted them when asked to believe disputed text is "Haines" text. Text is text, it belongs to no-one ... and it can be read! (If one has time.)
They are not alone in having a vested interest in removing the text I am restoring today, and directing attention at Alastair rather than at the real issue. Alastair asked for help when Ilkali and Abtract started their attacks. This is an element that makes the case difficult. A now adminstrator was once a mediator, who answered Alastair's request for help. In the mediation, she failed to correct personal attacks or engage with reliable sources, and sided with Ilkali and Abtract, as subsequent events have proved beyond doubt. The facts haven't changed, they are simply much easier for more people to see now. Alastair closed the mediation when it was clear it was making things worse not better. The mediators were unhappy with this criticism of their voluntary service. Perfectly understandable.
Abtract's claims that Alastair is a bully are beyond credibility, but sadly some people believe there is a question mark about Alastair because others, they are presuming to be reliable sources, have "said so". This is successful defamation. It is remedied by public retraction. It was motivated by resentment, resentment expressed on this very page. I urge strongly that it not be punished by sanctions. How can people demonstrate change if not given the opportunity to do so? Would sanctions reduce resentment?
Dismiss this case as petty and unworthy of attention in the first place. The content issues can be seen to be obviously in line with what Alastair has claimed about them all along, as anyone who bothered to inspect them would find. The error was allowing personal attacks to be mistaken for serious criticism, without the content issues being inspected first. Am I the only one here who actually reads Wikipedia, rather than other editors, and with unfriendly eyes at that! Of course not.
Dismiss the restrictions on Ilkali, impose none on Abtract! Retain mine by all means, they do not "restrict" my editing at all, they describe a lower standard than the 20,000 edits of my history. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Alastair, this rant is highly inappropriate. You are also sinking to making personal attacks, by calling Ilkali and Abtract both vandals, and continue to attack an administrator who tried to help mediate. Surely from your understanding of the difficulty here, you can understand why the mediation failed, and you could cut her some slack.
If there is one reason you are now faced with editing restrictions, it is because of your comments rather than your content work.
In regards to why nobody has done anything about Gender of God in the last week, you volunteered to put this into other peoples care, and now I feel like you have gone back on your word to me about that. I have not focused on that article yet for good reasons, including it being the focus of the motion here, and I have also been busy stopping the new fire at Virginity that was sparked by Abtract. And now you've fanned the flames of the Gender of God content dispute; is it really so important? --John Vandenberg(chat) 03:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
John, please withdraw the term rant, whatever it means, and keep interacting with what is said.
It is a careful presentation of facts, which you are welcome to dispute, if you can find something that can be disputed.
Are you suggesting removal of the text above was not vandalism? Yes or no.
Vandalism is vandalism. It's not a personal attack to identify it.
Even the restrictions encouraged me to revert "vandalism" by name. It is ArbCom's word, not mine.
If such a claim as mine is a personal attack, then you automatically grant that many, many, many more have been made against me and that these have not yet been addressed. With that I certainly agree.
Check the mediation John, I did cut the mediators a lot of slack for exactly the reasons you mention.
I am not "attacking" that mediator, I wouldn't ever have seen her again unless she'd continued to come looking for me.
Even passers by have commented at how obviously bad it looks, that on at least three occasions she's intervened to inhibit my editing.
Where has she answered, as publically as she's asked me to answer, for her part in the GoG mediation?
It is not acceptable to impose restrictions to force me to seek help, without addressing where help has actually failed me.
In my post above I deliberately did not spell out these things. I know they are awkward.
But it is not right to smooth the awkwardness by suggesting that it is me that is "attacking".
It deflects attention away from facts, questions that need answering, and issues that need addressing.
I did not start any of this, and I keep walking away. It is a handful of others that keep making a big deal of nothing.
Is Gender of God a content dispute? Then why is it here?
I've gone back on nothing, I still want someone to get involved at Gender of God, you or anyone.
I certainly don't hold it against you, John, that while you're busy satisfying Abtract in one place, you don't have time to maintain things in another.
The only reason I post now is that I'll be offline soon for some time and don't know if I'll remember to fix things when I get back.
As I said, I think things are solved. Some things are easier to see now and help us drop it and move on. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Alastair, I used the term rant because your post boils down to "this can be solved by me doing a revert because removing this content was vandalism." If only it was that simple. Abtract has now reverted it, which many bystanders could have predicted. I didnt restore this text because it was still unresolved, and Abtract would have reverted me if I had tried. There is a much deeper problem here, and it is up to the Arbitrators to determine the best solution.
The removal of this text is not vandalism as it was accompanied by an explanation at Talk:Gender of God#Removing "Clarify Terms" section, to which you responded, and other editors have resisted your attempt to restore it. The removal may be inappropriate, against consensus, "stone walling" or even gaming the system, but it is not vandalism. You may find Wikipedia:Vandalism helpful to determine whether an edit can be called vandalism, but the rule of thumb is to assume good faith.
Here is the history of this section, with three other editors removing it, and you are the only one restoring it:
This is what we call an edit war - it is a content dispute, and there are three other editors involved, though it is mainly your self and Abtract who are prolonging each dispute that starts. Abtract non-involvement in the talk page is a major part of the problem in my opinion (i.e. Abtract is stonewalling in this case), and that is why I have proposed that he also be "restricted" in the same manner as yourself :- the simple requirement to discuss any revert (this is something most editors do). However it would be really helpful if you could accept that these battles are not helpful, and they all need to be put on hold until the deeper issues are resolved. A proper solution can't be achieved while the skirmishes continue. It is up to Arbcom to now decide if they can pass any motions that they believe will further improve the editing environment.
p.s. Arbs, an anon has recently vandalised this section twice; maybe that is related.
"Solved at last"? With a title like that, people expect to see some brilliant compromise that satisfies all parties, but all it really amounts to is "if everyone agrees that I'm right, the problems go away!". That's what you've been touting from day one, Alastair. Don't dress it up as a breakthrough. Ilkali (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
FT2
I note that FT2 is still active on cases. Is this right and proper as it now seems his fair and legitimate election to the Arbcom is in doubt. Giano (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Who cares? This really is pointless shit stirring. Giano, this is becoming boring now. If you really want to measure community support for this crusade opening an RFC would be helpful. Absent that why don't you just do something useful instead of instigating further tiresome drama? SpartazHumbug! 21:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Nothing to RFC about. It happened - fact. I and many others want to know what the result is going to be. Or are all elections to the Arbcom going to be tampered with by pet check-users with oversight rights? FT2, Gerard and the Arbcom have had long enought to decide what they want to say in a statement about this. They can be very speedy when it suits them. This is not going to go away.Giano (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Jesus Christ, Giano, let it go. Your conspiracy-mongering about the elections being rigged by "pet checkusers with oversight rights" is baseless, tendentious, and ludicrous. By now, we all know that you cannot stand the concept of the Arbitration committee, and unless you were able to personally pick every member of the committee you would consider them illegitimate. That's not going to happen, so let it go. Horologium(talk) 21:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
The "conspiracy" has been confirmed: David Gerard oversighted diffs, in violation of the oversight policy, that were being used as a reason to oppose FT2's candidacy. Now, whether that actually had an effect on the outcome is unknown, but it's more than "pointless shit-stirring" or "conspiracy-mongering". --NE2 21:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
If this had been an issue during the election, it wouldn't have taken a year for it to become an item for discussion, and as FT2 had a net positive of 231 votes in support, it doesn't appear that it makes much of a difference. (Only NYB had a higher net positive, by a large margin.) As for the confirmation of diffs being oversighted, could you provide me with a link to such a statement? (Not snark, but I have seen accusations, but no confirmation; however, since I don't spend a lot of time at Drama Central, I might well have missed such a confirmation.) Horologium(talk) 23:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
It probably would have come "out in the open" earlier had it not been forcibly hidden. If I remember correctly, several people were blocked or banned for bringing it up, creating a chilling effect. --NE2 00:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Look Giano, why don't we just cut to the chase. Say I volunteer for some offensive comments from you (make them funny enough and I'll put them in a userbox), then you can feel vindicated and we can all do something useful. SpartazHumbug! 22:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Spartaz, a person's edit record is all we have to go on when choosing an arbcom candidate. FT2's edit record was falsified, during an election to aid his candidacy. And you say; "Who cares?". I certainly do. What the hell do we even have elections for if this crap is allowed to stand? --Duk 23:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Then open an RFC and get concensus from the community about the matter. What does this thread achieve? Nothing. A definitiave view from the community would clearly resolve this either way - total condemnation than FT2 resigns, total support then they are safe. And, shhh, you are ruining my chance of a memorable userbox. Giano's insults are to be treasured. SpartazHumbug! 23:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree, an RFC is the way to go. Complaining on here, while I can understand the reasoning, isn't getting anyone anywhere. – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
An RFC would absolutely be appropriate. In any case, Giano is using the talk page to air grievances (instead of the RFAr page), a tactic which was rather strongly discouraged in a recent arbitration case. Follow the proper procedures to address abuse of power, rather than abuse process by flinging accusations in non-relevant fora. Horologium(talk) 23:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
How can you have an RFC where the evidence has all been censored from the site, and where the person responsible for bringing it to light, an editor with five years of good work on Wikipedia, is currently banned for his efforts to to address this. Horologium, Spartaz, do you two actually have any idea what's going on here? Asking for an RFC is just another delay tactic. --Duk 01:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
<--I'm looking for accountability in the use of oversight. That means acknowledging that there is a problem and applying the appropriate remedy. I do not advocate David Gerard losing his oversight permission over a single mistake, that is for Arbcom to decide. Arbcom hands out oversight permission and only Arbcom can determine what sorts of mistakes, if any, warrant its removal. As long as they grant the power, they must accept responsibility to oversee the use of the power. (If Arbcom really wants an RFC to determine community sentiment about oversight, they should really just make granting and revoking oversight subject to a public vote and take themselves out of it entirely.) Damian's block is complicated but it has nothing to do with his efforts to expose the oversighted edits. Thatcher 02:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree that there should be accountability concerning the oversight tool. I'd like to see the ArbCom release a statement saying that they've looked into the allegation that Gerard misused the oversight tool and either clear Gerard of wrongdoing or take appropriate action. Perhaps someone needs to open a formal request? Cla68 (talk) 02:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Cla, I agree with you, and Thatcher partially. But I'd like to add, if this isn't a case for action then what is? The delay tactics are only making it worse. Thatcher, you say I do not advocate David Gerard losing his oversight permission over a single mistake. Why not? What's the big deal (besides giving the community a reason to believe in the arbcom)? Will losing oversight prevent Gerard from earning a living and supporting his family. Really, Thatcher, what's the big deal? Oversight isn't a status symbol, it's not a merit badge, it isn't a toy - if there's a problem then take it away. As far as a single mistake, I don't know that that is accurate. Do you, Thatcher? This is an admin who's behaved poorly in a great many ways for a long time. Also FT2 should be asked to run again this time around. I think it's very important for the community to see some responsible leadership and a just outcome here. --Duk 02:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to involve myself in the debate over what action should be taken. I know I would hate to lose my checkuser permission over a single mistake, but I also know that even a single mistake can be serious enough to warrant removal. And I don't know what other factors (if any) may be involved. It is up to Arbcom to decide what to do, and to explain it to the community. Thatcher 03:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
(ec x 2!) Agree with Cla68 - having this floating around is bad for morale and all round feeling - it needs to get properly addressed, and RfC I think is the first port of call (as neutral). somewhere, as some sort of organised discussion and exoneration (or otherwise) of conduct is needed. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
An RfC would help get things going if the ArbCom isn't willing or able to address it right now. Cla68 (talk) 02:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this matter should be addressed promptly, but I don't see how an RfC can deal with non-public information. Would the oversighted edits be restored and the logs published? It seems like a decision is needed that no confidential or harmful personal information would be exposed. ·:· Will Beback·:· 02:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Since the community does not control oversight permission, I don't think an RFC will accomplish anything but ratchet up the drama level even further. Arbcom is already in possession of all the relevant facts, and if they are not, they know whom to talk to to get them. Thatcher 03:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, RfC's do often come off as free-for-alls, where anyone and everyone with an opinion is free to shout it out. An RfC, however, allows the community to provide formal input on an issue that goes into "the record". If ArbCom is willing and able to make an announcement in a reasonable amount of time on what their findings are in the inquiry they're presumably busy undertaking right now, then perhaps an RfC won't be necessary. Cla68 (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
The thing is... there's nothing personally harmful in the edits, unless I (and many others) have been completely duped as to their content. I don't know if oversighters are allowed to even confirm the content without getting "fired", but at least that can be confirmed by someone trustworthy with an old database dump. As for the oversight summaries... that confirmation would have to come from an oversighter. --NE2 03:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
One cannot have an RFC when the whole topic is banned and the oversights remain in situ. That the oversight took place has been confirmed and is not in doubt. What is in doubt is how many more people ould have opposed FT2's candidcacy. Would he have been elected if the oversights had not taken place? We cannot know - so FT2 needs to resign. Gerard's actions may have altered the results of an election - he too needs to go. An election has to be sancrosanct. Giano (talk) 07:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
...but not so sacrosanct that one can't run a good-hand sockpuppet in the election? Giano, please, you're asserting a moral high ground here that you clearly do not occupy at the moment.
You made your point - the community is aware of the edits, the oversight, both people involved in that. Playing the martyr and demanding action is not morally consistent behavior here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for making that point for me, how quickly David Gerard can act when he choses in elections is interesting isn't it - and always to get a result that suits him. Giano (talk) 08:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
FT2 has replied to the accusations. There are more comments upcoming (from Jimbo for one, and more from FT2), but those throwing around accusations on talk pages everywhere already have some thinking to do. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Request for caselaw index
I hate to do this to Arbcom, but...
The current structure of how Arbcom is a) ruling and b) recording its rulings is not optimal for admins trying to understand what the state of current "case law" is on Wikipedia, as it were. I had to jump around a bunch now to find out where the links were to the SlimVirgin motion with the "Thou shalt not block Giano without Arbcom written permission" motion, though I knew it was being voted on etc.
Cases with just case-specific findings are easy enough to locate in the archives as is. But we're seeing general widespread policy being set and rulings which aren't easy to find anywhere indexed by user.
So... Putting it out there to the community and Arbcom... we (community) and you (arbcom) need to come up with another indexing mechanism / filing mechanism, with a centralized list of all general or wide applicability motions in settled Arbcom cases. At least going forwards, but someone ought to do it back through the archives as well.
There are several relevant pages around, some of which you have seen and some of which you probably haven't, and many of which are to varying degrees out of date. I will ask the Arbitration Clerks to put together a list of what is out there and what seems to them realistic in terms of keeping track of things. Perhaps we can assign updating and maintenance responsibility to whoever finishes 8th through 25th in the election? Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Ideally the result will have no more than three primary indexes... by case, by participant, and a central general list of general purpose (not case specific) decisions.
I've probably seen most of what's out there at some point, but having too many places to look is no more useful than having too few. I can't practically keep an index of index pages ;-P Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
As currently the clerks office is understaffed due to the elections, I'm afraid your perfectly reasonable request is going to be denied until I get my donuts, some more help, or peace and quiet out of the RFAR page. (Seriously, I'm putting it on my rapidly growing list of "things that the clerks should probably do" that I'll submit to the new slate of arbiters come January)--Tznkai (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
It's sort of important that things like generally applicable policy and specific stuff like Giano blocking be well visible to admins... I know everyone's busy, but I've been around for years, and if it took me a while to find the final enacted motion...
It irritates me enough to consider being bold, but I'm not sure if that would step on clerk's toes, arbcom toes, etc., and I have a conference next week and an all-day webex session this week to prep for, so my brain hurts at the moment too. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Its a good idea, and you're welcome to step all over our toes - but I think the easiest thing to do is to wait for the new year. Hopefully no one will cause TOO much ruckus till then.--Tznkai (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
There is certainly a "backlog" now: both of useful reports by case, and of cross-indexation of topics. It would be a worthwhile task to render what we have more accessible. In a sense this should be a separate wiki, not just more lists ... it looks like a multiperson task, needing updates. An open ArbCom wiki, in fact. This could work as a solution. The closed ArbCom wiki, which I had set up by devs, was supposed to have such material which could I suppose then be exported. I hoped for more of that, but "pressure of work". :-( So, how much interest in a special wiki that all could read and some people could edit? Charles Matthews (talk) 13:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
We created tables with sortable columns, Wikipedia:General restrictions and Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Would it be possible to create a third table with columns as sort keys to store a list of motions with links to them? This is not necessarily clerk work. Any volunteer could pitch in to help get this done, including non-admins. If you want this done, list the sort keys you think would be most useful. I will finish 8th to 25th, but I've already done my penance helping build the above two files. Those who finish 1st through 7th will be assigned a much harsher penance. :-) JehochmanTalk 14:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Tznkai do you actually have an office or are you just trying to internalize the role-playing aspects of this? Brad has an interesting idea but it will probably only be another incentive for sensible candidates to drop out rather than finish (we don't need any more of that). Oooh but sortable tables are so pretty! One "remedy" per row might work, but those can get confusing when several users are involved. This for example can be interpreted as 30 "remedies", roughly half of which are completely impertinent and certainly not worthy of enshrinement. — CharlotteWebb 16:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Tznkai is a clerk. Was the rest of your comment intended to argue against the idea of indexing past cases? If so, can you elaborate on why you're opposed? Avruch T 17:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
(Declaring first that I'm speaking with the experience of clerkship, as Tznkai received a bit of a trashing above when it was not known what rationale he had for speaking with vague clout. :-) ) An index of important principles in cases was once maintained at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions, but with ever-reducing manpower in the Clerks' office (a situation that will worsen if any of the several Clerks with candidacies to the Committee this year are elected) that page fell into disuse. A similar system—perhaps utilising Jehochman's sortable tables idea which works very well on WP:General_sanctions and other pages—could be restarted for remedies and motions, I suppose, if that is desirable. Manpower would be a key problem to overcome in that situation, however. Give the clerks the resources to maintain such a huge page and I for one will happily do the grunt work—as would, I suspect, many of the other clerks also. AGK 17:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Am I that difficult to read? I'm not opposing this at all, only saying it won't be as simple as it sounds. I'm asking if there is any reason to enumerate, for example, restrictions on the administrative work of users who aren't admins (which would be completely pointless), or admonishment not to make "harassing or threatening comments" absent a finding of fact that said user is guilty of this (which would be an undue drain on one's reputation). That's why I would favor a more common-sense approach. — CharlotteWebb 17:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Is that comment directed myself or at Avruch? AGK 17:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Hard to tell, he is difficult to read after all... although I understand now what he was saying with the office thing - he knew Tznkai was a clerk, but was commenting on describing the clerks as having a "clerk's office." Anyway, back to regularly scheduled programming. Avruch T 18:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I am much too lazy to have invented such a useful table. They were created by User:Kirill Lokshin. I just populated the data from old cases in my idle while simultaneously uploading or downloading large websites (as part of my work). JehochmanTalk 21:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
The clerk's office thing was an attempt at levity and humor, but to echo AGK, we don't have the time and other resources to get it done at this moment.--Tznkai (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
The term "clerks' office" is used from time to time, including by me (both when I was a clerk and now). It does not imply the existence of a physical office with a fax machine, a secretary, and a coffeemaker (although I will be glad to arrange for the clerks office holiday party provided that all of the participants come to New York for it). Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad curiously failed to either confirm or deny the existence of custom-printed stationery in the above list...interesting. Daniel (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Has been blocked almost immediately for editing mainspace in contravention of the agreement with Thatcher.
I'd like to make a request to Arbcom to lift Peter Damian's restriction on mainspace - some may have issues with his behaviour, but his content contributions are of benefit to the community. Is this a sufficiently public forum, or should I make a formal request on the project page? Many thanks. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Probably cleanest on WP:RFAR so the arb-comments don't mix in with the non-arb-comments and get confused. MBisanztalk 21:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
File it in WP:RFAR under requests and other clarifications, list me as a party.--Tznkai (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
A few weeks back I pointed out out that a case had been reported as closed with a sanction passing when there didn't seem to be enough supporting votes for that sanction to have passed. I expect this has been resolved one way or another but I'm a little concerned that the findings in that case seem to have been used as contributory factors in remedies in a later case. Does anyone know whether this situation was properly resolved? Thanks 92.39.200.36 (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Looks incorrect to me. Thatcher 19:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, Matthew Brown and Jpgordon don't seem to have bothered to have shown up at all even though they were listed as "active", so in reality the "active" number should probably be 9. There probably needs to be a better way to determine who's "inactive" and "active", though. 96.15.121.254 (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
The arbitrators have a responsibility to declare if they intend to have nothing to do with a particular case. There is no precedent for the clerks to declare non-voting arbs as "inactive" or "recused" after X number of days of non-voting. Thatcher 19:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
To be clear, I'm not suggesting a new standard be applied retroactively, but that going forward a better system might be more appropriate. It seems paradoxical to require some action to be be deemed "inactive" and no action to be deemed "active". Would the reverse not be better? Perhaps the arbitrators could demonstrate their active status by actually being active. As a first approximation those who vote to accept/decline a case, participate in workshop and/or vote could be deemed active, and the rest inactive. 96.15.121.254 (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
In response to Thatcher's comment that it "looks incorrect", almost everything about the case was "incorrect". It needs to be heard again, in the open this time.
Evidence was presented (and should be presented again in public)
that SlimVirgin went through private channels to no avail before the issue came to the mailing list, and that it wasn't she who brought it to the mailing list in the first place;[19]
that Lar received an email from me saying that I couldn't see how the check was justified (and none saying that it was), but then went ahead and posted on the private CU mailing list that I had admitted to him that it was justified;[20]
that Lar justified his passing on of my personal information to his wife by claiming that his wife had had a history of communication with me and a role of offering me advice and counsel, based on statements I had made to both of them,[21] when in fact I had had ZERO encounter with her and had never sent her a message or received one from her.
They cannot abuse the "need for privacy" by pretending that this evidence did not exist. They have forced me to out myself, by ignoring my private requests for clarification, and by using my privacy as a pretext for not dealing with the case on-wiki. Okay. I have outed myself. Sometimes doing the right thing is more important keeping safe. There's no longer any pretext to hush it up. Let's have the truth! ElinorD(talk) 21:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I feel in an awkward position here. On the one hand, I want to take the desysopping on the chin, because doing otherwise is somewhat cheesy. On the other hand, if this had happened to anyone else, I'd be speaking up for them.
My concern is basically that the Lar case was a real mess. Evidence was heard in private and was kept back even from the parties so that none of us knew what was being said. We couldn't check that other evidence submitted was accurate, and no "cross examination" could take place. Then FT2 posted a decision about me that was factually incorrect. My recollection is he said I hadn't taken any dispute-resolution steps other than to write to the mailing list — but I had and I also hadn't started the mailing list thread. I wrote to him correcting it. He didn't respond, and so far as I know didn't correct the finding. I tried to post a defence of myself on the talk page, but it was removed, as were comments from other editors who'd expressed concern, and the talk page was protected.
I gave up, because my faith in ArbCom was at an all-time low, and I decided just to let the findings stand and try to ignore the whole thing. I didn't even look to see whether it had been closed properly; I'm now concerned to read above that it wasn't.
Because FT2 used that case a few weeks later as the backdrop to his arguments to desysop me, and because he himself wrote the inaccurate finding, I'm starting to think it ought to be reheard in public. I don't think anyone who saw all the evidence would agree that it was handled fairly or appropriately. SlimVirgintalk|edits 21:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
There are too many flaws in how this was handled for any result to be recognized as legitimate. Direct questions were never answered; some of the arbs misused the result in the recent de-sysop; and now the closing was done improperly? Sorry, not a huge surprise. Tom HarrisonTalk 21:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
SlimVirgin - as stated, your logic here is incorrect. When considering a case, the question "was warning given to change, and that warning apparently ignored" is relevant. It was - in a remarkable and highly unusual four separate arbcom cases. It is not necessary to re-open the cases, and re-open the decision-making in them, to ascertain "was the user told formally that their conduct was seriously substandard and needed improvement". You have been told this on 4 occasions now. The conclusion is, telling alone was insufficient. Apparently the sitting committee felt that too, since they decided upon the remedies they did. You've had this concept explained several times; I'm happy to keep on explaining it if you cannot fathom the idea yet.
As for interpretation of what is likely, possible, probably, and appropriate going forward in the SV-Lar case, as I think I've said, we may need to agree to differ. If problems recur, we would of course reassess with this case in mind, but if they don't, it's more likely historical. FT2(Talk | email) 10:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Please tell me which sentence from which email (you've seen them all) from me to Lar admitted that the CU was justified. Not only did I not say that, but I said the opposite. And he didn't post just that he believed I accepted the check, but he said specifically that I had admitted to him that it was justified. If you refuse to point out the relevant sentence, please admit that you and the other arbs know that Lar's claims (on the private CU list which he knew I couldn't access) were untruthful, and that you don't have a problem leaving untruthful people in a position of access to extremely confidential and sensitive information.
When you have answered that, please state whether or not SlimVirgin submitted evidence that she had tried private resolution to no avail before going public (and that in any case it was David Katz, not she, who brought it to the mailing list), and whether, in that case, the public findings that state or imply the contrary are inaccurate and unjust.
Those two questions are so simple. Can you answer them? ElinorD(talk) 12:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I think a lot of people are happy to be rid of that case. I didn't follow it but I think it ran for a long time. If so, why didn't you present your evidence then? --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
The case was to be heard "in private". So I presented my evidence in private, to the committee. I couldn't have known that they were going to ignore it. When I tried publicly requesting explanations for Lar's false statements, finally realising that the committee intended to pass over them, I got criticised for doing so when Lar couldn't answer because he was protecting my privacy. (He could have answered by private email, which I had originally requested.) Then I waived my privacy, as did the other two affected editors. There were still no answers. The case closed, and I wrote to the committee asking that since they had chosen not to address the issues of Lar's false statements, they would please inform me of which parts of the evidence had made them satisfied that the statements were not false. I got a reply back from James Forrester, saying that they were still discussing it and that hopefully I'd get a reply within a day or two. That was a month ago, and I have heard nothing since. ElinorD(talk) 23:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Experienced users will note that the only other things most will ever submit "in private" are their secret board-vote ballots. At least for that one gets some form of encrypted receipt to confirm that their vote is being counted. Here, nothing. — CharlotteWebb 18:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
If there was a clerical mistake, then clearly it should be corrected. Otherwise, I would simply ask the committee to settle these claims, which continue to be brought across multiple forums. I assume that the committee did not ignore ElinorD's contentions, but heard them and considered whether they warranted a finding. All the same, it seems that something is needed to clarify whether editors should continue to argue these points, or if in fact the claims have now exhausted Wikipedia's final stage of dispute resolution. Until that happens, I will note that the merits of these claims were most recently discussed here. Mackan79 (talk) 08:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
On what grounds do you assume that the committee "did not ignore [my] contentions"? Do you really think that I would be raising it in public like this if they had answered my e-mails. Before I went public as Wikitumnus, I wrote and begged them not to put me in the position of attracting unwanted attention, but pointed out that the findings were inaccurate and unjust and that I would be obliged to come forward if they left them to stand. I got no answer. I've been forced to out myself, but I went into this with my eyes open, so perhaps people could now stop claiming that answers can't be given because they're "protecting [my] privacy" - as if they couldn't have answered in private, which was what I originally requested. ElinorD(talk) 14:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I assume it basically because if ArbCom doesn't review evidence that is submitted to it, even after it was requested, then a new case won't be of much benefit anyway. One thing I don't question is that ArbCom is uncoordinated and ineffective when it comes to communication, and in fact I think they should have done much more to address your concerns for your benefit and for others'. The failure to do so is in my view careless and irresponsible. However, that doesn't make your claims correct. Incidentally, I would still appreciate the ability to email you about this as I believe your actions here are unfair to others in ways that you do not realize but which are much better discussed by email. Mackan79 (talk) 09:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I thought the response for most of this, as before, was "asked and answered" [22]. Cla68 (talk) 08:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
No Cla, it was not. Nowhere does Newyorkbrad deal with the issue of Lar lying to his fellow CUs by stating that I had admitted to him that the check was justified, when I had said exactly the opposite. I asked for clarification from the committee in private emails. No attempt has been made to explain it. If I really did say that to him, or if I really said something that could have been misinterpreted that way as an honest error, they'd find it easy (as would Lar) to identify the relevant sentence and point it out to me. Cla, do *you* think Newyorkbrad has dealt with the issue of Lar lying about my views on the check? If not, do you think that he (or someone else) *should*? If a CU carries out a check which other CUs find somewhat iffy (to say the least), receives an email from the affected editor saying that she doesn't see how the check could be justified, then posts in response to questions on the private CU list that the affected editor admitted to him that the CU was justified, is that or is that not a problem? ElinorD(talk) 14:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
NYB said in his comments, "My review of the correspondence reflects that this is not a matter of lies by one side or the other, as some have characterized it, but comes down primarily to a matter of miscommunications—regrettable, but not venal; unfortunate, but not actionable." Cla68 (talk) 01:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I have seen that, Cla, and do not feel it deals at all with the issue. And I might gently suggest that if SlimVirgin, rather than Lar, were the one whose honesty was being questioned, you would certainly not accept Newyorkbrad's unexplained statement that it was "miscommunication". I wrote to the committee just after the case ended, asking that someone would explain to me (even in private) which parts of the emails submitted in evidence had led them to adopt that view (a view which I do not believe they sincerely adopted). I received a reply about five days later, saying that they were still discussing my email and I would hopefully get a reply within a day or two. I am still waiting. That was over a month ago.
Besides, Newyorkbrad's comment relates to the issue of how well Lar's wife and I knew each other. It does not relate to the fact that Lar told the private CU mailing list that I had admitted to him that the check was justified. When he wrote that (knowing that I couldn't see it), I had emailed him twice (and I never communicated with him by any other means). In the first message I didn't mention my views on the check. In the second, I said that it had been a mistake to revert vandalism on Crum375's page, because that would lead trolls and stalkers to start speculating on my identity, but that it could never have occurred to me that it would lead to a usercheck, because my understanding of the policy was that there had to be a valid suspicion of abuse, and there was none in this case.
Again and again, I ask this question: how could that statement on the CU list have been honest? Somebody from ArbCom, please tell me which sentence(s) of the two emails which you saw from that period led you to believe that Lar could have been justified in making that claim. If I ask in private, I get no answer. If I ask in public, I'm told, tut tut, smack smack, bad form to raise this in public when he can't defend himself without violating my privacy. So what can I do? My privacy is gone anyway. The arbitrators destroyed it by refusing to address the matter in private. Only a few days ago, Morven posted that the problem with that case was that parties were making allegations on the talk page while other parties couldn't defend themselves because of the privacy policy. Morven, you have my email address; you have copies of the emails I sent Lar. When I get a satisfactory answer in private, I'll certainly be able to stop raising it in public. I waited seven months before going public, and only did so after a heartfelt email to the committee BEGGING them not to force me was ignored. ElinorD(talk) 21:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
ElinorD, in your post here as Wikitumnus, you claimed on one of the case pages that one reason you thought I had emailed Lar was because you had seen me "trying to get SlimVirgin sanctioned for blocking Wordbomb." I have pointed out that this is incorrect and unsupported by any comment that I made, but you have not corrected yourself or apologized for this false statement about my actions. In light of your comments above, I wonder if you will clarify which comment I made that made you think this, or if there is not any, whether you would characterize your comments as honest.
Personally I don't conclude that you were lying, as more likely you made the comment without stopping long enough to think about it. In fact, there are many reasons a person could say something inaccurate, without "lying," or in a way that would not be actionable. As I have said above and I will say again, I think the committee's failure to respond here reflects badly on the committee, but I believe these are points that you should stop to consider. Mackan79 (talk) 07:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Matthew Hoffman appeal: 1.3
It's now been over three weeks, and this proposal has 5:2 support, with one recusal and one abstain, making there a total of ten arbitrators who could possibly have voted. Can we consider it passed, and implement it, so that all of us can move on? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Arithmetic isn't my strong point admittedly, but I think that as it stands, the motion falls if closed now. There's 11 active, minus one abstention on this motion, means that 6 are needed to pass it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Why on earth would it be calculated that way? I thought arbitrators could choose whether or not to be "active" in a case, so after three weeks, we can presume those who didn't respond are not active. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Nope, always been (since I've been following) that arbs must consciously note somewhere that they are recusing or abstaining for it to lower the threshold. MBisanztalk 17:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
The whole thing looks moot to me anyway. The "remedy" doesn't do anything. However, the time has dragged on here, and that's poor. I suggest if it matters to you, the best course of action would be to nudge the remaining arbs to opine. I guess there should be a statute of limitations on these things, but any default if arbs are inactive would have to be to the status-quo. --Scott Mac (Doc) 18:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
It is very poor that arbcom stalls when arbitrators take three weeks just to decide whether or not to be active in a case. Very poor indeed, and not likely to inspire confidence. DuncanHill (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
(e/c) I've posted to the mailing list a couple of times reminding of pending motions, and will again tonight if necessary. The Alastair Haines/Abtract matter is also aging rapidly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I think I'm right in recalling that excessive delays, and the negative impact they have on the arbcom's relationship with the community, were something about which concern was expressed in the recent RfC. DuncanHill (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Excessive delays have been a problem with the Arbitration Committee since it was created, quite frankly. Almost all candidates run on a promise of trying to reduce delay ... I won't repeat what I've said about this in various forums at other times. Hopefully voters are considering candidates' levels of availability and commitment in connection with the ongoing election. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
In case you want to ping directly the arbitrators who haven't commented on this case, they are Deskana, Charles Matthews, Jpgordon, FayssalIF and YellowMonkey. YellowMonkey rarely comments on motions. Avruch T 19:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Further, Deskana is necessarily inactive on this request - if Deskana became active, the majority would increase to 7. The only arbitrators that can vote, and need to (in order for something to pass) are Jpgordon, FayssalF and/or YellowMonkey. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Wait, if Deskana is inactive, then the motion passes: WP:ARBCOM lists 12 active arbitrators, including Deskana. Subtract Deskana, Charles (recused), and Thebainer (abstained), and we get 9. 9/2 = 4.5; 5>4.5 Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
No. There are 13 arbitrators in total as listed on WP:ARBCOM; 12 active ones with 1 listed as inactive - FT2. However, for the purposes of this particular appeal, FT2 is active (evidenced from his voting on the motions). At the time when this appeal was made, Deskana was inactive and remains inactive. Together with Charle's recusal and Stephen's abstention, this reduces the active arbitrator count for the appeal to 10 - a majority of 6 is required. I was partially mistaken in my statement above (however); if Deskana became active on the case, the number of active arbs would increase to 11, but the majority support required would still remain at 6. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
In any case, I should point out that I've seen quite a lot of less formally set-out motions for clarification pass with far fewer arbcom comments, including one in the Matthew Hoffman case itself (the request for clarification on whether an RfA was possible had only five people comment in support of the retroactive change of the text to exclude RfA, with twelve active arbitrators at the time). Given that, how was I supposed to know the count would be applied rigidly here, when it wasn't on the last motion related to the case?
It's not worth going into that Request for clarification further, but I mention it to point out that the rules being applied seem to be chosen arbitrarily, using whatever the Arbcom feels like at the time. Can Arbcom kindly set out some standards that the Arbcom agree to consistently use during Motions for clarification, etc. Ideally, these should not allow cases with a supermajority of support to stay on the page for weeks waiting for arbitrators who don't want to or are too busy to comment on it to do so, instead of presuming they abstained. While that is a sensible and even necessary check in actual cases, it would appear that the Arbcom does not give the same amount of attention to motions, and if the Arbcom cannot reliably deal with them as a complete group, and is seemingly unwilling to insist that members vote or go inactive on the case, as with full cases, then what else can be done? I would also remind the committee that the Arbcom elections close in a few days; I would rather not have to wait for the new committee members to come in and then have to deal with this all over again, as half the votes become invalid.
A clarification on what the present state of affairs is is different from a motion to alter the present state of affairs. The former may or may not require a vote but the latter always will. --bainer (talk) 08:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
The motion did, however, alter the state of affairs. No case previous to this disallowed RfA unless that was specifically stated, if Durova speaks true. That motion changed that, citing a secret change of Arbcom policy that had never been announced to the public. I will also point out that the committee additionally saw fit to alter the case so as to require me to make my private health matters public, and this was said to apply no matter how much time had passed. My private health matters were treated as a moral failing, by implying that I have a dirty little secret that shows I was evil - but it's secret so we're not going to tell. I still am very upset about that, as it forced my hand, making me reveal my private information in the current appeal, simply to prevent that being used as a weapon against me by the committee again. If that was not the intent, then the committee should perhaps be a bit more careful, and have used the numerous private means of communication they have with me to talk about it, instead of insisting on making it all public.
I have said I did not want to discuss th previous request for clarification. It was started by someone else, I specifically had told that person I did not want it to be filed, and it ended up revealing private information about me by insinuation. Let's drop the subject, shall we, and move on to the only productive thing that can be done with this case: Vacating it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Durova's assumptions about what was not stated were mistaken. --bainer (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Can you demonstrate that, by showeing cases from before mine where lack of right to RfA was not stated, and the Arbcom stopped an RfA? Durova provided concrete examples of the contrary, you have not provided any evidence in support. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Normal Wikipedian custom is to provide a courtesy notice when calling out a specific editor and asserting that person is wrong. It's a lucky thing I discovered this thread by chance while passing by in search of something else. It's unclear what the context is here, Bainer. Please explain what assumptions you suppose I made which you believe were mistaken. And in future, please think twice before using your authority to undermine the credibility of any other fellow Wikipedian at a thread where that person has not posted and is not present to defend him- or herself. DurovaCharge! 00:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't see a lot of good coming out of this discussion, especially since Shoemaker's Holiday has already expressed regret that certain matters raised have had to be disclosed. I hope that a few more arbitrators will vote soon and we can close the pending motions (particularly 1.3, which I drafted) one way or the other. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, I apologise that I got drawn into discussing that incident, it's probably not worth discussing on the crux of the whole thing becoming moot anyway. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Brad. I share the hope. DurovaCharge! 01:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I think it worth restating the main point, however: It's now... about 18 days before the new Arbcom members come in. Christmas is going to happen in the middle of that. It would be nice if this could be sorted out before everything gets thrown into chaos for a month. I think we can agree that the last thing anyone wants is for this entire situation to continue for another year.
To that end, a proposal: I leave for my mother's on the 21st. Should this not be sorted by the 17th, let us put it to community on the Administrator's noticeboard, letting them decide what to do, as the Arbcom will have proven unable to deal with it in a timely manner. I am not going to force this proposal, but I fail to see what else can be done, so would ask the arbcom to either publicly turn it over to the community or finally get their act together, or to propose an alternate solution. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Sounds fair. DuncanHill (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Threaded discussion in RFAR#Moreschi
In the RFAR, a couple of people have commented outside of their respective segments in reply to others. This isn't "allowed" and their replies should be moved to their respective parts, shouldn't it? :/ I wasn't comfortable with moving others' comments. StickyParkin 00:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but let a clerk take care of it (if any of them are brave enough). Mackensen(talk) 00:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, Sam Blacketer's vote is internally inconsistent. He can't vote to accept and then recuse as an involved party. Either he's recused, or not. Could a clerk please straighten that out. Perhaps move Sam's comment to the parties area and mark his as recused. JehochmanTalk 00:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I was planning on, but given that I've got a reply to my comment I've got a bit of a COI, so I'm best leaving it to someone else. I'll see who I can find. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
It's a special vote; I am ignoring a rule which hinders the acceptance of the case in order to get it accepted, but recusing from hearing it. Arbitrators are not bound by consensus and in our British-style constitution we can fortunately depart from convention without formal process. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
In what contexts are Arbs not bound by consensus...? Except when functioning as a body, you're all stock admins with no special powers, I thought? rootology (C)(T) 00:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
That makes sense for the fact it's the execution of an Arb action (voting to accept), subject to the rules and policies of the site (which the AC doesn't trump). I thought you were saying that outright Arbs were not bound by consensus "period", that you for example are not however exempt from 3RR, however, no more than Jehochman is, when not carrying out an Arbcom decision. Or FT2 can be blocked for personal attacks, or Bainer for sockpuppetry, or Flo for vandalism. Unlikely, sure, but the point being that when you're not exercising a supported Arb action (voting, executing a voted upon decision), you are bound by policy the same as anyone. rootology (C)(T) 00:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Indeed I am bound by exactly the same policy as every other user (including Giano and Moreschi) when not acting on behalf of the committee. (In fact it is incumbent on an arbitrator to be particularly careful to obey policies and site norms in their non-arbitration conduct; wording to this effect will be part of the induction document given to new arbitrators when they are appointed) Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
FT2's word count is at 1080 words; Deacon of Pndapetzim's is also a bit over 500. Any clerk going to clean it up? 96.15.62.242 (talk) 06:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Cross-project evidence
Would the Arbitration Committee consider evidence from a sister WMF site if that evidence establishes a pattern of policy abuse?
That's come up at the Scientology RFAR. So before anyone fetches diffs, block histories, etc. let's find out whether this type of material would help the case move forward or not. A few words now from the Arbs could save a lot of time for everyone, since it looks like the RFAR is moving toward acceptance and some editors are mentioning Wikinews. DurovaCharge! 19:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The small part in the arbitration policy says:
Evidence and brief arguments may be added to the case pages by disputants, interested third parties, and the Arbitrators themselves. Such evidence is usually only heard by the Committee if it has come from easily verifiable sources - primarily in the form of Wikipedia edits ("diffs"), log entries for MediaWiki actions or web server access, posts to the official mailing lists, or other Wikimedia sources.
That is sufficiently ambiguous to require a clarification for this case, in my opinion. Daniel (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
My $0.02 is that implies that Wikimedia sources are considered reliable when making a case related to misconduct on Wikipedia. I think it is a given that Wikipedia arbitration is a Wikipedia remedy; it is not the place of this panel to judge the behavior of Wikipedians on sister projects, those sister projects having their own analogous mechanisms. Therefore any material brought over from sister sites should not be intended to show "actionable" offenses on those sites or even to show a pattern of behavior cross-project but should be limited to supporting a specific allegation of misbehavior on this project. To do elsewise elevates this forum to "Wikimedia arbitration", which it clearly is not. --Justallofthem (talk) 13:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
"A candidate who stood on the platform that the Committee was illegitimate, and pledged if elected to decline all cases presented, came bottom of the poll attracting 294 opposing votes. The community still thinks the Committee matters." - Tony Sidaway[23]
At least Elonka removed her remarks, but Tony absolutely knows what he is saying is false (or deliberate half-truth), and is trying to mislead people that are out of the loop. 216.37.86.10 (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the committee matters, but I think Robert Mugabe matters too, and I don't support him. DuncanHill (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. I did not vote against Weber because of dissatisfaction with arbcom. I voted against because he's a troll. I did support Jayvdb, who suggested transparency and openness, something the current arbcom lacks muchly. Majorlytalk 16:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
The turnout for the election was far less than 0.1 per cent of the users of this site. By users, I include the most important - those who never even edit as an IP and come here for accurate information. They are the largest group. The politicians who vote in ArbCom elections are going to be inherently biased to keeping the politics rolling, warts and all GTD 16:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
If only 0.1% participated, that means 99.9% are in support of arbcom! Their silence is taken as full agreement. 216.37.86.10 (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Read the quote in context.--chaser - t 00:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
It is stated above that I know what I say to be false. That statement is incorrect. As far as I am aware kmweber came bottom of the poll. As far as I am aware he attracted 294 opposing votes. Thus a huge number of people went to the trouble of opposing a candidate who promised to decline all cases presented to the committee. Undeniably the Committee matters a lot. The person who says that it does not is ignoring the overwhelming evidence of the recent election.
That was the second part of my argument: that the committee matters.
The first part of my argument--that the Committee has the support of the community, was evidenced by the high number of votes attracted both this year and last by the winning candidates. To quote what I said:
Claims that the arbitration committee per se no longer has the support of the community are false. The recent election attracted more candidates than were fielded in 2007 and (with the exception of Newyorkbrad's record-breaking vote count in 2007) the winning candidates attracted comparable (in most cases higher) numbers of votes for or against.
Those who argue that the numbers voting are only a tiny proportion of the community are on thin ice when they include those who read the encyclopedia but never edit. Evidence to support the notion that the committee has declined in relevance is conspicuously absent, and the markedly increased activity of the arbitration pages in the past couple of years is ample counter-evidence. The votes demonstrate real community support for the candidates and, by implication, for the committee as a vehicle for their aspirations towards resolution of disputes. --TS 17:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Gee, I wonder who this IP address can be? seicer | talk | contribs 17:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Tony, are you capable of understanding that it is possible to think that the committee is relevant, does matter, and then to !vote for candidates, while at the same time thinking it is failing, disconnected from the community, and disruptive? DuncanHill (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, of course. That's a different matter from the question I addressed, which is whether the committee per se has community support and is seen as important. Moreover there will always be a minority who take an extreme point of view on the committee's performance whilst not denying that it performs an important role. The community has put forward and voted on candidates it thinks best capable of going forward and resolving disputes. The statements of the most popular candidates seem to reflect a range of opinions on how the Committee should operate, reflecting the wishes and concerns of the community. This is why we hold elections and why the community participates so enthusiastically.
I advise you to be careful not to assume that your unsupported opinions are equivalent to, and entitled to be treated as, facts. --TS 19:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd advise you to start following your own advice first Tony. DuncanHill (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I have indeed done so. You may examine the votes, and the statements of the candidates, and verify that my statements are factual and correct, and that my stated opinions are reasonable interpretations of those facts. There may be alternative interpretations and I do not mistake my opinions for facts. --TS 19:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
In retrospect my statement might have been less vulnerable to endless petty quibbles if I had simply said: arguing with the referee only brings the game into disrepute. Don't do it. --TS 19:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
It makes about as much sense as Kurt's "you opposed me therefore you hate Wikipedia" --NE2 20:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
EditNotice proposal
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I've ran this proposal by the other clerks, and those that have commented seem to readily support the idea. I solicit the opinion of the Committee (and that of any editors reading here); does this seem like a decent idea?
Proposed EditNotice. (This would be what is displayed to all editors whilst they are editing RfAr.)
Advisory notes.
Advice for editing Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration.
Comment only in your own section please. If you wish to respond to a statement or remark by another editor, add to the bottom of your own section the code, ; Response to [[User:Example|Example]] : Your response here. ~~~~
Remain civil in your interactions with others. The Committee does not look favourably upon comments that are intended to provoke, and being incivil or provocative is counter-productive. (In the event that a thread becomes heated, take a brief keyboard break and step away.)
Be succinct in your comments. Prolix comments are rarely helpful. To maximise the effectiveness of your comments, be to-the-point.
The golden rule of contributing to the project is to make an edit only where it actively benefits the project. If your comment is counter-productive, don't hit "save." This applies doubly when editing a busy and heated page such as RfAr.
I prefer the Mbox based edit notice. Good work. MBisanztalk 23:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I continue to be a fan of good ol' {| class="plainlinks" tables (rather than {{Mbox}}es), but fair comment. :-) AGK 00:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Needs a bigger font, some of us don't have the eyes we used to, but seems a good idea... ++Lar: t/c 04:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
The second sentence of Point #2 should end at "provoke" (you could add "reactions in others"); remove the brackets from the final sentence. Point #3 should read: "Be succinct in your comments. Long, rambling comments are less effective." The sentence about the golden rule is unnecessary (and debatable as well, many would disagree). Instead of "pinging" a clerk, it's better to "contact" one. Write for the target audience; clear and simple language will make this more helpful. I like the idea a lot, and I think this is definitely on the right track. Risker (talk) 05:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
edit war on main page
To stop the edit warring I have removed Spartaz's comments - now Giano has no reason to revert. They can be returned in a few hours. Please can we get through this without more drama. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
The page is now protected by Moreschi. Majorlytalk 22:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Unprotected, LHVU made it pointless. Spartaz does have a a right to his thoughts here, however careless they may be. Moreschi (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
We should change the header of the page, since evidently Giano is allowed to remove whatever comments he wishes. No other editor who is not an Arbitrator or a Clerk has such an honour. --Deskana(talk) 22:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, FFS. LHVU said he'd put them back. I'm sure he's thought it all through. Please just play along for once and stop getting in the way of admins doing their work, arbcom. Moreschi (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Commenting on a talk page after the events can hardly be interpreted as interfering. --Deskana(talk) 22:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
For the record, I was about to block, and recommend doing so if Giano resumes edit-warring once the statement is restored (which it definitely should be). Fut.Perf.☼ 22:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not getting this. The comments were roughly phrased, but made coherent and relevant points (even if many/most think them completely wrong). It isn't as if Giano is usually thin-skinned. I once removed similarly strong words FROM Giano from an RfArb page, and I was heavily criticised for it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
It is quite clear that some administrators on this site believe Giano is allowed to behave in this way. The problem does not lie with the Arbitration Committee. --Deskana(talk) 22:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's one way to prove Spartaz wrong – "doesn't edit war," eh? :-\ — the Sidhekin (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
In a few hours both Giano and I will be asleep (I assume, cos we edit from the same time zone!) - please feel free to return Spartaz's edits if they have not responded to my request. It is my belief that Giano is tired and emotional and will likely not resume an edit war in the cold light of morning. If he does, then he has time enough to realise what the consequences may be. It also gives time for more of the arbs to consider what response to make, although I should again point out that I am the editor who is currently violating(ed) practice, so any sanction needs to be placed upon me for the removal - Giano's edit warring is now a seperate issue. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I would also like to point out that our restriction on enforcement with regards to Giano does not prohibit administrators from blocking Giano for edit warring. He reverted more than three times, which is a commonly accepted threshold for classifying something as "edit warring". --Deskana(talk) 22:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Too true. Fut.Perf.☼ 22:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
If it had been anyone other than Giano, I would have blocked him myself, but I don't want to listen to him screaming for my sysop bit because I crossed him. Giano has never had a block expire; they've all been overturned by one admin or another. He's not bound by the policies and behavioral guidelines that are binding on the rest of us. Horologium(talk) 22:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
That's actually not quite true. The original arbcom block of 13 December went unchallenged, as did a 31h block by FT2 in March, and several very short blocks in between. Fut.Perf.☼ 22:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
"More experienced contributors should be reminded of the project's behavioural standards and encouraged to seek dispute resolution should discussion be insufficient to resolve the issue. In the event that this fails, uninvolved administrators may block involved contributors, or temporarily protect affected pages. Protection is useful when the involved parties will work to resolve the conflict; blocks should be used in situations where users fail to moderate their behavior, often demonstrated by an inflexible demeanor, incivility, or past instances of edit warring".
Just thought I'd put that here. --Deskana(talk) 22:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
We hear, almost continuously, how Giano is baited, trolled and treated in such a terrible manner that no other editor would ever be treated. And yet here - completely unprovoked - we see Giano reverts more than three times and, in doing so, removes someone else's comments on a manner that is explicitly not permitted. The reason? Presumably because he didn't like the tone of the comment (a standard that he doesn't apply to himself). So, what happened? Was Giano blocked for 3RR as every other editor would have been? No. Was he told to stop immediately, or else? No. What happened was an admin sanctioned his edit warring by doing it for him. And, quite understandably, no one dares do anything about it, lest they find themselves hounded from the project. Even the Arbs themselves. The lunatics have officially taken over the asylum. Rockpocket 23:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Spartaz' comments constituted provocation - they were across the line into personal attack. Nobody's finest hour. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
More like a civil war between two competing groups of lunatics. The winners get to stay in the asylum. "Better to rule in Hell" I guess. Tom HarrisonTalk 23:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Resp to Deskana - I stopped the edit war. I will take the consequences of invoking WP:IAR, and the ArbCom now have some time to contemplate how to deal with Giano's 3RR. If no uninvolved admin can be found, I will enact any sanction that has been agreed by ArbCom after careful deliberation of this incident. Really, some of the previous sanctions may have stuck if there hadn't been an apparent rush to enforce them - and hopefully this time has now been provided. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
The problem with that, LHvU, is that dealing with 3RR by committee after "careful consideration" will lead to accusations that the result is punitive. The whole point of immediately blocking, almost without exception, after 3RR is to stop an ongoing edit war. Of course, admin endorsement of one side will often stop it also but at what cost? Should all edit wars be dealt with this way going forward - the first admin on the scene who declares dibs gets to choose the version they prefer? If not, why does Giano get special treatment when he edit wars? Rockpocket 23:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Totally agree. Not blocking was a very bad decision IMO. Theresa Knott | token threats 23:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Generally because fools like me believe that this project needs content writers more than we do policy wonks (of which I am one). I feel the encyclopedia is evolving from an expanding situation to where quality is paramount; and if we can find a way to reign in Giano's excesses while benefitting from the article writing I am going to try my damnest... However, I am getting rather concerned that I am part of a new Cabal - if there ever was one previously, it is on the wane - that protects "favoured" parties at the expense of others, and I hope the incoming Arbs will find a way of defusing that situation as well. Lastly, I remember you well from our efforts to accommodate other problem editors some while back and believe you can also be part of that solution... LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
hey everyone, chill. I removed my comments so everyone should be happy. I even got an official {{???}} NPA warning as well [24] so that told me. everyone happy so let's drop this shall we? SpartazHumbug! 23:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to withdraw Giano's rollback as a minimum. Stifle (talk) 14:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Why not give new Arbitrators a vote?
Section header added for navigation purposes. AGK 13:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
What's the point of not "counting" newly appointed arbitrators in the vote tallies? Given that their votes will be valid by the time the cases are opened, given that they're (very sensibly) being allowed to post their votes on the main page, why not count them? The only effect of not counting them is to remove the information that the count is supposed to provide i.e. that a particular case looks likely to be accepted (or rejected). 92.39.196.238 (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
The outgoing Arbitrators also have the right to cast a vote on RfArs until 1 January 2009, however. If the incoming Committee members were given a vote, we would have over twenty Arbitrators voting on each RfAr; I suspect that would just be difficult to manage. Additionally, there is one point of principle to be respected: the incoming Arbitrators are elected for 3 years (or so); giving them a vote now would be allowing them to Arbitrate past the term for which they were appointed. It's not that big a deal, but Committees are bodies of tradition; for good form, we're just keeping things as they always have. They'll have plenty of time to Arbitrate come the 1st of January. ;-) AGK 13:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree, if one is holding case actions until the "not-quite-arbs" are fully enrobed, then it makes no difference anyway. Their opinions should be counted in the totals. Dragons flight (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Jimbo has said in his appointment notice that the incoming Arbitrators could elect to start immediately; they chose to hold off actions until Jan 1st. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 02:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Protection lock
Is there a specific reason not to have a semi-protection lock ? Cenarium (Talk) 16:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I have added one. Cenarium (Talk) 02:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Why not unprotect the page? It was protected because of some problems happening at the time, but they're not happening now. 208.120.235.110 (talk) 11:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that majority of the IP edits to the main project page are requests that are either 1) absurd (identified as vandalism) or 2) sockpuppets of blocked/banned users, in which there's a normal {{unblock}} as well as the unblock-en-l mailing list. That being said, I see your point. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 11:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Regarding mentoring
According to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes several editors are placed under supervision of mentors. Can anybody clarify, then those mentors will be selected to them. And how (that process) mentors are select in such cases. Thanks, M.K. (talk) 12:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Request for process reform
Can anyone present any reason that community members should not be allowed to directly present motions for the committee to vote on, as in a clarification request? This would prevent the committee from distorting a request into something that no-one actually asked for in order to delude themselves into letting a matter drop when no-one is actually satisfied. --Random832 (contribs) 17:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Have you read case workshop pages? That would match closely, if not exactly, what you are proposing, except turn that into the proposed decision page. —kurykh 20:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I've seen plenty of people propose motions directly (I've even done it myself). It is typically done in one's own "Comment by" section, rather than directly where the Arbitrator's vote on motions. There is, of course, no guarantee that they'll vote on any particular motion, but I've seen people propose them all the time. --InkSplotch (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
What I am asking for is a guarantee they will vote on it - certainly if they do not vote on it it shouldn't "count" for e.g. matters that are only supposed to be brought up once a year, if the matter is not actually considered at all. --Random832 (contribs) 22:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this is simply impractical. If you look at many workshops, you'll see that there can be dozens and dozens of motions (some of which are downright tendentious, or at least pointy). Were the committee required to vote on them, they'd be bogged down for months. As it stands, anyone can propose a motion on the workshop page, and if any one of the arbs likes it, then that arb can move it to the proposed decision page. If no one of the 15 arbs chooses to do that, then it is unlikely that the motion would fly anyway. Arbitration may not be prefect, but it's the best we've got, and increasing the paperwork isn't going to help. Do we really want proposed decision pages to resemble the workshop pages?--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
That isn't going to happen. Motions - and cases for that matter - often have provisions that some or most arbiters ignore or don't have the time to get to, or choose to remain silent on. Furthermore, time outside users end up spending on process wonkery in the delicate phrasing of motions is better spent making statements. ArbCom needs (and this is my "(un)professional opinion) facts, educated guesses, measured analysis, suggestions for action, and personal gut feeling opinions - roughly in that order. Nothing on Wikipedia works by "forcing" anyone to do anything - it isn't within our power.--Tznkai (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The committee's purpose is to resolve disputes, not to present itself as a tool to be used in exacerbating them. --TS 06:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Too many motions to consider, as others have said. I take workshop pages seriously, but there's too much chaff to make mandatory voting on proposals worthwhile. If you feel strongly about a proposed motion and have a good reason to want a vote on it, one of the arbitrators may be willing to propose it for you. Cool HandLuke 20:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The best that can be said is they were more prompt about dashing all hopes for change than last year's. Hasn't EK earned the right to be considered a user in good standing? --Random832 (contribs) 17:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
He IS a user in good standing, the only remedy left is that he's not to comment about/interact with Phil. If this is a sticking point, I really am not filled with good vibes about what would happen if that was stricken as well. Let it go, deal with the 99.99% of Wikipedia that ISN'T about a three year old issue at this point. SirFozzie (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I think you should retract the insinuation you just made. --Random832 (contribs) 17:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I see no reason that I should retract good faith concerns about why this is such a sticking point that he and you cannot let it go. SirFozzie (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The continued presence of any remedy carries with it an implicit suggestion that the remedy has merit and is in fact necessary. You don't think that someone could want that gone for its own sake without actually intending to do anything that the remedy purportedly prevents? --Random832 (contribs) 17:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Not to the point that he's fought it, and thrown ArbCom's remedy back in its face. Half a loaf is better then none, right? SirFozzie (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Half a gallon of sewage is still sewage. All he wants is to not have any remaining black marks on his status. Removing all but one is an insult. --Random832 (contribs) 17:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
You have a very strange idea of insult, that's as far as I'll say, since anything else will probably be perceived as an attack. 18:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
In any case, Phil's evidence-free claims of wikistalking, of involvement in the police incident, and of involvement in the ED article, would seem to be evidence in favor of the need for a mutual restriction to keep him away from EK just as EK is kept away from him. In light of this would the committee be willing to reopen the request for clarification? --Random832 (contribs) 18:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
So let me get this straight - Phil is stalked and harassed IRL, based on a suggestion from Everyking posted on WR and possibly EK's actual doing - and you're saying we should punish Phil. Congradulations - you win dumbest-suggestion-of-the-year award. Impressive considering it's only january 5. Raul654 (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
How about some evidence to go with those accusations? --Random832 (contribs) 19:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
It's very convenient that you ask, considering that the WR thread where they discussed harassing Phil in real life was substantially and later deleted in order to make it difficult to determine who was responsible for the harassment. (Here is the Internet Archive copy of the altered version; Here is the pre-whitewashed version of what EK wrote. To wit:
EK: "Terminal stupidity"...he's so obnoxious and egotistical he almost seems like a caricature. I remember him bragging about what a good arb he'd be based on the "bullshit detector" he'd developed from working with his students. What a guy. Someone should start sending copies of his WP cyber-bullying antics to other members of the faculty/administration there.
Hushthis: Good idea, but the first people to contact when reading ambiguous boasts of homicide are not school faculty - it is best to contact people who know how to investigate possible homicides.
Daniel Brandt: If I know anything about how grad school works, it wouldn't take much to put him in a position where he either decides to leave Wikipedia or decides that he doesn't need a Ph.D. after all.
According to Phil, the police started an investigation after receiving a specific tip-off, but would not tell him who made the tip-off. EK may have been the person who gave them that tip off - we don't know - but the idea most certainly originated with him, and therefore he is at-least partly responsible. Raul654 (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
And I'll just take your word for that screenshot not being faked, right? Though, even taking it at face value, the story it tells is that (A) EK did not say anything about contacting the police and (B) EK did not say anything about contacting anyone about Phil's blog. And no evidence has yet been provided that whoever did do so (which there is no reason to believe is EK, even with your "evidence") told the police anything false or misleading. --Random832 (contribs) 00:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
First of all, what someone says off-wiki, according to the ArbCom is, "generally not sanctionable." Second, Phil's insinuations that Everyking had anything at all to do with his run-in with the police are what we call a "poison pill", because there is no evidence that Everyking had anything to do with it. From what I understand, someone, unknown, had a legitimate concern about some statements that Phil had made on the web and felt concerned enough about it to call the authorities, who then did their job by looking into it. If Phil has a problem with his campus police, why doesn't he take it up with his school's administration? Cla68 (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
There's some vague creepiness about some of the comments in that thread, especially from Brandt, but aren't we past the BADSITES hysteria where everybody gets into a tizzy over how people, blowing off steam offsite against an admin they have a problem with, sometimes hint at nasty stuff? That doesn't prove that everybody who so commented had any involvement in any actual real-life problems that developed. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this thread will get anywhere by trying to downplay the gravity of Everyking's past behavior. He has to earn our trust back. It was his free choice to consort with people who openly bear the most extreme malice towards Wikipedia and do not stop at actively trying to do real harm to real people. Those who defend the actions of these vermin, or Everyking's in associating with them, do not have the best interests of Wikipedia, or its editors, in mind. --TS 06:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Tony, did you just say that anyone who defends Everyking does not have Wikipedia's best interests in mind? What a comment. Mackan79 (talk) 10:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think Tony has ever said anything productive in relation to an arbcom case - I don't know why people bother responding to him. --Random832 (contribs) 13:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Well I think my record on contributions to arbcom is pretty good. On my first case I even got a commendation from the committee for my contributions. On the last completed case in which I gave evidence (the so-called omnibus case), the findings of fact on some conduct issues were in reasonably close conformance to my evidence. So somebody is obviously taking notice. I wouldn't normally bang the drum, but since there are entire findings in some arbitration cases drawn verbatim from my drafts, I think your criticism is somewhat wide of the mark. --TS 16:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
No, Mackan79, I said nothing of the sort. Please get your reading glasses and try again. I said that those who defend Everyking's actions in associating himself with those who bear extreme malice towards Wikipedia do not have the best interests of Wikipedia in mind. I'm looking at you. --TS 16:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Tony, the problem with your comments, for what it's worth, is that you are addressing one type of abusive behavior with another type of abusive behavior, in this case aimed to deter open discussion of whether someone is really guilty of the sin of which you accuse them. Combine this with the vagueness of your accusation -- "Everyking's actions in associating himself with those who bear extreme malice towards Wikipedia" -- and the claim isn't just abusive but absurd. We aren't here to tell people who they can associate with, and if you haven't noticed, many people at the top of Wikipedia associate with the very same people. Perhaps this is partly a cultural thing, since in the U.S. freedom of association is a Constitutional right, and attacks on it are widely criticized as McCarthyism, but you have often seemed entirely oblivious that your approach is an attack on very widely held sensibilities. To say that anyone who defends someone for who he associates with "hates Wikipedia," in any case, is ridiculous. I apologize for addressing it, but it seemed better than accusing you of a personal attack.
As to Everyking's comments three years ago, your comment doesn't suggest that you read what I said below. However, I will point out that you are addressing an issue of negative consequences as if it were an issue of negative intent. It is fine to say that an action should be considered to violate policy without insisting with words like "vermin" and "extreme contempt" that offenders be castigated along with anyone who speaks up on their behalf. The latter is only divisive and for that matter completely ineffective in clarifying what people should or shouldn't do. It also fosters bad decision making, although in my experience that's rarely seen by those who speak like this since they rarely see the value in questioning their own views. Mackan79 (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Commenting about this matter outside of the RfAr page itself is, I suppose, something of a gray area for me, and I'm not sure it's allowed. However, the suggestions made by Raul are sufficiently serious that I feel I must state, for the record, that I did not make any tipoff and did not even suggest going to the police, nor did I accuse Phil of doing anything illegal (in fact, I clearly stated at one point that I did not believe that the blog was anything other than fiction, and that I did not believe that any suggestions to the contrary should be taken seriously). Raul should be ashamed of himself for posting such a vicious smear, and it deeply concerns me that he remains a member of the ArbCom mailing list and may very well have influenced the discussion regarding my restriction with these baseless allegations. Everyking (talk) 06:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Did you suggest that someone should write to Phil's faculty about Phil's actions with respect to Wikipedia? In my view, that was where you appear to have overstepped the mark. You actively exhorted people to try to do harm to a Wikipedian, and you did so in a forum where you knew some people might take your suggestion seriously. --TS 06:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Baloney, Tony, and more baloney. Suggesting that someone should write to a university administration with their concerns, which Phil's university apparently felt were legitimate when they were notified about them, is not trying to do a Wikipedian harm. In fact, if there was a reason to be concerned then notifying the authorities could be of benefit in resolving whatever the situation was, to Phil's or whomever else's benefit. Although Everyking's venting in that thread was rather strong, remember that ArbCom said, "Off-wiki comments are generally unsanctionable." If you disagree with this statement, take it up with ArbCom. Trying to impose your own rules on Everyking or anyone else is not right. Cla68 (talk) 07:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Rubbish. I notice that you have just again abused Wikipedia to launch a baseless personal attack on Phil. It is never right to engage in, or to defend, this kind of intimidation, and I really wish you would stop. --TS 15:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't know where this is at the moment, but my question for Everyking would be whether he sees the basic problem with calling for off-Wikipedia action in response to on-Wikipedia complaints. It seems to me that this could be more clearly stated, that regardless of how any person can justify it, if editors are free to escalate disputes to where they are bringing in other editors' personal lives, then Wikipedia dispute resolution becomes meaningless and a reasonable editing environment is lost. I'm not sure there's a perfect analogy, but it's a little like saying, "my coworker did such a bad job of editing my memo, someone should call his kids and tell them not to listen to him." Maybe he did, and maybe they shouldn't, but the coworker shouldn't make the phone call (or suggest that someone else do either) if they want to maintain a working relationship. The problem is that at least metaphorically, this type of act is a use of force, since it goes beyond arguing before a judge to something that harms the target regardless of who is right or wrong. I'm not sure if Everyking acknowledges this or not, but at least from what I can see that is the basic issue with his comments. Mackan79 (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, of course I see that as a problem. To be clear, Phil and I do not like each other at all and I do not think it would be prudent or productive for us to interact now or at any time in the future. As far as I'm concerned, a restriction on interaction is perfectly reasonable; I just think that it should either be a mutual restriction, so as not to unfairly stigmatize one party, or a private arrangement. Everyking (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad if you see the issue. I should say I basically agree with you, since I doubt that you gave much thought to your comments back in 2005 and I think you must be due a shot at being more careful some years later. Especially considering the whole issue here is about a welcoming editing environment, it seems also that a little more bilateral sensitivity to editors' concerns is a good thing. Just a couple of thoughts. Mackan79 (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
While it's laudable to put dispute resolution first, and strongly require people to use it on wikipedia... it's not possible, nor wise, to insist that off-wiki actions must never be taken because it would weaken dispute resolution. Wikipedia does not exist in a vaccum, and neither does the Internet. Real world rules apply on the internet and on the wiki.
For instance, if someone where to disclose information on Wikipedia, covered by a real world NDA, the second party of the NDA would not be required to use Wikipedia Dispute Resolution at all. It's not outlandish to imagine other such examples, for instance a school teacher who threatens bad grades on discovering someone he has a Wikipedia dispute with is in his class. It would be grossly inappropriate to demand use of on wiki Dispute Resolution in such a case.
So for that reason, while I support Dispute Resolution as the primary wikipedia process, I have to firmly reject the idea that there can "never" be a good reason for taking disputes off wiki. --Barberio (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
TL;DR, but please recall the primary purpose of Dispute Resolution is to resolve disputes - if two users in conflict talk it out on or off wiki and suddenly things are resolved great!
The end product of Dispute resolution is not justice - its to eliminate problems. Doing things on-wiki as much as possible is a way to prevent further problems.--Tznkai (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Trying to judge if a case is valid for RARB
This is not meant to initiate a case, but only to see if this is a valid forum to take it to. There is a current impasse regarding the use of non-free images across part of the project, and the current opinion is equally split, and because this is NFC (thus imposed by the Foundation and our mission), there's no real good middle ground to compromise at. (it's all or nothing).
I know RARB doesn't handle content cases specifically, but I think we're at a point that we're going to be arguing to the end of the time about this unless we get some type of "official" decision. There is little "behavioral" issue here, so we're looking for more a findings of fact from the ArbCom to resolve this. Can this be brought to ArbCom (pending a write up and further acceptance of the committee) or is this inappropriate? --MASEM 04:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, Arbcom has, IMO, already ruled on your question at Closing_of_a_consensus_decision_making_procedure. I suspect the issue isn't as clear as "all or nothing", since it seems this is an interpretation of a policy, even Mike Godwin, the Foundation's lawyer, differs with various interpretations of image policy [25], so there is quite a broad range of ground, akin to what is described in The_relationship_between_policy_and_consensus. Basically, it seems like you need to find an uninvolved administrator to close the discussion and decide how the community is interpreting whatever section of NFC is related to whatever content is under discussion at the RFC. But, I'm not an arb or a clerk, so this advice should be taken with a grain of salt. MBisanztalk 14:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Well if Wikipedia content is licensed under the GFDL and Wikia content is also licensed under the GFDL, I don't see why Wikipedia can't have "non-free" images while images on Wikia are considered fair use. --Pixelface (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Because Wikipedia policy and Wikia policy aren't aimed at the same goals. Wikia is less concerned with enabling repurposing of content than Wikipedia is. 67.122.210.149 (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Please note that the Arbitration Committee have announced that they have established a new central noticeboard, which will serve as a forum for arbitration-related announcements, notices, and other discussion. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard for more details.
Your response, Bishonen, is on the point, but I was astonished at FloNight's idea that "unwise" use of tools is now going to demote people. ArbCom is wise, now? They can spot wisdom in others? They can specify degrees of wisdom? They have, according to her, initiated a new regime of deciding which of us are administrator wise, user wise, and unwise? This is pretty creepy.
¶Argument: you lacked "wisdom" because you should have known that blocking FT2 was controversial.
¶Answer: Blocking is not controversial, of any user. Blanking AfD is controversial, but I do not recall that Snowspinner lost his administrator's status over it. "Controversy" is a function of response. Why did a block generate action from ArbCom when other things did not? It is those who respond who are being unwise, if they had thought there was no reason to proceed until a block occurred.
Secondly, our actions are dependent upon violations of policies, not popularity. Neither you nor I have argued that, for the obvious example, Giano should not be blocked because it will be "drama." We have argued that he should not because the grounds cited do not have consensus. An administrator should block if there is a violation of policy that is recalcitrant, and then should seek out consensus from the community. You did not block FT2 for being a verbose person, for lying, etc. You blocked him for violating policy, stated the argument on AN/I, and sought consensus that that policy had been violated by that user. It was not a fifth block in a row for the same alleged violation that the community had decided was no violation (as is the case, yet again, with people wanting to say that unilateral interpretations of "civility" justify blocks).
¶Conclusion: Bishzilla is being admonished for ArbCom's reaction to her action. It is horribly misapplied self-flagellation. Geogre (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Blocks should be used in order to prevent someone editing - where stopping them editing is for the good of the project. If one uses the block button in the certain knowledge that someone will unblock, then one misuses the block button. There are only two scenarios that justify a block: 1) there is a consensus to block 2) the block is so obvious that a consensus can be presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Blocking a user because you believe he's violated policy x, where you don't believe consensus will support you is invalid. It is the same reason that I believe anyone blocking Giano for incivility is also being disruptive. They may believe he's violated some policy that merits it, but it will be evident that consensus will not support that. Now, perhaps in this case Bishonen's actions arguably forced an issue that needed forced. But really, what type of message do we send out if we say that's OK? If you think an issue needs brought to a head, and you think a user has violated policy, block??? That would leave Giano blocked twice a day by a certain subset of admins. I'm no process wonk, but I think we need to make dispute resolution processes actually work. I can understand that frustration sometimes tempts us all to try to short-circuit seemingly unending delays, but most of us don't want others to do the same of "their issues".--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Just a reminder then, that Giano's civility parole (and therefore the restriction on blocking Giano for incivility to require a majority of the Arbitration Committee) expires quite soon. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it is really relevant. Arbcom can block any user by motion anytime. And as I understand it, there never was any instruction that admins couldn't block Giano just like any user, it was simply that the civility parole blocks were restricted. But none of that changes the fact that it is disruptive to block someone if you know the block will lack consensus, and unless Giano takes to putting penis pictures on multiple articles, I can't see there ever being a consensus in his case. That's just how it is.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't doubt the truth of any of that; Giano's knack of pitching his comments so that they come just on the line between blockable incivility/personal attacks and acceptable is a long-established trait which has had the effect of making him unblockable. However there is another duty which I see the arbitration committee as having, which is to help editors and administrators avoid unnecessary trouble. There are several administrators who would happily have blocked Giano for incivility over the last few months but did not because they were not granted permission to. They would all have been the focus of intense WP:DRAMA if they had gone ahead. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I've had a brainwave, what if I just had admin buttons, than I could just quietly unblock myself and no-one would notice, that would save multiple others the trouble and avoid all conflict? I could also block fools on sight, and that would save conflict too. The other solution is for me to be on the Arbcom, then my wise advice could be taken and save multiple troubles months in advance. Giano (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Nice try, I like that one. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Giano-here's an even better one, just stay out of trouble. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
All of that talk above is entirely off the topic and extraneous. Bishonen blocked a user for the first time for violating policy and continuing to exercise editing rights without compliance. Blocking is, alas, not merely because continuing edits are continuing offense -- that is a block for disruption, and it's valid -- but it is also when someone refuses to comply the basic principles and requirements of usage of Wikipedia. For example, if someone were user:Microsoftshill and put ads on his user page and refused to answer questions about COI and vanity, then that person would be refusing to comply with the basic terms and conditions. As for the rationale Bishzilla/Bishonen used for the block, it is not up to Doc or me to validate: it is up to the community to validate it. Saying that Bishzilla knew that the block would be overturned is horrifically presumptuous. I don't know what any of you know: I know what I know. If you want to know what I know, you have to ask me. Notice the shocking lack of asking Bishonen/Bishzilla why she blocked. Notice the amazing lack of taking the AN/I comment into account. Notice how people not only assume that she was lying, but, in fact, say explicitly that she must have been lying.
The only reason I brought up Giano is to demonstrate what an entirely different matter that is. Some administrators say "Civil" and misunderstand it entirely (they think it has something to do with politeness). Some administrators think that it means deference and assume that there are hierarchies at Wikipedia, with the duty of the "lower" to honor the "higher." Other administrators believe that sticks and stones may break bones, but words are what we're made of. Some administrators think that "Wikipedia is not censored" applies to interpersonal communication, and not just the puerile insistence on putting up gynecology photos in full color. Because the community splits on this matter, there is repeatedly demonstrated lack of validity for a "civility block." That is completely different from blocking FT2 for still refusing to be honest.
Again: the block "made" ArbCom act because people reacted to it. The block didn't make anyone react because Bishzilla blocked a user who would not communicate. People seem to be upset at the reaction to the block, and they're blaming the blocker for it. Along the way, they assume and presume to know what the blocker thought and they nowhere ask, nowhere listen, nowhere extend the courtesy of the "assume good faith" that went for 18 months for FT2's tergiversations, obfuscations, and horsehockey.
Don't discuss Giano unless you want to refute my observation that the administrator ranks are split about the meaning and application of "civility." If there is consensus there, it will be shocking news to all concerned. Geogre (talk) 02:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The block did not make ArbCom act. It did increase discussion on the issue, but that is only natural. It may have made FT2 act in posting his clarification on his talk page, but you will have to ask him that. ArbCom were discussing the issue, and progress was being made, albeit slowly. More updates from ArbCom might have forestalled Bishonen's actions, and I had suggested, about 5 hours before Bishonen acted, that a public update on what was happening was needed. You talk about presumption as to what Bishonen was thinking, but people are making presumptions about what ArbCom was and was not doing. Did Bishonen actually ask ArbCom what progress was being made? Others did, but I see no evidence that she did. She stated in her block log summary: "Disruption of the arbitration committee and the project." Did she ask arbitrators whether the operation of the committee was being disrupted? Has anyone asked themselves if, given developments elsewhere, continuing to drag this incident out and refusing to let it drop is disrupting the committee? It appears that Bishonen presumed that progress wasn't being made. She was wrong. If Bishonen makes a statement or appeals, I would be quite happy to accept a case for her to defend herself. But if the defence consists of "I made ArbCom act", that won't wash. Other defences might work, but I'm not going to do Bishonen's defence for her. If you want a full timeline of what ArbCom were doing about this, you can ask for that as well, but that will need the rest of the committee to agree to disclosure. For now, I'll point you to what Jimbo said here: "To report: the ArbCom has been in daily, careful, and thoughtful discussions of this issue with FT2, with dozens of messages so far this year including by my count 14 emails this morning alone (pre-Bishonen block)." That doesn't address whether progress was being made, but without further disclosure, you will have to accept my word on that. Carcharoth (talk) 12:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
It is not for me to defend Bishzilla's block. This is the problem. If Bishzilla is not being admonished for causing reaction, then I'm not sure I get what she is being admonished for or to. If the edit summary was the justification for the admonition, then I do wish that would have been stated, because her edit summaries are often humorous or sarcastic. If, though, the admonition is "there was a big reaction to this block, and that 'made' FT2 react, and it 'made' ArbCom act," then, again, the admonition is aimed at the reaction, not the act. A person who blocks Giano (or me) for "incivility" is disrupting Wikipedia, because the grounds of division on "civility" are well known, well charted, and well trod, but someone blocking FT2 for refusing to be honest about COI is valid even if there are "polite" discussions going on. Otherwise, if it isn't valid, the block is overturned, AN/I speaks out to say, "Dummy! That's a bad block!," and life goes on without admonishing anyone. The only way I can see a warning to Bishzilla, and especially the "new sheriff in town" talk FloNight offers about wisdom, is if administrators are supposed to have, as their goal, not whether we're operating honestly, but operating with the least worry. The person causing the worry is the malefactor, not the cop.
For the record, I have not been asked, but I think that the block was licit if previous blocks for the same thing were licit, but I think, too, that it should never have been necessary with a user like FT2. His obfuscation entirely abrogated the right he had to polite and slow discussion, in my view. Geogre (talk) 13:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Bishonen is being admonished for an action which was not justified in policy and was practically certain to cause "reaction", to use your terminology. I do not agree that FT2 has engaged in "obfuscation" but even if he had, that can never abrogate the right to polite discussion. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
When that "polite discussion" appears entirely unproductive, it seems to me to that it can become disruptive. FT2's unreasonable delay, whether or not last year's incarnation of the Arbcom was aiding and abetting it, had become disruptive. There had been (at the time of the block) no indication from this year's incarnation that they were doing anything. DuncanHill (talk) 13:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The arbitration committee is like a swan; it gracefully glides over the surface looking serene and majestic, while under the water its legs are thrashing about wildly paddling all over the place. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The appearance of inaction can be just as damaging as inaction itself. You want the community to know that you aren't just ignoring an issue? Talk to them. DuncanHill (talk) 14:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
And we will do so. The new processes were just bedding in. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard. This FT2 issue was bad timing with respect to that. For the record, at least two arbs responded on-wiki to requests from Thatcher and SlimVirgin, see here and here and here, but again, I see no evidence that Bishonen tried contacting any arbitrators. If, in future, updates on progress about an item were made at this new noticeboard, would that satisfy you (and others)? Carcharoth (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that would help greatly. I for one don't particularly want to have to follow Arbitrators around checking all their contributions on usertalk pages to see what the Arbcom is doing. The noticeboard is a very good idea. DuncanHill (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Geogre is right, we can't guess Bishonen's motives, understanding or knowledge. And, as I stated above, arbcom should not impute motives, but judge actions. However, the action was unjustified in policy, and it was such that any reasonable administrator should have known that it was unlikely to command consensus, or not be undone. If an administrator believed otherwise, then they lack the judgement to be an admin - since it is obvious to most. It is precisely the same as someone blocking Giano. Incivility IS, as much as you dislike it, contrary to policy (unlike a delay in answering questions which is NOT). Users are routinely blocked for gross incivility, however, any clued admin should know that blocking longterm users (and particularly Giano) is not supported by consensus, so don't do it unless you've got prior consensus! Indeed one should always get consensus for any block, unless it is an emergency, or it is of a nature that consensus usually exist to do it, and can be presumed (routine vandalism, 3RR, overt trolling(?).)--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Bishonen clearly stated her motives, understanding and knowledge. There is no guesswork involved here. --TS 14:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I think a persistent failure to answer questions is uncivil. And if it is not uncivil in the wonderful world of Wikipedia, it is certainly downright rude in the real world. DuncanHill (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
And equally, in real life, a good many questions can be downright rude as indeed can be persistence in putting them. :) --ROGER DAVIEStalk 15:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Very true, but for colleagues to ask about perceived errors in the performance of ones job is generally acceptable, I think. DuncanHill (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, again, that depends entirely on what the questions are and how they are put; whether they're polite enquiries, or prying intrusions, or accusatory denunciations, for example. My real life experience has been that people are usually much more circumspect face-to-face than online. For instance, I only seen a "torches and pitchforks" moment once in real life though they seem to happen online with startling regularity. --ROGER DAVIEStalk 15:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I think in real life a situation like this (I mean the whole thing, from the oversights onwards) would have been unlikely to occur in the first place. Would take too long to explain in this thread, but think about lines of accountability and our lack of them. DuncanHill (talk) 15:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Based on twenty-plus years commercial experience, I disagree entirely with that :) I can think of many talented and successful people who are sometimes spectacularly accident-prone. --ROGER DAVIEStalk 15:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
And none of them have had people around them prepared to correct their mistakes? :) DuncanHill (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Making mistakes and being accident-prone aren't necessarily the same thing :) And it is possible to fix errors (and significantly reduce the chances of very similar things happening in the future) without creating either a blame culture or huge dramas. --ROGER DAVIEStalk 15:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't like the phrase "blame culture", but if you want to avoid one then admonishing Bish seems to me to be the wrong way to go about it. Fixing errors and reducing the chance of them happening again are what we didn't really see a lot of in this case until after the block. DuncanHill (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The situation is horribly complicated and it's impossible to please everyone. That said, I really don't see that an admonishment is so terrible here, especially since it's so well grounded in policy. --ROGER DAVIEStalk 16:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I presume you are talking about FT2 here. But as regards ArbCom communnications, see my comments above. Carcharoth (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Was responding to Scott's assertions. TS and I edited simultaneously, which slightly disrupted the flow of this part of the thread. DuncanHill (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure the argument this block has no basis in policy is correct. Have a look: Wikipedia:Honesty is now a guideline. Additionally, an admonishment by ArbCom is superfluous. The community overturned the block. That sends a clear message that in this particular case, the community felt a block was not needed. ArbCom should refrain from acting when the community has already made its wishes clear. ArbCom is a final resort when the community is unable to manage itself. JehochmanTalk 16:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
The blocking policy gives no basis for this block. Many blocks are overturned by others, sometimes a stronger "no, really, don't do that" is needed, not least to dissuade others. Here arbcom judged that that was needed (you may disagree,but it is their call). If I block Giano for incivility, and someone unblocks, does that make my block OK? No, there will be hell to pay. Blocking should never be used lightly on established users, it causes drama. That much the Giano cycle should have taught us.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Guide to Arbitration
Can somebody in the know rewrite the guide and the various subpages to reflect the current process. I was most confused by the section How requests are processed and the decision to accept, which states that "Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after four net accept votes are cast; that is, four more accept than reject votes." and the subsequent description of how the hearing would proceed once it had been accepted: Evidence and Workshop pages and the like. The Bishzilla case seems to have jumped straight to voting on the motions when there is a net vote of 8 to decline hearing the case. I know more speedy handling of cases was stressed as desirable during the election, but the new Arbcom must be congratulated on trying to get the cases are closed before they are opened. Nobody can complain about heel-dragging now. Yomanganitalk 02:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
It appears at first glance, that the arbitration guide is out of date, especially vis-a-vis the way motions work. I'll try to take a crack at updating it over this weekend and the next - or maybe haze the newbies with the ordeal.--Tznkai (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Updating the guide is, incidentally, on our agenda. :-) Kirill 02:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
If the Bishzilla case truly reflects the way motions work now, I'd suggest revising the process rather than the guide. Judgment, Sentencing, Decision on hearing the case, Presentation of evidence, Proposed sentencing (assuming the Evidence and Workshop phases aren't now skipped completely) doesn't sound the most logical order to me, especially if the decision on hearing the case results in it being declined. Yomanganitalk 02:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Well if the Arbs vote to accept a case, it still follows the guide (afaik, there may have been some minor changes). The fairly recent innovation of "Motions" is for use where the evidence is all out in the open already, the Arbs see a simple fix, and decide to spare everyone the drama of a full case. IMO they work pretty well much of the time. the wub"?!" 11:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
And if they vote to decline, they can circumvent the procedure and skip straight to throwing rotten fruit at the guilty parties? Judicial procedure at its finest. Let's have all cases declined, it will speed things up no end. Yomanganitalk 13:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) Newyorkbrad has commented in the past on summary judgments like this where a full case would be unlikely to change things (the presumption being that the pertinent evidence is available from the request) and a motion is used instead of opening a case (I'll ask him if he can remember where he commented on this). See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Closed motions for examples of motions without a case. The motion that admonished Moreschi was an example of a motion-instead-of-a-case (though that arose from a clarification request, I think). A better example is the admonishment of Prodego mentioned by Brad at the RFAR.
"It is apparent that Prodego blocked Misza13 to force further discussion or action on the issue of unauthorized adminbots and that he feels strongly that a matter of principle is involved. [...] We are not aware of any prior sanctions against Prodego for any prior misuse of administrator tools. Nonetheless, under all the circumstances, this block was a highly inappropriate administrator action warranting a sanction by this committee."
Bishonen can, of course, appeal, and that could lead to a full case, but that would be a decision for her to take when looking at the bigger picture. One thing I do note is that Bishonen only posted to protest at FT2's statement, rather than making a statement herself. If Bishonen wants to make a statement, she should do so soon. I will post a note from the RFAR to this thread. Carcharoth (talk) 11:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Do you wish to appeal, Bish? Speak up. It just sounds like you are gargling hot tea. Is that a no?
That's a lovely evolution of the process. Can we have a motion to tar and feather Bish based on the presumption that we know all there is to know despite the parties to the dispute not having given evidence-FT2 said he will supply diffs if the case is accepted then withdrew his statement until such time as he could add diffs, Bish was presumably waiting for the case to be accepted before giving her evidence (though I do not presume to know the facts without asking). Once she is tarred and feathered she can appeal to be carried to the river to have it washed off and should her appeal be successful we can all wipe the incident from our memories and pretend not to notice the residual globs of black liquid and goose down that drip from her as she moves around. Yomanganitalk 13:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
See my comment below. I've only just become aware that discussion was taking place on this page. I have raised the matter of summary motions in declined requests on the ArbCom mailing list, and asked for clarification on this. Without dwelling on this particular request, can you suggest a place onwiki to discuss the matter of summary motions? Somewhere where substantial input can be sought from the community as to whether this is a useful tool for ArbCom to have, and under what circumstances it should be used? I don't want to pre-empt anything, but please put Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard on your watchlist, both to get an idea of what else is happening, and for future announcements. Carcharoth (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Not being familiar enough with RFAR myself, I can't suggest an appropriate venue, but I would like to know when and where such a discussion takes place (I have watchlisted the Noticeboard). To issue summary judgments in declined cases on motions that were seemingly created on a whim (who asked for the summary judgment? one of the involved parties?) and with the assumption that the Arbs' opinions are the facts would strike me as laughable if it wasn't damaging to the parties involved. Yomanganitalk 16:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
OK. It is definitely on the radar, and I've pointed people at this discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, I bet that'll mean nobody notices the new statement I just posted, I guess I'm doomed to be forever on the wrong page. Well, doesn't matter. Bishonen | talk 18:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC).
Thanks. Replied on main RFAR page. Carcharoth (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
As a follow up, I don't suppose the ArbCom can hold off in its desire to pass motions on declined cases until the community discussion takes place and it is agreed that the committee should have such powers? Would somebody be bold enough to remove the motions section? Close the Bishzilla request as declined? If the Arbs can't bear to see their consideration of the motions going to waste, could they accept the case so there can be a semblance of correct procedure? Or, failing that, re-add the request for the case user:Dicklyon, user:Jokestress, and user:James_Cantor at The Man Who Would Be Queen and related pages (which was initiated after the Bishzilla request and closed as declined earlier) and add some motions to that, so we at least have a level playing field in that all parties to all requests have a chance enjoy the novel reworking of the process? Did the Arbs have no opinions on that declined request that could be transmuted into facts and used to support a motion or two? Yomanganitalk 01:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
And here I thought your question was about the arbitration guide, instead of a thinly veiled attack based on irrelevant political principles. But here is a relevant one that answers you - the case was closed early as a matter of discretion - based on the lack of outstanding business (such as motions and arbitrator questions to parties).--Tznkai (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry the irony was lost on you, I did try to make it quite clear, there was nothing really veiled about it. I also thought there was nothing of an attack (may we not question the workings of Arbcom?) or any irrelevant political principles unless you feel that challenging the committee's right to award itself new powers and radically alter Arbitration procedures without consulting the community is somehow irrelevant. I'd love to know what you consider the irrelevant political(?) principles to be. To be clear, since irony seems to have failed to get the point across, I was rather hoping that at least one of the Arbs might say "Hold on, altering the Arbitration procedure to allow voting on motions on declined cases based on our gut feelings might be not be the best idea we've ever had, let's remove that section until we get a chance to get some community input". However, maybe I'm alone in considering it a terrible idea, and what the Arbcom have taken as tacit acceptance is heartfelt community support. Perhaps they did consult the community and it's just that nobody has pointed to the discussion to enlighten me. Yomanganitalk 02:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I've drafted a few different responses - and they're all overly long, but if you're really interested in what I think we can continue on either my or your talk page. I'll settle for making two smaller points. First, real world government is a terrible model for encyclopedia governance, the underlying assumptions are different. Second - for this situation, case or no, its the same people making the decisions, and the facts I would hope, are pretty uncontroversial. All that is left, is opinion and discretion, and I think the Arbiters have made their opinions known. There does seem to be a significant dropping of the ball in notifying Bishonen of the motions however. Perhaps the clerks office will begin notifying all relevant parties after motions are proposed as a matter of routine procedure. (If that was in fact, extant procedure, I apologize for dropping the ball).--Tznkai (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
We obviously fundamentally disagree on most points, but we can save that argument for the anticipated public discussion. I do agree, however, that real world government is a terrible model for encyclopedia governance. Yomanganitalk 10:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Proposed solution to the perpetual NOINDEXing problem of RFAR
Per a discussion on Newyorkbrad's talk page located here, he asked me to post this suggestion and said he thought it was a good idea. To ensure that all the RFAR related pages are excluded from search engines with the {{NOINDEX}} function requires us to constantly keep adding the tags all over the place.
A simpler solution would be to simply add the NOINDEX tag to Template:ArbComOpenTasks and then make that a mandatory addition on every single RFAR page--Evidence, Statement, top-level, bottom level, Workshop, Proposed Decision, talk, etc.
It gives two benefits: 1. Massively increased functionality and visibility in general for RFAR business by using the navigation toolbar (maybe an alternate, co, and 2. Naturally scrubs everything RFAR-related from the search engines in a few weeks, which is a decision the Arbitration Committee can make without any approval required.
An even simpler solution would be to just include Template:ArbComNav which I just made on all the pages and talk pages, that features all three needed templates. :)
Any objections to someone tearing through this with a very basic AWB sweep? rootology (C)(T) 19:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The "NOINDEX" could also be added to the template pages for the evidence page, workshop, and proposed decision pages (although that wouldn't pick up their talkpages). Or we could implement the overdue NOINDEX'ing of most of Wikipedia space, where RfAr pages of course are included. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
This is good for now. If we NOINDEX all of Wikipedia space, we should instead use the norobots.txt. Wikipedia space should be amenable to that kind of sweeping exclusion. Cool HandLuke 20:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
According to MediaWiki:Robots.txt (and the live version), this should already be effectively done -- any page that starts Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ should be excluded. Is this not the case? [[Sam Korn]](smoddy) 20:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Mbisanz found that some RFAR pages were still showing up on indexes (since robots.txt be ignored by accident or on purpose by search engines), but to my knowledge no pages tagged with the NOINDEX function oddly had fallen through the technical cracks. My idea was to simply double-cover these especially sensitive pages for NOINDEXing, but also to get the extra navigation and benefit of handy RFAR links on each page and sub page. rootology (C)(T) 20:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Any search engine that uses metatags will obey robots.txt. The problems were 1) a bug in the software allowed variant forms to be indexed, noted on WR and now fixed, and 2) that many ArbCom pages have been redirected from locations not covered by the robots exclusions. Putting the tag into all of the pages will ensure that it's noindexed no matter how someone makes a redirect. Cool HandLuke 20:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
That was part of why I suggested it this way. That way, even if we somehow miss a mainspace redirect, it doesn't matter. Nothing would slip by if we rammed a NOINDEX command via templated across every last page. rootology (C)(T) 20:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Yep, I agree. Best solution here. Cool HandLuke 21:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The regulartemplates or my unified one that I added NOINDEX to, and that calls the others? I'd offer to AWB it myself as well but I don't think I'd have time to sit down and do it till probably the weekend after this one. But anyone could do it... they're super trivial AWB or bot edits. rootology (C)(T) 21:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Give me five minutes to fill out a BRFA and grab another BAGer and I'll do it. I just want clearance from a arb/clerk as to what they want where. MBisanztalk 21:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Once there is AC guidance on it, the only thing beyond which template(s) to use would be to add calls for the same ones to the templates the clerks use to build the pages (trivial/one-time edit) and then anyone can just plop the given one onto every new talk/archive page as they're made later. rootology (C)(T) 21:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't see the value of including the big pink templates on all cases, especially old ones...why not just manually transclude to the top, as it will be an identical amount of effort and that way we don't have to modify the substantive content of closed cases? Daniel (talk) 12:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
My suggestion for the templates was just to add a common navigation template to each case, and adding that or a NOINDEX template is all the same for the amount of work involved. Generate list of pages, AWB or bot it, done. It wouldn't really alter the content per se of anything in any way, it's just adding a neutral template. And it would allow for convenient top-level views on any RFAR case pages of what's going on overall, giving all the active stuff more visibility in general (with the added bonus of the NOINDEXing). It's not a content change, just a technical one. rootology (C)(T) 18:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
So... has this died? :) rootology (C)(T) 04:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I'm coming late to the party, but how exactly would this navigation template work?--Tznkai (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, let me try something better. Is there a way to make a shorter, wider, and less intrusive navigation template for all cases?--Tznkai (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, Tznkai and I figured out a solution that will benefit everyone long term, hopefully. Template:ArbComNav is now stripped down to just calling __NOINDEX as a function, with the inclusion of the previous navigation templates commented out. The templates while very useful to have all over are just too darn wide right now--they're set for 45% width by default and on some monitors it looks frankly bad. Tznkai said the templates are hopefully getting redone soon to be proper, and we can then always just tweak ArbComNav to call the newer, shinier version on the various. This lets us get the immediate benefit that some Arbs are in favor of--truly purging all of the RFAR content definitively from about all SEO and search engines, and the navigation benefits can be just sorted later. We'd still only need a handful of minor edits to the Arbcom new page templates and 1-2 trivial bot or AWB sweeps. rootology (C)(T) 17:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
As stated above, this will allow us to add functionality quickly in the future, that simultaneously solves a pressing problem now. The options from here are out are creating and maintaining a separate navigation template, or reworking the main templates.--Tznkai (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Elonka and Arbitration Enforcement
I ask FloNight and Vassyana (especially Vassyana) to reconsider their request for Elonka to step down from enforcement issues. This comment especially irks me, This involves far more than this single recent incident and the complaints of warned/sanctioned users. If you have concerns about Elonka's judgement as an administrator, then open a full case, during which time you can ask her to stand down from whatever admin actions you are concerned about. You should not make vague comments about how someone is "not helpful" or that there are "far more" issues unless you are going to act on it. If this dispute is archived off the page without a formal finding of fact against Elonka, you will have undermined her ability to act at WP:AE (and as an admin generally) on the basis of your vague unspecified concerns. And I hope it would be obvious why a motion without a full case would be utterly inadequate to consider the situation. An editor can say, "I don't like how Smith handles his administrative duties" but an Arbitrator can not, unless he/she backs it up with action. Thatcher 21:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
My statements have been redacted in response to your request. Vassyana (talk) 10:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Arbitration comments are getting out of hand
I think the clerks need to get working on arbitration comments areas that are being used for community discussion. Community discussion is necessary but that isn't the appropriate place. Perhaps it's time to make arbitration requests pages on their own, like AfDs. The burgeoning community interest in arbitration applications since 2005 is an interesting phenomenon but it should not be allowed to hamper the arbitrators. Having a main page for the request means that it can be reserved for comments by involved parties, and comments by others (which routinely run to hundreds of kilobytes) can go to the talk page. --TS 19:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Making requests into transcluded subpages (with talk pages of their own) has been discussed before and has advantages and disadvantages. The biggest disadvantage that I see is that it will preserve a record of declined cases in a way not currently done, unless the pages for declined cases are deleted. Thoughts from the Arbs? Thatcher 19:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Deleting a declined case wouldn't be onerous, but it might be seen as a disadvantage if there was then no history record directly pertaining to the case. Courtesy blanking should be enough, though. --TS 19:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I never understood why arbitration pages aren't transcluded like AfDs in the first place. It would certainly make it much easier to search for declined cases. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Some enterprising onlooker might want to go through the archives of this talk page and post links to the last time(s) it was discussed. Thatcher 20:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I will do that. Meanwhile perhaps we could decide whether my perception of a problem is correct. That is to say, as a clerk during 2006 I became accustomed to arbitration applications that were rather tightly focussed (with one single instance of an application that grew to 64kb, which I spun off onto its own page) but three years later the case page tends to become clogged with long, rambling debates. Is this a problem? --TS 20:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I remember naught six. Back then the dollar was still worth something, New Orleans was still a city, and waterboarding was official US policy. We used to walk 15 miles to school in snow six feet deep, uphill, both ways. Kids today just don't know how lucky they are. JehochmanTalk 20:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
What has changed since 2006? Did we apply tighter word limits to applications back then? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
We've evolved. JehochmanTalk 20:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
What has happened is, I think, an example of the tragedy of the commons. We're all trying to stick our own oars in to manage arbitrator opinion (which is fine, but not on an application in which we are not directly involved). Providing a separate talk page, it seems to me, would help to organise case applications so that the arbitrators would not have to wade through tens of kilobytes of discussion just to get to the relevant bits. In short, we would provide the case summary by relevant parties on a single page, and other related discussion on the talk page. --TS 20:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I think I know what happened in my case, apart from getting more involved in the community, and apart from following the general trend. I used to trust Arbcom to do their homework and felt that there was no need to say something that they could find out very easily on their own. Then several events made me lose this trust completely, making it much more attractive to try to influence them. The new Arbcom has won my trust again, but I have a feeling that they are also more interested in the community's opinion. Therefore I am still not back to my former restraint in such matters, although perhaps I should be. Short version: Yes, tragedy of the commons, plus some aggravating factors that formerly didn't exist. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I have a slightly different perspective on that; in my opinion the Committee hasn't so much "failed to do its homework", as started to tackle much more difficult, formerly intractable issues. In doing this it has put a lot of noses out of joint. But yes, the outcome is the same. Lots more editors are watching the Committee, because much more is at stake, even though far fewer cases are coming to arbitration than in former years. And of course, those editors all want to be heard. --TS 00:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I may have missed some (I'm only human and those archives are big!). --TS 20:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
How about asking the clerks to move to the talk page any comments that don't speak to the question "should we have a case?" JehochmanTalk 20:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
In response to Tony's earlier question, I agree there are more comments from interested non-parties who want to put an oar in, and there is a greater desire for back-and-forth discussion rather than simple presentation of a cause of action. Directing all conversation to this page would be one solution but it would get mingled with the general Arbcom/RFAR business. Any change will have pluses and minuses just as leaving things as they are is less than perfect too. Thatcher 21:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Well my suggestion isn't that we direct comments on current applications here. Rather, I suggest that we go to an AfD-style page-per-application system (in fact we also do the same for RFCs). So when an application is opened it has a unique RFAR subpage, and that subpage has its own talk page on which uninvolved parties may make comments, but the page itself is reserved for edits by involved parties, clerks and arbitrators.
A suggested problem with this is that failed applications, even frivolous ones, would remain in plain view whereas now they're aged out into the history and no "official" archive of failed applications is kept (though there was at one time an unofficial page that sought to track them). My preferred solution to that would be that the arbitrators themselves could decide on a case-by-case basis whether a rejected case application should be deleted or retained blanked, with a strong presumption for the latter. --TS 00:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
So, let's see if I understand this correctly: instead of having a single page, which we already all have watchlisted, you're proposing that we must keep track of comments on two distinct pages per request; and, further, that these two pages will be created at the time the request is made, and thus not be on any arbitrator's watchlist; and, further, that both the new page and its talk page will be used, preventing easy transclusion of all comments onto a central page.
The comparisons to AFD and RFC are inappropriate; nobody is actually expected to read every deletion discussion, or every request for comment. The Committee, on the other hand, is expected to read and follow every arbitration request made. Spreading those requests out onto dozens of un-watchlisted pages is hardly going to help us do so. Kirill 00:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Krill has a point. It depends one whether one is coming at this from the arb's point of view, or from the rest of us. An arb needs to keep track of all cases, a user is usually only interested in one at a time. Our watchlisting limitations means we have to choose between causing the user to get every irrelevant edit from any case, appearing on his watchlist, or forcing arbs to be continually updating their watchlists. Given that choice, I think we need to favour the arbs, as they have to work the system constantly, and frankly have enough to do. The solution of course would be to create a way to have an "arbcom centralised watchlist" which automatically added all pages in arbcom space. But that's too intelligent.--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
This could be done by simply having a page listing the case pages. RelatedChanges on the list would do exactly what Scott Mac suggests. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 01:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Although I didn't mention it before, yes "Related changes" will track all changes to pages transcluded into or linked from a master page. As it is now, if want to track all open arbitration discussions, you would do something like this (that's a copy of the "Changes" link at the top of the "Open cases" box, Template:ArbComOpenTasks). It even lets you filter the results by namespace if you're so inclined.
So the solution to Kyrill's "tracking" problem would be to get the clerks to maintain a similar template listing open applications, with a "changes" link similar to the one in "ArbComOpenTasks".
As for Doc's comment about it depending on which side you look at it, I admit that I've been tacitly assuming that the arbitrators would prefer to be able to get a quick handle on the dispute, which is well nigh impossible with these cluttered applications. If they don't want it, then they won't do it. --TS 01:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Problem there is that you then rely on clerks to keep that centralised template up-to-date. It would be very easy for such updating of the centralised template to lag by a couple of hours and for some arbs who were following that feed to miss an active discussion. Unless you can have a "related changes" for all subpages of RFAR, so that creating a new subpage would automatically put the new page on that "related changes" watchlist?? Carcharoth (talk) 12:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I have every confidence in the abilities of the clerks. A lag of a few hours seems to me unlikely to have a bearing on arbitration--the arbitrators can still be contacted directly by talk page or email where urgent action is needed. --TS 21:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
"The biggest disadvantage that I see is that it will preserve a record of declined cases in a way not currently done, unless the pages for declined cases are deleted." Why is it better to delete than to keep a record in a somewhat different way? — Sebastian 01:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
The solution here would be to use numbers for requests (thus removing the problems of people's names in the page titles), possibly changing to a case name on acceptance or keeping it as a case number. And then to blank declined requests, thus allowing a diff to be made to the page history before blanking. And TS is wrong to say that declined requests are not archived. Have a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests. That page is not complete, but it is a good attempt at an archive of rejected requests. The page that is kept more up-to-date is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests. Carcharoth (talk) 12:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I think there might be something of a relationship between the recent explosion of comments, with a greater tendency to close out requests with motions rather than full cases. It seems to me like it's been happening more lately (at least, being discussed more often), which I think is encouraging many to view the main page more like a workshop - get one's opinions in before a motion appears or is voted on. I think the solution should be simple: as Jehochman say, clerks crack down on non germane comments. In addition, ArbCom reconsiders posting motions on the main page: saving them for extreme situations, or perhaps simply keeping them in private discussion until a certain number of arbs indicate they're willing to support it publically. This bit needs more discussion. --InkSplotch (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Instead of processing motions on the main page, why not open a case page whenever a motion is proposed? Instead of the usual three page structure, a single page could be used. JehochmanTalk 15:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Kind of an "Further Consideration" page, like a Proposed Decision perhaps, where only arbs and named parties to the case comment on the main page, and everyone else can comment on the talk page? It'd defintely be a way to move the longer, messier requests off the main page, but at arb's discretion (i.e., not every case). --InkSplotch (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if it would be a good idea if those who have nothing to do with a case were not permitted to make statements, comments of generally troll for attention; in my vast experience this is often the case. More seriously still, quite recently I have noticed editors who have seldom if ever interacted with their intended victim attempting to bring cases, while of course the result has been the inevitable decline, it is disappointing to see such time-wasting behaviour - I believe the Spanish Inquisition had a system whereby those bring false cases or evidence were slowly racked and burnt to death. Of course, naturally, one would hate to even imagine such a fate befalling anyone here, but perhaps some form of deterrent could be introduced, thus limiting the needless and all too puerile clutter that so often occurs here. Giano (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I think for those bringing applications there might be something to do, but as far as commentors who are nto directly involved, there are times when a commentor has direct involvement with the parties, but is in no way involved in the dispute that ends up at Rfarb. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 08:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Seeking direction to location of previous discussions RE: Motions on rejected cases*
Hello Team Wikipedia; Forgive my congenital laziness, but I see that Bishzilla has been notified of a "motion" passed on a case that was declined. Can I be pointed to any discussions by the community on motions in closed cases? (Other than the above and Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Closed motions, of course. Even I am not that slothfull.)
brenneman 22:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
* I know, they aren't "cases."
The use of motions as summary judgment in cases that were declined seems to have grown up over the past year or so. As I said before, Brad is probably the best person to ask about this. This issue has been recognised by the committee, and is on the agenda for discussion. See here. Specifically, item 22: "Decide on using summary motions in rejected cases. Draft proposal due March 14. Decision due March 21". Yes, item 22. It's a big agenda. If any items need pushing up the agenda, I'm sure that could be considered, within reason. Probably best to ask Kirill about that. If anyone wants to start a community discussion earlier, they can of course do so (I'd personally encourage it, and it is likely that discussions like this will be on-wiki anyway, at some point), or pose a general request for clarification on this (could be messier). See also Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration#Guide to Arbitration (will be archived at some point). There may be earlier general discussions about the use of motions without opening a full case, but I haven't looked further yet. For specific discussion of the Bishzilla motion, see here and here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you both. - brenneman 05:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Wired for Books arbitration
Can someone help me file a request for arbitration? Various editors over the years have removed our links to our famous author interviews. These interviews are unique and many of the authors have won the Pulitzer Prize or the Nobel Prize in literature. I thought this issue had been settled last year, but just in the last few days more have been erased.
Wired for Books is an educational, noncommercial project of the WOUB Center for Public Media at Ohio University. Please refer to our web site, http://wiredforbooks.org .
You may wish to contact one of the clerks for assistance; but please note that, as a matter of policy, we do not normally make rulings on article contents. — Coren(talk) 21:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
CheckUser and Oversight election policy amended
In light of the concerns expressed by numerous members of the community regarding the voting method selected for the CheckUser and Oversight elections, the Committee has amended the election policy to allow votes both for and against a candidate, and to specify appointments based on percentage of support rather than raw support.
The measure authorizing this amendment was passed 10/0:
Supporting: Carcharoth, Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, FloNight, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, Roger Davies, Sam Blacketer, Wizardman
Opposing: None
Abstaining: None
Not voting: FayssalF, Jayvdb, Newyorkbrad, Rlevse, Stephen Bain, Vassyana
It should additionally be noted that this matter was dealt with on a quite urgent basis, and a number of arbitrators have not yet had the opportunity to enter formal votes on the measure; we expect that the tally above will be updated once this has occurred.
For the Committee, Kirill[pf] 04:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Cross posted by Tznkai (talk) on behalf of the Arbitration Committee 04:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
CU/OS RfC
Yo clerks, perhaps rootology's RfC on the recent elections ought to go in the Requests for clarification etc. template at the foot of WP:RFARB; several arbitrators have yet to reply. Sincerely, Skomorokh 08:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
MfD for page used as evidence in an RfAr clarification request.
Summary of events: a page holding evidence supporting comments made in a Arbcom request for clarification, and linked from there, was sent to MfD, result was:
"(...)Blank and keep for 30 days to allow the filing of a RfC. I will blank the page and it should be kept for 30 days to allow the filing of the necessary RfC. After 30 days (27 March 2009) the page should be deleted as any required material should have been placed in the RFAR(...)"
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Nomination by JzG:
The context was apparently Abd being asked to provide evidence for a discussion at WP:RFAR. That discussion was brief, and my action in topic-banning Jed Rothwell was resoundingly endorsed (to the point that the arbitrators were in some doubt as to why I had even bothered bringing such an obvious action to their notice). The introductory sentence actually reads as if it was me on trial. False. It was a request for review of a topic-ban of a long-term tendentious editor, and it was endorsed by every arbitrator who commented.
Abd seems to want to keep this laundry list of grudges, every one of which has been raised multiple times and in multiple venues, and has failed to gain any traction in any of these venues. Complaints have been closed in several venues, in one case citing WP:DEADHORSE. Eventually, when a user repeats the same assertions time after time and they are consistently rejected, it becomes time for them to stop making such assertions. Right now, Abd is doing the opposite. He's actively citing this userspace essay - from which he removed my comments, in violation of WP:OWN - and asserting once again as if they were fact, all the same rejected arguments. Endless repetition of repeatedly rejected complaints is not a valid use of Wikipedia user space. [26]
You forgot to mention that the clarification request was closed some time ago as resoundingly endorsed, so the "need" for this, and the similar User:Abd/Notices, was over almost before the page was created. You also forgot to mention tjhat you have raised the same complaint here, at AN, at the spam blacklists and elsewhere, and in every single case your complaint has failed to gain any traction. At all. In fact, your user space is positively littered with memorials to your version of complaints which have failed to gain traction - see Special:PrefixIndex/User:Abd. You also forgot to mention that you removed my "argumentative" comments from your argumentative user page, in clear defiance of WP:OWN. Oh, and you also failed to mention that there is no ongoing problem, the RFAR clarification and the arbitration itself have attracted many more editors and neutrality is steadily being achieved. Guy (Help!) 09:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I didn't forget to mention anything, JzG. Please stop being disruptive and beating dead horses. Everything you've said above was covered in the MfD. Your nomination was quoted above, which included the claims about the closed arbitration and traction failure. There is ongoing problem, unresolved, and editors were attracted by my request at AN/I, which was a desired outcome.
If you would like to resolve this quickly, suggest a mediator. I asked you for this before, and you blew it off. Otherwise, expect a third party to show up on your Talk page. I'm doing it by the book, JzG, and you are confusing the failure of the first steps in WP:DR to resolve a problem with the problem being closed. You were involved with Cold fusion and you used your admin tools with respect to that article, editing pages while protected, blocking involved editors, and unilaterally blacklisting linked sites. The evidence file shows that conclusively with pure evidence and very little comment. You could resolve this quickly: acknowledge the use of tools while involved, and pledge not to do this again. That would remove the specific risk, I'd predict, to your admin bit. There would remain the history of your anti-fringe crusade with Cold fusion, and that would be covered by a voluntary topic ban; I'm undecided as to whether or not I would pursue that issue as long as there is no continued problem.
The claim that "the clarification request was closed ... as resoundingly endorsed is clearly false, as any complete reading of the RfAr will show, plus this is discussed in the MfD. The RfAr was rejected, explicitly. Because this claim has been oft-repeated, now, by JzG, I'll ask an arbitrator for comment or consultation. --Abd (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
My notice here was a neutral notice, except that, by including JzG's nomination, it could have been interpreted as canvassing for his position, had it not been me who posted it. It was noted in the MfD, as well as my comment on User:Abd/Notices. JzG's deletion request was rejected. Blanking the page is a solution that I'd have accepted with a simple request from a neutral editor or maybe even from JzG himself, and I acknowledged intent to blank when the MfD closed even if had closed with a simple Keep. If no mediation resolves the issue, the RfC will be filed, and the page will probably be unblanked at that time. As this was an evidence page prepared for use before RfAR, and actually used there, with resulting comment from others, there are grounds to unblank it immediately, overturning the MfD decision, but I'm not willing to pursue that myself beyond informing arbitrators. I don't engage in disruptive process, even when I think I'm right, and only pursue contentions involving wider notice ("disruptive") when I think an issue is truly important. --Abd (talk) 15:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Why is this being crossposted to yet another forum? seicer | talk | contribs 15:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the question, Seicer. There is no cross-posting here, to my knowledge. There was a notice of an MfD placed here, please see the first edit in this section. It was a notice of an MfD filed on an evidence page compiled, on request of another editor, for usage in an RfAr clarification request. I had made a comment there with assertions of admin action while involved, in the matter brought up for clarification, and thus very relevant. Another editor requested diffs to back it up, and so I compiled them. Editors who commented in the RfAr referred to
The claims I made of admin involvement, or they assumed it was true.
My comment specifically, directly or indirectly.
There was no comment criticizing my claims or the evidence file linked.
Because this MfD'd page was evidence (mostly just a pile of diffs and log entries) presented and used in an Arbitration Committee process, I believed that ArbComm should become aware of it. The notice I placed here was neutral, (or actually could be seen as canvassing for deletion, since I quoted the nomination and none of my own argument), and argument didn't come here until JzG gratuitously began debating here (after the MfD closed?). Clear? By the way, the MfD closed with what I'd have been quite willing to do simply by being asked. The page is courtesy blanked pending RfC, to be deleted in 30 days if no RfC is filed. I'm not sure that will satisfy the issues involved in deletion (or blanking) of ArbComm evidence, but it was fine with me, pending. --Abd (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion: close this discussion! There isn't any point to it continuing here, as far as I can see. --Abd (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Černová Tragedy problem
Hi, I want to notice you to Černová tragedy article, where one editor (User:Hobartimus) frequently erased (from 30kB to 6kB for example) article updates by other editor's, when he hasn't like a content of their posts. So I ask, what am I supposed to do? --Empiko (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Although I'm not an arbitrator, I can tell you that ArbCom is the very last step in resolving problems. You should read through WP:Dispute resolution and follow the steps listed there. Franamax (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello arbs, problem needs your help
Would a few of you watchlist my talk page please, and block anybody who badgers me about WP:AE activities. I now understand why admins don't want to do that job: every decision results in half a dozen nastygrams from tendentious editors. If you want your decisions to have any meaning, they need to be enforced. Without enforcers, you have no enforcement. JehochmanTalk 05:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Warned, and I'll keep an eye on it. Not AC, just an admin R. Baley (talk) 05:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Well I'm not an Arb and I'm recused from Date delinking, so I can't help there, but I've watchlist your page for the pseudoscience/fringe stuff I can help out with. MBisanztalk 05:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
ps, and I'll take a dim view of anything that interrupts my watching of Malcom in the Middle. R. Baley (talk) 05:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
It might help if you didn't make bad blocks Struck - this doesn't help, though I would like to call attention to the the block of Dabomb87. --NE2 05:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi Jehochman, thanks for your work on WP:AE - it can be quite challenging, as I recollect from my work there last year. You know that you can refer unblock requests to the Committee, I assume? Nastygrams, generally speaking, are a reason for blocking the "email this user" feature, so don't hesitate to use that capability if required. I'm not on-wiki a lot right now so wouldn't be a lot of use to you with watching your page, but I hope that others will pitch in. Risker (talk) 05:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC) And R. Baley, you gotta be kidding ;-)
May I also suggest that one reason why admins refrain from AE enforcing is that ArbCom has made a couple of very bad decisions over the last few months and has lost a lot of credit? Of course this goes hand in hand - if ArbCom does not reflect community consensus, then more people will tend to criticize actions taken on their behalf, and fewer people will defend admins that are being attacked. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Just about every arbitration decision makes some people, and often a group of people, unhappy. The "you've lost credit and support in the community over this, you've made a terrible decision reflective of the old ArbCom" refrain is a typical line of criticism. I don't think it has much basis in evidence, but it may eventually. If you accumulate the disgruntled from each case into an RfC a few years down the road you'll likely end up with one that looks a lot like the 2008 ArbCom RfC. Hopefully the newly elected arbitrators had an inkling that they weren't going to sweep in and radically change elements of human nature. Avruch T 12:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Not necessarily Stephan... I believe that the problem with AE is that pro-x or anti-y users find it easy to try to put enforcing admins into a cage especially that there is a shortage of admins there. That said, I'll be glad to listen to criticism concerning ArbCom decisions especially if criticism is not vague. I'd also be glad to hear about positive alternatives. But, please bear in mind that you'd always have polarized views. And whatever ArbCom decides you'll have a side criticizing and that is very natural. Some people may find some users very problematic while others may find them very productive —that depends from which angle you see it. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Here's a bit of criticism: the date delinking injunction is too ill-defined. --NE2 03:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Should it be more selective? Less selective? Could you please elaborate on that? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 06:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
It should be easier to interpret. --NE2 12:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks NE2. You are right... a simple interpretation would be like 'mass linking or delinking —be them made by bots or humans— is not allowed, until further notice. Do not do it!' Talked to Newyorkbrad, Wizardman or any other arbitrator? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 23:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I've also made a criticism on the RFArb page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Could you please elaborate on that, Ncmvocalist? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 23:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
New mail handling procedure
The Arbitration Committee receives a substantial amount of e-mail each day on its mailing list, arbcom-l. To streamline the process of handling arbcom-l traffic and improve response times, the Committee has adopted a new procedure for handling incoming mail, which supersedes the current mailing list coordinator position.
The procedure was adopted by a 13/0 vote, with no abstentions:
Support: Carcharoth, Casliber, Coren, FayssalF, FloNight, John Vandenberg, Kirill Lokshin, Newyorkbrad, Risker, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Sam Blacketer, Vassyana
Oppose: None
Abstain: None
Not voting: Cool Hand Luke, Stephen Bain, Wizardman
The Committee wishes to thank Deskana for his diligence as mailing list coordinator over the past three months. Deskana went above and beyond the call of duty in continuing to assist the Committee despite having no obligation to do so following his retirement; if not for his efforts, the Committee would be in a significantly worse position at the moment.
For the Committee, Kirill[pf] 00:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The above link leads to a community poll regarding date linking on Wikipedia. The poll has not yet opened, but the community is invited to review the format and make suggestions/comments on the talk page. We need as many neutral comments as we can get so the poll runs as smoothly as possible and is able to give a good idea of the communities expectations regarding date linking on the project. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Is it just me, or is this whole date linking brouhaha the most lame-assed "controversy" to hit Wikipedia in ages? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
No, it's not just you, don't worry. Black Kite 21:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
To be fair, there are some serious issues surrounding linking, including WP:OVERLINK and WP:CONTEXT and WP:BUILD. Linking is one of the foundations on which Wikipedia is built (both too much and too little are bad things). Link maintenance is also a serious issue, as not everyone takes care when creating or removing links to look into the context. A few examples: (1) changing a redirect destination can change the destination of links on a lot of pages without those watching that page being aware of it (deleting a redirect or article leaves a redlink, but simply changing a redirect destination leaves a blue link unchanged on the linked pages). (2) Unless you check "what links here", links to an article can be removed without those watching that page being aware of it. (3) When creating an article, you potentially turn lots of redlinks blue, but how many people who create articles go and check those links are correct? (4) When creating an article, checking for redirects and turning them blue can catch other mentions of that article that might not have been spotted otherwise, along with conducting a search and linking from appropriate articles.
The root of the date delinking dispute is, in my view (and I'm recused in the case), due to the functions of style and presentation being conflated with linking (and hence the overlinking concerns), with metadata issues mixed in for good measure. And some personal disagreements as well, as personalities do come into play in such protracted disputes. Carcharoth (talk) 09:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and people should go look at and vote (when open) on the poll, instead of reading what I wrote! Carcharoth (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Note The first phase of this poll will start on 30 March. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Request for involvement
On the behalf of all the participants in the date delinking arbitration, I would like to request that the ArbCom spend a little time on our case. I am well aware that there are several open cases at present, and that the arbitrators have a lot on their plates; however, we have now been locked in this arbitration for weeks with virtually no arbitrator presence beside a very few comments added some time ago by Cool Hand Luke. We are starting to get cabin fever.
Thank you. — Hex(❝?!❞) 13:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
There is some work going on in the background with regards to this case. I'm recused, so I can't get too involved, but I will bring your comment to the attention of the other arbitrators, and suggest some involvement at the workshop page. Carcharoth (talk) 04:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks. — Hex(❝?!❞) 11:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
As an update, Newyorkbrad said to me that the arbs would reach a decision in a few days. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
A proposed decision is on the way; voting can be quick or slow depending on how obvious the arbitrators find the case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Do you have an estimate of when the proposed decision would be posted on the corresponding page? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Any news, folks? Almost a month has passed since the above, with hardly any arbitrator input into the case at all. Thanks. — Hex(❝?!❞) 04:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Anything? Anyone? Hello? — Hex(❝?!❞) 14:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I will check on this and make someone gets back to you. --Vassyana (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, sorry about the delay. I have been working on the PD, and it is moving forward, slowly. There have been a few twists like the RFC and the bug fixes, and a few loose ends to understand. John Vandenberg(chat) 01:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, John, I'm just happy to hear that it is getting some attention. — Hex(❝?!❞) 14:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd rather the Arbs got it right than they hurry something forward; all the same, I am glad progress is being made. Is it possible to know roughly when the PD will be put forth? I've heard from one week to a month. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Another ping; two more weeks have passed, and the date linking RFC has now begun. — Hex(❝?!❞) 12:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Arbitration statistics 2008
I've completed collecting and tabulating arbitration statistics for 2008. The data is posted here:
The 2008 Arbitration Committee considered 255 requests, voted on 53 motions, publicly heard 38 cases, and drafted and voted on 841 case proposals.
There were 152 case requests, open on average for 4.6 days, with 67% declined, 23% accepted, 8% withdrawn, and two disposed of by motion. There were 103 clarifications and other requests, open on average for two weeks, with the longest duration being nearly three months. The motions were open on average for 12 days, with 47% passing. The cases were open on average for 39 days, with the longest being open for just over four months.
Here is a smattering of individual arb statistics. On case requests, Flo has the honor of having the highest voting percentage of 85, followed closely by Sam with 82 and Brad with 78, against an average of 41 and a low of 6. Kirill drafted almost half of the cases, Brad though missing for a quarter of the year, drafted nearly a quarter of the cases. Kirill, Sam and Flo each acted on about 95% of case proposals, compared with an average of 74 and a low of 42. Kirill, Brad and Flo were on average the quickest to act on case proposals. (On a personal note I find that on most measures I myself was solidly mediocre. There was one area however in which I did excel -- declining case requests -- which I did a remarkable 93% of the time. This might be attributed either to judicial conservatism or laziness, take your pick.)
Having the 2008 data now allows comparison between years. For example the average case request duration is surprisingly the same for both years at 4.6 days. There are differences. For example, so far this year there have been 24 motions offered and voted on, versus only 53 for all of 2008.
They should be archived to the original case talk page (and the case page if a motion is made), is there an instance where this is missing? MBisanztalk 20:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Aitias
Aitias (talk·contribs) is still editing, after falsely claiming to be exercising a "right to vanish". I'd like to see the result of the arbcom case be upgraded to ensure that the only way he can regain adminship is via RFA. He has deliberately "disappeared" to avoid this happening which was inevitable. Majorlytalk 13:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
He has made one edit thus far (and a number of vanished editors make it a point to still keep an eye on RfA). In any case, Motion 2 seems to be quite sufficient with "When User:Aitias returns to editing, he may contact the Committee and request the return of his adminship, which would trigger an additional ruling by the Committee about this current request for arbitration; or as an alternative, he may submit an RFA on his return to editing in lieu of a case." No need to restart the drama IMO, since the end result will be the same. Amalthea : Chat 14:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I respect Amalthea's take, but additional evidence may be useful. If anything counts as "not vanishing", it's an angry oppose vote at RFA. I can't speak to Aitias's motives or what action ArbCom should take, but it just gives the uncomfortable impression of sniper fire from behind a rock. He had a previous angry oppose shortly after he "vanished". - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify this once and for all: I have not vanished. I am on wikibreak for an indefinite time (i.e. I do edit very considerably less than I used to) — and I have made that very clear off-wiki towards the Committee (a long time before those motions passed). However, this does not exclude me editing every now and then — I am perfectly entitled to that. Also, in case I want my bit back and feel like contributing to a case, I will inform the Committee about it. Regards, — Aitias//discussion 15:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad you clarified. Now, with that, your ArbCom can proceed. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Aitas is under no obligation to do so; he may request that ArbCom proceed with the case (up to six months from the date of the motion) which might result in the return of his bit, or he can choose to run for RfA again at a time of his choice. — Coren(talk) 15:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
One of your admin actions clearly said that you had vanished/were vanishing, not "going on a Wikibreak". Acalamari 15:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
As I have already explained above, I have reconsidered shortly afterwards. But I have just explained all that above; perhaps you wish to read it. Regards, — Aitias//discussion 15:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
No you didn't. You just said "I have not vanished" which is contradictory to your logs. Majorlytalk 15:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I did read it: that's why I responded the way I did. Acalamari 16:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The request for arbitration was based on alleged misuse of Aitias' admin tools and the ultimate relief sought was desysopping. Unless he seeks adminship back, what is there to arbitrate? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The fact he is still able to seek adminship back without community approval is very worrying indeed, especially with the attitude displayed above. Majorlytalk 15:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
It may be helpful to clarify -- as he obviously did -- that he retired under the cloud and his adminship recovery is no longer under the authority of the AC but the community, like any other clouded user. rootology (C)(T) 16:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
He didn't retire. He pretended to vanish, then ArbCom closed the case as they did, with the six month thing. He then returned and started making strong opposes on RFAs. The admin bit was taken, not given up. Majorlytalk 16:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
If he requests adminship back within the next six months (measured from the date of the prior request), the Committee will discuss how this should be addressed. We might decide to open the case, or we might adopt a motion requiring a new RfA; at a minimum we would solicit community input which could be obtained at that time. If Aitias does not request adminship back within six months, then a new RfA would be mandatory. There is no prospect that Aitias will simply be resysopped without an opportunity for appropriate input. (Incidentally, I would prefer that the terminology "under a cloud", which has harsher overtones than are warranted by wiki-disputes, should not be used.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying, Brad. I just used the wording since it's the default one. rootology (C)(T) 16:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec) He does not have admin tools and he will not get them back as far as I'm concerned without a case opening or a community vote at RFA. There is no need for a case now because he has not asked for the tools to be returned. If he does, then you will be quickly informed of his request, ok? Does that help reassure you that we are aware of your concerns and want you to have feedback about the matter? We truly are not trying to cut you or the Community out of the process. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I note that the responses here suggest that people think that the only purpose of opening a case would be to try to change the effect of Aitias remedy. Ironically though, there is another purpose for opening the case (arguably, the main purpose): to examine evidence against other involved parties and decide on findings and remedies on their conduct. Given that, are involved parties eager for the case to proceed now because they can avoid liability when Aitias is clearly busy/relatively inactive to present evidence against them? Why else would someone bother making such a request at this time, given that Aitias has already been desysopped (unless Aitias, within 6 months is willing and able to be active for the case to proceed). As for "attitude", I'd expect evidence would've been presented against involved parties other than Aitias on that issue most particularly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
No, the main purpose of the case was to look at Aitias's conduct, nothing else at all. If you wish to look at the conduct of the other part(y/ies), feel free to submit a case. Until then, please be aware that I submitted the case to look at Aitias, and Aitias only, and any suggestion that the case's "main purpose" was to look at other part(y/ies) is patently false. Majorlytalk 16:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I think you've misunderstood the basic point of my comment. When you submit a request, you have no choice in the matter - if claims are made regarding your conduct as an involved party (note that your name is under that section in your previous request), arbitrators are expected to look into it. And (perhaps unfortunately) you don't get to decide what the main purpose of the request ends up being. Being a filing party isn't to be taken lightly; you're not in an "uninvolved" category when you make a request. And as for me, I'm not interested in abusing the dispute resolution process by filing a complaint against an editor I haven't personally run into major conflict with: you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
There seem to be some misunderstandings here:
(1) The motions passed were designed to discourage disruption of the arbitration process by retirements on the verge of a case being accepted. A case can't be dropped simply because an editor or admin retires. Equally, a case can't be said to have taken place if there has been no case heard. The suspension of the bit was to discourage other admins thinking that retiring is a way to avoid scrutiny. It doesn't say anything about whether the case against Aitias was valid or not - that can only be decided by a full case. However, Aitias should be under no illusion. The only realistic way for him to regain his currently suspended sysop bit is to either defend himself at an arbitration case, or re-run through RfA (the option to defend himself at a case expires after six months - if Aitias runs at RFA before then, I would trust the community would ask why he didn't defend himself at a case). Sniping from the sidelines will not help at all. Equally, those commenting on this matter should be clear that Aitias has currently been suspended, not permanently desysopped (read the wording of the motion). The permanent desysop only takes place after 6 months.
(2) The other misunderstanding I see here is that the case scope would only have covered the conduct of Aitias. That is incorrect. The behaviour of all parties would have been examined (and would be examined if the case is re-opened). I will repeat what I said at the second motion:
"One remaining concern of mine is that Aitias was not the only person involved in the various disputes, and that those he was in dispute with should have been part of any case (to see if their behaviour contributed to escalating the disputes), but without Aitias's involvement, that aspect is difficult to resolve."
That comment still stands. It is not just Aitias's conduct that would be examined (including a possibly frivolous use of "right to vanish"), but interactions between him and others, including the parties to the case.
Having said that, Aitias does need to decide what he wants to do: either stick to his wikibreak, defend himself at a case, or publicly state that he won't ask for a case to be opened and then move on and return to regular editing. The motions were not intended to let him engage in sporadic contributions, and then chose to re-open the case on his whim. Equally, if Aitias does decide to return to regular editing, without requesting the case be reopened to defend himself, then those who were in dispute with him over his use of admin tools should move on and not revisit or pursue the disputes. Carcharoth (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Clarification
From what was said by Coren and Brad - does this mean that if an admin is put to Arb and simply decides to give his sysops (or have it taken away and not given back via a lack of requesting for it to be returned) then they can completely ignore Arbitration that was brought against them for the sum total of their actions? Being blocked, topic banned, or banned in general are options that go beyond simply desysopping. Allowing someone to lose their tools and hide doesn't seem to really prevent any harm to the encyclopedia. Shouldn't ArbCom be doing something to clarify this matter as to not set a very bad precedent? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
It depends upon the reasons for the request in the first place, and the arbitrators' judgment about whether continuing the case would serve a useful purpose. I don't have the request for arbitration that was filed against Aitias in front of me, but my recollection is that the majority of the complaints involved his administrator status, and I don't recall any suggestion that an appropriate remedy might include a block, topic ban, or ban in general of this user. Obviously, if a case were brought against an editor who happened to be an administrator because he allegedly was egregiously POV-pushing on topic X, then the editor's resigning adminship would not resolve the issue. But if the case were based upon complaints of improper deletions and the administrator gave up the tools, then there really wouldn't be much more for us to do. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The reason the committee feels that the arbitration case has been mooted is that what was the primary (if not only) issue was alleged misuse of administrative tools. Given that the only thing the Committee could do that the community could not is desysop Aitias, that he no longer has the bit, and that he has not sought to regain it, then there is no point to proceed with a case at this time. — Coren(talk) 17:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I was being more general than the actual Aitias case. I wanted to get Arb opinion on the overall response to the situation that Aitias seems to fill. I hope this clarifies my request for a clarification on some of the responses. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there's really much to say other than that we handle these situations on a case-by-case basis, taking into account factors such as those I have mentioned. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
MZMcBride is an example of the committee continuing despite the main party voluntary desysopping. One aspect that needs to be considered when evaluating whether dropping a case "protects the wiki" is case load. If continuing with the case is likely to have a reduced utility because the party has departed, the time spent on the case is likely better spent on other cases/matters. John Vandenberg(chat) 00:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Motion 5
I see the Aitias case is possibly being reopened. Are we going straight to case from here, or reopening the request, to go to case? Another possibility, is we can unarchive the original request, and append the motion.--Tznkai (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I suggest go straight to case, as it was accepted at the time, and it would be a waste of time to reopen the request. I think the original request should be unarchived and included in the case pages, along with all 5 motions. My view. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
The wording of the motion is to open the case. Use the original request's statements, and then notify those people per usual. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I tweaked the wording in the header to better match the proposal. Once the case opens the all motions can recorded there together. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Why is arbitration still so slow?
I understand one of the big hopes people had with the last elections and enlargement of the committee was that it would finally get a bit faster and more efficient. But now I see we again have a case that has been in the "evidence" phase (a.k.a. mass mudslinging phase) for almost three months, no decision drafted, and no Arbcom input even to the workshop for the last three weeks. This is particularly hurtful as it draws out the existence of a "temporary injunction" that has been causing massive additional strife and led to multiple vindictive complaints, block shopping and actual blocks.
Some massive cases, sorry, it is rather alot of workload and the others are doing alot more than me. Try wading through 100 emails some nights....agree we need to be quicker, and we will try.. Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Massive cases are one aspect of it, and the need to move the overall reform agenda forward simultaneous to them is another. A third issue is that many of the cases are being drafted by the new arbitrators, who don't have much experience with writing decisions—particularly complex ones—and who thus need more time than usual to put forward a draft for voting. I expect the pace will pick up once the latter two items become less of an issue. Kirill[pf] 12:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we need a twice-as-large ArbCom which is divided into two "chambers" (so to speak) and new cases are assigned equally, thus splitting the workload in two. Just an idea... SoWhy 13:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The workload is already being divvied out - generally arbs take it in turn to do alot of the legwork on each case. Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
We've recently changed the way that we work. We are making more. These changes need time to work. I think by the end of the year, the Committee will be working more efficiently. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I still think you guys ought to change the whole structure of the evidence and workshop phase, radically. That could potentially save everybody, not just yourselves, a whole lot of work and stress. Fut.Perf.☼ 13:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
What changes do you have in mind? Kirill[pf] 13:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Bit busy right now, will give you a fuller answer in an hour or two. Fut.Perf.☼ 13:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't help that sometimes the parties make cases an absolute miserable experience. Not a lot of structural efficiency changes can solve that problem.--Tznkai (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Arbitration is not working. I say that with due respect to the very hard-working arbs. But frankly, every year a new crop of candidates criticise the pace of arbcom and promise that if they are elected it will change. They get elected and it does not. Rinse and repeat. The problem is not the personnel - the problem is the system is not upscaling. And the solution is not tweeking - but looking at drastic changes. My own thoughts are: A) that arbcom tries to combine a disciplinary/judicial role, with an administrative role (appointments), with a limited policy making role and in addition, in some cases, sometimes serves a policing role. This is too much and we need to examine things like a seperate appointments board, or limited policy board. B) that, no matter how many members it has, having only one tribunal, with all serving on it, is not good. Thought should be given to two sittings - so that each active arb needs only watch half the cases.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Are you aware that we are making many changes to the process? For example, appointing subcommittees to handle ban reviews. I agree that we need a policy committee but I still think that ArbCom is needed to handle user conduct issues that the Community can not resolve. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Changes are being made...I predict some for the best and some not so much. But I find that where arbitration is failing, it is due to a whole series of problems that aren't limited to mere inacitivity. FloNight, seeing, you have responded here, I will point to a recent enough example. A handful of arbitrators are refusing to truly respond to the substantive (legitimate) concerns expressed by some members of the community. When I say responsive, I'm not expecting full or necessarily any agreement with that concern, but I note it doesn't involve merely (like you've done in Fof 4 variations in the MZM case) reading the concerns, and then trying a more forceful approach in opposing outstanding attempts to satisfy and resolve those concerns. It also doesn't mean responding with a series of commentary that is unbecoming of an arbitrator in so many ways (like another arbitrator did, though not you). If it has come to the point where any arbitrator decides on a remedy and then think about findings that would support that, then the community will have an immediate problem to address. It is particularly disappointing when arbitrators who are approaching the status of "arbitrator-emeritus" appear to engage in this sort of decision making. Instead, they should be making more firmer attempts to revise the relevant parts of their decision in the light of (blatant) inaccuracies or omissions in the very "facts" they thought they had found. I think it's quite reasonable for the community to maintain one expectation: a Fof is not inaccurate or devoid of necessary context. Supporting a finding that is, especially when opposing others that do a better job of addressing that issue, is not admirable. If it's an attempt to challenge whether the community will disregard those parts of the decision in completeness, so be it - the effect of undermining community confidence in those arbitrators has not been lost. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Something to consider...just maybe we both looked at the same information and came to different conclusions. I carefully read all the case pages, including the most recent comments on the workshop and PD talkpages, as well as the votes and comments by other arbs at the end of the case. I considered your comments but I simple do not think that you've made points that matter to my final decision. Sometimes I agree with you, and sometimes I don't. In this particular instance I don't. Surely, you don't think that everyone will agree with you in every instance. I don't have that expectation. This is a very big wiki where you are going to run into people that disagree with you sometimes. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Given that I just stated in clear English that "I'm not expecting full or necessarily any agreement with that concern", I'm not sure why you would detail something that isn't even the issue. Coming to different conclusions is fine; but you have an implied obligation to be clear in how you did so, especially when questioned in one way or another about it - a good arbitrator in response to my comment would've stayed grounded on the (clearly labelled) substantive concern and detailed why, in their opinion, my concern didn't matter. Instead you repeated yourself as if your opinion or decision is absolute. But, for the second time, I suggest it may be too difficult to explain a position if something about it is so clearly wrong to begin with. Still, an insightful discussion indeed. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The point is that you saw blatant inaccuracies and I didn't. We disagreed. You can't ask more of arbs than to read your concerns and make changes if they see something new that they need to address. It is unrealistic arbitrators will talk each case out with each user commenting until everyone agrees. That seems to be your expectation in this situation and many others where you give your opinion. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
It is not my expectation as I've said before, but I note that your view is such that you refuse to think otherwise. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
NCMvocalist, seriously, you use to take matters personally. I'd really expect mutual respect between arbitrators and you (Wikipedians in general). You have to be very assured that calling someone in a derogatory manner, using terms like 'idiot', the 'other one' when calling the rest by their name in the same sentence is unproductive and when you get a feedback on those matters you label it as 'unbecoming'. This is endless drama. You are pursuing a wrong path. Nobody here at this page acts as you have been acting since a few months. If you have a problem, address it with people the correct way. We are all volunteers here and I totally agree with FloNight in that you don't have to expect the results you want to achieve because you are not always right as arbitrators are not always right. Acting like WP:DICK and expecting good feedback is illogical. Take your ironic first sentence above in response to FloNight as an example. Do you find it cool? Don't you like me telling you that calling someone as the 'other one' in a lowly manner is not a suave thing? We are not in a war here. Respect others so they'd address your point at ease the way you'd expect yourself to be treated. I'am not addressing your point here because if you re-read your full post above you'd find it very hidden. A good arbitrator is not necessarily the one who would hear about your rant every single day for months and still answer you the way you want with the result you want! I've never had any problems with somebody in my whole career on-wiki and I must confess to you that you are really someone I am starting to have problems with. Seriously. And if you'd like to consider me being this frank with you for the second time as 'unbecoming' then you are free but please, when addressing people try to refrain from aggressive, ironic and unnecessary language that is not helpful at all. Think about it and ask yourself if you could present your concerns in a productive way which you'd believe bring the results you want. You say many good thinks but they get quickly lost in the noise. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 20:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I "use to take things too personally"? No FayssalF, I'm not taking anything too personally. This arbitration does not affect my editing, or my standing, or anything else to do with me. And everyone is well aware of the level of mutual respect we have for one another; obviously not so harsh at community-level. While you may intend to be making a criticism, your comment gives all appearances of being a vague unsubstantiated accusation. Can you link me too to where I have noted and subsequently maintained (even after feedback) that any arbitrator is an "idiot"? No. I respect that you are sensitive to the phrase "stupid decision", but really, I thought that even that was resolved. Can you link me to where an arbitrator was called "the other one"? A wrong path? Endless drama? Please! Some arbitrators have embarked on an endless tirade against some users that have so much as displeased them by daring to question something they've said or done, whether it's once twice or many times. But I'm not interested in disclosing past private discussions to demonstrate this.
It is not illogical to expect an arbitrator to respond to the actual issue and effectively read past the noise, the crap, or whatever other trivial nonsense they perceive in a complaint, criticism or comment. That's a fundamental part of dispute resolution, whether it's in reading evidence or otherwise. And it goes without saying; a person is expected to listen because when you do something and you ignore it, then later the issue resurfaces and it comes to community attention that the issue was overlooked, then that fault is solely the arbitrator's. It's a given with your office. If any arbitrator want to be treated like just anyone else, where crap-tolerance levels can be a basic zero, then you need to step aside so that someone who is capable can be left to the position.
Do you think people post here (or anywhere else) with the intention of being "cool"? I personally think that way of looking at things is more on the immature side, but if you think if that's what matters, then that's your choice. The same with any "e-wars". My ironic first sentence? There's nothing cool about someone replying by saying something, and ignoring a clear statement that already addressed that issue. Having to highlight a problem like this at this level of dispute resolution says more about the arbitrator who responded than the editor who raised the concern, no matter what sort of rhetoric the concern was raised in, or however much the arbitrator imagined it in. If you can't separate the light from the heat (if there is any), that's your problem - not mine. If you were to refuse to separate the light from the heat for reasons of personal bias or some other reason, that's a problem that is far more disruptive to the project than anything else raised here, and certainly, I've never seen a problem as grave as this. Of course, these are just scenarios and I'm not accusing you of anything just now.
At this point, unless you cannot answer my requests in para 1, contrary to your assumptions which are yet again off base, I don't see anything substantially unbecoming about your post. Though, I think the last few lines in particular are the only real bit of value in the discussion. I'm open to criticism re: the harshness of my criticisms, and I've recently said that I will be more considerate of others views given that I agree that they can be harsh at times. But this is nothing outside of the ordinary when it comes to my participation in arbitration since early to mid 2008. I note that I'm not the only user to criticise certain arbitrators and issues with their decision making (see for example below); I personally thought it would be more constructive to narrow it down to individual instances where possible, than roundly criticise ArbCom as a whole, particularly when other arbitrators don't deserve necessarily any o fthe blame. If you prefer the latter approach, then please don't hesitate to mention it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough Ncmvocalist. I believe you understand my stance as much as I undertand yours. Hope the skies are much clearer now and sorry for that. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
To be honest I am gobsmacked at the incredible lack of input into the date delinking case (see my proddings for news above). It is almost as if most of the arbcom are refusing to acknowledge that the case exists at all; comments from arbitrators in the workshop or elsewhere are virtually nil (especially when compared to the volume of text from everyone else). Attempts to discern what you people are up to have been met with handwaving, claims of external discussion and vague, still-unfulfilled promises.
Is it because of the topic? I'm sure some big flame war over the name of a country or something to do with religion would get worked on hard and fast. But we of WP:ARBDATE have been left to fester miserably.
This is what Wikipedia has to offer as its highest level of dispute resolution? It's a bloody mockery. — Hex(❝?!❞) 18:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I assure you, the amount of text and drama generation seems to be completetly irrelevant to the actual topic.--Tznkai (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
If I heard right, the case that Future Perfect was referring to doesn't even have a PD drafted yet? I've heard so many things about this case that I don't know what to believe anymore. Can I get a straight answer? How much longer for the date case to be settled, or at least the PD drafted? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Is there an encyclopedic reason to have those pages? It's hard to see how they'd help the project. Will Bebacktalk 21:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
There is no remedy which states those pages need to be undeleted. That said, MZMcBride has said that he is willing to undelete any of those pages which people have dispute with. As such, I recommend you contact him on his talk page first, as would be the proper way to handle it in the first place. Tiptoetytalk 21:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Aren't you forgetting that MZM is not capable of undeletion anymore since he resigned his adminship? -MBK004 21:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
@ Will - userspace doesn't have to be encyclopedic. And since MZMcBride isn't an admin currently, he can't restore the pages. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 21:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
So why was this brought here as opposed to DRV or an administrator noticeboard? Are you trying to appeal the DRV community decision to ArbCom? Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Because the Arb pages says to bring it here, from what I read when researching the best place to post. It's associated with MZMcBride's arbcom in regards to his deletion of pages. And as I said above, it should have never went to DRV in the first place because of it being deleted under csd t1, which only applies to template space. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 21:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
If you really want the pages restored I'm sure any admin here will do so; though their next edit will almost certainly be to MfD the restored pages. I don't see that as a particularly productive use of everyone's time, to be honest, especially as the DRV endorsed deletion even if it didn't endorse the deletion method. Black Kite 21:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Per Black Kite. Further, the case is closed - I don't believe it's ongoing, so I'm not sure that this talk page would be the venue according to those instructions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely not, the deletions are totally unrelated to his arbitration case and the suggestion that outcome of the case vacates his previous actions is simply insulting. The deletions were even upheld by community consensus, which as we all know overrides policy. Wikipedia is also not a is not a bureaucracy nor a court room, to suggest that community consensus should be ignored because of how it came about goes against the very foundation of the project. Finally stating that a userbox about masturbating with your left hand is any different than one about your right hand is just disingenuous. BJTalk 21:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
To you maybe. They are totally related as the arbcom case specifically address his deletion of userpages as well as deletion of such userpages without any kind of notification. The community "consensus" is null and void since it should have never been on DRV in the first place because it never should have been deleted in the first place, at least not without MfD. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 21:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
This is process wonking for nothing. I've no idea what's on those pages. However, despite the fact the deletion was wrong procedurally, the community consensus at DRV was that they should NOT be restored. That's the end of it. If you think DRV got it wrong, go back and make your case for their merits again, but don't try an endrun around consensus by wonkery.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
:::Again, community concensus at the DRV is void since it shouldn't have been there in the first place. MZMcBride's deletion of userspace pages was the jist of the arbcom case. How's that wonkery? Blah blah blah. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 22:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
It is textbook wonking.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Just nevermind, close this.. i'll recreate them myself. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 22:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, if they were so bad that DRV declined to undelete, then please listen to consensus. Otherwise MfD is sure to kill them again.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Folks? I'm a little late mentioning this, I know, but wrong page.--Tznkai (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Audit Subcommittee established
To provide better monitoring and oversight, the Arbitration Committee has decided to establish an Audit Subcommittee, which will investigate complaints concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia. The subcommittee shall consist of three arbitrators appointed by the Committee and three editors elected by the community. The Committee shall designate an initial slate of three editors until elections can be held.
The initial membership, the procedures for the subcommittee, and more details on the election process will be published in the near future.
For the Committee, Kirill[pf] 22:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Since the new Macedonia case seems now unavoidable, I would like to make a very serious plea in advance: can we please, please have very tight surveillance of the case pages against disruptive debate behaviour? I am thinking of one particular user especially, Avg (talk·contribs), who has been all over Talk:Greece, Talk:Macedonia and related pages for weeks now, with an incessant stream of repetitive, petulant, aggressive and inane wikilawyering. If this user is allowed to swamp the Arbcom pages with the same type of material, no rational discussion among other users will be possible. When this page goes ahead I will demand some space somewhere where I can converse with reasonable people in a reasonable fashion without this person's permanent bile, or I will have no part in the process. Fut.Perf.☼ 17:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
This is exactly the type of threats and intimidation I allude to in my statement. This person is preemptively trying to discredit my opinion and the evidence I will present.--Avg (talk) 17:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
You'll want to talk to the case clerks (Tiptoety and Knightlago) about this, who I expect will make fairly clear what conduct is acceptable and what is not.--Tznkai (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I think we shouldn't discourage anyone from participating (or allow anyone to feel that they can't participate effectively). Perhaps the clerks could look at some way of ensuring that any threaded discussions are actively managed to ensure that they don't get out of hand. I feel that the main focus should be on the presentations of evidence, proposed principles and findings of fact, without bogging down in threaded wrangling between editors. The current Samaria case evidence talk page is a perfect example of how it should not be done. Do we actually need threaded discussions in the first place? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
A comment for public consumption
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so. certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts" – Bertrand Russell.
I do not count myself wise. I have a Myers-Briggs personality type which is pretty close to 100% "plant" - I am a poor completer finisher, an intuitive thinker, sometimes have difficulty in communicating the logical train from A to B, but am trusted by a Fortune 500 company to spend really quite large sums of money (rough cut $2m this year so far, around another $2m in the pipeline) on the basis of my technical and professional judgment. I try very hard not to make a judgment where I am not qualified. I have in the past had a reputation as one who cuts the crap, but it does look awfully as if the crap is what a lot of people are here for (that and driving off anyone who supports the mainstream versus conspiracy theories). I am also absolutely and continually wracked with doubts. Have I been fair to X? Am I right in my assessment of Y? Should I wash my hands of the whole mess, let the kooks take over the project and go and play with my trains et? I worry about these things to the point of insomnia sometimes.
I am very strongly committed to Wikipedia's ideals. I have taken body-blows for the project. I have helped people whose personal ethical frameworks I despise, because they make well-reasoned and concise requests. And I have said "thus far and no further" to the same people on occasion.
Some of what I do is hidden, due to OTRS privacy. The OTRS community know me, they know that I have taken some tough cases. Not for glory, you don't get glory by defending unpleasant people on Wikipedia. You get kicked mercilessly.
People like Abd, and to a lesser extent gadflies like Dan Tobias, suck the joy out of Wikipedia. What I really want to do is to get Robert Hooke to FA status; I have Jardine, Gunther and other rare books, and the man was a titan in his day but hampered by social inequality and an awkward personality. He had fiercely loyal friends and implacable enemies. I cannot compare myself to him in clarity of thinking and sheer energy, but I understand his social position all too well, as a son of a schoolteacher sent on scholarship to a thousand-year-old English public school.
I am also capable of immense reserves of good faith towards those that give me a chance. Those who choose adversarial routes, I will argue for a while and then disengage. The major problems are with those with festering non-actionable grudges. That's life, I try to get on with it and ignore them. I handle trolls badly, but am slowly improving, mainly by ignoring them. Hence the RfC behaviour: I have friends who email me if a salient point requires addressing (none did in this one), and I learn what I can without being drawn into the bear pit.
I am happy to debate something. In detail. Once. When the protagonist keeps reiterating the same points over and over and over again, as if no rebuttal or consideration had ever been give, that is vexatious. I disengage, in this case Abd has seen fit to continue posting rambling diatribes. I admit I lack a way fo dealing with such obsessive behaviour, but I don't actually think I should necessarily have to have one. There should be a limit to the number of times a gripe can be raised and deemed not actionable before the griper is handed a dose of STFU. Sorry, this is mean, heartless and not at all fluffy. I am a professional man on a substantial salary with a high-profile job in the technical industry, m natural tendency when faced with a problem is to fix it to the best of my ability. I am a fan of peer review, I very often post decisions for review, and normally they are endorsed. Where they aren't, I swallow my pride and reverse them. Obviously on Wikipedia a one nanosecond block is a job for tar and feathers, but most of the long-standing editors and admins have grown beyond that.
I still feel that we lack good ways of handling those who come here with the primary purpose of skewing content. We rapidly end up in a fight between the [[WP:AGF] crowd (which includes many fellow-travellers but also many honest, true and decent people) and the battle-hardened veterans. The thing is, some of those battle-hardened veterans are actually the kinds of people Jimbo had in mind with WP:IAR. Which of course raises another philosophical point: the anti-Jimbo cult. But let's not go there. I admire Jimbo, because he created a great thing. Robert Hooke created great things, and was proud, stubborn, picked the wrong enemies, and in some cases lost the wrong friends. Despite his human frailties and flaws - with which even his most enthusiastic biographer would agree - he was a genius because he saw the clear path. Jimbo does that. He has a thing about the Sanger co-founder meme, and some people exploit that to troll him, but he is also the single best example of WP:AGF I have ever met. So I respect him,ad for this I am considered Jimbo's tool by those who wish revenge on the project for failing to conform to their vision for it. Tough.
I think we should have a staging post, a place where people identified by three or four editors in good standing can be quickly reviewed, placed into mentorship (the mentor being vetted as not a fellow-believer) and moved into a "three strikes and you're out" type of relationship. The alternative seems to me to be a Wikipedia which is the polar opposite of what the five pillars promotes, dominated by the fringes and activists. Incidentally, WP:NOR is a great policy but I think it's undermined by some classes of articles, such as "comparison of..." - keen new editors become convinced that distilling novel content from primary sources is a core Wikipedia skill. We should expedite the transfer of original research - some of which is very good and WP:USEFUL - to alternative vesues where the tension will be lower. "LENR advocates' view of cold fusion" would be a great project for something like Wikiversity. Challenging the status quo and keeping science honest is what universities are for. But not what encyclopaedias are for. I an a prolific user of Wikipedia as a reference. want to read facts, not opinions of people who may or may not actually know what they are talking about. Not, though. 12,000 word articles on the latest album by some band which toured once. One of my biases.
I should not be writing this. It is tired, I should be asleep, but once again somebody has provided a bandwagon for a number of grudger-bearers to jump on and this is distracting from the problems with Abd's behaviour, including the effects of self-admitted ADHD. Three years ago this wold have been dismissed as WP:NOT therapy and Abd told to stop it. These days I've lost several months' worth of my limited wiki-time to dealing with endless restatements of complaints which have already had their day in the sun. And I am sick of it. So I will take time of, work harder on that Bach for Saturday, build the three new SANs, get the Geneva guys off the ground, plan my next trip to the States, and generally do the day job. Feel fre to email. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
"Gadfly" is a label I wear proudly; at least one of them is needed in any institution to "challenge the status quo and keep things honest", something I do in the meta-discussion about Wikipedia (not in the encyclopedic content itself, where, as you note, this attitude is not proper). What "sucks the fun" out of Wikipedia, in my assessment, is the sort of draconian, authoritarian attitude you exemplify, where you treat anybody who disagrees as a "fanatic" to be suppressed rather than listened to. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
As per usual, presuming the case is accepted, the Committee will consider the behaviour and actions of all parties. This includes Abd. --bainer (talk) 00:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
It's a No-Bainer! *Dan T.* (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
That's right, my actions will be examined, I assume. I've been quite careful, but I also make mistakes. I'll note that JzG originally accused me of autism and other things, not ADHD. ADHD came up as my response, though I also have a userbox. As to exhausting battles, I wasn't involved at all with Cold fusion when I saw the problem blacklistings, I verified that JzG was an involved editor and therefore should have recused, and so I asked him to reverse or recuse. He refused. At Jehochman Talk, referenced in his filing of the current RfAr for "Abd and JzG," it was all laid out what would happen from this. He didn't believe it, apparently. He could have avoided the whole thing by saying, "Well, I disagree, but I'll recuse, if any other admin wants to reverse my action, I won't consider it wheel-warring." Very simple, and most administrators would do exactly that in circumstances where involvement was much less clear than it was here. Other editors, as described in the RfC asked him similarly. Some he could possibly pin as also being involved, but Durova wasn't. Basically, JzG, if you read this, you brought this on by intransigence, by stubborn belief in your own rightness, not listening to others who disagreed but only to those who agreed with you. I've read many of your comments in prior community discussions and before ArbComm. When describing others, you've often been very clear, at least in the old days. Lately, not so often. If it weren't you, I think you'd have seen clearly what was going on. By all means, enjoy the Bach, maybe take a break for a while, come back refreshed. And take a look at your behavior then, sometimes a little time can provide some perspective. If not, well, I'm sorry, but you will have difficulties that transcend anything that could possibly happen on Wikipedia. I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy, and you certainly are not that, far from it. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 04:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
You brought this on by intransigence, by stubborn belief in your own rightness, not listening to others who disagreed but only to those who agreed with you. Irony meter pegs scale and explodes. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Sure, it can look that way, SBHB, I assume you are referring to me. I keep the possibility in mind constantly. I'm not complaining about the heat, JzG is. He writes about the burden of continually debating. However, if he had recused, no debate. It is only because he was attached to outcome, i.e., "involved," that the burden appeared. --Abd (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
extended discussion, description of DR process followed
When I "lose" at a forum, I don't keep debating, and I don't find another forum trying to get some better combination of small participation, "forum shopping," I either let go or I escalate. Escalation means bringing an issue to a wider circle of editors, it's what WP:DR is about. DR works, and it is still working, here. I began with a civil request to JzG. He blew it off. I asked him to suggest a mediator. He blew it off. Remember, the issue is admin recusal, not Jed Rothwell, lenr-canr.org, or Cold fusion, so when I talk about the process, that's what I'm talking about, not the result of some low-level discussion on this or that content or other behavioral issue. Only one issue, so far, went beyond the Talk page or initial process page level: admin recusal. The other issues, most of them, are unresolved except "pending." I.e., there is a local consensus, perhaps, decided by an admin, neutral or otherwise, not appealed. Other editors pinged JzG about recusal. So what was the next step? I had mentioned the recusal problem in various fora where it was related to outcomes, not to get a decision there on recusal, but only with relationship to the outcomes. No place made a decision on recusal. The evidence was overwhelming, so overwhelming that a simple pile of diffs and edit summaries from JzG, previously presented to ArbComm and with no errors noted, was called an "attack page" when he MfD'd it. So, next step, given that broad low-level "mention" of the recusal problem did not supply JzG with an effective advisor, was RfC. The rest was moot on this issue, and involved content, where JzG was highly attached. RfC was inconclusive, with most editors either supporting my position explicitly, supporting it implicitly by excusing the action as something JzG should have not done but his heart was in the right place, or ignoring the issue and purely attacking me. What did they think, that I would lie down and play dead because "the community" had supposedly rejected my position? No, I made it very clear what the consequence would be of ignoring the facts and policy arguments and focusing on me. JzG claims that all the issues raised had been considered and he was confirmed. That's not true. In no forum was his failure to recuse considered and rejected, it was generally set aside and not addressed. 'Nuff said, if even too much. --Abd (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Further discussion here is unlikely to be helpful. Relevant evidence and workshop proposals should be presented when the case opens. Name-calling and bickering should be avoided. Please. (This is addressed to no one particularly, and everyone generally.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Really good idea from Guy
For a man who doesn't describe himself as wise, there's often great wisdom in his words. Above, Guy says:
We should expedite the transfer of original research - some of which is very good and WP:USEFUL - to alternative vesues where the tension will be lower. "LENR advocates' view of cold fusion" would be a great project for something like Wikiversity.
This strikes me as one of the best ideas I've heard in a very very long time, and while I don't know how to make it happen, I think Guy is really on to something with this line of thinking. Often, it seems like POV-Pushers are motivated people who sincerely care very strongly about an issue, who are willing to devote huge amounts of work to expressing their points of view, and, if only they could be moved from Wikipedia to some other open-content wiki project, they could be some of the most valued contributors-- pouring ever-increasing amounts of text into the Free Content world. Whether their point of view is write or wrong, they would be actively participating in the dialog, adding their writings into a library tha will forever be free. Even in the worst case scenario-- even the ravings of a madman, if freely licensed, could still wind up being incredibly useful to someone, if only from a sociological point of view. With storage space as cheap as it is, it seems like ANY text that ANY human being wants to type into a computer and give to the world is worth saving.
But obviously, Wikipedia is shooting for high quality, and so all original research, good or bad, has to be moved elsewhere. Theoretically we have places like this, but it seems like a major cultural barrier between the various projects.
If only we had a "highly biased, highly-forked, limited-OWNership, original research allowed, ultra-messy" encyclopedia project. We could, like judo-masters, take all the energy the single-issue-contributors give us, and instead of having to just blindly push back, we could pull them into a venue where they could continue their projects unimpeded, free to be biased or fringe or anything else they want to be, without having to constantly butt heads with the people trying to make a high-quality NOR NPOV encyclopedia.
Of course-- this won't deter everyone. There will still be single issue editors who are here to advocate a single topic. But, even we could jujitsu even one-tenth of them into a different project where they could be productive instead of disruptive, think of all the time and frustration that would be saved!
If an observation like Guy's isn't wisdom, I don't know what is. --Alecmconroy (talk) 10:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
There is some wisdom to it, but it's only first-glance. What is needed is better structure, both here and connected to other projects, because the problem of how human knowledge is filtered down into a consensus "sum" is not resolved by compartmentalization, unless the compartments have communication channels between them. Suppose there were other wikis devoted to original research. If those wikis are purely walled gardens, nevertheless they will generate people convinced. These people are now not merely representatives of their own OR, but they include those plus others who now have a body of knowledge which is by (local) consensus. Like it or not, this is "human knowledge," and these people will believe or imagine that it belongs here. If there are established review mechanisms, such knowledge can become "peer-reviewed." How to established efficient structures that do this, reliably, is not a simple problem, though it may be simpler than we think, but, in the end, it is the full encyclopedic project. Cold fusion is a really good example, studied by sociologists as such, of how compartmentalization can harm the progress of "science," i.e., of knowledge. One of my goals is to bring more of this story here, it's a story told in reliable sources. --Abd (talk) 11:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, it already worked well with Homeopathy and Dana Ullman. The history section of their article is more POV but it's vastly more complete than ours. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Abd just explained how publishing works. The real.ity is that cold fusion doesn't work. It'd be great if it did and I was a bit taken by the idea when it surfaced, but ...
Supposing also does not work as we can suppose anything. BTW, there is a wiki devoted to OR -- Wikipedia.
Absolutely. And what I've been saying, and what the sociologists have said (Simon, 2002) is that the normal scientific process broke down with respect to Cold fusion. I didn't say that "cold fusion works," I say that the process by which claims that "it works" would be examined broke down, so that (1) positive results had difficulty finding publishers, (2) early on, negative results were published and then the normal responses were not published, and (3) later negative criticisms or results also couldn't get published, so the whole process of back-and-forth that keeps science alive was shut down, leaving relatively isolated pockets of researchers doing work that is inadequately criticized, even when it does make it into reliable source. There is now plenty of reliable source that shows cold fusion works, but that doesn't mean that it works! If the process hadn't broken down, we'd know by now. There is a controversy, that's certain, and we should be reporting whatever of the controversy breaks into reliable source, and there is plenty. There is no reason for our articles to be incomplete, NPOV never requires keeping alleged fringe research or facts out of articles, as long as they are verifiable, and that it happens here is due to dedicated antifringe warriors who go beyond limits, and who are popular enough (they are generally supporting some kind of "majority view") that they can get away with it for a time. I can say, though, what article I'd myself want to read! I'd want to read the more thorough one, and as long as every statement there can be verified as clearly true, hang the POV, I want to see it (providing it's notable, and RS takes care of that for us, plus extensions of notability, such as, say, self-publication by a notable expert, who is then attributed in the text.) --Abd (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I get your point now. I have reservations about self-published works, though -- I could prove the sun is green in a self-published work. I've seen nothing independent re CF's "working", but if you have something, please leave it on my talk page and then we can leave everyone else alone. Nonetheless, I still think Guy's idea is a good one. •Jim62sch•dissera! 17:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
As to cold fusion, fine. I'm not trying to establish that "it works." As to "the sun is green," no, you can't prove that with self-published works. What you can state, in an article, should there be such, is that a notable person claimed that the sun is green, and cite the SP work, and whether this fact belongs in the project may be debatable, it depends. Not all claims of notable people are sufficiently notable. --Abd (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
In fact the sun is green. The peak of the solar spectrum is around 500 nm, which corresponds to the wavelength range that we perceive as the color green. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Resolved
. — CharlotteWebb 17:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
--NE2 20:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
,_The_Bostonians_Paying_the_Excise-man,_or_Tarring_and_Feathering_(1774)_-_02.jpg)
