Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 19

how to find open cases?

how do you actually find open cases? I cannot find any link off this page - which I find a bit odd. --Fredrick day 19:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Look at the box on the right, near the top. Fred Bauder 19:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Remember you are on the talk page, look at the project page. Fred Bauder 19:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

sorry that's what I meant by "this page" = the project page - the box at the top on the right just seems to link to various policies and guideline pages. I'm still don't see how I get to open cases. --Fredrick day 19:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the talk page - move to the top and press project page, relatively near the top in a huge pink box there is a list of all the open cases. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Fredrick, below the "policies" box you are looking at should be another box which is the one you want. On my browser it is right opposite the table of contents. Newyorkbrad 19:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Right that's starting to make more sense - can I suggest that something more explict such as "current cases" is added to the title of that box - to the untrained eye or a novice (which I'm not after 10,000 or so edits) it's not clear what that is --Fredrick day 19:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I would support that. I'm also not a novice and it took me a minute to find the list of current cases not long ago. --Tango 22:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like this has been done. Newyorkbrad 12:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom Policy Proposals

Two ArbCom policy proposals. They're sufficiently different that I'm putting them under different subheadings. Chris Croy 04:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Justify

Some of those monster arbcom cases are created by massive lists of parties by the petitioner. There's always one user who says "WTF am I doing here?" Why not require people explain why every single one of the listed parties is an involved party? It would probably cut down on case size and time wasting by users that aren't actually involved.

• I like this. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Good idea, but precedent has been set that it is not necessary for any reason to be stated.[1] The case I was dragged through didn't even have a "Case summary" and the reason for the case was never defined.[2] But my Arbs refused to follow existing policy[3] to merely explain their votes[4], so why bother with any policy? (SEWilco 17:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC))
  • Pros: Eliminates uninvolved or peripherally involved editors as parties at the acceptance stage, thereby (1) avoiding stress of such editors, (2) simplifying the proceedings, (3) reducing opportunities to use this type of proceeding to harass such editors, and (4) eliminating the possible inclusion of such editors in contentious workshops or in vaguely worded remedies.
  • Cons: Would require the arbitrators to review the role and responsibility of each editor named in a case very early in the proceedings, thereby (1) complicating and prolonging the case acceptance process, (2) requiring the arbitrators to address the potential role of specific editors before the evidence has been submitted, and (3) where an editor asks out of the case and the arbitrators keep the editor in, creating a possibility that people will inappropriately infer that that editor had done something wrong, because otherwise they would no longer be a party. Newyorkbrad 19:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I wasn't imagining anyone approving or disapproving of the reasons. My hope is that just having to sit down and explain why this person or that person is involved would cause people to stop adding so many parties to their cases. Chris Croy 22:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
      • That's why I like it. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Statute of Limitations

What if ArbCom used a statute of limitations? At least one arbiter has already indicated he sort of uses one, [5] but perhaps this should be formalized. I'd suggest any conduct that occurred more than a year before the case was initiated should not be considered except in cases of sock puppetry. We should allow people to reform. If someone was an unrepentant POV warrior but cleaned up their act and has edited peacefully for a year their old actions shouldn't be held against them. The sock puppetry exception is because there's a consensus that abusive sock puppetry is the worst crime you can commit, see [6]. Real life doesn't have a statute of limitations for murder, we shouldn't have one for sock puppetry.

• I think it's really a case-by-case thing; is there any particular ArbCom action you've seen that would have worked differently if this were the rule? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not thinking of any in particular, Uninvited Company's comment just inspired this line of thought. But a quick googling turned up this [7]. I believe at least the second finding of fact would be nulled by a statute of limitations policy. Unless I develop the power to stop time and read minds over the internet, it's unlikely I could even hope to determine what cases this would change the outcome of. I've figured out some individual tendencies(e.g. Fred starts sharpening his knives when people spam up the Workshop with tons of proposals), but given the paucity of public arbcom debate I've no ability to predict how you would act if certain diffs were taken out of play. Chris Croy 05:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Most revert paroles and probations are stated to last a year. In some cases, probation is indefinite. Of course, for the truly reformed editor, even perpetual probation or parole will not hinder their editing since they no longer do whatever it was that got them into trouble. But I understand that it can be seen as a black mark by some. One possibility that has been used in a couple of recent motions on old cases would be to state that probation or parole remedies would expire "After one year, or 6 months after the last enforcement action, whichever is longer." Thatcher131 06:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Unless I'm misunderstanding, that's not the point; the suggestion seems to be that actions older than X not be usable as evidence. When considering if sanctions are necessary due to current behavior, it doesn't seem like a good idea to disregard past behavior, good or bad. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• As a practical matter, ArbCom is rarely if ever going to accept a case involving non-recent conduct. However, certainly in the Henrygb case, and in the Runcorn matter (if it had been handled as a case rather than summarily), misconduct from longer than a year ago was considered, and a rule saying that it couldn't be would have been problematic as applied. Newyorkbrad 19:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If someone does something wrong and then goes a year without doing anything wrong, I can't see an case against them being accepted. If someone's been doing something wrong for 18 months, there is no point ignoring the first 6 months of it. So, all in all, a bad idea. --Tango 19:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If someone is doing something now and did it in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, well sure, it's all relevant to show an ingrained pattern. But, of course, the relevant question is future behavior. Fred Bauder 19:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, but past behaviour is our best tool for predicting future behaviour - it's often very inaccurate, but it's the best we've got, so let's not arbitrarily remove a chunk of it. --Tango 22:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Motion in Zero/Zeq

Perhaps you can slow down for just a moment. An unintended side-effect of the decisions rendered (and not rendered) in Z/Z is that a fairly provocative editor seems to believe he has been given license to taunt an admin. Passing the current motion (one more supporting vote) will come very close to actually giving him this license.

East Jerusalem. I don't quite understand what Zeq's diffs are meant to show, but please note that none other than SlimVirgin, who certainly does not edit with a pro-Palestinian pov, writes on the talk page: Thanks, Roland. It was indeed page 254 that Zero cited, and his summary of what it says is entirely accurate. Thank you for looking it up [[8]].

Apes and Pigs. Zero has 'confessed.' I wouldn't have. Unless Zeq owns the article, how is this admin action against Zeq? I did not understand your recent decision to mean that Zero was advised not to take administrative action in any Israel-Palestine related article. Is that what you meant? Jd2718 23:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

With regard to Apes and pigs, I believe the gravamen of the issue is that Zeq was the creator and only editor of the article. Newyorkbrad 23:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

So ownership's established?

Not that Zero will necessarily listen to me, but I will advise him to surrender the tools. Otherwise he has just been set up to be baited until he makes a more serious mistake. Jd2718 23:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure that isn't the arbitrators' intent. Perhaps some of them will comment here. Newyorkbrad 00:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope some of them do. When I read the very strong reasons [including this] for not adopting "one hat at a time" they really caught me. A hamstrung admin really can become a target. Jd2718 00:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

A cool head can not be baited into a rash act. There are a large number of methods that a concerned admin can use to attract the immediate interest of other admins. Zero needs to maintain a cool head, and contact another admin if Zeq provokes him in the future. Zeq does not own any articles, but as the result of this ruling, Zero will indeed be prevented from deleting articles on which Zeq is a significant contributor, which is not only appropriate given their history but is something Zero agreed to less than a month ago. Zeq is on probation and may be banned from editing any article or topical area that he disrupts. A simple report to one of the approrpiate noticeboards (WP:ANI or WP:AE) is all that is needed to deal with Zeq in the future. Thatcher131 00:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone has the temperament to be an Administrator. Administrators are taunted regularly by problem editors. They must deal with the situation calming and according to the guidelines established. In this case specific remedies were passed about Zeq that need to be followed. If Zero000can can not deal with problem editors then he needs to stop interacting with them by giving up the administrative tools or limiting his use of the tools to non-controversial maintenance tasks. Not acceptable to use his tools in relation to an editors where he has a longstanding dispute. Especially after he was advised not to do so by ArbCom and other options are given. FloNight 12:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not an easy conclusion to come to, given Zeq's troublesome behavior, but Zero000 will use common sense or lose his tools. Fred Bauder 14:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope that Arbcom will look at this case holistically, and consider the following. Apes and pigs was a POV-fork presenting incendiary subject matter in a highly tendentious manner and sourced exclusively to MEMRI, WorldNetDaily, a Fox News segment, and a "symposium" in FrontPageMagazine. From an ideological newbie this would be an understandable mistake, and a teaching opportunity regarding what WP is and is not. Zeq however has been editing for almost two years. Here he appears to have been prankishly thumbing his nose at basic WP policies. On East Jerusalem, on the other hand, he appears to have been prankishly thumbing his nose at Zero himself. Zero gave an impeccable citation, complete with page reference (p.254). Zeq then created a talk page subsection headed "Is the source misrepresented by Zero?" and wrote "Zero have inserted the words "from all religions" . I wonder if this is the source. According to the source I have the complete paragrpah talks specifically about Israeli jews not being allowed into the wall." "The complete paragraph" Zeq is talking about comes from page 241. In other words, Zeq ignored Zero's actual citation, found a different paragraph on a different page that he could construe as being at odds with Zero's edit, weirdly suggested that this paragraph from page 241 must have been Zero's paragraph from page 254, and on the basis of this dizzying sophistry prominently floated the accusation that Zero was misrepresenting sources. Since Zero's ability to remain "cool" seems to be at issue, it should be noted that he didn't respond to this self-evidently specious charge and gratuitous provocation, even as other editors and admins went on to take it seriously. Zero's action regarding Apes and pigs was doubtless hasty, and went against the spirit (if not quite the letter) of the previous Arbcom decision; what should be factored into the equation, however, is the extent to which Zeq's editing and general behavior represent an unusual standing provocation to a good-faith admin.--G-Dett 15:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• How bloody hard is it to ask another admin for assistance? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Not hard, and in the interest of circumspection he surely should have done so. That said, I do think Jd2718 has a good point above, that deleting Apes and pigs was not self-evidently an "administrative action against Zeq."--G-Dett 15:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    • It was to anyone with the common sense to (a) look at the article history; (b) notice it was primarily written by Zeq; (c) recognize the name Zeq as the one he'd been having ongoing issues with; (d) recognize the name Zeq as the one he'd been advised not to take any further administrator actions against or in relation to; (e) recognize that deleting an article is an administrator action...shall I go on? Nobody's being hamstrung here; incitement to riot is not an excuse for rioting. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I would have thought Apes and pigs should be immediately deleted without any need to examine it's content or author. If, by chance, the article turns out to have merit it can be re-instated, perhaps after talk. If there is to be any examination of motives, then the creator of this article will be in the spotlight and certainly not the admin who (may have) over-speedily deleted it. The project cannot be seen to tolerate inciting hatred - or certainly not when doing so has been considered full and complete justification to perma-block other editors on (laughably untrue) charges of doing this exact same thing. PalestineRemembered 17:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

PR, the deleted article, though it had its shortcomings, did not incite hatred towards anyone, but only discussed some who direct racist epithets towards others; e.g.:[9] It's pretty rich to equate quoting hate speech with inciting hate towards the quoted.

Zero0000's summary, "speedy deletion of disgusting islamophobic article."[10] and his subsequent statement, "I found an article called something like "pigs and monkeys"...no redeeming features at all but just pure islamophobic pornography...[just as] if a Nazi came along and wrote a similar article about "some Jews"[11] were hyperbolic, inaccurate, and deeply unfair, seeing as most editors cannot view the deleted article but only take Zero's word for it. Would he have blanked Islam and Antisemitism#Jews transformed into apes and pigs with the same summary?Proabivouac 18:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the article you've referenced isn't deleted immediately too. (It does have "The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article or section are disputed.") It's quite wrong to take the contents of someone else's scriptures and clip from them in this fashion in the project. There are web-sites that do this kind of thing to the Talmud (at least, I think they do, I strictly avoid hanging round in such places - I've done that all along, it's not just that I'm terrified of absorbing something they say and being permanently labelled as a Holocaust Denier).

Like I said, this looks like a non-issue - the motives of the creator of this article are in grave doubt, and deleting it immediately is for the good of the project. PalestineRemembered 18:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The following statement, "According to Lewis, the language of abuse was often quite strong among Muslims and the conventional epithets for Jews are apes, and for Christians are pigs." is cited to Bernard Lewis, while Khaleel Mohammed is also quoted. While there does often seem to be an OR-element in such discussions, it's not as if Wikipedia editors are making this up. And though MEMRI is undeniably partisan, they're not making it up, either, as you can see for yourself.Proabivouac 19:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac,

What you write is correct but the heart of the matter is the difference between you who quote Lewis and -if you would develop such article- would find others sources introducing all Pov about that difficult matter and Zeq who quotes MEMRI and who only gathers islamophobic arguments in wikipedia.

About Zero0000. When you are a good faith contributor with a wide knowledge on a topic, when the articles on which you work are systematically in editwar due to a contributor who has only poor knowledge on the subjet (not to say worse...), when nothing improves and more when it doesn't seem you are practically supported (only blamed and asked to keep ice-cooled), how could you withstand ?

I think wikipedia can be happy he didn't leave to Citizendium. Alithien 20:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac - There are all sorts of things that Wikipedia editors are not making up, I don't think I need to remind people how far this incitement to hatred can go. But I'm bemused that this material is included in articles, let alone as the title of articles. In the dim and distant past (maybe 4 weeks ago), I was linked to such people myself, the ArbCom has yet to decide whether I am guilty of visiting and quoting from Holocaust Denial sites. But in this case, it seems to be suggested that Wikipedia should either carry such material, or at least highlight it's existence. I'm not sure whether dedicated anti-Islamic hate-merchants will quote Wikipedia for their material or not, but I'm quite sure it's deeply unpleasant and not convinced we should provide a jumping-off platform for them.

PS - I'm not simply inventing a new persona of being opposed to religious intolerance - it's something I've always believed, and provably for quite a number of years. PalestineRemembered 21:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

• Jpgordon, your point about incitement is well taken, and I won't gainsay your expertise about the Arbcom ruling, especially in light of Zero's guilty plea. Without your guidance, however, I suppose I would have understood "admin action against Zeq" to be referring to actions affecting Zeq personally (blocks, bans, 3RR warnings and reported violations, ANI reports, etc.), rather than actions affecting content Zeq has authored or is otherwise attached to.--G-Dett 17:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, it's the vagueness there that led to the clarification -- both of what it means when we "advise" an administrator, and what we meant by the decision. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Requests for clarification of policy

(moved from main RfAr page)

While Arbcom does not make policy, part of its role is to clarify and interpret policy.

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#BLP deletion standards

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#BLP deletion standards is a new section whose interpretation by the community and arbcom is critical to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination). The community is providing its input at that deletion discussion page. I request that arbcom provide its input in the form of participating in the closing of that deletion discussion to whatever degree arbcom feels is appropriate. WAS 4.250 23:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Um. no.--jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Request

I don't mean to be rude, but can the active members of the Arbitration Committee please evaluate the current cases and put in their two cents at the proposed decision page? Some of these cases are getting quite ugly (particularly Hkelkar 2), because the involved parties are frustrated about the delay in reaching a decision. I would hope that if these cases were to be decided on more quickly, then such conflicts like [12] wouldn't happen. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• Excuse me, Hkelkar 2 got ugly long before there was any "frustration about the delay." --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
  • ...and it's only getting worse because of the delay. RA wasn't as hostile at the beginning of the case, but he's been venting out his anger on anyone (including you and the rest of ArbCom) because of the delay in the decision. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to charges made by User:Ryulong

I attempted to edit the project page, but could not do so probably because it requires a logged in account. Ryulong has stated that anon ip accounts are being used for sinister purposes and that they are being used to establish false personas for User:Husnock. I fail to understand where this is coming from. For one thing, someone using an ip without logging in isn't a crime- it just means they didnt want to log on. If they use multiple ip addresses for sockpuppet purpuses, that is one thing, but that was not the case here. 195.229.236.213 is a shared ip address used by hundreds of people; if one of these people is the user who was once Husnock, who cares. As for 38.117 and 38.188 those are VPN accounts used by the 195 address since the 195 is in the Middle East and often blocks parts of Wikipedia. There was no attempt at deception there, I believe it was pointed out several times that the 195 ips and the 38s were coming from the same place and, once again, they were never used for sockpuppet activites. Ryulong's entire beef seems to be with this initial edit [13]. That edit was made in good faith (I know becuase I made it) about a real world situation and has been explained, resolved, and worked out to my satisfaction on the Admin Noticeboard. Ryulong then blocked the ip address for no other reason than "used by Husnock" and then blocked the VPN 38 address after it was explained that the Husnock arbitration case never amounted to a block. The full statement made about Ryulong's activites is here: [14] This admin improperly blocked an account and now, for some reason, is trying to stir things up some more. 195 and the others might be Husnock, they might not, point is there is no Wikipedia regulation that states whoever is using an ip has to identify themselves if they already have a registered account. And I think, at least in the case of 195, its pretty clear that more than one person uses that account. So, I have to wonder why Ryulong is making these charges. -38.119.112.188 09:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best if you brought this up at WP:AN/I. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

See main RfAr page where Thatcher131 states that he has unblocked these IPs. Newyorkbrad 19:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the main RFAR page was briefly semi-protected to deal with a spammer. Thatcher131 22:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent spamming

Time to contact the ISP methinks. I've checked out five of the IPs used and all return Belgacom. – Chacor 13:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Meh. Some stupidity between the socialist web sites workforall.org and workforall.net. [15] I don't understand why the .net guy keeps spamming his request here. Does he think that the 50 times it has been removed were all accidents, and the case will suddenly be accepted on the 51st attempt? Bottom line (since he is probably reading this) is the following:

1. The Arbitration committee does not decide content issues, only serious editor conduct problems.
2. The removal of WorkForAll.net links is an editorial decision made by multiple editors and there is no evidence that policies were violated.
3. Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process. If you think the decision to remove the links was wrong, you should start with a request for comment to solicit the views of additional editors.
4. Wikipedia should not be used as a vehicle to promote private web sites. The fact that some articles have inappropriate links to some web sites is a reason to find and remove them, not to add more ("Other crap exists so mine should too" is not an acceptable argument here).
5. If you persist, you will be reverted and blocked. You are way outnumbered by the recent changes patrol, by the way. If necessary, we can block your entire ISP, which is bound to make them take notice of you. So please stop. Thatcher131 13:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

He's taken to vandalizing the talk pages [16] of users who remove his "request". He got me and Calton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) this morning (Thanks to Lectonar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for cleaning it up!). Adam 15:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I reproteced the page again today with an expiry of 2 weeks. Seems he reposted as soon as the expiry went away last time. Hope I wasn't out of line in doing this. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked for 24 hours. Might be time to start writing that email to Belgacom. – Chacor 13:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

He can reset his IP quite easily it seems. Thatcher131 13:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Two weeks seems like a long time. I wonder if we should put a notice on the page advising users to contact a clerk for help. On the other hand, I have never seen a legitimate request filed by an IP editor. Hmmm. Thatcher131 13:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think if an IP editor did have a legitimate request (ie: they know enough about policy to know what would be appropriate), they would know enough to ask on this page or a clerk for help. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Please remember to restore move=sysop permanently every time; protects w/ expiration dates potentially leave pages vulnerable to attacks. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 09:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Although Thatcher seems to be on the money, I must say that I have seen some fairly good IP statements on proposed cases. That note may not be astray. Daniel 06:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Durova

Durova, you may want to discuss here instead of on the main page. I get from the instructions that we are not to get into discussions there and your responding to my statement invites continued back and forth discussion. My only question for you is what does this mean? "Per Justanother, alternative methods of resolution are not available." You are implying that I said what, exactly? --Justanother 04:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's customary at RFAR to respond to another editor's statement by appending one's own. The particular comment of yours that comment responded to is I should mention that I am not looking for any WP:DR vis-a-vis Durova for her actions. I'd already recommended DR repeatedly before opening this request. Unfortunately for this situation, user conduct WP:RFC would be difficult to pursue with this many editors and mediation requires the consent of all parties. Durova^Charge! 17:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Druova, that makes your method a self-fulfilling prophesy. You say it's too many people for an RfC, I disagree. I doubt that I would even be involved in an RfC on COFS. And, I don't see any reason for Justanother to be involved in an RfC on COFS either. My only reason for involvement was to try and stop the high speed railroading witch hunt that was out to HANG those people that have tried our patience long enough. The entire situation was based on multiple repeated usage of prior one-sided 'reports' of suspicion and innuendo. Anyone who looks at it fairly, will see that COFS does not have a horrible block log. COFS has 2 blocks for 3RR. The other blocks were for 'suspicion' and were unblocked. COFS has not been given a fair due-process. From what I can tell, COFS doesn't even edit all that much.

Jehochman clearly doesn't like those people (Scientologists). And, because your apprentice fast tracked it out of COIN, where it belonged, and into CSN where it didn't belong, and then because you two (reinforced by each other's posts) effectively tag-teamed COFS and ram rodded your own personal consensus, you forced me to be involved, in order to try to slow things down and to try to inject reason. But it was clearly too late, as you had already made up your mind. And, in the end, you 'declared' a non-existent 'consensus' for your ruling, and requested another admin on AN/I close the ticket and bless your decree. I don't think it was intentional, I think you just got caught up in your own personal views, the two of you reinforced each other, and it got out of control. (Note: your indef block of Bus stop, where numerous editors posted on your talkpage in surprise of your drastic measures. Bus stop may need a community ban, but he hasn't had proper WP:DR either. You took that from him.)

I believe that, as a team, either you or Jehochman should have recused yourselves from commenting. Based on your own remarks on your talkpage, you are clearly very proud of your 'personally trained wiki-sleuths'. It makes perfect sense that Jehochman would want to impress you with his tenacious attack. It also explains his attack on me (defending you) with his AN/I post, after I did everything he asked me to do. Whether or not you technically violated any wiki-rules or policy, or whether it technically qualified as anything like meat puppets, I don't know. But it certainly was a bit unethical from my perspective.

Smee and Anynobody have been a driving force against COFS for POV reasons, from the beginning. They continue to throw out the same 'sock puppet check' (because that is all they really have). And what they don't point out is that, during their 'witch hunt', an admin finally told them to knock off the fishing, when they finally went too far and added me to the list. Then you and Jehochman (presumably duped by the numerous 'reports') effectively team up with them and rammed this through. (Granted they did not arrive in this situation at the beginning, but they have been involved in the campaign from the beginning, and they have certainly jumped in and proudly displayed their socks check and argued for banning).

There isn't any evidence of misconduct that I saw presented. There is only evidence of reports of suspicion, filed time and again, for the most part by anti-Scientologists. If you honestly take time to read through it, taking yours and Jehochman's comments out, there is not a lot left. If you two were truly NEUTRAL, then why did you dominate the conversation? Why did Jehochman produce '2 fresh diffs' (25 hours old and 10 hours apart) to justify your views of warring? A neutral admin, with no 'adjenda', would have listened to the case being presented and then ruled. Jehochman steered it to the CSN, and then both you and Jehochman took very active roles in prosecuting the case. And THAT is why I got involved. There was no evidence of a neutral party. those people have tried our patience long enough.

What, exactly, is the question of the dispute?

1. COI? then it should have been on COIN. How strict a definition of COI are we going to apply to these articles? And, are we willing to apply it across the board evenly to both sides?
2. Disruption? There is no evidence of disruption.
3. POV? Scientology articles are full of pov editors on both sides.

I've said it twice before and I'll repeat it here: If we are going to take a bite of the apple, we better be prepared to eat the whole damned apple. The tension over the Scientology articles won't be resolved by banning the editors from either side, who aggressively remove POV, unless our goal is to allow the Scientology articles to be written POV.

And the really funny part about all this, if there is a funny part, is that I have unanswered concerns about COFS too. You called me a defender, which I find funny. Because not once have I defended a single action of COFS. My efforts have been to slow things down, get them into the correct venue, and make sure that we don't mis-convict someone. You concluded that means I am guilty of some unidentified off-line collusion, and then tied an apology to some action on my part to 'apologize to your apprentice'. And you accused me of being a long-term vandal with a new account, who will be 'discovered' by thorough investigation by your sleuths. (Simply because I voiced firm opposition to you?) Tag-team attack COFS, Tag-team defend each other.

Durova, we got off to a bad start, and for that I'm sorry. You have said this is a hobby for you, and you clearly enjoy the investigations and banning. But the people here are real. They are not simply a hobby. The views being expressed in these articles are real and they stir up very strong emotional and powerful feelings. Scientology is a religion. It isn't mine, but it is a religion. Some of the pro-Scientologists are fanatics, AND some of the anti-Scientologists are fanatics. Some aren't fanatics at all, but are simply here to defend their religion against attack and some are here to attack that religion (though they may not accept that it is a religion). When someone defends against a fanatic, their actions may seem extreme. Upon reflection, perhaps that's why my actions seemed extreme to you?

Personally, I believe you got a bit carried away here. I think you might want to consider taking a break from the CSN board, and reflect on what you want to contribute to wikipedia, and how that can and does impact real lives. Maybe even take a short break from 'training sleuths' and look at your motivation for doing it.

I don't know what the future will bring. But I do know that I hope it brings a peaceful resolution to this entire situation, so that we can return to writing articles. After all, that is the reason for wikipedia. Peace.Lsi john 18:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

(EC) OK on the "discussion" then. Durova, you misunderstand my comment, I fear. I said that I (as in me) was not looking for any help or WP:DR as regards your actions as they relate to you as an editor or as an admin. Meaning that I was not doing a "Bad Durova". I think you made an error and I "called" you on the error. That is it. I say you made an error, you likely feel that you did not. Had the close of the CSN incident just been the end of the inappropriate action against COFS then that would have been the end of my problem with your error; "no harm, no foul". Now I think that you are perpetuating your error. You no doubt feel that you are not. Again, if this Arb does not fly then "no harm, no foul". I would hope that by then, error or no error on your part, you move on. But I was not (and am not) looking to open WP:DR on what I perceive as an error. I AGFed that you were acting in good faith. I did not think that you were acting correctly but I assumed that you were acting in good faith. You misinterpreted my statement to mean that "alternative methods of resolution are not available" to you? To you, not to me? That you had no other means to take up some objection that you have with me? It must be with me because I have no say over what remedies are available as regards another and this case is about COFS, you don't need my blessing for anything about her. You know that. You could have opened a MedCab or started a User RfC or just taken the COI discussion back to COIN like I recommended time and again. So why are you concerned over something I said about my worries or lack of them? Why are you so quick to make my words so important that they motivate you to start an Arb over more appropriate remedies (wish that you had made my words more important a bit earlier.) Did you misinterprete my statement to justify your own ends, to justify you bringing this here instead of just letting it go (AGF well running a bit dry now). I suspect that this is not about COFS. I suspect that you are seeking vindication. Again, at the expense of COFS. --Justanother 18:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll add briefly *gasp* that I too think you were acting in Good Faith (as evidenced by the wiki-link in my above post). I think both of you made some bad-faith comments and decisions, but I believe overall you have good intentions.

I, too, after the CSN closed, had hoped the matter would be 'returned to a lower DR level', and was saddened to see you (a supposedly uninvolved admin) escalate the situation to Arbcom for resolution. Like Justanother, it seems to me that you brought this here for vindication. I would request that you please take time to reflect on that possibility, and if it has any ring of truth for you, consider withdrawing the Arbcom request. Peace.Lsi john 19:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

There are a few additional reasons why arbitration seems like the appropriate venue for this dispute. User conduct RFC is best suited to examine the conduct of one or two editors. Until I saw El C's closure I had considered possibly two RFCs: one on COFS and, if you prefer, one on myself. Yet that solution would be ill-suited for you to present evidence against anti-Scientology editors - and by that I mean users who edit Scientology articles, which to the best of my knowledge neither I nor Jechochman have done. Mediation is usually better at addressing multi-sided disputes, but it only works when all parties are willing and the only type of mediation (WP:CEM) that addresses disputes where policy issues dovetail with content disagreements does not handle multi-sided cases where sockpuppetry is an issue. Even if an exception were made, it seemed implausible that either of you would accept that venue because I founded CEM and its only other mediator besides myself is one of my admin coaching trainees.

Arbitration offers you several advantages. A good part of your argument hinges upon a dispute with the checkuser result on COFS: the Committee is better suited than I am to reexamine that (rank and file sysops generally trust the accuracy of such reports). Arbitration also offers you the chance to present solid evidence against anyone involved whom you think has acted inappropriately and if my list of involved parties is incomplete you may ask the clerk to expand it. The Committee also has a unique ability to implement article parole, which could help stabilize and improve things at Scientology. For an example of how that works see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education.

If part of your reticence to arbitrate involves concerns about prominent Google indexing, I understand. The Committee has occasionally accepted requests to hear cases confidentially via e-mail. You could ask for that here - I don't know whether the request would be granted, but I'd voice no objection. Also I'm willing to withdraw the request for arbitration if all three of you (Lsi john, Justanother, and COFS) enter WP:ADOPT and accept a one month community topic ban on COFS. Durova^Charge! 20:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea whom you are even talking to in most of that.

1. I have no desire to RfC you. I think you made some judgment errors, end of story. Only by pushing it are you compounding your errors. I've repeatedly told you that I have no desire to engage in any of these litigious processes. Twice now Ive been forced to. Once by Jehochman, and now again by you. Personally, I would be thrilled if you would simply reflect on the possibility that my observations are valid. Maybe I'm not 100% right. Maybe I'm only 10% right.. ... maybe?
2. I have no desire to RfC Anti-Scientology editors I've have more than sufficient cause to file complaints against Smee if that had been my goal or desire. I suspect I have enough so called 'evidence' to have Smee removed from wikipedia, so? There are plenty of people I could ask for help.. even you.. if thats where I wanted to go. I don't want to go that route.
3. I have no desire to RfC Pro-Scientology editors. (Seeing a pattern here?) I'm quite capable of doing research, finding diffs and establishing patterns... so? that won't resolve anything at all. The only people who would really care, would be those who have an interest in adminship. The rest would simply find proxies, and come back as new users, and begin again. You think it must be resolved by force, I think it can be resolve by some level of cooperation. And, at least the way it is now, we know who is who... sort of.
   If I wanted to pursue DR attacks on people, this would have been the perfect opportunity to try to jump past all the normal WP:DR and go after Smee. But that would not have been appropriate. Smee may be a pov-spa account, but even Smee deserves due-process.
4. If you haven't edited Scientology articles, and I have edited virtually no Scientology articles, and to my knowledge we have not edited any other articles together, why do you keep suggesting that we should be in mediation with/against each other? Do we have a problem that I'm unaware of? I've expressed my concerns about you (above). Either you accept them, or you 'consider the possibility' that some of it may have validity, or you dismiss my objections completely. IMO the first two would be mature responses, the last would not, as even the second leaves the possibility for rejection 'after consideration'. Either way, once the COFS arb situation is resolved, we go our separate ways, no harm done (presumably). I certainly have no desire to waste time filing RfC's against you. I don't even know you. I don't have much respect for the way you and Jehochman have handled this situation, but that certainly isn't sufficient for an RfC.
5. Assuming I would reject WP:CEM simply because you helped found it.. is.. well..it is what it is. And it shows that you know nothing about me at all. Actually, no offense, but you are giving yourself too much importance in my decision making.
6. Arbitration doesn't offer me any advantages here. I'm not here to defend COFS. I'm here to make sure the process isn't hijacked (even in good-faith). And I'm here to make sure someone doesn't get lynched. How many times do I have to say that before you hear it? I have questions about COFS, but they certainly don't need to be answered here, at least not yet.
7. socks check: The IP that I saw in some post for COFS, was a Scientology address. Reportedly it is a church proxy. If so, then there is no way to know how many users are editing from that location. And there is no way to know which ones are socks of each other. Unless you have administrative access to the network, you can only 'guess' and 'ponder' whether two people are really one. And that pretty much craps all over the AGF guideline.
   So moving along, have there been any documented violations of abuse from that proxy address? Has COFS been involved in vote stacking? Has COFS made any edits which are clearly violations of a policy and not just subjective opinion? If not.. move along.. nothing to see here.. these are not the droids you are looking for..let them pass... (from starwars).
8. Google indexing - I'm lost. What is google indexing and how does it apply to COFS / COI / SOCKS? If it applies to anything else, then it is not relevant here.

Durova, judging by the number of times you've tried to get me to pursue litigation here, you clearly enjoy being involved in the litigation process, and bless you for your contributions. Truly. And, what I experience from you is someone who got a bit overzealous and got caught up in the excitement of 'fresh meat' and the two of you fed off of each other with 'similar' posts, and the situation escalated out of control. I think you did it in good faith, but even good faith efforts can go badly.

This case shouldn't be here. It should be in an RfC. COFS could even open one on him/her self. Opponents of COFS could have done this all by themselves. You did not need to open this arbcom. You were not involved. So, I suggest that you ask yourself, WHY you felt it was necessary for YOU to open this by YOURSELF? I truly believe if you honestly reflect on that question, you will see the situation as others here see it is. Q:Why was Durova the only/best person who could bring a successful conclusion to this situation by opening an arbcom?

As for me going into a mentor program, I perceive that as your hobby again. You appear to attached 'mentorship' onto almost every situation I've seen in the past week. It seems to be another pet project of yours. Never mind that none of this is about me, though you have tried to make it about me. There is nothing that has established a need for my entering a mentor program. Note that I'm not rejecting a mentor, I'm rejecting that you have any grounds to propose it to me.

Your bias clearly shows, when you did not include Smee or Anynobody in the mentorship offer, even though you have seen significant information to suggest their need for it, (eg: Smee's 7 blocks for disruptive editing).

I'll tell you what... If you want to make this about you and me I'll make you a counter-offer: I'll enter a mentor program, if you take a wiki-break from all AN, AN/I and CSN conversations, from training admins, and from participating in significant decisions about blocks and bans for 3 months. Whether or not you leave the COFS at arbcom is irrelevant to that offer, and you don't even have to establish any grounds for me to get a mentor.

No hard feelings here. I still say, lets go edit articles. Peace.Lsi john 21:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

We have a good chance to clear up the issue of COFS' status once and for all. Is COFS, by virtue of using the CoS for Internet access too close to edit those articles? I don't see any need for bans or blocks to resolve this question. All COFS has to do is come here, and agree to accept the arbitrator's decision. Likewise, John, I hope that you will learn more about Wikipedia, because, please don't take this the wrong way, you are a bit of a loose canon. You have tremendous energy and potential. If you would learn more about how this incredibly complex system works, you could be a great asset. Being an admin trainee is essentially the same thing as joining WP:ADOPT in my opinion. Getting a mentor who will teach you is a good thing. Why not if you have the opportunity? Learning is good! I agree with you completely that we should work on creating good and featured articles. As soon as we stop the Scientology edit wars, that article could become a featured article and end up on the home page of Wikipedia. (An article I worked on will run on the home page Monday.) This would be a good thing for the Scientologists, I think. I have nothing against them whatsoever. If you look at my interactions with Keith Henson, you'll see that I opposed anti-Scientologist abuses there. Jehochman ^Talk 22:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment. A Very Very Ironically interesting choice of words on the loose cannon claim, as I used that exact term to describe someone yesterday and again today (Whom I described is the ironic part). It's also ironic that a friend recently told me how much of a mirror I am to others.

My friend, likewise, hopefully you won't take this the wrong way, your edit statistics (much like Durovas) indicate that you are here to work the 'boards' more than improve mainspace articles. And if that is the result of the 'mentorship' programs, then, unless Durova accepts my counter-proposal to take a 3 month wikibreak from her hobby and stay in mainspace, I'll pass on the Mentorship offer for now. I'm not an 'edit-count' guy. But I am a statistics guy.. its not how much, but where and what percentage. Perhaps a way to distinguish us, is that I edit in the trenches and try to prevent your 'boards' from ever seeing the problem. If I (and others like me) are successful, you'll be bored and end up back in mainspace. You've only seen one very small aspect of me, and unfortunately it seems you've jumped to a decision and a conclusion about my need for mentorship (and possibly done some research to prove your conclusion), which is not generally a good thing to do. (Durova certainly seems to have done that, as evidenced by her clear misinterpretation of a talkpage comment I posted). I, on the other hand, AGF that you are simply an over-enthusiastic apprentice with good intentions that needs a little more time to grow and mellow out. Your barcode and wi-fi articles are interesting, as I use both of those daily. Perhaps we'll meet in mainspace some day after all. Peace.Lsi john 23:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, though I'm probably twice your age, I suspect that we're more alike than you may realize, which may account for your attitude toward me. Peace.Lsi john 23:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I am approximately 40. My picture, though current, makes me look young. My attitude? I generally empathise with you, though occasionally we butt heads. Jehochman ^Talk 02:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I would be be willing to enter WP:ADOPT. Whom do you think I should adopt? I have informally adopted a few editors already. --Justanother 21:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and Durova, if you are truly interested in having this Arb be against "anti-Scientology editors" and you have some evidence to bring then perhaps you should continue. And I may have something I can contribute. Though, again, I do not see much in the way of WP:DR leading to this point and, overall, things have been pretty quiet over at the Scientology series articles lately since Smee backed away from them. --Justanother 22:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If you would like more advanced training, consider the admin coaching program instead. Jehochman ^Talk 22:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I am one of those "don't wanna be an admin" guys. --Justanother 22:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Justanother, I think Durova is assuming you have evidence to present. Anynobody 05:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

But I am not the one asking for this action so that does not make sense to me. And since Smee has stopped her WP:TE and the Scientology articles are pretty quiet with both sides working together fairly well then what would we be looking to accomplish? I am not looking to "punish" Smee for her past indiscretions nor would such punishment occur. So long as Smee steers clear of the topics that are problematic for her (or rather for which her involvement is problematic for others and for the project as a whole) then the purpose of an arb is already accomplished; Wikipedia "justice" being, I assume, similar to Scientology justice with justice actions only aimed at changing the inappropriate behavior and as soon as that behaviour is stopped then the justice is stopped. --Justanother 11:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well said. Punishment and revenge are completely different animals. As long as the inappropriate behavior has stopped, there is no point to punishing anyone. And, I have no interest in revenge, as retaliation is contraindicated with my philosophy of life.

Justanother, I believe thats the second (or third) time I've seen a similar reference to Scientology. Are you suggesting that wikipedia and Scientology are similar? Peace.Lsi john 12:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I have moved my response to the off-topic subject of similarities between Wikipedia and Scientology to my talk page. --Justanother 14:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no concept of punishment in Wikipedia. Anything that's done is for preventative reasons. Keep in mind that just because people behave for a few days or weeks, doesn't automaticaclly mean that precautions against future disruption aren't necessary, but of course, any demonstration of civility and self-control is a very good first step. Jehochman ^Hablar 14:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

A good deal of this thread should probably be at our talk pages instead of here at RFAR, but I thank both Lsi john and Justanother for offering to enter mentorship. I recommend it often because WP:ADOPT is a very good program. If COFS agrees also I'll withdraw the request. And to speak to Lsi john's concerns, I opened this request with the expectation that the Committee would examine the behavior of all parties, including myself. I understand that this is a multifaceted dispute. Durova^Charge! 16:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

All due respect, Durova, but are you and I speaking the same language? I cannot recall ever having my words here misinterpreted so consistently. If I say "up" are you now going to respond "Now that Justanother agrees with my assessment that it is down"? I find your consistent misinterpretation worrisome since you would apparently like to set yourself up as the (mostly sole) dispenser of the most extreme sanction this society imposes; the community ban. If that is the level of your ability to understand another's position then I really, truly, think that you should limit your involvement in your "hobby" to research and presenting your findings to others that are more suited to negotiation. --Justanother 17:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Durova, I am equally encouraged by your williness to refrain from admin duties, and stick to mainspace edits, for three months. In all honesty, I had not expected you to even consider the proposal, let alone accept it. Though I was sincere in its offer. It appears I may have misjudged you. Peace.Lsi john 17:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If I misread that part of your statement I apologize. The arbitration request can go forward where you can certainly propose desysopping if you think it's merited. Also see Category:Wikipedian administrators open to recall. Until the Committee or the community say otherwise, I'll continue to interpret this as sufficient endorsement of my actions. Please take further non-arbitration comments to user space. Durova^Charge! 18:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. --Justanother 18:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Justanother whether you asked for this action or not, here is your chance to prove your often repeated accusation of anti-Scientology bias. Because editing has slowed down around Scientology articles does not mean it won't start again at any time. I personally believe you have been and still are confusing the POV of the editors with the POV of available WP:RS, WP:V sources. Anynobody 00:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that "editing has slowed down", I said "the Scientology articles are pretty quiet with both sides working together fairly well". Quiet, meaning less noise, more people working together and talking things out instead of blindly reverting one another. I put that down mainly to the absence of one editor and it ain't COFS. And to a lesser degree to the absence of a couple more editors . . . and they ain't COFS. I edited a bit today over at Scientology and it was almost pleasurable, not like the medieval dentistry it has been in the past with other personnel there. But they ain't there now and there is nothing to address at this arb level. If that changes in the future I am perfectly capable, etc. Sorry, AN. If you have something to address then you bring something. Please quit trying to make a massive amount of unnecessary work for me. I got better things to do. --Justanother 02:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite bans (moved from clerk notes section of Pigsonthewing request)

ArbCom cannot ban editors indefinitely. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 00:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

. —freak(talk) 00:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This statement has been made by various arbitrators who have indicated that either as a limitation on the authority originally delegated by Jimbo and/or as a matter of policy, the Arbitration Committee will not issue a ban of more than one year's duration. (Notwithstanding, they have actually done so in a couple of cases). Compare colloquy here (where it was I who asked the question). Newyorkbrad 02:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Free Republic, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist, the ArbCom have either endorsed an indefinite community ban, or banned someone indefinitely right off their own bat. Moreoever, in this case, the editor in question has already been banned for a year. Moreschi ^Talk 07:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Except very limited circumstances, ArbCom has never outright banned anyone indefinitely on its own. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 17:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the only times they've indefinitely banned have been where sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry has been clear. Endorsing an indefinite ban is not the same as prescribing one. Ral315 » 18:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Almost true but not quite 100— a couple of exceptions are cited above. Newyorkbrad 14:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

MONGO appears that PrivateEditor = Rootology, Free Republic merely endorses a ban made by the community, and ScienceApologist appears to apply to a user with two accounts. Is this not the case, or are there actually cases where non-puppetry indefs have been enacted by ArbCom? Ral315 » 06:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Fred Bauder proposed to ban Private Editor indefinitely in the MONGO case well before adding a finding of fact that he was the same editor as Rootology. I think the real common element in the few decisions that imposed indefinite bans is that JamesF, the leading proponent of the view that ArbCom lacks power to ban for more than a year, was on wikibreak. Newyorkbrad 14:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

This is correct; sometimes my colleagues on the Committee forget some of the guiding principles of Arbitration. James F. (talk) 10:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Now, that is a little bit unfair to your colleagues, James. Not everyone's been arbitrating since the committee started 3-plus years ago. This "guiding principle of arbitration" doesn't seem to be written down anywhere that's been cited in this or the prior conversation. Until you mentioned it a few weeks ago, I'd never heard it articulated, and I've been following these pages as closely as anyone for a year now. If a one-year limit should be respected, that case can be made, but I don't think the other arbs should be faulted for overlooking a "guiding principle": it's not like they are commanding the the offending editors be hit on the head with sticks or something.... Newyorkbrad 12:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Either way, I will point out that the only good ban is the indefinite one. Everything else just makes the situation worse, provided the user has sufficient patience to last for a year without obvious sockpuppetry (rare, I admit). If the ArbCom won't indefinitely ban, who will? Moreschi ^Talk 12:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The community can indefinitely ban, of course, and ArbCom will sometimes endorse community bans. But under the Arbitration Policy,long practice, bans imposed directly by ArbCom are limited to a year. Thatcher131 13:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't seem to be in the official policy but it is how ArbCom has handled things for a long time. Thatcher131 13:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so, but the Arbitration Committe have handed out indefinite bans before, and I do not understand why they would limit their right to do so. Moreschi ^Talk 13:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I recall a comment from either Kat or Rebecca to the effect that everyone should have the possibility of reform and it is not ArbCom's role to decide that someone is irredeemable. In most cases, banned users sockpuppet so much that their bans get extended over and over again until someone makes it indefinite. JamesF seems to be the main proponent of this theory at the moment, maybe the cases that passed an indef ban were ones where he was inactive? Of course, there are usually 10-12 active Arbitrators on any given case so 6-7 votes for an indefinite ban would override any historical objections. Or you could run for ArbCom yourself. :) Thatcher131 13:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom? Me? The day I do that you can take me off to Broadmoor: I have no wish to clear up the emotional urine of others :)

My point is that right now we have this case, where a user was banned for a year, did not sockpuppet (or he wasn't caught), came back from the ban, and has since continued to disrupt (or so I, and others, assert). Quite what should be done here, I don't know. Nor is it for me to decide, but this is a case where a year-long ban has proved ineffective. BTW, I would consider it completely the case that some people are not possible to reform (usually the nationalist trolls, but that's a different argument). Moreschi ^Talk 13:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that a maximum of a year ban is proportionate for clearly and persistently disruptive users and fair to others (incl. me) who were indef topic banned without doing much wrong. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2/Proposed_decision#Proposals_to_ban_Andries_for_responsible_editingAndries 21:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Formatting Change

In the Workshop, comments on proposals are broken up in a very odd way. First the list arbitrators are listed, then the involved parties, and then everyone else. If all anyone did was comment on what they thought of the proposal and move onto the next, it would be fine. The problem is that no-one uses the workshop that way. People talk to each other. People DEBATE with one another. This leads to very difficult-to-read workshops as various groups of people go back and forth across three different locations. I understand why ArbCom doesn't allow replying to another party in another party's evidence section, but is there any reason for the current workshop format? Chris Croy 19:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The workshop page is intended for comments about the proposals not back forth discussion. Each case workshop page has a talk page for discussion. I encourage users to start threads there instead of having back and forth discussion on the workshop pages. FloNight 19:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I have sometimes seen a comment by one person lead to a comment by someone else, that eventually leads to a new principle or a change of approach by an Arbitrator, but I have never seen a productive outcome from an extended conversation. We clerks could probably be more aggressive about moving actual conversations to the talk page. Thatcher131 20:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Instead of using a bare bones template...

...why not design case pages with each request, even for rejected ones? Archives would still be easy to handle, and yet it would put a little less strain on the clerks for having to create a case page when a request gets accepted. Diez2 04:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• I've been wondering about the same question for quite a while. I always assumed that ArbCom had a reason of some sort, given how annoying the current structure is. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I know that Thatcher131 has tried to make the request template easier for newcomers to the arbitration page to handle. One virtue of the current system is that all pending requests are on one page for arbitrators to scroll through, instead of on separate pages, though I suppose a transclusion system as at RfCU or RfA could be used. If the transclusion method were used though, we (clerks) would still need to set up a casepage for each newly opened case, as the long "proposed decision" portion would not be part of the request page format (unless it were included but commented out). As for rejected cases, the idea of having an archive for rejected requests (as opposed to just a listing of them) was shot down the last time it was raised here (I think by me) on the ground that many rejected requests are frivolous and contain personal attacks and shouldn't be kept around. On balance, the format should be whatever is most convenient for the parties and the arbitrators. I'd welcome input from those who were around when this was all set up as to the thinking behind the current template system. Newyorkbrad 14:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I suspect we could design a transclusion system but the idea that it would be less work for the clerks is not borne out by my experience when RFCU went to a transclusion system. (Among other things, fixing and listing botched transclusions, the page contents would still have to be shuffled between the main and talk page as appropriate, and the workshop, evidence and proposed decision pages would need to be created.) Keeping an archive of rejected cases suffers from the problems cited by Brad, plus the fact that some people seem to get cases brought against them over and over that are never accepted, creating a naming problem. On the other hand, deleting the subpages of rejected requests would make them even less accessible than they are now. Ultimately, if ArbCom tells us to "make it so" we will. Thatcher131 16:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Plus right now there is only one page to watchlist to see what's going on. All the Arbitrators and clerks would have to watchlist every new case subpage, even though fewer than half of filed requests get accepted. Thatcher131 16:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I do wish there was a one-click "put all the relevant pages on my watchlist". --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Nope, you have to do it the long way, and you can't even ask the clerks to help. :) Newyorkbrad 12:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
            • I've got a way to do it in 8 mouse clicks rather than 12, but I don't think its worth the effort. You could ask the devs for cascading watchlists... Thatcher131 20:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
              • I have an idea. We could place links to watchlist all four case pages, main, evidence, workshop, and proposed decision, on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Template. While it would still take a click to get there and four clicks to watchlist everything, all the necessary links would be lined up next to eachother, and page loading to get the watchlist tab would not be necessary. I'll add this now function now. Picaroon (Talk) 00:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
                • There we go. Five clicks (one to get to the case page, and one for each of the four links) will now watchlist all five pages for you. With thanks to CBM for technical help. Picaroon (Talk) 00:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
                  • That's what I had in mind but it's still 8 clicks (you have to hit the "back" button each time). Thatcher131 01:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
                    • Not any more.... The devs improved "watch this page" about a week ago so that the notice that the page has been added to one's watchlist now appears on the top of that page rather than a separate page. Try it. :) Newyorkbrad 02:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

My Edit of 08:32, 9 July 2007 UTC (diff)

PierreLarcin overwrote case David Laibman with his own new case (case Rotary International) (diff). Given the edit summary I surmised this was unintentional, and so restored case David Laibman as it was immediately prior to Pierres' edit, while leaving Pierres' new case in. I also updated the Arbitrator's opinions and date/time opening stamp on Pierres' new case, as they had been carried over from case Davie Laibman and were thus not relevant to the new case. I hope this is satisfactory; if not, I await blasting on my talk page :-) — digitaleon • talk @ 08:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I double-checked it and it looks fine. Thanks! Thatcher131 10:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not see the separation line between cases and the way to open a new one.

Oops, I apologize for adding work. PierreLarcin 84.102.229.154 19:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Cascading protection

I think it's a really good idea for someone to turn cascading move protection on all pages so that only admins can move them around. hbdragon88 00:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

What pages are transcluded on here that are pagemove vandal targets? The header subpage, the how-to page, and some templates seem to be it. Or do you mean something else? Picaroon (Talk) 00:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking all arbitration cases. Is that possible? I guess they're not high-profile enough. hbdragon88 00:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Knock on wood, this hasn't been necessary. If there is a problem in the future, it will be dealt with, but see WP:BEANS. Also, I think you may have been referring more to conventional move-protection, rather than cascading protection. Newyorkbrad 20:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration statistics

People interested in the arbitration process might find a page I created interesting. See User:Picaroon/Stats. I've already caught a few errors, so while it is mostly accurate, don't take the numbers as absolutely authoritative. I'll continue updating it, hopefully. Picaroon (Talk) 02:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Rotary International

I see User:Rotary International has been added as a party to the RFAR for Rotary International, but there is no such user. Perhaps it's a joke or a WP:POINT? Does anyone want to check that? AndyJones 12:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I suspect it is a good faith mistake, perhaps using {{tl|userlinks|| instead of {{la}}; however, it appears it will be moot in 2 days. Thatcher131 12:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so sure Thatcher31. I suspect PierreLarcin considers that the Rotary as a whole (i.e. Rotarians contributing in WP) is a stakeholder here. But I may be wrong and the best to do is wait for his answer.--Bombastus 12:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Warning to Requesters

Don't expect a whole lot from the administrator in a case. I mistakenly thought the admin would check the articles and in a minute or two spot the problem with our near-vandal that has been plaguing the three of us editors for a couple of weeks. No dice. The admin who looked at our case decided I hadn't gone into enough detail about how many times I had tried to contact this guy (it was dozens) with no answer whatever until the arbtitration. Since he knows he will be kicked off if he loses, he replied to the only one that counts, which wasn't the three editors who have been trying to get answers out of him these past few weeks. So forget what they say about "not being too long." They are looking for details about trying to communicate. I assume they don't want details about the difference of opinion but I won't really be sure until our complaint gets rejected again, I guess. Student7 21:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you may be confusing the "administrators" with the "arbitrators." When there is a problem with inappropriate editing conduct (as opposed to a content dispute), which is not resolved by interacting directly with that editor, you can bring the matter to the attention of administrators such as by posting a report on the administrators' noticeboard. This is not a stage in the dispute resolution process, per se, but it is how immediate user-conduct issues can be addressed. Filing a user-conduct request for comment concerning an editor's conduct represents another alternative. For article-content disputes, there are other procedures that can be used. There are also mediation alternatives, all of which are discussed at the dispute resolution page. Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process, although ultimately which cases to take is a decision for the arbitrators. Please also note that if a case is rejected because earlier steps in the dispute resolution process have not yet been tried, it can be brought back here later on if those steps than are tried and are unsuccessful. I hope this is helpful. Regards, Newyorkbrad 21:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your measured words of reason. I did not truly appreciate the difference between an admin and an arb. I was concerned that I was dismissed by the arb a bit too quickly. We've been getting shot at here in the trenches for a while now on two articles and I found it hard to take when the arb seemed overly concerned with "form" and "procudure" without really being very much help. In the meantime, one of the other editors who did dot all his eyes, submitted it "properly," did finally get someone's attention, so we may now have a promise of some sort of logical process. We will see. Student7 01:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Change to wording of Proposed decision template re number of arbitrators and recusals

I have made a change in the wording of the sentence on the /Proposed decision template which sets forth the number of arbitrators and majority. A complete explanation is here and comments would be welcome. Newyorkbrad 00:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you fix the capitalization as well? It should be arbitrators, not Arbitrators, which not only seems a tad bit self-aggrandizing, but is incorrect according to WP:MOSCL. 166.166.107.172 04:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a style preference consistently expressed by one of the a/Arbitrators, which as a mere c/Clerk i/I don't feel empowered to override. Newyorkbrad 07:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Look at the behavior of all involved parties

I think that it is important to remind all involved users that their past and ongoing conduct likely will be examined by the Committee as it relates to an arbitration case. Sometimes editors are surprised to find themselves named as parties later in a case. We do not limit ourselves to only examining the party originally named in the dispute by one side. Remember that once a case is opened we will look for all serious user conduct issues. Take care, FloNight 15:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, a more accurate statement would be that usually the Arb Comm does so. You collectively explicitly choose not to do this recently, and as a result produced one of your worst decisions in recent memory, and one that is better forgotten than remembered. GRBerry 13:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

May I edit your evidence template, arbs?

Crossposted to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Template/Evidence.

Hi. I've written a couple of tutorials on how to produce diffs and permanent links, and have gotten good feedback about their usefulness. My impetus was the utter practical uselessness, (though perhaps philosophical interest) of help:diff, which is usually linked to when newbies ask how to produce diffs. I don't understand above one word in ten in it, so how's a newbie supposed to?

Also, help:diff is only about diffs, whereas it's sometimes a lot more convenient to link one's evidence to a short section on a talkpage or on ANI. If those section links aren't done right, they'll go dead as soon as the page is archived. In the case of ANI, that means after a day or two. I noticed yesterday that one user went into his evidence section in the COFS case and effortfully changed all his section links to point to the archive into which they had just disappeared. I mentioned the tutorials to him, and he said he had been trying unsuccessfully to find that kind of information when he compiled his evidence. So, what do you say, arbitrators, would you like me to mention this simple tutorial and/or this really, really simple tutorial at, say, the top of the evidence template? I've discussed it with NYBrad, and he seemed to think it would be helpful. Changing the relevant paragraph to something like this is what I have in mind:

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are not sufficient. Never link to a page history or an editor's contributions, as those will probably have changed by the time people click on your links to view them. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See diff and link tutorial.

Bishonen | talk 23:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC).

Sounds good & useful to me at least. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Mackensen (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Not an arbitrator, but I like these explanations very much. I remember asking at the help desk once how to link to a diff, after not having been able to find a good explanation anywhere else, and I will redfacedly admit that I wasn't familiar with the "permanent link" feature until I read this tutorial yesterday. Newyorkbrad 23:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I think the template actually belongs to the clerks, though. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes of course. Errr ... what brilliant tutorials! Ummm ... are they by Bishzilla?! (Psss ... she's got a flaming mouth pointed at my head!) Paul August ☎ 16:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it looks very good and helpful! :) Cbrown1023 talk 23:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Pointless non-clerk non-Arbitrator snowball support...? Daniel 00:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. I know you're only being so nice because you're scared of Bishzilla, but I've gone ahead and edited the template. Bishonen | talk 08:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC).

Arbitrators who become inactive mid-case

When Essjay retired in March, there was discussion about whether votes he'd cast in cases prior to that should stand (see here for example). To quote Doc Glasgow's comment there:

I'd call as a matter of equity that Essjay's votes be struck and the majorities adjusted. That's simply for reasons of fairness and process and not because of what's happened with Essjay. The arbitration process isn't simply a case of arbs putting their crosses on the ballot paper in hard ink, but until the time of its closure it is an ongoing discussion. New evidence or argument may be presented at any time - and arbs weigh that up and may change their opinions (several have already done so in this case). By resignation, Essjay's votes have become fossilised - he cannot participate in that debate - he cannot be influenced by subsequent arguments from the community or his peers. He is no longer exercising judgement in this case, thus he cannot be counted as an active judge.--Doc^g 17:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That argument is persuasive and Essjay's votes where removed from the vote totals by Paul August. The thought occurs to me as to whether this should also apply where an Arbitrator becomes inactive during a case. The logic is the same- they will not be alive to further arguments that may be presented or shifts in the positions of other Arbitrators. Evidence may be presented at any time after the proposed decision is first created, and Arbitrators appear to pay attention to Community reactions to those proposed decisions. Should the inactive Arb return before the close of the case there is no issue, but given that the closing times of cases are unpredictable that will not always be the case.

I was wondering if there were any thought from others (and especially members of ArbCom) as to whether it should be come standard practice to indent and discount the votes of Arbs who become inactive during a case as well as those who leave the Committee? WjBscribe 15:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, keep in mind that "Inactive", when applied to members of ArbCom, merely means that they have not edited a case page in the recent past, not necessarily that they're unavailable or away. Kirill 16:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have said when Arbitrators put themselves to "Away" - that seems an indication that even if they continue to edit Wikipedia, they are not going to be acting as an Arbitrator for a period of time. WjBscribe 17:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No, because each of the arbitrators works with our fine clerks to figure this out each time we are away. We each handle it differently. Also depends on how long we are going to be away and how many open cases we voted in. There should be no one way to handle this issue. FloNight 18:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Content dispute?

I'm slightly surprised that the ArbCom thinks that the "Allegations of apartheid" case is a pure content dispute. Many editors have said that it's an issue of disruption, creating articles that the creators don't think should exist in the encyclopedia, etc. Plenty of diffs have been provided, and there's at least one blunt statement that the other articles were indeed created with disruption in mind, not for their content. I'm not sure how that adds up to a content dispute. Zocky | picture popups 03:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Unlike many who have discussed this subject, I think that you correctly identify the issue in the arbitration request, that is whether what has occurred is "disruption." Some editors think it is, some don't. I don't. (I do think that the flurry of AfD's and merge tags, which is still going on, combined with some of the language used in some of the AfD nominations, is somewhat disruptive, but that's not what the request was about.) Some people (including me) do want consistency, and there is no rule that says we cannot seek it, in a non-disruptive manner. 6SJ7 04:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This is likely off topic here, but anything that may increase understanding is probably helpful, so here goes: Everybody wants consistency. The people who think this is disruptive simply don't agree that having the same kind of article about widely publicized allegations by well known people on one side, and the widespread off-hand use of the term on the other is consistent. That's where the content dispute is, and that's really not a problem for the ArbCom.

The issue that the ArbCom should be dealing with is that while people disagree on whether there should be an article about allegations of apartheid in and by Israel, both sides seem to agree that the other articles shouldn't exist, but one side is arguing for them to be kept in AFDs. Zocky | picture popups 04:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. And please note, the content dispute isn't about whether apartheid exists in Israel or any other country. It's about whether encyclopedia-worthy allegations of apartheid in those countries exist. Zocky | picture popups 04:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks

I have done a general updating and copyediting of the above page. Review and comments very welcome. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 21:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel badly disenfranchised

Strike 1 for the Wikipedia cabal, 0 for the little guys. I feel totally sick at the way the Abu badali arbcom went and I want you to know that this process is totally pointless for any "joe blogs" Wikipedian who has been harassed and wronged by another editor. All that happens is that all his friends gang up, claim the guy is the best thing since sliced bread and let him off with a quick slap on the wrist. All the while those who had the problem in the first place feel like they are being ignored and then get the attention turned on themselves and their own edits. Until ArbCom cases are done by people who have had no major prior contact with the parties concerned, this process is going to be a corrupt farce. This from Howcheng was the most disgusting thing I have ever seen on here. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 21:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can recall I've never had any prior contact with Abu badali. Paul August ☎ 21:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that everyone did, but that there were enoguh there to swing the balance. I may be totally wrong, but I got the distinct impression that there was bias towards Abu badali through the whole process. I'm going to leave it there, because this has me steamy, but I just felt that I wanted to make this feeling clear. I don't usually get teary over anything internet-related, but Abu badali's actions and then the resulting Arbitration actually had me in tears because I felt so harassed and put upon (in the first instance) and frustrated (by the Arbitration). And then these guys start to blame me? PageantUpdater talk • contribs 21:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd be surprised if any of the other ArbCom members had "major prior contact" with him either. I see no evidence for the claim that any of the arbiters who participated in the case behaved in any way inappropriately. I am sorry you feel frustrated by Abu badali's actions and the result of the arbitration. It is next to impossible to resolve a case in a way which satisfies everyone. In fact we often satisfy no one. That's the nature of the beast. Paul August ☎ 22:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

By major prior contact I mean... talk page communications, backing him up on IFDs etc. It wouldn't have been so bad if I felt I was being listened to. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 22:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You are being listened too, but I'm afraid you're seeing a conspiracy where there isn't one. If any of the committee members felt that they would be partial or biased arbitrators, then they would have recused from the case per the arbitration policy. It you'd like to show specific instances of prior contact with Abu badali in image related fora, feel free, but until then you aren't going to see much recognition of your allegation. Picaroon (t) 02:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It's also a little bit late to raise this issue, even if it were to have any substance. There's only a limited number of arbitrators, so anyone is free to look over the list and raise any concerns they have about a particular arbitrator sitting on their case. (Such concerns are usually unjustified, but "usually" doesn't mean "never.") A suggestion of recusal made after the case is over is too late to do any good. Newyorkbrad 02:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I can't be bothered fighting any more. I just have to accept that this place isn't perfect and get over it. Doesn't mean I have to be happy, doesn't mean I believe this was fair, but it's clear I'm just going to have to give in. I've had enough. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 03:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

(Disclosure: I am not an admin. I have never communicated with either PageantUpdater or Abu badali. Of the admins involved in this Arb case, I have communicated once with Mackensen on an unrelated issue.)

Having read the above complaint, checked out the talk pages of both parties and read over the Arb decision I don't feel that PageantUpdater has good cause to complain that the Arb was biased. Of the three proposed remedies, the first two finished with a vote of 3-4 against and 3-3 respectively, while the final remedy was unanimous. This alone disproves the notion that "his friends gang up, claim the guy is the best thing since sliced bread and let him off with a quick slap on the wrist". There was clearly a genuine discussion going on here, with a genuine result. I feel that PageantUpdater, having "lost" this case, is simply looking for a way to rubbish the result rather than accept that the case proceeded just as an Arb case should.

Imo, the right result was reached in this case and I think it will be a great shame if PageantUpdater chooses to conclude from this process that Wikipedia is, as the editor's user page puts it, "going down the drain". -- Hux 15:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The issue isn't a cabal. The only cabal type behavior I've seen on Wikipedia is completely irrelevant to this case. But from what I've seen, I get the feeling that Arbcom avoided an actual sanction because more than a symbolic resolution would "embolden the enemy bad image users". That is very scary. -Amarkov moo! 00:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Why don't you guys put requests for clarification on to it's own subpage and transclude it in? The logic behind this is A. less edits to the main page, and B. if someone wants to reference a previous clarification discussion, it would be a lot easier to find the diffs without having to wade through the edits to the requests section. Kwsn^(Ni!) 22:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

When a request for clarification is resolved, if anything substantive was addressed or resolved, we now generally archive the discussion to the talkpage of the original case it relates to, so you should be able to find it without hunting through diffs. Newyorkbrad 22:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom & Mentoring

Hello all,

WP:ADOPT and Wikipedia:Mentoring are currently undergoing a merge and overhaul. Part of this includes splitting the disciplinary variant of mentoring off from the voluntary process.

The disciplinary version has not been used for some time. If there are plans to use it in the future, or to keep it, could an actual name be provided by the ArbCom?

Have a nice day,

The Rhymesmith 01:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Just worth to note, I am currently writing the pilot page for the Involuntary Adoption page, which unfortunately will most likely not get a nicer name. It's not done yet, and it won't be nearly that informal when it's completed. Either way, it can be found here. Just for the record Thank you for your time. --HAL2008talk 01:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Ouch — not "Involuntary adoption," surely! It sounds like some kind of tic. "Involuntary twitching". How about Mandated adoption? Mandatory? Compulsory? Required? Binding? Bishonen | talk 09:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC).

We already have a term for the concept of "involuntary adoption". It is called a "parole officer". --Ideogram 01:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Rather than the Adopter-Adoptee terminology (which insinuates a parent-child relationship), I would suggest sticking with Mentor-Protégé , which suggests a Teacher-Student relation instead - with the expectation that the "student" will develop into a colleague after gaining some guidance and experience. (Also the accents in protégé make it sound cool)

As for Arbcom enforced mentorship, we can use the terms "Prescribed mentorship" or "Mandatory mentorship". Abecedare 09:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good. Unfortunately at 2 in the morning... eh, who am I kidding... I'm awful at naming things all the time. Anyway, I think "Mandated Adoption" sounds pretty good, but it'll probably change about 20 times in the next few days as everyone comes up with new ideas anyway. --HAL2008talk 09:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Or Directed Adoption'? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That also sounds good. Though I think Mandated adoption sounds good at this point. I'm trying to figure out exactly how it will work. I'm just writing as I go along, so most of the proposed procedures will be on the page above (here). I'm thinking that the adoption should be a combination of standard adoption (how to Wikipedia... if that's a verb now) and be combined with a "parole officer" kind of position, so the adopter is not just teaching, but also making sure that their protege (due to laziness, I am omiting the accents) behaves, and that any further vandalism or whatever should result in an immediate re-blocking and end of second chance. But, that's just me, what do you guys think? Note: We can probably do a trial run with a few days notice if you want. --HAL2008talk 17:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

• Although it looks like I'm outnumbered, I think that involuntary mentorship is a very terrible idea. Are the proteges really going to be able to make complaints if their mentors are doing something wrong? -Amarkov moo! 00:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure if you're outnumbered. It seems that the main discussion at the moment is still the name. I agree, however, that involuntary mentorship/adoption/whatever does have some downsides, and this is why I want to go over it here, I want to be able to see what the downsides (or the expected ones anyway) are, and see if we can fix it. It would be a good second chance thing, but the main problem is implementing it, and making sure that all goes according to plan. --HAL2008HAL?talk 16:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand motion

I'm not sure this is a good idea. Betacommandbot has been regularly complained about at WP:ANI and WP:AN, and was blocked 5 times by 4 admins during the month of July 2007 alone. block log. None have them has stood up, but Betacommand has clearly been doing contentious bot editing. Better to let him go through RfA, in my opinion. GRBerry 15:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I have reservations as well. None of the stipulations given address the findings of inadequate communication, for example. RFA made a mistake in this case- he started misusing the tools immediately, and continued for some time. I see no reason to believe his being an administrator has the support of the community. Friday (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

With-holding whatever opinion I have on the validity of community consensus of any resysopping without RFA, I don't think it's appropriate that someone who obviously cannot control himself to use his bot properly should be trusted with the tools (and possibly, playing devil's advocate here, running an admin bot) again just like that. – Chacor 15:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If he ran an admin bot again the committee will desysop him again, no? He'll have a bunch of people watching him, so surely it wouldn't go unnoticed. Picaroon (t) 16:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• He was desysopped, presumably because Arbcom decided his actions had lost him community trust. Barring exceptional circumstances which don't exist here, I don't see why the community shouldn't get to decide if we trust him now, instead of Arbcom. -Amarkov moo! 16:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The views of the community will be considered by the Committee of course. I think, as does the majority of the Committee according to our discussions, that the Committee should retain control over rights for admin tools in cases where we desyop. Too often there is long lasting ill will between users after an incident that would keep a reformed user from getting a second chance if they must go through a RFA. So we allow a desyopped user the choice of appealing to ArbCom or going through a RFA. Resyopping is not something that we do lightly. In this case, we have been discussing giving Betacommand back his tools for several weeks. And of course we will not hesitate to remove them at the first sign of abuse. Before I vote, I'm going to communicate with Betacommand a bit more about his view on blocking established users. Thanks for your interest. FloNight 22:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Of course you'll consider the views of the community; if people didn't trust you guys to attempt to make the right decision, you wouldn't be arbitrators. But if there is long lasting ill will that would prevent the candidate from passing an RfA, why exactly should Arbcom skip the community approval part and sysop them anyway? -Amarkov moo! 23:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
      • If they can help out with admin chores in ways that assist in writing a free content encyclopedia. The needs of the encyclopedia come first. IMO, we are an encyclopedia with a community not a community that is writing an encyclopedia. Remember that the majority of the users writing the encyclopedia have never heard of Betacommand. It is very important to listen to users that post opinions but we need to also think big picture. FloNight 23:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
        • FloNight, please check your email. – Chacor 02:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have been very responsive, the issues regarding BCbots blocks were not due to me, One of them wikimedia images were tagged as Non-Free, such tags require a use rationale. The community was in dispute of this, it was resolved by removing the non-free label. The block regarding tagging logos that was placed by Ta bu shi da yu, was not appropriate and was shortly reversed. The second block by Ta bu shi da yu was caused by a user modifying {{infobox company}} which in fact did orphan a lot of images for a short time. The block by Future Perfect at Sunrise was because BCBot was tagging images several times. The reason that BCBot was doing this was because someone changed the template that the bot used. I think it was {{nrd}} to use a uw- style template. BCBot only checked for the original template because no-one told me that they were changing the template. Once that was brought to my attention I quickly fixed it. Since the case closed I have started working with images, I tag orphaned non-free, check for basic rationales that are required per WP:NFCC, Ive also reworked RFC with radiant. and now Im working on a push to move images to commons, see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot Task 7 & User:Betacommand/Commons for the commons push. Ive also helped other editors, ive written User:SpebiBot and Ive helped wikihermit with is copyright detection bot. Since the ArbCom case I have worked on all areas that were brought up and am addressing them. I plan on avoiding image deletions because I dont want to have the perception that Im trying to delete all NFC. And as I said I have stopped username blocks. β^_command 22:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Digwuren and Tartu based accounts

Clerk needed

I see that the tradition of bombing any sort of discussions by the same characters thus making the threads unreadable and useless (or at least more difficult to comprehend) protruded even to an ArbCom page. While it is a useful demonstration of one of the reasons why any other less formatted forum cannot sort this mess out (there are other reasons why community sanction board is inadequate for this problem), still may I request the clerk to remove spurious additions by users who choose to make threaded arguments into other people's statements? Thanks. --Irpen 05:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Supported. Please start With Petri and his outrageous claims off no contributions. I have moved mine to my statement. I added it because I was unaware of that bit of protocol and Petri had already done so without repercussions, so I did not know it was wrong. --Alexia Death the Grey 05:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've left a clerk note reminding everyone for the format for the RfAr page, and will allow a little while for people to move things to their own sections now as Alexia has done. Newyorkbrad 10:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Can we do it now please? --Irpen 06:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Changes in terminology

Arbitrator UninvitedCompany posted to a decision today that "Per discussion on arbcom-l, the Committee is striving to avoid use of judicial language and metaphors in its decisions. I have updated the remedies accordingly." If a decision has been made to change the terminology that has been in widespread use, I suggest that some further information be posted about the changes for the information of editors who participate in workshops or may be affected by proposed remedies. Newyorkbrad 02:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a general understanding that we should move away from judicial terminology, but not necessarily one regarding what we should move towards instead. I suspect this will need some time to evolve before it's possible to really make a statement about the sort of language we're adopting. Kirill 06:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If I may suggest a terms that I think in need of replacement, "Injunction" jumps to mind as something that could do with a better name. (Alternately, just merge motions and injunctions to minimize the amount of people who don't see the subtle difference.) Also, "Arbitration", "Clerks", and a good deal of other terms could be safely decapitalized, to lessen the aura of officiality they convey. Nevertheless, no need to go overboard by focusing on renaming to the exclusion of important issues. Picaroon (t) 23:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom ruling template for articles?

Is there a template for situations like this where an ArbCom ruling has affected an article? I ask because when archiving that Talk page I accidentally archived the ArbCom ruling thinking it was just another section in the Talk page. SwatJester was kind enough to save the ArbCom ruling from the archive but it seems to me that this could have been avoided had the ruling been in a template similar to other "stickied" Talk page information. --ElKevbo 02:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really. There is {{user article ban arb}} and {{article probation}}, but the terms of the Smart case were relatively unique. If I closed the case I would have substituted one of the boxes and made a custom message (or you could put it on User talk:Derek Smart/Arbitration and transclude it). Thatcher131 07:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of historic and historical images

I'm not sure if this is the right place to bring this up, but I am concerned that those dealing with image deletion (or more specifically with policing non free use) in general, and User:Abu badali in particular, are not sufficiently aware of the issues surrounding historic and historical images. I was wondering if there was any way to review the arbitration case that involved non free use image conduct, and to urge those involved to limit themselves, voluntarily or otherwise, to generalist image areas (contemporary images), rather than specialist image areas (historic images)? The two cases that were the straw that broke the camel's back for me were: Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 August 20#Image:Neville Chamberlain2.jpg and Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 August 20#Image:Toni Sailer 1957.jpg. The first nomination shows complete lack of understanding of what a historic image is. The second nomination fails to appreciate the difference between a photo of someone as an old man, and a historical photo of the same person as an athlete when much younger. Even a cursory glance at the articles show that the images provide visual information that cannot be put into words. I can't review all historic or historical images nominated for deletion, or keep up with the removal of many of these images from articles, so I would ask Abu and others to stop or slow down their activity with historical images. Another example can be found at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 August 18#Image:Oneill.jpg. In a previous discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 2#Image:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg, I asked the editor involved to voluntarily stop nominating historical images. I asked again recently, and I have invited Abu to comment here. I posted here because there was a previous arbitration case. Would a request for comments be a useful next step, or can this be dealt with more efficiently? Carcharoth 03:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that any such measure would unfortunately lack the needed level of support to be adopted, if this is any indication. Kirill 03:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Did the previous examples involve historical images, or were they contemporary images. There is a difference, but I didn't follow the case closely enough to see what examples were being raised. I'll have a closer look. Carcharoth 03:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe there were images of various sorts discussed, but you'll have to go through the evidence pages if you want a more detailed overview.

As an aside, more to satisfy my own curiosity: is there some distinction between "historic" and "historical" images that's being used to determine compliance now? And, if so, where did it come from? The WMF resolution explicitly mentions images used "to illustrate historically significant events", and makes no distinction based on the historical significance of the image as a depiction in its own right, so I assume this is something local to en.wp? Kirill 04:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I had a look, and the evidence seemed to revolve around images of pageant beauty queens and musicians. Maybe Abu can tell us what experieence he has had previously with historic/al images. And to answer your question about historic/historical, it may just be a semantic distinction on my part, but if you look at the wording of Template:Non-free historic image, you see the wording: "This image is a faithful digitalization of a unique historic image" and "The Image depicts a non-reproducible historic event". While the WMF resolution, as you point out uses the wording "historically significant". And you are quite right, the WMF resolution does not require the image itself to be historically significant. I assume that arises from WP:NFCC#8: "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function." This is, of course, one of the most subjective and controversial criteria. For historical images, it can often be argued that they do more to increase the readers' understanding of a topic than contemporary images, precisely because it is more difficult to imagine what the world was like 50 or 70 or 100 years ago. Then people usually start arguing over "significant", and things tend to go downhill after that. I've also argued that historical images are often unique because sometimes they are genuinely of uncertain copyright status (not merely unknown, but often never likely to be known), due to drop out of copyright in a few years, sometimes of multiple provenance (several copies of the same image can exist), and invariably with a long and murky history, changing hands several times along the way. My feelings are that rigid and unyielding interpretation of the non-free criteria in these cases actively harms the encyclopedia. Carcharoth 04:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• An update. Abu said here that he would have a look here, but hasn't commented. He is still consistently taking far too severe a line on historic images, and insists that the image needs to be notable and have its own article or section talking about the image. He seems to think that historic images can be replaced by text describing the event depicted, an assertion that attacks the whole basis of Template:Non-free historic image. Compare the wording on that template: "It is believed that the use of this image [...] to illustrate the event in question where [...] the image depicts a non-reproducible historic event [...] qualifies as fair use" - this is exactly what fair use was intended for - to protect historical and cultural heritage and allow such images to be used in encyclopedias like this. Here are some examples of what Abu is saying that is undermining this priciple: "Either you fail to understand the difference between a notable image and an image of a notable event, or you fail to understand the importance of such difference to a fair use claim."[17] and "Just to put it clear and save you all some time: We don't get to use a non-free picture of an event just because the event was important, period."[18]. This in in direct opposition to what the Wikimedia Foundation policy says: "Their use [...] should be to illustrate historically significant events"[19]. There may indeed be excessive use of that historic template, but there are differences between how to handle 2-3 years old pictures of contemporary popular culture, and 50-70 years old pictures of historic events. I fear that Abu's approach to images of historic events is damaging the encyclopedia. I would appreciate advice on what to do next. Carcharoth 10:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what this all has to do with Arbcom. The Arbcom case was about behaviour, about allegations of "disruption", defined as alleged stalking of editors, use of trickery or deviousness to get things deleted, or failure to respond to criticism. None of these behavioral matters are involved here. Abu has a strong opinion on how to interpret the fair-use requirements, he's not alone in that opinion, though it's certainly near the stricter end of the continuum. He's just acting consistently with that opinion, in arguing for certain deletions. He's perfectly within proper process and proper norms of civil discourse. If you don't agree, argue against it, on the IfD's or wherever it is. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've tried arguing against it on the IfDs, but Abu's opinion is entrenched and unchanging (ie. failure to respond to criticism). If one side refuses to acknowledge the flaws in their arguments in disputes over something like NFCC#8, you will have all non free images put up for debate until the stricter interpretation prevails. Should it really be necessary to put images that I think pass NFCC#8 up for review to pre-empt a future IfD from a more strict proponent of NFCC#8? It is damaging to have such a wide spectrum of opinion on non free use, and those at either end of the spectrum need to be reined in. Furthermore, I think the stricter proponents of enforcing the non free use criteria are going beyond what the Wikimedia Foundation policy says. And finally, I think Abu lacks the judgement needed to discuss historical images. There are behavioural and judgemental issues here that need to be resolved. Would an RfC help? I don't know. But constant fire storms in IfD won't help. Carcharoth 11:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Future Perfect is right, though, this is the wrong venue for this. Sorry about that. I've posted this to propose a wider debate. If you are reading this, please contribute to the debate here. Thanks. Carcharoth 12:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please undelete my statement

Why a large chunk of my statement was deleted? What's the point of censorship? I view the Digwuren dispute primarily as a subtle Holocaust denial thing, and I resent attempts to suppress my point of view. Heroization of Fascism is as borderline as parapsychology on which ArbCom issued a rulung a month or two ago. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Censorship? Your statement, as well as Suva's, was over the 500 word limit. The arbitrators request we (clerks) try to keep the page on track by trimming statements, particularly the off-topic parts, and that's what I did - I would think the edit summary was enough. Political comments have no place here - the purpose of statements is to explain why you think the committee should or shouldn't accept a case. I fail to see how this was suppression of your point of view. Picaroon (t) 02:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

My statement was about the 500 word limit, and it is still one of the shortest in the thread. Far from defending drawn-out diatribes, I want to make it clear that I thought some detail was necessary to address an arbitrator's request "to summarize the kind of relief" expected from ArbCom. I'm not desperate to have my point heard, and I agree with jpgordon that lengthy statements may be annoying. On the other hand, each arbitrator voluntarily sought their present position which requires the ability to listen to different points of view. It's too late to complain now. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. To confirm, the Clerks have our full blessing to shorten statements as they see fit to be more appropriate for the venue.

James F. (talk) 11:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yah. I wish there was a way to convey to the world that on this page (among others), the fewer words you use to make your case, the more likely you are to be listened to... --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Shouldnt you listen to everyone regardless of length? Have you actually ignored a statement because of its length? --SevenOfDiamonds 14:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yup. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment

I noted that an involved party on one of the Requests for arbitration, User:No.13, is actually a sock of a banned user. He has been indefinitely blocked. --PaxEquilibrium 16:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"Vintagekits"'s ArbCom Participants

Well, first off, since ArbCom has pretty much said that they won't review the indef Block on VK, but are looking at user conduct issues as a broader base, should we rename it?

Also, the list has gotten WAY WAY out of hand with regards to involved parties, here's my suggestion to pare it down to the folks whose behavior has been the worst, ie, the ones with reason to face ArbCom. I'm not saying that the others haven't been occasionally off the tracks, but these are the eight that if you polled admins involved and this, have done the most to poison the atmosphere

• Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who's indefblocked, probably can be dropped if ArbCom wants just to endorse User:Alison's block)
• Astrotrain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• W. Frank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• David Lauder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Padraig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kittybrewster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Conypiece (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(Fixed formatting) SirFozzie 00:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest leaving me in there just so nobody says it's unfair or anything, however there's not much point in them looking for evidence of any wrongdoing on my part as firstly there isn't much and secondly I'm leaving again straight after the case anyway. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree - Alison ☺ 00:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hope the Arbs lay down stricter, and more general rules, cause this "stuff" will creep in again with newer editors. Also, it's not only the above, it also applies to others not mentioned, and to other articles.User:Gold_heart 01:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggested rename: Circumstances surrounding an indefinite block on User:Vintagekits. Scolaire 14:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd have the thought "The Troubles" would be more appropriate, as articles relating to it seem to be the likely scope of the case. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

My own perennial suggestion for this type of case is "Ex accuso lucellum," but Brad's never going to allow that. Mackensen (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Reminder to Arbitrators

Arbitrators are reminded that there are two pending motions—concerning Huaiwei and Betacommand—pending for voting on the main RfAr page. Posting this reminder here as these motions do not appear in the template. Newyorkbrad 21:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

With my vote to these, we're now at a majority, I believe. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 03:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

These motions require support from a majority of active (non-abstaining) arbitrators to pass. There is no established time limit for them. As I understand it, the motions remain open for voting until either they are passed by a majority of arbitrators, or enough arbitrators vote against them that they could not pass. Newyorkbrad 03:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Would a one month (30 days) time limit (after which the motion is removed and archived to the case talk page as not having gained approval) be acceptable to prevent these motions from remaining for too long? The Huawei motion is just about that old now, and with four arbitrators in favor and two against, at least three more votes would be needed to pass it, or five to reject it. If we implemented the new rule, then we could remove it tomorrow as having expired. Picaroon (t) 01:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that this would be sensible rule. Consider it so made. :-)\

James F. (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Change of title of case

moved from WT:RfAr

Please advise which senior administrator or member of the ArbCom panel changed the title of the ArbCom case assessing the behaviour of a particular user and his indefinite ban, to a far broader title which basically encompasses a vast segment of Northern Irish politics. I have no wish to be involved in the latter. My comments were made in good faith regarding the heading of the original case, and I think it extremely bad form that the heading has been changed without first contacting all those who had already contributed a comment. If the arbitrarily changed heading is to remain I shall withdraw my comment. David Lauder 12:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have just received this note from User:Penwhale: "Per the original ArbCom vote, the arbitrators decided that the scope of the case should not be limited to just Vintagekits. Via an e-mail instruction, I was asked to include all parties and name the case as The Troubles. A little too secretive for me, I'm afraid, and such a renaming changes the goalposts and the reason Vintagekit's ban came up for ArbCom. I am withdrawing. David Lauder 12:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The arbitrators, during their vote, mentioned that they would like to look at the whole picture. If you notice my clerk note, I asked what the scope was going to be on and whether to involve all parties. The Arbitration Committee does maintain a mailing list for conversing off-wiki. (Think of the discussion as behind doors.) It's not secretive (secretive here would actually mean that the arbitrators didn't mention they want to view the whole picture before asking the clerk to re-title). By the way, you may not voluntarily withdraw from an arbitration case (to be removed from involved party, a motion must pass). - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 12:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

But I am not "involved" in the "The Troubles" of Ulster at all or in any way. That was not the original arbitration which I voluntarily made a statement for. Something voluntarily submitted to a particular case, which has then had a dramatic shift of parameters, should be able to be withdrawn otherwise it is essentially being misused. I failed to notice that you were the clerk, so please put this matter before the arbitrators for an authorisiation of my statement withdrawal. regards, David Lauder 12:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be up to the judgment of arbitrators to decide; I could only ask them to consider. Generally speaking, though, most people that submit any kind of evidence for the situation ends up staying listed as an involved party because they also would get notified at the end of the case. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 13:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• As one who has been keen for this whole affair to be sorted fairly. I disagree completely with David Lauder. I think it is brilliant that the whole of this problem is to be fully explored. It seems to me that at times, a small clique of editors which included David Lauder have exacerbated the problems, rather than try to find a reasonable solution and compromise with those of differing views. David Lauder may indeed choose to withdraw as he wishes but he should note that his withdrawal will not prevent his conduct in this affair from being closely scrutinised. If the Arbcom decide that the permanent ban of Vintagekits is justified then so be it, but it is very unlikely they the findings will be that Vintagekits orchestrated and 100% personally caused the feuding which has been a feature of "The Troubles" pages for so long. Giano 13:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I just don't know how you can say that, honestly I don't. Would you say that post falls with the realms of WP:CIVIL? I have not attacked anyone elses work on WP the way VK has. Show me someone I have bullied into submission? Lead me to one AfD I have proposed? Show me where I had some involvement in the last two indefinite blocks of Vintagekits. We may have crossed swords at points but are we not adults? In all courts/arbitration matters there is a fundamental root cause. Originally this case was brought to ArbCom to consider Vintagekits, under that heading. The parameters have been substantially altered covering Northern irish matters, where my input over the past 8 months has been utterly meaningless.David Lauder 13:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

In that case, surely you've nothing to be concerned about and the arb case can proceed with the incidental evidence you have provided? - Alison ☺ 13:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Moved from case page: *Later thought. This seems now to be turned into a discussion about "The Troubles" in which I have very little interest. I edited Bobby Sands a while ago and later contributed to a few afds on various terrorists / freedom fighters (depending on one's perspective). The consequence was that User:Vintagekits and User:Giano_II started attacking articles to which I had contributed. Bad game. Not interested. - Kittybrewster (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC) -- - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 13:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Noticeboard:

I have tried to open a dispute but canot after wasting a lot of time. Although Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased but it is not. it does not allow anyone to add anything to give another side of the picture. i have tried that many time but again and again I have seen my contributions were erased out. I refer to two specific cases related to India both of which are terribly biased ( Kashmir and Poverty in India). I have contributed a lot of additions to make these balanced but all these are now erased out. Thus, Wikipedia is a seriously defective dictionary, as it is giving a biased, and wrong picture in most cases. I have also made additions to pages on Collectivization of agroculture in the Soviet Union, and Black Booi of Communism. both of these two pages are nothing but propaganda. that is true about most of the materials you have in Wikipedia.

Prof.Dipak Basu Professor in International economics Nagasaki University Japan. [20] posted by DBose2

Clerk action: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Huaiwei

This is getting stale. Clerks notes say that a a majority is 6 of 11, but there are only ten active arbs at this time. It's currently 4/4/1, for nine. If the other two active arbs vote it could still pass or fail. If it sits longer, or if the active arbs goes to 10, it is stalemated. Can a clerk poke at the arbs that have not voted? Going stale is kind of a poor non-resolution.

It should also be noted that I proposed lifting this for Huaiwei without his knowledge or permission. This may be relevant to the advice of "try again later" in the oppose columns if Huaiwei asks again in the future. SchmuckyTheCat

Note also the #Reminder to Arbitrators section above. I'll ask Mackensen and Blnguyen, the two active arbitrators who have not voted, to consider this. Picaroon (t) 19:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

mm, interesting. Irony: the first opposers said "show good behavior and wait a few months" and a few months go by waiting for everyone else to vote. :) SchmuckyTheCat

Well, that's one way for it to work! We might need a more formal policy on appeals; having them sit out like this for weeks looks kinda silly. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you use collapsible archiving templates (e.g. Template:Archive box collapsible) that hide the discussion, with a note that the discussion is put off until xx date? That way it's still there, but doesn't take up space on the page, and the templates can be removed when it's time to reconsider. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 18:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Motion carried now. Normally I would agree that this took much too long to resolve, but in this case the passage of additional time in which the editor avoided problems is probably one of the reasons some arbitrators supported the motion. Newyorkbrad 11:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Linking to diffs in proposed/final decision

Shouldn't there be more linking to specific diff's proposed decisions. I noticed the lacking off first on this this proposed decision, but I also saw it today on another case. There is often a lot of diff's on evidence pages but I think its important to show what the arbcom thought were the diff's on which they decide their decision. Garion96 (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

If an editor has previously been the subject of an arbcom case but the remedies for those have since expired, (e.g. a timed ban from a subject or parole), and an editor has returned to that same behaviour, should the dispute resolution process begin anew, or should it be brought back to arbcom immediately since the editor has previously demonstrated his unwillingness to work within the confines of the dr process in regards to this behaviour?--Crossmr 19:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

If you name the editor and cite diffs showing how his or her behavior has relapsed, an arbitrator may see it and make a motion to renew whatever sanction(s) were previously put in place or adopt new ones. Alternately, you may file a new case. But no, progressing through all the stages of dispute resolution a second time is not necessary, as was shown by the arbitrators acceptance of the Pigsonthewing 2 case. Picaroon (t) 01:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this the best place to put those diffs or is there another more appropriate spot? If so:

Editor is Njyoder, previous case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Njyoder, a check of his contrib history will show very few contribs since he was blocked multiple times for violating his personal attack parole. Upon his return to regular editing, he's committed numerous personal attacks on the Talk:Paypal page and edited and behaved in a manner similar to how he behaved in regards to the gender issues articles. The paypal talk page includes the majority of them (they're numerous) But in addition to that there are edit summaries like this [21], disruptive editing like this [22] (he's purposely restoring material which doesn't have proper citation just to be disagreeable), he makes some accusations and is downright argumentative [23] (he was previously cited for wikilawyering, the policy states that the writer of a self-published source be an expert in the field, it didn't specifically say he had to be an expert in online advertising which was the subject of that article). The paypal talk page from here Talk:PayPal#Request_For_Comment:_Criticism_and_PayPalSucks.com down really needs to be read to understand the full depth of it. There is several accusations of lying, wikilawyering and other general uncivil behaviour. A couple of editors have also agreed that his behaviour is uncivil and disruptive (See his talk page and this AN/I thread) [24].--Crossmr 02:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Crossmr, why do you want to skip steps in the dispute resolution process? Why do you not want to use Mediation? FloNight♥♥♥ 15:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI, his last block was in 2005 [25] We look at the age of the blocks as much or more than the number when evaluating editor behavior. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

His last block was then, but if you also look he's done very little editing since then as well. This is really the first time he's edited so much since his sanctions. If you also notice he's demonstrating the exact same behaviour he demonstrated then. I've also given a couple of examples of attempted dispute resolution this time around which he's ignored. He also denies any wrong-doing in his previous arbcom case which demonstrates a complete lack of disregard for the dispute resolution process. From this AN/I thread Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Njyoder.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29_continues_personal_attacks The arcom case against me was for personal attacks in part, but mostly it was about a content dispute, although arb isn't allow to rule on that so one arbcom member added a bunch of other random charges without providing evidence for them. People generally assume that because it was decided against me that they don't need to check it to see how true the claims are. So he feels arbcom is "out to get him". He dismisses dispute resolution attempts that he himself initiates because the individuals who responded to it didn't respond in the manner he'd like, and he ignores third parties who attempt to clarify appropriate behaviour and editing. Even when repeatedly reminded of NPA and CIVIL he continued to engage in personal attacks and uncivil behaviour. We assume good faith, but we don't do it blindly. The fact that he continues undaunted even when users outside the dispute come in and tell him otherwise is an indication to me that DR will have no effect on him and be an exercise in futility. Regardless of what he says, his action clearly demonstrate he's not interested in it. Its quite apparent that he has strong opinions but is incapable of debating those opinions in a mature and constructive fashion. While last time it was a different subject, the behaviour has remained the same. A long break and sanctions did nothing to change that. Outside individuals attempting to correct him did not change that.--Crossmr 16:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Crossmr, my advice is for you to step back from the situation. You seem to be getting really worked up over it. Go work on something else for a while. Editing Wikipedia is suppose to be a volunteer activity that we do for pleasure, right? :) FloNight♥♥♥ 16:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right, of course it is, but you asked me why I jumped directly to arbcom as opposed to other dispute resolution methods, so I've explained my reasoning. Sometimes I'm direct with my words which can sound worked up, but I'm not. I will go work on other things as you've asked, but I hope you'll take the time to evaluate the past editing behaviour, current editing behaviour and the DR methods that have already been tried.--Crossmr 17:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting how you accuse me of ignoring people when you're ignoring an arbtrator, of all people. You definitely ignore everyone who disagrees with you and won't simply acknowledge that people can disagree over policies--you act as if the idea is unfathomable. I can't believe you're running all around Wikipedia to get support for this cause and deliberately lied to make me look bad. That's very uncivil. I have made many counter-arguments and you've repeatedly refused to debate--only repeating your original assertions (argumentum ad nauseam). This is the pot calling the kettle black. You'll take any random comment from someone dropping in, who doesn't even read hte talk page, and call it "dispute resolution."-Nathan J. Yoder 07:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You have no evidence he didn't read the talk page. In fact if you read WP:DR look for "third opinion" this is exactly what this is. But this editor has also taken further effort to explain this to you again and you've continued to ignore him, and in fact a third editor has come in and attempted to explain it to you again but you ignore him as well and continue to edit war over it. You're free to disagree with policy, but article pages are not the place to discuss policy change, see WP:POINT. If you want to change a policy do it on the policy page, but in article space you're required to edit by the current policy which has now been explained to you by 3 different editors.--Crossmr 13:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Quadell's questions re Intelligent Design

I humbly ask FloNight and James F. to reconsider accepting this case in light of my statement. If the ArbCom rejects the case, I would be grateful if ArbCom members could assist both me and my opponents in how best to resolve the stand-off. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add the note that I am not asking ArbCom to make any kind of ruling or determination on the inclusion of particular non-free content in the Intelligent design article, but rather on the policy, processes, and actions taken in this particular case. They are typical of many other disputes regarding the usage of non-free media. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears that this ArbCom request was withdrawn. I would still be much obliged if any ArbCom members could give us some tips on the best way to handle this situation from here. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Proabivouac

Proabivouac (talk · contribs) asserts that this notification [26] on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard violates WP:HARASS. He has emailed me asserting that reverting his removal (as several people did) is linking to an attack site, outing and harassment. Since the notice appears to be an official one his problem would appear to be with ArbCom. I have suggetsed several times that he take it up with the arbitrators, but he seems to prefer debating this with me by email, which is not going to fix the problem. Guy (Help!) 07:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

To wit, "Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself. This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media. This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Wikipedia editor. It also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives."

That's your contract with your volunteers. That's the policy you're supposed to uphold, and there's nothing in any other policy, including WP:Probation, which contradicts or abrogates it. I followed the policy, your agents broke it. If you wish to attack pseuds, go on ahead, but please leave living people alone.Proabivouac 11:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous - Proabivouac could easily have avoided this consequence by:

1. Notifying ArbCom of his username change at the time - though that would still have caused issues with the practicality of enforcing the probation
2. Continuing to edit by his prior account name until his probation expired, then starting a new account
3. Not editing at all until his probation expired, then starting a new account

It seems odd to object now that the covert change has been discovered when one failed to be honest and up-front at the beginning. Probation is not given out lightly by ArbCom and evading it (even where the name change was for an unrelated-legitimate purpose) is equally seriously. Effectively we are back at square one. The question remains: can the probation be adequately enforced with only a "select" number of people aware that it applies to Proabivouac and not his prior identity? If not, I think he needs to avoid editing with any account other than that under probation until the expiry of the probation. WjBscribe 11:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems like we could inform the community of the fact and terms of Proabivouac's probation while still preserving his privacy: User:Proabivouac is placed on Probation for one year. He may be banned by any administrator from any page which he disrupts by edit warring, incivility, or other disruptive behavior. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think any issues related to the probation can only arise when its terms are breached. If they prove not to, who cares about the details. El_C 11:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

WJBscribe touches on an important question, further compounded here by privacy issues posed by the prior account (this is something everyone here, except for me, would suffer in that event; i.e. using their real name or initials therein). El_C 11:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• It would be reasonable to state that he is on probation, that the probation has been reset as he is now known to have been a party and to have changed accounts, as to whether we need to know which account, I would not like to say, and whether we'd need to record the evidence for transparency is also open to question. This does need clarifying. I agree that he is essentially the author of his own misfortune here, but we can probably come up with some way not to rub his face in it. Guy (Help!) 11:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

We can archive the announcement to hide it from google but the basic facts have been known to some for more than 3 weeks. Announcing a probation with no underlying case would have only confirmed those facts for those who know, and stirred up the community of editors who didn't know. We would be falling all over ourselves to delete and oversight edits from the noticeboard as editors who think they have a right to know what goes on behind the scenes (and maybe they're right) try to figure it out and decide (as if they had a veto) whether it was justified. I can not think of a single instance where having the Arbitration Committee tell the community at large, "We have decided X now stop talking about it" has not had the opposite outcome. Thatcher131 11:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

How was it the arbitration committee was informed? I have a hunch, but would like to know if anyone has a different version than my hunch.--MONGO 13:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I had a concern which I shared with Dmcdevit. We both exchanged emails with the user, then Dmcdevit forwarded some information to the AC mailing list. Thatcher131 13:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Was there evidence of disruption which led you to do an investigation?--MONGO 13:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course not, MONGO, it was an attack thread on the so-called "attack site" which we've duplicated and exceded here. No one has credibly purported any disruption besides the purported disruption of removing warnings about my purported disruption.

Thatcher131, the very Wikimedia Foundation was informed well before that, as was an arbitrator and a great number of adminstrators.

Guy, the author of someone's misfortune has here a literal meaning, as does publisher. I'm glad you don't wish to rub my face in malicious attacks the Arbitration Committee has sponsored, hosted and published about anyone. The bottom line is that the Foundation has no right to publish this kind of material.Proabivouac 13:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

A report was made to WP:AE, which I have watchlisted. Shortly after, I noticed that the report had disappeared and the edit was deleted. Since users who evade their probation are not normally afforded this privilege, I made some discreet inquiries as to whether this was a privacy issue that was known to ArbCom or not. Although the user claims to have informed one Arbitrator and gotten permission from the office, neither JamesF or Dmcdevit had any knowledge or record of a discussion approving this. Other than make the inquiry, I have taken no action and have not been involved in any discussions with ArbCom about their reaction. Whether the office can override ArbCom, or vice versa, is obviously beyond my scope. Thatcher131 13:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That is what I was getting at...where did the original info come from. My rhetorical question about any evidence of disruption from Proabivouc's editing history made me wonder who/why anyone would even look into this matter. It is not something anyone generally does unless there is a reason to do it...but then again, there are those that exist off-site who are very bored, very sad and very sick.--MONGO 13:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The user who posted the now-deleted report is indeed suspected of being a banned user who hangs around an attack site. However, I first learned of the accusation on-wiki. I would also like to say that I am very disturbed at the claim that "a great number of administrators" knew that Proabivouac had changed his name and was evading his probation and that this somehow makes it ok. The Hkelkar 2 arbitration case was also partly about accusations that some admins were allowing banned editors to edit under new accounts or were encouraging meat puppetry. When NuclearUmpf was exposed as Zer0faults, his probation was vigorously enforced. I am currently wrangling with User:Ebonyskye which I believe is a reincarnation of User:GuardianZ who is under a topic ban. I don't like secret deals that allow some editors to evade blocks, bans and other remedies that apply to other uses who don't have the right connections. Thatcher131 13:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur that no admins should help enable anyone evade an arbitration committee ruling and perhaps a comment made in private to the committee about any username change would have been best. However, what I see here is, as you have clarified, off-site trolls have apparently worked to "out" this editor...not probably because they are so much concerned about any disruption, but because they wanted to volate his desire to no longer have his (supposed) real name used. For the record, all this is a revelation to me, and checking Proabivouc's edits, I haven't seen any evidence that he has been acting disruptively, or in violation of any prior arbcom sanction. I suspected that the seeds for this were originally sown off-site.--MONGO 14:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that so many have collaborated in this manner may alternately be taken as a recognition that the Committee's actions were horribly unfair. Or is that an impossible concept in Wikiland?

The proceedings of the committee were the most vicious attack machine I've ever come across on the web. Perhaps you publish things because you are interested in looking at and considering them, but that's actually a horrible reason to publish anything, isn't it?

"No, of course, we would never think to libel you. What we will do is provide this dedicated space for this notorious attack-only pseudonymous troll to say whatever he likes about you, publish it from that point forward, and gratuitously link to it when we see fit. The content isn't our responsibility, but that of the pseudonymous troll to whom we provided this platform."

Um, no. Are you seriously asking that I should have linked to this junk on my own accord?Proabivouac 14:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This is really very strange. I've seen absolutely no links to any attack sites, and the only editor whose edits in respect of it I have reviewed , User:Morven,is absolutely not a sockpuppet. You're not denying the truth of the statement, not denying that you were sidestepping the the arbitration sanction, nobody seems to be disputing that it is right it should be renewed, the only grounds you appear to have for disputing this is the fact that it was publicised somewhere else (and I have no idea where, because I've not even seen that source). Surely it would be better to take it like a man, and let the drama die down? Guy (Help!) 18:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you've completely misunderstood my comments, which were aimed at content subpages of the relevant decision. ArbCom continues to host attacks by a banned pseudonymous user against a private citizen for no obvious purpose. I'm asking that these sections be deleted, as I requested when they were posted to begin with.Proabivouac 02:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to be brief. I am posting here as there is a discussion about some admins who have had knowledge about the issue. Well, yes, i am one of them. I got to know about that on-wiki (via email) just weeks after a RfC i filed against Proabivoauc back on January 2007. Apart from that, i don't recall Pro editing disruptively.

MONGO, i believe you are the only person in this discussion who technically cannot get access to the contents of that RfC. In other words, as Thatcher had mentioned yesterday at Pro talk page answering Tom Harrison, that RfC outcome would have been totally different if people could know who was Pro at that time. Now, i hope all parties get back to work and forget about the fuss. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I, as well, was aware of the fact, although not for as long, but I did operate under the assumption that the Arbitration Committee was also clued in to this. It is, however, my understanding that at least one Committee member and one Foundation official were made privy to it. El_C 21:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I want to reiterate that if this was (otherwise) a problem account, we wouldn't be having this discussion. El_C 21:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it seems that Pro chasing some banned accounts here (w/ whom he had conflicts) led those account owners to post online the relationship between Pro new and old account. Pro insists on PRIVACY, ATTACKSITE, HARASS defending his case. On the other hand, the ArbCom saw that reseting the terms of the probation is WHATSHOULDBEDONE and that process counts especially in cases such as this. There would have been no further discussion if Pro would have kept it at minimum yesterday. This case is probably a precedent and hope it would never happen again in Wikipedia. It is the trust of people on the project which is at stake here. I believe that's why we are having this discussion here. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

There are previous cases where a user under probation has attempted to discard that account and reincarnate. In all cases of which I am aware, the probation was enforced on the new account, except in one case where the probation period had actually expired before the new account was discovered. However, this is the first case where the original account was the user's real name, raising the privacy objection. Thatcher131 22:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Does BADSITES have to pop up in everything these days? To edit under one's real name is to voluntarily reveal it; if one is to become anonymous again, one must accept responsibility for doing it effectively. Mangoe 03:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The username policy as it stood upon initial registration in 2004 read, "The best username is typically either your real name…"[27] It doesn't say that now, of course. I agree with that version that, on an ideal Wikipedia, editors would use their real names, state their real credentials, etc. However an ideal Wikipedia would also disallow and delete attacks on editors, just as it would disallow and delete attacks against people who aren't Wikipedia editors.Proabivouac 03:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

"...or a longstanding internet pen name" Anyway, would it be realistic for Proabivouac to publicly agree to the extended probation and indicate that he is doing so because there are privacy concerns involved, thereby eliminating the need for public disclosure b/c Proab agrees to the the terms? Could we then delete/oversight the offending diffs, or are things already too far out of the bag?--Chaser - T 09:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone who'd never come across an attack site might have never thought to use a pen name, such that there would have been no longstanding one. If not, this individual would be merely following instructions by registering as he/she did. "Blame yourself for being naive enough to trust us and follow our instructions," is not a very convincing way of shirking responsibility.

Probation only means, don't disrupt the encyclopedia. Everyone should be on permanent probation; people who disrupt the encylopedia shouldn't be welcome here anyhow, and administrators are already free to block disruptive users. Either they're disruptive and should be banned, or they're productive and they shouldn't be. Its only added effect is to stain a username which means more or less depending on how important that name is to you.

To answer your question, Chaser, I don't too much care about what WP says about any pseud, starting with mine. Things get more serious when we identify a pseud with living people, either on or off-wikipedia. If Wikipedia doesn't want my or anyone else's volunteer labor, that's its right, and in my case, its loss. But no part of that decision can justify the publication of attacks against any real person.

If a non-profit enterprise has trouble with an volunteer, disinvite him/her back. Don't create a webpage with his/her legal name, saying how incompetent or otherwise deficient you think he/she is. Don't create a webpage where random people can anonymously write how awful they are. Isn't that just common sense?

Deleting (not just "blanking" which doesn't actually remove any content, but only changes its order of presentation) problematic content about real people is the right move whether Proabivouac is involved here or not, or under what arrangement. It's Wikipedia's right to determine who participates here. No one challenges that. It's not Wikipedia's right, however, to accomplish this in such a way that doesn't include the continued publication of malicious attacks against people. Somehow other organizations manage to accomplish the first while avoiding the other.Proabivouac 20:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have blanked the Evidence page of the His excellency arbcom case as a courtesy. I am less willing to blank the initial complaint, where the accusations flung around are on a rather lower level. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That is a step in the right direction, for which I thank you. However, Wikipedia should not publish this kind of material at all. Deletion would reduce it to the level of a WP-internal document, which administrators could view as necessary. It is only a button away.Proabivouac 11:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You've already been actively deleting, to the amazing extent of revert-warring against admins who are placing official notices, almost every mention of your original probation, on the grounds that there might be a mention of your former username in there, so non-admins already would need to fish the information out of the history page. If you get this information wiped completely, how exactly are non-administrators supposed to know that you were ever on probation? Normal editors have a part to play in enforcing wikipedia policies by spotting, reverting and reporting violations, something you well know. Your current account is already an apparent attempt to evade probation; one might think that all this link-deletion and wikilawyering is an attempt to hide your past actions from as many eyeballs as possible, so that you could avoid being caught again in future. After all, your original username is all over the wiki in hundreds of places - it's a bit of a coincidence that the instances you're complaining about are only those instances where administrators and arbitrators happen to detail your violations of wikipedia policies. My tuppence worth, to anyone who cares, is that if the consequences of the actions necessary to enforce wikipedia policies happen to be unpleasant for those who intentionally violate the policies, that's just the natural part of the punishment.--Aim Here 11:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"Your current account is already an apparent attempt to evade probation."

False. Do people meaning to hide from WF/WP inform the office? You can "wikilawyer" by saying I didn't tell every member of the Committee so it doesn't "count," but the fact is that people meaning to "evade" something wouldn't have informed the large nnumber of trustworthy people I did. You obviously don't know the whole story.

"Aim Here," I'd prefer you not wikistalk me to pages you've never edited before, as you did here. I recall that you also played a role in trolling JVM; is that your angle here?Proabivouac 00:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Will people please stay on topic? WP:RfAr stands for "Requests for Arbitration" not "Requests for Argument". If it doesn't relate directly to a request for clarification, then please post arguments elsewhere, or even better, not at all! --Deskana (talky) 11:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

On-topic: "engaged in behavior that may have been subject to sanction under those conditions." What behavior are you talking about? When was it? And what's "may have been?" From where and when should I have been banned?Proabivouac 11:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Unequal treatment

I believe that Proabivouac's original complaint, that notifying him that that he had evaded probation by changing accounts and that the probation would be reapplied constituted harassment, is ridiculous. Since then he has argued here and elsewhere that since it is not written down in policy that users under probation can not change accounts, therefore it is not true. This is also ridiculous. If blocks and bans apply to the person, not the account (as Proabivouac knows full well, being an expert sockpuppet detective), then obviously probation should follow the same principle.

However, I have just reviewed, for purposes of responding to his post on Wikipedia talk:Probation, the response to the discovery that Gwen Gale had also evaded her probation by dropping one account and adopting another. See especially Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive247#Unwarranted__and_repeated_incivility_by_User:Gwen_Gale. I am truly astonished at the responses to that situation by Fred Bauder and especially Morven, who is the arbitrator who announced Proabivouac' evasion and re-imposed his probation. Gwen Gale was allowed to continue editing and Fred Bauder said "There was no prohibition on creating an alternative account." Morven said "Furthermore, the probation would have expired in December 2006. Did any known new identity of Wyss behave in a manner that would have been subject to its terms before December 2006? If this can't be shown, Gwen Gale cannot be banned under the terms of a probation that has expired, IMO." While it is true that Proabivouac's probation had not quite expired at the time he was discovered (it had about 2 weeks left to go), it is also true that the single complaint of disruptive editing made against him is old and not very persuasive. As a matter of policy I believe that probation applies to the person, not the account, and that editors who evade scrutiny by changing accounts should be held accountable to their original probation when discovered. As a matter of equity I am simply at a loss at what appears to be unequal treatment of Proabivouac and Gwen Gale, and further clarification from the Arbitrators would be appreciated. Thatcher131 13:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I look forward to reading what the arbitrators have to say about this. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I note that the quote above from me was in the middle of the discussion; furthermore, Wyss' probation would have expired quite some time before, which makes for a difference in the behavior. AFAIR, as well, Wyss had not immediately reappeared as another account, while Proabivouac created a new identity as soon as sanctions were applied and began using it.

The different behavior of the two editors when confronted may account for some different treatment. Perhaps we were too easy on Wyss/Gwen Gale. Different composition of the arbcom between the two instances may account for some difference as well. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"The different behavior of the two editors when confronted may account for some different treatment."

Could you be more specific?Proabivouac 08:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Morven, what about reducing the probation time to two months? --Aminz 08:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I want an apology for having posted my personal information, and for having facilitated attacks on me to begin with. But most immediately, I want an answer to this question: to what difference in behavior do you refer?Proabivouac 05:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You are not getting one. As to the difference in behavior, frankly, your edit warring with administrators and arbitrators to hide the fact of your probation and to remove an arbcom-agreed notice might be the first place you should look. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you're saying that you joined in violating my privacy not despite but because of the evident distress several of your pseudonymous administrators were causing me.

Anyhow, what do you think Gwen Gale's reaction was when her RWI was outed? I know exactly what it was: she shrunk from this aggression, curled up in a ball and cried. Does that excite you? Maybe you were too easy on her?Proabivouac 08:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, Wikipedia's mechanisms for combating rule violations are largely unfair and arbitrary. If you don't want to be subjected to this system, abide by policies and don't try to game them. The fact that Wyss was let off easy does not reflect on how different, or even the same, administrators and arbitrators are going to deal with you, because equity is not a guiding concept in Wikipedia's dispute resolution system; prevention of further incident is. We have no clause guaranteeing that people who violate the same rule are dealt with uniformly. Picaroon (t) 15:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Your comment would be pithy, except that there was no rule which barred what I did. As Fred Bauder observed, "There was no prohibition on creating an alternative account." The real pith here isn't that Gwen was "let off easy," but that somehow Morven (at least) is seeing a rule where he saw none before, even though the relevant policies haven't changed.Proabivouac 06:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right that the sockpuppetry policy doesn't explicitly forbid abandoning an account on probation; Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Circumventing policy merely says "Users who are banned or blocked from editing may not use sock puppets to circumvent this." But I certainly think the spirit of the policy extends to all users under community or arbcom sanctions, including probation. Maybe I'll propose this be explicity stated (not retroactive, of course). Picaroon (t) 15:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this has proven that those with authority on wikipedia don't necessarily use it properly or deserve it. Proabivouac did not violate his probation; the rest is just an embarrassment. Arrow740 04:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry#Circumventing policy, where I've made a proposal to clarify that, just like ban evasion, evading a probation using a sockpuppet is disallowed. Picaroon (t) 15:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably a better place to deal with this issue is in WP:PROBATION. For a banned or blocked user to edit is in itself a violation of the ban/block; that, not the fact that no one was informed, is what makes it abusive socking. Also, if the name change is designed to lessen the effects of on-wiki RWI attacks or escape RWI harassment, then probation has the unintended (?) effect of subjecting the editor to real-name attacks and/or harassment, and is much harsher than a ban (banned users can and do return as often as they please without, in most cases, facing RWI attack.)

We might also look at modifying WP:HARASS#Posting of personal information, which was violated here by several administrators and an arbitrator based on a policy which we now see didn't exist (which Morven already knew.)

Also, I didn't "edit in ways [I was] sanctioned for originally," but was very conscious of the circumstances and keen to avoid their repetition, and in fact expended a lot of effort warning others away from anything analogous to the disputed behavior. I also avoided the disputed project page (the Guild having subsequently been put out of its misery for pretty much the reasons I said it should have been.) I also turned down numerous nominations for adminship due to the feeling that this might be improper under the circumstances, and possibly provide a pretext for someone to out my personal information (ust look at the Crockspot RfA.) This notion that I was sitting here saying, "nya-nya-nya-nya-nyah, I'm evading probation!" is completely false.Proabivouac 23:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like a clarification on which arbitrators signed off on this besides Morven.Proabivouac 07:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

When is this going to be reversed? Can Morven just admit that Pro didn't violate anything and let us all move on? Arrow740 07:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

My 2c

Should a solution like probation be imposed as a result of arbitration, I think someone in Prob's position has 3 choices.

1. Keep editing under the original account name for the time of the remedy.
2. Change the account name, keep the change secret and not edit for the time of the probation. Probation requires community knowledge to be effective.
3. Change the account name and announce the change to the community in relation to the arbitration case in the same way arbitration cases are announced now.

I don't see how there can be any other options, given that arbitration decisions are binding and probation requires community knowledge to be effective. Viridae^Talk 15:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think if an editor editing under probation wishes to change his or her account but does not wish to notify the community, then notifying the Arbitration Committee is sufficient, if he or she commits to not editing the articles under which he or she was originally under probation. If the editor, under his or her new account, begins regularly editing articles to which probation applies, all deals are off, because then the editor's account and probationary status are then relevant to the community. --Iamunknown 15:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Just informing arbcm is not effective - they are busy people and do not have time to watch if someone is behaving themselves - the community however, does. Viridae^Talk 23:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The arbcom and admins but not ordinary editors ? --Aminz 08:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Better, but at that point the privacy is lost, because it cannot be expected that 859 people will keep it quiet? There is also no way to contact admins only that I am aware of. Viridae^Talk 23:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Template grammar question

Discussion moved from Wikipedia Talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Proposed decision for broader community input on this important matter. :) Newyorkbrad 15:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

As a disinterested observer, can I comment here on a matter of grammatical correctness?

Surely this sentence (on the Proposed decisions page) should read:

For this case, there are 10 active Arbitrators, so 6 votes are is a majority.

--The.Q | Talk to me 14:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad someone pointed out there mistake. Astrotrain 14:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Haha! I'm glad someone pointed out their mistake too (just in case some of you missed it)! Biofoundationsoflanguage 15:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

• laughs* Thanks, Bio! I was going to comment, but I think Astrotrain already thinks I'm stalking his edits ;)SirFozzie 15:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

On behalf of the arbitration clerks, I would welcome additional community input on this point before we start adjusting all the other cases and templates. :) Newyorkbrad 15:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"Are" is correct. You wouldn't say "six pedants is a nuisance", would you? The verb should agree with the subject, not the object. — ras52 13:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

But surely the full sentence refers to a collective noun (the Arbitrators in this case), and a collective noun takes a singular verb. By the way, I'm assuming good faith, and not taking personally the "nuisance" statement above. --The.Q^(t)(c) 15:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it was intended tongue in cheek: certainly not personally. I don't think that whether or not the Arbitrators is a collective noun is relevant, though "6 votes" could perhaps be considered one. The clause "6 votes is/are a majority" can be considered in isolation. Google finds roughly equal numbers of each: 50,300 for are, and 31,400 for is, not that I'd use Google as an arbiter on matters grammatical. Perhaps a better comparison is not "six pedants is a nuisance", but "six pedants is enough" which doesn't seem so obviously wrong. Anyway, I still think "are" is correct, though it's perhaps not so clear cut. — ras52 16:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a grammar expert by any means, but bad grammar annoys me (Eats, Shoots & Leaves is my bible, I frequently drive my family and work colleagues to distraction my correcting misplaced apostrophes, Etc). This statement just scans incorrectly for me, but perhaps it's more to do with American and British English differences than anything else. If the same statement were written in Hiberno-English, it would probably read something like:

In dis case, dere's 10 Arbitrators dat are activated, so dat means that if dere are 6 of them voting the same way, dat's more than isn't voting that way, so dey wins! --The.Q^(t)(c) 14:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

American and British English differences#Formal and notional agreement. :) shoy 16:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

A technical question

It seems that User:TDC filed an RfC about User:Commodore_Sloat in June 2006: [28]. Is it possible to look at this RfC? It is probably deleted. I am not familiar with relevant WP policies.Biophys 01:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

That RfC which is over a year old was probably buried by the more recent one. It may be possible to find it; if you do, you will see that it has nothing to do with the current dispute, and that it was resolved when nearly every participant determined the complaints to be exaggerated if not utterly without merit.

Biophys, I would like to ask you again to please stop changing your RfAr. At the top of the page it states that you should compose your statement offline and post it when done rather than posting continuous drafts. You are making your arguments a moving target, which is very difficult to respond to.

If you really want a dispute resolved with me you should try actually discussing the dispute with me rather than escalating to ArbCom at the first sign of disagreement. Bringing up unrelated disputes from years ago is not an appropriate way of providing evidence that you tried WP:DR in the past. A simple conversation on talk pages about disputed points is a much better way to go about resolving such content disputes. Good day. csloat 01:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The old request for comment has 86 edits. It can be restored temporarily for the purposes of the case, if the case is accepted. While that page is indeed ancient history, if Biophys can prove that their is a connection between your alleged misbehavior than and your alleged misbehavior now, the arbitrators might consider it relevant. Picaroon (t) 02:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Picaroon. Yes, it is exactly my point that problems with Csloat behavior persist over several years. What kind of prof would be appropriate here? Obviously, I can not tell if this older RfC is relevant without looking at it. I hope this older RfC will be available for ArbCom members, when they make a decision to consider this case or not.Biophys 02:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Committee members are all admins, so I won't need to restore it for them. I'll add a link to the deleted history in the request, and will restore to a subpage temporarily for all to see if the case is taken. Picaroon (t) 03:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Point of order; this is fishing. Biophys admits up front he has no idea whether this conflict from over a year ago is relevant. It was an RfC that was settled, quite to the embarrassment of the person who started it, as I recall, since almost everyone agreed that it was out of line. It is ridiculous for him to cite it as evidence when he has no idea what it said. I have no objection to it being made public, but I do object to it being cited as evidence by someone who admits he has no idea what it ever said, in a dispute where he has not even bothered trying to talk directly to me. csloat 09:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, an RfC about behavior of a user is relevant in RfA about behavior of that user.Biophys 20:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a fishing expedition, as you have basically admitted. And you're pulling up an RfC that was settled a long time ago and presenting it as evidence that you have brought this dispute to my attention and it was not settled. And you admit you have never even seen the RfC -- this is quite bizarre. csloat 07:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Complaint about Fred Bauder

It has been recommended by User:Daniel and User:Chaser that I post this complaint here—although I suspect posting here is useless and will be dismissed.

The complaint is as follows:

Moved from WP:BN.--chaser - t 05:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC) (moved to my talk page)

I would like to complain that after the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Starwood had been accepted and the Arbitration opened, Arbitrator User:Fred Bauder voted Keep in an AFD on article at that was in question in the arbitration about the founder of Starwood Festival by User:Rosencomet about himself, Jeff Rosenbaum.

User:Rosencomet's self promotion and promotion of his organizations in multiple Wikipedia articles plus spamming and COI behavior were at issue in the arbitration. I believe this gives the appearance of bias and I question this type of behavior on the part of arbitrators.

I have not had the nerve to complain until now. --Mattisse 13:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The case closed in March, which is more than half a year ago. The train has left the station. Furthermore, how exactly does participating the deletion discussion make Fred biased? A link might be helpful. Picaroon (t) 15:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Clerk query

• As a condition of my temporary unbanning to make a community ban appeal, I am not allowed to post anywhere else on Wikipedia (except my user page).
• This morning, I was accused of sockpuppetry here, but unbanning conditions means I can't reply.
• Can I ask that a clerk notes this on the above page, that I am unable to reply, and note that I have replied to the editor concerned on my talk page? --Iantresman 22:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I am a clerk as well as an administrator. I hereby authorize you to post a reply on that page, because it has become relevant to the request for arbitration. When you do, you can link to this thread and mention it in your edit summary, so that there will be no allegation you violated the conditions of your unblock. Newyorkbrad 23:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Signing Comments?

Hi, I have not been signing the stuff I write in my arbitration request (with four tildes), because it's not a talk page. However, it just dawned on me that others are signing. My apologies if I messed up by not signing.Ferrylodge 02:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Signing is not of pressing importance, since the header will tell us who made the comment. However, timestamps can be helpful in sorting out the path of a conversation, so please make an effort to do it from now on. Thanks. Picaroon (t) 02:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I'll do my best to sign from now on.Ferrylodge 02:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Exclusion of arbitration pages from indexing?

In a discussion today on ANI, it was noted that AfD's and RfA's are now tagged with code that excludes them from indexing in Google and other search engines. In view of recent requests for courtesy blanking of some arbitration decisions, should this feature be extended to RfAr case pages as well? Newyorkbrad 20:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. All pages starting "Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration" and "Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration" should have this feature enabled on them. Picaroon (t) 20:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

While it's certainly reasonable for people not to want these pages to be the much-dreaded "top result on google"; is there any way at all to do this without making it impossible to search the content of these pages at by any means? (mediawiki search is worthless and we all know it.) Maybe permit some little-known wiki-centric search engine (I know I've seen one, but can't remember what it's called) to index them? —Random832 22:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, this this work? I just googled for "badlydrawnjeff" again and the ArbCOm case still shows up as #3. i'd do the same for User:Anthony except that I can never remember how to spell his last name. hbdragon88 01:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to see this done unless some alternative exists (per Random832). Unless we have an indexed list somewhere of all participants in each and every Arbitration, it will make enforcement of ArbCom remedies much more difficult. It will also complicate things for the poor admin who tries to investigate a dispute—'Hmm...I thought that User:Foo was involved in an Arbitration not too long ago; was it about this issue as well? Was he a good guy or a bad guy there? Is he under probation? Is he actually a complete newbie and I have him mixed up in my memory with User:Boo?' For that matter, being able to search the ArbCom pages using Google sometimes comes in handy during subsequent Arbitrations.

I understand the need to respect a balance between privacy and ease-of-use here. Perhaps we could allow the main page of the Arbitration to be indexed, and block the bots from the subpages (workshop, evidence, etc.). At least that way it's still possible to determine which individuals were parties, and to find specific remedies and findings of fact. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Or they could just search on Wikipedia for it, and save the aggrieved party the potential embarrassment and humiliation of a Arbitration result in Google. This should reall be a nobrainer.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't owe problem editors anything. In particular, catering to their whining should never be a higher priority than keeping around useful information. I generally agree with Ten here. If the information is potentially useful for the future, keep it in some useful form. If you don't like seeing a record of "so-and-so got in trouble for doing X", don't do disruptive things that are likely to get you in trouble. Simple. Friday (talk) 16:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Not everybody that has ugly things said about them on Arbcom pages is a "problem editor". I've seen sterling contributors dragged through the mud on Arbcom pages, including some with real-world names, and in a form that could quite possibly be damaging to them in real life if found on google. I'd strongly support de-indexing. An internal index page listing participation in Arbcom cases would be a good idea though. Wouldn't it be relatively easy to have a bot go through the archives and extract all usernames that are mentioned in lists of parties and in remedies? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for Google indexing of anything except mainspace--irrespective of any arguments about privacy. We should enable it for mainspace but we can turn it off everywhere else. --Tony Sidaway —Preceding comment was added at 16:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Google would disagree with you. SchmuckyTheCat

On Future Perfect at Sunrise's point, we already catalog most major involved parties, including all sanctioned parties, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests. In addition, all arbitration committee requests for implementation of sanctions are listed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested, and all closed cases are summarised on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. It would be hard to think up a more thorough internal scheme for indexing of arbitration cases. --Tony Sidaway 16:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

True enough, point taken. So there really is no good reason not to ungoogle the pages. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed rule changes

I'd like to throw out a few ideas for speeding up cases, and motions in prior cases, without sacrificing quality deliberation (expect this to be a theme in the upcoming elections).

On the subject of cases in progress, how would any of the following changes sound?

• (1) Arbitrators may vote on motions to close in cases they are inactive on without affecting the majority.
• (2) Motions and injunctions require four net votes or the majority, whichever is less (it will nearly always be four net votes).

Regarding motions in prior cases

• (3) I previously suggested that these be removed after 30 days if they have not passed. James F told me this sounds alright, but I heard nothing from any other arbitrators.
• (4) Switch these motions to requiring four net votes instead of majority of active arbitrators.

Thoughts? Picaroon (t) 00:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• (5) Another possibility is making motions to close that are unopposed for a certain amount of time (72 hours? 96?) pass. One example of this issue is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Artaxerex/Proposed decision#Motion to close, where we have a straightforward case stuck at two votes to close since the 9th. Picaroon (t) 01:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added the numerals [1] through [5] in front of your various suggestions to make references in the ensuing discussion easier to follow. Newyorkbrad 20:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I certainly understand the motivation behind all of these proposals, and they are plausible enough in view of the delays that are currently afflicting the arbitration process, but I hope that they ultimately do not need to be adopted.

For example, proposal (3) may make sense in that a motion in a prior case that does not attract attention from a majority of the arbitrators after 30 days probably does not enjoy widespread support. However, and with full recognition of the fact that the arbitrators have other on-wiki pursuits as well as busy real lives, I cannot imagine why there should be such a thing as an RfAr motion that takes more than 30 days to resolve, and therefore would be reluctant to see this contingency contemplated as a regular occurrence in the arbitration policy.

Similarly, (1) would usefully address a situation where 4 of the arbitrators who have voted on a pending case don't get around to voting to close the case. In these situations, and this has happened at least once before, another arbitrator may activate himself or herself on the case for the purpose of voting to close. But this is hardly optimal: After all, the purpose of the vote to close is to give the arbitrators an opportunity to ensure that the implementation notes correctly reflect their intent, and that there is no further work to be done on the case. This surely should best be done by the arbitrators who have written and approved the decision, rather than those who have not been involved in the case.

So while I can see the rationale behind these and the other proposals, and they reflect a desirable and creative approach to streamlining the process, I would rather see the delays in addressing cases and motions resolved through other means. Newyorkbrad 20:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand the logic behind 1, 3, and 5. (I am concerned that 2 and 4 change the definition of majority in some sense). I also understand Newyorkbrad's objections. Jd2718 00:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Inaction of arbitrators

I believe something drastic needs to be done to address the ArbCom's inability to perform its function responsibly. Arbitrators who are "away" or inactive or do not make a single ArbCom related edit for, say, over three weeks in row or over a total of 30 days out of any three months should step down and allow replacement to be appointed. ArbCom's inefficiency has become untenable. --Irpen 21:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I was initially going to disagree with this. Then I noticed a case that has had no activity for a month. So it's pretty clear that Arbcom, for whatever reason, is not doing their job. -Amarkov moo! 21:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The only one I know who is above the ArbCom, so to speak, is Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs). Perhaps someone should attempt to contact him? —Wknight94 (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as ArbCom not performing its function, it still is moving cases, but taking a month for most, when half that time would seem reasonable. Some of the delay is the sheer number of cases, but arbitrators not arbitrating is clearly front and center. There are three reasonable ways to address this. First, we can ask inactive arbitrators to activate themselves, or step down (I think bringing in a higher authority is a bad idea and will tend to undermine the committee.) Second, we have elections opening in 7 weeks, with nominations starting a few weeks earlier. Ask about availability and commitment. And third, we could come up with a formula that would allow a large portion of the ArbCom to act for the full ArbCom. Jd2718 00:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Before petitioning Jimbo, the community must form its opinion whether its view is that Jimbo should appoint anyone he wishes or whether he should use the last election results as a guideline. There were several candidates with solidly above 70% support who were not appointed as there were enough with over 80 % support votes. --Irpen 22:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators received overwhelming support from the community; removing one for inactivity seems harsh, but understandable. Coopting an arbitrator who had received less than overwhelming support would be cheating the community. Jd2718 00:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

All I am saying is that coopting the arbitrator who did not even run in the last election is worse. A past incident have shown that very convincingly. [[29]] --Irpen 01:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Point is well-taken, it would be worse to take an unelected, unvetted arbitrator. But taking someone who was opposed by 30 - 40% of the community would also be bad. Better than either option would be to let the committee work these last 2 and a half months of 2007 down one. Perhaps Picaroon's proposals could be adopted, and set to sunset 1/1/2008 when the new arbitrators take their seats. Jd2718 02:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the majorities are already calculated based on the number of arbitrators who list themselves as active at any given time. (A current listing of which arbitrators are active, and which are away or inactive, is maintained at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee.) When an arbitrator moves himself or herself to away, the majorities are adjusted accordingly. Similarly, when an arbitrator goes for 14 days with making any arbitration-related edits, a clerk queries him or her regarding a temporary move to "away" status. The broader issues of arbitrator availability and participation, I think, go a bit deeper than that. Newyorkbrad 02:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The shuffling in and out breaks continuity and inflates the number of active arbitrators on any given case (especially when we drag to 3, 4, 5 weeks). This is not the principal problem, but it does contribute to the delays in closing. If we open with 9, we should be closing with the same 9. Jd2718 03:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

True, but it's by far not the biggest problem. Newyorkbrad 03:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Although it would be wonderful if in-case and post-case motions could progress in a reasonable manner, they quite simply don't. I can't recall a single one, ever, that has been quicker than two weeks, and most are over thirty days. Unfortunate as it is, these month-long motions are regular occurrence; this needs to be dealt with somehow. Besides lowering the requirement for passage to four net votes as I proposed, what else could alleviate this issue? Picaroon (t) 03:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The biggest problem comes from the arbitrators' not dispensing their duties with the due responsibility. Anyone who runs for the position should be prepared for a substantial time commitment. People who are unwilling to take this commitment or whose circumstances change such that they cannot make this commitment should step down and be replaced promptly. And I don't just mean the arbitrators who are switching between off-line and away modes most of the time. Many arbitrators take no or little part in the workshops and discussions and all they do is show up occasionally at the proposed decision pages casting the poorly informed votes. This is equally unacceptable. Workshops were created long time ago by Fred to hammer out the cases' decisions and Fred took active part in these discussions that helped him write decisions. With the arbitrators' input and oversight workshops remained an indispensable tool but currently they turn into the ground for trolling, bickering, exchanges of spats and whatever else equally totally useless. Instead of participating actively and removing nonsense aggressively, arbitrators, through their inaction, allow the page that is supposed to help the decisions' being circumspect to become useless and unreadable. Then unable to make sense out of megabytes of crap that the workshops turn to, arbitrators simply procrastinate cases, and when delaying further becomes untenable, the totally disconnected "proposed decision" comes up out of the blue, gets quickly voted and that's how more and more cases turn out.

Both recent cases that I closely watched lately are sad examples of this course of events. In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus the workshop was totally abandoned by the arbitrators allowing it to degenerate to a situation where important issues were buried in a huge amount of noise. The case was open for almost three month and the committee, unwilling to sort the case out, clean the workshop from noise and/or start anew, came up with the final decision which was just as good as none. Another case is the still ongoing Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren. Since arbitrators were too busy or inactive the workshop has turned into a fest of unbelievable trolling [30], [31], [32], [33], or obvious nonsense [34], [35], [36], [37] and then out of blue comes the disconnected decision were a simple beheading of all parties is proposed.

This all became possible due the negligent attitude to their responsibilities that the community entrusted them. Arbitrators who don't arbitrate should step down regardless of whether they are too busy, burned out or worn down by the process' ugliness or for whatever other reason. And their being replaced by the candidates who received a substantial even if not overwhelming support from the community would be a positive step because it is better to have less perfectly fit users who work than the perfectly fit users who don't. --Irpen 07:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree with Irpen. The Arbcom is currently not functioning. If this continues and they don't start cleaning up their act soon, I can see a situation arising where the community will have to simply push this institution aside and start ignoring it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all but a few diffs (but let's not go into details). Arbitrators should be active on arbcom talk pages and in workshop. Very obviously many more arbcom members are needed to deal with the workload; I am sure that the current few are doing the best they can - but it is very sadly not good enough. Look at it from this perspective: which country with over 4,000,000 citizens has a legal system consisting of 15 people? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Piotrus and Future Perfect. If the ArbCom cannot function, and at the moment it is clearly not functioning, it will become a pointless institution bankrupt of authority. I, for one, will simply ignore its dictates and act as I see fit. Unless something is done, and quickly, this will happen. How many more cases need to sit around for two months with virtually no activity? Can't the arbitrators maintain discipline even on their workshops? How is it possible for a dozen men to govern 5 million? Moreschi ^Talk 12:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Usually a "net vote" in arbitration cases is calculated using the principle that one oppose vote subtracts one from the net total, and one support vote adds one to the total. If that's the proposal, it sounds like it might work. For instance with a majority of seven a sanction might be supported by six arbitrators but opposed by two. Under the current system it would fail because it doesn't have a majority, but under the proposal it would meet the "four net votes" threshold. Six supports, subtract the two opposes, leaving four net votes and a pass.

The proposal on unopposed motions to close sounds fine to me. The use of uninvolved arbitrator votes on closing is a matter for intra-committee discussion but I don't see how it would gain support.

I'm not convinced that the arbitration committee isn't working (at least, not in the sense that it wasn't working in late 2004 and late 2005). The Digwuren case, for instance, succeeded in making all the requisite findings of fact and remedies, despite the complaints above. The voting phase was straightforward and was completed in the space of two weeks, after an evidence phase of about six weeks during which the evidence page was for all intents and purposes edited daily. --Tony Sidaway 16:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)`

We've been taking certain new steps to manage our workflow, which has helped somewhat (hence the unusual closing of six cases this past week). Whether that will be sufficient, I don't know; but new ideas are always welcome. Kirill 17:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No-Shows

Just out of curiosity, what happens if an admin (I) imposes a permaban on an editor (II), and then the editor (II) makes an arbitration request naming the admin (I) as an involved party, but the admin (I) never shows up to make an ARBCOM statement?Ferrylodge 02:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

These two prior arbitrations may offer some guidance: 172 (#2) and Henrygb. --bainer (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Although the committee can consider the conduct of all involved parties, I believe there is a bit of a distinction to be drawn between a case drawn to seek review or reconsideration of the ban, as opposed to a case alleging habitual misconduct by the administrator. In the former situation, at the case acceptance stage, the administrator might feel that his or her points had been covered by others, for example. If the case is accepted, all parties including administrator (I) in your example would be notified and invited to present evidence and workshop proposals. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 13:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, Newyorkbrad. Earlier today, I took the liberty of reminding FeloniousMonk about these proceedings, including two questions which have not been addressed by others so far in these proceedings.Ferrylodge 14:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

At some point "reminding" crosses the line to "badgering." Just an observation. Raymond Arritt 14:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

And do you believe that line has been crossed, Raymond?Ferrylodge 14:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, just an observation, not an accusation. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't put it on. Raymond Arritt 14:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It does not fit, nor has anyone suggested that it fits. But thank you for the observation.Ferrylodge 16:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, Brad makes the important distinction between making a statement before the case is accepted and participating after the case has been accepted. I had thought Ferrylodge was referring to the latter. The arbitrations I linked to of course deal with failures to participate in cases after they have been accepted. --bainer (talk) 22:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarification requests moved from main page

Clarification re motions in Attack Sites

antisocialmedia.net is clearly an attack site, but it was also covered in what even the most prominent policy-they-don't-want-called-BADSITES proponents regard as Reliable Sources. Is naming a site the same as linking? Note that in the example that caused the case, antisocialmedia.net (which is undoubtedly an attack site) was named, not linked. The naming was removed under cover of NPA. We already don't link many shock sites, we just put the addresses in text form. But specifically: is the prohibition on specifically linking, or is naming for encyclopedic purpose in article space covered?

Another point: you don't want people gaming your ruling. But the whole case came about because of the BADSITES advocates grossly gaming the MONGO decision. What can be done when (not if) they start again? Bring yet another case? We're talking about admins reverting at will and blocking people they disagree with - David Gerard 14:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Issues which were not resolved in the ruling are not resolved, but remain subject to resolution under our principles, most particularly Wikipedia:No personal attacks, by users, administrators and the dispute resolution process. Fred Bauder 16:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

If a particular issue arises (not simply an abstract question), please carefully discuss the matter on talk pages, and if necessary use the dispute resolution process. Please don't edit or wheel war. Fred Bauder 16:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Neither of those answer the question: is the resolution against linking intended to cover naming in an encyclopedic context? That's a yes or no question, Fred. - David Gerard 18:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Linking =/= naming; cf. the rejection of the proposals prohibiting "referencing" of sites. Kirill 18:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Naming a site, alluding to a site, hinting at a site's existence: these are not linking to a site. If naming is gaming the principle against linking, then we should treat it like other gaming. Gaming harassment policy is typical or symptomatic of bullying and provocative behaviour - back to the playground. In other words there is a pretty good reason to say WP:HARASS is not for gaming. Charles Matthews 20:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarification re motions in Attack Sites (2)

The arbitration case specifically mentions antisocialmedia (ASM). As far as my reading of it goes, this is for the following reasons, among others:

• Wikipedia is not the place to promote your agenda. This is addressed in WP:NPOV (and in WP:BAN, which allows for the banning of those who are here to pursue an agenda).
• Wikipedia is now so big that it is of paramount importance to those advancing an agenda, to get that agenda promoted here.
• Harassment of editors is a natural consequence of this, but that does not make it acceptable; nor does the fact that Wikipedia is now so big as to make harassment inevitable, imply that when people registered some time ago they should have recognised that this would happen.
• We should aspire to a low-to-zero-tolerance approach to harassment. This is recognised in existing policy. WP:HARASS. There is a clear difference between persecution of one's opponents, and sincere debate with an aim of achieving rapprochement or at least a truce, in order to develop content which reflects all significant points of view without editorially favouring one or the other, deferring instead to the balance of independent scholarly opinion.
• Sometimes, people prove incapable of working collaboratively with others. We try to help them, but in the end if they are not capable of working in a collegiate manner we exclude them. This is policy, WP:BAN.
• Sometimes, such people continue the argument, attacks and threats after banning, either by registering new accounts or by using their user space, which blocked editors can still edit. Neither is acceptable. WP:SOCK and WP:PPOL reflect the consensus that nobody has an indefinite right to continue an argument. You only get so many kicks at the can.
• A banned editor is banned because their actions are destructive to the project. They do not become any less destructive when repeated in an external venue.

The reason the arbcom case was brought, and ASM links deemed unacceptable, is because of this last point. Pursuing and escalating an agenda offsite, especially by personalising and attacking those who acted to enforce community consensus and policy by preventing the abuse of Wikipedia to pursue an agenda, is absolutely 100% unacceptable.

Right now, banned User:WordBomb, the operator of ASM, is pursuing exactly the same campaign through Wikipedia Review (WR). Simultaneuously, some pro-LaRouche activists are pursuing a campaign against User:Cberlet on the same site. Simultaneously, the banned user WordBomb is also pursuing a campaign against those who advocated removal and banning of links to ASM, also on the same site. Simultaneously, Herschelkrustofsky, also banned from Wikipedia, is pursuing a campaign of harassment and outing against SlimVirgin, alleging sockpuppetry (WP:SOCK is very clear on the distinction between a sockpuppet and an alternate account, and his evidence in any case establishes no credible link between the two named accounts). In another thread, allegations are made that User:Ryulong is a sockpuppet. In another thread, banned User:Jon Awbrey is speculating on an inappropriate and undeclared editing relationship between User:Jayjg and User:Jpgordon, also implying sock- or meatpuppetry.

In the arbitration case, the need to be able to draw distinctions is discussed. This is as it should be. It is, right now, very hard indeed - near impossible I'd say - to draw a distinction between Judd Bagley engaging in harassment at ASM, and Judd Bagley pursuing precisely the same campaign at WR. When Judd Bagley pursues a campaign against those who advocated banning of ASM, it does not matter whether it is here or at WR. Within the context of Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia, Bagley's agitation against those who prevented his attempts to skew the content in a particular direction, are not relevant or welcome.

Applying the duck test, particularly in respect of banned user WordBomb's actions, it would seem to that Wikipedia Review is covered by the findings of the arbitration case. The findings are carefully worded, and reading the carefully worded findings this fits the following:

• 15.1) Wikipedia should not link to websites set up for the purpose of or substantially devoted to harassing its volunteers. Harassment in this context refers to cyber-stalking, offline stalking, outing people without their consent, humiliating them sexually, or threatening them with physical violence. WR is, by now, substantially dedicated to harassing and outing Wikipedia editors, particularly those members of the administrator community who have been active in achieving the banning of certain editors and preventing them from abusing Wikipedia to pursue their agenda.
• 8) Except for obvious cases, such as ED, it is difficult to sort out sites engaged in criticism of Wikipedia and its editors and administrators from sites engaged in harassment. Likewise, when information is provided about the alleged wrong-doings of Wikipedia users, it can be difficult to differentiate legitimate complaints from bogus ones calculated to cast a user in a false light. Wikipedia Review contains more, more sustained, more personalised and more sinister attacks on administrators than ED did at the time of the original MONGO case, and does now. The actions coordinated on Wikipedia Review have caused more distress, more personal real-world issues and more disruption than the campaigns coordinated on ED.
• 5.1) This decision applies only to links to AntiSocialMedia.net and similar sites which engage in malicious behavior toward Wikipedia users. Attempts to extend this remedy to sites critical of Wikipedia and its users' behavior are discouraged. Wikitruth is critical of Wikipedia, and occasionally hard on Wikipedians. Wikipedia Review is, at present, being actively used by several banned users - e.g. User:WordBomb, User:Jon Awbrey, User:JB1896, user:Internodeuser - to further the campaigns and disruption that led to their original bans. Some editors who are not banned appear to be acting as proxies for these campaigns. Wikipedia Review, while it undoubtedly is critical of Wikipedia, in the same way ASM is also critical of Wikipedia, is also a "site engaged in harassment". The baseless allegations of sockpuppetry by User:SlimVirgin are currently repeated on WR. The assertion of SV's real world identity, as promoted by ASM, is stated as fact on WR. WR is actively engaged in trying to build the memes of their accusations to undermine those who have opposed POV-pushing, soapboxing and vanity abuse of Wikipedia, leading to well-supported bans of those now active on WR. WR also appears to be actively recruiting banned or disenchanted users.

On the other hand, at least one individual (who is active on Wikipedia Review) argued passionately against any attempt to blanket-ban critical sites, and this is supported by the case. The restriction, and as a clarification of the MONGO arbitration, that restriction as well, applies only to sites which engage in malicious behavior toward Wikipedia users, and set up for the purpose of or substantially devoted to harassing volunteers. WR is unquestionably engaging in malicious behaviour, and is arguably substantially (and unarguably significantly) devoted to harassing Wikipedia volunteers. This is because it provides a platform and campaigning forum for several individuals, of whom Bagley is the worst. Thus, the problem is not inherent in WR itself but is a result of its current user base.

Wikipedia Review does not, however, constitute a reliable source for information critical of Wikipedia or any individual Wikipedian. Links to Wikipedia Review do not constitute "legitimate criticism", because the criticism has no authority and has, as presently constituted, strongly suspect motives. We would not accept a post on Stormfront as a source for an allegation that an editor is pushing a pro-Zionist POV, and for the same reason we cannot accept a post on Wikipedia Review as a source for any criticism of a Wikipedia editor or admin, because to a very high degree of probability that will be motivated by personal animus.

Wikipedia Review is no longer Daniel Brandt's good-faith attempt to fix Wikipedia through critique, its focus at present is largely to undermine and destroy Wikipedia, or to mould it into a different shape where NPOV is replaced by the POV of those who have, either through choice or through inability, failed to influence content decisions to their own liking. Not everybody on WR is happy with this, I would say. While there is some glee at the undermining of admins willing to make tough calls, there is also some disquiet about some of the actions undertaken by certain individuals, and their motives for contributing.

While assuming good faith, then, we should recognise that WR,in its current state, is dangerous and inimical to the process of building an encyclopaedia - as with any link to offsite blog posts, aggravation, harassment, outing, attacks and other behaviour unacceptable within the framework of Wikipedia, links to WR are likely to be pernicious and corrosive, and (most importantly) not at all likely to actually result in improvements to content. Such links, to WR especially, risk undermining attempts to build consensus in the most contentious of topics. They damage the one thing that Wikipedia is about, above all else, which is co-operating to build the best encyclopaedia we can. So we banned links to ASM, and we should also ban links to WR. But there is more to WR than just Bagley, and there are editors who insist that some WR members, at least, have good intentions of fixing genuine abuse. There is a need to reconcile these, and to arrive at a position where the actual problem, rather than a sideline issue, is fixed. We all, I think, know that links to ASM are a sideshow here, it is Wikipedia Review, first and foremost, whose links concern large numbers of editors and have motivated the majority of recent debates on link removal, attack sites, external link sections in WP:NPA and WP:HARASS and so on. These problems predate ASM, and the particular individual who has done more than anyone else to prevent a BADSITES policy, keep the argument alive, resist any tendency to remove attack links on principle and apply the MONGO ruling to sites other than ED, is active on WR, not ASM.

I propose therefore that the following clarification should be adopted, which takes into account the good faith concerns of those Wikipedia editors who are active on WR or consider it has at least the potential to act as part of the essential mechanism of checks and balances:

• No more links to Wikipedia Review threads should be added until the problem of offsite harassment, outing and coordination of abuse is fixed. In particular, restating as fact the allegations published at ASM is wholly unacceptable.
• The content of Wikipedia Review should be monitored by the Arbitrators periodically, with a view to lifting this restriction if Wikipedia Review reverts to being a good-faith attempt to improve the project, rather than a gathering ground for banned abusers.
• If any editor believes that Wikipedia Review contains a valid criticism, supported by sound evidence, of any Wikipedia editor or process, then three channels are open to them:

• Wikipedia:Mailing lists, specifically WikiEN-l, which is an officially supported channel for meta-debate, and is at one remove from the content of the project, thus allowing discussion with much less risk of inflaming already tense situations.
• Email to the arbitration committee, who investigate and discuss privately or in public, as appropriate, credible and supported allegations of abuse of the project.
• OTRS, which is a back-channel open to article subjects and those affected by content issues, where independent trusted Wikipedians can review the basis of the case and make a decision as to whether, and how, it should be raised.

At the tactical level:

• Threads already linked, which have drifted into attack, are stale, repeat allegations which are also available from a better source, or which contain harassment, intimidation or outing, may be removed, with an explanation, by any editor in good standing. Automated removal, as was done for ED, is strongly discouraged, and it is preferred that subjects defer to independent editors rather than remove old links referring to themselves. Old may be taken as prior to the acceptance date of the attack sites arbitration, a date at which it may be reasonably expected that the community pulled its collective socks up in respect of external harassment.
• Attempts (by Wikipedia Review members especially) to reinsert links removed by others should be sanctioned. Disputes should be referred to the arbitration committee as requests for clarification. If a link contains personalised criticism against an individual, little is lost if the link is temporarily unavailable while it is deliberated in a neutral venue.

I believe that this is a proportionate and reasonable clarification. It addresses a clear and evident present problem, which has been identified by many users; it satisfies the legitimate concern that valid criticism not be suppressed, by identifying three supported routes for that criticism to be assessed and responded to; it removes a farcical situation where we ban eighthundredpoundgorilla.com while allowing links to corneroftheroom.com, where EightHundredPoundGorilla is a prominent member and is pursuing exactly the same agenda, along with several other problematic individuals also pursuing other agendas; it defines a mechanism by which the site, which has as contributors several Wikipedians in good standing, can fix the identified problem and play a full part in what was, at face value, its original purpose; it addresses a significant and serious concern about ongoing offsite harassment of Wikipedians.

And most important of all it does this: it reinforces the point that keeping Wikipedia as a place where it is safe for people to work on documenting controversial issues is much more important than keeping Wikipedia as a place where you can criticise others for the way in which they try to work on documenting controversial issues.

Wikipedia is not at all reluctant to discuss problems and criticisms, but we are not obliged to do so at the same venue where we are working on the core goal of building a verifiably neutral encyclopaedia, especially when doing so risks undermining that vital goal. Guy (Help!) 12:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

If people are limited to 500 words in a case, I don't see that we have to read 2300 in a clarification. Could you take down this manifesto, and ask a simple question if you want a simple answer? Charles Matthews 15:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Charles, I am happy to move the reasoning to talk, but I felt it necessary to develop the argument in order to show that this is not seen as just another "ZOMG! Ban WR! BADSITE! BADSITE!" call. Sorry I was verbose, but if the issue was simple it would not need discussion at all. It is restated below, with the actual request highlighted, clerks should feel free to move this to Talk in support if they like. Guy (Help!) 15:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarification re motions in Attack Sites (3)

Per request, I have restated Clarification 2. Credit to JzG for most of the languge:

Banned User:WordBomb, the operator the website mentioned in the case, is pursuing exactly the same campaign that led to the sanctions through Wikipedia Review (WR). Simultaneuously, some pro-LaRouche activists are pursuing a campaign against User:Cberlet on the same site. Simultaneously, the banned user WordBomb is also pursuing a campaign against those who advocated removal and banning of links to ASM, also on the same site. Simultaneously, Herschelkrustofsky, also banned from Wikipedia, is pursuing a campaign of harassment and outing against SlimVirgin, alleging sockpuppetry (WP:SOCK is very clear on the distinction between a sockpuppet and an alternate account, and his evidence in any case establishes no credible link between the two named accounts). In another thread, allegations are made that User:Ryulong is a sockpuppet. In another thread, banned User:Jon Awbrey is speculating on an inappropriate and undeclared editing relationship between User:Jayjg and User:Jpgordon, also implying sock- or meatpuppetry.

In the arbitration case, the need to be able to draw distinctions is discussed. This is as it should be. It is, right now, very hard indeed - near impossible I'd say - to draw a distinction between Judd Bagley engaging in harassment at ASM, and Judd Bagley pursuing precisely the same campaign at WR. When Judd Bagley pursues a campaign against those who advocated banning of ASM, it does not matter whether it is here or at WR. Within the context of Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia, Bagley's agitation against those who prevented his attempts to skew the content in a particular direction, are not relevant or welcome.

I propose therefore that the following clarification be adopted, which takes into account the good faith concerns of those Wikipedia editors who are active on WR or consider it has at least the potential to act as part of the essential mechanism of checks and balances:

• No more links to Wikipedia Review threads should be added until the problem of offsite harassment, outing and coordination of abuse is fixed. In particular, restating as fact the allegations published at ASM is wholly unacceptable.
• If any editor believes that Wikipedia Review contains a valid criticism, supported by sound evidence, of any Wikipedia editor or process, then three channels are open to them:

• Wikipedia:Mailing lists, specifically WikiEN-l, which is an officially supported channel for meta-debate, and is at one remove from the content of the project, thus allowing discussion with much less risk of inflaming already tense situations.
• Email to the arbitration committee, who investigate and discuss privately or in public, as appropriate, credible and supported allegations of abuse of the project.
• OTRS, which is a back-channel open to article subjects and those affected by content issues, where independent trusted Wikipedians can review the basis of the case and make a decision as to whether, and how, it should be raised.

• Attempts (by Wikipedia Review members especially) to reinsert links removed by others should be sanctioned. Semiprivatemusings 15:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That looks like three remedies we went nowhere near, and the short answer is "no way". WR wasn't mentioned in the case. I deplore having to explain why this matter is not to be reopened the day after the case was closed. Please use this offer of clarification in a more reasonable fashion. Charles Matthews 16:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Which is why the longer version was necessary, to point out that, yes, WR is covered by the ArbCom case - and it certainly was mentioned, extensively, both in the meta debate and in Evidence.

But humour me. I am trying to fix a problem here. We have Judd Bagley openly pursuing his agenda on one site, which is banned, and openly pursuing the same agenda on another, which is not. Or maybe it is, because the same user is doing the same thing as the banned site, so maybe it is banned. With the current result, the site's fans will say it's not banned, the site's opponents will say it is, and the argument will simply carry on. The idea here is to clarify that when ArbCom says that Judd Bagley's campaign of harassment is unacceptable, they mean it is unacceptable everywhere, while satisfying what good faith reasons might exist for opposing links to that particular site. I am prepared to believe that WR may one day return to its original goal of improving Wikipedia, but right now it is repeating exactly the same harassment as ASM, and it's exactly the same individual doing it. Me, I'd simply remove the links, but then you'd have the same thing all over again, so why not clarify that Wikipedia is not the only place where meta debate can take place, and actually fix the problem. Guy (Help!) 16:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

We have carefully, really, shown principles under which harassment policy can be applied to some external links. This is not a debate. We are not in the business of dealing with facts not in front of us. Our brief concerns the behaviour of editors on Wikipedia. Charles Matthews 16:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay...but do you consider wikipedia review to be either encyclopedic for a reference and or a website that is (now at least) overly preoccupied with harassment corrdination towards our editors?--MONGO 07:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

As a forum site, WR on the face of it fails to be a reliable source for anything. The case makes it clear that to "classify" a site by editorial policy in relation to WP is in general a hard thing to do. Since the word "substantially" is used, I would assume there is a tipping point. It is one of Raul's laws, really, that groups can discredit themselves as critics. A site that has what I call an "open season" policy on Wikipedians can do exactly that to its claims to be monitoring and so on. It is not a matter of hostility, as such, and it is not a matter of simply posting claims of bad faith here. Charles Matthews 08:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a small point: Wikipedia Review has been created (and deleted) nine times. Though the last occasion was eight months ago, it may be recreated again. If that happened then the site would be linked, at least according to common practice. Any site that is considered notable enough for an article gets an automatic link. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Though somebody has lately been trying to remove the link from Wikipedia Watch. *Dan T.* 11:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, though you may both feel this is a bigger point than has been made out, the decision whether WR deserves an article is not for the AC, and the hypothetical one about then linking (or naming the URL) is not part of the case. Charles Matthews 12:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The electronic ink is not yet even dry on the decision, which refrained from imposing any blanket link bans whatsoever, before you step in and try to get it "clarified" into an attempt to impose your own standards on external forums, which apparently are to be required to ban all the users you think should be banned, ban all the topics you think should be banned, and perhaps swear a loyalty oath to the ArbCom, before you will deign to permit anybody here to discuss what goes on in those forums. As somebody has already said above, "No way." *Dan T.* 04:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if WR ever had a goal "of improving Wikipedia," nonetheless "fixes" like this seem to me akin to throwing more coals on a partially extinguished fire. However, I'm sure Guy's proposal would be welcomed at WP:LINKLOVE—AL ^FOCUS! 05:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect...that LINKLOVE link looks like a pretty POINTY thing to create...in fact, I hope you come up with a better link than that one.--MONGO 07:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It does sound a bit Orwellian, like the "Ministry of Love". *Dan T.* 11:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't create the redirect, but I like it. Only LINKLOVE can ultimately replace BADSITES. Like Jimbo has said, "Our trust has been broken, and only love can rebuild it."—AL ^FOCUS! 14:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There's also BADLINKS. I kind of like LINKLOVE though; it makes me think of The Beatles. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Jzg, I think Wikipedia talk:Linking to external harassment or a new policy proposal might be a better venue for your manifesto. (I say manifesto lovingly, being a proudly verbose commenter myself whose posts often approach manifesto-length). Even if they were all of like minds (rather than a split court), I don't think Arbcom has the ability to clarify that case in a way that could settle your concern. It looks like you're arguing they should clarify a decision they didn't make, in a case they didn't consider, weighing evidence they have not heard, utilizing powers they do not possess. Instead, I'd suggest proposing what you want in a new brand new policy proposal, and seeing if you can get a consensus for it. --Alecmconroy 12:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

To the extent that Wikipedia is cleansed of WR claims, readers are forced to go to WR to view those claims and the evidences presented there supporting those claims. Some of the claims are nonsense. Others are well supported with evidence. Most are hypothesis remarkably similar in tone, style, and attitude (us v. them) to many on-Wikipedia claims of sockpuppetry. WAS 4.250 20:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Those which are well supported by evidence, bring the evidence. The majority, however, are conspiracy theory and sour grapes. Neither of which we need. And some are outright harassment, including Bagley's continuation of his campaign from ASM. Guy (Help!) 00:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

There was a single isolated case where an article link to such evidence at WR seemed needed and I added it. The case was eventually resolved by rewording that deleted the counterclaim that needed to be balanced to comply with NPOV so the link was able to be removed without harming NPOV. The case was handled quietly with maturity and care by all concerned. That is what should happen. Not bright line rules that replace thoughtful caring careful case by case evaluation. In the end NPOV was not sacrificed, but completeness of coverage was compromised by the tiny-est bit on a fairly trivial matter which is actually standard BLP advice - "do no harm" outweighs coverage of details of questionable significance in the case of living persons. In our article content (this does not extend to talk space or every bit of content at off site linked pages), NPOV can not be allowed to be even slightly compromised when it comes to living people, but completeness of coverage must. WAS 4.250 20:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry by participant?

It looks like participant in the pending Sadi Carnot case has been using a disruptive sockpuppet at WT:COI. See this bad faith post. The arbitrators may wish to determine who's doing this. I sent an email to one of the participants last night which touches on the subject of the post. While this could be a coincidence, it seems more likely that there's a connection. - Jehochman ^Talk 11:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm such a silly goose. The sock was User:MyWikiBiz, and has been dealt with. If somebody wants to suss out the IP address of User:COI analyst they may find an open proxy that needs blocking. - Jehochman ^Talk 12:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Separate case pages

Why can't individual Arbitration cases be placed on spearate pages as AFDs are? (Unless I totally missed the correct link.) It seems this would be easyier to follow individual cases, as the watchlist would then only show changes on the case(s) one is watching. This seems to work very well for AFDs, and I can't help wondering why it isn't/can't done here. - BillCJ 19:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

They are; see {{ArbComOpenTasks}}. What appears on WP:RFAR, however, are not cases but requests for cases; it wouldn't be very useful, I think, to create subpages for those that are rejected. Kirill 00:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I realized that the same day I asked, when the case was opened. Being my first (and hopefully last) RFA, I and otyhers editors dint's understnad that this was just a request, and jumped right in to presenting the case. - BillCJ 18:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration sub-pages need to have a link to WP:AN/AE

Hey, just wanted to point something out: I have never been involved in an arbitration, but I recently had the instance where it seemed someone else was violating the terms of an arbitration they had been through before. I read through their entire prior arbitration, thought it might be worth reporting, and.... couldn't figure out how to do it. I went way out of process and contacted one of the initial people on the arb committee, who corrected my mistake.

The archived arbitration pages, i.e. the sub-pages of this article, should by default have a link to WP:AN/AE, so that folks reading the arbitration and suspecting a violation know how to report it. Comments? --Jaysweet 17:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll find a place to link it. Picaroon (t) 23:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for reopening?

I'd like to request an arbitration case be reopened in order to address a particular topic. Are there instructions anywhere for making such a request? Simões (^talk/_contribs) 20:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are seeking a change in the findings or remedies in a case, you can post to the "Requests for clarification" section on the Requests for arbitration page or, if it's a major change, bring a new case. If you are seeking enforcement of the rulings that were already made in the prior decision, you should post to Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 20:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarification regarding actions by User:Jimbo Wales

Moved from the main RfAr page for any further discussion, and so that it will be archived and preserved in due course rather than deleted. Newyorkbrad 22:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/My_desysop_of_Zscout370 clearly displays that the community is still at odds over the recent Jimbo Wales drama and when an exhaustive discussion fails to produce a consensus, the issue is usually deferred to the ArbCom. I have not yet decided whether I am prepared to write up the case but the clarification from the committee is needed on the issue on which there is still no clarity.

Does the committee have a jurisdiction to review the actions of Jimbo Wales when such actions were done in the capacity of a Wikipedia user, that is an editor, an administrator or a steward?

Clearly, ArbCom has no jurisdiction upon Jimbo's actions made on behalf of the board but what about the rest?

What would be appreciated is a simple yes/no answer to this fairly general but important question. All caveats, including Jimbo's "special status", "special role" and the fact that he appoints the committee itself (at times not even consulting the community [38] ) are known. So, please let's not make this request another fork of the pretty heated board referenced above. TIA, --Irpen 18:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not Jimbo Wales's original delegation of authority to the Arbitration Committee in 2004 would have included jurisdiction for ArbCom to review Jimbo's own administrator/bureaucrat/steward actions is doubtful. After all, the Wikipedia:Arbitration policy provides that ArbCom decisions may be appealed to Jimbo Wales. However, in discussing a recent block, Jimbo posted earlier this week that "[o]ne of our oldest traditions, absolutely unquestioned across the entire history of Wikipedia, is that I have the right to ban users who violate our social norms. I am happy to review my own actions, and indeed happy to have them reviewed by the ArbCom, and of course as a matter of tradition equally as strong, I would defer to the ArbCom in any review of my own actions." (Emphasis added.) Thus, Jimbo has agreed that his decisions may be reviewed by the arbitrators. Whether to grant a review in a given instance, precisely what types of decisions are reviewable, and whether such reviews should be sought by filing a conventional request for arbitration or via a different procedure, would presumably be questions for the arbitrators to resolve. Newyorkbrad 20:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, I love you but you are wasting your time here. Nothing on Wikipedia is ever going to change by challenging Jimbo. He is the "God king", or "King God" or whatever it is they say in Yankyland. He thought of the Wikipedia idea first so has the right to only speak to re-enforce his own view. In spite of this odd leadership the project survives mainly because of addiction of the hardcore content editors and a constant turnover of new editors. The nasty noncontributing little admins stay and procreate themselves because there is little other for them, with their limited capabilities, to do elsewhere. For the true editors by the time disillusionment sets in, addiction has usually caught them. So in spite of the leadership the content of Wikipedia continues to improve, and will continue to do so. If you can accept that life can become very much calmer if not - well the intelligent are welcome everywhere. Giano 21:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Amen, brother. -- !! ?? 22:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Giano, I know all that. But I wanted to hear the opinion of the arbs whether they accept the idea in principle that they may be tasked with the reviewing the actions of their benefactor.

Brad, thanks for your comment. I gather from it that in your opinion the committee has a jurisdiction of this narrow issue only. Of course it is always up to arbs whether to exercise such jurisdiction, but this is a separate matter. I hoped to hear from the arbs. --Irpen 21:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Which case is this supposed to clarify? Charles Matthews 22:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I gather it is intended to seek clarification of the arbitration policy itself. (Perhaps the instruction at the top of this section—"Place requests for clarification on matters related to the Arbitration process in this section"—could itself use some clarification.) I can relocate this thread to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration policy if that would be a more suitable location for it. Newyorkbrad 22:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's own words quoted above, answer the question that was asked to be clarified, so in effect the power behind the board has answered. As for whether such a case should be brought, that's just silly unless someone can first come up with some very specific questions they feel need answering that have not been answered. I think the talk pages about this have clarified that Jimbo and the community sometimes don't speak the same language and that we all need to learn better how to minimize disruption. If anything is needed at this point with regard to all this, it's an effort by everyone to learn new skills at how to be less disruptive. WAS 4.250 23:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

As a constitutional question (there's the Anglophile again) the Arbitration Committee can and has in the past reviewed actions undertaken by Jimbo, although usually at his request. For the committee to request that it review an action undertaken by him that he had not personally referred to the committee would be different in form but not substance. Mackensen (talk) 11:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo sent an email to wikien-l on 19th April 2007 saying:

Here, let me by decree in this very instant make the following binding

pledge upon myself:

In the event that the ArbCom makes a ruling against me, overturning any

decision I have made in my traditional capacity within Wikipedia, the

ArbCom's decision shall be final.

*This* is a significant change to our policies.

--Jimbo

I think that answers this question quite conclusively. --Tango 12:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Charles Matthews has hit the nail on the head in his question: Which case is this supposed to clarify? --Tony Sidaway 19:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Requests for clarification do not have to refer to an individual existing arbitration case. This request presumably refers to a potential case regarding Jimbo's desysopping of Zscout370. David Mestel^(Talk) 19:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

As a former arbitration clerk, I am not aware of any change in the status of this section from requests for clarifications of arbitration committee rulings, to general clarifications on policy (which the committee has been historically loth to do outside actual cases). When did this occur? --Tony Sidaway 19:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's sort-of evolved that way. Raul654 19:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Presumably whenever the subtitle was changed to "on matters related to the Arbitration process". I suspect in reality the real question is whether it is something that has a prospect of occurring, rather than mere conjecture. David Mestel^(Talk) 19:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Let's not spend too much time on the location-of-the-thread type questions. As I said above, if an arbitrator believes this would belong better on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration, I'll be happy to move it there. Also, regarding the substance of the inquiry, those interested should now refer to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jimbo Wales#Response for Jimbo's latest comments on this topic. Newyorkbrad 19:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I certainly think it would be inappropriate, in view of the responses and views on the RFC, to take this to an arbitration request. --Tony Sidaway 20:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, pretty much anything (within reason) can be the subject of an arbitration request. Whether or not to accept it is for the committee to decide... David Mestel^(Talk) 20:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's been demonstrated that Jimbo's actions aren't default-accepted as being automatically on-the-button, and that when necessary the community will overturn the actions. It has also been demonstrated that Jimbo's actions are, 99% of the time, well thought-out and reasoned, and that should be respected. Nevertheless, whilst it's possible there has been a miscalculation in the decision-making that went on here on Jimbo's part, whether such a thing occurred is up to the Arbitrators, and that will be reflected in their decision to accept or reject. Anthøny 22:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)