Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Block review/unblocking procedures and protocol

(This is the analysis I mentioned in my comment in the arbitrator voting section on the "Giano II wheel war" case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC))

The question of whether it is improper and a "wheel war" for an administrator to reverse another's action, or whether the wheel-warring only starts if the first action is then reinstated, has been debated inconclusively for some time now, including in prior cases of this Committee. Rather than try to analyze this by reviewing the policy pages or prior ArbCom decisions, as might be appropriate if the committee takes up a case presenting this issue, I think we ought to focus on what the policy should be.

In particular, the protocol for unblock reviews is actually a little confused now. We make a promise that blocked users can have an independent review of their block by another administrator, and blocking/unblocking may be the most important admin action there is vis-a-vis the contributors, so it's important that our policy in this area be well-understood and make sense.

Situation: Administrator A blocks. Administrator B reviews the block and decides an unblock is warranted.

There are at least four possibilities about what our policy should be about how this gets handled.

The "Reviewing Admin Discretion" position would be "B can go ahead as the reviewing administrator and unblock."

The "Blocking Admin Discretion" position would be "B must consult with A and can only unblock if A agrees."

The "Seek Consensus; Default to Blocking Admin" position would be "B must consult with A. If A agrees to unblock, fine. If not, B can take the disagreement to a noticeboard (typically ANI). If there is a consensus to unblock, B can unblock. If there is a consensus not to unblock, or there is no consensus either way, then the block stands."

The "Seek Consensus; Default to Reviewing Admin" position would be "B must consult with A. If A agrees to unblock, fine. If not, B can take the disagreement to a noticeboard. If there is a consensus to unblock, B can unblock. If there is a consensus not to unblock, the block stands. If there is no consensus either way, the reviewing admin makes the decision, so B can unblock."

I've seen all four of these methodologies and standards relied on and defended on-wiki, and I don't know if there's any consensus as to which is "the rule." Consulting with the blocking admin is certainly best practice, time permitting, but is it absolutely mandatory?

Wheel warring case

The wheel warring case (currently titled "Giano II wheel war") should be renamed to not include Giano's name if ultimately accepted. There's no need to throw Giano's name around if he has left the project. He should be able to leave in peace. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It would depend on whether or not the case is about wheel warring in itself, or the wheel war over Giano. If it's the former, then it's probably a good idea to rename. But if it's the latter, then it should probably retain the name. From what I can see, it looks like it's being more oriented in the "general wheel warring" category. X clamation point 14:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

If you took Giano's name out of the case, the whole matter would just look bizarre. But then again, that's pretty much the whole point. MickMacNee (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Application for taking part in J&S guidelines discussion

I hereby apply for permission to take part in the guidelines discussion per [1]. MeteorMaker (talk) 04:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You appear to have only made two productive edits in a fortnight.[2] Perhaps you have been productive on another project?[3] On what basis would you like us to consider your application?

chat

) 11:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

John, I've used more than 700 hours on the J&S issue, including the ArbCom case, so I was a little behind on other projects. Forgive me for not contributing more time the last two weeks. Naturally the final decision was a somewhat dispiriting experience too. Also, the formulation "Editors restricted from participating in certain discussions as a result of this case may apply to have those restrictions temporarily suspended for the exclusive purpose of participating in the discussion of draft guidelines for this area. [4]" did not indicate to me that I should have edited more in order to have my application considered.

The current wording of the guidelines draft consists to a large extent of amendments I've suggested [5][6], based on the extensive source collection here. Since there is a theoretical possibility that nationalist editors with a "no need for sources" attitude may still try to derail the guidelines discussion (though they've kept a commendably low profile so far), I would like to put my by now significant knowledge of this particular issue to good use in order to help ensure a proper, neutral, and solidly source-based wording. MeteorMaker (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Target dates

Is there any point in setting a target date if it constantly slips?

talk

) 09:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If we don't set them, how will anyone know we slipped? ;-) The intention is that the slipping doesn't remain a constant feature...

chat

) 11:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a reason they're called "Target dates" and not "Ending dates". X clamation point 15:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

A different kind of request

Hi AC, I was wondering (and feel free to close this if it's too much to ask) if there was any way that you could, as a condition for unbanning (formerly?) disruptive editors. . .keep them from participating in community discussion(s) concerning currently disruptive editors. You know 'birds of a feather' and all that. I don't know that they make that big of an impact, but still. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The conditions for unbanning a certain individual should be based on what the problems were with that individual. If the individual was being disruptive on AN/I a lot, then a topic ban from AN/I might well be in order, for example. If they were only ever disruptive on the talk pages of articles about a particular topic then banning them from AN/I isn't going to serve any purpose. --Tango (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Unblanking Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Alastair_Haines

As Alastair Haines seems to have a continuing habit of ignoring his RfA sanctions (See his 1st and 2nd arbitration enforcement requests as well as his block log), it would be quite useful to actually have access to his RfA (without having to dig it out of the history every time). I understand that it is often a courtesy to blank RfAs for editors who use their real names. However, I don't think we should be paying a courtesy to someone who isn't interested in respecting their RfA, and indeed is probably benefiting from its inaccessibility. Thus, I would like to request that his RfA be unblanked, so that it is easier to access and cite when necessary. Kaldari (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

We wear the white hats around here. Unless its gone beyond "being a pain" to actually harming someone, leave it blanked.--Tznkai (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Application for taking part in J&S guidelines discussion - any progress?

Sixteen days ago, this application was filed. Since the Arbcom imposed a 14-day time limit on itself in this decision, I wonder if there has been any progress made? MeteorMaker (talk) 10:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A motion to allow this has been declined. — Coren ^(talk) 00:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

To stifle speculation (and to aid future researchers of nationalist bias on Wikipedia), it would be helpful with a statement to clarify on what formal grounds it was declined. MeteorMaker (talk) 08:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, apparently my application wasn't declined at all:

"There wasn't a single rationale but it might be helpful at this point to explain that the motion was drafted in general terms. How the committee reacts to individual applications – accompanied perhaps by a summary of what the editor intends to say, along with assurances of good conduct and promises to avoid inflammatory rhetoric – is an entirely different matter."

I've added the requested statements to my application (reposted below):

OK, I apply again then, this time with an explicit assurance of good conduct and a promise to avoid inflammatory rhetoric. A summary of what I intend to say: In the event of a resurgence of the no-sources-needed let's-override-bothersome-policies-with-consensus tendencies that have plagued us in the past, I intend to insist on compliance with WP policies and guidelines and on backing up claims with sources. Otherwise I intend to remain basically silent, because I'm still in the process of catching up on my regular job after the hundreds of hours I put into the ArbCom J&S case. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Appeals process

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

FT2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Statement by FT2

With the "Appeals" section gone, it might help to clarify what route users wishing to appeal a Arbitration Committee remedy or enforcement should take. Or was the removal inadvertent? I'm thinking about users such as Everyking, Tango etc who have had cases whose restrictions or rulings (as opposed to bans) they wish to appeal. I'm fairly sure those aren't intended to be handled off-wiki, and yet "Amendments" doesn't state they should be posted there either. Clarification required, please? Thanks.

(If this has been addressed elsewhere or doesn't need a clarification, please just fix any instructions which need to show it, and remove this request.)

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Question by Rootology

I was meaning to ask why we don't just toss up a nice pretty and small "global" header template (the sort that goes dead center, up top) on each of these main RFAR pages so that people just know where to go for what?

T

) 05:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

I suppose there should be another section of this page for "appeals", although honestly the page has become more than complicated enough already. For that matter, we should probably distinguish between an appeal from another individual or body to us ("User:X appealed his block by Admin:Y to the ArbCom") and a request that we reconsider, update, or vacate one of our own rulings, even though we have typically used the term to refer to the latter as well ("Desysopped Admin:Z can seek return of the tools through a new RfA or an appeal to this Committee"). In any event, unless and until someone confuses me by reformatting the page again, a user with an appeal can file it under new cases or clarifications or amendments or whatever; we will see it in any event. But given that the result of a successful appeal is to change the outcome of the prior decision, I suppose that "Requests for amendment" is the most logical of the current choices. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Per preceding, amendment I feel is the logical and best term and place. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann AND Ancient Egyptian race controversy

I have been enforcing elements of

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann over the last day, and it strikes me that it either needs more teeth, or Ancient Egyptian race controversy needs a level of protection or editing sanctions that are not currently applied to it. The basic problem here appears that there are two camps of editors who disagree about what the actual subject of Ancient Egyptian race controversy should be about. Now, since I have taken only administrative action on this article, I am not going to weigh in on what the correct subject of the page is (even though I do, indeed, have an opinion). The reason for this is that the above referenced ArbCom case only really provided the ability to act against disruptive editing. What is also needed, however, is a statement on the actual subject of the article. In other words "Ancient Egyptian race controversy

IS about XYZ, and any editors who seek to change the article so that it is about ABC are engaging in disruptive editing". Without this key piece, the article is just going to jerk back and forth ad infinitum.

Currently relevant discussions can presently be found:

It looks like this goes back years, and since the protection is currently in place for only one month, it would seem reasonable to have a process for resolving the issue which does not include constantly locking down the page and blocking people. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Under article probation you can ban all the editors in both camps from editing the article and/or the talk page as well. Sometimes giving everyone a forced vacation will allow other people to work on the article, or the parties will get together and realize its better to cooperate than be topic-banned. Arbom will not rule on content, including the proper subject of the article. An RFC would be the normal way to settle the content question. Behavior problems can be settled by banning the problematic editors from editing the article. Thatcher 04:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

A request

Jehochman included me as a party in his request. I do not want to be a party of this. Can you please remove me from the list? Do you have any rules that define who must be a party? I was not a subject of any editing restrictions or sanctions in Diguwren case.Biophys (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Being a party to a case is mostly a way to say that you are somehow involved, and to ensure that you are notified of the progression of the case. It doesn't change your status with respect to potential sanctions; the committee traditionally reviews everyone involved in a case whether they are official parties or not. Nathan^T 20:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

That is understood. I was notified about the case. Can you now remove me from this list? If not, can you please give me any links to relevant wikipedia policies? I would like to be removed.Biophys (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Biophys, you're clearly involved in the battling and edit warring and were involved in the three recent threads requesting enforcement. It is appropriate for you to be listed as a party. Shell ^babelfish 22:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your opinion. I asked about the official rules. Can anyone answer please?Biophys (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. If you take a look at

Wikipedia:Arbitration_guide helpful to understanding the process. Shell ^babelfish

22:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Does it mean that everyone can add any new users at will: [7], but no one can remove users from the list?Biophys (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Pointless bickering in AE threads...

... is a problem in the recent Eastern Europe cases. Does anybody object to adopting the rule against threaded discussion as in

WP:RFAR on this board? I.e., one statement per user, and any threaded dicussion belongs on the talk page. Sandstein

20:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not pointless bickering. It's the clubbing/shielding/complaint backlog dilemma. Possibly also crudism. Durova^Charge! 20:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you think this is a good situation to develop new solutions to those problems? Jehochman ^Talk 23:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I really like the idea Sandstein. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't find the back and forth helpful to deciding what to do and its often distracting from the issue. Many of these issues are complex enough already. Shell ^babelfish 00:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well. It is annoying when people ask questions or make challenges and we cannot respond to them directly. Moving such commentary to the talk page allows for threaded discussion, and keeps crud out of the way. Jehochman ^Talk 00:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

(comments refactored, below)

I think you've missed the point entirely - continuing personal or content disputes on AE isn't appropriate and I for one would like to see that habit curbed. We don't care about the bickering, the fighting and the endless accusations without evidence. If all editors could be trusted to factually and without emotion state their viewpoint with appropriate diffs then there wouldn't be a need for this discussion. Allowing a statement instead of threaded discussion allows open participation without encouraging continued fighting. I don't know where in this you see admins being recruited or allowing themselves to become part of a conflict; wikipedia processes evolve over time. Shell ^babelfish 01:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yup. I think we should make a habit of sanctioning people who file frivolous requests, as well as sanctioning people who disrupt AE threads with irrelevant bickering, or who harass AE admins by filling their talk pages with invective. We also need to get at least a few ArbCom members going on the record in support of AE admins. I for one am not keen to be second guessed and be accused of admin abuse by the hardcore troublemakers who often get reported at AE. The current situation is appalling. AE admins are outnumbered by disruptive editors, and we receive little to no support. Jehochman ^Talk 01:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

(comments refactored, below)

Vecrumba, we are not discussing the Eastern Europe drama here. We are discussing the management of this noticeboard. If you would like to contribute to this discussion, it would help if you would stay on topic. Sandstein 09:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

(refactored) I support a venue where arbitration request conversations can be properly threaded to be be more readable than the current "Comments to"--which should all be moved to the discussion page with admins committing to read both the request page and discussion page with equal attention. To the drama, I support a moratorium on filings of arbitration requests to compel editors with opposing POVs to resolve their differences through improved article content. Moreover, this will also afford admins the opportunity to observe editorial conduct over a statistically significant period during which the "arbitration method" of content warring is unavailable, removing tit-for-tat from the equation. Hope this helps on both issues. The answer is not finding more admins to assist in resolutions—increasing the throughput of the system being gamed will not help. Vecrumba TALK 17:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem with Sandstein's suggestion is that its likely outcome would add a new layer of political gaming to AE. It would create a tactical motivation for editors to collude offsite (probably more so than already happens) in order to make an effective 'first strike' against a given target, who could only rebut on the talk page where posts are less likely to be read. Conscientious admins would have to toggle between AE and AE talk to get a fair view of the actual situation, while less careful admins would likely get taken in some of the time by misleading claims and cherry picked evidence. Everyone agrees the current situation is bad, but this proposal would be likely to make it worse. Durova^Charge! 03:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about it from that angle. Since there does seem to be coordination/collusion in many of the more difficult cases, it may be that the only solution is going to be good old fashioned elbow grease. Yes, its probably a lot to ask for admins to take several hours to go through articles and contribution histories to make sure they have the entire picture but any kind of reliance on the commentary of involved editors is asking for trouble. Shell ^babelfish 03:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

If any better solution comes up than elbow grease, I'll be the first to celebrate it. :) Durova^Charge! 04:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Disallowing threaded discussion does not mean that rebuttals aren't possible, just that they may not be made in threaded form, but rather as an appendix to one's statement. This seems to work well enough on

WP:RFAR. And admins would need to be ready to move overly long and off-topic contributions, such as the interruption by Vecrumba above, to the talk page, much like clerks do on RFAR. We cannot prevent offsite collusion, but I do not see how the noticeboard format has any impact on the effectiveness of such collusion. Sandstein

09:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

There is already tactical motivation to collaborate off-site on AE threads. It couldn't get worse, because it already happens as much as it could happen. Anyway, as I said on the Request, the best thing is to separate admin comments from non-admin comments. A user files a report, the admins deal with it. There is no need to have threads packed with time-wasting counter-accusation and other such tendentiousness. Relevant comments, if there are any, may be spotted on talk pages. Admins need to be able to discuss action with each other on the thread, particularly when a relevant consensus is needed. This is impossible at the moment as threads quickly get filled with tendentious noise. It also makes it hard for new admins, both because they won't be able to spot the important train of dialogue, and because the seasoned AE admins may not even recognise that important comments are being made. To the unknowing, one name is as good as the other. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I support removing discussion from the main section of AE (but editors should be allowed to make one statement each, like on ArbCom). Perhaps it can be somehow separated, or kept admin-only, but the current situation needs addressing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Would this work - one statement per user, one section for threaded discussion among uninvolved admins, all other threaded discussion goes on the talk page? Sandstein 17:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I think a similar format to RFAR would work, with each participant able to make their statement and any rebuttals in their own section and threaded discussion moved to the talk page. Also would some rule on age of diffs be useful? --

talk

) 17:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreeing about format. Older diffs are useful when the older diffs demonstrate a continuing behavioral pattern and more recent diffs also exist of similar action. Durova^Charge! 18:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

@ Sandstein, your suggestion is better than the current format. @ Martin, so is yours. I don't think that AE are likely to last long enough to justify the grandiosity of ArbR style user sections, but like I said it would be better than the current format. Hopefully everyone can agree the current format sux. The best format of all transcluded RfA style page per thread, where the accused and the accuser along with admins can post in the main thread, while the opposing networks of clients, patrons and allies can post on the talk. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk page separation?

If we agree to change the format, do we need to set up

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case currently redirects here as well, but AE might have a higher talk volume. Sandstein

09:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

See my suggestion below: likely better with large disputes to implement an AE format modeled after arbitration evidence where everything remains on one page, but each editor posts in their own section. Durova^Charge! 18:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Deposit EE admin side points here

Kirill, your flippant response is most unhelpful. All you need to do is look at the nasty wikilawyering in the responses here and the lengthy messages on my talk page[8] and at

WP:AE does not work when there is no consensus among administrators. I was not about to ban Digwuren after Sandstein refused to do so in a thread immediately above. Would you prefer that we start a major drama and then come here, or should we have the good sense to recognize when such a situation is incipient and come here for help first? Jehochman ^Talk

03:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

We have deadlock at AE.. ~~More administrators will not solve the problem.~~ Several vested contributors need to be banned or restricted, but they are being protected, and they are gaming AE against opponents. I'm not sure how to ban somebody from AE. May I? Jehochman ^Talk 12:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I might be able to help a bit. I'm going back to take a closer look at the Beatle Fab Four, Biophys, Offliner and Digwuren requests by reviewing their recent contrib history. This is going to take me several hours each which means some may not have comments until tomorrow; I already closed the Beatle Fab Four report because I felt it was rather straight-forward. Since the other reports are more complex, I'm going to present what I found and any suggestions I might have for going fowards as opposed to immediately closing. Shell ^babelfish 02:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. That should be useful. Fab Four already approached me and asked me to undo your close. I will not, because I agree with what you did. Jehochman ^Talk 02:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I've received the same request to reverse the decision but have yet to hear a compelling reason for approx 90% of one's contributions being reverting and other disruption. Shell ^babelfish 03:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

A problem is that discretionary sanctions may work in small disputes, but when a dispute reaches critical mass the noticeboard format breaks down. The most viable solution might be to designate certain large-scale cases to a new format modeled after the evidence sections of an actual arbitration case. Crud would still accumulate, but it would be sequestered and easier to separate wheat from chaff.

In the larger picture--this is as good a place to say it as any--earlier this year when I complained about "milquetoast" decisions and "passing the buck", I took it for granted that baseline Wikipedian norms would remain in effect with Committee deliberations: substantial evidence of recent policy violation should always be requisite for sanctions. Between pacifism and the nuclear option there must be a happy medium where remedies apply to primary antagonists based upon sound evidence. As Shell Kinney affirms above, there is no substitute for elbow grease. Durova^Charge! 04:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be made clear to certain editors that "this is your really last chance before hammers start falling" and that "both sides seem at fault" here. Hopefully this will give some a pause. And for those which don't... I think our patience is quite thin as it is. Regarding the recent application of 6-month topic ban, I do agree that "elbow grease" needs to be heavily used - but we shouldn't apply this remedy to editors who (mostly) create good content in this area, but only to those who try to damage / POV push it (a wide application of this remedy could, for example, ban every single Estonian editor in this project!). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Poitrus, are you involved or uninvoled in EE controversies? Jehochman ^Talk 18:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Replied there.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Respectfully disagreeing with Piotrus: primary antagonists do exist within most disputes. Regardless of the subject, a disruptive editor's first tactic is "it's all his fault"; with the fallback position being "he's just as bad as I am". A basic strategy of disruptive editors is to drag other people down to their level and muddy the waters. In order to stabilize these topics in the long run, it's crucial to maintain the trust of the individuals who are willing to take the high road--and demonstrate at sanctions time that a track record of productive contributions with occasional bursts of honest frustration will be handled differently than months of POV pushing, baiting, and wikilawyering. If the sanctions response gets reduced to a binary warn everybody v. sanction everybody, then the disruptive editors gain the upper hand. Because when people who are responsible for making distinctions stop attempting to do so, then regular Wikipedians caught in the dispute despair and actually do sink to the level of the disruptors. There has to be some benefit for attempting to take the high road. Durova^Charge! 18:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Ummm. I think I agree with you - I can't find anything in your post above that I'd disagree with. So... which part of my statement above you disagree with, exactly? :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, perhaps we misunderstand each other. The 'we'll sternly warn both sides' has been a handwaving solution in past situations at various disputes. Occasionally stern warnings on both sides are actually appropriate if accompanied with detailed analysis of why each individual deserves a warning. More often, blanket warnings occur without specific reasoning--which tends to give the impression that the decision is really Admin-ese or Arb-ese for "My eyes glazed over when I tried to read this mess, so please all of you just go away". Durova^Charge! 05:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Another wrinkle to consider, most admins don't have the time to handle these cases - I'm in 15 hours reviewing and I'm not halfway through. Its like running a mini-Arb case. Shell ^babelfish 05:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well put, Shell. This site ought to have a way of honoring the admins who roll up their sleeves and do that hard work. Most of the labor never shows up on an edit history--chasing down diffs and double checking and taking notes. Durova^Charge! 22:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki Help

Which page has the edit notice for

WP:AE containing the template for filing requests? I'd like to edit the request template. Jehochman ^Talk

18:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

See

Template:Arbitration enforcement request and Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Sandstein

22:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I am going to add a few notes to the request template. This template has helped the board function more smoothly, I think. My changes will add a note that the conclusion section is for comments by uninvolved administrators only. Other editors will be free to comment in the discussion section. Jehochman ^Talk 00:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Requesting advice re. Obama editing restriction

Is it is permissible under Obama articles remedy 11.1 (and by extension 11) for editors restricted from interacting with each other to unilaterally criticize each other? I am troubled by ongoing accusations of bad faith, trolling, and stalking[10][11][12][13] made against me by an editor with whom I am not to interact. To keep my equanimity, and avoid running afoul myself of the editing restrictions, I will not follow suit, respond to the accusations, take this issue to forums other than Arbcom, or otherwise interact with the editor (hence my not mentioning them by name or notifying them). However, these personal attacks are troubling and I wish they would stop. They follow many similar accusations made both before and during the arbitration, and were themselves a subject of the arbitration. If the aim of the no-interaction remedy is to stop this, and restore a healthy editing environment, surely that remedy means to stop repeating the accusations, right?Wikidemon (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Note - per advice I have received, I will make a request for clarification. Thanks all, Wikidemon (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Xenovatis

The editor seems to be intentionally mistyping my user name (changing the numbers).

[14]
neutrality disputed due to removal of sources and tendentious editing by user Jd2871
[15]
[16] <-- this edit consists of nothing more than mistyping my username.
[17]

I don't know if it is intended to be annoying, rude, provocative, cute... But it should stop. Jd2718 (talk) 23:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Everyking

The observation that editors desysopped by arbcom have trouble being resysopped through RFA is valid, but so what? The community's reluctance to have them back as admins is perfectly legitimate and arbcom shouldn't second-guess it. John VDB's suggestion of probationary re-sysopping during which EK is advised to do some consensus evaluations (I think this mostly means afd) prior to reconfirmation sounds unbeneficial.. EK could instead simply enter a voluntary mentorship with some admin without being resysopped. Under the mentorship, EK would do some non-admin AFD closures for a while, with the understanding that EK could close afd's as "delete" and the mentoring admin would perform the actual deletion (without necessarily endorsing it--the closures would be reviewable at DRV like any other afd closures). After doing this for a while, EK could start another RFA and invite participants to check out his recent afd closures. No temporary or probationary resysopping is required. 67.122.209.126 (talk) 06:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Ugh!

Can someone please put the box that showed the status of all open arb cases at the upper right corner back? Removing it has made following Arbcom cases significantly more annoying. Jtrainor (talk) 05:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not been removed; it's just that now you have to scroll down below the TOC, and it's not pink anymore. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Can't find it either at 9.41 UTC. AlexandrDmitri (talk) 08:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Who to name as parties?

Do I need to add other parties to the new request I have opened today re use of disputed/occupied territories etc.? I've not named anyone and what to focus on how to resolve this matter rather than on individuals. An option could be to name every contributor to the 19 threads I have identified this year, but that seems excessive. Also I have noticed several editors since topic-banned from the Israel/Palestine area among the previous contributors. On the other hand picking out individuals (the admin who closed the RfC? the editor who questioned his appropriateness as an impartial judge? etc) might seem invidious. I'm tempted just to flag this matter at the IPCOLL and the Wikiprojetcs for Israel, Palestine and Syria. Any views?--

talk

) 15:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes you should. Use your best judgment in picking users who are likely to want to be informed about any decision request and will have something to say on the issue. Please also ask a clerk for assistance in formatting your request.--Tznkai (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration statistics 2009 - half-year summary

Through the first half of 2009, the Arbitration Committee considered 111 requests, voted on 41 motions, publicly heard 19 cases, and drafted and voted on 928 case proposals.

There were 59 case requests, open on average for five days, with 63% declined, 29% accepted, 7% disposed by motion and one withdrawn. There were 52 clarifications and other requests, open on average for 11 days. Motions were open on average for four days, with 61% passing. Cases were open on average for 60 days, with the longest being open for nearly five and a half months.

With respect to case requests, Wizardman had the highest voting percentage of 93, followed closely by Casliber with 89, against an average of 61, and a low of zero. Coren and Stephen Bain shared the highest accept percentage of 53, and Vassyana had the highest decline percentage of 80. With respect to clarifications and other requests, Vassyana commented on the most (32). Overall, Carcharoth could be considered to have been the most active, with the lowest DNA (did not act) percentage of 18, against an average of 47 and a high of 86. With respect to motions, John Vandenberg had the highest voting percentage of 79, with many arbs following closely behind, against an average of 59 and a low of 18.

Wizardman drafted over a quarter of the cases (five) with Newyorkbrad drafting three, while John Vandenberg drafted the largest case, as measured by number of proposals (186, 100 passing), and Rlevse drafted the second largest (132, 98 passing). Six arbs were virtually tied for the highest case proposal voting percentage: Carcharoth and Sam Blacketer, (with 94) and FloNight, Kirill Lokshin, Rlevse, and Wizardman (with 93). Arguably, Rlevse was on average the quickest to act on case proposals, with Casliber second.

Comparing Apr-Jun with Jan-Mar, the number of case requests declined 36% and the percentage of cases accepted declined 15%, thus the number of cases accepted was almost halved. The number of clarifications and other requests increased 74%, the number of cases closed more than doubled, and the number of case proposals considered increased by more than five times.

Comparing the first half of 2009, with the first half of 2008, the number of case requests dropped dramatically from 105 to 59, continuing an apparent trend, and the number cases heard dropped from 27 to 19, while the average case duration nearly doubled from 32 days to 60.

For complete details see: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Statistics 2009.

Paul August ☎ 19:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Links

Thanks to the recent changes, there is no link to the case archive on this page, or, at least, none immediately visible. There used to be a link at the bottom of the open and recently closed cases to the full list.

It's right up at the top in the navigation template ("Index of proceedings"). There's also another link in {{ArbComOpenTasks}}, if I recall correctly. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 03:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Definition of an (un)involved admin

Since my comments were moved (first time, second time) under a claim that I am somehow involved in a discussion, I'd like to ask were is the applicable definition of the (un)involved admin? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

When the arbitration enforcement thread mentions a case that bears your username, that is probably a sign you are involved as least in the eyes of the users who seek to apply that case. Even if they are completely wrong, it would be beneficial for you to let your peers handle such matters. Jehochman ^Talk 04:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Which case in question bears my username? Digwuren or EE? EE was renamed exactly because people got confused about this. The EE arbcom case did not mention anything about my judgment not being sound; in fact the majority of findings and rulings involved other editors, not me. That I am from EE doesn't mean I am involved in all the editing going there; I make comments as uninvolved admin in cases where I have not participated in a particular editing conflict. If there is some other criteria for determining (un)involvement, it should be clearly stated somewhere. Please note that I have never attempted to use my admin tools to close a debate or pass / enforce a decision. However, I believe I have the right to be seen as neutral for the purpose of discussion. That I am from EE or that somebody cries "he is involved" without citing any evidence is no reason to disqualify someone (I could just as well claim you are involved because we interacted in the past and you made comments about editors from EE... which I won't, because that would be ABF and plain ridiculous). Finally, please read my essay on how active editors (like myself) are penalized simply for being well known. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus, if your level of involvement in these areas were to be the benchmark for uninvolvedness we might as well delete

WP:UNINVOLVED. I think you should just respect the judgment and intelligence of guys like Jehochmen when they say you are involved. They are no fools, and so trying to argue around it will be rather pointless I think. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk

) 04:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The argument "You are involved because you are Piotrus" somehow fails to convince me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Well Piotrus, the whole purpose of a straw man is that it's supposed to be thoroughly unconvincing. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus, as you were the subject of substantive findings in both the Digwuren and Eastern European disputes cases, you are considered involved per se for the purposes of any enforcement matter stemming from either case. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 04:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Are there any other ~~arbitrators~~ administrators who are involved in a similar fashion, or am I the only one? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Assuming you mean "administrators", I believe Deacon of Pndapetzim is the only other one to be the subject of findings in these cases (or at least the only one I recall being an administrator at the time the findings were written). Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 04:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I refrain from admin involvement when I know in my heart I can't act fairly, and I think we should be able to trust admins to do this. Other rules of thumb are gameable and unworthy. You stay out when you can't be fair. By extension, if Piotrus was interested there'd be no reason why he couldn't act as an admin in a dispute between Bulgarian and Macedonian nationalists, or two Russian nationalists, but the rule of thumb above seems to prevent this. I suppose we have to live in reality though. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The fallacy here is that every admin who becomes involved in those issues will be eventually listed as a party to some arbcom and will thus find himself unable to act on AE... I find it a bit strange. Still, the above clarification is helpful - at least now we know were we are standing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

That would be true if the criterion were merely being listed as a party, but that's not the point I'm making. Other administrators (e.g. Alex Bakharev) were parties to the case, but there were no (adverse) findings about them in the decisions issued. In your case, however, and in Deacon's, the case resulted in substantive and adverse findings about your conduct.

I have no problem, generally speaking, if administrators who are merely listed as parties, for whatever reason, continue to work in enforcement after the case concludes; but it's not a good idea, in my view, for someone who was actually found to have acted improperly to do so. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 15:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

"Substantive"? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

As opposed to findings which did not really say anything about the subject's editing, such as the various "no evidence has been presented" findings in Eastern European disputes. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 15:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright ... thanks. I think "adverse" on its own would have covered it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

That's probably true. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 15:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Does the "you've had an adverse finding in a ArbCom case" in your view rule out any admin involvement in the topic area generally, or is it just for AE matters? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm content to leave that up to the individual administrator's good judgment and the normal policies about admin involvement. Unless we do something like explicitly prohibiting you from taking admin actions in an area as part of a remedy (which I believe we've done in the past?), you can assume that we're not taking a stance on general admin activity. The involvement with the case itself presumptively covers discussions directly related to the case (i.e. enforcement threads for it), but not necessarily anything broader than that. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

And how long since the case's end one is considered involved? Would one need to feel a new arbcom case or such and ask arbcom to consider his recent edits (let's say from a year after the case) to reevaluate this, for example? Or is it a permanent stigma? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, your involvement is with the case itself; it'll stop being relevant if or when the case is no longer central to the discussion (e.g. if the case is superseded by another, and is no longer used as the basis of enforcement decisions), but I can't see how that involvement could actually end short of the findings concerning you being rescinded (which is not something that's going to be done merely on the basis of good behavior since the end of the case). Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 16:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved requires a requesting editor open their request for action

I would respectfully suggest that in the future admins refrain from opening arbitration enforcement requests based on editor lobbying—and instead suggest the editor do so themselves so that editor's role in such actions is not, however unintentionally, obscured, nor their position appear to be given more credence a priori. If an admin independently observes untoward behavior, they would obviously not be prevented in any way from requesting appropriate action.PētersV TALK 21:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Banning

How do I get arbcom to review this banning [18]? An admin has stepped in and unilaterally banned everyone on one side of an editing dispute. This seems problematic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

See

WP:DR. — Rlevse • Talk

• 00:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that page is very interesting. It discusses all the processes that the admin neglected to follow before banning a group of editors on one side of a content dispute without any evidence of disruption or consensus that a unilateral and one sided enforcement measure of that sort would be appropriate. So, could an arbcom have a look and suggest how to have this admin abuse fixed so that further disruption is avoided? Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom generally takes cases as a last resort after community efforts to resolve an issue. Has anything at all besides this thread be tried? You may want to try

WP:ANI at this point. Right now I'm not seeing the need for arbcom to jump into this case. — Rlevse • Talk

• 02:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As is often the case once Arbcom decisions and remedies are invoked, arbcom is looked to for help resolving related issues. There is a very extensive ANI discussion starting here

wp:ani#Admins vs contributors, as well as some discussion on editor talk pages. But I think the main question is whether it's appropriate for an admin to unilaterally block a group of editors on one side a content dispute, without any evidence or consensus, based on the discretion given in Arbcom's adopted remedies. The answer seems quite clear to me, but now that it's been done, resolution is needed from arbcom on whether this action is warranted and appropriate. I would suggest nipping the problem in the bud and avoiding the bad precedent it sets, not to mention the disruption it's going to cause, by simply undoing the inappropriate banning and encouraging those involved to use dispute resolution first. But maybe you have other ideas? ChildofMidnight (talk

) 02:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's the article in question Ancient Egyptian race controversy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin (I have not commented on or acted in any part of this dispute) I only note that community consensus seems clear that this be sent to

WP:AE for further review and clarification. Several people commenting on the tl;dr thread above cited by CoM recommended this venue for resolving this issue. Since it is part of the enforcement of the Dbachmann arbcom case, this seems like a logical path towards resolution. --Jayron32.talk.contribs

02:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm still waiting on an answer to whether it's appropriate for an admin to unilaterally block a group of editors on one side a content dispute, without any evidence or consensus, based on the discretion given in Arbcom's adopted remedies. The admin has refused to provide diffs and says the bans are based on a pattern of behavior. How can this determination, which I totally disagree with, be reviewed? The editors who were banned don't even agree on the basic content issues, they simply agree that an admin rolling in and reverting months of their collaborative work and then having other admins ban them is improper. Surely this isn't how we do things here??? ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

As noted by Jayron32 above, reasonable suggestions were provided by a number of editors in the ANI thread.

neutral point of view noticeboards to shed light on the situation. Indeed, clarifying some of the content points in relation to fringe theories and NPOV would aid in the review of the situation, as the views on both sides of the dispute (over the bans) are heavily based on such considerations. --Vassyana (talk

) 09:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Addition of parties to a pending RfAr

With

talk

) 16:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Note, the names were added after it was a clear accept and several parties had already commented. I'm feel this is an abuse of process, and an unnecessary widening of scope of the request after most votes had been placed, and feel the names added by Abd should be removed. Verbal chat 16:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"Abuse of process"? You're kidding, right? How can something be abused that's fundamentally broken? "Widening of the scope... after most votes had been placed" is exactly how the arbitrators do business: see the sickening mess that was the "Date delinking" arbitration. You are talking sense in a roomful of silly people... children climbing into adult clothes and putting on powdered wigs... that insist on being addressed deferentially instead of the derision they've earned.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 09:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Also note Abd has been warned for his editwarring on the page, a fact he neglects to mention in his summary. Verbal chat 16:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Typical for Verbal. There was a lot I didn't mention in the summary, that's why it's called a "summary." I didn't edit war. When I was adding the notification diffs as required, I saw that Mathsci's name was missing. It never occurred to me that he would have removed it, so I assumed that I'd made some mistake, and put it back. It was only later that I saw Mathsci's edits. Mathsci, on the other hand, did edit war, repeatedly removing the name. If you count my replacement as a revert -- dicey but possible -- that's 1RR. Mathsci, I count 3RR, but counts can be misleading, it could be 2RR. And purely disruptive, with no actual effect on whether he ends up as a party or not, except probably to encourage that outcome. --

talk

) 19:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The notification on your talk page by AGK calls it editwarring. It is typical of me to get things right :) No need to argue about this, and as an established editor I was also unaware until seeing this that you can't simply remove your name if added by another editor rather than a clerk or arb after the initial posting. The substance of my first comment hasn't been addressed. Verbal chat 20:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it could look like edit warring -- a single revert -- though, Verbal, I would never conceal a revert under addition of new material. I'd make two separate edits. I do respond to the "first comment" below. --

talk

) 20:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I think, rather than adding parties after the case is leaning towards acceptance, you should have instead suggested certain parties be added to the case and arbitrators could make the decision whether or not to add them. –xeno^talk 17:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
That suggestion sounds reasonable. Another course would be for Abd to have proposed it on the talk and awaited a response. Verbal chat 17:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Simplicity. The alternative would not be to discuss it here, this isn't a place where ArbComm makes decisions. No, the alternative would have been to file a motion during the case. Which would require notice to the parties. Six of one, half dozen of the other. I think earlier is better, and that's why I didn't wait. To request that a party be added, add the party to the request, if it hasn't been closed, otherwise present a motion. I could well understand if the arbitrators decide to reduce the list. However, the statements the added editors made before the committee should be adequate to show involvement in the dispute, particularly with my assertion that these statements aren't from neutral editors popping in with a fresh opinion. The one exception is Hipocrite, who is inactive, and who thus made no statement, but who was clearly in up to his eyeballs, possibly deliberately trolling for me to act in a sanctionable way. If I broke some procedure by adding names when I did, I'm sure I'll be told. I can say for certain that I have no such intention. --
talk
) 20:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Out of respect to arbcom I'm not going to respond to these kinds of posts any more. Verbal chat 20:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Clerk note: If the case is accepted the arbs, and only the arbs, will decide who is a party to the case. Further edit warring will result in blocks. MBisanz ^talk 17:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[19] William M. Connolley (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

WMC's edit summary: (rv yet another addition by Abd. You've been told to stop doing this.) No, WMC, the community was told that any further edit warring would result in a block. You just edit warred. I did not. I added a new party, which I'm allowed to do, it's part of the filing and no uninvolved editor has told me I can't do it. There has been no consensus that the names added were edit warring, they are original content, relevant to the case, and the removal by Mathsci was considered edit warring, as must, now, be yours. Fascinating. --

talk

) 20:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If Adb or WMC continue this silly edit war, I'll block them myself. This is totally silly and lame. And one of you is an admin. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Rlevse. My first re-addition of Mathsci's name was a pure accident. Since then I have reverted nothing. There appears to be no rule contrary to adding names before the RfAr closes, but if I'm wrong about that, I'd certainly appreciate knowing. As it stands, four names were added: Mathsci, Verbal, Stephan Schulz, and, latest, Hipocrite, who really should have been first! Mathsci revert warred his name and notification out, WMC reverted Hipocrite out. The other two stand, so far. If AGK intended to consider my addition of new names to be "edit warring," it wasn't stated, I assumed, and nobody contradicted me, that it referred to the first, accidental restoration of Mathsci. Likewise, MBisanz didn't indicate that addition of names was a problem. And your warning to me on my Talk page isn't specific, either. Were you giving a general warning, or were you indicating that I had actually edit warred? It's moot, because if I restored the names now, it would be edit warring, and I have difficulty imagining any other names to add! ArbComm will decide what to do with this mess. I was even more surprised by WMC's revert than by Mathsci's reversions, I'd not have dreamed he'd dare to do it. Without any justification or reason, either, except, "You've been told to stop," which, if that happened, I didn't see. Again, if I missed it, someone tell me! Please! --
talk
) 22:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Abd should not have removed Xeno's comment. I don't at all understand why Abd's "accidental edits" had edit summaries attached to them. I'm also sure that he's perfectly aware that I have made 0 edits to cold fusion and 16 edits to the talk page, although the actual number of posts is probably more like 10, because I usually make corrections. With so few edits, some even placed into huge collapse boxes by Abd, I am surprised that he included me. It's hard to guess what his motives might be, although there are some obvious possibilities. It's also hard to get contribution statistics for Abd on these pages since he hasn't enabled article breakdown. However his namespace article contributions sit at 16%, whereas mine sit at 58% Mathsci (talk) 00:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hasn't enabled article breakdown. What's that? How would I enable it? As to collapse boxes, I think those were placed by others, generally, not by me, normally I only put my own discussion in collapse, though it could look like I did it, because I took a huge collapse box Hipocrite had made to cover many discussion sections and posts by many editors, and I broke it up into individual collapse boxes by section title, so the individual discussions could be found in the table of contents. As to inclusion as a party, that's basically moot now, the request was withdrawn, but the reason can be seen simply by reading Mathsci's arguments in the request, now at [20]. He has a huge axe to grind, and is thus clearly involved, and his edit warring to keep himself from being named as a party will have no effect, in the end, except that he deprived himself of preferred position in debates on the Workshop page. He will be mentioned, not mentioned, reprimanded, or sanctioned, whether he is now a party or not. --

talk

) 19:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"Enabling article breakdown" means creating a subpage like this User:Mathsci/Editcounter, which I did back in Nov 2008. It can be useful. Mathsci (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.

talk

) 03:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Why everything touched by Abd becomes such a complicated mess?.... --Enric Naval (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Because I will do something simple and obvious to me, and, whether it was right or wrong, it gets reverted, debated to death, or otherwise disrupted, often obviously on the basis that it was me who did it or suggested it. Above, I'm criticized for removing Xeno's request for me to sign my edit, since it was now moot. That removal was done exactly correctly, with a request in the summary to Xeno to revert it if there was any objection, and I made it a separate edit precisely to make that easy in the unlikely event that it was considered improper. (Perhaps someone wants to show that I make mistakes? Okay by me, I plead guilty before the charges.) But someone looking for reasons to criticize and condemn will find them. Always.

Adding parties, when they have already been notified, only has two real consequences: they get preferred position in discussion, that's the main one, and they are also thereby reminded of what was already true and which remains true whether they are parties or not: they can be held responsible for their behavior. Being named as a party has no negative consequence in itself, and it establishes no blame, and sometimes the contrary. So I'm amused in one way and a bit sad in another that an editor objected so strongly to being named that he would risk a block by revert warring before ArbComm. --

talk

) 19:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't mind that my prompt for Abd to sign his edit-whilst-logged out was removed. It was indeed moot and would've just been a distraction. A non-issue. –xeno^talk 19:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Abd received a block warning from AGK, which he ignored. A second block warning from Rlevse referred to his subsequent "silly edit war". I think that's what Enric Naval means by "mess". Rather than premature gloating and crocodile tears, it's probably best for Abd to stay silent: remember less is more. Mathsci (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

eh? ignored? The warning and my response. Rlevse indeed later referred to a "silly edit war," referring to "Adb and WMC," but I had done nothing additional that could be considered reversion, and I've asked for clarification. I effectively made one revert by mistake, it was not an intentional reversion, I thought I'd omitted Mathsci's name by some accident and simply replaced it when I put up the diff for his notification. It never occurred to me that anyone would be so foolish as to revert war on an RfAr page. Mathsci, you hit at least 2RR at the Request page, with [21], [22], and [23]. Then I added Hipocrite as a party, and this time WMC reverted, which was also improper, and he was also warned. Note that there was no warning from any clerk that adding parties was not allowed, and there is still no warning on that. WMC also reverted the notice on Hipocrite's talk page, and revert warred with

talk

) 02:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Abd I would just drop this. You're simply flogging a dead horse. Putting names on the list which had little to do with the case was not helpful. Mathsci (talk) 02:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If you would just drop this, why haven't you? You're involved, whether your name is on the list or not. That's why your revert warring was silly. Not a dead horse, Mathsci. "Dead horse" was JzG's refrain. The protective value of that mantra is over-rated. I think everything needing to be said here has been said, and perhaps more, so I assume I'm done here. What's to be said will now be on evidence and workshop pages. Thanks, all, for your support. --

talk

) 03:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, the waring by AGK was issued mainly because Mathsci initiated the "silly" edit-warning almost up to 3RR, so Mathsci was warned for the disruption. So

WP:KETTLE saying hello to the pot? Not wise.--Caspian blue

19:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Rlevse's second warning to AGK is here. In which diff did AGK use the word "silly"? Here is our dialogue: some conducted by email

User talk:AGK#Your message. No need to make things up Caspian blue: in fact I'm not quite sure what you're doing here. Mathsci (talk

) 20:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Your edit warring to remove your name from the list is indeed "silly", so my comment is to "remind" you that you are not in the position to "be quiet" to your opponent regarding the waring issued by AGK that you received together. Think about what good you're getting by making disparaging comments here.--Caspian blue 20:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it past your bedtime Caspian blue? Mathsci (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Not quite, Mathsci, and not even a good try. However, this is obviously "your bed time" for sure.--Caspian blue 20:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes it's now 3 in the morning in France, so you're quite right. Since you seem to have involved yourself in this ArbCom case now, perhaps you should be given the opportunity to respond to the question posed to all contributors to the request page by Jehochman: how old are you exactly? ~~(On the basis of your editing record I have placed you between 12 and 23, but this is only approximate.)~~ Mathsci (talk) 01:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Not as much as your involvement in the ArbCom. As for the age thing, 12 years old? Mathsci, you're pushing your luck repeatedly with typical "ad hominem attacks". You're warned by the clerk as one arbitrator told him to do so. If you do the same thing one more time, I of course let the clerks to handle you with the final warning. Since you're fishing to figure out where I live and how old I am, you're planing to do the same thing (

WP:Outing) to A.K Nole?[24] Always, not nice try.--Caspian blue

01:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Where you live: how so? ~~Please answer Jehochman's question. My estimate is based only on what you write. I would love to be 23 years old again.~~ I responded to his question immediately and even gave the year of my Ph.D. and my Ivy League University (this actually identifies me precisely). Please stop this

WP:BAITing or you are likely to be blocked. ~~You seem to be trolling here.~~ Mathsci (talk

) 01:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Mathsci, I let Rlevse know [25] of your ad hominem attacks, and baiting, and fishing that I've received enough from you not only here. And you switched the "12 years old" with 23 and erased "what I write"[26]. Not nice try since we can still get the diffs.[27][28]--Caspian blue 01:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Both of you:

talk

) 01:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Post removed per bainer. Mathsci (talk) 07:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

As a reminder to everyone, the Committee will consider the behaviour of any editor that is relevant to the dispute at hand. The list of parties is mainly there to ensure that everyone who ought to be notified of various things that happen during the course of the case do get notified, and so long as an editor is aware of the case, edit-warring to include their name in the list of parties is simply foolish.

As a further reminder - though it shouldn't be necessary - we have a civility policy here on this project, and all editors would be advised to follow it, especially when commenting on this page or any other arbitration page. Enric, Caspian, Mathsci: this means you. --bainer (talk) 03:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Thanks. (There was no edit warring to include, beyond a single accidental reinsertion, but there was edit warring to remove, as well as to remove the notice to Hipocrite on his Talk page, so Hipocrite may not have been as effectively warned as possible, but I'm certainly not going to raise a fuss about that. I'll let the committee decide on the motion I proposed, fine with me.) --

talk

) 03:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

@bainer. OK. I was also warned by AKG to make only constructive comments[29], so I'll try my best to behave. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Bishonen

I am ok accepting Jimbo's explanation that "toxic personalities" wasn't referring to Bishonen. The reference evoked an image of Wikipedia as one of those uppity boarding schools with a high academic reputation and student discipline supposedly enforced by prefects, where unfortunately the school is overrun with idiots who run around naked shouting "wooga! wooga!" while snapping towels at people and generally driving everyone nuts. For some reason the prefects do nothing about this until one of the better prefects, Bishonen, can't stand it any more and lets loose some profanities at one of the idiots. At that point the head prefect, Jimbo, regretfully sends Bishonen to 3 hours of detention even though the profanities were well-justified--prefects are supposed to follow higher standards than that. The bigger question is, why are the prefects letting the idiots run rampant to the point where they could cause Bishonen to lose her cool? Those idiots are the toxic personalities Jimbo referred to. Future Perfect At Sunrise (iirc) at one point said something to the effect that only a fork of enwiki accompanied by mass bannings could fix this place. The mainspace editing environment has really gotten damn near intolerable. detox.wikipedia.org anyone?

Meanwhile, Bishonen might find it relaxing to take a break for a while, if this is really bugging her so much. If she can't find enough AGF to believe the explanation applied from the beginning, maybe she can treat it as a

retcon and go along with it anyway. Mediation with Jimbo might or might not help. Yeah, the block in retrospect was probably an error on Jimbo's part, but not all that egregious a one, and not a frequent one either. And while I hate Jimbo's guts (and I mean that in a nice way), he is certainly supplying better leadership than the towel snapping idiots ever will, so I'd prefer that he continue to exert it even though I disagree with him on some pretty fundamental things. Anyway, holding an arb case over the block would be ridiculous. There are plenty of both random toxic cretins and really evil assholes trying to corrupt wikipedia who need the venom a lot more. It's senseless to burn one's energies battling something that was done with good intentions where the other person is trying to make nice, even if it was something dumb. 67.117.147.249 (talk

) 09:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Publication of half-year summary of arbitration activities

Pursuant to the Arbitration Committee agenda item Review Committee performance, a half-year summary of arbitration activities has been published at

talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Carcharoth (talk

) 04:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirgin re Geogre

SV wrote: "He also wanted to use a different account when editing from work for privacy reasons, so he would use Geogre at home, and Utgard at work."

I'm interested in knowing exactly how this practice was supposed to protect Geogre's privacy. Can SV or Geogre explain? 67.117.147.249 (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Holiday?

Is it "Post Crazy-ass Requests for Arbitration Week" or something? My calendar only has lunar phases and major holidays, but I surely don't want to miss out on the week's festivities if so! --MZMcBride (talk) 03:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Obama articles amendment

It seems like nothing has happened on

the Obama articles amendment for a while. The last edit to the case was 5 days ago. Do these things go stale, or is there always some form of resolution (even if it is a resolution to not amend anything)? Is the Arbitration Committee looking for additional statements/comments? Just wondering. -- Scjessey (talk

) 13:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm still looking for some kind of response to this question, even if the response is "go away" or "this is the wrong place to ask questions" or something like that. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Right now it passes with the abstentions, but barely, so a clerk would have to take care of it. Wizardman 16:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I didn't realize that the motion had reached the "pass" threshold. The number of active arbitrators has fluctuated quite a bit recently! -- Scjessey (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Other obligations

Normally I keep pretty close tabs on case requests I file. This is an exception, partly because it's likely to attract greater than the usual share of trash talk that's better left ignored and partly because other obligations (related in substantial part to a recent Signpost open letter) really are taking up a lot of time. Other than FPC I'm not checking much ATM; looking at RFAR about once a day. If something urgent arises please ping me at user talk. Durova²⁸⁴ 03:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Error in Bishonen motion

Section 1.4 of the motion says "Although the use of this latter phrase was later clarified as intending to refer to incivility in general, the phrasing was careless and has been interpreted, reasonably, by some editors as referring to Bishonen" citing this diff as the clarification. The diff doesn't say anything about incivility. It refers to toxic behavior in a more general way. Toxic behavior of all kinds pervades Wikipedia, and only a little bit of it has anything to do with incivility. I personally prefer to interpret the diff as referring to a wider range of toxicity that Wikipedia admins should stop tolerating. Occasional inappropriate cussing between editors can be annoying, but it is pretty far down the list of things I'd want more people blocked for if it were up to me. In any case, I request the arb motion to be fixed to reflect what the diff actually says, not what someone seems to have projected onto it. 67.117.147.249 (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan12345

Hi, a thread at

WP:ANI was auto-archived before being formally closed, but after a possible consensus for sanction. It's been suggested the matter be brought here. Would that be appropriate? See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive556#Topic ban for User:Wikifan12345. Thanks. Rd232 ^talk

15:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved now with an ARBPIA topic ban. Rd232 ^talk 19:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Date delinking amendment

Doesn't the amendment pass, with the current voting counts? It's been idle for three days now. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It has passed and been enacted. There are a few loose ends not tidied up that I need to follow up. Carcharoth (talk) 10:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirgin/LaRouche 2

I am confused about the way things run here. 11 minutes after I filed my request for enforcement, it was closed by Shell Kinney[30], who as far as I can tell is neither a member of the arbcom nor a clerk. Shell's comment also seems to betray a misunderstanding of the issue I was raising. In case it was unclear, the provision to which I refer in

talk

) 20:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to clear up a misunderstanding, I believe any admin is permitted to work on

WP:A/R/E requests. –xeno^talk

20:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Even if Leatherstocking is right, I don't see how this goes anywhere. The "it is also pointed out" sentence isn't a remedy, only a pointer to a policy that was created after the original case. As such, it isn't a matter for AE -- it would belong at BLPN. Looie496 (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement, which means the enforcement of the remedies that the Arbitration Committee has issued in a case that has already closed, can be performed by any administrator (although it is most often done by experienced administrator who has taken a knowledgeable interest in this area—and often there are too few administrators working this function, which leads to excessive workload and burnout for those to take it on, so additional help is always appreciated). Indeed, traditionally, the enforcement function is not taken on by the arbitrators itself, both for workload reasons, and to preserve their impartiality if the dispute later returns to the committee. (I can, however, readily understand the confusion created by the fact that in the full arbitration page layout, the enforcement noticeboard, which used to be a separate page, is now included with the other sections on which the decision-making is by the arbitrators.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I do think arbitration enforcement should have its own talk page, and not have it redirected to this one. All that would be needed would be for someone to undo the redirect and sort out what happened to the archives. Tricky, but could be done. Or failing that, talk page discussion about the AE process could have its own section here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that so few arbs edit frequently in general that adding more pages just leads to more lost requests. MBisanz ^talk 03:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbcomm page changes

I'm not sure who exactly is doing it, but I have been noticing systematic changes to how the Arb page is being displayed and layed out.

I, for one, would like to applaud the efforts of the volunteers improving the transparency and accessability of Arbcom and its related pages. Creating the links to other pages in a case (such as being able to jump between evidence and workshop without going back to the main page) was just the latest one that made me yell 'thank you' in my mind.

You guys take a lot of flak from a lot of angry people, I figure you should hear about the good things you do too. Things are improving, people are noticing.

And thank you. 198.161.174.222 (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

How to add a party?

A pending arbitration request (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Speed_of_light) names me as 1 of 8 parties. A few other editors, who were not named, are active participants in the disputes that are the subject of the arbitration request. What is the procedure for adding parties to an arbitration request? Thank you. —Finell (Talk) 22:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You would have to make a statement explaining why you are adding more people, and then add them and notify them. Ask a clerk for more advice if you need it. Generally, when a request is in its opening stages, the party list is fluid, but later changes tend to be more contentious. It is best to keep a case tightly defined and not bring in too many people. It is best to list only the major participants in the debates, not minor players. Carcharoth (talk) 01:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. —Finell (Talk) 04:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Format of Implementation notes

Example:

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley/Proposed_decision#Implementation_notes

could the clerks consider a system which is a little more descriptive, listing the names of each section?

The current numbers require a person to look at the number, then scroll up to the section, and go back and forth.

For a rough example, maybe something like the bottom of the collapsed template, compare it to the current system at the top of this collapsed template.

talk

) 15:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration decision

Proposals which pass

principles: 1-7, 8-10
findings: 1, 3,^[1] 5,^[1] 6, 7, 8.^[1]
remedies: 2.^[1]
enforcement provisions: none.

Proposals which do not pass

principles: 7A.^[2]
findings: 2.1,^[2] 3.1,^[2] 4, 4.1, 5.1,^[3] 9
remedies: 1, 3, 4, ^[2] 5

Arbitrators who:

...have voted

Coren
FloNight
Newyorkbrad
Rlevse
Roger Davies
Vassyana
Wizardman

...have NOT voted

Cool Hand Luke*
FayssalF
Jayvdb
Stephen Bain

*Cool Hand Luke has not voted on findings & remedies yet.

For this case, there are 11 active Arbitrators (excluding 4 recused), so 6 votes are a majority. Abstain votes, are neutral, they do not subtract or add to support votes. The abstains mean the same as a recuse for that one proposal, and lower the majority on the proposal. (For example, if the total active is 11 and 3 abstain, then the new number of voting arbs is 8, and the new majority is 5.) Thank you for the clear explanation Flonight!

Proposed principles	Passes / Fails	Support	Oppose	Abstain
1 Editor conduct	PASSES	8	0	0
2 Editorial process	PASSES	8	0	0
3 Edit warring	PASSES	8	0	0
4 Good faith and disruption	PASSES	8	0	0
5 Recidivism	PASSES	8	0	0
6 Administrators	PASSES	8	0	0
7 Disruption by administrators	PASSES	8	0	0
7A Administrators involved in disputes	FAILS^[2]	8	0	0
8 Baiting	PASSES	8	0	0
9 Canvassing	PASSES	7	0	1
10 Arbitration in dispute resolution	PASSES	4	0	4
Findings of fact
1 A Man In Black’s edit-warring and block log	PASSES	7	0	0
2 A Man In Black-Ikip involvement		5	1	0
2.1 Disputes between A Man In Black and Ikip	FAILS^[2]	6	0	0
3 A Man In Black’s block of Ikip	PASSES^[1]	5	0	1
3.1 A Man In Black’s block of Ikip	FAILS^[2]	7	0	0
4 A Man In Black has engaged in sockpuppetry	FAILS	4	3	0
4.1 A Man In Black has abusively edited Wikipedia as an anonymous user	FAILS	6	1	0
5 A Man In Black has used his tools inappropriately	PASSES^[1]	6	0	1
5.1 A Man In Black has used his tools inappropriately	FAILS^[3]	4	0	2
6 A Man In Black has a history of edit-warring	PASSES	7	0	0
7 Ikip and A Man In Black have edit-warred	PASSES	7	0	0
8 Ikip has engaged in uncivil conduct	PASSES^[1]^[4]	4	0	3
9 Ikip has engaged in canvassing	FAILS	4	1	2
Proposed remedies
1 A Man In Black desysopped	FAILS	6	1	0
2 A Man in Black topic-banned	PASSES^[1]	4	0	3
3 A Man in Black topic-banned	FAILS	4	1	2
4 A Man in Black restricted	FAILS^[2]	4	0	2
5 Ikip warned	FAILS	4	2	1

Notes

^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h These proposals pass by virtue of the abstention votes—each of which reduce the required majority by one.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h Not all arbitrators have voted on these proposals, and so they may yet pass.
^ ^a ^b These proposals meet the required majority per note 1 (above), but are separately superseded.
^ See coversation above, which comes to the conclusion that this finding did not pass

a/c

) 17:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Done I've made

a/c

) 04:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

A request

Concerning the matter Stevertigo raises, I urge those Arbcom members who have declined, to reconsider.

Since Arbcom looks unlikely to take this case, the matter is being held at DRV and (formerly) at AN/I. Discussions there are generating more heat than light, and though the DRV looks likely to overturn the speedy deletion (thereby satisfying Stevertigo, at least to some extent), I think what we have here is, at heart, a conduct issue at least as much as it is a content one. DRV is much better suited to deal with content than conduct.

What Arbcom, DRV and AN/I have in common is that each one is, arguably, the "highest court in the land" in its jurisdiction. From our current procedures, DRV is the one place from which a content decision cannot be taken elsewhere, while AN/I deals with immediate issues of conduct.

I believe our previous experience with the involved users and the high-profile nature of the content shows that this matter will stay with the "highest court in the land" that will accept the case in perpetuity. Neither side is willing to give up, and both sides have points that have merit, which they are willing to repeat ad infinitum. In other words, in its current venues, the matter will not achieve closure.

I feel that closure is highly to be desired and that Arbcom is the only venue that can achieve it.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't think of a coherent subject name

Powergate92 (talk · contribs), who was not a party in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong, has suddenly begun acting as Mythdon had done prior to the case, leading to several motions later on that affected his ability to edit Wikipedia. In short, he has pointed out a mistakenly labeled rollback. I'm aware that there have never been any sort of sanctions against him, but in the last few months he acted in concert with Mythdon in a few discussions that took place prior to the initial topic ban against Mythdon.

Should he be any more allowed to make the same comments that an acquaintance of his was prevented from doing?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Did I say I was going to "start picking out every single rollback" no I did not say that. Changing a name to the wrong spelling is not vandalism please see WP:Vandalism#What is not vandalism. Also I am not the only user on Wikipedia to say that someone has tagged a non-vandalism as vandalism as Toddst1 did that to me back in February see User talk:Powergate92/Archive#Broader concerns about reversions. Powergate92Talk 02:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually deliberate factual errors can be vandalism. Unless there's a pattern to be concerned with, you could try assuming good faith that Ryulong wasn't abusing rollback. In the future, a less confrontational message might be helpful - terse "you did something wrong. go read this policy" type messages aren't likely to go over well no matter who you send them to. (Note: I'm clueless about the Mythdon/Ryulong thing, so this is just general advice)Shell ^babelfish 02:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at Ryulong contributions and found more non-vandalism edits tagged as vandalism as this edit is not vandalism as it was just a user adding "the mysterious" and this edit is not vandalism as it was a user adding unsourced info so it should have been reverted as unsourced. Powergate92Talk 03:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Those are deliberate factual errors after I assumed good faith of the user. This was not for you to point out other possible bad rollbacks. It is for you to not point them out at all.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at my watchlist and found this revert of a non-vandalism edit tagged as vandalism, as WP:Vandalism#Types of vandalism says "Adding or continuing to add external links to non-notable or irrelevant sites (e.g. to advertise one's website) to pages after having been warned is vandalism" as the user was not warned before adding the link the edit is not vandalism. Powergate92Talk 17:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you stop? This is not a forum for you to air my questionable reverts. This is a forum for me to ask other people whether or not your pointing these out is allowed.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If they're questionable, why on earth would he not be allowed to point them out? Your entire behaviour around rollback (both granting and usage of) has been, if memory serves, of great concern to the community. If Powergate is stalking you without reason, he will be dealt with. If, however, your rollbacks are questionable or even flat-out wrong, then I fail to see what the community gains by shutting him up. I see what you gain, of course, but that's not the goal here. → ROUX ₪ 22:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Scuro and mentor

Dear arbcom, things on the ADHD talk page have been escalating, personal attacks, baiting editors, games etc. I am finding it increasingly difficult to keep my cool but I am trying. Scuro was meant to be appointed a mentor within a month of the arbcom but this has not happened. Is there a reasonn for this?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

MOS review per
WP:ARBDATE
?

One of the enforcement provisions of

manual of style for stability (remedy). Is this still going to happen? Apologies if this is the incorrect venue. Dabomb87 (talk

) 01:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

try WT:AC/N--Tznkai (talk) 21:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, have done so (link). Dabomb87 (talk) 04:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Page display bug

Resolved

The project page header overprints itself in Safari. In Firefox at least it doesn't overprint, but it still looks weird. I've debugged the problem but the page is protected. Please replace the {{ArbCom notice banner}} in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Header with the following:

{| style="text-align: left; background: #f9f9f9; border: 1px solid silver; padding: 1em; margin:auto; font-size: 10pt;"
| Please make your request in the appropriate section:
* '''[[#Requests for arbitration|Request a new arbitration case]]'''
* '''[[#Requests for clarification|Request clarification of an existing case]]'''
* '''[[#Requests for amendment|Request an amendment to an existing case]]'''
*: <small>This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed</small>
* '''[[#Requests for enforcement|Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case]]'''
* '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions|Arbitrator motions]]''' 
*: <small>Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a case</small>
|}

The new box displays as:

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Request a new arbitration case
Request clarification of an existing case
Request an amendment to an existing case
This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed
Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
Arbitrator motions
Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a case

The result is much more clear, the box repositions nicely as the browser window width is adjusted, and it looks the same in both Safari and Firefox. I could also do without the ArbComOpenTasks to the right of the TOC (above would be nicer), but a little scrolling won't kill me when I'm not in full screen mode. UncleDouggie (talk) 05:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I have done this, although it still looks a little inconsistent between Opera and IE (the only browsers I have handy here). Please direct any further requests of this nature to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks, as it's more heavily monitored and one of the clerks is likely to see it much sooner! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC).

Actually it doesn't display as above in Firefox, the text in the box is centred and the squares (they must have a proper name, they are created by the asterisks I presume), look very odd. Chrome looks pretty bad. It looks to me as though there is room for the 'Please make your request' stuff below the text with the info boxes to the right of those links, which would tidy up the page, but I'm not very good at markup.

talk

) 13:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I have completed the fixes. The page should look good on all browsers. The root problem with the open case box being cut off on the right side of the screen was that the TOC now has entries such as "Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Obama_articles#ChildofMidnight_and_Wikidemon_restricted". The underscores don't allow the TOC entry to break to a new line, which forces the TOC to get so wide that it displaces anything to the right of it. Seeing that we have other wide TOC entries as well, and since the open case box is now pretty wide on its own, I decided it was better to make it look good for everybody and just put the TOC under the open cases. UncleDouggie (talk) 13:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for drawing up the code fix, Douggie. A/R is, at the best of times, horrific in terms of the quality of its code—as all such unwieldy pages are prone to be—so any improvements are appreciated. And yes, as Lankiveil notes, requests of this nature will be most quickly noticed if placed in the appropriate section of the
AGK
19:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Stuff

Issues should be addressed at

WP:ARA, not here. MBisanz ^talk

22:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The undertow / Law / CoM

This keeps coming up: that Law's otherwise inexplicable unblock of CoM is explicable once you know about interactions between The undertow and CoM. But for those of us not familiar with the prehistory, someone please say what those interactions were. William M. Connolley (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The other question is why CoM was never reblocked, as all of the committee that weighed in agreed with the original block, if not the length. Another skating-by with a wrist-slap, unfortunately. Tarc (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Biased and bad enforcement?

The real question is why Tarc wasn't blocked or banned after all his incivility, after repeatedly trying to censor by deletion numerous articles he disagreed with, and why he was allowed to edit war and violate 3RR in 24 hours with only a short block that an admin helped edit war to prevent it being recorded in the log? But I got some massive punishement for 4 edits over two days with talk page discussion inbetween. It is strange isn't it.

Has Tarc ever written an article? I do new page patrol a lot, and I haven't seen any. But he must have some value because if all he did was cause disruption I'm sure one of our illustrious admisn would step in to stop him. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

/facepalm

ChildofMidnight, as I have asked you numerous times, if there was a time or place where I was uncivil or caused disruption then please file a complaint in the proper venue (

appropriate evidence

so that I may respond to these charges properly. You do this...make vague accusations with zero proof...in just about every venue where we happen to cross paths, and I think the fact that you refuse to "put up or shut up" as the saying goes shines more of a curious light on your own behavior than it does on my own. Simply making a claim does not make it true; you have to support your position.

Yes I edit-warred, and got a time-out, but really have nothing to say on your "massive punishment", as the case speaks for itself. Here, I was weighing in with the opinion that you should have been re-blocked, since the AC people that commented on the proposed case indicated that the block itself was proper, since you (once again), violated the Obama ArbCom restrictions. Tarc (talk) 13:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't violated the Obama restrictions, which were misguided in the first place. Stalkers and harassers continue to use noticeboards to go after those they disagree with and have sought to extend the bogus restrictions imposed by a dysfunctional Arbcom to an ever widening circle of articles. This ridiculous disruption has been caused and encouraged by you and other POV pushers and is very damaging to Wikipedia, just as your deleting of articles you don't like, incivility, and lack of content contributions are unhelpful. I'm not going to spend my time digging up more diffs. Plenty were presented in the original Arbcom proceeding per Wizardman's request and your inappropriate behavior is obvious to anyone who looks through your contribution history. Please refrain from engaging in false smears against me, stop violating our core policies, and cease damaging the encyclopedia with your disruptions and acts of censorship. Thank you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

CoM, if you are so committed to improving and editing here, wouldn't it be beneficial just to drop this drama and move on? You are the only campaigning against how stupid all the drama is, yet you seem to keep dragging it on. I understand you're frustrated but c'mon man, you can just walk away. 11
18:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back Grsz. I would like to walk away and have done so in the past, but the abuse of noticeboards to smear and go after editors has proved effective in the past and Arbcom has encouraged these behaviors to the detriment of the encyclopedia. So I think it's important to speak up and I feel obligated to defend myself, no matter how ridiculous the accusations (the suggestion I had a relationship with the editor known as The Undertow being a case in point). But I appreciate your good faith suggestions. Take care of yourself and I look forward to collaborating on article improvements with you soon! ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, I will point out that the point of any "arbitration" is that both sides present their case to a 3rd party, which then renders a finding based on the evidence. CoM, they found against you, and you have been playing the aggrieved victim card ever since. A statement of "I haven't violated the Obama restrictions" is a lie on your part, as you have been warned several times since the arbcom decision for violating the terms of the case. I will gladly dig out diffs of the edits and diffs of the admins who warned you on your talk if you need. Tarc (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't violated any restrictions and I've agreed to cease editing articles about subjects other than Obama after the usual stalking and harassing POV pushers identified them as being Obama related when they didn't want me editing them. You can't provide a diff of any content change I've made to anything about Obama because there aren't any, your lies and attempts at deception not withstanding. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Will Connolley's continued trouble making

Probably needs to be addressed. Is he not banned yet? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley/For me/The naming of cats. But since you're here, please clearly state your connection with The undertow, or deny that any such connection exists William M. Connolley (talk) 22:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

What's it to you? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring this thread Connolley. I'm sure Tznakai meant well, but this is clearly an important issue that Arbcom should be addressing, as opposed to the silliness above. Would you like to comment on the activities of your cabal with Dabelstein and Schulz? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley/For me/The naming of cats. The propriety of Law / The undertows unblock of you is relevant to the RFAr. It would be helpful if you could clarify the situation rather than evading it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Why does this section keep getting removed or collapsed? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a suggestion for you: disengage from your pursuit of WMC. It is not acceptable. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

My pursuit of WMC? Are you kidding? Read the section above this one and read Jehochman's talk page. These editors are trying to spread outright lies and smears. I've just asked Jehochman to cease and apologize, so hopefully he will correct his mistake. WMC has been after me for some time now and was the one who engaged in abusive team up block with his buddy Mathsci (which helped get him desysoped, thank goodness). I'm happy to walk away, but I'm most certainly going to defend myself. When these attacks and smears stop, I won't have to respond. If you remove their bad faith false accusations you're welcome to remove my responses. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Connolley's involvement in mailing list conspiracy

I see from his talk page that Connolley was in private communication with the Eastern European mailing list members. Will we have full disclosure of his involvement in this conspiracy on Wiki? Did it play a role in his desysop or was that based on other inappropriate behavior? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a very problematic side concerning your inquiry here. You have to make us understand why you are interested in knowing because as I understand it you seem to be asking just because you have some issues with WMC in relation to another dispute (see thread(s) above). Anyway, the answer to your first question is "wait and see". And the answer to your last question is obvious; WMC was desysopped before the EEML case was filed. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't most (all?) Arb hearings comprised of score settling? Why would my inquiries be problematic, but those of WMC and Tarc (or any of the other smear mongers and trouble makers) be appropriate? I'm missing the logic. Is there any? Seriously. Is there some logic?

And, as an aside, are the Arbs that knew about a fellow Arb's editing history going to step down for not disclosing what they knew at that editor's RfA, or at the RfArb, or after becoming aware of a fellow Arb with an undisclosed history?

Anyway, I'm in favor of reining in the whole circus as much as possible. I'm here to edit and improve the encyclopedia and dealing with all the drama mongering is a real drag. That Arb is encouraging it all is especially disturbing, so if you want to start quashing score settling and discourage the use of Arb proceedings (and other admin noticeboards) by abusive editors using them to win content disputes by blocking and banning adversaries, that would be fantastic.

I'm happy to edit and collaborate with anyone who abides by our policies, so having the focus returned to encyclopedia work would really be a huge improvement and a step in the right direction!. Woo hoo!!! I can't wait. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You've chosen a great place to make your inflammatory and bad-faith-laden comments. Congratulations. Guy (Help!) 20:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I reject wholeheartedly your assertion that it's wrong to request a stop in the drama mongering and abuse of noticeboards. The attempts at score settling are very destructive. The lies and smears being posted about me should also be stopped with appropriate enforcement measures. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This page is for discussion regarding the arbitration requests page. Is there an open request you'd like to post a meta-comment on? A comment about the page structure or operation? Other types of comments have other places where they belong, and they are unlikely to get the appropriate response here. Nathan^T 20:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Excessively strident rhetoric

Could we all please stop using terms like witch hunt and crucify. Please stick to technically accurate terminology. This discussion is already heated enough. Let's stick to the facts and try to work out a resolution. Nobody is getting nails pounded through hands and feet or burned alive at the stake. I've proposed something useful, I think, on the associated project page. Only one other editor has commented thus far. Jehochman ^Talk 16:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Strong disagree I see both of these words as fitting in the correct context:

wikt:witch-hunt (definition #2) - "An attempt to find and publicly punish people"
wikt:crucify (definition #2) - "To punish or otherwise express extreme anger at"

You're taking the words too literally. hmwith☮ 16:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a project page link to your proposal? ++Lar: t/c 16:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Strongly agree - this is escalating the problems. I have already made my view clear to Rlvese's use of witch-hunt, among others, as well as objecting to the use of crucifixion above. Use of such hyperbole not only worsens the climate, it insults both those raising concerns as well as the memory of those who actually endured crucifixion and witch-hunts. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the 1690s. That's how the words are currently used today. See the links provided above, or any dictionary/thesaurus. I didn't know it was a crime to have a vast vocabulary. I think you guys are looking way into the use of words. If you don't think that they should be used in accordance with the definitions I've provided above (from Wiktionary), then we can discuss that. hmwith☮ 16:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

If you don't approve of the current use of the English language or are offended by how certain terms originated, that's something that WP can neither control nor discuss. hmwith☮ 16:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

the objection is to the misuse of the terms to unnecessarily escalate the situation. You may wish also to revise your date of "1690s" - I believe you will find, if you trouble yourself to check, that the prime era for crucifixions was a great deal earlier, and the prime season for witch hunts, depending upon whether you are referring to actual or HUAC, was either earlier by about a century or later by almost three. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Disagree - if a number of people think something looks a certain way, insisting it isn't, it isn't won't do... you have to get to the root cause for the perception and address it. Or not care that they call it that because your cause is so righteous that it doesn't matter. I'm for improving governance but this isn't the way. ( this may be of some use.) ++Lar: t/c 16:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Let me get this straight: a Monty Python sketch involving an entire crowd agreeing that witches are made of wood because they float is supposed to help here. Lar, you'll have to spell that one out for me. However, FWIW, crowd logic is often wrong. Just because a number of people call something a certain name, does not mean its ok to use that name, as history will show us. Remember Dreyfus was reviled and imprisoned, and the mob agreed with that action. I do agree that merely saying "you're wrong and I'm rgith" is useless, but all Hochman is doing is asking for more civil language to be used. You have now disagreed with that request, using Monty Python as you cite. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Wait, you're saying I was being uncivil? You think words that mean finding and punishing people (simplified) are uncivil? I don't think anyone needs to throw around accusations of incivility right now. This case has enough drama as it is, KC. hmwith☮ 17:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
You have illustrated my point very nicely. I did not mean to imply you were being deliberately uncivil; I apologize. But note how you immediately dropped any discussion of the question of the terms, and went into focusing on your indignation at the term 'civil' - rhetorical verbiage can and does cloud the issues and muddy the waters. I think you'll agree that "This case has enough drama" not to toss around words like "crucifixion" and "witch hunt" and "uncivil" carelessly. I also note that "uncivil" is far less severe than the two terms you were defending. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
What do you find severe on unfitting of the situation in the definitions of those 2 words? Also, I thought you were calling people uncivil, and I just didn't want this to resort to NO U arguments. hmwith☮ 18:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
If you really believe those definitions are 100% accurate, then surely you would have no problem saying "are attempting to find and publically punish people" instead of "witch-hunt", and "punish" instead of "crucify". But you won't use those terms, because you don't believe the shit you're shoveling - you know full well that "witch-hunt" and "crucify" are used because of their heightened emotional connotations, and in all known variants of English, are used pejoratively, with the connotation that those engaged in the wi-- er, the "attempt to find and publically punish people" are in the wrong. If you feel that they are, by all means say so, but try to be upfront about your perspective, and not resort to tossing around terms typically overused by high-schoolers and those of a high-school mindset in an attempt to sound "the mightiest". Badger Drink (talk) 04:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the point some are making, however ineloquently, is that there is a balance necessary in these things. At one end, you have a lack of transparency and a degree of impunity, as well as I guess an inconsistency as one might argue that some (newer users? those with less friends? those with unpopular opinions?) are subject to the rules while others are not. At the other, you have the development of a punitive, hateful and sometimes privacy-invading culture of incriminations and recriminations that serves nobody's interests and drives people away from participating. The best way is to try and ensure transparency and justice without going overboard and without punishing people who have done nothing wrong apart from perhaps hearing or knowing something. Orderinchaos 05:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Concur with Lar. This is not improvement of governance. It's ... something ... but it's not an improvement of governance in any way.
UnitAnode
16:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Plese note, as you and Lar appear to have missed, but Tarc has understood, that this request involves terminology only; your objection is addressing... something else. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Not sure I see where Tarc is all that far out of agreement with witch hunt as a term... "a pitchfork and torch-laden drama-fest"? Check. If you don't like witch hunt, please suggest another term that carries the same meaning but meets with your approval. Or, you know, focus on the substance instead of the terms. ++Lar: t/c 23:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Disagree per
WP:SPADE, as speaking plainly is not speaking uncivilly. This is been a pitchfork and torch-laden drama-fest from the moment it was initiated. Tarc (talk
) 17:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Goddamn it, Tarc beat me to it. I was gonna link
SPADE and everything.... --MZMcBride (talk
) 17:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Strident rhetoric is a hell of a lot less harmful to the encyclopædia than dishonest behaviour. DuncanHill (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but strident rhetoric can preclude rational discussion. I'd like to see this process reach a consensus. Jehochman ^Talk 17:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  - (edit conflict) I don't think there's any consensus here that these words are strident. I think you're looking at the use of particular words too closely rather than at what people are saying. hmwith☮ 17:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please tone it down - per
WP:AGF, among other reasons. Using exaggerated rhetoric to stump for a minority position on a policy matter does nothing to resolve the situation, it only clouds the air. Some of us have principled reasons for pursuing the issue. I believe: (1) that those who furthered the promotion of a sockpupet to admin status, despite knowing at the time he was a sockpuppet, have something to answer to, (2) that this should not have happened and we need to take steps that it not happen again, (3) that in order to do anything meaningful we need to determine the scope of the problem and who was directly responsible, (4) we ought to root out other sockpuppets, where we can, to ensure the integrity of the administrative ranks, and (5) those who unrepentingly or defiantly boast about having violated admin policy and say they would do it again are not, under the circumstances, trustworthy with administrative privileges. However, at the same time it is more important that we fix this moving forward. Examining the past is important only to understand the issue and sort out where to go from here. I share the concern that demanding admissions or pledges forces the culpable to choose between lying, false contrition, and defiance. Does this mean I'm on a witch hunt? Am I a "spade"? Saying I am on a "witch hunt" accuses me of bad faith. Witch hunts are not legitimate investigations. I am hoping to help Wikipedia with a persistent problem that causes much damage and loss of faith. This is explicitly not a witch hunt as the term is properly used, although the term is in politics often misused, as here, as a rhetorical shield to claim that people should not be investigating something. - Wikidemon (talk
) 17:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- You don't think that asking every arb to make an oath one way or the other and going through the list of RfA regulars and doing the same is "An attempt to find and publicly punish people"? hmwith☮ 17:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  - That isn't my proposal, although no, "an attempt to find and publicly punish people" is neither what this is about nor a viable definition of a witch trial. As a point on language we are not looking for witches or communists. A real witch hunt, whether the Salem witch trials or by the metaphorical extension to the House Un-American Activities Committee that has become common usage, has several hallmarks. (1) the wrongdoing or harm is either imaginary or grossly exaggerated - there are no real witches or communists lurking behind every corner; (2) an investigation is carried out without regard for due process or accurate results; (3) false accusations and false confessions are solicited, and (4) the process is used to settle private scores, ambitions, and prejudices. There plenty of other investigations (corruption probes, searches for killers, drug dragnets, immigration sweeps, tax audits) that are not witch hunts because they are pursuing real crimes via real evidence, follow reasonable process, and at least try to exonerate the innocent. One could argue that hunting Wikipedia sockpuppets is a witch hunt only by strained hyperbole. For example, while it is true that we may disagree on just how bad sockpuppets are and the circumstances where one may have an undisclosed alternate account, most reasonable Wikipedians acknowledge that sockpuppets exist, they are disruptive, and there should be limits on them. It's not an entirely imagined problem. With witches, some people believed that women were doing Satan's work to induce demonic possession in young girls. Communists, same thing. Although I can see the analogy, far-flung analogies only inflame the situation. It's not calling a spade a spade anymore than saying the word "literally" or "virtually" enough times can make an analogy real, it's likening a spade to a great combine in the sky. Not useful here. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
    - Those weren't your proposals, but they were brought up as options. hmwith☮ 18:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

There is rarely a time you can't make your rhetoric better by avoiding buzzwords.--Tznkai (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Oppose as wishful thinking. Disputes that reach Arbcom (and are accepted) are grave enough; when all other means are exhausted the enemies naturally escalate to the top of their rhetorics. No false optimism here, no trace of AGF, enemies. And then comes the question - if high style rhetorics are outlawed, what would you do? Reject the case on technicality and let it bleed? Or censor other editor's entry, replacing shotguns with walkie talkies etc.? —Preceding
NVO (talk • contribs
)

Let's all worry less about the use of particular words, assume good faith in how users meant them, and reflect on what's being said rather than terminology. This is getting nowhere. Some people think the words are offensive, others, like myself, use them in everyday language. hmwith☮ 18:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Nod. While it's useful sometimes to worry about wordings, in this particular instance I think those chafing at the characterization used would be better served to try to determine why those doing the characterizing feel that way, and address the substantive concerns... instead of sparring about rhetoric. Sparring about rhetoric often is perceived as avoiding the issue. ++Lar: t/c 19:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Lar, you seem to have much more time and sympathy for those editors who don't want this matter investigated than for those who do. I hope I am wrong. DuncanHill (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You are. I want it investigated. I just don't want it witch hunted. The current climate is not conductive to a good investigation. ++Lar: t/c 19:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you make a proposal as to how it could be investigated then? DuncanHill (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It's at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#On_the_nature_of_witchhunts, and I think you already replied to it. ++Lar: t/c 23:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't realised that it was a proposal. It certainly did not (and does not now I have had a chance to read it again) contain any concrete suggestions about what should actually happen. DuncanHill (talk) 12:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought it did, and I elaborated further... some sort of determination of what should be investigated needs to be made instead of an ad hoc lurch from one topic to the next sort of investigation. ++Lar: t/c 20:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Support Historical and current usage of "witch hunt" assumes that grievous offences have been committed (even if these are not actually possible), that there are guilty people and that the allegedly guilty should be punished with mercy. "Crucifixion" was a sadistic method of executing condemned prisoners. Neither term has any use in a rational discussion. --Philcha (talk) 13:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree Such terms are polemics which have aught to do with running an encyclopedia website, even as analogies. Put another way, although I understand the feelings meant behind that kind of talk as idiom, I think it's untowards and unfitting to aliken anything done on en.Wikipedia to
Judicial execution. Gwen Gale (talk
) 13:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree The inaccurate rhetoric doesn't help. There are a number of reasons for people to have strong suspicions that another Arbcom member cannot give a straight "No" to the question. Mostly because a number of people are responding in ways people generally do when there is something they do not want to be personally responsible for revealing. There is no reason we should limit ourselves to asking questions we already know the answers to. Lets get the drama over with, instead waiting for it to leak out in an IRC conversation 5 months from now and renew all this. The last statement is my motivation for wanting the questions answered and has nothing to do with strident rhetoric people are accusing questioners of.--BirgitteSB 14:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
- I have seen no evidence that any other arbitrator was in on the secret prior to the RfA. Let's be careful not to make loose accusations. Jehochman ^Talk 14:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  - I didn't accuse them of any such thing. I don't know how you would leap to "prior to RfA" from my statement that "I suspect someone is unable to give a straight no" to the question "were you aware that Law = The_undertow more than 4 days ago?"--BirgitteSB 14:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree somewhat, but some of the behaviour of those making the accusations in this fiasco also need to seriously tone down - there is merit in the notion, if not the wording, of what is being said. While I personally believe that the incident at the core of this is serious and my view of at least one of the participants has fallen somewhat over it, the entire thing can be dealt with by calm and reasoned measures without trying to "widen the net" to capture anyone and everyone who might have innocently or otherwise known "something". The issues FT2 has pointed out about two of the accusers, and my own observations of a third, suggest that this environment is more like
Question Time in a Westminster Parliament than something actually designed to get to the bottom of whatever it is and produce results. At the end of the day we are all volunteers and I'm sure I'm not the only person who's realised that in certain areas, we are inexplicably losing people and not getting in new ones to replace them. Our No.1 priority should be improving our prospects in the wider community rather than navel gazing and tearing each other apart over internal politics - I mean, seriously, why is it that on these sorts of pages one always sees the same 20-50 names no matter what, and can go away for 6 months and come back and see the same names? Orderinchaos
23:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

Could we please do something useful. I have made a proposal at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Meta_Request:_Administrators_aiding_a_sock_puppet_at_RFA. This process would serve everyone, including the "accused". They deserve a clear up or down result: either remove their bits or clear them of wrongdoing. They should not be left in limbo, under a cloud of suspicion. Jehochman ^Talk 17:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

This got moved from page to talk and is now a section below: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests#Meta_Request:_Administrators_aiding_a_sock_puppet_at_RFA ++Lar: t/c 14:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Content moved here from project page

Please consider trimming your statements and placing pieces here if you wish. Jehochman ^Talk 17:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman

@Fayssalf: I would appreciate clarity and setting proper expectations for professionalism of administrators versus loyalty to friends. If Jennavecia and GlassCobra are excused this time with advice, that is fine with me. However, I think they need to agree to follow standards of professionalism. If they outright refuse to do so, I see no other possibility besides de-admining.

A motion would be fine. Set expectations. The expectations should included that admins who act, or propose to act, in derogation of policy will be de-admined. I also suggest specifying that nepotism is grounds for de-admining. A reasonable time should be allowed for parties to retract very poor statements that have been made (e.g. "I'd do it again"). I concur with JoshuaZ's suggestion that there needs to be agreement by all parties to follow standards. Jehochman ^Talk 02:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

@Durova. Apologies for the unavoidable drama. We have no process for de-adminship other than ArbCom. RFC is ill-suited to this problem because 1/ it involves multiple editors, 2/ it involves confidential or non-public info that only ArbCom has, 3/ any RFC would ultimately end here; some of the involved editors have expressed their defiance of Wikipedia policies. Jennavecia and GlassCobra haven't even responded to this request as of 23:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC). FayssalF's proposal to issue a motion makes sense. The Committee may remove adminiship for grossly poor judgement. It will help if they define what they view as grossly poor. If a community de-adminship process were available, I'd use that instead. Jehochman ^Talk 23:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

To be very clear, I will not be satisfied with any sort of slap-on-the-wrist admonishments. Before any wrongdoers are forgiven, they must convincingly state that they will not repeat the wrongdoing. Thus far we have not seen such statements. Until we do, the de-admin process should continue. Jehochman ^Talk 17:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

{other}

Meta Request: Administrators aiding a sock puppet at RFA

Request by Jehochman

The number of opinions below is extremely large. Many other members of the community might like to express an opinion but they have probably refrained from making this page even longer. Upon reflection, I do not like the idea of the Committee passing a motion with general principals. Policy is created by everyone, not by the arbitrators. There are objections to opening a case, yet there is no precedent for the community to remove sysop access.

To resolve what appears to be deadlock, I request a novel discussion format: ArbCom orders and supervises an RFC in lieu of the usual evidence, workshop and proposed decision pages. A separate RFC for each respondent would be created in Arbitration-space, and be supervised by the clerks and arbitrators. After giving the entire community (7 | 14) days to provide views, the arbitrators would vote on whether each administrator retains the trust of the community. Any who do not would immediately lose sysop access.

The advantages of this approach include:

Close supervision will encourage civility during what may be a contentious discussion, and discourage sock puppetry, meat puppetry or canvassing.
ArbCom does not legislate from the bench.
Sufficient time is given for thoughtful statements and responses.
A more representative cross section of the community has a chance to participate.
Arbitrators are adept at filtering out noise, such as comments motivated by revenge or otherwise not concerned with the best interests of Wikipedia.
ArbCom must order the process before it begins; this serves to protect admins from frivolous claims.
Unlike a traditional RFC, we get a definitive, enforceable result.

I suggest this process be put to use now, and be considered as something that can be used from time to time in the future whenever there are serious doubts about whether an administrator has lost the trust of the Community.

Submitted for your consideration, Jehochman ^Talk 13:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

@Lar: no, we don't need any more optional processes. This process would be mandatory whenever there are colorable accusations of administrator dishonesty or corruption. One of the parties has not even bothered to post a statement. I see no value in an optional de-adminship process. Jehochman ^Talk 20:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Barberio

I do not feel this would be productive or helpful.

This case clearly rests in the Arbitration jurisdiction, it is their responsibility to make a ruling as to if the administrators have acted responsibly, and what sanctions if any there should be. I do not see any ability for an RFC, of any kind, to produce a reasonable and civil debate in these circumstances.

I also feel it is important that the Arbitration Committee understand that this now rests with them, and solely with them, to make the final decision. And the responsibility for that decision rests with them, and how they handle it will impact the future of the Committee.

If the Committee are not prepared to defend previous sanctions from being circumvented by covert Administrator collusion, then they whole arbitration process is irrelevant since sanctions become meaningless. --Barberio (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Ottava Rima

If this is done, all notable cases of administrators aiding any kind of socking should be put up. This should not be specified to the current instance, but retroactive to other instances. Most notably, Bishonen for long term aiding a sock puppet harassment campaign against multiple users. To have this only used for one instance instead of all outstanding instances would be completely inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by SB_Johnny

Jehochman, I suspect a lot of the people not commenting are doing so because they don't want to feed this silly drama. And yes, I know, I'm not helping matters by pointing that out. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Lar

An interesting idea. I'm not sure it's workable but it's at least worth kicking around to see if it could be. Whether adopted here or not, I think the idea of "supervised RfC" might have some merit, independently, as a lot of RfCs tend to be rather in need of a bit of supervision/clerking. But perhaps as an optional thing, chosen by the intiators at the start? ++Lar: t/c 19:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

@Jehochman: Sorry for confusion. I was referring to optionality for RfCs in general, that is, when someone starts an RfC (on whatever topic... I have been participating in an RfC that sorely needed supervision :) ) they have the option of saying "this RfC is supervised... take than into account when participating", or of the traditional one. I make no statement about the merits of using a supervised RfC in this (deadminship) context, other than that it's an interesting idea in need of more elaboration and evaluation. But I have no problem with, if this idea is adopted, saying "it's always a supervised RfC in this context". I hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 12:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, that's a good way to put it. RFC format seems appropriate for a case like this, but it needs supervision, and it needs to be closed by ArbCom because they've repeatedly said they want to retain the power of de-adminship. This makes sense because de-adminship cases are always contentious but fortunately rare. Jehochman ^Talk 15:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Enthusiastic Theoretical Endorsement by Alecmconroy

Turn a "crisis" into an "opportunity" to improve the project's dispute resolution process

The criteria for adminship is "having the trust of the community". Arbs should seek broad community input when evaluating whether that trust exists. Nothing controversial about that.

Wikipedia still doesn't have a way to check whether existing admins have community trust. In practice, trust isn't a requirement anymore. Admins don't necessarily "have the trust of the community". For practical reasons, we've had to employ an alternate standard: an admin is someone who "did have the trust of the community at some point in the past".

The Arbs should always consider an editor's level of trust with the community when considering admin status. Surely, each Arb already tries, privately and informally, to evaluate community trust. But in some cases, the project could benefit by explicitly gauging trust in a public, clear, and transparent way. Just one more tool in the toolbox that the arbs could use, when needed, to get the job done. --Alecmconroy (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No comment of any sort about the originating case, I haven't investigated it at all, I don't even know who is involved. I just think, apart from any specific case, this could be a good fit for the project.--Alecmconroy (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Arbitrators (0/0/1/0)

I'm not sure this is validly framed as a new request for arbitration (resulting in separately voting), but for the record, recuse per my comment on the main request. I do reserve the right to participate if this becomes a general discussion, as opposed to relating specifically to The_undertow/Law. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Pete Forsyth

There is a very important distinction between ArbCom itself determining the best solution, and ArbCom evaluating the community's determination of the best solution.

The admins in question are admins as a result of the faith the community expressed for them during their RFAs. If that faith no longer exists, it's up to the entire editing community to say so -- not simply ArbCom. It would be entirely appropriate, in my view, for ArbCom to evaluate the discussion and make a determination of community consensus; but that's a very different thing than the motions currently under consideration, which have ArbCom itself evaluating whether de-sysopping the people in question is appropriate.

Therefore, I strongly support Jehochman's proposal, as the only active proposed motion that permits all members of the community to weigh in on whether or not they trust the editors in question with the tools.

-Pete (talk) 00:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator poll: were you aware that Law = The_undertow more than 4 days ago?

Some people would seem to appreciate an answer to this question. Please provide answers for all members of the community. Clerks: feel free to provide links to the answers to this question if they've already been provided on-wiki. Cool Hand Luke 03:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the merits of this case, but I think it's reasonable to answer this. I'd like to know the answer myself. Cool Hand Luke 04:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Reinstated by SlimVirgin.[31] I don't intend to do anything else with it. Cool Hand Luke 15:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Carcharoth - No. First I heard of this was when it hit arb-l a few days ago. I'd heard of The_undertow, and was aware of Law, but prior to reading the e-mail on arb-l, I was not aware of anything connecting them. Carcharoth (talk) 04:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Cool Hand Luke - No
Coren -
FayssalF - No.
FloNight - No
John Vandenberg - Statement
Newyorkbrad - No
Risker -
Rlevse - No
Roger Davies -
Stephen Bain -
Vassyana -
Wizardman -

Apology

Incidentally, I need to apologize—to Risker and the entire committee—for the rollback I made over this section.[32] It reflects poorly on the committee and I had no excuse for doing it. Cool Hand Luke 15:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted and appreciated, Cool Hand Luke. For those of you watching at home, CHL and I have discussed off-wiki my objections to the manner in which the poll was initially inserted, and I believe we are now on the same page. As an aside, I had answered this question onwiki yesterday without having been directly asked, and I do not object to anyone adding the applicable diff, but I will not be directly participating in this poll. Risker (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC) Sorry for moving your post, Unitanode, but I believe I should respond directly to CHL here without your comments intervening.

No worries at all. I'm glad that some sitting arbitrators are going to ignore this poll.

UnitAnode

16:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The rollback was ill-conceived, but the actual poll was even moreso. That said, the horse has left the barn on that issue. I just hope that most arbs ignore the poll, as they should.
Unit Anode
16:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

So what's the problem with the poll? I don't see one. DuncanHill (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It reads a lot like

UnitAnode

20:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Difference being, of course, that the political philosophy of communism is agreed to be rather harmless. Unlike, say, de facto corruption and favoritism while serving on a board that is (in theory, at least - and we all know how those go) unbiased. Badger Drink (talk) 05:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Communism was harmless in the 1950s? Bullshit. The difference is the quality of evidence that would lead one to ask these questions. Blanket oaths are not productive. Cool Hand Luke 18:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, domestic communism of the sort portrayed by Senator McCarthy was harmless and for all intents and purposes nonexistent. That's the whole point of the McCarthy episode and The Crucible. McCarthy made up the whole thing with a fake list and fake claims. People believed that there were communist infiltrators at all levels of American society, intent on destroying the American way of life. There were a few military spies, as there always are, and the external military threat of some dictatorships that called themselves communist, but the notion of communist infiltration in society was massive societal paranoia. We still live with that today, an irrational fear that Communism is a real threat to Americans' loyalty to their own country. The non-existence of any real threat is a key issue in the notion of a witch hunt, and accusations of witch hunting serve to deny the reality of the claims. Although some calling the concern over admin socks a witch hunt are strongly against them but simply don't want to broad an investigation, many who say that are clearly downplaying the seriousness of the issue at all, a few certainly to rationalize or cover up their own participation. Some other comparable examples were the Japanese internment in WWII, where there were undoubtedly a few minor attempts at spying but no real disloyalty among Japanese-Americans, the Satanic ritual murder scare of the 1990s, where some assumed widespread cult abduction and slaying of children. A massive backlash against a real threat is something different, not a witch hunt.

Admitting and being crucified

Anyone can say yes or no, and we'll never know everyone who knew for sure. Therefore, the arbs/admins who are coming forward and admitting that they knew are being crucified. I don't think it's fair. I don't think there's much to gain by trying to find every single editor who maybe knew, because there's no way to ever find out for sure. hmwith☮ 15:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No, they're not "being crucified" they're being held accountable for their actions. If they lie here, then they lie clearly and boldly and if that is ever discovered, they will be held accountable for compounding their original error with lying about it. Calling it "crucifixion" is ridiculous hyperbole. I am certain this is a stressful situation for those who knew, I hope we don't have any more disappointments. I don't see that pretending its ok to assist in a deception with the aim of circumventing an ArbCom remedy and concealing this from the community at an Rfa is in any way a desirable approach. Those who aided and abetted the deception may have trusted the undertow; but they had no right to make that decision for the rest of us. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, you don't agree with my choice of words, but the users who are coming forward and admitting that they knew are being having an ArbCom case filed against them, while the users who aren't talking about the situation have no worries. It's not fair that the users who are fully disclosing are being punished, when most of the people who knew will never be found out. Do we want the lesson here to never be honest? hmwith☮ 16:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that its a bad idea to give everyone a complete pass and ignore a gross breach of trust because "we might miss someone who is guilty". That's not logical. Should we automatically dismiss all burglary cases, for example, because there might be some thieves out there who were not caught? and in this case, my analogy fails to hold up, because if anyone wants to go to the Rfa, compile a list of supporting admins, and ask, they may do so. I'm not advising they do so, for several reasons, however it can be done. The "suspect" list is right there. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding: of the three Admins who confessed to knowing and aiding and abetting the undertow in his subterfuge, Lara/Jennavecia is not only unrepentant but stridently announced she has done no wrong and will always look out for her friends above following policy here, and has insulted those who has a different view. Jayron stated more simply he did it and would do it again and implied he feels he did nothing wrong. GlassCobra, who actually nominated Law, has given a more nuanced and thoughtful response and stated his willingness to re-stand Rfa, which I respect, but has stopped short of actually placing himself on Rfa to reconfirm. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 You can't punish someone for having a different threshold of trust than anyone else. No !voter is required to say anything on RfA. In fact, in theory, one can just say "Support" or "Oppose" if he/she chooses. There's no rule that a user has to say anything particular when supporting a candidate. It may be poor ethics, but it's not against an written rules. In my opinion, going through the list of people who participated in the RfA is fishing for users to get in trouble. I don't think that's necessary. I don't think we need to make every user on the project take an oath as to whether or not he/she knew. hmwith☮ 16:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

^This is in response to you saying users could go through the RfA looking for users who knew. hmwith☮ 16:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I also said I did not advise it. However, remember the undertow created Law as an account to evade ArbCom ban. The account, as Kww correctly points out, should have been blocked by any admin as a ban-evading sock the second they knew. Instead, we know at least three admins not only didn't block, they supported for admin. This raises serious questions. Please note again, I did not suggest, and indeed said I did not advise, any such questioning of those who supported. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

All vandalism should be reverted, but that doesn't mean that every editor who sees it has to revert it. We're volunteers. hmwith☮ 16:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

But we're not talking about inaction here. Law was created specifically to ignore and bypass an ArbCom sanction; he was nominated for, and supported for, admin by those 'in the know' - not the same as simply staying quiet. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm with you, hmwith. I really think that Wikipedia culture punishes candor far too much. At every turn we encourage people to do things like sock with undisclosed accounts—keeping your old account will mark a user forever, and this isn't a good thing. The_undertow's own sock is an understandable reaction to that reality. I'm afraid that if we don't stop over-reacting to honesty, these problems will remain unsolvable. Cool Hand Luke 19:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but IMO while adjusting down the flame for "reacting to honesty" does not mean "absolve of all responsibility" especially in situations where so much was done wrong - floutng an Arcbcom decision to get your buddy the admin bit? This is unacceptable. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

We over-react to honesty, and under-react to dishonesty. It is all very sad. DuncanHill (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, something that the community responds very well to, is admission of wrong-doing, accompanied with a heartfelt apology, contrition, and a promise to learn from the mistakes and be more careful in the future. It's when people get secretive, defensive, and/or go into a bunker mentality of "I'm right, everyone else is wrong", that the pitchforks start coming out. --El on ka 20:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Elonka here. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps coincidentally, several of the people involved on both sides of this matter either attended the

Bathrobe Cabal. User:hmwith attended the Nashville Meetup, belongs to the Bathrobe Cabal,[33] and voted in favor of Law's RFA. [And The undertow supported Hmwith's RFA.] I hate to be suspicious, but if folks are commenting on the case it'd be best if they disclosed any personal knowledge they have of the involved parties. Will Beback talk

20:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, there will be no crucifixion over any admission here.--Tznkai (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

If people can't make a useful addition, please don't lengthen the page. We have more than enough snarky comments already. Tznkai, you were removing content from the

WP:ANI thread and trying to close it down prematurely. Trying to hide a scandal only raises the drama level. Do suggest a constructive path forward, one that addresses the concerns rather than dismissing them as trivial. Many clueful members of the community smell the stink of corruption. Let's clean up the mess rather than spraying air freshener. Jehochman ^Talk

00:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me try it again: hmwith just made a point that people who admit things tend to get lambasted. Will Beback then more or less demands that she claim or deny a friendships. If she were to say she is a friend, she'll get accused of nefarious things - if she says she is not, she's going to be accused of being a liar. Will Beback's question put her in a no win situation. We already know hmwith believes "the arbs/admins who are coming forward and admitting that they knew are being crucified." so I hardly think it was a fair question anyway.

And for the record, I was not trying to close it prematurely - I was trying to keep it focused away from your and Jennavecia's disagreement where you call her dishonest and she calls you a drama monger, and more focused on the situation at hand.

As for the real issue at hand, we have this messy deception and secret thing, and its really about how we feel about being left out. If anyone is curious, I've been left out on every "open secret" that has ever been revealed around here, so don't think I don't understand the anger and the frustration. Its never going to go away - there isn't one subdivision of society that doesn't have that problem. I also know that the standards for admin behavior are both unclear and lacking - why bother demanding honesty if we're not also going to demand good sense? There is a productive way forward - instead of speculating and demanding who knew what, lets actually make a real standard for admin behavior.--Tznkai (talk) 00:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. We're actually in agreement. I don't think it is productive to go around grilling people without substantial basis. I believe that any unidentified parties who are seriously in the wrong will come forward voluntarily because they will not want to slither away while their friends are held accountable. If I am a correct judge of character, all we need to do is wait and people will volunteer the relevant information. Jehochman ^Talk 00:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The core problem with the Law RFA was that personal friends of The undertow/Law intentional hid information about him while they aided him in violating Wikipedia policies and in deceiving the community. They, as his friends, could have stayed silent and left him to his own devices. Likewise, if other editors are friends of his they are welcome to stay silent. But if they are going to attack those who are investigating this matter then they owe it to the community to at least identify their conflict of interest and to not present themselves as neutral, disinterested parties. Will Beback talk 01:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Putting my money where my mouth is

WT:ADMINS#Administrator conduct--Tznkai (talk

) 01:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Will, I actually did not attend the Nashville meetup (although I had originally planned to). I'm friend with several users who went. I am also friends with all of the editors involved in this case (which is why I mentioned this in the clerks' notes). However, being friends with users has never affected my opinions on WP issues. I treat each situation neutrally, and I don't jump on bandwagons, as my friends could tell you, as I don't always agree with them (on some BLP things even, ah!).

As for RfAs, if you look at all (non-snow/pile-on) requests in the last 2 years, I think I participated in almost every single one. And as for the_undertow supporting my RfA, I have absolutely no recollection of interaction before that. If we had "met", it wasn't enough to recognize his username or know who he was. However, was I friends with the_undertow later? Yep, I met him through the BRC, along with a few other users (who remain to keep me in a positive, motivated spirit regarding editing today). I've never hidden that information, nor would I.

As for knowing whether or not the_undertow was editing currently or specifically under what username, I don't think that I need to comment. I'll absolutely take a stand against that, and I hope that others, after me, follow suit, and refuse to respond. There's no reason that I should be being questioned right now. I don't believe that the arbs should either, or every RfA regular, or every user who was at some point a member of the BRC, or anyone who has ever even talked to him. There's no need to start accusing and pointing fingers, and I think it's absurd that any user who disagrees with a you should be forced to take an oath as to whether or not he/she knew something and didn't tattle. I'd rather edit the encyclopedia, and I hope that most of the drama here can dissolve, and we'll all go back and do the same. Cheers, hmwith☮ 06:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmwith, you make some reasonable points, and I agree with you. Just because people are friends doesn't mean they're necessarily going to support each other. In addition, it's perfectly understandable to turn a blind eye to something a wiki-friend is doing. It's human. Someone who stuck rigidly to Wikipedia's rules on each and every occasion, turning in any friend who might have broken them, would be a monster.

But there's another side to it. When you sign up as an admin, and even more so as a CU, oversighter, or Arb, you're pledging to respect the community's values (or work openly to change them if you don't agree with them). There are situations where I'd ignore rules violations, especially if people were making good edits. But if a wikifriend of mine tried to evade an ArbCom ban and obtain adminship by lying to the people voting for him, I think I'd try to stop him. I know there have been situations where people have gone underground for privacy reasons, but I'm talking here about someone evading a ban with a new account simply because they want to. If I were on the ArbCom, I'd think I'd have to tell the Committee, or resign if I didn't want to tell. People can't have it every which way.

The Bathrobe Cabal and the Nashville meetup are clearly connected to this situation. I won't go into detail, because some of the issues are still being dealt with. But suffice to say people associated with both seem to be involved in voting each other into various positions, some of them quite sensitive positions, and using the tools to the benefit of other members. There's nothing necessarily wrong with that, but it has the appearance of something it's legitimate to ask respectful questions about. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't attend the Nashville meet up, so I'm not sure exactly what issues lie there. Did something really controversial occur? Also, I vote for people who I trust and respect for the positions they're running, and that has nothing to do with whether or not they are my friends. Do I trust and respect many users who were in the BRC? Absolutely, and I also trust and respect many other users. If a friend started acting unreasonably and inappropriately, I would not blindly support. No way, and I'd be offended if it was implied that I would. There's no reason for anyone to think that I would put friends before the best interests of Wikipedia. I also didn't expect friends' votes when I ran for OS, but some users participated in the election (edit: some users who I considered friends opposed me). What was nice about the BRC is that we all are (or were) very active, involved admins. Many of us make sure to comment on all elections and big issues. I think people are looking a bit too deeply into it. hmwith☮ 15:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, and without casting any aspersions at specific individuals, there is a big difference between a club of people of unimpeachable judgment and character who mutually trust and respect one another (the tenure committee at an esteemed institution; for another example there is a Basketball court inside the US Supreme Court building, I hear, and only invited guests may play), and a group that mutually supports one another through accusations of impropriety or democratic elections. If a small group of Wikipedia acquaintances who know each other from a real-world gathering and/or know and enjoy each other's company onwiki form a cabal, and the loyalty to the group involves keeping secrets regarding sockpuppetry and other Arbcom sanctions violations, supporting each other's policy violations, etc., then the whole group may be going rogue so to speak and depending on the circumstances is subject to reasonable suspicion. It's only reasonable that we ask for some transparency, and try to figure up what's really going on. Circling the wagons may not calm the situation. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the section title, there is always a tension between telling the honest truth and thereby having a less favorable outcome, and lying in a way that advances oneself. The fact that people who have something to hide stand to gain from a successful lie does not mean it's wrong to ask. That would be absurd. It's a false choice. If someone is reasonably suspected of violating our trust we can and should first ask them if they did it. Decency and personal integrity would demand that if someone makes a mistake they own up to it if reasonably asked. There is nothing improper in the question or the choice it forces people to make because there is only one honest choice. If they suffer as a result, it is a result of their act, not their honesty. Those inclined to dishonesty about their misdeeds are only digging their own hole, and I don't see why we should save them from their own choices. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

hmwith, I voted for your OS election. However if we would have the election after the incident and you supported Law to become an admin even though you've had known he was the block evading, The undertow, I would've clearly strongly opposed for your election. Your replies to SV is like refusals to take the responsibility if there may have.--Caspian blue 16:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmwith, I think the situation here -- and the lessons from the last few years of developing the concept of COI as it relates to WP -- is that we can't ourselves be the judge of when we have a COI. I think a friend would have to behave much more unreasonably than a non-friend before you'd take action against them. A human being who never behaved like that would be a scary creature.

When we were a smaller website, these things mattered less, but as we grew, they came to matter more. What we've needed for a couple of years are safeguards against ourselves, against the good-faith actions of editors (and especially admins, functionaries and Arbs) who can't quite see how what they're doing might be unfair to others. In other words, we need to put structures in place that will give us good governance. The situation that has arisen here is one, I think, that can be used constructively, but we can only do that if we're allowed to ask questions about what happened and who was involved. If we're not even allowed to ask questions respectfully without being accused of something untoward, there's no chance of learning anything from it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The Nashville meetup was planned as a BRC meetup, but everyone was free to attend and not nearly all the attendees are members of the BRC, which is not an actual cabal. A few of the planned attendees, including Chip, were not able to make it for various reasons. I like how the conspiracy theories are spiraling out, though. Like we all conspired and planned to promote Law into adminship to do our bidding. I talk to Chip on the phone like three days a week and chat with him online occasionally. I rarely knew what he was up to on-wiki. Hardly anything underhanded. You, SlimVirgin, speak of needing to be able to ask questions without being accused of something untoward. Consider that we can't answer without out intentions being assumed as the worst possible. People aren't looking for answers. Seriously, look at that RFAR. Some people are, but these calls of witch hunts and crucifixions are valid. Answers aren't what most people are looking for, because they've already decided what the "truth" is.

Lara

19:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

What you're saying is that things look different depending on your perspective. From your point of view, The undertow meant no harm, and therefore the people who knew what he was doing meant no harm either. And you're right, in a sense. The other side of it is that he violated both a ban and a desysop, and had to lie to voters during his RfA. From the point of view of many Wikipedians, that in itself constitutes harm, because he cheated, he was elected under false pretenses, and the Arb(s), functionaries, and admins who let him do it had a responsibility to stop him, out of respect for the Wikpedians who were voting for him not realizing they were being fooled.

I'm sure none of you sat down and hatched an actual plot. But it's like the myth of the boiling lobster, that if you raise the heat of the water slowly, he doesn't feel so much pain. Bit by bit, several admins—and others with higher permissions—got sucked into watching someone lie to gain adminship, because they were part of a group of friends, and so no one stopped to think, "Hang on, should this be happening?" A mindset emerged, an example of groupthink, where people weren't thinking clearly as individuals. The point of asking questions now is to find out why that happened so easily, and whether we can put checks in place to minimize it in future. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You know what? I agree with you about mindsets. I agree with you about how points of view regarding specific incidents can become colored by prior relationships, whether friendships or animosities. (I don't agree with you about the lobster thing, I'd always heard it was a frog, :) but I digress)... But with that agreement comes a question, are you yourself able to rise above your own friendships and animosities to recognize that some of the very things you raise concerns about apply in your own case? People have perceptions that you have benefited from friendships and behind the scenes influences and lobbying. That's not a disqualification from raising the issues, (there is no more fervent anti-smoker than an ex-smoker) but it is a caution... we are all of us human and none of us perfect, and no system we construct can be perfect either. ArbCom, the very idea of it, was constructed in order to rise above personalities (and the rule of a single person) in conflict resolution. To an extent it has done that. But it also has suffered from regulatory capture. Any change to it needs to be measured against the metric of whether the change reduces that effect, reduces the influence of personalities. Governments of laws rather than men tend to work better. Wikipedia is not a government, or a system of justice, and we are urged to use common sense rather than inflexible rule application. And yet, perhaps some of our notions, such as the notion that ArbCom should not be bound by precedent, should be revisited. ++Lar: t/c 13:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

When you're a plain old admin and you find out something through the grapevine that higher up users have presumably "approved of as legitimate" (by letting it go), you feel as if the ball is no longer in your court. Functionaries and ArbCom members were aware of the situation, he had even been publicly outed on-wiki, so I don't think every random user who heard the rumor worried about it beyond that. I, personally, went on with my day. As far as I knew, all functionaries were aware after the OS. hmwith☮ 14:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Serious error in my statement at 'Administrators aiding a sock puppet at RFA' arbitration request

I made a serious factual mistake in my Statement by uninvolved Finell in the above referenced arbitration request. I struck out the erroneous paragraph with an explanation. Please look at the change, as I do not want anyone to be influenced by my erroneous "evidence". I apologize for making this error. Finell (Talk) 22:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting us, Finell. Risker (talk) 04:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Unrelated accusations.

It seems to have become a new tactic, that in order to try to derail a case someone will make an accusation of past misconduct against the person filing the case.

This kind of mud slinging can't be allowed to continue. It confuses the issues of the cases, it makes it harder to read the case sections by filling them up with unrelated text, it makes the job harder for the Arb Com by turning up the heat.

So I think I'd advise the clerks to operate with a new rule.

Accusations of bad conduct unrelated to the case at hand should be immediately removed from case requests, workshops or other case pages. The only time they should be allowed is when the ArbCom request a past history of a particular editor's behaviour. Additionally, editors who make unfounded accusations in this way should be given a civility warning on their talk pages.

If you want to make accusations against another editor before the ArbCom, file a case against them, or stay quiet. Do not piggyback on a separate unrelated or only distantly related case, do not make unsubstantiated or vague accusations, the phrase 'coming from you considering what you did in' should never be seen on these pages. Editors, you are not pigs, do not play in the mud. --Barberio (talk) 10:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggested wording for text to go in the red box somewhere. Comments or statements making accusations of any bad conduct unrelated to a case request will be removed by a clerk. Accusations involving indirectly related previous behaviour may be done only in regards to named parties in a request, and only to establish a pattern of previous behaviour, and may be removed at the discretion of the clerks. --Barberio (talk) 13:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Support. The recent bidirectional accusations between uninvolved parties is especially tiresome. It is a nice way to catch up on years worth of drama that may have passed me by, but it is demoralizing and causes a drop in constructive edits by everyone. UncleDouggie (talk) 11:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Retaliation is unseemly, and has a chilling effect on those who would request arbitration. Grievances are not ammunition to be stored and used later. (A good example is FT2's statement against KillerChihuahua and I, two editors in good standing.) If you have a problem with somebody, address it at the time. Don't nurse a grudge. Jehochman ^Talk 12:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
This could be very helpful. If one still has a lasting/still building worry about another editor, which is somehow slowing down the editing of articles, it should be brought up in its own DR anyway. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Strong oppose Those bringing arb and admin noticeboard requests often have disruptive histories and are themselves to blame for the disputes they are involved in. The idea that they should be shielded from any mention of their own actions while going after others with impunity is totally unacceptable. This looks like another attempt to codify the atrocious do as a say not as I do hypocrisy that is one of our ugly double standards. We shouldn't do more to protect Wikilawyering score settlers from being accountable for their own actions. The identities of those signing on to this absurdity speaks volumes. We already do too much to reward disruptive abuse of noticeboards and requests for enforcements against good faith contributors. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid your concerns are unfounded. A case should stand on it's own merits, not on the merit of the person bringing it. If the person bringing a case is actually responsible themselves for the issue, then that is directly related and there would be no bar to bringing that up. On the other hand, you've glossed over the use of accusations as a bullying tactic. I also find your line of "The identities of those signing on to this absurdity speaks volumes." to be a fine example of the sort of abuse that happens. That's a direct insult to me and the people who've supported this. You don't back it up with anything, and it's just prime mud slinging. I think you just demonstrated exactly why we need this rule. --Barberio (talk) 17:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Do unto others... If those trying to settle scores can't stand to have their own actions scutinized, they should take that as a sign that they need to seek more collegial approaches to editing Wikipedia and to resolving issues as they arise. You've glossed over the frequent bullying and intimidation that takes place in the form of bringing numerous noticeboard actions in an attempt to win a disagreement. You also ignore the enormous amount of disruption caused by drama fests that result from the launching of mob driven witch hunts led by Wikilawyering forum shoppers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

And not a single bit of that has anything to do with the rule being proposed. --Barberio (talk) 18:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll say it again... If you have accusations to make against someone, make them. Do not use them as ammunition in an fight. It undermines the whole Dispute Resolution process to keep using accusatory comments as a bludgeon, and storing up grudges to unload them upon any actions by your rival. I want to have a wikipedia where accusations are made in a calm manner, and allowed to be investigated without being turned into verbal slanging matches. This rule bars use of accusations in this manner, and requires them to be made formally through the normal channels of Dispute Resolution.

I would like a clarification from you... Do you feel it is appropriate to short-circuit dispute resolution by bringing up an unrelated accusation of wrong doing in the middle of a case request? If so, can you please provide a defence for why you think so? --Barberio (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you think it's appropriate for Tarc to ask me when I stopped beating my wife? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to refuse honest discussion in favour of bringing up someone else's misdeed, then there is no point discussing this with you. --Barberio (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I could have repeated the answer I already gave to your question, but that might have seemed inappropriate. Did you think that by rephrasing your question to make it laughably loaded and pointy you would get a different answer? I attempted to teach you something by giving you an ironic example, but subtlety is often missed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

My goodness, are you still beating that dead horse, CoM? Didn't Palin try to pull this same shtick last year, claiming that a "lipstick on a pig" saying directed at her was sexist? Common sense informs one that "have you stopped beating your wife?" is not a literal accusation of battery, but rather an example of a logical fallacy. Please, stop embarrassing yourself by crying that it was some sort of vicious personal attack against you. It wasn't. Tarc (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Support, although it's really up to ArbCom and not the community as a whole to decide how little and how much off-topic bickering they will tolerate on their boards. If they feel they can manage their corner of Wikipedia and come to efficient, fair decisions in a forum where everyone gets to vent, more power to them. On the other hand, if they feel that off-topic grievances (and as often as not, simple personal attacks) weigh down the process or make the forum intolerable for them or the other participants, they can demand order. I think Arbcom does to some extent already remove the most irrelevant of the accusations, and parties who make them often lose their case as a result when the question is disruption, incivility, or likelihood of learning from the experience so as not to repeat a misdeed. It's a much bigger problem on administrative notice boards and article talk pages, where there are no clerks or moderators at all to keep things in line. Some of the most tendentious editors there, and the most experience puppeteers, have effectively learned how to deflect any attempt to reign in their behavior by creating a huge stink whenever it is questioned, and those cases end up here at Arbcom. Wikidemon (talk) 20:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Somewhat support, although I don't think "pot calling the kettle black" type facts (as opposed to unrelated imputations) are unhelpful to people's understanding of a given case. If it's simply character assassination, it has no place here. Orderinchaos 14:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a clerk, but in answer... Do you want them alphabetically, or by order of importance? (grins).. first off.. a small subsection on a little-trafficked talk page is no place to get consensus (what you claim you have here). Two, the doctrine of

unclean hands tends to apply in legal and psuedo-legal arguments (including Dispute Resolution). Three is the fact that it just makes it a race to be first to file at ArbCom, he who files first can claim that the equivalent behavior is unrelated, etcetera etcetera. I'm not saying that this is the case here.. I'm not going to get involved in who/what/where/when, I think there's enough wood on the fire already without throwing kerosene on it. But this is a horrible idea. SirFozzie (talk

) 00:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

First, lets move this here, since as you said, you're not a clerk.

Um... There's no bar against opening another case, or making a related counter claim, so no 'race to file first' would exist. This is a bar against comments and statements made in cases, not on opening new cases, or making related counter claims.

Also, you're misunderstanding the

unclean hands

doctrine. That requires direct relation to the issue at hand, and to be in unique circumstances that warrant it, you can't say "Well, the guy I hit with a baseball bat has a stack of unpaid parking fines" for instance. And a judge would frown severely on spurious attempts to raise an "unclean hands" affirmative defence without a very very clear case of superior ill intent related to the case. For instance, a case where someone set up a con-scheme that requires some dishonesty on behalf of the person being conned, would not be able to use an "unclean hands" defence.

Can I suggest that when you wikilink legal terms in discussion, you take a little time to read the page you link? The name of the term is often very misleading into the actual meaning of the term.--Barberio (talk) 01:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I think SirFozzie was meaning more the situation of "Well, the guy I hit with a baseball bat is hitting that guy over there with a baseball bat". Not sure, but that was my interpretation. Orderinchaos 14:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

And nothing in this proposal stops someone taking up issues through Dispute Resolution or requesting a separate case. What it does stop is the case being 'muddied' by conflating the separate accusations. --Barberio (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Strong oppose This would prevent people like FT2, bringing up important claims to put into perspective that shed light on some of the history of the request, it's rather stupid to just listen to what someone has to say, without first knowing where they're coming from. --
ark
// 11:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
People like FT2 can bring up accusations through the normal processes of Dispute Resolution. What they must stop doing is complicating and muddying cases by bringing up past grudges and unrelated counter claims. If they can't stop themselves from throwing mud, we should restrain them from doing so.

And again, I must stress this, the cases should rest on their own merits, not the merit of the person bringing them. We do not want to build up a situation where if you had a past ban, you're not allowed to come to ArbCom for redress over anything. That would be absurdly unjust. --Barberio (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
However if you're a person just now looking at a request like this, and there is more background history, why would you have that person not know some of the real history on the paticular case? --
ark
// 00:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Support per Jehochman. Posts should be on topic, of reasonable length, not refer to long screeds posted elsewhere, and decorum enforced. Verbal chat 11:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
There's a lot of wisdom in SirFozzie's input. The traditional solution to overlong posts is to either ignore them or to request that the poster refactor. That's been a sturdy solution which perhaps ought to have been applied in this instance. The proposed change would be vulnerable to high stakes gamesmanship: partisans to a dispute often attempt to frame a proposed case via the opening request. For examples, see 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009. RFAR would not be improved if editors who honestly disagree with the scope and direction of the opening request were at increased risk of warnings and blanking. The marketplace of ideas is usually a fair market--better that than to create a new political cudgel. Durova³²² 01:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Again, I don't see how this proposal can result in what you claim it would result in. I don't see the link, and you've not explained how it would get from "You cant make unrelated or unfounded accusations in comments on a case" to "No one will be able to dispute the first claim made."

I think perhaps it's because in the past we have allowed people to use "The person saying I did bad stuff has also done bad stuff" as a defence. The thing is... That's worked out pretty badly hasn't it. It's been part of the whole "Some people can get away with it" ethos. How many times were civility, and admin misbehaviour issues been dropped, because of a pile on of admins accusing the person who brought it up of being a troll and out to harm to project.

I want us to move to a system where if you have an accusation to make, you make it, and that accusation is judged on the merits. You don't have people making snide comments, vague accusations of past wrong doing, or try to get a case dismissed over unrelated issues. That's not fair or just.

If someone who has wronged you files a ArbCom case against you first, then you have the options of a) arguing against the merit of the case, b) making a related counter claim, c) opening a separate case if one is merited. --Barberio (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- See Framing (social sciences). Durova³²² 21:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  I suggest that the proposal would actually reduce the ability of people to unjustly re-frame a case request in a bad light, by requiring comments to address the merits of the case. --Barberio (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
oppose I'm with Durova and SirFozzie on this. About half the cases here seem to deal not with the misbehavior of an individual, but a conflict between two people or two groups, in which the actual issue is, which of them has been behaving the worst. The counter-accusations brought up are very often relevant. They illustrate a pattern of behavior, at the least, and the Committee correctly regards such patterns as relevant here. Even when not closely related, they tend to involve the quest of the general good faith or one or more of the parties. Given the relatedness of accusations made during a case, the best thing often is to deal with the entire matter, not that which may technically only closely relate to a particular narrow charge. I think if such a rule is passed, party A will say , party B has done x y and z bad things to me in our arguments of topic whatever. But on item z, I was perhaps partly to blame. So Iwill charge him only on x and y, and hope the committee will reject any mention of z. But nonetheless. sometimes things are brought up that are indeed irrelevant, and the clerks already have correctly assumed a degree of discretion here, which, IMHO, they could exercise more often. DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
oppose. The system is robust enough to weigh in all relevant factors; arbs are not babies that need to be spoon-fed the right mix of diffs. Is there a proven precedent where "mudslinging" succeeded in twisting the outcome of a debate? As DGG said, disputes may involve years of slow burn, and must be unfolded to back where it started to see the whole picture.
NVO (talk
) 23:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Attention Clerks

This proposal seems to have pretty good support. Would you like to work with this rule, or do you see problems here we can't? --Barberio (talk) 00:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This really isn't a clerk call to make, more of an arb call. MBisanz ^talk 02:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

More asking opinions on enforceability issues really, and if there's anything the people who would be enacting it would change. --Barberio (talk) 12:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Fragmentation

The bifurcation of motion and case into separate sub pages fragments discussion when they are in fact quite linked together. Can something be done about this please?

In addition, I've noticed that clarification requests now languish considerably longer than they should. I understand that they are usually really low on the priority list, but the split pages makes them look outright forgotten.--Tznkai (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The number of Arb pages is ridiculous. They've set themselves up in a massive maze of Wikibureaucracy. Instead of simple solutions and resolutions to help ease disputes, they serve as the whip cream and cherry atop the drahmaz cake. Not to mention all the pomp and circumstance (and curtains) to ensure the Arbs are kept out of touch and their work out of view from the rest of the lowly peons. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Really? CoM, do you have a constructive suggestion to make, rather than rhetorical flourishes? Carcharoth (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Considering they haven't done the sensible thing and banned you, I think you're the last person who should be bitching about ArbCom, CoM. Badger Drink (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Badger Drink, arbitrators do notice when certain users have a habit of making inflammatory and unhelpful comments on arbitration pages. That applies to you as well as others. Our patience is not endless. Carcharoth (talk) 20:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai, you make a fair point about how this issue fragmented over two pages, one I raised myself at one point - though looking at the sheer size of the request, I think moving the motions to a separate page was the right thing to do. We (and the clerks) are currently considering the best way to archive everything in one place, and there may be a statement from ArbCom to help draw a line under this. As regards the clarifications, most of the current ones are stale and should be archived (I will ask the clerks to do this). The way clarifications and amendments have worked in practice this year (and earlier) is that, yes, they do work to a slower timescale and take a relatively lower priority. Initially, a number of arbitrators comment (but usually less than the full number, though I presume all do read all of them). If the comments reject the concerns raised, the request is left for a while to allow the parties concerned to reply or just simply to let them read what has been said. And then, if about a week has passed with no further comment, they are archived. The alternative is when an arbitrator sees a need for action and proposes a motion. At that point, all the active arbs should vote and the motion passes or fails. It would help if the current guidelines were updated to reflect this, so people know what to expect. Ideally, things would move faster there, but it is more important to not give users false expectations about how fast things will be handled. Carcharoth (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

How this should have gone...

The Arbs should have noted that Law had resigned his adminship and requested that, in light of his good contributions, he take a short wikibreak. They should have asked the community to work out via a consensus process a set of policies on reporting block and ban evasion. The Arbs should also have offered up a streamlined block and ban review process and suggested a process for reform of our sanction and enforcement approaches.

Those involved in the RfA where disclosure wasn't adequate should have been admonished to do better and to at least avoid the appearance of impropriety and conflicts of interest. All editors should have been reminded to use discretion and keep the interests of the encyclopedia in mind. Jehochman should have been admonished for fanning the flames and pushing this disruption as a score settling campaign. We all could have gotten back to editing long ago. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to invite you to stand for an Arbitration Committee post, and allow the community a chance to decide if we agree with you or not. --Barberio (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Law lied to get his admin tools back. Given those tools, he abused them blatantly and egregiously. Nothing could be simpler. Fuck him and throw him to the wolves. And those who helped him, too. PhGustaf (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

See, I think the two issues can be separated. Yea, throw the book at Law/Undertow if he was socking under restriction and wheel-warring to unblock buddies. But for those that knew who he was? Eh. They neither violated restrictions nor misused or abuse admin tools, so what we're dealing here is with a matter of ethics, and I can't see desysopping for that. Tarc (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

So you don't think that Wikipedia administrators should operate to high ethical standards then? What standards would you suggest? Franamax (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You do know that this is just a website... right? Some of the people who edit here seem to confuse it too much with the real world. The administrator tools are just that.. tools, you don't have to have "high ethical standards" to delete a page. The very idea that you're making is ridiculous. --

ark

// 04:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Without comment upon anything else at this thread, in reply to Barberio: candidacy for ArbCom is not an overreaching measure of an editor's rightness or wrongness in every situation. Giano and I are unlikely to ever support each other for the Committee, but there are times when we agree on particular discussions and give credit to each other's input. The greater good of the project is served when editors weigh each post on its merits rather than skim with predisposition about the editor. Durova³²¹ 04:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

(e/c, reply to Coffee) I strongly disagree. Anything you do that has an impact on other people's lives should measure up to some ethical standard. If you really take the view that since it's "just a website" you should be held to a lower standard of behaviour than in RL, then with respect I'd question your fitness to perform as an admin. Even setting aside your low bar of deleting a page, which is in fact a quite serious decision, administrators have a perceived status here (deserved or not) and they have access to extra information. It's not unreasonable to expect them to be able to distinguish right from wrong and navigate the grey areas in between. In any position of responsibility, it's necessary to observe ethical standards just that little bit higher than the hoi polloi. And having actually done the system admin role in the real world, day-in, day-out, for over 25 years and faced the actual ethical conflicts that arise in the role, and made one hell of a lot of money doing it while always maintaining my own high standards, I completely reject your "just a website" comment. It's a system and if you're put in charge of any bit of it, you have a duty to it's users. It may be a hobby in this case, but it's still a duty. If you don't like that, drop the hobby, but don't ignore the duty. Franamax (talk) 04:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I regretfully disagree Franamax, and I don't quite see how this incident would have an "impact" on someone's life. Wikipedia is what it is, a website, albeit it's more than some random thing, it does have bureaucracy but to say it has "ethics" is stretching it. The way you frame your wording, someone might think you see the tools as an administrative position; to be an "administrator" here, unlike your job, doesn't require you to do anything, other than not abuse the tools. No one is "in charge" here it's a user based website, there aren't any duties, it isn't a job with high standards. Again with people trying to think of this place as more than it is... deleting a page is not that serious of a decision, it's pretty much just clicking delete, granted there are a few things that you need to check before deleting one, like has it been chosen to be deleted by AFD, CSD, prod, etc.; however the knowledge of a banned user's sock, doesn't even remotely play into misuse of the tools, no matter how you look at it. --

ark

// 08:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Coffee in the sense that perspective has at times been lost in this debate and some pretty strange language has been floating around. I also agree that "adminship" has been blown up into some sort of status which it really isn't. However, I do think the site equally has the right to decide that certain people, on account of their activities and behaviour, can no longer be trusted to administer - keeping in mind those powers include (un)blocking users and (un)deleting articles. That's not a conflation with real world, it's actually entirely pertinent to site maintenance in a large community project. Orderinchaos 14:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes but the type of trust you're talking about, would be more centralized with per say not being able to trust the user with deleting a page because they have been deleting pages at random, rather than them just knowing about a banned user's sock. --

ark

// 18:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There was only ever going to be one way to prevent this incident turning into a cause célèbre and as only ~~one~~ two of the three protagonists ~~has~~ have taken it, here we are. There seem to be two main approaches being offered by contributors to this debate. One group, observing the relatively trivial short-term effects of the controversial actions in question call for restraint and lament the drama. Another group, concerned with the potential medium-term damage to the encyclopaedia’s reputation, request firm and decisive action.

I am in the latter group and the problem as I see it is has nothing to do with deleting pages, at random or otherwise. It is that faith in the integrity of administrators as a group is declining due to this and other controversies. It is simply not credible that we can be seen to flout community policy and then say “get over it”. If Arbitration Committee cannot, or will not stop the rot, another way will have to found, however dark and dangerous the way. We have become a large and bloated empire, and if “administrator” becomes associated in readers and editors minds with lying, cheating, cabalism and general venality, the end result is easy to imagine.

I bear no ill-will to any of those involved. Whatever their shortcomings, they too are victims of a system that is in danger of failing us all, and for which we must all take some responsibility. Ben Mac Dui 20:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, seriously? Are you always this dramatic? The only end result that will happen from this is a person getting banned longer and maybe someone getting de-sysopped. The website wouldn't fall apart even if every admin had known about Law being the_undertow, it would just mean that every admin didn't agree with ArbCom. You're taking it a bit to far to claim that an incident such as this could or would make the website fall apart, it's merely a small issue to do with someone knowing that someone else was technically breaking a policy and not telling, last time I checked that happens an awful lot in the real world. --

ark

// 21:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

No, not always - in fact I am pretty mild-mannered for the most part. :) Ben Mac Dui 11:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you always this dramatic is not a helpful statement. Sarcasm can intensify a dispute by making people feel that their concerns are being dismissed. Admins are free to decline to enforce an ArbCom remedy they see as unhelpful, but they may not undo an enforcement performed by another administrator without discussion. What happened in the disputed incident is that a group of administrators took it upon themselves to effectively undo an ArbCom placed block, and effectively undo an ArbCom placed de-sysopping. These actions were done in secret, without any sort of disclosure or discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 12:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

We're not really talking about "a small issue" - in essence it was defrauding the community, not just once but in several different ways. Firstly, an Arbcom-banned user returned under a sock. Secondly, the RfA process was completely undermined as several people acted to conceal information from the community which should have been, in all fairness, known to them at the time of the admin application. The user talk page conduct of some involved was more like children middle-fingering at the voice of authority. The end result of people doing this is increased suspicion on the 95% of people who do the right thing, are fine and get through RfA as they should, and that does not help our community.

Acting to support friends seems noble, until these sorts of issues are examined. The question which I doubt many of the accusers have asked though, is what would you do in the same situation? And it's not an easy one. One thing that can be observed though, is that if the intent was to protect their friend and give him a second chance in quite understandable personal circumstances - you'd have to admit that ending up with his name and life story all over Wiki and his own story in Signpost, a probable reset of the ban and a likely reduction in future trust or opportunities placed in this user have been the actual outcomes. In short, it was a very inefficient method of protection or assistance. Orderinchaos 15:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

@Jehochman, Excuse me but I wasn't given the memo on why not to use sarcasm at ArbCom</sarcasm>. I don't really see how that's abusing the tools though, granted it is "being secretive" and not being technically "trustworthy", it's not like the tools were necessary to do anything they did in the RFA. And not to be condescending but there isn't really a way to "effectively undo" an ArbCom action, without being secretive. --

ark

// 04:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

@Orderinchaos, the first part was completely the undertow's doing, the only thing the admins had to do with that is they knew about it. Now you present quite an important point about "being in their shoes", the truth is most of the admins would probably do the same thing if they thought that it was a

ark

// 04:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting couple of threads, all born out of a RFAR. ArbCom becomes aware of the fact that the Law account was activated before the request for appeal (although I'm not sure on dates and times on that); they remove the sysop flag from Law, and tell him to use only one account. Reasonable I think. Then, we're going to search out those who supported his RfA and chastise them for what they "did not" say. Interesting concept. Discussion ensues, and now we have the "you can't use 'Excessively strident rhetoric'. Oh really? Not long after that we're told to "trim our statements". In that case I guess I am limited to what I can say; so I will limit it to just 3 words, and keep it to ones that we have an article about at that:
?
15:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- There is a significant difference between keeping quiet and actively aiding in deception/violation of policies/sanctions (such as supporting Law's RfA), and there has been no call to sanction those who simply kept quiet and ignored the RfA. The project too often operates under a double standard - "I have friends so I can get away with all kinds of things that someone without powerful wikifriends can do." This can confuse editors (if he's getting away with sockpuppetry, why can't I?) or intimidate them (if user X doesn't have to abide by this policy, why should they have to abide by another policy - like WP:V or BLP? maybe I won't call them on this policy violation because what good what it do?). The end result? A few editors with powerful friends get to keep editing as they please and potentially drive away or silence a lot of other editors who may have otherwise made good contributions. This is unacceptable; if we are going to have rules, they need to be applied consistently or they need to be changed. There may be many similar cases, as some have alleged, and if so those involved also need to be sanctioned, or we need to determine whether the rules are bunk and should be modified. Karanacs (talk) 15:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Karanacs, you make some very valid points to be sure. I think that people on all sides of this have made some very wise observations. I certainly don't condone breaking rules; far from it. You're comment ... potentially drive away or silence a lot of other editors who may have otherwise made good contributions is EXACTLY what I am concerned with here. — ?
16:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Wait a second, I'll be even a little bit more clear (hopefully). You express a concern about driving away good editors. OK, now the whole shabang started rolling down hill because "Law" UNblocked an editor. A "MONTH" block for a grammatical edit to an article who's name isn't even mentioned in the Obama sanction or article. Could someone have said ... "hey, that's considered part of the sanction, please don't edit that article anymore"? ... YEP! They could have - but they didn't ... straight to block for a month, no questions, no if, ands, or buts. Law asked the editor to reconsider. He was ~~ignored~~ not responded to. He unblocked. He got hauled to RFAR. So yea ... the whole "... potentially drive away or silence a lot of other editors who may have otherwise made good contributions" is a VERY good point! — ?
16:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not quite right, and no, it isn't a good point at all. Yes, Law did ask Sandstein to reconsider at 23:51, and then unblocked anyways at 00:15. 24 minutes? That's all the threshold given til it is considered "ignoring"? Looking at Sandstein's contribs, there's a gap there from 23:06 to 2:07, when he's apparently offline or away. As for discussing it before blocking, that is something you do the first or maybe the second time. But since you're a regular watcher/contributor to CoM's tlak page, surely you're aware that this is abut the 4th-5th time that he's been sanctioned or warned about violating the imposed ArbCom restriction?
Assume Good Faith ceases to be an effective shield for bad behavior after a time y'know. Tarc (talk
) 18:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh Tarc, pleasure to meet you. Very good point - I've refactored. Now to the other "broadly construed" issues. So you believe that everyone should "KNOW" exactly which articles are considered part of that eh? You are a much wiser man than I. I looked at the Obama article - wasn't a single mention of this group that was conceived long before anyone every heard of Obama in there. Folks say that they are "obviously" related topics. Funny, those same folks also say that the political articles are not whitewashed. I'll certainly give some consideration to this, because at the moment I'm having a bit of trouble equating the two. But then again, I don't edit political articles very much. Personally I always try to AGF, but if you believe that I should consider mistakes (or bad behavior if you prefer) as a predisposition in future events, then I'll consider that as well. I'll likely reject
?
19:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

And by the way, I'm not finding fault with Sandstein, I think he made a mistake. I also agree that Law made a mistake. People do do that you know. I don't go looking for others faults Tarc, I try to applaud the good things, and fix the bad thing quietly. That's just me though. — ?
19:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, IMO Sandstein made a mistake in making the block too long, but not in performing the block itself. I can dig out diffs if you wish, but again, this is about 4-5 times now that CoM has had to be warned about staying away from Obama-related material; AGF can only be stretched so thin. As to ACORN/Obama, I believe most of the ArbCom members agreed that it was well within the topic restriction, so isn't this kinda moot by now? Tarc (talk) 18:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Not only was the length wrong, but the whole thing could have been avoided by simply making a polite request that I not edit that article (which mentions Obama once last I checked 3/4 of the way in a section on the 2008 election). And the idea that Sandstein was MIA immediately after the block, but should have been consulted is nonsense. Why didn't he consult with others BEFORE the block? It takes one bully of an admin to block and it's almost impossible get it undone because 1) the blocked user can't comment in the discussions 2) admins back other admins 3) the admin's friends jump to the admin's defense since Arbcom has encouraged us to treat Wikipedia as a teambuilding exercise of survival in a gangland 4) it take a consensus to unblock, but unilateral action is tolerated to block. This is wrong. And that Tarc is another of those trolling to go after editors he disagrees is yet more proof that civility and battleground are only enforced on those a particular admin disagrees with. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Admins shouldn't be expected to barter with or cajole disruptive editors. When such editors violate imposed restrictions on multiple occasions, they kinda run out of chances, and should not be allowed to wield
WP:AGF like a shield. Tarc (talk
) 18:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
If that article is related to Obama, why isn't it discussed more? Are you suggesting that any article that mentions Obama is related to him? Also, you've ignored all the other reasons why the block was faulty and abusive, including Sandstein's history refusing to respond to polite communications, my calling him out for POV pushing on the contempt of cop article, and his incivility. I think the pattern of his disruptive behavior speaks for itself, as does yours. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
And for what it's worth, millions of articles are related to Obama in one way or another, and certainly most of the U.S. political articles can be connected in some tenuous fashion by POV pushers trying to attack me. I'm sure the president is mentioned somewhere in oodles of articles, I've probably worked on some, but finding things articles that can somehow be connceted was never the point of the arb outcome. I've tried to avoid any content or articles about or directly related to Obama, and I think I've done a good job of it despite the innuendo, lies, and other abuse from the stalkers attacking me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
This is why such topic bans always contain the words "broadly construed"; so disruptive editors have no wiggle room around the edges. All of the committee members weighed in on the "it is within the topic" side anyways, I believe, so this tangent is moot. If you want to stay out of trouble, then some good advice would stick solely within your bacon-mania topic area...and well away from AN/I couldn't hurt, either. Tarc (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

←I came upon this while reading background on the "Law issue" (which seems to be everywhere on Wikipedia at the moment), and I just wanted to make a point about this ACORN/Obama thing that many people seem to have forgotten. Hopefully this is not seen as a violation of my Obama-article topic ban! During the heady days of edit warring and POV pushing that went on somewhat before ArbCom tidied things up a bit, massive efforts to add Obama to the ACORN article and ACORN to the Obama article took place. This sort of activity was precisely why an ArbCom case became necessary. That Obama is barely mentioned in the ACORN article now is irrelevant. I took "broadly construed" to mean any article that either mentioned Obama, or was tentatively related to Obama in some way - and ArbCom evidently agreed. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It is likely best that everyone simply disengage from this. The matter was settled some time ago, so there's no use in rehashing it here. My original post was simply an objection to people trying to chill any conversation on the matter at hand. We all have our views on the US political landscape, and it's not likely that anyone's views will be swayed by a conversation here. The topic for this board is the current cases before our esteemed colleagues at ArbCom. They struggle with a system that is often severely crippled, yet struggle onward (often with little or no gratitude), in an effort to ensure the smooth operations of this project. For the record: I feel that any further desysops (beyond that of the "Law" account) are not necessary. The community has sent a very loud and clear message on their views this week, and we must abide by that consensus. I believe that this formerly unprecedented situation has left a vivid impression on many people here, and I believe that many lessons have been learned. While further sanctions appear at this time to be forthcoming - I wish it were not so, and I believe it is unnecessary; however, mine is but one voice here - so having had my say, I'll see you folks somewhere
?
22:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Ched you couldn't possibly be suggesting that we go and do article work?!?! That would take away from all the fun of wikidrama; *slap* *slap* *slap*... maybe that will bring you to your senses. --
ark
// 01:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

IPs & Troubles related articles

IMHO, non-registered editors should be barred (or at least restricted) from articles related to the Troubles in Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Then request semi-protection (with reasons) on a list of articles, and see if an admin buys it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Do you know how many articles that would need to be? I think we're talking four digits at the least. Proactively protecting all these articles would A) take forever to do, and B) touch off a shitstorm like you couldn't believe. SirFozzie (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I would not be surprised if the admins declined on those grounds; but (at least until they do), why bring this to ArbCom? What GoodDay is asking is semi-protection, and admins can do that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
FYI, there are two related discussions on this right now, at:
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Troubles

WP:ANI#Dealing with IP editors in this area
("this area" meaning the Troubles case)

--El on ka 15:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Requests for Comment - Arbitration Committee 2

A new Request for Comment has been opened at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_2. This RFC focuses on the composition and selection of the committee; specifically, how many members should be on the Arbitration Committee, how long should their terms be, and how should they be selected? The issue of a Public vs Secret ballot is also under discussion, as is the issue of Support/Oppose voting vs Preferential or Cumulative Selection. Your comments are welcome. Thank you. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 20:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: JohnWBarber Versageek Lar RFAR: Further response to Vassyana

Vassyana's second statement is factually wrong in several ways:

With comment about the specific facts at play, CLEANSTART notes explicity not to continue the same editing patterns. If they're contentious. I didn't. I didn't get into a contentious situation with Shankbone. I didn't even get into an argument about Shankbone. I got into a debate about adequate levels of sourcing and following various policies and I got into it with other editors. CLEANSTART policy at the time referred to pages not subjects. The only thing I said about Shankbone was that I thought he'd find the article bothersome. Hardly a contentious statement.

It also notes that the old account should be discontinued. I was blocked and defamed by checkusers and others over the Shankbone AfD/DRV discussions after I resigned the Noroton account (two weeks before the Shankbone matter came up). It was no longer an issue. That problem was solved. Or are you endorsing punitive blocks now?

Continuing in similar areas, [is] certainly not in accord with CLEANSTART First, that's not what
WP:SOCK says. At all. Please look at the two spots that address clean starts and reread them. Actually, look at them as the policy existed on Oct. 19, when I first participated in the AfD. [34]
Second, what similar "areas"? A cleanstart account can't edit AfDs? An AfD on the subject of Shankbone never came up before. What was the practical value of Versageek's intervention (even if she hadn't blocked me)? What possible harm to Shankbone was she protecting him from? And of course the stated reason for the block wasn't done to protect Shankbone -- it was done because I was "disruptive" by engaging in a debate in an AfD.

multiple accounts with alternating/overlapping edits, [is] [...] certainly not in accord with CLEANSTART Not at issue here. I made a mistake once and made a string of edits to year-in-poetry pages from the Noroton account. It was nothing controversial at all. You aren't rejecting the case because of that. Multiple accounts, which were allowed when I started them, were obviously not done to harm the encyclopedia or anyone -- and no one contends they were. Only JohnWBarber/Noroton was ever at issue.

and jumping into a deletion discussion about a Wikipedian subject with whom you've had disputes are certainly not in accord with CLEANSTART I guess I can't make you look at the evidence, can I? The issues at play had nothing to do in particular with Shankbone, he just happened to be the subject of the article. It was damned obvious to anybody who actually looked at it twice -- even Shankbone, even an editor I'd had a long conflict with in the past, even Bigtimepeace who disagreed with me on the DRV issue and who initially excoriated me. Good-faith, harmless actions are not block-worthy material, as even Versageek admits. I couldn't have objected to a checkuser asking me about it -- but no questions were asked. I was blocked in a particularly abrupt way, given no explanation for 24 hours, no unblock-request feature on my talk page, called "disruptive" and "deceptive" with no adequate explanation and no specifics as to which of my edits I was allegedly "disruptive". And yet the proof is all over the place that I was acting in good faith.

And neither you nor anybody else can point to a single edit that could be called "disruptive" in the context of the AfD or DRV. Yet you repeat that unfair, unsubstantiated untruth in your initial statement.

Vassyana, I've engaged in more heated discussions than this RFAR in the past, and other editors and I have been able to re-examine our initial positions and sometimes change our minds. (I changed my mind in the AfD.) Please show the same willingness to re-examine your position. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Investigating editors had good reason to perceive a deceptive, inappropriate use of a sockpuppet account. Your editing patterns made it very clear that you were using an alternate account. Placing the two accounts side by side, it is easy to confirm that they are very likely operated by the same editor by behaviorial evidence alone. It should not take a long debate about policy and the wording thereof to come to the common sense conclusion that a clean start with a reasonable expectation of not being connection to the prior account necessaily means not retreading the same old patterns nor getting involved with matters about editors with whom you've had substantial disputes. You may certainly have been acting in good faith, but to expect people assume the best possible of a long-standing sock that appears to be used as a manner of avoiding scruity is simply unreasonable. Treating deceptive uses of sockpuppets, such as avoiding scrutiny for prior hisotry while retreading the same stomping grounds, has been treated as disruption/a sock violation the entire time that I have been editing Wikipedia. I can accept that your actions were undertaken in good faith. I can also understand your reason for frustration. However, the response and block was standard fare, as such actions have been for quite some time and it is quite unlikely that it will change for the exceeding rare legitimate account caught in the snare. Still, if you feel the current practice is severely lacking or harmful, you are quite welcome to open a policy or general community discussion about the fact. Vassyana (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Stop calling me disruptive or find me the Wikipedia definition of disruptive that fits any action I took. Find it or stop attacking me. "Disruptive" has a meaning in English, and it's got a policy attached to it,
WP:BLOCK
? If I am supposed to follow policy, policy that changed in the past year when alternate accounts were permissible, why aren't checkusers? that appears to be used as a manner of avoiding scruity -- once in one year? Is it reasonable to think the purpose of the account was to do harm? Is it not immediately obvious that it wasn't? When anyone actually looks at the edits, even to the Shankbone discussions, it damn well should be obvious. What was the legitimate scrutiny I was trying to avoid when I supported deletion? Whatever that might have been, how could anyone square it with the scrutiny I was supposed to be avoiding when I changed my mind and supported keeping the article? Since Shankbone himself had next to nothing to do with my comments, what was worth a block? What was worth calling me "disruptive"? What did I have to gain from this "deception"? What did the encyclopedia have to lose? What did anyone have to lose? Which caused more "disruption", Vassyana, me changing to a new account for reasons that had nothing to do with Shankbone or AfDs or any harm, or someone publicly revealing it and insisting at ANI that I was "disruptive"? You don't have to guess about that, it's all on the record: Disruption to the DRV and no change at all in anyone's vote -- which ran stronger for my side after the block -- and ultimately no concern from Shankbone. If this kind of checkuser conduct is standard then standard just sucks, doesn't it?

such as avoiding scrutiny for prior hisotry while retreading the same stomping grounds What "stomping grounds"? Year-in-poetry pages? Shankbone? Where did I go back to controversies I'd been involved with before or confront individuals I'd confronted before? There is one example of a "controversial" topic --
User talk:Noroton
. What makes you think I was trying to avoid legitimate scrutiny?

I repeat: Stop calling me "disruptive". It's offensive. Please either justify it or remove it from your statement. JohnWBarber (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

And another thing: It should not take a long debate about policy and the wording thereof to come to the common sense conclusion that a clean start with a reasonable expectation of not being connection to the prior account necessaily means not retreading the same old patterns nor getting involved with matters about editors with whom you've had substantial disputes. Not so fast. On October 28 when I was blocked, there was no "reasonable expectation" that I not be "retreading the same old patterns nor getting involved with matters about editors with whom [I'd] had substantial disputes." This is the relevant passage of
WP:CLEANSTART: That is, you should not transition from editing as User:A to continue the same editing pattern, this time as User:B, especially if denying any connection to User:A, if User:A had been a contentious editor, or if the edits of User:B are contentious. And THIS is what the same passage said on the day of the block: That is, you should not turn up on a page User:A used to edit to continue the same editing pattern, this time as User:B, while denying any connection to User:A, particularly if the edits are contentious. So, yeah, it does take a discussion of policy and the wording thereof. The language was changed since the block, maybe as a result of my block. There's nothing wrong with that change, but don't tell me that WP:SOCK forbid me from engaging in contentious discussions on new pages. It did no such thing. So when you said in your last comment at the RFAR page: With comment about the specific facts at play, CLEANSTART notes explicity not to continue the same editing patterns. You were criticizing me for not following language that wasn't there yet. Please change that comment. JohnWBarber (talk
) 01:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I have altered my comments on the main request page in response to your concerns and to provide greater clarity. As a short response to the rest, a clean start means making a clean start. It does not matter if your edits are disruptive or controversial. The policy notes that it is especially true under those circumstances, not limited to them. Regardless, you cannot reasonably expect to maintain the illusion of a new account when using an obvious sock account and editing in the same areas and interests. Vassyana (talk) 08:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
You haven't changed this statement at all: Regardless of what the specific wording says, deceptive and disruptive usage of sockpuppets is against the fundamental principles underlying the sockpuppet policy. You're still saying I was "disruptive"? Without proof. In fact, contrary to proof. I'm concerned about being called "disruptive" independently of whether or not I violated policy in other ways. And my point has been not that I never violated policy, but that the way policy was "enforced" was way over the top. The message that's coming through loud and clear to me in all this is that no action by a checkuser can ever be over the top, no matter that it does actual harm, and no punishment is too hard for someone who commits a violation of WP:SOCK, no matter how minor, how innocuous or how little harm it actually does, if it does any actual harm at all, and the nutshell statement in
WP:BLOCK be damned. Please change the (RFAR-page) statement and stop calling me "disruptive". JohnWBarber (talk
) 13:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions for Troubles articles

There is an ongoing discussion at ANI about whether or not the remedies for
Wikipedia:ANI#Discretionary sanctions for Troubles articles. --El on ka
17:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm really not certain where I should be putting this comment, so sorry if this is the wrong place but I'd appreciate knowing where I should be writing it for future reference. Also do feel free to move or copy it if you wish.
I'm on the very periphery of this dispute, but part of the problem as I see it is that there is confusion and disagreement over what articles are related to The Troubles. For example in the recent spat over motorway article names, in which I was involved, there was actions taken and statements made that were characterised as Irish or British nationalist by some parties and not by others. While it is my (non-neutral) opinion that at least one of the editors involved has some Irish nationalist opinions that she allowed to get in the way of objectivity, I would not class this dispute as being "Troubles related" - even if some of the editors involved are also involved in disputes on articles are undoubtedly related (I am not involved in those articles, but was involved in the motorway naming dispute, for example). Similarly I noticed editors involved with the British National Party article comment that although it is about British nationalism, they did not regard it as "Troubles related" and (like me) were largely unaware of the troubles-related articles disputes, and did not therefore feel it was appropriate for that article to be subject to the same restrictions.
What I think therefore would be very useful would be for a clear statement from the arbcom on what sort of articles are involved and which aren't, otherwise I forsee the potential for any article dealing with anything to do with the British Isles (in the broadest sense), Great Britain or Ireland to be drawn into the conflict, and a clear way of getting independent opinions in the case of disagreement over whether something is "troubles-related" or not. Perhaps remedies, etc would be better stated in terms of involved users as well as or instead of article-based. Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Superseded concern

RE: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_concerning_Jack_Merridew MBisanz wrote:

I believe this request is superseded by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions/Jack_Merridew_one_year_unban_review/mentors_page#Summary_of_previous_year.
I responded:

Flonight is asking the three mentors to comment on Jack Merridew in a closed discussion, where no one else can edit on the main page.

Whereas this forum will allow all editors to comment, and allow the full arbcom to make a final decision on this editor's behavior.

In addition, this enforcement request covers issues which neither mentor dealt with, including the serious harassment of Mr. Coleman.
MBisanz responded:

Seeing that the heading of that page says that the mentor's comments will lead to a motion by the Committee where all editors may contribute, it seems this request would throw a fork into that process.
The heading of the page states:
Page for Jack Merridew and mentors
talk · contribs) and Moreschi (talk · contribs
) to review current editing restrictions and develop new ones if needed. (No one else edit this page.)

Where does it state: "the mentor's comments will lead to a motion by the Committee where all editors may contribute"?

I apologize. I was offwiki, and I didn't know that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions/Jack_Merridew_one_year_unban_review/mentors_page#Summary_of_previous_year existed until I posted the notice on Jack Merridew's page about this enforcement.

This evidence can help all parties decide about the lifting of restrictions.
talk
) 07:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Notice of WP:ARBSCI on article talk pages

Template talk:WikiProjectBannerShell, the message was adjusted to hide inside banner shells.[37][38]
It was brought up earlier today that this causes the banner to no longer be visible on these pages, in violation of the ArbCom instruction.
As a compromise between the need for giving notice of the ArbCom decision and the desire to not overload the banner shell, I have made an edit to display the warning in a "collapsed" format when inside banner shells. An example may be seen at Talk:Karen Black.
Is this acceptable? Anomie ⚔ 20:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, thanks for coding it. MBisanz ^talk 20:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

urgent clerk action required.

Durova has clearly breached the 500 word limit. Could a clerk please refactor the picture - I don't mind whether you cut off the top half, or the left side. Privatemusings (talk) 06:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

tough crowd. Or more accurately, no crowd.....;-) Privatemusings (talk) 09:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

This page is rarely looked at, PM. For what it's worth, you gave me a good chuckle once I "got" it (which, admittedly, took several seconds longer than it should rightly have). :-) — Coren ^(talk) 14:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
;) Durova³⁸³ 16:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
(Excellent!) Proofreader77 (talk) 03:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Suppressed some edits

Hi all,
I'm really sorry for the disruption, but I just suppressed some text from the current request. An editor posted some private email they were sent, then immediately requested redaction. I've notified the rest of the oversight team on this matter. Nobody else's comments were modified in any way, so if you posted something, it's not been touched in any way. Sorry about the mess - Alison ^❤ 18:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

ABUSE! Thatcher 18:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Now I'm
in trouble!!! :-O - Alison ^❤
19:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Nah. I was too smart to run for in the election. I'll just stand in the back of the room and throw spitballs when teacher's back is turned. Thatcher 19:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I've indeffed Thatcher for disruption. That should help minimize drama. Jehochman ^Talk 19:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
lol - Alison ^❤ 19:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It came up in my watchlist, I pointed my mouse at the diff and could read the removed content in a pop-up. DuncanHill (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably a caching or syncing issue. There are a lot of web servers and they don't always sync up immediately. Try again now. Thatcher 20:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) I think that might be because you just happened to see it pop up between the time she removed the content and saved the page, and the time she memory-holed the intervening versions. But I'm unsure enough about it that I'm not even really sure why I commented. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I thought at the time that Alison had just blanked the comment instead of suppressing it. I refreshed my watchlist three or four times and it was still there, only disappearing when another edit was made to the page. DuncanHill (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

What Floquenbeam said is accurate. –xeno^talk 20:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

May I ask how this suppression feature works? When you suppress the bad edit and subsequent revisions, content of the subsequent revisions remains, but it is impossible to link to their diffs. Is that so? When I look in the page history a bunch of diffs are struck through and grayed out, and I can't link to them. That sort of sucks for obvious reasons. Is there any way to improve this suppression feature? If not, maybe we should rename it "oppression". Jehochman ^Talk 20:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

No, because those same diffs would contain the offending material that lead to the oversighting. Since a diff is just the software's way of showing you the difference between revisions, and those revisions are the problem. –xeno^talk 20:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm somewhat familiar with
Git (software) and the idea of diffs. What I am suggesting is a better implementation of suppression would be more like Oversight, which wipes out a diff, but leaves subsequent diffs unharmed. This better implementation might be costly because it would necessitate recompiling all the subsequent diffs when suppression was enabled or disabled. The current implementation of suppression makes a terrible mess of the edit history, rendering innocuous diffs inaccessible. This is a bad thing. Jehochman ^Talk
20:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Oversight doesn't work that way either. The wikimedia database does not store differences between edits, it stores the entire text of each page revision. Whether you use the oversight tool or the suppression tool, if you want to remove offending content, you have to remove every revision that contains the content. With the old oversight tool, those edits would simply be gone, and the text added by intervening editors would have no attribution at all. At least with suppression we can see who edited the page and when, although the text of the revision itself is missing. Thatcher 20:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Aha, I'm glad to learn that. Jehochman ^Talk 21:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Use of a technical means (gadget that displays a diff in a popup) to circumvent a measure whose purpose was the prevention of access to copyrighted material.

Public explanation of how the circumvention works.

Inciting other editors to engage in legal threats instead of improving articles.

I am afraid that per
this rationale I will have to set my lawyers in Bratislava and San Franciso loose on DuncanHill. Hans Adler
20:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Is your real name Randy by any chance? DuncanHill (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
The pop-up should not work. Although only 2 minutes elapsed between when Alison redacted the post and when she suppressed the intervening revisions, I too saw it unsuppressed for longer than 2 minutes. Wikipedia is served by many web servers, and it may have taken a few minutes for the suppression (enacted at the server Alison happened to be connected to) to propagate to the other servers. On the oversight list we sometimes see similar reports of suppressed information being visible to some people for a few minutes after the suppression was enacted. It's basically a server glitch that happens some times for a few minutes at most. It is likely that Duncan was reading wikipedia through a server that was not quite in sync, and was able to see the suppressed content for a few extra minutes. It should be completely invisible now by any means. Thatcher 21:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The initial statement regarding the suppression leaves me unclear on a point: was suppression requested "immediately" by the posting party or by someone else?
—Amelioration
03:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

To be quite clear. I asked Alison to remove it. It was an email containing a spurious, unfounded and evil allegation sent to me by an Arb. I was horrified to receive it and posted it to show some of the things I have to contend with, but then realised, as elsewhere in the world, when you have an totalitarian regime anyone who attempts to enure the underdogs have a fair hearing becomes persecuted by lies themselves. Remember it was my trying to ensure Vintagekits had a fair hearing that caused this current fiasco. In fact most of the allagations against me start because I have objected to an over zelous authority. So please no trouble for Alison,she was only doing (legally) what I requested.
Giano
10:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Lack of arbcom oversight at enforcement requests

I would like to see more arbcom members chime in at the enforcement sections like they used to. Right now, a
topic banned editor who is a self proclaimed single purpose account (updating his userpage to look less ominous) has been permitted to resume editing (albeit on a 30 day trial) in the topic he was banned from and this was done after only one day of discussion and with only a few people chiming in. We should see more involvement from arbcom in this area.--MONGO
03:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Speaking personally, I simply don't have time to get involved there. I trust the admins that take action there to show judgment, and my view is that ArbCom only need to get involved when/if things are appealed at the clarifications or amendments page, or sometimes by an appeal via e-mail to ArbCom (depending on the nature of the sanction and what is being appealed or what we are being asked to review). Most times, I would defer to a reasonable decision made at arbitration enforcement, only intervening if something really egregiously wrong was decided (or if arbitration enforcement was the wrong venue for what was decided), and only if a formal complaint/appeal to ArbCom was made. Carcharoth (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I can understand the rationale for this request. MONGO, if you would be willing to leave a message for a few of the regular enforcing administrators with an invitation to comment here, I would appreciate it. I'd be inclined to comment on AE threads if the admin regulars at AE would find it helpful. Vassyana (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Separation of powers

Three arbitrators have recused from a proposed case with perhaps a fourth recusal in the offing. If the trend continues there may be a shortage of arbitrators to actually weigh the case. This dilemma was predictable and likely to recur unless changes are implemented. Fortunately it is also preventable.

A solution
Convert the Audit Subcommittee into a fully independent Audit Committee. While you're at it, convert the Ban Appeals Subcommittee into a fully independent Appeals Board.

Too many people wearing too few hats is a recipe for trouble; balance of powers is a good thing. Durova³⁸⁶ 03:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem here is not membership of the subcommittees, but getting too involved in disputes. I don't think that Risker or Brad needed to recuse because they are on the audit subcommittee, but they may well have recused for other reasons as well (Brad has explicitly made that clear). Rlevse's recusal relates to the AUSC report. Coren is recused because he carried out the block of Giano and filed a case. It has been suggested that I recuse because I warned Giano. In that warning, I referred to "we" - I was not speaking on behalf of the committee, but was referring (as an arbitrator) to possible action by the committee as a whole. Coren's block actions, in contrast, were as an individual and as an admin. I personally strongly disagree with the concept that an arb should be able to take off their arb hat and "act as an admin" in cases like this (i.e. I agree with what John Vandenberg said about that). So, to sum up, my warning was effectively saying to Giano, that if he didn't stop his pre-AUSC report disruption (not being willing to wait for the report), then I would be proposing that ArbCom do something about it (whether my fellow arbs would have agreed with me or not, we will never know). What we got later was post-AUSC report disruption by Giano (strident and unbridled criticism of the report). My response to that would have been to dispassionately explain where Giano was wrong (Tznkai's suggested approach), but matters moved too fast for that, and Coren took his approach instead (take off arb hat and take a hardline approach as an admin). I explicitly avoid crossing that line between arbitrator and admin actions, and limit my individual actions to warnings, explanations and persuasion (which is why I think my warning is not grounds for recusal). Any action that is more than that needs a full vote by the committee. The difference is between unilateral action by individuals, and (sometimes much slower) action as a committee. There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches, but here I think the disadvantages of the unilateral approach outweighed the committee approach. This was meant to be part of what I was writing to go on the request itself, so I'll get back to that now. Carcharoth (talk) 04:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Carcharoth, it might be helpful in future when you issue such warnings to say more explicitely in the warning that you speak as an individul arbitrator rather than on behalf of the committee as a whole. English personal pronouns, particularly "we" and "you" are notoriously imprecise and their use can give rise to avoidable misunderstanding. DuncanHill (talk) 13:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I missed this earlier, apologies. I do normally try and be precise about who I'm speaking for and not speaking for, but was imprecise on this occasion. For the record, on most ocassions, I am speaking as an individual. It is only if I say "For the Arbitration Committee", normally appended to the publication of a report or vote, that I'm speaking for the committee. In general, when I speak about arbitration matters, or on arbitration pages, it will be as an individual arbitrator. When I'm talking on pages outside of arbitration (e.g. article talk pages) and editing articles, it is obviously as an editor. The situation of me acting as an admin rarely arises, as some have observed. I do appreciate more now that when commenting on talk pages, it is important to be clearer in what role I am speaking. Thanks for pointing this out by the way. It really does help. Carcharoth (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I have read some rubbish in my time Carcharoth, but to say "What we got later was post-AUSC report disruption by Giano" is more than rubbish; it is utter rubbish. This is half the problem - Arbs think that any criticism of them is disrupting the project - it is not. I spend most of my time here defending other editors, and I am certainly not going to stoop to defending myself, but we now have a position where Arbs feel themselves to be so in the heavens that intimidating editors into silence (per Coren) oversighting valid edits (per RLevse) and producing whitewashing reports to save said Arbs(per NewYorkBrad and Risker) is acceptable behaviour. It is not. It is far more disruptive launching halk baked Arbcom cases to save an Arb's face when intimidating blocks have failed. The problem here is that the Arbcom has allowed it's own members far too much leeway and lack of effective sanction, what on earth was Coren thiking of blocking me the other day - I can't imagine - and neither privately can any of the other Arbs, yet here they are wasting time trying to save his face and make some sense of a clearly flawed report while justifying RLevse's stupid actions because he did not like being compared to a Randy from Boisse. It's fooling very few and looking at the millions of words written here far more disruptive than I have ever been, So go and think on that Carcharoth and consider that if the Arbs behave sensibly most disruption would be avoided and I would have nothing to compain about, and while here - I will point out that I am also less than thrilled about the latest posonous emailed drivel from an Arb acusing me of feeding information to a well known "Outer" for use on hivemind or whatever it is called. You lot need to start communincating with each other.
Giano
14:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Giano, I will be posting my formal thoughts at the request at some point today, but for the record: (1) I disagree with Coren's block - if Coren had said at any point that he intended to block you, I would have told him not to. (2) The AUSC report did a good job of balancing the need to say some things and not over-emphasise other things, but didn't say all it could have done. I (and the other arbitrators who checked their e-mail at the time) saw the report before it was published, and I said that in my view it was OK. (3) You are free to criticise the report, but the way you do goes too far. It should not be difficult for you (and others as well, to be fair) to tone down what you say and make the same points in a calmer manner (if you can't do that, then you should, as I've said before, communicate your thoughts to someone who can express them calmly for you). (4) I was the first person to respond on the oversight mailing list to the oversight request (12 minutes after it arrived), and my response was to send an e-mail pointing out what "Randy in Boise" meant, and I then (about half an hour later) sent another e-mail explicitly stating that the suppression (which had since been done) should be reversed. Why it took so long for the suppression to then be reversed is something that does still need to be sorted out. The AUSC report does touch on that, but you are bringing more heat than light to this. Read what others have said at the request thread about your actions here, and consider what they are saying. Carcharoth (talk) 14:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I shall be making no further comment on this case. My views are widely known. They remain unchanged.
Giano
14:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
For the record, my response above was written as Giano wrote the above, and I edit conflicted with him. I hope he does read what I said and considers it, as it makes clear what I think about what happened here, and my views are not what others have presumed them to be. Carcharoth (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the Audit Committee has enough cases or institutional history under its belt to succeed on its own at this time. But the idea is worth considering for the Appeals Board. The main problem would be that anyone denied by the Appeals Board would still want to Appeal to Arbcom.--BirgitteSB 18:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Carcharoth, your comments raise one big question for me... once you saw that suppression had occurred, and having already explained the meaning of Randy to the oversight list, why did you not act to reverse the suppression? You knew there was positively no outing, you knew the suppression was wrong and would inevitably be reversed, and you certainly should have expected that the longer it took for the reversal to occur the bigger the controversy would grow. Given those surrounding factors I am wondering what led you to wait for / want consensus on the oversight list as a pre-requisite for acting. EdChem (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
PS: how you can type that the AUSC report did a "good job" of anything with apparently straight fingers is prompting other questions, but I'm letting those go through to the keeper.

At the time I e-mailed the oversight mailing list to point out that the suppression should probably be reversed, I was at a computer where I'm not logged in to Wikipedia, and hence did not have access to my account and the associated oversight tools (other arbs are sometimes in a similar position). Even if I had had access to the oversight tools, I would probably have still deferred to what was decided by discussion among oversighters on the mailing list, and those able to check the full details of what had been suppressed would have been better placed to make a final decision (I also have an election pledge to only use the tools in relation to evidence and looking at conduct of checkusers and oversighters, but that is less important here). On suppression reversal in general, it is normally better to wait a bit and be sure that a suppression should be reversed, rather than to reverse a suppression and then have it suppressed again (suppression-warring, if you like - we've never had that yet, as far as I know, thank goodness). One of the lessons (hopefully) learned from all this is that waiting to revert a suppression can be counter-productive, as it can (as happened here) end up drawing more attention to something (though it was probably the initial suppression that drew the most attention, rather than the delay before reverting the suppression). What a quick reversal of the suppression might have achieved is calming people who were getting all upset about it, but we emphatically don't want to be in a situation where those responsible for suppression are being assailed on one side by those demanding suppression, and on the other side by those demanding reversal of the suppression, and for the oversighters to "give in" to pressure from either side. They (the oversighters) need the space to calmly exercise the judgment for which they were elected and appointed. What that requires (and it is this that the AUSC report did not say) is for the person who files a request for suppression to not be privy to, and take part in, the subsequent discussion. I share some of the blame for that for not, in hindsight, asking the person who made the oversight request (and was understandably upset about what he thought had happened) to stay out of the subsequent discussion on the mailing list. If such a situation arises in future, and a member of the oversight mailing list makes a request for suppression, and I am around, I will ask the person making the request to not get involved in the subsequent discussion (it needs to be emphasised here again that the standard when there is doubt is to suppress first, then discuss, and then, if needed, to reverse the suppression). On a personal level, I do regret not being more emphatic and insisting that this suppression be undone quicker, but what is done is done. I hope at some point people can move on from this. Carcharoth (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Carcharoth, thanks for explaining why you were unable to reverse the suppression yourself, and also for acknowledging that waiting in this case was counter-productive. I do agree that hassling oversighters is undesirable, and also that suppression-warring would be extremely bad for the project. On the issue of whether you would have acted unilaterally or waited for consensus for suppression-reversal, I find your desire to adhere to your election promises to be by far the most persuasive reason not to act. That shows integrity, and I respect it.
One part of your answer highlights a crucial issue not covered in the AUSC report, and one which concerns me profoundly. You wrote about a requirement for the person who files a request for suppression to not be privy to, and take part in, the subsequent discussion. I share some of the blame for that for not, in hindsight, asking the person who made the oversight request (and was understandably upset about what he thought had happened) to stay out of the subsequent discussion on the mailing list. The arbitrator / editor who allegedly believed the reference to
Randy was an attempted outing has stated that he vented but did not request action. Now, it seems to me that Carcharoth's comments either suggest that this arbitrator is making statements that are less than forthright and complete, and that he actively lobbyed for the suppression to be kept in place, or the request and lobbying came from someone else. As the editor currently nominated for the "someone else" role is not an oversighter, this immediately raises questions about how that editor was privy to discussion on oversight-l. Were there unauthorised disclosures of oversight-l discussions?
I am going to post about this issue on the talk page of the AUSC report, as it is more suited to that location. EdChem (talk
) 17:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at your contributions, you got distracted by ARBADMIN, as there is nothing new from you at WT:AUSC yet. Hopefully you will read my reply here first, and see if it answers your concerns. The main points I want to make is that some of the speculation you have engaged in above (about lobbying and unauthorised disclosure) is incorrect and misrepresents what happened (which is not surprising, because I didn't go into details). Merely thinking that, in hindsight, the discussion would have been simpler if the requester had not been present and posting to the discussion, does not equate with what you are suggesting (if overt lobbying or pressure had taken place, I would have certainly said something at the time, rather than raising my vague concerns now) - it is more the discomfort of explaining a decision when the person making the request can see and respond to the discussion that leads to that explanation (and this would apply to any request made by anyone on any list - the same applies when an arbitrator makes a request for an arbitration case, or a checkuser asks for a checkuser to be run - discussing whether to accept the request or not is difficult when the person making the request is 'in the room' [i.e. on the same list] - does that make sense?). I'm not going to go into further details, as I think that the oversight team should look back at what happened, and discuss among themselves what standards should be applied on that mailing list regarding what to do when a member of that list is the one making the request. Just as the oversight team, and the individuals responding to requests, need the space to make their decisions, they also need to know that what is discussed there won't end up being picked apart and analysed in detail in public. If you want to take this further, please email AUSC and ask them to examine the mailing list threads in question (though they may say it is not in their remit). My view is that this can be handled internally when the oversight team discuss the AUSC report. Carcharoth (talk) 06:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Your response indicates that the requester was an oversighter, which presumably means Rlevse made a request directly. It seems obvious to me that anyone making a request should then step back from (and ignore) further discussions, unless asked specifically for more information. That this does not happen as a matter of standard practice is indeed something needing resolution. As for whether any further comments were made or not, it hardly matters. A section of ArbCom including yourself has (very unwisely, in my view) effectively decreed that arbitrators have what amounts to sovereign immunity, so even active lobbbying would be excused by ArbCom (no doubt, by refusing to even look at the issue). Given that circumstance, why would AUSC be foolish enough to try to examine the issue. The AUSC "report" should have addressed whether the IRC communications were examined but it is now clear that that would also be pointless. Whether or not the various statements made are truthful and accurate - and I have major doubts in some cases - arbitrator immunity means that nothing is actionable. I used to think that the biggest problem with ArbCom was communication, but this whole incident has convinced me that the problems run much deeper. What a tragedy that is. EdChem (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman

The Jehochman case request was removed as not mathematically possible to accept. How does that work? I thought less than half the Arbcom had voted (accept,decline or recuse) so surely it would still be possible to accept, even without anyone changing their vote? 78.130.56.146 (talk) 00:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

A case needs four more supports than declines to open. I assume based on those who voted that it was impossible to reach net four supporting even if all of the non-voting arbs supported opening. MBisanz ^talk 01:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Climate change

I don't want to make my comment in the case request too long, and some of this is better on this page than that one:

Scientific research is commonly frustrating, especially for the researchers. This [39] is a damn good corrective to the arrogant attitude that we just need to accept one point of view on all topics related to ongoing research (summary: scientists and other human beings find contradictory data extremely difficult to accept). Given the political controversy on top of the inevitable scientific research frustrations on an important issue, this is bound to be controversial for some time to come, so an ongoing monitoring/enforcement committee is prudent. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Two research laboratories were working on the same topic. One, filled with better experts on the subject, took forever to come up with the right answer to contradictory evidence. The other, with people from different backgrounds who were not experts in the field, did better:
The diverse lab, in contrast, mulled the problem at a group meeting. None of the scientists were protein experts, so they began a wide-ranging discussion of possible solutions. At first, the conversation seemed rather useless. But then, as the chemists traded ideas with the biologists and the biologists bounced ideas off the med students, potential answers began to emerge. “After another 10 minutes of talking, the protein problem was solved,” Dunbar says. “They made it look easy.” [...] This is why other people are so helpful: They shock us out of our cognitive box. “I saw this happen all the time,” Dunbar says. “A scientist would be trying to describe their approach, and they’d be getting a little defensive, and then they’d get this quizzical look on their face. It was like they’d finally understood what was important.”

It's useful for scientists to have to explain themselves in order to resolve the problems of contradictory data. And until they do that, the common reaction is to ignore the contradictions. In a public-policy matter, that just kicks the can of controversy down the road. In a controversial Wikipedia article, we're also trying to resolve contradictions about evidence, and we should consider it a blessing that we should be forced to explain our reasoning to people who don't have similar backgrounds -- so that we can be shaken up enough to confront ideas we'd be far more comfortable ignoring. It's how research actually advances, and it's how Wikipedia articles actually get better, too. Not through silence or fighting, but through discussion. It's the only way when the article subject is a big controversy. We need to be able to do that better and find ways of encouraging editors to do that better. In this case, as I say, with a monitoring committee, but perhaps ultimately with a better set of policies and guidelines for controversial articles. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

And the great
Whitewash has begun... (by the admins and ArbCom members, not JohnWBarber) oh well. Wikipedia's community simply continues to be dysfunctional; it's reputation continues to rightfully be maligned by the public; Content warriors keep doing their thing; etc... In the meantime, I'm just going to crawl back in my hole and continue to ignoring most of this stuff and mistrusting all of you.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law
) 23:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I suspect admins and ArbCom members sometimes refrain from acting in cases like this where they don't think they're going to be able to do much good. It's hard, often impossible, to counter POV mobs, but they can be held to strict standards of conduct, and that can help. I think Ryan Postlethwaite's proposal over at AN is a sincere attempt to start coming to grips with the problem. Arbs and admins only have so many tools, and the POV mountains are so big. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment and the link to the interesting article. Not everyone reads the talk page, so could you in future link to such 'extra' comments from your main statement? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 10:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP deletion motion

So... what "it was fine, but please don't do it again"? I know this is rushed, but this is not as helpful as it could be.
I rather expected a short term "stop it for now pending further consideration", which would handily give the community a chance to do something. (Yeah, they've had X million chances, but to jump from doing nothing for 4 years to comprehensive mass deletion without even a cursory effort to source, or even to
sword of Damocles to get things moving. Rd232 ^talk
08:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I think you're misreading it. It's more like, "It was fine and is fine." --MZMcBride (talk) 08:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm referring to the " but are urged to conduct future activities in a less chaotic manner." part. Uselessly ambiguous, perhaps, but I interpret that as possibly meaning "please don't do it again in exactly this way". Rd232 ^talk 09:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
It means "We could do with a whole lot less of the running and screaming and pointing fingers and demanding immediate desysops of each other." (well, that's what it means to me) SirFozzie (talk) 09:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Well that translated as "get out of the way of the mass deleters". If Arbcom means that, say it clearly. Rd232 ^talk 09:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
If you saw my oppose statement, you'd understand you need to give your translator a good whack. :) SirFozzie (talk) 09:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Well perhaps you could clarify then what's left, from the original ambiguous motion, if you strip out the "interfering" statement yet exonerate the mass deleters. To avoid doubt: I don't think sanctions at this point are necessary or helpful - but without a clear "desist for now" (or at least clearly warning the deleters for proceeding in the circumstances where policy backing was substantively a matter of debate), it's quite likely for the drama to continue. Rd232 ^talk 09:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

it's a good motion too... good on 'em.Privatemusings (talk) 08:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
No, in some ways it's poor; but to describe those seeking the mass deleters to desist as interfering is abysmal. Under the circumstances, the point had extremely clearly been reached where further mass deletion could not reasonably be justified without, at minimum, attempts to clarify ambiguous policy and arbcom rulings. The problem had existed for 4 years, and the point had been amply made that there was a group of admins willing to support mass deletion without consensus. So some attempt to develop one, and perhaps develop a mass deletion process, over a week or two or a month, say, would be a far, far less disruptive and drama-inducing way to proceed, with the clear threat of resuming mass deletion if nothing was achieved. Rd232 ^talk 09:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I applaud the committee for this motion, it's about time. —
ark
// 09:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

So it's effectively saying "Ignore every other policy if it involves a BLP?" Just curious. Q ^{T C} 09:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No it's saying that BLP takes precedent, which it already does and should actually be enforced. —
ark
// 09:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm suddenly reminded of parallels with child protection (or anti-terror) in law. It can end up overriding everything, and destroying much of the moral foundation of law by providing for special cases where the law is derogated. I'll avoid hyperbole, but the metaphor could be extended by considering the mass deletion a law enforcement action with minimal process but much claimed moral justification. Rd232 ^talk 09:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

And how is that any different? No matter what anybody says regarding the other policies, somebody will always go But . . . but . . . BLP!!!!!1111oneone1 Q ^{T C} 09:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If that's arbcom's decision, then it's arbcom's decision, and we have to work with it. But the motion is a very unhelpful one, because it does nothing to drive the community towards agreeing some less arbitrary process for dealing with BLPs ... something which doesn't allow them to linger for ages, but which gives some notice of impending deletion and encourages editors to fix those which can be fixed. Instead it seems to be encouraging an approach which maximises drama. As we have seen with Betacommandbot, being right is not enough: problems such as this need to be resolved in without generating huge rows. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. Rd232 ^talk 09:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, motions like this only fuel the idea that we should
WP:BRD) is ridiculous and demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Oh, but they offered "amnesty" to those who disagreed with their view. How utterly condescending. Not surprisingly, discussions on how to tackle the issue have begun, independent of ArbCom, that will undoubtedly result in far more productivity. Reso lute
18:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I read it as it was fine given the circumstances, but now hopefully circumstances changed so be careful and slow down if not necessarily stop. There's definitely some articles in there that deserve to be there and a coordinated effort to ref them is a better outcome than deletion. And then there's all the rest...
talk
) 09:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
To elaborate, I think the proper way to proceed with a somewhat of an ArbCom blessing (broadly construed, as I understand it) is to keep on with the deletions of potentially harmful unsourced BLPs but at the same time to be REALLY respectful of request for undeletions or "hangon" notices, as well as being conscious of the fact that many of these articles are in fact mis-tagged rather than un-sourced. Delete them, but if anyone jumps up and says "I'll do the work" - give them the opportunity.
Also - this has been lost in the drama - but the idea that ALL BLPs, even the referenced ones, should undergo some kind of a "proofreading process" after which they get a "This BLP article's sources have been checked by a proofreader to actually match the information found in it" template (and a negative one if they haven't - at least) needs to be discussed as well.
talk
) 09:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hence the RFC suggestion. Something like a "BLP-PROD" would be ideal, IMO - "fix this article right now or it dies." I'll suggest it when the RFC opens - David Gerard (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hesperian's statement has it in a nutshell. Rd232 ^talk 09:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I had not actually considered claims that a person exists to be "contentious" nor "controversial." I suggest a reasoned cessation is in order, sans acrimony. Collect (talk) 11:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
This motion is pretty much ideal. I'd take out the "IAR", as BLP should say everything that needs to be said. The amnesty is an excellent idea too. Well done! - David Gerard (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Trolls nominate trolls

RE: Kirill Lokshin's motion to delete 60,000 articles.
I had a discussion with someone a few months ago, we were talking about our concern about Wikipedia. The editor said that trolls nominate trolls. After reading this proposed motion, which most probably will pass, I think the statement should be changed to: deletionists nominate deletionits, or to use the term of
New York Review of Books, bullies nominate bullies.[40]

In August 2009 Bobbie Johnson of the Guardian wrote:

[deletionists] and [inclusionists] had been vying for control from early on in the site's life, but the numbers suggest that the deletionists may have won. The increasing difficulty of making a successful edit; the exclusion of casual users; slower growth – all are hallmarks of the deletionist approach.[41]

Bobbie Johnson's description was accurate. In one fell swoop 8 editors are going to give this terrible disruption their blessing, deleting 60,000 articles.
As Kelly Martin said of the Durova "secret mailing list": "This particular list is new, but the strategy is old...It's certainly not consistent with the public principles of the site. But in reality, it's standard practice."[42] I truly have to wonder if this was all planned, it seems too perfect. struck, no proof. Ikip 09:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Try reading the full motion. Requesting that the community make their mind up about something does not indicate approving the deletion of 60,000 articles, nor does the wording of the commendation; doing things in a "less chaotic manner", in this case, is understood (by me) to mean "try not to work under a cloud and wheel-war over it, kthx". Tell me, would you be complaining if they'd made a horribly inclusionist decision and decided foundation policy no longer applied, or are you simply more infuriated that the decision goes against your personal philosophy rather than any possibility of back-room talks? Ironholds (talk) 10:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Ikip will not be responding to this (or anything else) anymore, at least with this account: [43].
Fram (talk
) 11:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, personally I've always felt the best way to sway consensus away from those you oppose is to leave </sarcasm>. Alternately he's going to create a new account where people won't associate him immediately with his particular brand of inclusionism. Ironholds (talk) 11:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I had a loop hole, and emailed myself a new password. Ironholds, I knew you very little when I voted against you in the arbcom, every single day I see your comments, I am so very glad I did. Ikip 21:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ikip (who was not above CANVASS etc.) did have a wondrously abrasive manner, even in his departure. "Absolute inclusionism" is non-good. In the case at hand, I think "deliberate speed" is more reasonable than "full steam ahead" especially since the handful of bot-notes I ran across concerning unreferenced BLPs all concerned people for whom references were findable. I suggest that disengagement is wise, and that small batches be listed first on a page open to all to view before deletion occurs. As for Ikip's new name - likely I will find it when the usual group complains about me. Collect (talk) 11:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Do you remember the debate over Blofeld's German politician BLPs, where we tagged them all and went through going "this is sourceable and worth keeping, this isn't sourceable, etc"? I think a similar approach would work very well here, albeit on a larger scale. Get someone to quickly modify a bot to categorise all unreferenced BLPs in some magic invisible category, go through removing said cat when it appears that they are worth keeping. Ironholds (talk) 12:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps a "Category:Notable but missing references" as a substitute for human vetted BLPs in the current unreferenced category? Collect (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
How can you determine notability without a reference establishing notability? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 15:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
In many cases the notability is pretty self-evident. Do we really need a specific cite for, say, Obama;s title being "President"? Woukld you contest the notability of
Leon Cortes Castro? No refs -- yet I daresay uncontestable notability. Collect (talk
) 21:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

But we already know not to wheelwar. The wheelwarring was done by those undoing blocks applied to those flagrantly ignoring an active and undecided debate about the validity of their actions - yet the motion effectively endorses both the wheelwarring and the flagrant ignoring. BLP is special, but it is not so special that its ambiguities are magically resolved without having debate. Particularly on this subject, if the community really can't agree, it can collectively appeal to Jimbo, so the claim that a few admins must act right now because it's been four years doesn't hold water. And by endorsing these behaviours, the Arbcom effectively endorses anarchy, even though
WP:NOT. Rd232 ^talk
11:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, this is a pardon rather than an endorsement. The wording of the motion pretty clearly excludes such actions in the future, and makes it clear that they won't look good if this comes before ArbCom again. Ironholds (talk) 12:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
It's quite ambiguous. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if the mass deleters took it as an endorsement (and since they intend to continue regardless, anything less than an unambiguous injunction to desist at least temporarily will result in more of the same). Rd232 ^talk 13:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"The Committee has determined that the deletions carried out by Rdm2376, Scott MacDonald, and various other administrators are a reasonable exercise of administrative discretion to enforce the policy on biographies of living people." That sentence alone guarantees that the deletions will continue. Not saying that it's necessarily a bad thing, but I cannot see how anyone could interpret that motion as anything but an endorsement of the recent actions. --Conti|✉ 14:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. ArbCom picked a side on this one, and not only endorsed out of process deletions but admonished the admins who stood up to those who went out and said "fuck the community". Given the endorsement of this motion, I cannot see how ArbCom can take this case and be expected to operate in an objective manner. The court reached its verdict before the trial even began. Reso lute 21:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

@Viridae: "Potential harm to people's lives trumps petty rules. QED. " ... Explain why this argument does not lead to the conclusion that we should close down WP to public view until every statement that has any BLP implications (in any article - BLP doesn't just apply to biography articles) has been reliably sourced. Rd232 ^talk 13:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC) That's a slippery slope argument, and a poor one. But since you asked: it is an office action that we clean up BLPs. It is also, under common sense, an office action that we provide a free encyclopedia to the public. Ironholds (talk) 13:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The two are contradictory - a balance has to be drawn. Explain why it should be here (deleting unsourced immediately without process) rather than, say, deleting all BLP statements that aren't reliably sourced (which in fact is kind of what has been proposed at
WP:BLP). My point is, why stop here. Rd232 ^talk
14:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
They were not deleted immediately at all. They were deleted after being tagged as having very serious problems for years. People are now arguing that it takes only two minutes to fix them, but it just didn't happen.
Fram (talk
) 14:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
(ec) I think you know what I mean: immediately in the sense that there was no notice of impending deletion. Incentives matter. Unsourced? who cares. Unsourced and is at risk of being nominated for deletion on the basis of being unsourced, and if so nominated will be deleted/incubated in a week - ooh, watch the activity! Rd232 ^talk 14:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. rd232, your argument is a "slippery slope" argument, and a poor one, but if you really want to suggest such a ludicrous thing; office policy is to protect BLPs, it is also to provide a free encyclopedia. Done. And yes, ArbCom has given the goahead to fix articles which have long been tagged as problematic. Big surprise! Ironholds (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
In fact it is not a slippery slope argument, because I'm not saying anything would get worse. I'm asking why the line should be drawn in one place and not another. And considering the recent edits to WP:BLP, do you not want to defend the proposed policy change? Because ("closing WP" aside) it's much the same thing. Rd232 ^talk 14:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I propose tagging all BLPs with unsourced statements (that is, effectively all BLPs, I've never seen one without at least one unsourced statement) for Speedy Deletion. This will ensure that Arbcom's apparent wishes are carried out.DuncanHill (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
The tagging is excess process wonkery. Admins, deploy flamethrowers: kill 'em all, and let God sort 'em out. Rd232 ^talk 18:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Indeed may I delete George_W._Bush if the motion passes—it contains 3 (three!) unsourced statements? This article is a real danger to Wikipedia and violates BLP! (At least in my interpretation.) Ruslik_Zero 09:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Then it would be reasonable to remove those three statements. Indeed, policy already mandates this. — Coren ^(talk) 16:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think I'll just remove all BLPs from my watchlist. Some Arbs had clearly made up their minds before the case was brought, judging from the rush to motion while statements were still coming in thick and fast. I do wonder how much they new about the planned and coordinated mass deletion before the fact. DuncanHill (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP deletion motion

So... what "it was fine, but please don't do it again"? I know this is rushed, but this is not as helpful as it could be.
I rather expected a short term "stop it for now pending further consideration", which would handily give the community a chance to do something. (Yeah, they've had X million chances, but to jump from doing nothing for 4 years to comprehensive mass deletion without even a cursory effort to source, or even to
sword of Damocles to get things moving. Rd232 ^talk
08:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I think you're misreading it. It's more like, "It was fine and is fine." --MZMcBride (talk) 08:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm referring to the " but are urged to conduct future activities in a less chaotic manner." part. Uselessly ambiguous, perhaps, but I interpret that as possibly meaning "please don't do it again in exactly this way". Rd232 ^talk 09:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
It means "We could do with a whole lot less of the running and screaming and pointing fingers and demanding immediate desysops of each other." (well, that's what it means to me) SirFozzie (talk) 09:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Well that translated as "get out of the way of the mass deleters". If Arbcom means that, say it clearly. Rd232 ^talk 09:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
If you saw my oppose statement, you'd understand you need to give your translator a good whack. :) SirFozzie (talk) 09:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Well perhaps you could clarify then what's left, from the original ambiguous motion, if you strip out the "interfering" statement yet exonerate the mass deleters. To avoid doubt: I don't think sanctions at this point are necessary or helpful - but without a clear "desist for now" (or at least clearly warning the deleters for proceeding in the circumstances where policy backing was substantively a matter of debate), it's quite likely for the drama to continue. Rd232 ^talk 09:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

it's a good motion too... good on 'em.Privatemusings (talk) 08:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
No, in some ways it's poor; but to describe those seeking the mass deleters to desist as interfering is abysmal. Under the circumstances, the point had extremely clearly been reached where further mass deletion could not reasonably be justified without, at minimum, attempts to clarify ambiguous policy and arbcom rulings. The problem had existed for 4 years, and the point had been amply made that there was a group of admins willing to support mass deletion without consensus. So some attempt to develop one, and perhaps develop a mass deletion process, over a week or two or a month, say, would be a far, far less disruptive and drama-inducing way to proceed, with the clear threat of resuming mass deletion if nothing was achieved. Rd232 ^talk 09:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I applaud the committee for this motion, it's about time. —
ark
// 09:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

So it's effectively saying "Ignore every other policy if it involves a BLP?" Just curious. Q ^{T C} 09:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No it's saying that BLP takes precedent, which it already does and should actually be enforced. —
ark
// 09:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm suddenly reminded of parallels with child protection (or anti-terror) in law. It can end up overriding everything, and destroying much of the moral foundation of law by providing for special cases where the law is derogated. I'll avoid hyperbole, but the metaphor could be extended by considering the mass deletion a law enforcement action with minimal process but much claimed moral justification. Rd232 ^talk 09:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

And how is that any different? No matter what anybody says regarding the other policies, somebody will always go But . . . but . . . BLP!!!!!1111oneone1 Q ^{T C} 09:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If that's arbcom's decision, then it's arbcom's decision, and we have to work with it. But the motion is a very unhelpful one, because it does nothing to drive the community towards agreeing some less arbitrary process for dealing with BLPs ... something which doesn't allow them to linger for ages, but which gives some notice of impending deletion and encourages editors to fix those which can be fixed. Instead it seems to be encouraging an approach which maximises drama. As we have seen with Betacommandbot, being right is not enough: problems such as this need to be resolved in without generating huge rows. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. Rd232 ^talk 09:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, motions like this only fuel the idea that we should
WP:BRD) is ridiculous and demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Oh, but they offered "amnesty" to those who disagreed with their view. How utterly condescending. Not surprisingly, discussions on how to tackle the issue have begun, independent of ArbCom, that will undoubtedly result in far more productivity. Reso lute
18:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I read it as it was fine given the circumstances, but now hopefully circumstances changed so be careful and slow down if not necessarily stop. There's definitely some articles in there that deserve to be there and a coordinated effort to ref them is a better outcome than deletion. And then there's all the rest...
talk
) 09:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
To elaborate, I think the proper way to proceed with a somewhat of an ArbCom blessing (broadly construed, as I understand it) is to keep on with the deletions of potentially harmful unsourced BLPs but at the same time to be REALLY respectful of request for undeletions or "hangon" notices, as well as being conscious of the fact that many of these articles are in fact mis-tagged rather than un-sourced. Delete them, but if anyone jumps up and says "I'll do the work" - give them the opportunity.
Also - this has been lost in the drama - but the idea that ALL BLPs, even the referenced ones, should undergo some kind of a "proofreading process" after which they get a "This BLP article's sources have been checked by a proofreader to actually match the information found in it" template (and a negative one if they haven't - at least) needs to be discussed as well.
talk
) 09:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hence the RFC suggestion. Something like a "BLP-PROD" would be ideal, IMO - "fix this article right now or it dies." I'll suggest it when the RFC opens - David Gerard (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hesperian's statement has it in a nutshell. Rd232 ^talk 09:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I had not actually considered claims that a person exists to be "contentious" nor "controversial." I suggest a reasoned cessation is in order, sans acrimony. Collect (talk) 11:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
This motion is pretty much ideal. I'd take out the "IAR", as BLP should say everything that needs to be said. The amnesty is an excellent idea too. Well done! - David Gerard (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Trolls nominate trolls

RE: Kirill Lokshin's motion to delete 60,000 articles.
I had a discussion with someone a few months ago, we were talking about our concern about Wikipedia. The editor said that trolls nominate trolls. After reading this proposed motion, which most probably will pass, I think the statement should be changed to: deletionists nominate deletionits, or to use the term of
New York Review of Books, bullies nominate bullies.[44]

In August 2009 Bobbie Johnson of the Guardian wrote:

[deletionists] and [inclusionists] had been vying for control from early on in the site's life, but the numbers suggest that the deletionists may have won. The increasing difficulty of making a successful edit; the exclusion of casual users; slower growth – all are hallmarks of the deletionist approach.[45]

Bobbie Johnson's description was accurate. In one fell swoop 8 editors are going to give this terrible disruption their blessing, deleting 60,000 articles.
As Kelly Martin said of the Durova "secret mailing list": "This particular list is new, but the strategy is old...It's certainly not consistent with the public principles of the site. But in reality, it's standard practice."[46] I truly have to wonder if this was all planned, it seems too perfect. struck, no proof. Ikip 09:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Try reading the full motion. Requesting that the community make their mind up about something does not indicate approving the deletion of 60,000 articles, nor does the wording of the commendation; doing things in a "less chaotic manner", in this case, is understood (by me) to mean "try not to work under a cloud and wheel-war over it, kthx". Tell me, would you be complaining if they'd made a horribly inclusionist decision and decided foundation policy no longer applied, or are you simply more infuriated that the decision goes against your personal philosophy rather than any possibility of back-room talks? Ironholds (talk) 10:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Ikip will not be responding to this (or anything else) anymore, at least with this account: [47].
Fram (talk
) 11:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, personally I've always felt the best way to sway consensus away from those you oppose is to leave </sarcasm>. Alternately he's going to create a new account where people won't associate him immediately with his particular brand of inclusionism. Ironholds (talk) 11:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I had a loop hole, and emailed myself a new password. Ironholds, I knew you very little when I voted against you in the arbcom, every single day I see your comments, I am so very glad I did. Ikip 21:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ikip (who was not above CANVASS etc.) did have a wondrously abrasive manner, even in his departure. "Absolute inclusionism" is non-good. In the case at hand, I think "deliberate speed" is more reasonable than "full steam ahead" especially since the handful of bot-notes I ran across concerning unreferenced BLPs all concerned people for whom references were findable. I suggest that disengagement is wise, and that small batches be listed first on a page open to all to view before deletion occurs. As for Ikip's new name - likely I will find it when the usual group complains about me. Collect (talk) 11:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Do you remember the debate over Blofeld's German politician BLPs, where we tagged them all and went through going "this is sourceable and worth keeping, this isn't sourceable, etc"? I think a similar approach would work very well here, albeit on a larger scale. Get someone to quickly modify a bot to categorise all unreferenced BLPs in some magic invisible category, go through removing said cat when it appears that they are worth keeping. Ironholds (talk) 12:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps a "Category:Notable but missing references" as a substitute for human vetted BLPs in the current unreferenced category? Collect (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
How can you determine notability without a reference establishing notability? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 15:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
In many cases the notability is pretty self-evident. Do we really need a specific cite for, say, Obama;s title being "President"? Woukld you contest the notability of
Leon Cortes Castro? No refs -- yet I daresay uncontestable notability. Collect (talk
) 21:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

But we already know not to wheelwar. The wheelwarring was done by those undoing blocks applied to those flagrantly ignoring an active and undecided debate about the validity of their actions - yet the motion effectively endorses both the wheelwarring and the flagrant ignoring. BLP is special, but it is not so special that its ambiguities are magically resolved without having debate. Particularly on this subject, if the community really can't agree, it can collectively appeal to Jimbo, so the claim that a few admins must act right now because it's been four years doesn't hold water. And by endorsing these behaviours, the Arbcom effectively endorses anarchy, even though
WP:NOT. Rd232 ^talk
11:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, this is a pardon rather than an endorsement. The wording of the motion pretty clearly excludes such actions in the future, and makes it clear that they won't look good if this comes before ArbCom again. Ironholds (talk) 12:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
It's quite ambiguous. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if the mass deleters took it as an endorsement (and since they intend to continue regardless, anything less than an unambiguous injunction to desist at least temporarily will result in more of the same). Rd232 ^talk 13:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"The Committee has determined that the deletions carried out by Rdm2376, Scott MacDonald, and various other administrators are a reasonable exercise of administrative discretion to enforce the policy on biographies of living people." That sentence alone guarantees that the deletions will continue. Not saying that it's necessarily a bad thing, but I cannot see how anyone could interpret that motion as anything but an endorsement of the recent actions. --Conti|✉ 14:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. ArbCom picked a side on this one, and not only endorsed out of process deletions but admonished the admins who stood up to those who went out and said "fuck the community". Given the endorsement of this motion, I cannot see how ArbCom can take this case and be expected to operate in an objective manner. The court reached its verdict before the trial even began. Reso lute 21:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

@Viridae: "Potential harm to people's lives trumps petty rules. QED. " ... Explain why this argument does not lead to the conclusion that we should close down WP to public view until every statement that has any BLP implications (in any article - BLP doesn't just apply to biography articles) has been reliably sourced. Rd232 ^talk 13:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC) That's a slippery slope argument, and a poor one. But since you asked: it is an office action that we clean up BLPs. It is also, under common sense, an office action that we provide a free encyclopedia to the public. Ironholds (talk) 13:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The two are contradictory - a balance has to be drawn. Explain why it should be here (deleting unsourced immediately without process) rather than, say, deleting all BLP statements that aren't reliably sourced (which in fact is kind of what has been proposed at
WP:BLP). My point is, why stop here. Rd232 ^talk
14:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
They were not deleted immediately at all. They were deleted after being tagged as having very serious problems for years. People are now arguing that it takes only two minutes to fix them, but it just didn't happen.
Fram (talk
) 14:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
(ec) I think you know what I mean: immediately in the sense that there was no notice of impending deletion. Incentives matter. Unsourced? who cares. Unsourced and is at risk of being nominated for deletion on the basis of being unsourced, and if so nominated will be deleted/incubated in a week - ooh, watch the activity! Rd232 ^talk 14:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. rd232, your argument is a "slippery slope" argument, and a poor one, but if you really want to suggest such a ludicrous thing; office policy is to protect BLPs, it is also to provide a free encyclopedia. Done. And yes, ArbCom has given the goahead to fix articles which have long been tagged as problematic. Big surprise! Ironholds (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
In fact it is not a slippery slope argument, because I'm not saying anything would get worse. I'm asking why the line should be drawn in one place and not another. And considering the recent edits to WP:BLP, do you not want to defend the proposed policy change? Because ("closing WP" aside) it's much the same thing. Rd232 ^talk 14:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I propose tagging all BLPs with unsourced statements (that is, effectively all BLPs, I've never seen one without at least one unsourced statement) for Speedy Deletion. This will ensure that Arbcom's apparent wishes are carried out.DuncanHill (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
The tagging is excess process wonkery. Admins, deploy flamethrowers: kill 'em all, and let God sort 'em out. Rd232 ^talk 18:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Indeed may I delete George_W._Bush if the motion passes—it contains 3 (three!) unsourced statements? This article is a real danger to Wikipedia and violates BLP! (At least in my interpretation.) Ruslik_Zero 09:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Then it would be reasonable to remove those three statements. Indeed, policy already mandates this. — Coren ^(talk) 16:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think I'll just remove all BLPs from my watchlist. Some Arbs had clearly made up their minds before the case was brought, judging from the rush to motion while statements were still coming in thick and fast. I do wonder how much they new about the planned and coordinated mass deletion before the fact. DuncanHill (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about votes

ArbCom doesn't have the authority to dictate
speedy deletion criteria contrary to what the community has decided. Don't be so clueless. A consensus is forming at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people about what to do. Don't preclude that. Jehochman ^Brrr
18:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That will devolve into nothing more than
Unit Anode
18:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
If there's a problematic BLP, propose deletion, and it will be gone in about 7 days. What's the problem? We need to tweak
WP:PROD to say that unprodding may not be done on BLPs unless references are added. I'll go make that change now. Jehochman ^Brrr
18:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
They've been unsourced for 3+ years. There's absolutely no problem at all with summarily deleting them. PROD is useful to non-admins, but if the mechanism is there to simply rid the project of the problematic BLPs, then it should be done.
Unit Anode
18:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I've done as promised.[48] Now or seven days from now is nothing compared to three years. Giving seven days grace may alleviate concerns among those who want to have a chance to rescue articles. Jehochman ^Brrr 18:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jehochman's comment regarding the scope of Committee authority. The Committee would do well to seriously consider the clear community preference against policy changes by fiat. Also per Tznkai. —
James Kalmar
18:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a bit of griping by some who doesn't agree with the motion, honestly. You've had years to clean up, and now someone has given the green light to clear the decks. Tough. Tarc (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I'd just
WP:IAR the motion. If abusing that policy is good enough for ArbCom, then it is good enough for people who prefer a constructive solution to a destructive one. Reso lute
20:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately it may come to that. With respect to the Committee, the ambiguous motion appears to give leave for the administrative battling to continue. That is, there are a few administrators who want to speedy delete, and there is a large group that wishes to prevent such anti-consensus deletions. Both groups appear to believe policy is on their side. Hopefully, a quick community standard will emerge before anything gets worse. —
James Kalmar
20:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Multiple arbiters have clarified that "Everybody screwed up, but had good intentions; let's go sort the underlying problem at the community level." is not a mandate to delete, undelete, burn with fire, paint with neon or frankly do anything other than work it out through discussion. Shell ^babelfish 20:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
That isn't what the motion says. That is probably what the motion should say. It in fact, says some people screwed up way more than other people, and because they're too concerned with procedure.--Tznkai (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Reminded is more harsh than urged? Shell ^babelfish 20:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I've already done my analysis on the implications of the motions as a statement, but my point is, your summary is not what the motion says. Your summary is even handed and doesn't assign blame. The motion says, essentially, these people were right, and the people who interfered with them were bureaucratic twits.--Tznkai (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
And blames the other side for causing chaos. We're equal opportunity name callers - many people didn't handle this well. Is it possible that perhaps you're reading a bit too much into the wording of the motion? I certainly don't understand it to say what your analysis implies and I think the clarifications by both Coren and myself indicate I'm not the only one. Shell ^babelfish 21:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Was that before or after it commended them for taking action while making a reasonable policy interpretation?--Tznkai (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps ArbCom should amend its motion so as to remove the appearance of taking sides? I read it the same way Tznkai does. It supports the indiscriminate deletionists and "admonishes" those who "interfered" with them. The only part of the motion as it stands that I would support is the hope that an RFC can help resolve the issues. Given that the committee has attempted to overrule the community wrt the appropriateness of the deletions, it does appear that ArbCom is talking out of both sides of its mouth on this one. How can the community act if ArbCom is simply going to overrule should the result not support ArbCom's POV? Reso lute 21:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(←) Further, lets do a little textual analysis shall we?

The administrators who carried out these actions are commended for their efforts to enforce policy and uphold the quality of the encyclopedia, but are urged to conduct future activities in a less chaotic manner.
The administrators who interfered with these actions are reminded that the enforcement of the policy on biographies of living people takes precedence over mere procedural concerns.

The first group of administrators is "commended" for "efforts to enforce policy and uphold the quality of the encylopedia.[sic.]" While the second group is "reminded" that "interfer[ing]" with the first group that "enforcement of the policy [...] takes precedence over mere procedural concerns." So, the second group, by exclusion, was not making "efforts to enforce policy and uphold the quality of the encylopedia.[sic.]" but in fact interfering with those who do over mere procedural concerns. The first group of admins is specifically cited as doing something "reasonable." The second group is given no consideration but is in fact grouped as people who care more about bureaucracy than living people (Cavaet lector, this is me reading in between the lines. I stand by it anyway). The Committee went out of their way to support one group, and didn't even give lip service to the concerns of the second group and further more, pigeonholes them. This motion is insulting.--Tznkai (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I guess we'll just have to disagree on the import of the wording then and the undertones you're implying. It is commendable that someone tried something about the problem, but mass-anything is unlikely to ever be the right way to go about things, at least on Wikipedia. One can appreciate the intentions without condoning the action - we should all want people to pitch in and solve issues that crop up on Wikipedia, but we have to hope that most will realize that massive disruption isn't the best route to a solution. Shell ^babelfish 00:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Part of the reason I'm sure the import of the wording was intended as I've described is because 1. Of the registered objection by an Arbitrator shortly after the motion was posted and 2. the lack of any attempt to modify the statement. My objection and his has been registered, and the trivial efforts needed to redraft the statement to remove any degree of favoritism were done. Thats because someone has decided that the costs of doing so are too high - that one crowd needs to be commended. Perhaps more accurately, there is a block of arbitrators who would not budge from the wording and the rest of the arbs decided that it was OK to stand behind it in order to get the substance of BLP reform through. I understand, though I disagree with that tactical choice. Trying to read the favoritism out doesn't mean it isn't there, it just means that certain arbitrators are uncomfortable with it, and wish it wasn't there.--Tznkai (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Well since you've now gone further into wild speculation about motives and blocs on ArbCom it seems pretty clear that you've made up your mind about what the motion means to you; that's your prerogative. The us against them mentality is one that doesn't help Wikipedia no matter where its expressed and it can certainly color editors opinions. Fixing serious issues like the BLP problem is commendable, Jehochman's jump into the RfC with a workable solution is commendable, but mass undeleting articles without reviewing them for BLP compliance or ignoring the BLP issue entirely isn't commendable - that's why the wording, not some shadowy tactical favoritism. Shell ^babelfish 14:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
You criticize the us against them mentality yet reduce the opposition to those actions at "mass undeleting articles without reviewing them for BLP compliance or ignoring the BLP issue entirely". How exactly is that fair ? Don't you see that many want, to a certain extent, to make those who oppose their actions pass like people who don't care about BLP, they think the community doesn't give a damn about BLP, that's why they tend to ignore consensus, and think that only them can solve this issue. Those actions and the ArbCom's endorsement are disruptive to the construction of consensus and a grave threat to short term progress on the issue; but ultimately it doesn't have any real effect on the issue of BLPs, which you need to realise (cf my statement). Because your petty games of power, expressed here in the desire of ArbCom to 'act' on the blp issue (like they already did with blpse, which created massive controversy but has been of no use whatsoever for BLPs), have not much weight on the community as a whole and its inclinations. Cenarium (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

"Lead, follow, or get out of the way" - I've said it a few times lately, because it fits. I realise it's potentially insulting phrasig if you happen to be currently in the way, and are showing no signs of leadership.... that's regrettable, but unavoidable. There is MUCH about this situation that is regrettable, and much that was avoidable if the community had shown leadership. It didn't. But I am relieved that ArbCom, at least, appears to be leading. ++Lar: t/c 21:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
~~I think this, along with your other comments throughout this, makes my point better than I do.--Tznkai (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)~~ Less passive aggressively: you can support someone's policy position without supporting their antisocial behavior that has gone (the way I see it) up and beyond the requirements of exigency.--Tznkai (talk) 22:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if it gets up your nose that one side in this matter actually is more right than the other. Softer approaches have been tried. For years. They were found wanting. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. ++Lar: t/c 22:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Never in your way, unless you count pointing out that deletions are ineffective without some sort of systemic follow up. I've even tried helping here and there. You'll find however dramatic and not-soft your approaches need be, indulging in self righteousness is never required. Calling for desyopping of those who disagree with you probably isn't either.--Tznkai (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There is hard policy-making and soft policy-making. Arbcom has always had the power of soft policy-making, by choosing when to intervene and when to leave things alone. Thatcher 19:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Shall we name this sort of speedy deletion
CAT:CSD#Cabal? Jehochman ^Brrr
19:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Moved from project page ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman, I'm not sure what a sarcastic comment like that has to do with this? —
majestic titan)
21:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

ShellKinney's clarifications are useful. Discussion is proceeding in multiple fora, and it seems very likely we'll end up with something akin to a
prod tag for unsourced BLPs that cannot be removed and which will lead to deletion if the article is not sourced. If we get that then the "speedy" BLP deletions by admins will simply not be necessary. The ArbCom statement could have been worded better such that it was clear those signing on were not saying "keep deleting those articles en masse," but the clarification makes it clear that what the Arbs want to see now is discussion that leads to a solution to the problem. If some admin or admins starts up again with the deletion as these discussions continue (and I think those discussions need to be resolved in a week at the absolute most), I would urge the Arbs to inform the admin that continuing on that course would result in a block. In spite of all the drama and very bad blood surrounding this situation, we're at a point now where we can resolve it and come up with a good solution to handle unsourced BLPs which most interested editors can sign on to. That's where all the energy needs to be right now, though I'll admit that there are larger issues here in the background. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs
21:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I haven't commented on the BLP RfC yet mostly because I could live with just about any of the proposals that seem to be taking shape there. As long as there is some definite timeline in place, and that we have some assurance that articles with problems eventually will either get fixed, or deleted. ++Lar: t/c 21:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

A motion which needs so many "clarifications" from various Arbs so soon after being passed is obviously deeply flawed, whatever the merits of the underlying position it takes. Could Arbs please consider replacing the motion with one which includes all their various clarifications, and perhaps in future consider spending a little time on re-drafting motions in the interest of clarity? DuncanHill (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

OverlordQ's statement

I would say that OverlordQ's statement is one of the best I've ever read. Apologetic, funny, and short. Nicely done! --MZMcBride (talk) 09:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It is quite successful and I enjoyed the edit summary. MBisanz ^talk 09:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Altering the title of a request, Claification area, suggestion

I used the template to make my request. I titled it "WikiProject Ireland Collaboration". That is what my request was about. An editor, of whom I knew nothing, came along and reworded that title to say "Ireland article names". Part of my clarification request is about this naming debate drowning all else in certain areas such as collaboration. When some stranger, which is all I could see, had come along and drowned me with it at the first post, I was spitting expletives to myself. Of course I may think now that there was more to the edit than just renaming my request, making so that it woud point to a specific Arbcom case, but this was not something that I could see and a second clerk, another apparently random stranger, came along shortly after my revert and renamed my request again. All I know is that the WikiProject Ireland Collaboration was created upon the behest of Arbcom and that the Naming Debates, although quite a runaway train on Wikipedia, are not particularly overshadowing when it comes to debating collaboration in real life. Does it not follow that if Arbcom creates something in the process of a case which is easily taken out of context, such as Ireland collaboration being well out of the context of Ireland naming debates, Could such a request not be linked to the relevant case without deleting an appropriate title leaving all room for confusion outside? Why not? Wouldn't it be a sensible filing technique to view such as Request for clarification: Voting, Ireland article names. There you have both the request and the case linked. It is absolutely clear in my view. It doesn't seem to be extremely over-complicated. I need to apologise for being rather brusque in response to these two edits. In my experience altering the wording of another editors posts is a sackable offence if the words end up different than originally intended and I, as with more or less everybody, support that. Even if an editor is difficult to understand it is best not to alter their words. Many editors make a post which is less than straight forward and other editors make of it what they can but they are never encouraged to alter the words even if they can make nothing of the post. ~ R.T.G 22:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Categorization

Could someone add the category
WP:RFAR categorization is done at.)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs
) 14:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are header pages for all the requests (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header, etc.) but why? None of those pages are noticeboards. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:RFAR is a noticeboard... at least, it is as much as AN/I is a noticeboard. I have no real opinion on exactly which page is categorized; if you or others think that something other then the header page ought to get the category I don't mind in the least. The current categorization into Category:Wikipedia administration occurs on the header page, which is the only reason I asked to add the noticeboard cat there.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs
) 18:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about that. AN is a noticeboard, AC/N is a noticeboard, ANI is... a kind of noticeboard, one less aimed at giving notice but rather getting shit done. Still, though, its point is to notify the entire community and to gather input from them (and perhaps get action from a sysop). WP:Arbitration/Requests is the final step in Dispute Resolution, asking for a ruling from a maximum of 16 people. They really just seem cut from a different mold. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, right, but... I mean, that ANI is in the noticeboards category is really why I'm asking, and I think that it should be added for the same reason that ANI is currently in that cat. It let's people know what's going on (although, admittedly, ANI is more about "the dramaz" then anywhere else...). Maybe a separate (sub?) category would be more appropriate, for both? There might even be one or two more pages that would fit into such a category as well (what such a hypothetical category would/should be called is completely eluding me at the moment, although "Category:Wikipedia, Getting shit done" has a certain ring to it! ).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I have no idea why I linked to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header, above. I've actually been talking about Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Header the whole time.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox

I created a sandbox for the header, at
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Header/Sandbox. The main idea is still to add the categorization of course, but the big reason for the sandbox was actually to help straighten out the layout "problems" (for lack of a better term). The big change is to place everything in the header into a table, in order to reduce the vast swaths of whitespace (which actually become worse on lower resolution screens, believe it or not!). I'd obviously appreciate it if someone would simply move what's in the sandbox into the page, but I know better then to expect that (anytime you need to ask permission to do something on Wikipedia you've got to expect at least one objection...), so feel free to ask questions, or make comments, or criticize (if someone does decide to make the sandbox live though, be sure to uncomment the footer with all of the categorization and interwiki links, etc...).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs
) 20:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

But it's not a noticeboard. Guy (Help!) 12:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a template used for a noticeboard, as far as I can tell. Cheers!☮ —
talk
14:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that Guy means that RFAR isn't a noticeboard, and the header doesn't belong. I'm inclined to agree. Technically, noticeboards have the word "noticeboard" in their name, like
WP:AC/N. -- Atama頭
17:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
The /Header page is the header for the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests page. As I was saying to Amory above, it's as much of a noticeboard as AN/I is. Just because it doesn't have "noticeboard" in the title shouldn't disqualify it. Do you guys really think that's a meaningful criteria, that the article title must include "noticeboard"? I have to say, I've been disappointed in Wikipedians in the past, but this one would take the cake in my book, if it stands. Would it make any difference if I created a new sub-category which we could put at least RFAR and AN/I into?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I suppose you could then have a discussion as to what constitutes a noticeboard. Despite not being called a "noticeboard", the way that the page is used doesn't seem to fit the term, or match what other noticeboards are used for. In general, a Wikipedia noticeboard serves as either a place to give notice about something (duh), and/or to invite discussion about a particular matter. RFAR doesn't really do either, although people are allowed to add statements to requests, in general the point is to open a structured request for action from ArbCom. In that way, it is no different from
WP:ANI does resemble those pages to an extent; most editors who create reports there are requesting that an administrator take action on one thing or another (and reports that don't require administrator help are sometimes closed). But at the same time each report is open to comment from just about anyone, and the page is used as much as a discussion forum about issues as anything else. Either way, there might be a good case to consider ANI to not be a true noticeboard, but ANI's possible mislabeling doesn't automatically mean that RFAR is a noticeboard. I hope that this explanation makes some sense, as I'm a bit tired as I write this. :p -- Atama頭
04:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
And yet, every single page from your list:
WP:CHU; includes Category:Wikipedia noticeboards (Including AN/I, of course). O_o
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs
) 05:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, OK, half of them are in Category:Wikipedia noticeboards (I was pretty tired myself, at the time I posted the above). 3 of 5 if you include AN/I in that group, which I would. As I was saying above, what about a category specifically for this sort of board? Category:Wikipedia notification? I do get that "their not noticeboards", but they are boards that should all fit into Category:Wikipedia discussion somehow.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

"Bueller? ...Bueller? ...Bueller? Seriously folks, it's just a category.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
My opinion would be that if there's no more applicable category than "noticeboard" for those Wikipedia page spaces to belong to, that "noticeboard" is close enough. I was mainly arguing semantically in regards to what is or isn't technically a "noticeboard". Practically, though, putting a "noticeboard" cat tag can't hurt, especially if other non-noticeboards have them already. -- Atama頭 18:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, I agree with both points (that there's no better category at the moment, and that it's not technically correct). I'm perfectly willing to create a new category which is more semantically correct, but considering the fact that a few of the pages affected will require some administrator's assistance to change... this seems to be the path of least resistance. I'd really rather only have to go through this once, for a simple category.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Time guesstimate and advice

For my edification: Two of the three cases at requests for clarification have been there for weeks. Is that typical? Maurreen (talk) 05:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless arbitrators see a need to propose a motion, clarification and amendment requests tend to only get commented on, and then archived after they go stale. Most of the time, sufficient clarification should be provided by arbitrator comments. If the committee is sending mixed signals, I would (per Birgitte) suggest asking simpler questions. Find precise examples and (after discussing with the people whose actions you object to, to see if you can resolve it with them first) request clarification on precise matters. Generalised requests for clarifications will get generalised answers. Precise requests may get more precise answers. One more thing: it is perfectly OK for anyone to suggest wording for a motion. If enough arbitrators agree with the wording and think a motion is needed, it may be adopted. But it is a very awkward way of proceeding. Sometimes it is better to return to discussing on project talk pages, where things are more flexible and often proceed quicker. Carcharoth (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Carcharoth, thanks very much. I think your comments here are the most helpful thing yet. Maurreen (talk) 06:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Tangential discussion

IE.:ArbCom is generally useless, we know it's that way, and it's intended to be that way. Pick a fight until there's a specific problem to bring before them, even if you have to become a scapegoat to get something addressed.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Or rather, try and sort things out like rational and sensible editors before it gets to arbitration. Once it gets to arbitration, all bets are off and sanctions (sometimes quite harsh) are possible. In theory, that should be an incentive for people to sort things out before a dispute escalates or prolongs to the extent that arbitration is needed, but in practice some people just keep butting heads until they end up here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Carcharoth, rather then simply leaving my snarky comment above just hanging there, or directly replying here with any sort of ineffectual... whatever, I added a comment to the Trusilver case which takes on the issue in a more straightforward manner (not that a comment like that will be effective, but still).

More generally speaking, I wanted to state that my comment above comes primarily from a personal impression that a sizable portion of the community "out there" really does share the underlying feeling that I was expressing. I don't directly comment on much admin stuff, but like many others I do watch most of the boards, so I don't think that I'm off base. I try to avoid falling into the "rabbit hole" that places like this and AN/I can become so that I can stick to editing as much as possible, but I think that it's still important to try to follow what's occurring. I worry that recently the committee, along with a vocal bunch of administrators along with some editors, is loosing touch with the wider community. I hope that doesn't come across as hyperbole, since it's not intended to be.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
The truth is more along these lines. Arbcom is useful for dealing with a certain kind of problematic user that no other process can handle. Arbcom is useful for dealing with appeals of decisions that someone is not willing to accept as the final word. Arbcom is marginally useful at dealing problems that are impossible to fully evaluate out in the open. Arbcom is useless at dealing with a large number of other sorts of problems that are partly out of it's remit even though people continually bring such problems here.--BirgitteSB 15:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't the fact that "even though people continually bring such problems here" is true act to inform us, though? Not that we should unthinkingly widen the committee's remit, but it seems obvious to me that if the same sorts of issues which are refused as out of process are continually raised, then those issues are something that the community thinks that a body of authority would be useful for.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely not. The reason I know Arbcom is useless for these cases is not because they decline them. It is because they sometimes accept them.--BirgitteSB 21:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
heh, well, I may (and, knowing my own libertarian tendencies, probably will) eventually come around to that conclusion, but right now I just disagree. One of the fundamental issues I think we face is an overabundance of chaos, caused by a lack of either leadership or oversight (depending on your POV), and this issue is a large component of that. Not that I believe that we should run towards a more authoritarian system, but I think that a small, slow step in that direction could help things right now.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
For the love of all that is sane, do not look for leadership from a committee! Now some arbitrators individually qualify as leaders within the community, but Arbcom cannot have a leadership function. You are correct that a large part of the problem is chaos. In particular it is people having mistaken expectations of how things will work and smacking headlong into the reality of situation and then screaming to all world about how their expectations should have worked out fine if only other people didn't act the way that other people have always acted in the past. But the solution to taming the chaos is building on the best of our current processes and educating people on how navigate them. To stop rewarding people for half-assing their way through the process. We cannot succeed by moving to a more authoritarian system, because appeals to authority fail to scale. Moving in that direction will only throw us into constant elections resulting in the further politicization of the community; leaving less time for actually resolving issues. It is about teaching a man to fish as opposed to feeding him. People who are going to be visibly active on Wikipedia must learn how to resolve their own disputes, rather than expecting Arbom to feed them solutions. There is no shortcut around this.--BirgitteSB 04:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
lol You don't have to convince me that we shouldn't be looking to a committee for leadership. I agree with pretty much everything that you've said in your reply, but the problem is... currently, the Arbitration Committee is about all that we've got, unfortunately. While I understand, and largely agree with, your view on how people need to take care of their disputes, it's painfully obvious to pretty much anyone that our current content dispute methods are really shitty, where they exist at all. I don't have much actual data to support this, but I'd wager that a huge proportion of what lands at RFAR (nevermind AN/I!) is actually content issues in one form or another. Anyway, I'm all for adding, changing, or reinventing something to make governance and especially dispute resolution better, and adjusting ArbCom to take on slightly more seems like an easy means to accomplish that (although, I'd be the first to admit that doing so carries it's own share of potential pitfalls).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

(de-indent) What we try to do with arbitration, or what I try to do at least, is to try to identify the editors who are holding up consensus. I don't mean that they're in the minority (although in some cases, it's quite usual for those in the minority to try ever parliamentary trick to stop other users from making changes to their preferred version). I mean those editors, which in manner or attitude, stop consensus from forming. In a lot of areas, 80% of the editors discussing a change are relatively willing to seek consensus (although of course they're coming from different points of the spectrum). However, there's 10% on each side, who want it absolutely to be their version or no version at all. The partisans, so to speak. Those are the editors that poison the well, so to speak and are holding up the finding of consensus, Those are the editors I would seek to remove from the area so the vast majority of reasonable editors can find consensus.
Here's why I don't think that ArbCom will ever willingly get dragged into deciding content. Usually in such heated disputes, there are experts on one or both sides. They have done the legwork, provided references that support their wording. They know just about everything there is to know about the area. And then you're asking 16 men and women, to decide content that in some esoteric areas, they know NOTHING about. To mangle a quote from Donald Rumsfeld, we don't even know what we don't know! I'd much rather see if by identifying the bad actors in a topic area, the community can decide the content themselves. SirFozzie (talk) 07:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

If that isn't the arbitrators' credo, it ought to be.--Father Goose (talk) 07:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Unable to participate in an action involving me

I can't find the "edit" button in order to respond in this section:[49] Am I missing something there? 99.144.249.249 (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The main arbitration page has had to be semiprotected (meaning that it is editable only by registered users) because of ongoing vandalism problems. Please make your statement below in this section and someone will copy it to the correct place on the main page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Clarification request: would reverting of vandalism violate my topic ban?

I just noticed [50]. If I reverted it, would I be violating
this remedy? As of this comment, this vandalism has been undealt with for oven an hour. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk}
19:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted it. Better to ask someone else, but if that doesn't get any reply then my understanding is that you would be permitted to revert very explicit vandalism. However since your ban lasts until December 2010 the best thing would probably be to remove the article from your watchlist and let others worry about the usual vandalism. Will Beback talk 19:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Can I ask others to revert such vandalism? Or would it fall under the prohibition of discussion? I've been wondering about this recently (technically, couldn't I be blocked for asking for this very clarification?). Next, correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the restriction last till March 2011, not December 2010? Also, I don't think there is an easy way to remove and re-add the 3,000-odd Poland-related pages I am observing (most of which are pages I created). Would it be possible for me to ask to be allowed to make non-controversial obvious vandalism reverts on those? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Will Beback. AFAIK the ArbCom has in previous cases considered topic bans to have an implicit exception for obvious vandalism (which I think is not a good idea but that doesn't matter). But if you invoke that exception you run the risk that an admin does not consider the edit at issue "obvious vandalism" and blocks you. The same applies to anybody who makes a revert on your behalf, since proxy editing for banned users is also prohibited. Sandstein 20:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Why do people keep forgetting about
Wikipedia:BAN#Edits_by_and_on_behalf_of_banned_users (they are not prohibited, unless I am misunderstanding the second para...)? Anyway, I do agree that to prevent a "random admin" from being too proactive, a clarification by the ArbCom members would be useful (hence, this is why I am asking here - what should I do the next time I see an "obvious" vandalism on my watchlist?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk}
20:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

As this particular user showed poor understanding what vandalism really is in the past [51];[52];[53];[54],[55] I suggest to exercise caution over this question. Otherwise we might see situation when he would claim “I thought this was vandalism”; a reassembling affair of the past [56]. M.K. (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
We are talking about obvious vandalism here, not the controversial cases. Certainly, if it is not 100% obvious (as in the examples you cite), it would be best to steer away from such edits. Or would you say that this wasn't an obvious example of vandalism? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Many times even obvious vandalism requires more than a simple revert to fix. I don't think that anyone would consider it a proxy situation if you posted alerts about vandalism on
WP:AIV or a similar page. Boundary testing is not a good idea. Will Beback talk
22:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, which is why I am not testing it, but asking for clarification where the boundaries are :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The Committee has often held that vandalism reversion never "counts" as an edit for topic restrictions or revert restrictions. But it is generally unwise to do those reverts oneself unless they are unarguably vandalism. It's best to just report it to someone else. — Coren ^(talk) 00:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI thread related to a previous ArbCom finding

There is currently an ANI complaint involving a person behind an account mentioned in this finding from the Derek Smart case. The person in question has apparently been using another account (SPI investigation, which I don't think should have been deleted yet) without telling anyone about it. The ArbCom finding did not pass a remedy on what to do about this person's off-wiki and on campaign against Derek Smart, and I assume that he did not notify the Committee that he had begun using another account. The "real name" account is still trying to influence the Smart article's content via the talk page. Any input on what to do about this from the current Committee-members would be welcome. Cla68 (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: It appears that Cla68's campaign against this long-time contributor (which has been aggressively pursued over the past couple of days at the COI, BLP, Reliable sources, and ANI noticeboards,
outing that at this point is probably irreversible. It is not apparent what useful purpose there could possibly be in dredging up this long-settled arbitration case. That case did not even result in any rules specifically related to this contributor, and there is no evidence that he was ever in breach of any of the remedies resulting from that case. --Orlady (talk
) 04:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll second Orlady's concerns here. Cla68 has raised their concerns now in multiple forums and from the beginning I was concerned about outing. Trying to influnce an article via the talk page is not a crime, nor is campaigning against diploma mills. In fact many here would see that as a good thing.
talk
) 10:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I have yet again removed a link from a real-name to an account-name. Given that Cla68 has already driven this valuable contributor off Wikipedia, isn't enough enough? Perhaps Cla68 should be prohibited from further contact with either of the two accounts. Hipocrite (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Note re template

I should note my edit here to the template used to create requests here. While not directly targeted at this page, it is apparent to me that creating admin-only discussion sections is not-wiki. Admin-only conclusion sections, sure, but admin-only discussion appears to be located only in this one template. Hipocrite (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe the reason the template allowed discussion was so uninvolved admins responding to the request could discuss any differences of opinion in how to handle the request. Shell ^babelfish 15:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

An open case of AE archived

Can you please suggest what should be done, if an AE (appeal) was archived by a bot, but it had not been finished yet. It is here Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive63#Appeal_of_the_sanction_against_Aregakn. Aregakn (talk) 10:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

AA2

Hi!
I wouldn't usually do this, but in this case I think it's a very important information for any admin who would comment on AA2 - and probably for any arbitrator: an arbitration is currently opened on WP:ru : http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%97%D0%B0%D1%8F%D0%B2%D0%BA%D0%B8_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%B8%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B6/%D0%90%D0%B7%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%B4%D0%B6%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BA_%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%81%D1%8B%D0%BB%D0%BA%D0%B8
Please note that some coordinated actions are relevant for WP:en. Sardur (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, is the material available somewhere? And was there some reference to English Wikipedia in it? Ionidasz (talk) 05:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but I can't provide the link here. And yes, there are some ref to WP:en, though that's mainly on WP:ru. Sardur (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
If it is about the general and such an outrageous way of conduct, as in the Arbitration, of editors active on en.WP too, should concern en.WP integrity as well. Aregakn (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I of course agree; several behaviours observed there are typically seen here, and an English list is mentionned. Sardur (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Boy, am I hallucinating, or there are really over 20 users involved in such a group, if all those names are involved, where the hell they find that much editors? It would nearly take announcing in the media's and newspapers. I guess if there was such announcement, it would make this even more problematic. Ionidasz (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

26 it seems. I really think it's important that people here are aware about it. For instance, as an admin on WP:fr, I think the mailing list is extremely interesting (though there are only 2-3 things relating to WP:fr - and one about me), first of all to make the connexion between new and old accounts. WP:uk should also know about it, imho. Sardur (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
But do you realise that having users in such a group and which acts against the rules (as it is implied in the case), only trusted individuals would be allowed in by fear that someone would give it out. This means that they found 26 trusted individuals. Where they found this much trusted editors? The editors must have known people outside of Wikipedia, which they invited in, or some sort of announcement exist somewhere. I don't see the problem being the group alone, but that fact that this much trusted editors exist. There must have been some illegimate canvassing somewhere to find this much editors. More so, that with 26 editors, they could have a very significant influence in the voting process. Is there any indication of collusion with administrators, from the evidence, be it from Russian Wikipedia, French or English? Ionidasz (talk) 23:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Do you know that at least one Azerbaijani newspaper call on people to edit on WP?

Collusion with admins: certainly not on WP:fr. There are around 2000 threads and I had no time to read all of them (via Google translation), so I'm not sure about WP:ru (for this one I have some doubt, but I'm not familiar with WP:ru) or WP:en. Sardur (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I have no time now to read that much material, but I'd be particularly interested on the sort of evidences which would imply some help from users of influence such as administrators. Aregakn seems to particularly be informed about that, but if there are materials regarding English Wikipedia, I think arbitrators should be informed of their content. Ionidasz (talk) 23:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, do you have a scan of that newspaper, or a link? Ionidasz (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a link on the arbitration talk page; in any case, they talk about it there. Sardur (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I have the news agencies calling for edit wars too and I mentioned it several times on the ANI in some cases, but I didn't see much interest from admins. It is probably a big headache to realise this and maybe that is the reason. Aregakn (talk) 07:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've seen (I have just read as much as I could for 30 minutes), I think there are sufficient elements to at least request administrators attention here. I have checked some of the organized preparations in articles on Russian Wikipedia and the same was done at the same dates on English Wikipedia. Also, I have found two editors claiming a user of influence (who is an admin) over English Wikipedia have helped them a lot, one of the two specifying the help was against Armenians and Persians. I won't be able to analyse anything, I won't be available for weeks starting tomorow. But Sardur, if you have time, dig, particularly evidences of sockpuppetry used to revert war, mass voting and the use of administrators. Ionidasz (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

There is at least one Azerbajdzani news web-site (in Russian) actively recruiting users "to correct Armenian lies in Wikipedia". This is mainly targeted at Russian-speaking users but some of them speak passable English. I The main difference with EEML so far is absence of admins among the users involved. They also tried to influence Arbcom elections by supporting a candidate but failed. If there is an interest in the arbitration result I'll be able to translate it. --Victoria (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Enforcement archived without closure

Breeins enforcement was archived without closure: [57] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for clarification: User:SlimVirgin

Initiated by Tryptofish (talk) at 00:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Tryptofish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

SlimVirgin notified: [58]

Statement by Tryptofish

I have two (2) specific questions regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2#Caution to SlimVirgin on personal attacks, which states:

"User:SlimVirgin is cautioned not to make personal attacks, even under severe perceived provocation."

I also note that this caution was pointed out again at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV#SlimVirgin.

Is the message of this caution about personal attacks still applicable today? (As a matter of common sense, it appears to me that
WP:NPA
is always in effect, but I recognize that an argument can be made that this arbitration case occurred a long time ago.)

If so, does this message apply as well to other content areas, beyond those that were the subjects of these arbitration decisions? (Again, it seems to me that it does, as a matter of common sense, but I recognize that it might not.)

I am specifically concerned about personal attacks directed at me and at other editors at pages about animal rights, broadly defined. The most recent occurrence of these was this: [59] at
Talk:PETA, but there have been many, many other such instances. My bottom line reason for asking these questions is that I would like such personal attacks to stop. --Tryptofish (talk
) 00:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that answer, Steve. And I definitely hear you with respect to not making this an arbitration-by-proxy. Based on what you said, I have to ask: what does your answer mean in terms of the appropriateness or inappropriateness of my potentially requesting Arbitration Enforcement with respect to the personal attacks that I allege? It sounds like you might be saying that there is nothing to enforce. On the other hand, you also indicate that someone would take past records into account, somewhere. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both very much for your time and answers here. That is very clear and fully answers the questions that I had. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I am truly appalled by the comment by the user below. The accusation of stalking is unsupported by facts, and patently ridiculous. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I've read a bit into the past history, and I guess that I can see how the user might be sensitive about these issues. But factually, that is still untrue, perhaps jumping to conclusions. In fact, it paradoxically shows a big reason why I am concerned: repeat something enough, and people start to assume that it is true. But anyway, this is not the place to examine that in detail, and I am satisfied that my questions were answered. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Notwithstanding that, I agree with Risker that all of my questions were fully answered. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

Steve says he won't look at the specific "personal attack" for various reasons. I did, it's not a personal attack, it's an expression of exasperation at the requester apparently Wikistalking SlimVirgin and reverting edits regardless of the fact that the reverts reintroduce formatting and other issues. The request is an attempt to use ArbCom to gain an advantage in a content dispute. It is likely that the community should be invited to debate a non-interaction sanction between these users, and further investigate SlimVirgin's implied accusation of Wikistalking. Guy (Help!) 12:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

I think cautions are one-time occurrences, rather than ongoing sanctions. In that sense, I don't think that the caution is "in effect", but I also don't think it was "in effect" five minutes after it passed. As you note
WP:NPA applies to all editors at all times, in all domains. In that sense, SlimVirgin is, like any other editor, under an ongoing prohibition against personal attacks. In the hypothetical event of an editor previously cautioned against personal attacks being sanctioned by ArbCom for personal attacks, it seems reasonable to believe that a past record of formal cautions would be taken into account. I am deliberately refraining from commenting on (or even examining) the personal attacks you allege from SlimVirgin, as I do not want this request for clarification to turn into a proxy ArbCom case on the subject. Steve Smith (talk
) 12:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It is my view that ArbCom-issued cautions are not suitable for
WP:AE enforcement. Steve Smith (talk
) 21:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with Steve here; I believe cautions/warnings etc. are similar to putting something on the record - it is a formal reminder that will likely be taken into account should the behavior occur again. Only restrictions are suitable for arbitration enforcement. I'd also comment that I have a difficult time seeing the personal attack in the diff provided - less than perfectly civil, yes but looking at the overall situation, incivility doesn't seem to be limited to one editor. Dispute resolution looks like the way to go here. Shell ^babelfish 03:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Concur with my colleagues here. As it appears that Tryptofish has found this response to be satisfactory, I will ask that this clarification be closed in 24 hours barring further comments from other arbitrators. Risker (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Typo

{{editsemiprotected}} change

this request for an arbitration case isp premature

to

this request for an arbitration case is premature

because it's a typo 71.109.172.32 (talk) 05:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Filling out those pages

Is very difficult. Really Wikipedia should be made easy for users, not for computer programists. Right now I feel like I am writing some kind of software. Can't they be made more user friendly. The difficulty in filling out this page prevents asking for a request. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You can ask a clerk to help you file a request if you are having problems doing that yourself. Leave a note at
WT:AC/C and let me know if you need me to find a clerk to help you. Carcharoth (talk
) 04:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
actually, you can ask most people. If you're having problems filing out a particular thing, leave a note here or on my talk page with a description of the problem and I will happily help you out. Wikipedia takes some getting used to (internet bureaucracy makes real world bureaucracy look positively friendly), but you will get the hang of it. --Ludwigs2 05:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Another question regarding TmidGuy posting

As I understand it, the focus of AE should be an editor's behavior post-Arbcom. Will has created a narrative characterizing my behavior in Wikipedia that relies on pre-Arbcom editing. He, and now Fladrif, have painted a picture of repeated violation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Arbcom must not have agreed that it was as serious as they say, since there was no finding of fact regarding me. Is Will free to paint this narrative, which I don't have time to address point by point? Are we going to replay the Arbcom discussion here? Or should AE focus on post-Arbcom behavior? Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 11:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

So far as I know, this complaint deals almost exclusively with actions in the last week or so, which is definitely "post-Arbcom". Will Beback talk 12:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

In the ArbCom section entitled Guidance for Uninvolved Administrators, it states: "Enforcing administrators are instructed to focus on fresh and clear-cut matters arising after the closure of this case rather than on revisiting historical allegations" So why have you included the information below as part of your complaint since none of it is relevant or "required"? Are you attempting to poison the well?

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

"These are the COI postings. There have been other complaints and warnings as well."
1. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 2#Transcendental Meditation 26 February 2007

2. Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_5#Transcendental Meditation 5 March 2007

3. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 30#Article: Transcendental Meditation, Users TimidGuy and Littleolive oil 17 February 2009

4. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 35#User 76.76. etc and Transcendental Meditation Article 11 August 2009 (Note: TimidGuy later admitted that he was the editor using the 76.76 IPs.)

5. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 40#Transcendental Meditation 24 January 2010-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Those are just background to show that this particular problem isn't new. However the complaint deals with new behavior. I'm sorry to see folks focusing on lawyerly procedural issues rather than adressing the behavior. Will Beback talk 21:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Can requests for clarification be filed about cases that are still open?

Before I make a statement in Aprock’s request for clarification
here, I’d like to know whether this request is being made in the right place, since the race and intelligence arbitration case hasn’t been closed yet. I was under the impression that requests for clarification were specifically for arbitration cases that are already closed. --Captain Occam (talk
) 20:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Correct, Until the case officially closes, the remedies are not in effect. Although, I believe that case will be closing shortly if not already closed. SirFozzie (talk) 20:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It’ll be closing shortly, but it’s not closed yet.

Can you explain how it works for Aprock to be filing a request for clarification about a case that’s still open? Since the case won’t be open for much longer, should this request be treated as though it were made after the case had closed, or is this not the appropriate place to be asking a question about a decision in an open case? --Captain Occam (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: use topic ban except for article talk page more often

I do not understand why in the case of a topic ban this includes so often article talk page ban. A user is often not disruptive on a talk page and because of his or her too strong interest in a subject may know a lot about the subject and hence give useful comments. In most cases it is easy for other editors to ignore talk page comments of a topic banned user. In my experience, it is also for the user who has been topic banned less frustrating if s/he is still allowed to give comments on the article talk page. Andries (talk) 10:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

We generally consider this on a case-by-case basis. If you see a particular case in which you think a remedy proposal should be tweaked, please feel free to provide us input on that case. If an editor is topic-banned and wishes sometime later to be allowed to resume participating on talk pages, he or she may submit a request for amendment that we will consider. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that, in many cases, disruption extends to the talk page and makes collaborative work darn impossible — Whether it's because of constant walls of text rearguing the same rejected position, aggressiveness, or continual baiting of other editors. In the cases where it's clear that continued participation to the discussions will not exacerbate or sustain the original problem, we generally try to leave talk page access. — Coren ^(talk) 14:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
More frequent and shorter blocks, not topic bans (say, WP "cold turkey" a week at a time, not necessarily escalating immediately to longer blocks), enough to cool off a bit but without being long enough to invite their use to control content by banning/blocking editorial opponents, would be welcome. Waiting until a conflict escalates and then needing to enforce lengthy bans/blocks just ups the ante in the prospect of getting one's opponents removed from the WP:SCENE. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 01:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

JimWae's comment

... is perfect. It shows Stevertigo's contempt for V and NOR, and that he never makes a meaningful contribution to Wikipedia. This is a clear case of
WP:DE and it seems to me that the weight of opinion at AN/I, which mostly echoes Jim Wae's, is sufficient for administrative action. Slrubenstein | Talk
20:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Would it be within Arbitration Committee scope...

...to force editors to assume good faith and talk to one another?
After observing 9-months of ongoing dramu in Eastern Europe area, with the added benefit of not being able (nor willing) to participate in it, I've come to a sad conclusion that nothing has changed, nor is it showing signs of change. Individual editors may be behaving better (or worse), but the overall picture looks as dim as it had for the past few years. This pattern needs to be broken.
What this pattern boils down to is that too many editors are no longer willing to assume good faith about the "others". They see that their only options are to "fight" them - either by getting them sanctioned or driven away from the project - or leave themselves (or be forced too). Here is a
game theory analysis of that
. As a by-product, various DR foras, up to and including the Arbitration ones, are saturated with EE-related requests, and the community is increasingly fed-up with that - but no solution to stop either the flood of DR requests or end the underlying conflicts giving rise to them have been found so far.
I see two potential solutions:

start banning and blocking editors left and right, and call the remaining desert peace

force the editors to assume good faith and to talk to one another; in other words, a forced application of
WP:FORGIVE
- forced, because it appear a lot of involved editors have lost their capacity to do so and have to be forcibly reminded of it.

I will not elaborate on solution 1), as it is simple in its destructive potential, and will likely occur anyway if 2) fails (or is never attempted), beyond saying that it is not optimal from the "build the encyclopedia" perspective, as may editors involved in conflicts are good content creators, and banning them will significantly hurt the EE topic area for years to come. It should be obvious that the optimal solution is to make those editors stop fighting - but keep them contributing to the project.
I would like to elaborate on 2). Our policies encourage good behavior and punish bad behavior, however we are mostly focusing on the punishment aspect. The EE area has degenerated too far to be receptive to anything but a nuclear punishment - hence the only alternative left is trying to reform and deradicalize the editors involved (and than ban those who refuse to stop fighting even after all that...).
How to force editors to behave well?
First, create a list of editors involved in EE disputes past and present. This would be a dynamic list, with new editors added to it, till such time that the Committee / community deems that the area has stabilized and the list & related remedies can be archived. The list
here
is a good start, but it is obviously incomplete (I am not on it, for example...); adding all parties from the past EE ArbComs and this years' AE threads should do the trick, though.
Second, all editors on that list would be subject to certain special rules (remedies):

editors should report EE-related conflicts to
Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Europe/Noticeboard
; once a conflict is solved (which means that all involved parties agree the article is stable) they should report the result and thank the party(parties) that have helped them solve it and suggest how to avoid such conflicts in the future;
such discussions can be advertised on other public foras in a non-partisan fashion (for example, other noticeboards, project and polity discussion pages, or non-user RfCs)

they may not report other editors to AE, Arbitration pages, AN(I), RfC/User and other similar foras (the list of which would be helpful) unless:
they have reported the conflict to the EE Noticeboard, and the Noticeboard editors have failed to solve it

they have asked for a mediation, and it has failed; even then they should not make a request themselves but the mediator should do it, choosing the most appopriate forum and adding a description of the problem and why the mediation failed

the editors in question should also be subject to
a 1RR restriction on EE topics with regards to one another

a civility restriction that can be summed as: "discuss content, not editors, unless you want to say something nice about them"

a limited interaction restriction that can be summarized: with the exception of participating in a case opened by a mediator after a failed mediation you were a party to, an editor should not comment on an ongoing DR case; an editor can however make a request to be able to comment and such a request should be reviewed by whomever is reviewing the DR case (mediator, admin, arbitrator...).

the editors should create content collaboratively with their former "opponents". Each editor involved in a conflict with another in the past should suggest to his former "opponent(s)" an article they should try to jointly create/develop (a new topic to DYK, an existing topic to GA, for example). Other editors should be allowed to suggest who should work with whom and on what subject. As long as there is an outstanding invitation/suggestion to collaborate, a failure to work on at least one "collaboration" of such a type per every two months (assuming that an editor is active in the EE area) should lead to a sanction (topic ban sounds fair)
editors who fail to collaborate with others should be reported for mediation, if the mediator fails to make them edit collaboratively, DR procedure as descried above can be started;

the editors should be encouraged to offer kind and friendly assistance and advice to one another, give out wiki awards (barnstars), etc. and "spread goodwill and kindness";

the editors should be encouraged to try to moderate their more extreme "allies";

it would be helpful if at least some editors can be assigned mentors (perhaps on a group-basis) who could review their progress in deredicalization and report on it to the committee, but knowing we are always short of mentors, this remedy would probably remain a "good idea" anyway, so I just mention it "pro forma".

The rationale for the first three remedies is to lessen the burden on the community / committee and to allow editors to work out their problems without abusive forum shopping. The rationale for the fourth remedy is that collaborative content creation is the only way to rebuild good faith and trust among other editors; remember: we need not only to "put a lid" on the conflict, but to "put the fire out" and extinguish the battlefields once and for all. This will not happen as long as the editors keep thinking that those "from the other side" are "evil" and cannot be worked with. The last few remedies further reduce conflict and teach editors to work things out. Finally, let me stress that all of those remedies, after the initial set-up (which should not be difficult), should vastly reduce the workload of the community, as they essentially make the area self-policing (there could be a spike in requests for mediation, but to the best of my knowledge, we have enough mediators to handle a few more requests - I would not anticipate any big floods here).
I elaborate on some ideas here, here, here and here.
I see no body other than the ArbCom (possibly with some community input) that could solve this situation. If this is not done now, we will just continue the current trend of editors fighting, leaving and getting sanctioned, till something breaks (i.e. solution 1 is implemented).
PS. I am posting this on the Requests for Arbitration talk page, as I considered making it a formal arbitration request - but it is quite non-standard, and perhaps the Committee can use it to open a better formatted request themselves. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom's remit, as with an terrestrial court (like it or not, Arbcom does function with many of the responsibilities given to courts), is to be entirely reactive and not proactive. Proactivity is reserved, in the terrestrial realm, for legislative bodies and citizen/corporate lobby/protest/grassroots organizations. Which is the entire body politic of Wikipedia. Courts--and Arbcom--must, in order to be effective, only be useful when they are asked to deal with specific situations. This is why democratic nations divide the legislative from the judicial. One group (in our case, everyone via consensus) says "This is how we want things to be." Another group is tasked (on Wikipedia, Arbcom) with interpreting whether specific actions and situations are in accordance with what the people have willed. We will leave aside the feelings of others that Arbcom has overstepped its remit in the past. While avoiding a slippery slope argument, do you really want a small group to decree by fiat how everyone else must behave? I think you probably don't. → ROUX ₪ 21:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
It's not something I'd propose if I thought there was any other solution. Extreme problems require extreme solutions. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

This proposal, to put the direct responsibility in EE cases away from ArbCom to a "body other than the ArbCom" sounds a bit strange. Given the strong presence and activities of EEML members on the English Wikipedia, I have a suspicion, this could easily entail a de facto censorship of EE topics by an EEML related superiority. --Henrig (talk) 13:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is Eastern European area in general, as obvious from this, rather than EEML or any other specific case. @Piotrus. I agree with 1,2,5,6 and 7 as general suggestions. "3." would be a burden for administrators that is difficult to trace and enforce. "4." - one can not enforce the collaboration, which would be a variety of
forced labor. You can try this voluntarily and see what happens. I have tried. As a more practical approach, everyone should simply disengage on individual basis, as I suggested here. Biophys (talk
) 16:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I have tried 4 voluntarily and the response is either scorn or ignore. This shows that bad faith is too ingrained to be removed voluntarily; further, bad faithed editors poison the atmosphere for the newcomers/neutrals and contribute to the battleground problem. The area will not see any improvement until they are deal with, and I think it would be better if they are reformed rather then removed forcibly. If they cannot disengage or cooperate, they need to be (re)taught how to do it. We already force people to disengage with blocks and bans - but the application of that remedy has not led to visible improvement. I see no reason why giving them an alternative is a problem; the above solutions presents a choice: disengage from the area voluntarily, be forced to or (the new approach) try to collaborate with editors they think of as "opponents" and maybe you will see they are not that evil after all (and vice versa). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I used to word "opponent" in this sense. I would advise against involvement of Arbcom. We have discretionary sanctions. They should be used. Nothing else is needed. Biophys (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Re: opponents - I used wrong pronoun, you haven't even used that word here :) Re: discretionary sanctions - they do not seem to be working (well enough). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I think what we really need is to reenforce AN/I. ArbCom cannot police content disputes. AN/I ought to be a place for reasoned discussion of fidelity to core content policies, NPOV, V, and NOR. Somewhere along the line, some people started to think that AGF was all about personal behavior and not commitment to the encyclopedia. In my view, the test of whether or not an editor edits in good faith is their compliance with NPOV, V, and NOR. I know full well there are huge grey areas but these are just the things reasonable people can discuss at AN/I. If someone consistently shows disregard for core content policies, it is a matter of community action, not ArbCom. If the community decides that there is a pattern of disregard for core content policies, then it is up to an admin to enforce whatever sanction the community consideres appropriate. This process will not always work fast, and it will sometims work unevenly, but isn't this true of everything at WP? I happen to think anyone reading over the An/I discussion can see a mainstream view among editors who have dealt with SV. If there is a need for further commnt, we have other mechanisms than ArbCom. WP has been sliding towards giving ArbCom more and more authority in content disputes. I think this is dangerous. If ArbCom wants to help, they can propose to editors alternate strategies. But as far as I can tell the complaints people have about Stevertigo at EE related articles are virtually the same as at other articles, so I do not see how this is a particularly EE problem. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

"the test of whether or not an editor edits in good faith is their compliance with NPOV, V, and NOR" - an excellent point, but one that I see almost never made or taken into account in DR. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The OP is too lengthy for me to read in my current hungry state and before dinner. But the (sizeable) cynical side of me laughs at "[Could the Arbitration Committee] force editors to assume good faith and talk to one another?". If they could, we wouldn't have any problematic topic areas. And as, of the tens of arbitrators who have sat on the committee, at least one would have tried that tactic, one must conclude it would not work. The basic principle which defeats this line of thinking is that we cannot force editors to assume good faith or work well with others; in most cases, either they do of their own accord, or we have to sanction them out the door.
AGK
17:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
As far as I know, such an approach has not been tried. I would appreciate evidence to the contrary. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I've read your proposal more thoroughly, and it's theoretically sound; it's also more practically promising than most. But I still don't hold much hope for it. The approach of "encouraging parties to AGF" has not been tried with the specific carrots and sticks you suggest, but countless parties have been encouraged, asked, counselled, strongly advised, implored, pleaded with, forced by use of a mentorship scheme, and begged to work well with their fellow editors. For evidence of this, see the index of Committee remedies and principles. And it hasn't worked; for evidence of that, look at the quality of content and standards of conduct in any of the problematic topic areas (the ARBMAC, Macedonia, and Digwuren cases pop up frequently on AE).
It's a good idea, though. Do you think it could be implemented on the community side, as a form of community sanction, if the ArbCom are reluctant to try it?
AGK
19:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not very familiar with community sanctions; the key point here is the need to force editors to behave, because asking them as you note is not working (and the idea is of course to try to avoid the second extreme - hammer use, which is bound to happen - and is happening - when the warnings are not heeded). If the community sanctions can be passed with in the way outlined above - i.e. with the editors affected being told that they have to follow certain behavior patterns, or that they will be sanctioned - then yes, it is possible it will work, too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd be glad to comment—can I have a ruling on whether doing so violates my topic ban? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 02:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The only time I've seen forcing editors to discuss content issues in a productive manner work was when you had several people willing to oversee the situation on a constant basis. These editors usually have to be administrators familiar with the situation but not involved in article editing and they have to be able to put in a lot of time essentially babysitting the process: mediating when needed, warning as appropriate and issuing short bans or blocks if editors persist after being warned. Unfortunately, once things get to the point of needing something this drastic, it's often difficult to reach consensus and the administrators helping can expect to be continuously attacked and probably brought up at ANI and other dispute resolution venues in an attempt to remove them.
The problems I usually see with these disputes is the lack of interest in reaching a real consensus and an inability to let points go when the majority of editors feel differently. I'd be willing to bet that the EE conflicts keep seeing the same arguments and same problems over and over again. Right now we really don't have a good way to stop circular or repeated arguments about the same point which I think is the heart of some of the more serious issues. Shell ^babelfish 09:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Gdansk/Vote is an interesting case study here, I believe. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk}
19:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

As there have been no objections regarding my question regarding the posting of my thoughts, I've responded below.

On the first set of points
The mere presence of anyone’s name on any list is enough to cast aspersions. "Vecrumba, only recently returned, is on the XYZ list based on his past participation in the Baltic/EE WP:BATTLEGROUND. ..." An article-based list would be more appropriate, for example, a notice (at article talk) that "This article falls under provisions of the Soviet legacy in Eastern Europe task force." This accomplishes two things:
focuses the locus of dispute squarely on the Soviet legacy and unambiguously identifies topics in scope, and

leaves arguments which, for the lack of better characterization are based more on good faith-ed or somewhat POV-ed but still valid interpretations of history (inter-WW Poland-Lithuania conflicts, for example), within the purview of current sanctions which are completely sufficient; some of these past conflicts have proved to be open to knowledgeable mediation by editors respected by both sides—as I've discussed elsewhere and as has been empirically demonstrated, historically uninformed mediation escalates conflict.

The conflict over the Soviet legacy is over what is historical verifiable fact in the first place, not just views or interpretations which differ and which are based on the same set of verifiable historical facts. This is a fundamental distinction as compared to other so-called conflicts over Baltic/EE topics.

On the second set of points, corresponding #'s

Posting conflicts on a dedicated notice board for that purpose—reasonable, but remember that editors will try to persuade others through denunciation rather than dealing with content; I have a concern that Baltic/EE editors are perennially guilty by definition (I'll spare diffs on so-called anti-nationalist POV extremists being represented as "neutral" editors and admins inappropriately inserting themselves in the conflict as proxies), that others are only looking to present a "balance" of opinions of anti-Soviet versus pro-Soviet, which is a gross misrepresentation of objective assessments of history. To the point of inappropriateness, "objectivity" in the form of third generation Irish American et al. is, in fact, prejudice under the guise of objectivity and needs to be recognized for what it is.

Agreed, no arbitration/enforcement requests by any editor involved at a particular article, no lobbying admins or ArbCom on or off-Wiki regarding said article or any editor involved; conflicts to be dealt with only through the (flawed but better than arbitration et al.) notice board.

1RR should be applied at an article level. Interaction bans are unworkable as in the real world they prevent the attacked from defending themselves, under threat of violating said ban. I'll avoid any specific diffs of current attacks which have had to go unanswered in public.

"Work together with thine enemy to build good habits and experiences" does not work. I had some small collaborations with Irpen (whom many have held up as an editor I and others are alleged to have "driven away") while we were at a phase where we agreed to disagree; those collaborations did not ameliorate future circumstances where demonstrating Irpen misrepresented a source was called a "personal attack" rather than being acknowledged, corrected, and moving on.

Barn-stars are handed out for "atta boy"'s for whacking one’s opposition, there is at least one recent (and I think egregious) examples in that regard. In the vast majority of cases, barn-stars cement, not dissolve, the divide.

One example would be editor "X" deletes editor "Y"’s comments as over the top before they get reported, escalated, etc.—and should generally be encouraged. That would be useful as it places editors in the position of acting as moderating influences. Inappropriate deletion of "Y"’s comments by "X" with inappropriate tags (false contentions of personal attacks, etc.) would be reported at the imperfect notice board of #1.

IMHO, you can modify behavior but you can’t change who people are or whether they are predisposed to POV-push fiction as fact. That said, I personally tend to get along with a somewhat wider range of editors in the "conflict" zone than others. I've debated paid POV pushers based on sources; the problem is when those pushing a POV fail to gain an advantage, they resort to sockpuppets and personal attacks (a classic being that "anyone who disagrees with me is a meatpuppet of 'X'")—a far more insidious and grossly offensive and insulting version of that is "count all Baltic/EE editors as one vote where consensus is concerned, we all know they vote the same." Recalcitrant POV-pushers are not editors who are redeemable by any mentoring; I already give advice to editors off-Wiki when they need to moderate their behavior (regardless of topic), whether or not they are receptive is their choice. Sometimes reaching out in private is even answered with public attacks, so be it. Most "mentoring" aka babysitting would be addressed by #6.

I hope this response assists in furthering dialog. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 00:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You have a valid point that using presence on some list as a personal attack (often mentioning it off-hand in an attempt to
poison the well
) should be treated as a serious violation of CIV (unless it is a relevant comment made in the evidence presentation of a dispute resolution process). I do think, however, that this is mostly solved by my point "3" about civility restriction and interaction restriction. It stands to reason that if an editor not under those restrictions makes an uncivil comment about the editor under it, since one party is not under the restriction, the other can request that the first one is added to it - thus making "3" enforceable in the future.

The problem with an article specific list is that it would likely be much longer than the editor specific list. Who could add to it? Everyone? I am not saying that it is necessarily a bad idea, though; Gdansk vote notices on talk pages of various articles do seem to be relatively useful. What should such notices say, however? I am not convinced that framing the issues as "Soviet legacy POV" is that accurate (many EE issues go beyond just the Soviet legacy), nor that it would be accepted by the community (as you point out below, some editors see
pro-Soviet POV
as perfectly legitimate... even if they may balk at pro-Nazi POV. As sad as this is, I do not have high hopes that they can be convinced that this is a problem, particularly not by editors whose reputation is already in tatters and who are widely seen as "nationalist conspiratorial POV pushers" :>).
Yes, there are editors whose favorite tactics in disputes is to discuss editors, not content. If they are not condemned by the majority of the noticeboard editors, one would expect the mediator/dispute resolution admin(s) to be bright enough to see through that (although I admit I have seen that not happen often enough). Still, there is a point we have to trust the system - if not, what's left?

N/A

Re: article level - see my comments above. I do think interactions ban work well, but they should be understood as not allowing an editor under an interaction ban to comment on the other as well; see my point "3" above. I think that the framework described above does allow editors to defend themselves as needed.

Of course, "true believers" will not be reformed. The above solution does not promise to reform all; but many editors can be deradicalized. Those who will not, well, they will end up banned. Good riddance; this proposal does not promise to save all; it aims to limit the number of editors who will get hammered when the what little patience that remains among the hammer-holders regarding EE conflicts is gone.

Sure, banstars can be abused. I've seen that happen. That doesn't mean that they are abused all or even most of the time. They were designed as a goodwill tool, and we should use it as such.

Self-refactoring is good; refactoring by others can be good but the problem is what if it is done in bad faith? I think your point about reporting it as abusive (when it is), following other procedures outlines, is fine.

Agreed, also per my argument at 4. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Still digesting. I separated the Soviet legacy (this also includes Waffen SS being "Nazis", etc.) from other EE conflicts as I believe the others, though protracted, are not unmanageable with additional effort on the part of informed knowledgeable editors—meaning that I believe existing sanction mechanisms are adequate. Editors will have the energy to devote to those conflicts if they are not having the life sapped out of them every 5 seconds over edit wars that "you [Soviet Union] can't occupy what [the Baltics] belong to you [Soviet Union]" and endless attempts to control content by inserting provocative content and then attacking editors who delete it for edit warring. Therefore, my vote is to have a narrowly focused "task force" on the (seemingly) most intractable area, that is, the Soviet legacy; all other EE disputes included would be simply far too big a nut to crack—and will make the eyes of outside observers quickly glaze over, nor is that a nut in need of radical cracking provided editors can devote their energies to conflict resolution instead of responding to an endless black hole of arbitrations (regarding the Soviet legacy). Does this help clarify the need for distinction and focus? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 00:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I was going over the discussion so far. It might be possible to combine approaches, for example, editors could "opt in" to the "Soviet legacy in E.E." task force, affirm to abide by its ground rules, and by consensus add articles to a list of those within purview—this would be done simply by adding a category tag dedicated for that purpose. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see a significant difference between Soviet legacy content and other EE-content. I'd like to caution about using too much of a personal experience - if one is mostly involved in a given area (let's say, Soviet legacy), one may not be very familiar with others, and give it undue weight. Sadly, I've seen conflicts in EE non-Soviet related areas, and while some actors are different, I do not believe that the underlying processes or attitudes are. To recapitulate the argument, I do not believe that singling the Soviet legacy area is needed; it is only one of several "battlegrounds" in EE. As the total number of editors involved in EE issues is not huge (I am pretty sure it's less than a hundred), I don't think that we would be able to create an active enough project to have a dedicated task force within it. I think we should start by using the Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Europe framework, and IF after few months we see enough activity levels to create such a task force, then we can revisit this suggestion. How does that sound? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You can't force people to assume good faith, but you can make them wish they had. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

So? You might catch a bad faithed editor or two in your block-net but mostly what you end up doing is:

1) Creating a lot of collateral damage, since you can't really tell who is really assuming good faith and who's just faking it (for example "civil POV pushing"). On the other side, you can't really tell who's actually acting in good faith but is just caught up in a nasty dispute.

2) You give an incentive for (bad-faithed but pretending to be good faithed) editors to accuse each other of "assuming bad faith" and file multiple reports, leading to even more bad faith. This eventually becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy - why SHOULD someone assume good faith on the part of someone who's hounding you with reports (about "bad faith")? You can "assume that 2+2=5" but that doesn't make it so.

3) You're not really making the people involved "wish they had" assumed good faithed. You're only teaching them how to hide their bad faith better.

4) You get the "Troll of Sorrow effect". You end up getting a lot of blatantly bad faithed reports along the lines of "It really hurts me to bring this report to the attention of administrators but this person should really be blocked". This just encourages the general atmosphere of rank hypocrisy which is probably the major reason why bad faith doesn't go away in contentious topic. And why everyone actually KNOWS that bad faith doesn't go away.

The mindset captured in your statement above has been the approach in contentious topic areas for a long time now. And all of them have remained contentious or even gotten worse. It's naive at best and most likely it's probably actively contributed to making these conflicts worse. Let's try something different now. Maybe it'll work.
talk
) 00:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Was this (forcing people to assume good faith) ever tried? I believe that the carrot is as needed as the stick. See here, Radeksz makes some very interesting observations, and he even has some serious academic analyzes (and a professional background) to back them up. Bottom line is - we certainly tried to make people regret it, and it does not seem to work well, particularly because (IMHO) it seems that it is very difficult for an outside observer to distinguish between editors who want to cause disruption, and those who resort it because they see no other choice (see Radeksz's game theory for better definitions and analysis). Before we go back to swinging the ever larger banhammer, why not try - at least once - something more carrot-like? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

No, compelling good faith has never been tried. And certainly one can point to past incidents where unaffiliated uninvolved editors wandered in and by postulating "X" were tried, convicted, and executed as advocating for one cadre or another with no leeway for disassociating any new participant from past or current conflict—where such enforcement would have been of great benefit in heading off needless editorial acrimony. I have long lobbied that editors involved in any Baltic/EE articles, widely construed (so including more general topics such as communism, where I know I differ in opinion with some others in that regard), be enjoined from instituting any arbitration, AN/I, et al. action against any other similarly editorially involved editor, including contacting admins/arbitrators on their talk pages or off-Wiki to advocate for sanctions. (I think I recently noticed Coren thinking about something similar—any such prohibition has my strong endorsement.) IMHO, without exception, all arbitrations in the Baltic/EE arena have been driven by attempts to control, or to counter attempts to control, content; and participation by admins who have inserted themselves after being successfully lobbied by conflict participants in that regard (and I mention such occurrences to illustrate the problem, not to re-litigate) has escalated, not resolved, conflict. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Also, having considered the point on the number of editors involved and overlap of editorial communities, I think I agree that practically speaking there's not much difference/benefit to singling out Soviet legacy aspects from other Baltic/EE conflicts. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Carrots have been tried and don't work, even less so that the non-carrot approach as it merely proves to the disruptive editors they can do what they want. All this talk on this page misses the real root of the problem - ethnic warriors are fueled by hundreds of years of strife whereby they are convinced the other side is out to do them in and they must do anything to protect themselves and their version of the "truth". So, editors from both sides come to wiki to foment their version of the "truth", thereby adding more fuel to the ethnic war and giving it another forum. Well, guess what people, wiki is not here for that purpose, it's here to build a NPOV encyclopedia, and if you can't play by the rules here, go elsewhere to spread your centuries of ethnic warring. While we're on this, someone remind me, in this topic area, who was I voted to unban and how has that person been doing? FYI for the few who don't know, I virtually never vote to unban someone. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

@Rlevse: Respectfully, I'm not an "ethnic warrior" nor am I a "fomenter." It's precisely contentions such as yours above, that editors of an identifiable ethnic background don't care about—and are indeed incapable of—fair and accurate representation of reliable sources that are part of the problem, not the solution. There are far better ways of stating the problem is, from your point, intractable than tarring so-called ethnic editors as extremists. If that wasn't your intent—and perhaps I'm just being overly sensitive—it most certainly didn't come across that way. Quite frankly—as it appears we're being blunt here—I find your apparent universal condemnation not only unhelpful but (my perception) morally offensive. I was rather hoping for more constructive input from someone in a position of WP authority. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to strike/revert both our posts here and to re-engage more constructively, the choice is yours. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
You're being overly sensitive. Where did I mention you, or anyone for that matter, by name? I didn't. Where did I say everyone of a certain background is a problem editor? I didn't. I said ethnic warriors, which by the way I define it are editors in an area of ethnic strife who constantly push a particular POV in a problematic matter, which from what I can tell, is a pretty typical definition. If that's not you, you have nothing to worry about. Feel free to read more accurately, the choice is yours. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that, but you should take into consideration how your statement came across—you didn't indicate that there was any hope for the situation—or that Piotr and I weren't part of the problem (as we were missing the point). Actually (ec), I was going to add that, for example, not long ago Polish and Lithuanian historians met in conference to discuss WWII and other areas of conflict in historical interpretation. There were significant steps toward reconciliation on some issues as well as an agreement to disagree on others. Our only role as editors is to represent such scholarship—agreeing or not—fairly and accurately and to indicate what differences are based in interpretation versus "versions" of historical events, again, based on reliable and reputable sources and not our personal opinions.

From my perspective, the problem is not that appropriate representation of sources is not possible—for example, I've attempted somewhat successfully to assist in mediating some Polish-Lithuanian conflicts—but that there is too high a payback for those who chose to control content through appealing to individuals such as yourself for sanctions as opposed to being compelled to debate reliable sources at articles. That payback is solely within your purview. I can only hope you recognize there are opportunities for administrative action other than simply the proverbial banhammer. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Short version, the more draconian the administrative response, the more likely that conflict and appeals by POV-pushers for draconian sanctions will escalate. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 22:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

You correctly identify one, major type of a disruptive editor (I call them
noted elsewhere, "true believers" and radicalized editors are "indistinguishable to outside observers and any kind of sanctions/policies are just as likely to fall on "good faith-ed editors caught up in disputes" as they are on inherently "bad faith-ed editors""; based on my personal experiences I totally agree with him. The approach I propose above would allow us to finally determine who has been radicalized but is willing to step back and edit "nice" again (by working with others, trying to talk with them instead of about them, etc.) and who is unwilling to (and thus should face penalties). Lastly: for the past three years or so, I've felt like Cassandra, predicting at the end of every fall EE-related ArbCom that few blocks and bans will not solve problems, and we will be back there again in a year. Sadly, I've been right every single time. Let me make this prediction again, even before a new arbcom case starts: ever-bigger sticks will not solve the problem, if history is any guide. "Nuking" an area is unlikely to do anything but seriously hurt content creation (note that despite all of the conflicts, EE-related content has been developing rather well, if measured by FAs/GAs/DYKs - at least till this year, which seems to be the first one not to see (for example) a single Poland-related GA or FA so far...other than the one I was allowed to write in January...think about that for a second). "Surgical strikes" could help, but in the past they were never targeted well. Unless there is a sudden improvement in targeting, I strongly suggest trying - at least once, for a change - carrot approach, before ever bigger sticks result in a desert that is called peace. PS. Theoretically, it should be possible to combine carrots with "surgical strikes" for the best effect (get rid of "true believers" and deradicalize the remaining editors). Again, practically, I've yet to see "surgical strikes" work in EE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk}
15:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Continuing the conversation

@Rlevse: Now that we've sorted that out, let us assume for a moment that some editors at least do care about reputable content in the area of conflict, are tired of said conflict and attacks waged through endless screeching for sanctions seeking to control content through the application of the banhammer, and are looking for ways to neutralize the benefits of conflict escalation. Thoughts? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Just so we are clear on this, by "benefits of conflict escalation", I presume you mean what Radek described here,
here, which I will sum up shortly (as I understand the essence of it) as "forum (block) shopping seems not punishable, is increasingly common, leads to editors' radicalization, creates bad faith between editors, annoys the community and last but not least, using game theory language, has good payoffs - with small chance of getting a penalty onerself, it has a much better chance of getting one's opponent penalized, or at the very least, of ruining their reputation (along the lines of "if you are being complained about, you have done something wrong")." Is this correct? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk}
15:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
In a word, yes. My experience is that just being attacked is viewed as contributing to disruption. In the game of victim-blaming, the editor who attacks first has the clear advantage; and responding to defend oneself is "combative"—where insisting on apologies for poor conduct is "badgering." That is, you can ask twice but if there is still no response, your third request for said apology is now an attack. (I'm not providing diffs only because I'm not here to re-litigate.) PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Unhelpful and nonconstructive

Offliner has (here and here) made inquiries. I'm happy to WP:AGF this is not stalking and block-shopping, although Offliner has not expressed any concerns to me via talk or off-Wiki via Email. If ArbCom feels that discussing a better future in the context of arbitration talk is inappropriate, please feel free to delete my contributions here and I'll be happy to comment in January. While I frown on editors making edits on the basis of "if I don't hear any objections in X hours/days I'll take that as approval and make the edit" and so don't wish to invoke that here to justify my responses above, I was concerned the conversation was going to go stale and would be archived. Nor am I participating at any article or in any conflict (arbitration, AE, AN/I, et al.). I'm discouraged that the only contribution from my detractors, if you will, so far has been to investigate potential topic ban violations as opposed to offering any constructive comments here. I should note my other attempt at moving on from past conflict was met with escalating attacks (by Petri Krohn) culminating in blatantly false accusations of outing. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

A suggestion

This is not the only dispute of this nature. There are also disputes concerning the Middle East, British Overseas Territories, etc. We could set up a
WP:MEDRS. TFD (talk
) 15:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Influx of editors from other areas may not be a bad idea; perhaps EE editors can help moderate the Middle East and vice versa. There is the inactive Wikipedia:WikiProject Conflict Analysis and Resolution, although I am not sure if it is supposed to deal with content or Wikipedia. There is also Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club, cooperation/reconciliation boards of Category:Wikipedia reconciliation, Wikipedia:WikiProject Time to Think (inactive...), Wikipedia:WikiProject User Rehab (inactive...). Perhaps one of those could be revitalized, or a new one created, with past participants invited to it, and if ArbCom encourages it, it may actually work. Finally, note the Wikipedia:Working_group_on_ethnic_and_cultural_edit_wars/2008_report#Recommendations, part 3 (Set up Cooperation Boards). Sadly, this suggestion has been ignored and forgotten; if only such a EE cooperation board was set in 2008, as part of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes remedies, we probably wouldn't have been discussing this here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I think that editors who are experienced in these articles could be helpful in articles where they have no pre-set opinions and we could set up a project. I was involved in the article on Gibraltar, which is a British Overseas Territory that Spain claims is part of their country. It attracts editors from all over the former British and Spanish empires and has 18 archived talk pages, a closed arbitration[60] and an open RfC.[61] See if you can offer any help there. TFD (talk) 03:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
It's been my experience is that mediation in these sorts of debates works when the mediator is generally seen as "friendly" by both sides and as being (at least) as well-informed as the combatants. The focus should be on finding someone like that who both sides respect. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 02:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
That would be ideal, but such editors are rare. I'd think that an editor one side respects and the other has nothing against would be more common, and work just as fine. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
With respect to various areas of dispute that I have been involved/exposed to, at least for myself it's been clear who merely has an editorial point of view while sticking to mainstream reputable scholarship (not a problem) and who have a POV searching for snippets to quote out of context or to apply their own spin, sometimes in direct contradiction to author(s) themselves—of course, in such cases you need access to the complete source to be able to tell. There is a difference between variation in interpretation of agreed-upon facts and opinion in the absence of or enforced ignorance of fact. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

What belongs at AE

There has been a high incidence recently of editors filing requests that are not framed in terms of specific remedies, and admins proposing sanctions that are not specifically supported by ArbCom remedies. I have been fighting against this trend, and would like to explain why. The crucial point is that blocks resulting from AE are not like other blocks: by ArbCom ruling they cannot be reversed except as a result of consultation with ArbCom or formation of a clear consensus at AN. This irreversibility makes it important that blocks issued here be clearly and rigorously justified in terms of the sanctions they are based on. Blocks that go beyond what the sanctions support must not be imposed as part of the AE process. Looie496 (talk) 23:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

What sort of sanctions are outside the remit of Arbcom? ~ R.T.G 11:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the point is that "arbitration enforcement" means that AE should properly be used for requests to enforce a specific remedy or sanction that ArbCom has already passed in a prior decision. In other words, enforcing the prior decision. This is different from requesting a new remedy or sanction that is not contained in the prior decision; that sort of request must come either in a new case, a request for clarification/amendment, or a community discussion (on ANI or whatever). There are certain borderline situations, but in principle, that's the distinction being made here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

To answer RTG's question a bit more directly, no sanctions that policy permits are outside the remit of ArbCom. But arbitration enforcement is not done by ArbCom, it is done by ordinary admins. For them, the sanctions they can impose here are precisely the ones that ArbCom has spelled out in its remedies. Looie496 (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

A situation outlined in an Arbcom sanction should be governed according to the sanction without exception, whereas one not covered should be temporarily dealt with in some way if nessecary, before being brought to the attention of Arbcom for examination. I believe I misread at first but what I have said just now, aside for invididual members merit, is the first thing that makes Arbcom important, that what they say goes. Requests to alter Arbcom rulings, if made to AE for instance, should be deleted with instructions sent to the requestee on the proper channels. Actions on behalf of a ruling which deviate from approved anticipatory sanctions should be reverted as standard with a standard good faith warning and ultimate dismissal from the AE project. Why not? I really misread at first but I am a firm believer in the existence of Arbcom even if not an ardent contributor. What Arbcom says goes. That is what Arbcom are... Sorry, really was away with the fairies when I popped in with that question but as it turns out it is rather important that people follow what Arbcom says, no idea what has transgressed. ~ R.T.G 19:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Exceptional individuals wanted for challenging two-year assignment

You are:

Y an effective communicator with a sound grasp of policy;

Y able to see all aspects of a problem and find solutions;

Y courteous, disciplined and open-minded;

Y able to deal calmly with trolls, bigots and editors with issues;

Y able to make up your own mind under stress.
If you can answer "yes" to most of the above, you are probably arbitrator material. Learn more about standing in the upcoming election. But don't delay, nomination close very soon!
Tony (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC), for the election coordinators

PS: YYou must also be able to prove your real name (with a copy of your passport) to "The Office" in case any litigation as a result of your actions arise.
Giacomo
17:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC).

The purpose of providing identification is to verify age. All editors are responsible for their actions, regardless of whether or not they are identified. Risker (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages by size

Please see the new page Wikipedia:Database reports/Talk pages by size (to be updated weekly). This talk page ranks first, with 40230 kilobytes. Perhaps this will motivate greater efficiency in the use of kilobytes.
—Wavelength (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Query by Jaakobou about language

Is there an inherent difference between the words "underhandedly" and "disingenuously"?
With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Prematurely archived case?

This case appears to have been archived prematurely. Should it be reinstated? Gatoclass (talk) 08:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

This was unarchived by T. Canens and then properly closed. EdJohnston (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

naming conventions

on all of these arbitration request pages I think we should adopt some special thread naming rules. The problem is that the internal linking gets all mucked up: every request on the pages will have the same stock headers (Involved parties, clerk notes, etc), and a page might (at any given moment) have three or four different sections titled "Statement by userX"as someone responds to different issues. So when someone creates a new request, the template should add a case code (maybe a random char string) to all the stock templates (e.g. "involved parties for case E-f1d4") and editors should be encouraged to use it on all new sections. It would make it a lot easier to track and respond to changes on the page.
A similar thing could be done on actual case pages (e.g. proposed remedies sections) using usernames rather than a case code.
I'm happy to do the template modifications, but since these templates are substed I don't know where they live. anyone want to point me in the right direction? --Ludwigs2 16:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

uninvolved editor question

Are people not involved in an open arb case allowed to make a comment about it? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are allowed to comment as an "Uninvolved Party" SirFozzie (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for clarification: {Link to case or username}

Initiated by
talk
) at 06:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

username1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

username2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by your name

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

would someone please wrap the thing with the div-structure, as above to prevent
page widening in modern browsers? Do this elsewhere, too, as needed, 'k? Thanks; I'd just fix it myself, but for my feckin' yellow ticket-of-leave. Cheers, Jack Merridew
08:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to work with the {{editnotice}} template. If you can know how to fix this, please reactivate the request. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I've just tightened-up the above to omit the div wrapper and just style the pre-element; it works for this local text. It might be worth considering a site wide (or WMF-wide) change to the styling of pre-elements to prevent this
page widening issue. This only seems to be an issue on some browsers; a few (inappropriately) don't do the 'correct' default; i.e. widen the page per whatever you've got between pre-tags. In general pre is for pre-formatted text that should not have particularly long lines in it (that would amount to being unformulated;). I've not looked at {{editnotice
}}; I was referring to other hard-coded wide-text editnotices that are out there in various places... Anyway, I'll marinate on the whole issue (assuming, of course, that I continue to participate in these projects;).

Your edit does not appear to be working (for me, at least), and should be undone until such time as this is all better understood. I'm re-enabling the {{
editprotected}} to get this undone, or looked at. Best wishes, Jack Merridew
21:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I've reverted it for now. Enjoy marinading. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
As an alternative, consider what happens at WP:AN3 when you click the link to start a new report. This avoids the preformatting issue, since it opens an edit window with the suggested text already filled in. (The above scheme offers you the preformatted text and suggests that you cut and paste it). EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
That would be much better. The difference is that new requests will go on the bottom of the page instead of the top. Is there any reason why arbitration requests should be this way round? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Publishing from the EEML archive

Closing thread -
•
] 17:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

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

I wonder, has the ArbCom changed its position on publishing extracts of emails from the EEML archive on-wiki? It would be very useful to do this. Most of the serving arbs have never read through this archive (and according to Shell don't have access) though they are still expected to rule on the case. I suggest that the benefits of free quotation (user discretion trusted on personal details) out way the loses in privacy (very easy to find off wiki anyway). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, who cares about privacy here? Witchhunts are fun, that's all that matters; privacy of the few should never outweigh enjoyment of the masses in an online context! Make sure to stop at your friendly Encyclopedia Dramatica for more fun stuff, such as photos, real life addresses and assassination calls towards the evil EEMLers. And selected excerpts can be found there too, courtesy of the good-faithed paragons of virtues that contribute to that site. Don't let any moral scruples stop you, nor any consideration of illegality of reading anothers' emails. Moar dramu!

More seriously, I hope that the ArbCom can clarify to others that discussion of the emails (references, summary attempts, quoting) beyond the case (which ended over a year ago) serves little purpose other than continued harassment/wikistalking/hounding or some morbid voyeurism - and let's not go into the fact that possession of the archive is not really legal...

Even more seriously, can this entire thread be oversighted per
WP:OUTING? A call for others to go, find, read and discuss private correspondence is hardly appropriate, to say the least. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk}
03:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure there's much connection between the kind of thing you're trying to raise concerns about here and the kind of thing we need to be allowed to quote on-wiki; of course the legality matter is another issue. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

@Deacon, I suggest you drop your desire to re-litigate EEML. You do not have my permission to copy, save, or quote my personal correspondence in any manner. It has been interpreted in bad faith once already (my contention I only periodically read my personal mail at the time—whereas I checked my WP watch list and other activity daily—was called a lie in so many words and I was found guilty of all possible responses to "canvassing" based on circumstantial timing), and that is enough. I have moved on, I suggest you do too. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know that oversight is necessary or appropriate for this (no posted violating material), but...

Deacon, as an admin who followed the case but has never been involved in EE issues, you appear to have crossed the line into abusive behavior in the last day or two on the motion and related talk page comments. This is unseemly and inappropriate. What was in the EEML archive was already handled. People here were not permanently banned. Other sanctions are about to run out in any case. You've launched into borderline personal attacks on a sitting arbitration committee member.

Please consider this a first warning to reduce your intensity of involvement. You have an opinion on the motion and are free to argue and present evidence, but you can do so without harassing anyone. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You're taking us off-topic GWH. As a knowledgeable contributor, I've offered important criticism I think, but I don't accept your allegations of 'personal attacks'. You may like to think about whether you yourself are engaging in such an attacks by repeating allegations of 'bad blood'; not saying such allegations are unacceptable, but it's not a good platform for offering such advice, because it looks hypocritical. Back to topic now? All the best Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

George, thank you for your input. I'd just like to point out that Deacon is not "an admin who followed the case but has never been involved in EE issues". He is an admin who has been involved in a disputes over an EE article (for example, see talk of [62] and the article's history for a revert war), filled an arbitration case over it ([63]), used his admin powers with regards to EE editors (old stuff, this year), and in December last year commented extensively in the unvinvolved admin section on AE in a series of reports involving me other EE editors, refusing to acknowledge he was involved ([64], [65], see the diffs I cite in the addendum to the amendment request here for more). All I am asking is for him to leave me alone (and I have done this for years) but it seems he will not disengage from pursuing some ancient agenda/grudge. PS. I hope you understand why the thought that Deacon has access to hundreds of my personal emails makes me uneasy; and I find his desire to be allow to freely quote them quite disturbing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

@Deacon: You are personally involved in (my perception) this vendetta. Step away. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 04:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I got involved in this because I saw the exchange on Shell's talk page, but I reviewed and formed my completely own opinion on the recent behavior. I am not repeating anyone else's allegations' Deacon. I am making my own. In my uninvolved administrator judgement, you are now editing disruptively and harrassing people. Please stop. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, what's your opinion of my comments got to do with the topic of this thread? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
The point is - clearly and concisely - your bringing this up here and in this manner is abusive and disruptive, and you need to stop. This is only the latest of several threads that have become a disruptive incident, related to the motion. It's entirely on-topic, or sufficiently closely related that you really ought to be listening carefully by now, that the topic is inherently disruptive and that you need to back off. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Deacon, although the jury appears to still be out on whether there is a legal expectation of privacy with regards to emails, Wikipedia's current policy, whether written down somewhere or not, is apparently not to publish emails on-wiki unless they have been published in a reliable, verifiable secondary source first. Where is en.Wikipedia's policy on posting emails, anyway? Does anyone have a link? Cla68 (talk) 04:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think we have one, which I believe is an oversight. We should draft one, preferably with input from legal experts. For now, please see
WP:OUTING comes to mind. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk}
04:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

(
Wikipedia:OUTING#Private correspondence. Several arbcom findings(plus echos without significant change) but not official written policy in policy or guideline format. The findings were in part in the EEML case, and thus directly relevant. Georgewilliamherbert (talk
) 04:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Someone probably does need to start a draft policy on publication of emails on Wikipedia. WP:OUTING appears to cover emails that reveal too much personal information, but that policy may not cover emails that don't reveal anything more personal than the editor has already revealed on-wiki. Cla68 (talk) 04:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
There's also
WP:COPYVIO - emails are copyrighted by the sender, and without their permission they can't be published on-wiki. That's an additional rationale used to remove them, in addition to privacy violations (both in email addresses and in contents). Georgewilliamherbert (talk
) 04:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, emails do appear to be copyrighted. Cla68 (talk) 04:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

:Thanks Cla68. I'm vaguely aware there are some fuzzy issues. Really what I'm asking is to the ArbCom, whether they will now consider permitting it; it is they who can punish/refrain from punishing should such evidence be quoted, and hence it is their decision no matter what our arguments are. I imagine, esp. given the US base of Wikipedia and the strong US element that the whole WikiLeaks affair may be of some relevance. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, you deserved a rationale explanation as to why the emails couldn't be posted. It appears that OUTING, COPYVIO, and several ArbCom rulings combine to prohibit it. Cla68 (talk) 04:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ah, the argument that "information wants to be free". Say, Deacon, have you ever considered publishing the contents of your own inbox? If you want so desperately to see what others have written, and discuss it, perhaps you should start by making your own private emails public, freely licensed and such? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I think everyone is aware that everyone who has a copy of the archive, whoever that is, could go post a copy on a blog or personal website or what not five minutes from now. We're not naive.

The point is - as with any Wikipedia policy - we can't enforce secrecy in the wider world. We can set up policy which states that those who violate privacy, related to Wikipedia behavior and contributions, are accountable here to the community and those users here whose privacy they violate. We can and will take local administrative response should someone do so.

I.e., if you feel that this archive is more important than your Wikipedia career, go post away. But don't be surprised if there's an indefinite block resulting.

If you don't respect the community's policies and core values, you aren't welcome here. Privacy *is* one of our core values, and something that the Foundation and Community (Arbcom, admins, individual editors) take very seriously. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The answer is no, Deacon. New members of the Committee are free to ask any of us who have access to copies to provide them to them if they feel they are necessary in making a decision. They are littered with private and personal non-public information and thus qualify for suppression if they are uploaded in their entirety, and expurgated versions are not trustworthy. To Piotrus, there have been several attempts at writing policies/guidelines in this respect; however, there has never been a point at which a happy medium could be found. The closest is the recommendation that private information (including private communications, where applicable) be forwarded to the Arbitration Committee via email rather than published onwiki. Risker (talk) 04:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

What about the quotations of passages containing no personal info? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
That would be an "expurgated version". Quotes such as that are inherently unreliable, because they do not give the context of the entire discussion thread. Risker (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that that "anonymous Wikipedian" (uninvolved, unsanctioned, and only concerned about the general public good, just like Deacon) who sent these pictures of Shell to Deacon, will be more than happy to provide other people's private emails to any new arbs upon request, or to anyone whatsoever for that matter. Whatever the merits, this is quickly becoming Outing and Harassment Part II. I thought at least this aspect of the whole thing was over and done with. Volunteer Marek 05:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
That's a little unfair, Volunteer Marek - the image involved has been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons (it is one of several photos of people attending Wikipedia-10 anniversary celebrations), and both Piotrus and Shell Kinney link to their RL names. That doesn't excuse the implication of Deacon's statements, that the two of them were "friends" rather than fellow Wikimedians attending a public, Wikimedia-focused event, but it's not outing. Risker (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
You're right in so far as that image is concerned. The comment was more about the way that it found its way to the Arb page (via an "anonymous" - and I'm sure a "concerned" - "Wikipedian") and the thrust of this request right here. No, true "outing" has not happened here. Volunteer Marek 05:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Not to quibble, but at the time Deacon disclosed who was in the photo, there were no names listed since the photographer didn't want to identify anyone who didn't wish to be known. Whether that kind of thing is outing, I don't know, but it's certainly not a particularly pleasant way to find out the photographs were posted. I don't particularly mind as it was obviously my intention to put my name on the picture, but Deacon couldn't have known that at the time. Shell ^babelfish 05:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

@Riske, so it's because the random view couldn't verify its accuracy rather than because arbs couldn't? BTW, I actually didn't know what the photo signified when I asked Shell about it, and wasn't intending to imply anything (but it was important to ask about). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Important how? And could you clarify who that concerned, anonymous Wikipedian was? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hold on, Deacon - are you confirming that you received the link to that specific photo via email from someone who identified the two individuals portrayed, without knowing context or veracity of the information you received, and you posted it onwiki? I had been of the impression that you'd somehow found it in the appropriate Wikimedia Commons category. This was remarkably poor judgment on your part, and an action that you'd likely have found unacceptable under other circumstances. In response to your post on my talk page, I think your desire to achieve a certain outcome is leading you to behave in ways that you yourself would find inappropriate in parallel circumstances. Indeed, several of your peers have already pointed this out to you, and I encourage you to take on board what they are saying. Risker (talk) 07:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
This photo has no categories, nor does it name anybody in the description. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) @Deacon—no quoting, period. EEML is done. Period. Please disengage and apply your "expertise" in the EE topic area to constructive efforts.

I regret to have to point out that as it was only the "likely" scenario that the "leak" was "legitimate"—no EEML member has ever indicated they were the source of private correspondence—possession of (I contend) absconded personal correspondence is questionable at best. I would add that per evidence I provided at the time (ignored), the mailing list failed precisely at the point at which the last message appears in the alleged archive. Please also note I am calling it "alleged" for Wikipedia's protection, not mine. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 05:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Request to amend prior case: Race and intelligence

So, is anyone going to put this case out of its misery? 94.116.127.55 (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Where's the archives of past requests?

I'm finding it rather difficult to research past cases. I assumed there would be an 'Archives' page of all past requests for clarifications, amendments, motions etc. but it took about 15 minutes of confused clicking around until I finally learned that "Motions and clarifications associated with arbitration cases are archived to the talk page of the associated case page" (found on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions). It took even longer to discover that there actually was a link in the navbar titled "Index of proceedings" instead of simply "Archives" which was what I'm used to. I'm guessing I'm not the only one having these problems. Unfortunately I don't have any suggestions on how to improve the system, but I felt it important to report on how frustrating it was to find specific information about historical past cases, especially when the various talk page links that led me here are all broken from all the shuffling around of pagemoves. I strongly believe that all past archives have historical worth, and should be cohesive and easy to follow. It's a shame that we have such a fragmented system of record-keeping. -- œ ^™ 12:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It certainly is a shame that our system is so fragmented. If we could start the arbitration system from scratch, we would probably adopt the current system of organisation, because our problem is not that things are badly organised now, but that they were badly organised before. There is the added complication of there being more than one system of organisation, and that the relevant system will depend on when the case in question was closed). I've renamed "Index of proceedings" to "Archive of proceedings", because you make a good point with that, and I've added a search box to
•
] 11:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

See also
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Statistics 2011

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Statistics 2010

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Statistics 2009

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Statistics 2008

Paul August ☎ 15:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

A list and summary of cases themselves is at
WP:RFAR/C); at least that's how I always find it, though it's been moved around under the newish and newly complicated pagenaming system. Newyorkbrad (talk
) 23:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You can find previous cases at
WP:RfAr/old. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS}
23:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I think that's the same destination page, actually. Thanks. (To OlEnglish's point, I fear it does remain much easier to find an old case than an old amendment or motion.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is long due for an upgrade to its system in this case, and applying some sort of relational structure to the records would no doubt be helpful. But the obvious problem is that we don't have the technical skill to implement such a system. If you have such skills, you could look into working on this. II | (t - c) 08:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

"Gaming the system at editors under ArbCom sanction is about as civilized as poking sticks at caged animals."

Setting aside the awful grammar, is this really an appropriate way to characterise editors who may be under ArbCom restrictions? Seems less than chivalrous to me. It's in the big pink box on the Request Enforcement page under the heading Conduct at Arbitration Enforcement. Lovetinkle (talk) 22:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

While the focus is on the conduct of the subject rather than the status of the object, I'm sure we will welcome appropriate suggestions for revision. Jclemens (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The template and the templates

Please note Tom Reedy's comment a few hours ago to his request for enforcement against BenJonson:

"Please reformat where needed. I found this to be a very difficult template to use and the instructions impenetrable. IMO it should be replaced by a simpler template."

I found the same when I tried to fill in the template on 2 March (and used the despairing edit summary "Oh how I hate templates"[66]), also about BenJonson. Actually, it's not templates so much that I hate, as this template. I'm sure it's perfectly simple for people who have become used to it, but for the rest of us it's indeed impenetrable. We have to spend a lot of time on it and we still never get it right. (Sandstein kindly reformated Tom's request; now it's very handsome. Mine was mistimed or too ugly or something... still not sure what the problem was.) I'm intellectually sure the designer, or improver, of the template meant well, but emotionally, I simply feel his/her purpose is to torment me, to make me feel a fool, and, worse, to make sure arbitration sanctions are actually not reinforced.
Can somebody please simplify the page? For instance, why does a template have to be full of other templates?? Is there somebody out there with pedagogical smarts as well as nerdsmarts? Bishonen | talk 23:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC).

Is a preloaded version (like what is used at
WP:AN3) better? I think what Tom Reedy did is that he used }} to close a link instead of ]], which confused the parser enough that the entire subst didn't go through. T. Canens (talk
) 14:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I am the guy who wrote {{
Arbitration enforcement request}}, and I welcome suggestions how it can be made more easy to use. Perhaps the instructions need to be clearer. But the use is, I think, very straightforward: you copy and paste everything, and then you fill out everything after the "=" signs. Yes, you need some understanding of wikitext markup for the diffs and such, but that's rather basic. I agree that preloading the template might help. Sandstein
14:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I think the template is perfectly usable, but simplification is always a good thing.
•
] 16:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Any process that requires the use of templates is inherently biased toward editors who feel comfortable using templates. For areas such as arbitration enforcement, where one can reasonably expect that editors of wildly disparate experience and knowledge will be drawn, any templates for editor use should be as simple and intuitive as possible. I'd suggest they not be incorporated into the process until they have been tried out and deemed satisfactory by editors with limited familiarity of template use. This one is complex enough that I wouldn't use it, and you'd get a straight report from me, but I wonder how many valid and perhaps serious concerns are not reported because editors uncomfortable with templates cut their losses. (And no, there should be no removing of reports just because the template isn't used.) Risker (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Right. That's what I meant by "make sure arbitration sanctions are actually not reinforced:" I think many look at the template, despair, and leave. Both Tom and I had to be extremely concerned before we'd fill in something like this, and we're experienced editors, in fact comfortable with wiki markup. Our reports would have been submitted sooner if it had been simpler. But the responses above, except Risker's, reflect what I expected: that I'm sure it's perfectly simple for you guys.. And Sandstein, of course you meant the template to be helpful, and I'm a little ashamed that all you get for your work is complaints from me.

[Through gritted teeth, swallowing several profanities: ] And I don't know what "preloaded" means. Bishonen | talk 05:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC).

I agree that people unfamiliar with templates may experience difficulties. The instructions do say "You may also choose not to use this template and format your request by hand, as long as you provide all relevant information as described in the template above"; perhaps that needs to be made clearer. The point of the template is of course that we get a reasonably structured and complete report and a framework of sections to work in, just as with requests for arbitration, which also use a template. Otherwise we would often get long enraged walls of text that do not tell us what exactly the problem is, no diffs and no proof of notification, etc., and it would take a lot of back and forth just to get some usable information.

"Preloaded" is a feature of MediaWiki that allows the construction of a link to an edit box that is already pre-filled with content, such as this request structure. I don't know exactly how it's done either, but perhaps somebody who does could give it a try. Sandstein 06:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

[67] <-- Click that link for a demo of what "preloaded" is (it is for AN3). We can actually get rid of the top-level template with preloading and instead use a pre-filled form with section headers and content to be filled in, which should make the result more obvious (and less likely to confuse the parser). Ideally, we would have a form where you can fill in the relevant stuff and it generates a well-formatted request for you. The problem here is that MediaWiki doesn't have something like that, so we are left with templates as substitutes. T. Canens (talk) 11:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I just created a demo preloaded version for AE: [68]. Does this look better? T. Canens (talk) 11:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, this is a substantial usability improvement. The pages that now control the format of AE requests are {{Sanction enforcement request header}}, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/preload and {{Sanction enforcement request footer}}. I am going to make some minor edits to them, but otherwise I think this can be deployed. Sandstein 17:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I've asked Tom to see how he likes it. Bishonen | talk 17:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC).
Yes, that is much improved over what I used. I kept having to preview and I couldn't figure out why some of my text disappeared and why some of it was in another, larger font, even though I opened up the ones that were on the page. It took as long to post as it did to find and copy the diffs. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I also find the template difficult and a pain in da butt, and I've filed several reports in the past. Formatting them properly (nm tracking down the diffs and writing the text) can be very time consuming. One recurrent problem is, as I recall that if you put a space, " ", in the wrong place after the "=" sign, or thread your paragraphs in a particular way, the whole thing becomes misformatted and then you have to spend oodles of time looking for that one particular space, " ", that is messing everything up.
Having said all that, I'm actually not against the template. The way I see it, there is way too many frivolous, battleground motivated AE requests already, and having a complicated template, by imposing a cost on the filer, cuts down (though not enough) on the number of these. It's simple economics - costs up, quantity demanded for frivolous sanctions goes down, the block/ban market works more efficiently (yes, there may be side effects in that some legit requests don't get filed, but that's true of any medication that packs a punch). In fact, I would encourage Sandstein & Co. to put some extra effort and work into the template and make it even more complicated. I'm not familiar enough with wikimarkup to offer any concrete suggestions, but it sounds like T. Canens has the skills.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The new system uses a preload editintro, which only displays on the initial edit. I've moved it over to the page editnotice, so that it displays permanently; whilst this means that anybody who edits AE will see unnecessary instructions, it also means that an editor will not lose the instructions if they make a mistake at the first edit. On balance, this is better I think, especially as the feedback here seems to be that the template sometimes breaks and needs one or two further edits to get right.
•
] 19:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I've tied in all the changes with a new input box, so the system for request submission is now at
•
] 19:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! But the current code:

does not seem to work as expected; the text entered into the editbox does not appear in the preloaded content. Does it need to be passed as a parameter or something? Sandstein 19:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Haha. As long as I don't have to pretend to understand it, I love to hear you guys talk. It's like poetry. :-) Bishonen | talk 00:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC).
The only way those boxes would work well (with our preloaded page) would be to make enforcement requests subpages (like
WP:SPI), which we don't want to do. Also, the instructions make scant sense when used as an editnotice. T. Canens (talk
) 01:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I made some changes that should make everything make somewhat more sense. T. Canens (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Question

I didn't think it relevant enough, or rather my place, to request some clarification on the "Single Account" terminology. (This question is brought about by the "Jack Merridew" issues. I long ago read through all the WP:SOCK, and WP:Alt Account stuff and other various policies and guidelines; but, I don't recall that IP (that is, not logged in) was considered "an account". I've noticed lately that there seems to be some confusion to that end, at least from my perspective. So, my question is: If a user who has an account edits without being logged in, is that considered to be editing from a second account? Is that explicitly stated somewhere? Perhaps AC would consider mentioning this when they address the current clarification request before them. Thank you for your time and consideration. —
?
17:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

"Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP" (my emphasis) is explicitly defined as sockpuppetry; the exact wording is "Editing under multiple IP addresses may be treated the same as editing under multiple accounts where it is done deceptively or otherwise violates the above principles. Where editors log out by mistake, they may wish to contact an administrator or an editor with oversight access to ensure there is no misunderstanding." and "Sockpuppetry [includes] Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP" (both from
iridescent
17:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Iridescent, I appreciate the clarification. I know the JM issue is much more complex than that, especially since he is open about who the IP is attached to. In that respect, it's far more convoluted than I care to sort out, so I'll leave that to all you good folks here. I hope all is well with you and yours, Cheers and best ... — ?
18:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Article permission request

Resolved

I'd like to write an article about Israeli medical high pressure bandages please. This article is not falling under my topic ban restrictions as they were specified here There are not going to be any single word about the conflict, and I mean this.user:Gatoclass requested I consult him about my new articles, if I have a doubt about the topic. I have zero doubts, but I did ask Gato, and he eventually agreed that I could write this article without violating my topic ban. I also asked my banning administrator , and he declined my request, but kindly allowed me to ask for a review of my proposal at AE, so here I am.
If I am to write the article, I will write it in my user space and present it for review before it is moved to main space. I will not touch the article and its discussion page after it is moved to the main space. I will not nominate it on DYK, and, if somebody else will I will not comment on the nomination.
IMO it is important for a topicbanned editors to be allowed to write such articles in their user spaces, the articles that are not violating their topic bans at all, but might be seen as borderline. Why it is important? It is important because it teaches an editor to behave in the topic he/she is banned for. It is a very harsh punishment not to be able to edit and/or to comment on your own articles, it is very difficult not to watch what's going on there, but it does teach to be patient and more tolerant to other users opinions.
May I please write this article? Thanks --Mbz1 (talk) 05:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for the fact that no one seems to have responded to this request (this is partly because you posted on the talkpage rather than on the actual requests page, but still, one of us should have noticed this before now). Have you received a response in another venue? If not, I'll follow up and make sure this is reviewed quickly. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
There's nothing to apologize for. It was my fault nobody responded because I posted it in a wrong venue. It was reviewed, and I am really touched by your comment. Thank you!--Mbz1 (talk) 05:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Re-organisation of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Moved to
•
] 21:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Just wondering

Where does the existence of this notice in the "Results" section at
WP:AE
come from: This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.? As far as I can tell, and maybe I'm wrong about this, there's nothing in the original ArbCom ruling which says that such a section must exist, or that it is somehow necessary to forcibly exclude non-admin editors, many of whom are more familiar with a particular topic area than the AE-admin-regulars, from the general discussion.
Admins ARE the only people who can enact bans/blocks and discretionary sanctions, but there is nothing here which says that non-admins cannot participate in the discussion of the proposed results. We are still a community of Wikipedia editors, even if some of us are admins and others aren't.
I could just as well make a notice which says that This section is to be edited only by right handed editors. Comments by others will be moved to the section above. and remove statements made by anyone I suspect of being a southpaw.
Why is that there? Honest question.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Volunteer Marek, the template was created in March 2009 by Sandstein, and there isn't anything in ArbCom's procedures which stipulates it must be used. There's a relevant discussion on the template talk page, which could be of interest. PhilKnight (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Length of statements

Statements posted on requests for arbitration are supposed to be a maximum of 500 words long, with a certain non-specified extra allowance per the judgment of the clerks, where needed. However... FT2's statement in the Mindbunny request is 2,000 words. Is this ridiculous length a special dispensation for former arbs? Or is it a tacit acknowledgement that FT2 is unable to restrain himself, length-wise, and must therefore be indulged? Or have the clerks decided to drive us all mad? Mad, I tell you! Bishonen | talk 17:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC).

I assume you mean the BLP & FR request. I would do something about it, but (1) I'm not sure how subsequent replies affect to the world limit and (2) one of us is probably going to remove the case request as declined within the next day anyway. NW (Talk) 20:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
It is of course a quite ridiculous length, but I really wouldn't bother doing anything about it because no one on Wikipedia ever bothers to read beyond the first 150 words in any arbitration statement. As my beloved nephew always says: "pack the punches at the begining and grab em in." Mr FT2, I am sure, is a terribly nice man, but he is rather tedious and does need to learn to pack his punches a little more tightly or his comeback as going to fail. Lady Catherine Rollbacker-de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I see that there is a (partially collapsed) statement currently on the page that runs to about 3,000 words. Will Beback talk 09:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

3000 words is, of course, grossly excessive. I have dealt with that particular section. If anybody is interested, I briefly discussed the value of such a restrictive word count with User:Newyorkbrad on his
•
] 11:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a problem here. Long statements are generally not helpful, particularly if there are lots of cases for arbs to read, and particularly if a case has lots of long rants that amount to peanut throwing from the gallery. OTOH, we have fewer cases there days, and often the request statements and responses to such by parties and arbs are the means by which the dispute itself is resolved. If is effectively the parties having a last ditch attempt to discuss matters with the eyes of the community and the committee on them - the result of which is often that the case is solved, or another solution emerges which saves the committee the far greater timesink of an actual case. Thus a strictly enforced word limit, even if set higher, may be problematic. I suppose you could limit contributions from non-parties (but often these are more perceptive and objective than partisan screeds). Alternatively, you need to have clerks judge the merits of contributions over a certain length, which has its own problem. The solution, I suspect, is simply to warn people that longer contributions are less likely to be carefully read. The maxim tl;dr often applies. Although long posts by certain people are usually worth reading.--Scott Mac 15:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I was linked to this section by clerk AGK. I'm strongly against any raising of the word limit, and believe it needs to be properly enforced. The bloat rot—both in terms of text and case duration—starts right at the beginning, at the RFAR. The notice at the top says it's not the place for full evidence, but for posts concerning whether the Committee is to accept or decline the application. If an editor can't put their point in fewer than 500 words, send them to me: I'll reduce it to below 500 words without removing any relevant meaning ... for free (seriously ... I figure I wouldn't have to do more than two or three for people to stop bloating).
The clerks should be instructed to simply remove text from the 501th word onwards, with a note to that effect, plus a message on the person's talk page inviting them to reword their post so it's compliant. Again, the clerks wouldn't have to do it much after people realised the Committee's rules mean what they say. The Committee needs to encourage succinctness in editor's posts to it: I say this as much for the benefit of the process as for that of the arbitrators and clerks themselves, who should be given the opportunity to make their decisions on the basis of tightly reasoned arguments. It's not a soap-box for editors. Tony (talk) 15:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Most editors are predisposed to writing at length, but I agree that almost all the statements made at requests for arbitration could easily be shortened through the use of a more precise, tight form of writing. I also think it would be a good idea to institute your suggestion for removing everything from the 501st word - because it is a perpetual source of confusion for the clerks as to whether we should redact statements summarily, blank the entire text, or otherwise delete selectively. I would like to hear the input of the arbitrators here, and will presently take Newyorkbrad up on his offer at his talk page to draw the attention of the Committee to this thread.
•
] 15:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

•
] 16:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm in favor of a sharp knife at 501, and a note from the clerk about it, the exception is reponses to questions from the committee (not the gallery/other people posting statements). There are very very few posts longer than this that merit it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I also like it, as it allows swift action by the clerks. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

More expansionism for us all to read as we speak (this one is now 807 words). I do believe that where a statement is knocking up close to the limit in the first place, additions should be "paid for" by a contributor's partial removal of their pre-existing text (with a link to it on their talk page, like this: Text relocated to stay under word limit). So you get your 500w slot, and that's that. OK, it's not ideal to allow the moral hazard of bloating via links to a user's talk page, but it would make editors think twice about adding and adding in a kind of endless dialogue with other contributors—and if they do post tit-for-tats, they'll make 'em short. It's a bit cumbersome for them to remove bits and paste and link them, which is a good hurdle. Tony (talk) 05:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Points of order: Political activism RFAR

The rules say very clearly (bolded): "State your request in 500 words or fewer, citing supporting diffs where necessary. You are trying to show the Arbitrators that there is a dispute requiring their intervention; you are not trying to prove your case at this time. If your case is accepted for Arbitration, an evidence page will be created that you can use to provide more detail."
But it seems that the clerks are just ignoring this. Quite a few entries are in the 800–1100 range. Which other bolded rules about ArbCom procedure will the clerks ignore? Tony (talk) 06:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Now I've just realised that AGK is the clerk for this RFAR. I find it weird that he is making partisan contributions to the process. I'd have thought the clerks would be strictly uninvolved, and if they had private feelings would keep them to themselves and either recuse or consciously avoid being influenced by them in their actions. This is the governing policy for admin behaviour, let's not forget.
I ask that the clerk recuse and be replaced by one who is overtly uninvolved in the matter and prepared to act with neutrality. Tony (talk) 07:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I noticed this by chance on my watchlist, and wonder why you did not take this up with me directly. I am not the case clerk for that request, because I have just been assigned to the MMN case - and, as you say, because I have opined in the request thread. I will not be clerking the case, and I do not recall doing anything that would make you think I would be. If you want me to explicitly recuse in the clerk notes section then I will, but that is usually only necessary if a clerk is directly involved in a dispute. Regards,
•
] 09:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
(Post-script) Ah, you mean the warning about word count that I gave yesterday. That was before I decided to comment. As for the clerks "ignoring" Committee policy, I confess myself seriously irked at your tone, and will waste no further time here other than to say that this is the norm. Spirit, not the letter, of the policy, eh?
•
] 09:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I got this badly wrong. Withdrawn. However, if it's "the norm" that a bolded rule in the box at the top is the norm, there's a serious problem. If that tone irks you, there's another problem. Now, the spirit and not the letter ... 500 words is the bolded limit, so I think 850, 1020, 1050, 830 words is far beyond any subtle distinction between the two. As you know, one of my concerns is that ArbCom cases blow out of control with text (and time) bloat. The fact that clerks don't take the word limit seriously ... I mean really seriously, is the rot that sets in at the start. Tony (talk) 10:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I think the issue is that the word limit is widely accepted to be too restrictive, by the community and by the current Committee. There is a discussion on the issue on this page, at
•
] 10:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This statement is over the 500 word length.
Please refactor it within 2 hours or it may be removed.

This is a re-occurring problem but, as AGK says, the hard part is deciding on what should be the maximum, and when clerks should intervene, especially when people new to arbitration are involved. Arbitrators generally dont care too much about this because waffly comments that are not addressed quickly end up being read by the entire committee anyway, and we dont enjoy watching someone refine their statement because then we need to read each revision as well. Perhaps we could start to make inroads by having a {{sidebox}} (similar to the one beside this comment) added to all statements, evidence, etc. which are over length. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Apologies. I am not a regular here. Feel free to remove my statement as I do not have time to refactor today. (700+ words) and again, my apologies, it was not a deliberate attempt to circumvent any of the rules. — ?
12:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I relocated a post I made here to the section above linked to by AGK. Tony (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The template displayed when editing the case page says, "Be succinct. Long, rambling contributions are less effective." Including a note on the word limit there could help. Gacurr (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

We also need to address the issue of replies. It makes little sense to limit initial postings to 500 words, but have no limit for the length of replies.

Theoretically, the posting on this page are just to show sufficient cause for opening an arbitration case. However the custom of settling some cases by motion may encourage some to present as much evidence as possible in the request phase. Or, it may be an effort to attack the opposing side with as much evidence as possible, regardless of whether the case moves forward.

Whatever the cause, excessive postings are a burden on Arbs and any member of the community trying to follow the request. Some cases are especially complicated and may require more explication, but the "santorum" request does not seem any more complicated than the average case. Perhaps there should be a mechanism for allowing additional material in extraordinary cases when the request itself is so complicated that it's difficult to fully explain in 500 words. Will Beback talk 21:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Tony1, (et al) hopefully this is sufficient. — ?
06:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Well ... no! It's nearly 40% over (682 words). Since you've asked me specifically, I'll say that there are slabs at the top and in the middle that could be removed or summarised. In places (the google bit, etc.) it becomes very discursive: I do believe the arbs will glaze over and skip through it, in which case your impact is fatally weakened. Chopping it to less than 450w (including the "response") would do your case a lot of good. It wouldn't be hard. Please let me know if you want me to spend 10 mins doing a version for your consideration, to prove the point. Tony (talk) 07:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement and reply lengths

I would like to ask that the procedure "Submission of evidence" is changed by adding the following short sentence:

"By default, [statements] are limited to about 500 words and about 50 difference links and must be posted on the applicable case pages. Subsequent responses to other users should be proportionate and short."

The issue is that a user who writes a statement of <500 words may then feel obligated to respond to others' questions. They then have to modify the original statement so that original statement and all responses fit into 500 words. Often this can't be done.
For example, in the current "Political activism" case, Coren posted an original statement of 373 words. But his current statement comprises 1110 words, including two replies of 130 and 99 words respectively.

MacWhiz posted a statement of 400 words which now has length 1195 words (including 795 words replying to the comments of 5 arbs).

Sadads posted a statement of 335 words which now has length 1236 words (including 881 words replying to 4 users).

Jayen446 posted a statement of 172 words which now has length 1006 words (including 834 words replying to 4 users).

Wnt posted a statement of 225 words which now has length 879 words (including 654 words replying to 4 users).

This is far from atypical. It is clear that users are staying within the limits for the original statements. But if any of these (by way of example) had to later also fit their original point and also replies to all other users within the same 500 words, they struggle.
Could the Committee consider making it clear that replies are outside the original 500 words and providing a limit or a target average words per reply (some shorter, some longer), or simply noting that responses are not formally word limited, because it's clear many users have difficulty on fitting replies into that word count. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that responses to other users should be outside the original word count. The idea is not to stifle discussion, or prevent arbitrators getting answers to their questions. And 500 may generally be a little low in complex cases. (And sorry for the excessive length of my original statement. I thought by hatting the background I could leave it up to people whether they wanted to read it or not.) --J N 466 18:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Please see my statement here as to why the current 500-word limit should be strictly enforced in all RFARs. This statement has been prompted by the current RFAR because I rarely visit them and was extremely disappointed to see that the bolded rule at the top, and the reasons for it, were being disregarded. Tony (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Tony, your comment is mainly that you believe all necessary points can be made within 500 words, inclusive of full responses to questions, points of clarification, or rebuttals of potentially 4 - 8 other users who address the users concerned.

It's not clear how this would work in practice. Would you 1/ limit all original statements to around 200 words to leave room for responses, or would you 2/ have users continually rewriting their statements to squeeze in responses, causing statements to be in constant flux and other users potentially to have to re-write their statements in turn?

I'm dubious but I accept you believe it's possible. I'd be interested how you would propose to do it, and whether you offer (or expect others to offer) a one man service for RFAR statement writing -- because most people don't have that skill and the average RFAR has a great many statements. It wouldn't be a "quick fix".

My underlying concern is that RFAR statements need to present the view -- and the evidence for that view -- for the user, also rebuttals for other views if needed, and then subsequently the user often needs to respond to a range of multiple-point questions added on an ad-hoc basis by other users and arbs. I don't see that routinely fitting into 500 words. Nor, apparently, do a great many RFAR participants. Hence the request that responses to questions are considered separate from statement length. The user has no control over questions asked. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I have a suggestion, with several parts, but they all depend on each other: (1) Raise the limit to 750 words per statement; (2) STRICTLY enforce that limit in all cases; just have the clerks cut off any statement at the 751st word; (3) any added comments, responses or answers should be placed on the TALK PAGE (i.e. this page), with a link from the main statement to the appropriate location on this page; alternatively the editor may edit his/her original statement so that all material will fit into 750 words; and (4) answers to QUESTIONS asked BY AN ARBITRATOR do not count in the word limit; this applies to questions, not statements, and the arbitrator should identify who is being asked the question, e.g. on the requesting party, all named parties, everybody, etc. I don't think my suggestion requires a lengthy justification; in light of the above discussion, the merits of my suggestion are either self-evident or they aren't. I would only add that in reading arb request pages from a few years ago it seemed that in cases with a large number of statements, the clerks would (at least sometimes) move the statements of "uninvolved" editors to the talk page. Part 3 of my suggestion is based on that idea, though as written it would apply to all editors and only to the comments, responses and replies that would exceed the word limit. It could be tweaked to apply differently to involved vs. uninvolved editors, if desired.
Neutron (talk
) 16:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestion, Neutron, but I believe 500 words is more than adequate for both an initial statement and in toto if it's subsequently added to in cross-fire between editors (something we should all want to discourage). Could I remind people that in addition to "State your request in 500 words or fewer", the instructions clearly say: "you are not trying to prove your case at this time" ... "All editors wishing to make statements should keep their statements and any responses to other statements to 500 words or fewer" ... "Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor inappropriate material without warning."
At a participating editor's invitation, I sent them an example of how easy it is to reduce statement text and in doing so to make it more effective. The revised version of just their final paragraph came down from 200 to 110 words without loss of substantive meaning, and was greeted very positively by the editor. It's not rocket-science: anyone here can do it. But it won't happen until the clerks apply the existing rules. No one takes the slightest notice of the rules at the moment, yet I believe it's a matter of both social practicality and consideration for the arbs. Tony (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Tony, many users do not have that skill. Dense yet comprehensive writing of that kind is a skill or art-form, not a "given". You have it. Most - the vast majority - clearly do not. It's a common mistake to think in terms of "A singularly skilled user could do it, so all users should be expected to". A major observation of the strategy and new user retention projects has been that those who are experienced at Wiki matters are (without blame being attached) sometimes least suited to understand that markup and policies are hard for others, because to them, it's easy. This is similar. You find condensing a statement to 500 words "obvious". Quite a few other skilled writers and FA authors probably do too. Most don't, which is why "brilliant prose" is comparatively rare. You need to consider RFAR statements and replies in the context of a community, 95% of whom actually do not have the skill you take for granted and will not be able to learn it - even under threat of forcible word limitation - for an occasional RFAR case. It needs a more widely workable answer. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
We have two sets of people at arbitration. Parties and everyone else who turns up to say their bit.

The only people who we should accommodate are the parties.

The others are voluntarily opining on matters that don't directly affect them. They can limit how much they say; they don't need to say everything on their mind.

Uninvolved people without the necessary skills can develop their skills by practise; they can do this by sticking to the word limit and trying to make their point in the available "space". John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I propose that we have:
A 1000 word limit for people listed as parties Keep the 500 word limit for everyone else, and this word limit includes any follow up thoughts by non-parties.
Replies to arbitrators do not count, provided they are an actual response. (this is part of
user:Neutron
's proposal above)
No word limit is imposed on arbitrators comments within the arbitrator section. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Out of curiosity, I wonder how hard it would be to institute some sort of "word count" within the edit box that would warn folks when they reached a certain number of words. Probably too complex for this single area of WP, ... just a passing thought. — ?
02:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
John, sounds good, although I grit my teeth at a whole thousand words (and would prefer 750w for named parties). Ched, your idea of the automated word count is excellent; these facilities are commonplace on the internet, usually as character limits (it's easy to arrive at an equivalent for these purposes). This would save the clerks a lot of time and effort, and would create precisely the environment for the disciplined management of RFARs. I vote that the matter be sounded out with WMF developers: it could be quite easy to arrange. FT2, on your comment "many users do not have that skill. Dense yet comprehensive writing of that kind is a skill or art-form, not a 'given' ": not so much dense as keeping statements tightly scoped (on-topic, if you like). It's easy: you start by writing the message(s) you want to convey to the arbs in short bullets; expand from there if you must, but remember that packaging your message to the arbs at the start of your statement will have the most impact. This is true of all such texts. Tony (talk) 04:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
The WMF developers would mark this as 'WONTFIX'. The word counter could be built initially as a gadget using the JavaScript word counter already designed for DYK purposes. I don't think it require much effort to develop a prototype. After a bit of testing we can make the gadget enabled by default for all users. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
This would be so useful for the project—not just here, but in a number of venues where text length is limited by consensus. Tony (talk) 05:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

My apologies - based in part on how other participants were acting, I assumed the replies weren't part of the 500 character limit. My thought on this is that because so much discussion occurs before a case is taken, and because "temporary injunctions" have sometimes made even when a case is not accepted (as with Pending Changes), it would make more sense to start a separate page for a proposed case from the very beginning, even though it may never be taken. This way people could make these discussion comments in more normal threads on a dedicated talk page, rather than using "@xxx" type responses. Wnt (talk) 02:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd prefer it to be

1000 words + replies for named parties

750 words for others

No limit for Clerk/Arbitrator sections. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 10:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

In your model, if an arbitrator directs a question at an 'other', can they go over the 750 word limit? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Guidelines, not exceptions, are what's expected. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 09:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others?

I am not sure that it's a
please slap me with a fish on my talk page. Thanks. Bearian (talk
) 16:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for clarification of an enforcement scope of WP:DIGWUREN

I am posting an updated version of my unanswered question from two weeks ago, as it seems to have been swept aside in the aftermath of the latest big wikidramu, which took over those pages shortly after I posted it, and was later weirdly archived here.
Regarding
WP:DIGWUREN (Wikipedia:General_sanctions
), would it be:

) applicable to an editor who at a general policy page (applicable to EE articles but also others) makes bad faith / incivil remarks regarding EE editors (for example, discussing the bias of "Slavic editors", identifying votes of editors as "X comes from a Slavic country" and makes similar arguments, the gist of which is arguing that EE editors are not neutral/biased

) applicable to an editor who at a general policy page (applicable to EE articles but also others) makes bad faith / incivil remarks regarding another editor, primarily by linking to or mentioning an EE-related ARBCOM case with expired sanctions to back the claim that "this editor is biased, as the XYZ case proves", "this editor has been found to be disruptive, to edit war, has supported editors who were found disruptive", and so on. In other words, is there any recourse when an editor is trying to damage another editor's reputation by citing/linking old ARBCOM findings with the rather obvious attempt to
poison the well
and win an argument by reminding others "what bad, bad deed that evil person did X years ago"?

If WP:DIGWUREN is not applicable, I'd appreciate comments what, if any, policies are, and where such behavior can be reported (or are editors just supposed to take such poisoned comments for years and decades)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Date bump 1. Still waiting for somebody to reply. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I think at this point this should be made into a formal Clarification request here [69]. ArbComs are busy with other stuff so hopefully a formal request will make them pay attention. And this is a pretty low-hanging fruit - editors should not prejudge or discriminate against editors or their edits based on their ethnicity/nationality. That much is common sense. Unfortunately common sense can be in short supply on Wikipedia sometimes and a clarification by the ArbCom to the extent that this kind of behavior just inflames the existing battlegrounds might go some way to calming the place down.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive_2&oldid=1160935659"

Block review/unblocking procedures and protocol

Wheel warring case

Application for taking part in J&S guidelines discussion

Target dates

A different kind of request

Unblanking Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Alastair_Haines

Application for taking part in J&S guidelines discussion - any progress?

Request for clarification: Appeals process

Statement by FT2

Question by Rootology

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann AND Ancient Egyptian race controversy

A request

Pointless bickering in AE threads...

Talk page separation?

Deposit EE admin side points here

MediaWiki Help

Requesting advice re. Obama editing restriction

Xenovatis

Everyking

Ugh!

Who to name as parties?

Arbitration statistics 2009 - half-year summary

Links

Definition of an (un)involved admin

Uninvolved requires a requesting editor open their request for action

Banning

Addition of parties to a pending RfAr

Bishonen

Publication of half-year summary of arbitration activities

SlimVirgin re Geogre

Holiday?

Obama articles amendment

Other obligations

Error in Bishonen motion

Wikifan12345

Date delinking amendment

SlimVirgin/LaRouche 2

Arbcomm page changes

How to add a party?

Format of Implementation notes

A request

I can't think of a coherent subject name

Scuro and mentor

MOS review per WP:ARBDATE?

Page display bug

Stuff

Excessively strident rhetoric

Proposal

Content moved here from project page

Jehochman

{other}

Meta Request: Administrators aiding a sock puppet at RFA

Request by Jehochman

Comment by Barberio

Comment by Ottava Rima

Comment by SB_Johnny

Comment by Lar

Enthusiastic Theoretical Endorsement by Alecmconroy

Comments by Arbitrators (0/0/1/0)

Comment by Pete Forsyth

Arbitrator poll: were you aware that Law = The_undertow more than 4 days ago?

Apology

Admitting and being crucified

Serious error in my statement at 'Administrators aiding a sock puppet at RFA' arbitration request

Unrelated accusations.

Attention Clerks

Fragmentation

How this should have gone...

IPs & Troubles related articles

Requests for Comment - Arbitration Committee 2

Re: JohnWBarber Versageek Lar RFAR: Further response to Vassyana

Discretionary sanctions for Troubles articles

Superseded concern

Notice of WP:ARBSCI on article talk pages

urgent clerk action required.

Suppressed some edits

Lack of arbcom oversight at enforcement requests

MOS review per
WP:ARBDATE
?