Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 26

• So let me get this right. A formal case won't be opened unless Toddst1 returns to active adminship, but if he does use his tools before that, he will be desysopped. However, the only way he can return to adminship is to unblock himself, which is a use of tools and will lead to him being desysopped. Well, there's a Catch22 for you. Black Kite (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Liz, yes it is technically possible to unblock oneself. If you look at my block log, you'll see an example. BK, yes, it's theoretically almost a Catch 22, but in practice I don't imagine people will count undoing his own self block against him. Plus he could always request an unblock from another admin. He blocked himself pretty late in the process, so it's not like the motion was crafted after he did it; we just felt it wasn't worth redrafting it when the intent was still intact. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I would add that if it is a Catch-22 it is one of Todd's own making. Nobody, anywhere in these proceedings, suggested that he should be indef blocked. That was his decision and he did it with his eyes open. Again, I would take that as a signal that this is all academic at this point.

talk

) 00:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Floquenbeam. It's appreciated! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Original announcement

So according to Motion 2, in the statement

For contacting administrators in private to seek either blocks on users he is in dispute with, or the performance of other administrative actions. Any further occurrence would lead to sanctions.

"Any further occurrence would lead to sanctions" is removed from the admonishment? Maybe this is my ignorance but wouldn't such behavior (contacting admins in private seeking blocks) lead to a sanction from any editor who was found doing this? I think this behavior, no matter who did it, should result in a sanction. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Please read the discussion that occurred during the motion, and then if you still have questions, ask them here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I can tell you that in my years as an admin I have been contacted numerous times off-wiki (by email, I don't use IRC) and although I have not always taken the action requested I have generally not found such requests to be inappropriate. If an action genuinely needs to be taken it hardly matters how the admin performing the action became aware of the need. If we didn't allow this, within reasonable limits, then we should just not have any ways to contact admins off-wiki.

talk

) 00:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, Floquenbeam, I was hoping to spare myself reading through the entire discussion but I'll go to the source.

And,

Beeblebrox

, I guess I am showing my ignorance to find your remarks quite surprising. I would never think of approaching an admin off-wiki to take action against another editor. It seems secretive and not in line with the transparency of having open discussions on Wikipedia. The only instance where I could see this as an alternative to open discussion is if there are privacy concerns that would involve outing either editor or if there were legal or criminal concerns or if it is an ARBCOM case. Otherwise, it seems to be unfair to the targeted editor, that there is this off-wiki, private conversation about their behavior without them allowed to defend themselves.

But I realize that this is tangential discussion regarding this case and just end it with saying I am surprised that this is the normal state of affairs for admins. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The transparency is in the block logs. If it particularly matters by what medium the sysop was alerted to a discussion, they can be asked and should tell you. Otherwise, all that probably matters is whether the actual action they took was in the project's best interests. (Despite this comment, I agree we are going off-topic. ;-))

[•]

09:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

My last word (promise): I think what actions are "in the project's best interests" is debated every single day on Wikipedia, on user and article talk pages and noticeboards. It's a subjective judgment where experienced admins (and arbitrators!) can legitimately disagree. If it was that black-and-white and uncontroversial, there wouldn't be so much constant discussion about how contentious issues or disruptive editors should be addressed. And I hope you can understand how having back channels to admins which can lead to something as serious as an editor indefinite block can give the appearance of impropriety and cliquishness (hence, much of the past controversy about the IRC channels).

And finally, if the "transparency is in the block logs" then I think it is essential that they fully explain the rationale for the block and that the editor who is affected is told this rationale and also it is explained how a block can be appealed. While this is often done, it doesn't seem to be mandatory as I have seen plenty of blocked editors not even receive a block notice on their talk page.

Okay, that's it. This is off-topic but I felt this was just an outsider's view that I had to add to the discussion. Now, I'll go back to editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Original Announcement

• I've gone ahead and responded in this diff, although I'll be archiving it from my talk page shortly. This was a poorly written motion and a poorly named case. Unless I'm mistaken, this is the only arbcom case named after a single person where the only two blocks handed out during the course of the case were to a person not named in the title of the case. As it stands, this motion is factually inaccurate in at least one place, but more importantly, omits a hell of a lot.

I wouldn't be making this comment if a similar motion had passed a week ago, but as it is, this motion is both factually incorrect in at least one place and omits a hell of a lot. I understand passing something to end drama - trust me, I don't want this RFAR to continue any more than arbcom does - but I'm still severely disappointed that arbcom didn't spend fifteen minutes to write a reasonable motion. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Kevin, this addition to the case page with the edit summary "presumably last comment" looks a lot like trying to get the last word. Complaining on your talk page is a common response to ArbCom actions, and expected, but the content and your comments at the case page suggest that you still don't understand why so many are unimpressed with you. You keep saying you understand but your actions scream that you see yourself as wronged and having made no significant mistakes. You created this mess and though Giano has acted unwisely and been blocked, you are the administrator who has misused ArbCom sanctions and constantly directed blame at others. The admonishment was necessary because your actions say you haven't got the message yet, and I think you are fortunate it didn't snowball into a desysop. EdChem (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Not trying to get the last word in out of anyone, rather trying to get a word in before the entire RFAR was deleted, which happened minutes after I posted. I should've been more clear in my editsum and said something more like 'presumably last comment by me.' Given that the RFAR was promptly deleted, there was a solid chance of me not managing to make a final comment. The thread created a mess, I exacerbated it, Giano made it worse, and arbcom made it comical. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• So, fault lies with the original IP poster, Eric, other contributors to the discussion at Jimbo's talk, you, Giano, and ArbCom? It's nice that you are in there, at least... would you like to also blame me, the posters at the RfAr, and the other commenters at the clarification discussion? Perhaps Jimbo for not jumping on the thread? You would be damaging your reputation much less if you stopped blaming everyone else and reflecting meaningfully on your own actions. EdChem (talk) 03:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• To an extent? Yes, absolutely, some fraction of blame lays with most of those people. I readily accept my share of the blame, regret my actions, and will not repeat them. As a very simple example: consider what drama would have been involved if arbcom had either decided to admonish me a week ago, or had decided to stick to it's original decision not to do so a week ago? It would have been a fraction of what ended up being involved. It's pretty hilariously ridiculous that people who held no opinion on my original action spoke up pointing out that arbcom's subsequent actions made them look silly. It is an incredibly rare circumstance where the blame for an entire event lays entirely on one person, and this wasn't one of those cases. This could've been stopped more than week ago if I had taken appropriate action, and could've been stopped a solid week ago if arbcom hadn't engaged in Vaudevillian shenanigans. And yes, since you asked: I consider you to have played a minor role in this dramafest, given that you intentionally or not directly misrepresented my statements to imply I was being untruthful. I act according to what I believe is right, and I've done so long before I became an administrator, whether my opinions are popular or unpopular. To be honest? I could care less what your opinion of me is; your actions have spoken louder than your words, both in perpetuating drama and in perpetuating a false narrative and mistruths. The fact that you think this was likely to snowball in to a desysop is also informative. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Rockfang, did you not archive the case page before posting the decision because the arbitrators need to formally decline it now? This sequence of notifying then archiving the decision is unfortunate as it allows a last word to be added by a party. Maybe procedures need to cover avoiding similar situations in the future? EdChem (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Because the case request was declined by motion I thought it would be logical to process the motion first, and then the declining of the case. With regards to avoiding similar situations in the future, being new at this, I suspect it took me a bit longer to complete the entire process when compared to the average clerk. As I get more adept, I believe the amount of time it would take me would decrease which could make things smoother.--Rockfang (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Rockfang, I know you are a new member of the Clerk team and everyone has to learn, I am not criticising your speed or intent, just suggesting that archive then posting - or at least close discussion, post result, then archive - would avoid parties trying to inject a last word, as Kevin did here after your notification. Other Clerks will be able to say what the usual practice is, but I would hope that comments deliberately made during a close would be avoided and discouraged. Regards. EdChem (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• EdChem I have asked the clerks to put together a specific procedure for cases that are declined with a motion (they don't have one at the moment) to avoid this kind of this in future.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Good idea, thanks.  :) EdChem (talk) 03:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• I have found the past couple days of metropolitan arbcom mindbogglingly surreal. Kevin G's "getting the last comment in" is one of numerous things that so just doesn't matter. Quite simply, Eric was pretty much spot on in assessment of the Wales talk page thread, which should have been stopped much sooner. Suicide is a real problem, which, according to our article, kills two thousand real life people a day. That is both important and something we are, per
  WP:SUICIDE "ill equipped to deal with." (In other words -- what Eric said in a non politically correct fashion.) The rest of who said who about who and edit warred and got blocked by whom and redacted and reverted ... pffft. NE Ent
  03:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'd like to echo what NE Ent said. The best thing to do here is step back and try and regain some perspective. Wikipedia is not really the best place to discuss matters such as this. Discussion gets out of control. It can cause a great deal of hurt. ArbCom can't wave a magic wand and make that go away, or make people act sensibly in discussions. If such discussions take place, they need to be carefully and sensitively moderated and that doesn't always happen effectively on Wikipedia. Despite there being a lot to potentially discuss here, about what could have been done better during the arbitration request and what led up to it, a lot of that can be done in the abstract away from these specific examples. There will inevitably be some further discussion here, but let's try and keep it brief and to the point. Carcharoth (talk) 06:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• NE Ent is, for the large part, correct, although I certainly disagree with his suggestion that I was simply trying to get the last word in. I was just trying to respond to an unbalanced motion before the entire case was deleted. As far as I know this is the first arbcom case in history where (a) it was named after a sole party who acted in good faith and (b) the only person who was actually sanctioned was not named in the case. Carch and the rest of the arbs who participated in this bungle: I readily acknowledge that I fucked up, severely, but at the same time, I sincerely hope that the rest of you realize that you also fucked up, and that you don't do the same thing in the future. This issue should have been silent a week ago, and it is almost entirely due to the actions of certain arbitrators that it wasn't. The IP post started a flare, Eric made it worse, and I unintentionally touched off a firestorm. In a way that completely boggles my mind, the actions of certain arbitrators managed not only to perpetuate my original and severe set of mistakes, but to misjudge the situation even further and multiply the resultant drama many times over. If this RFAR is a taste of the upcoming committee, then I fear significantly for the next arbcom term. And Carch, you could have waived a magic wand, either by admonishing me a week ago, or by sticking by what you thought was right and not doing so now. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

@Kevin. Did you react to Eric rather than looking at the whole picture? Did it not occur to you that the IP was posting in disguise and with the possibility (turns out that they are a site banned user) that they might be avoiding scrutiny per

WP:BDP could have justified closure of the thread long before Eric turned up. If your answer to either of these is that, as the first Admin. committed to action on that thread, you only saw fault with Eric's post then the community is fully entitled to clarify your actions in singling out only his vociferous opposition to the thread which, while creating shock and horror, actually breached very little and certainly not the policy you relied upon. You need to forget the Arbs. bureaucratic bumbling over the last week. You seem bitter that you have been "hooked" a second time for the same issue. Don't be. If you wish to rebuild community confidence start by asking yourself what else you could have done, including the alternatives I have suggested above. Leaky Caldron

11:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Leaky: I've answered literally every question you have posted, most of them multiple times, over the last week. Regarding community confidence: I'm comfortable that I have general support (which is not to imply they agree with all actions I take - or will take,) from more than a big enough portion of the community to feel comfortable. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Care to put your money where your mouth is by submitting a reconfirmation RFA? If you have general support it should be no problem to prove it.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I suspect I'd pass, and suspect it would be an utter waste of time. I also probably should've said 'the segment of the community that is here to actually build an encyclopedia.' Your last article space edit appears to have been in 2012 and you've barely made fifty nonarticlespace edits in the two years since - if you lack confidence in me, it doesn't particularly bother me. That said, not engaging with you on this talk page further to avoid unnecesary drama. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I rather doubt it would pass, Kevin, but I agree it would waste time. Please drop the stick. Jonathunder (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Regardless of the merits of the case, I sincerely hope that Arbcom itself takes some time for self reflection on how poorly the committee members handled this entire debacle. At the time this was dragged up from the graveyard, Kevin had already backed off, had been soundly rebuked by several members of the community and had already promised not to repeat his behaviour. So what purpose did Roger Davies' motion serve, other than as an attempt at appeasing Eric? Certainly you have failed to win over any respect from the complainers you sought to appease, and you have lost a considerable amount of respect from segments of the community at large. Your preference to simply bury your head in the sand when it comes to dealing with this group was already bad enough. But now you have shown Eric and Giano that if they throw a temper tantrum, you will cave in a desperate bid just to make it all go away. We all know they will pull this stunt again in the future - who wouldn't repeat what works? So the question, my friends, is whether this was a precedent setting mistake? Are you going to allow yourselves to be manipulated and embarrassed again next time one of them pulls a diva ragequit? And should people who don't have as many friends as the other side expect to get thrown under the bus just so you can say you did something? Resolute 14:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm bluntly wondering if there's a way to file an RFAR on, um, arbcom. I agree more or less with your entire post, but do find it also worth noting that even with this outcome I'm pretty sure looking at his talk page that even Giano is pondering roughly the same question I am. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

As amusing as that would be, in reality, there is little to do at this point but let the drama die down. I did think it was important that arbcom be aware of how bad this looks on them, but I remain hopeful (some would probably say naïvely) that the committee will consider both its handling of this case and the potential consequences of their actions such that we will not see a repeat in the future. Resolute 15:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't intend to try to do something of that nature, although I do believe that arbcom owes pretty much everyone involved in that case an explanation of their actions, withholding any necessarily private details. I don't accept the idea that a lower standard of public accountability should apply to the freaking arbitration committee than is regularly applied to anyone else. I can believe that such an explanation could be provided in a relatively drama free format accompanied by a brief period of public comment in a way I more or less outlined here. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

To the arbs: I realize how annoying it is when someone says I told you so, but if you look at the talk section just above this one, well, I told you so. And I agree with everything that Resolute said here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Short analysis: ArbCom dished out the wrong "solution" far too late, and in a ridiculous manner. Is it time for a vote of no confidence in ArbCom - already? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

What exactly is the point of an admonishment?

Kevin started throwing his back in your face as soon as you proposed it, and hasn't stopped since. He's declared on his talk page that any "troll" who mentions it will be reverted immediatley. Such trolls are most likely to be the next editors he treats in the same way he treated Eric.

Admonishments are widely ridiculed within the community. They make you look weak and indecisve. If you're going to do something, do something meaningful. You don't have to go the whole hog. Why not get into the habit of removing the tools for a month or more, with no need to go to RfA to get them back?

As a committee, what good do you think admonishments do? What effect do they have on the people who receive them? What effect do they have on the reputation of the committee? Is their overall effect on the project positive or negative? 188.29.42.250 (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The point of an admonishment is, I believe, to set on record ArbCom's disapproval of a party's actions and is effectively a 'black mark' on that party's 'record'. Should that party again find themselves before ArbCom for similar misconduct, having been previously admonished, there is a very good chance they would face tangible sanctions, such as a siteban or a desysop. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Although I thankfully had noting to do with this particular mess, I can confirm that this description accurately portrays what this arb understands the purpose of an admonishment to be.

talk

) 20:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I agree with both of you. That's how I understand the intended purpose of an admonishment, too. And as to my second and third paragraphs...? 188.29.36.180 (talk) 09:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• Not that this is a good place to discuss admonishment in general but it seems doubtful, as discussed elsewhere,[2] that it has much, if any, precedential effect .-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Kevin ignore the above section

• First, Kevin should just move on. The next demand made of you (for the umpteenth time) just say to yourself, 'it's over, and there is nothing left to say,' and stick to that - no matter the provocation. Trust someone else will deal with it if it gets relentless. And next time you respond to the irate someone who will criticize your admining (and it will happen) remember to keep civil.

Second, it is rather inciteful that Carcharoth notes that moderating is difficult, but BLP actually requires that moderation (either, self-moderation or induced moderation) occur everywhere on the Pedia. So, here an admin tried to moderate, and without any of the trappings -- or time -- that Arbitration has. BLP issues happen in real time and arise in real time, and have to be dealt with in real time, expiditously. So, arguing that someone should have acted sooner, or later, or different to moderate the discussion is in the end only so helpful, after-the-fact. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Original announcement

• The removals have been implemented through meta. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Original announcement

The user had been blocked in an Arbcom decision; recently he tried to use his talk page to appeal the block, whereupon an Arbcom member deleted the appeal and revoked the editor's talk page privileges [3]. The Arbcom decision was offered as the reason for the revocation of talk page access, but the new block was not logged at

1. did the committee decide to take these actions, or were they unilateral?
2. are these actions the result of the arbitration case, and if so shouldn't the change to the block settings be logged there?
3. was the unblock request deemed inappropriate purely because it was posted to his talk page, or for some other reason such as its content or timing?
4. has the committee decided that, in general, it will accept unblock requests only via e-mail?
5. if the committee now prefers to accept unblock requests only via e-mail, would it care to explain why? —rybec 20:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that arbcom only deals with these sorts of things via email.--MONGO 21:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that ArbCom doesn't deal with them at all, simply turns them down as a matter of course. Eric Corbett 21:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

That understanding appears to differ from the edit comment on the revert: "rv, per Wikipedia:ARBPOL#Forms_of_proceeding; as always, we will hear this appeal by email only"[4] --Guy Macon (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't differ from it all, simply a different method of delivery. Eric Corbett 22:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as someone from the inside - I do wonder and regret that we didn't reply to some emails sooner. We didn't turn down unblock/unban requests as a matter of course...but concede a low proportion were reversed. At least that is my impression. Be good to get some percentages on that actually. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I've seen several supposedly one-year bans that seem to get automatically rejected on appeal after the year is up and become de facto permanent bans. I guess you have too. Eric Corbett 23:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixed terms ban aren't really much use as they assume that problems will magically be fixed by the end of them. What the committee is looking for is evidence that the user has moved on from the behaviour that was responsible for the ban in the first place.  Roger Davies ^talk 00:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with that and am aware that many people don't recognize past mistakes. Sometimes though I wasn't so sure...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If fixed-terms bans aren't much use then why issue them, when we all know that appeals will be rejected? What kind of evidence can a banned editor possibly produce to convince a committee with that mindset? Eric Corbett 00:14, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The committee rarely issues fixed term bans. They're usually of the "can be appealed after twelve months" variety. What mindset are you talking about? On the sunstantive point, it's not usually difficult to tell from correspondence with the editor whether they're still dwelling on old stuff, still old nursing old grudges etc.  Roger Davies ^talk 00:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

There are an extremely tiny number of former editors that don't deserve a second chance....in this case, arbcom should definitely lift this ban and allow this editor to return. Its understandable that you want examples of good behavior...not always easy to find unless you look at Commons (if they participate there) or some other wiki...but seems Will has acknowledged past mistakes and made overtures to avoid repeating them. Its not like Will won't have a bunch of editors watching his every move. Arbcom allowed Rootology to come back for heavens sake...and he later went on to become an admin.--MONGO 00:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

What about the situation where an editor has, over the years, had second chance after second chance after second chance? Not all of it immediately apparent to the casual observer? How many occasions do you continue to give the benefit of the doubt when experience?  Roger Davies ^talk 00:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how many chances Will has been given...if we're permitted to discuss that publically then that would help as I am not aware of everything involving that editor. If he has been given multiple second chances then his appeal would indeed need to be convincing.--MONGO 00:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes so Will has offered apologies to all involved and stated that he will not do it again. Not sure what more is demanded of him?

talk · contribs · email

) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

That's inaccurate. He has not apologised to all involved. But perhaps more to the point, it's difficult to know what weight, if any, to attach to an apology when it comes in close proximity to a denial that very much was done wrong in the first place.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

All he posted to his talk page that pertained to 2014 was an apology which can be seen here [5] I guess he may have sent more to arbcom.

talk · contribs · email

) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

That's not accurate either. He posted 1100 words of which only fifty relate to the current appeal.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes the first bit was his appeal from more than 6 months ago. It is fairly clearly delineated.

talk · contribs · email

) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree entirely with MONGO, it's time to unblock Will, and I also hope arbitrators stop blanking his appeal on his page. To the jaundiced eye, those blankings don't only bring the message "as always, we will hear this appeal by email only", they also say "and we don't want outsiders and plebeians to be able to read you appeal, either, because it's none of their business." But I look at it like this: no, it's not the community's business to hear the appeal — "hear" used in the sense of assess and respond — it's arbcom's, via e-mail. But I refuse to believe Will hasn't also submitted his appeal by e-mail, or soon will. What harm can the double posting do? Is it really not of any use to arbcom to get some community input, for instance in this thread here? You don't have to acknowledge it or respond or anything, I can see how that could be awkward. Keep your own discussions in camera by all means. But it's really disappointing if the committee's mindset is that we don't want no stinking commentary. Are you by any chance confusing yourselves with a jury, which needs to remain unpolluted by input from the outside? If that's it, just get over yourselves, please. Bishonen | talk 00:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC).

Yes it does sort of give the appearance that arbcom wishes to operate in secrecy and without community input or oversight. Per here [6] it appears that Will emailed Arbcom Jan 16th,2014.

talk · contribs · email

) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic here at all. In this instance, it was the banned user who compiled a secret dossier on another editor, circulated it by email, and sent it to Jimmy who applied a secret ban. Such transparency as exists was provided entirely by ArbCom in opening a case about it, and handling as much of it as policy permits in public.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• The only purpose of indefinite bans of content creators is bullying. There's no need in indefinite bans. They do not help the project. They even harm the project. In the worst case scenario reblock takes only a minute. Indefinite bans create endless dramas, and take lot's of time. Just think about that:Will submitted his latest request somewhere in January. Now is the March, and he still got no response. Besides many banned users are not interested in ever again editing this site. They simply want to leave, but for whatever reason leave unbanned. I know at least three such persons, but the arbcom and a few anonymous bullies who call themselves "the community" do not let them to leave. It is not only inhumane,not only sick, it is insane.76.126.140.150 (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that indefinite bans are always inappropriate. Sometimes it really is the only reasonable answer. However, if we really have a case of an overzealous ArbCom ban, it definitely needs to be reviewed. Still, there is a difference in reviewing a single case, and undermining the entire purpose of the ArbCom. The Committee is called in when no other methods provide an answer. I have no opinion on this specific case, as I have had no involvement in it whatsoever. I would surely hope that whoever reviews this case takes everyone's opinion into consideration. At the end, however, there is a form of bureaucracy governing here. Decisions can obviously be challenged, but in the end someone's decision must eventually be respected. —Josh3580_talk/hist 07:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I did not say always. Of course pedophiles, vandals, hackers of private email accounts and their cronies should be banned indefinitely, but the problem is that vandals don't get banned, it is content creators who usually get banned, and banning indefinitely somebody who contributed to wikipedia for a few years, wrote many articles is wrong. Indefinite banning of content creators is bullying, and the way of the arbcom to grab more power. Reblock takes only a minute. 76.126.140.150 (talk) 07:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I hear you, and I completely agree (with one exception). You did say that the "only purpose" of indefinite bans was "bullying." That is where I disagree. I respect the ArbComm, they play a vital role here. And, again, their decisions are always subject to review. I only hope that whoever reviews this case looks at it from a neutral point of view. From this thread, it appears that an individual may (or may not) have been overzealous. I really don't know, I'm speaking from a general point of view. If that's true, it isn't the entire ArbComm's fault. I was just trying to draw that distinction. I (personally) really do appreciate your very well considered comments. —Josh3580_talk/hist 07:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

With respect to "And, again, their decisions are always subject to review." Review by whom? The entire reason why we are here is the appearance that involvement of the community in a review was not desired?

The community asked the committee "to resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons" and "where significant privacy, harassment or legal issues are involved [to] hold a hearing in private". In this context, as they have no access to emails between the parties, evidence about non-publicly disclosed private information, or oversight history and suppression logs, individual editors are rarely, if ever, in position to assess such the situation or to make an informed opinion in, for instance, outing and harassment cases.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Most of the case had none of the issues you mention and thus the community is perfectly able to provide oversight / review much of the case in question.

talk · contribs · email

) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

That's not really accurate either. The crucial parts of the case can't be easily reviewed.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure it is. But then you drafted the case.

talk · contribs · email

) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Remedy. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. NE Ent 19:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Nah. People often get obsessive and develop bees in their bonnet; this is often completely uncharacteristic and the dispute ends up dominating their every waking moment. A site ban is an enforced

disengagement and gives people an opportunity to find other ways to fill their time, perhaps rediscover things elsewhere, and leave their entrenched behaviour behind. This doesn't work for everyone; some people are so consumed by a dispute that it's with them for a very long time. The regular reviews are intended to ensure that people aren't banned for longer than nis necessary.  Roger Davies ^talk

06:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree completely. I think a lot of people have a lot invested in this decisions / ruling.

talk · contribs · email

) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Should "provided he is able to demonstrate to the Arbitration Committee" be changed to "provided he is able to convince the Arbitration Committee"?

"Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You blocked my account. Prepare to be talked to death." --Guy Macon (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes ;)  Roger Davies ^talk 06:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with those who say that Will should be given another chance. Give him the chance to prove that he can avoid his past mistakes - he made some valuable contributions to the encyclopedia and in the areas I generally edit was a valuable asset.

talk

) 21:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I'd also like him back providing his entire focus is quality content work in non-problematic areas.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I want him back in problematic areas because he was doing good and necessary work there, but without his overzealousness and outing. Andries (talk) 08:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Most of my Wikipedia interaction with Will was that of conflict with them. And my understanding was that the reason for the finding was of harm to a user, which is the area where I unabashedly "see red". I think that the main rationale for continuing their ban is deterrence. The arguments to the reverse are many. One quandary is that the strength/impact of Wikipedia sanctions is proportional to the amount that they value their presence (particularly by that user name, which inherently includes scrutiny and accountability) on Wikipedia. The fact that they have been trying to come back indicates that they value that, and that potential future review of their actions will be influential on their behavior. Also, the operation/deliberation of ArBcom in secret I think has been one of the main contributors to the bad decisions they have been making. This tends to forment two of the worst problems...."group think / group dynamics" and a lack of a requirement to provide a rationale for individual's decisions. Of course, where there are privacy issues, the ability to deliberate those in secret needs to be maintained. Perhaps it's time to give Will a chance. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Nobody who has spent even a day on the committee, or looked at the way votes split and deadlock, will conclude that group dynamics are at play. The make up of the committee is so diverse that the problem is not group think but finding sufficient common ground to reach a reasonable and timely decisions.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It is interesting as it is nearly impossible to figure out what the positions are on the committee.

talk · contribs · email

) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

This issue has been brought before three very different Arbitration Committees. Fifteen arbs voted in the 2012 case which created the ban. The 2013 appeal was rejected by another committee of fifteen that included 40% new members who were not involved in the original decision. The issue is now under consideration by a committee of 14 members, 80% of whom were not involved in the 2012 case. I don't know what the outcome will be of this new appeal but it seems to me that the issue has been examined by a large number of some of our most respected members of the community. It is an ever changing group elected by the community that performs mostly arduous and thankless tasks. I don't see repeated criticisms and drama over routine actions to be either supportive or productive. If the community wishes to change the guidelines under which Arbcom functions and would like to require that ban appeals be conducted in a public forum then a community wide RfC would be the vehicle for such a change not shouts of outrage over a single case each time it comes up.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't that there is a request to "change" the guidelines so much as follow them. Somehow the actual appeals policy of "usually" being heard by email is being morphed by assertion into "always," which is obviously has a different meaning. ("The sun usually rises in the East" sounds a bit odd, doesn't it?) It would be helpful for the committee or representation to address the criteria by which whether an appeal will be by email / not by email is determined. NE Ent 22:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The only criteria I know of is "does the committee wish to consult the community about the appeal?" If yes, discuss the appeal on-wiki. If not, keep it on e-mail. In a case like this one, where some the evidence was heard privately, I see no reason to break long-standing practice.

[•]

22:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Why does it matter, other than so that political pressure can be applied to individual arbitrators?

[•]

22:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It matters because

• Ya'll Y'all are supposed to represent, not replace the committee community
• Transparency is policy
• Research has shown ensuring participation and transparency is crucial for maintaining the stability of self-governing communities.|^[1] NE Ent 23:10, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Then maybe an RfC is needed to clarify what are the criteria for hearing appeals in private via email vs. hearing them in a public forum. I'm new to the ban appeal topic. Can someone point me to recent examples of BASC/Arbcom discussing and voting on a ban appeal publicly?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The big issue here is we can't release all the information regarding the case. I'd be more than willing to post a summary of my thought process in regards to this case but ultimately there is a lot here that should not, or due to privacy concerns cannot be public. Making a ban appeal public without being able to bring those considerations into play would probably cause more community division and pressure than simply leaving these details private. NativeForeigner ^Talk 17:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Timing

It appears that Will Beback's post to his talkpage resulted from frustration at the lack of response to his emailed appeal (suggested to have been as long ago as January). Would it be possible for ArbCom to confirm when the ban appeal was received by email? Has Will Beback been kept updated as to the progress of his ban appeal? When do you anticipate being able to notify him of the outcome?
Out of wider interest, it would also be helpful to know whether the timeline for dealing with this unban request is typical (i.e. how long does it usually take to process such requests and are users kept updated whilst they are being considered?). Is ArbCom satisfied that unban requests are being processed as efficiently and expeditiously as possible and, if not, what is proposed to improve the position? WJBscribe (talk) 11:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

[•]

20:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Is that fact stated anywhere on policy/guideline/information pages? If not, could it be added to one or mroe? I had no clue that appeals would take so long, let alone that such detailed consideration would be given. If a policy/guideline/information page said basically "Arbcom sometimes examines the original case in detail, so some appeals will take several weeks or more", you might prevent confusion and/or anger over the time that you're taking by linking it whenever you contact an appealant to say "We got your appeal and are reviewing it". I note that you say that it's normal to take this long, but I suppose the vagueness of "sometimes" would explain a weeks-long process without giving an appealant reason to object that his case is different from most. Nyttend (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

WP:ARCA; appeals of AE site-bans are handled by the committee by email. Appeals about desysopping are effectively made to the community via a new RFA. Any appeal with a significant privacy element (outing, harassment, etc) is heard by email. We've started getting the appropriate information in the right places. But some of the details may change once the current discretionary sanctions review is over.  Roger Davies ^talk

10:34, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Admittedly his posting occurred after he did not recieve an (in my opinion) adequately timely response from the committee. I should have sent some sort of response, but as we had made progress assumed something substantive would be sent out to him soon, which it was not. NativeForeigner ^Talk 17:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I've been thinking for some time about raising, with the new Committee membership, User:Risker/Mailing list draft. (By the way, every one of you who was elected or reelected in the most recent vote expressed some amount of support for something like it, in your responses to my question.) Anyway, the discussion here, about it not being clear to the community how the ban appeals process is managed within the Committee, strikes me as being a related issue: what needs to be kept confidential, and what does not, and how the Committee can best deal with transparency. I encourage you to work on something like Risker's draft, that could communicate to the rest of us more clearly how information moves around. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I just sent two e-mails to Will Beback. One acknowledging receipt of an e-mail he sent to us today (11 March going by UTC timings) and another e-mail updating him on the appeal. I would be more than happy to maintain a timeline of how such appeals are handled, but the level of detail I would include may need further discussion. A short version would be: initial appeal received 16 January; acknowledgement sent the same day. Substantive appeal received 25 January (addendum sent on 27 January); some subsequent back-and-forth discussion included Will Beback but most discussion was internal. Request for an update received from Will Beback on 10 February (and acknowledged the same day). A preliminary response sent to Will Beback on 15 February, and he responded the same day (and his response was acknowledged). Another request for an update was received on 25 February (this appears to be the one that no-one got round to acknowledging). Another request for an update received on 6 March (I replied to this one the same day). Further communications sent on 6 March and Will Beback replies the same day. Will Beback writes again on 11 March (acknowledgement sent the same day). The further e-mail I mentioned above is sent. And that is where things now stand. This level of responsiveness (including sometimes failing to acknowledge an e-mail or two) is fairly typical given the volume of e-mails received. Taking time (weeks and months) to deal with something can either indicate that it is a complex matter resulting in extensive internal discussions, or it can indicate being busy with other things. In this case, probably a bit of both. Tryptofish (and others) is this the level of transparency you want, or is it something different you want? Carcharoth (talk) 07:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for asking me, Carcharoth. Personally, yes, I find what you said here very helpful, so thanks for that too. FYI, Roger Davies left me a message on my user talk, stating that the Committee regards Risker's draft as being non-controversial (which comes to me as a pleasant surprise, given past discussions). Because you ask me what I am looking for, I'll remind everyone that I originally raised the issue a long time ago (in a galaxy far, far, oh never mind), at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 13#Thinking about the mailing list, in the wake of a dispute between some previous Arbitrators, out of my belief that the Committee would benefit from further transparency. (Risker's draft also includes material about routing messages to other venues outside of ArbCom.) So, when I saw here that other editors were pointing out how little the broader community understands about how the Committee deals with appeals, that jogged my memory about transparency. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

In the wake of the

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2014 5#A drive in March?
  - Starting point of the escalation that has brought me here. My view of the situation are as follow:

  Fremantle99 created a page for a March BackLog-Drive (an internal process for reviewing a larger scale of pending submissions)

  Chris troutman asked if there was consensus for a drive, of which Fremantle99 replied they were not aware one was needed.

  I responded that a consensus was not required as it is a volunteer process that members could choose to participate in or not.

  Hasteur objected to there being a drive, in which consensus is not required.

  Due to a request to hold release of a new version of the script in the Dec/Jan drive (by me or that I at least supported as I remember), I stipulated that before this drive is started it will need to clearly be declared that this drive will not, and can not, hold up production and release of new versions of the script as they are badly needed nor can this drive hold up discussion or development of what we want/expect to be able to make the new Draft: namespace do for the project.

  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Conclusion 1

    Josve05a asked if there will be a drive or not because the above discussion was unclear to them.

    I responded there will indeed be a drive, and re-stipulated that the drive alone would not be allowed to be cause to hold up any development of Draft: or releases of the

    AFCH

    .

    Hasteur left a very frustrated response worried about things that had already been stipulated would not be allowed to be an issue, of which I responded in that manner.

  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Conclusion 2

    Josve05a asked if there will be a drive again because the above discussion did not clear it up for them.

    Hasteur accused them of forum shopping (for asking over and over in the same discussion thread, this is hardly forum shopping)

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2014 5#Template-protected edit request on 24 February 2014

  Hasteur requested an edit to {{

  AFC submission/tools}} to disallow pages to be moved to WT:Articles for creation/

  project space and only allow them to be moved to [[Draft:]]

  I felt this was a

  POINTy

  request and declined it stating that "Draft:" was not the preferred location for submissions at this time but saying some of the other incidental requests I would add to the template for him when I had a moment (as I remember I was heading to class).

  Hasteur did not find this acceptable and called for another  Template editor to answer the request, of which Jackmcbarn obliged him and declined his request.

  Three and a half hours later, I kept my promise and completed the parts of his edit request that there was agreeance on (diff)

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/2014 5#Helper tools feature request - copyvio scan
  - separate disagreement where Hasteur is claiming that offering a link to allow reviewers to scan for copyvios shouldn't be allowed because it takes up to two minutes for those scans to run and that is a waste of time and I countered with a rhetorical question of so you would rather them waste four minutes waiting for an edit page to load where they can get to the existing link/button anyways which seemed to elude him.
• POINTy
  draft review.
  • Review of Devyani Khobragade
• GNG
  when the draft does meet the second point.

Until the committee decides an appropriate course of action, I'm done discussing anything with Hasteur related to

I'm not sure of the protocol here, but as there are no sanctions against him AE can't be used. If this has been going on for a long time and has been extremely disruptive to the AfC project it may warrant a case of its own. That being said, perhaps the Kafziel case shouldn't have been only about Kafziel. KonveyorBelt 20:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Konveyor Belt, admonishment from ArbCom for this exact behavior isn't considered a sanction? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 23:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• I meant long term sanctions like topic bans, a 1RR limit, or discretionary sanctions. Admonishments aren't restrictions and don't have any real long term effect except the informal provision that some might keep it in mind when dealing with other problems, and are not really eligible for AE. KonveyorBelt 23:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Fair enough I suppose. What do you suggest the proper course of action from here would be? This behavior simply can't go on, and I want to make sure I follow proper process in getting the disruptive behavior stopped. Thanks for any input you can offer, Konveyor Belt. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 00:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• If it's really that bad and very disruptive to AfC then a full case might be warranted. KonveyorBelt 00:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• I can only see it getting worse, but due to the editor conflict between him and I, I don't want to be the one to say that is necessary. Perhaps Huon, DESiegel, one of the other involved editors, or another arbitrators opinion would be best here. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 02:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• I have not been very active on AfC over the past month or more, and while I have been active in the past, and was fairly active at the time of the events that led to this Arb case, I have never been as active as Hastur, Ann Delong, or other AfC regulars. Most of my exchanges with Hastur have been positive. The exchange over the Ken Block draft, mentioned above, was not, but was in no way disruptive. Hastur reviewed the draft, and declined it as not sufficiently demonstrating notability, a very common decline reason at AfC. The drafter came to the help desk to ask what more was needed, and I responded with this and a bit later with this I then left a message for Hastur and got this response. I disagree with that response, and said so, and acted on my views (I approved the draft and nominated it for a DYK slot) I did not find his response or indeed his action "disruptive". I do fear that Hastur is feeling oppressed by the backlog at AfC, and the very limited effort other editors are making, and is perhaps acting too rapidly to give drafts optimal attention. But not without reason. I have seen what seems to me a similar sort of backlog-inspired rush at NPP and SDC-CAT in the past. On the other issues mentioned above, i do think the AfC process should move to the Draft namespace as soon as is reasonably feasible, but i have no opnion on whether the various scripts and tools are ready for that and if not when they would be, nor on the other matters mentioned above. Disagreement and drama are always unfortunate, but if there have been actions needing arbcom intervention, i am not aware of them. If I am being asked to convey concerns to Hastur, i am willing to formulate a message, but i would like a clearer indication of what concerns i am being asked to raise and who is aking or endorsing the request. @Technical 13 and Konveyor Belt:DES ^(talk) 14:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you DES for your response and thoughts on the matter (or at least the part of the matter to which you were referred). This is exactly the reason that I don't want to say if it should be pursued or not as an issue.

I think that a great many of the AfC reviewers are feeling overburdened and oppressed by the backlog and the changes, and I am not sure that is a valid reason for his

CSD:G13 assessments are the primary reasons they are not reviewing pending submissions. This being the case, since the backlog

is all but dealt with, I think that a backlog drive is exactly what is needed to get the submission backlog to a less scary place so that more reviewers feel comfortable with reviewing submissions.

I am not entirely in concurrence that the move to Draft: needs to happen in a rushed manner. I believe the rushed creation of the namespace was a horrible start and is greatly to blame for many of the issues that have happened since then. There had been no Draft: namespace on this wiki for over a decade, and to bring up the idea and create it in a matter of months left way too much undiscussed and unprepared. The process in which to use this namespace and the tools should have been developed and the entire thing should have been introduced to the wiki in one big package. I digress on that issue as this is not the place for that discussion, and I only bring it up because I do believe that it is one of the greater factors in the emotions driving Hasteur's actions. I could of course be completely wrong about that, but I choose to

AGF

and believe that is what is happening.

I think that the best course of action here is to draft up an

Beeblebrox indicated below and inform Hasteur at the time of its submission. I would be grateful to any contributions you would be willing to offer to this draft if you are interested. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c}

) 15:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you. I will work on that draft and make sure that everyone involved is notified upon its submission. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 15:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Original announcement

I commend and thank the Arbitration Committee for this decision. Can the ban notices please be removed from Will Beback's user and talk pages? Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It appears that someone has done this. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Shakes head. Leopards change their spots? You are only storing up trouble for the future. Well done arbs. :rolleyes:

Spartaz ^Humbug!

09:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

What's the worst Will could do now? He was basically banned for Machiavellianism. It's a pretty safe bet that he's neither willing nor able to bamboozle anyone at this point. Kurtis ^(talk) 00:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• For the record, the conditions are as follows:

• I do wish that the Committee would post this within its original announcement; the conditions are of interest to the community as a whole, and the appropriate place to discuss these conditions is right here on this noticeboard, not on Will Beback's page. The Committee deciding to post the conditions of return only on the user's talk page gives the appearance that community members should discuss the restrictions there, and that the Committee has washed its hands of the matter. Arbcom decisions should be posted in their entirety on Arbcom-related pages if for no other reason than creating a centralized reference point; I'm fairly certain the affected users don't really want to have debates about those restrictions on their talk pages either, since there's nothing the users can do to alter the restrictions. Risker (talk) 10:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't have a strong view on the form of the announcement, but I'd just observe that the format with the cross-reference has been in use for some time; it wasn't devised just for this case (or the one below). Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
• Finally. This was long overdue. Kurtis ^(talk) 16:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
• I hope calling IRC channels "on-wiki" doesn't become a precedent. Legoktm (talk) 03:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I hope it does. Its always been an infantile position that IRC channels populated entirely by wikipedia users/admins and used to conduct wikipedia 'business' are not 'on wiki' for the purpose of behavioural problems. The absurd use in cases involving the outing policy being a prime example. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Original announcement

The restrictions are as follows, as posted on Ferahgo the Assassin's user talk page:

See my comments above about the value of having a centralized, Arbcom-related location for the community to review and discuss these sorts of decisions. Risker (talk) 10:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

"...restricted to editing articles about the palaeontology of birds and dinosaurs..." That seems odd. What circumstances could lead to such an unorthodox restriction? Everyking (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

It is unusual. Normally topic bans tell a user which specific topics they are not to edit. This often results in the user being banned from the only area that they may be interested in editing. In this case we elected to go with restricting the user to only editing a topic area that they clearly do have an interest in, and where their edits have not previously been problematic. It wasn't my idea but I thought it was worth a try. If it works it should be a win/win situation, where the project gets content improvements without accompanying drama and FTA is able to edit in a subject area they have previously shown an interest in, as opposed to not being able to edit at all.

talk

) 21:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Even if it doesn't work, it's better to make a new mistake than repeat an old one. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 23:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Why not let the user edit the palaeontology articles along with every other subject area where they have not gotten into controversies? Everyking (talk) 23:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

That was already tried, and it didn't work, which is why a site ban was put in place. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 02:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Any particular reason why the results of these two appeals weren't posted on AN, as is usually the case with the Committee's decisions? I would have missed them entirely if I had not rather randomly looked here. BMK (talk) 06:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done I think that was just an oversight at our end.

talk

) 17:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. BMK (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Can we have an explicit statement from the ArbCom about whether FTA responding to a DR processes involving them but initiated by another editor with an acknowledgement of awareness and a note that they will be unable to participate until they get the arbcom's permission will be counted as a breach of restriction 3ii? Personally I hope it wont be, because we cannot expect every editor to be aware of the restrictions FTA is under and (for whatever reasons) responses emails sent to arbcom can take some time (see present discussion at

• I certainly would say that acknowledgement and note that they're going to contact Arbcom would not count as "participation" and therefore would not be a breach, assuming she then contacted us. Worm^TT(talk) 12:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
• That would not be a violation, Thryduulf. When the DR process is not initiated by Ferahgo, she does not have to obtain the prior affirmative consent of the Arbitration committee. She just has to notify us. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not entirely clear on the implications of this motion for Captain Occam (talk · contribs), another site-banned editor. Ferahgo is established as a proxy for Captain Occam and, beyond that, a likely sockpuppet/meatpuppet for Captain Occam. Given that these accounts have been technically and behaviorally indistinguishable, I would assume this motion amounts to a conditional unblock of Captain Occam as well? MastCell ^Talk 20:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Captain Occam's status is unchanged. Please do not pursue this aspect further on-wiki. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

OK. MastCell ^Talk 21:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I know this may be taken as a "suspicious IP criticizing ArbCom" comment. However, I am speaking sincerely when I say that I am unsure what policy basis Brad has for commanding other editors not to discuss certain elements of a public ArbCom case. Given the findings MastCell linked to, the question of the editorial status of these two editors is both pertinent and appropriate. In fact, would it not be odd for a person not to wonder about this linkage, in view of the public findings? It leaves a very negative taste in my mouth for Brad to issue imperial-style directives. 50.45.159.150 (talk) 07:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Given the nature of the question and the public details of the case it is pretty obvious that he is invoking privacy concerns. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm just guessing here, but to me Brad's comment implies that the Committee have received some information about the alleged link between the editors which cannot be made public, most likely for privacy reasons but legal reasons are also possible. The initial enquiry by MastCell was legitimate, and Brad answered this promptly. Iff my guess is correct, then Brad could have worded his reply along the lines of "The committee has looked at these allegations and concluded that Captain Occam's status should remain unchanged. Please do not pursue this further on-wiki as we cannot give any further detail for privacy/legal/other reasons. Thryduulf (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Sheesh. This place. Brad didn't "command" me to drop the subject. I asked a question; Brad politely requested that I not discuss it further on-wiki; and I agreed. This happens sometimes, in the real world—one adult agrees to a polite request from another adult. I understand that these sorts of interactions evoke an almost anthropological curiosity and fascination here, though. MastCell ^Talk 17:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

In all fairness though, it was an unusually terse comment from Newyorkbrad. Then again, it's not really that big of a deal, is it? ;-) Kurtis ^(talk) 00:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Not just terse, but inappropriate as well. There is a difference between Brad saying "I can't give any further details about this matter onwiki" and him saying "I will decide what you may discuss onwiki." One is suited to a collaborative endeavor, the other is not. 50.45.159.150 (talk) 04:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Brad can't win. Usually people hate on him for being too verbose. Then when he communicates concisely and unambiguously, he gets compared to Joseph Stalin. MastCell ^Talk 04:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

This is just a website. Some of you (perhaps me too) treat it like it's kingdom come if certain things on here don't happen the way we think they should. I think it's fair to say that many of those who are the most serious about who does or does not get unbanned have a stake in how certain topics on Wikipedia are slanted. As a result, all of this battling over the years has damaged WP's reputation probably beyond repair. If you all could just remember that the general public doesn't really care what Wikipedia says about controversial topics, you should be able to sleep better at night and perhaps have an active interest in more healthy things. Of course, that goes for me also. Cla68 (talk) 05:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Godwin's corallary! Who said anything about Stalin? NE Ent 17:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

50.45.159.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) did, but then a clerk redacted the reference after I'd responded to it, rendering the discussion incomprehensible. MastCell ^Talk 20:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

So does this mean they are distinguishable now or what? Their history is quite open and given Arbcom's previously ruling, absent any credible statement that they are no longer linked - the assumption is that both are unbanned. 'Dont pursue this' is not going to cut it I am afraid given the trouble Occam has caused in the past. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

A chronic issue, not just with ArbCom decisions but all over Wikipedia, is users trying to pick apart any statement to find it it's hidden meaning when there is not one. If we had intended to "bundle" this u ban we would have said so.

talk

) 17:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The chronic issue is arbcoms seemingly unable or unwilling to grasp the corrosive effect of non-transparency, as documented by reliable sources:

ensuring participation and transparency is crucial for maintaining the stability of self-governing communities.
— Schroeder, Wagner, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology^[1]

NE Ent 17:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Except that the "non-transparency" charge around here often seems to mean, I won't believe you, no matter what. So, explain it to me again until you satisfy whatever demands I make, now, you irredeemably corrupt, apparatchik. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Ignoring Beeblebroxs non-answer, is there an actual answer? Ferahgo and Occam historically have effectively been the same person on-wiki. See Mastcell's links above for further public, non-redacted, reading that explains the problem. You have a finding in a case that explicitly states they cannot be taken apart. What assurances are there that this situation is not still the case or going to continue? If a checkuser was to attempt to link the two would the results be any different today? Probably yes, I doubt they will get beyond a 'stale' response given the length of time Occam has been blocked. So I ask again, what assurances are there that they are no longer the same user on-wiki? Because at this point you have an unblocked user who has a finding saying they technically and behaviorally the same person as a still blocked user, whats to stop any admin banning Ferahgo as a proxy for Occam? There has not been any finding or motion rescinding the earlier statement, I dont see anything in the above where it says they are no longer the same person, the technical methods of user-tracking are at best only effective against the uninformed, so unless you want to pony up some more details, Ferahgo = Occam until proven otherwise.

Of course the restriction to birds/paleontology makes perfect sense if the current committee have accepted they cant be separated and they are not restricting Ferahgo's editing, they are restricting Occam's... Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The restrictions are such that there's no much scope for disruption, no matter whose hands might be on the keyboard.  Roger Davies ^talk 21:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I wanted to point out a few things, but there wasn't a good place to put them all, so here goes.

First, it was suggested above that the workload did not currently appear great. No six cases, no omnibus case, etc. I believe that IP underestimated the work involved in the two above announcements concerning the ban appeals. Both those cases were high profile and time consuming with non-public information that all new arbs needing brought up to speed. They were also contentious enough that it would require the full committee to decide, not just BASC. Given the sheer amount of backstory in those I would suggest both of them could be considered omnibus level cases.

Second, there was an accusation that arbcom does not appear to care and/or never makes their deadline. Arbcom has indeed had trouble meeting deadlines and almost every election that comes up as an issue to be solved. One attempt to do so was to 'crack down' on the evidence and workshop deadlines since late evidence and such inevitably delayed the decision. I believe this has lead to the appearance of not caring. The disputants are forced to respect these deadlines (enforced with locked pages even), but arbcom is not. This double standard is disprespectful and breeds resentment. Then the dispute festers and the clerks chided them for it (just doing their jobs) so the resentment grows. I have no real solution for this, but arbcom should know this is how it looks from the outside.

Lastly, people are kinda poo-pooing the whole 'we are only volunteers' bit. Keep in mind that the other part to that is that they are doing this because they care. To say they don't care, yet would put up with all this is pretty illogical. This is literally the hardest job on the wiki, to say nothing of trying to get 18 people to consistantly come to agreement on the toughest issues. Herding cats would probably be easier. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

You and Roger Davies above are quite correct. I get frustrated with admins and arbitrators also sometimes. However, I know that some meta-solution to the volunteer issue is necessary and may be the only thing that can save Wikipedia from being taken over in significant topic areas by trolls, POV pushers and paid editors, thus discrediting the whole project. I would gladly take a couple 24 hour blocks a year when I lose my temper on talk pages (as opposed to the one in 7 years) if I knew that it meant a) more admins were available for mentoring and mediation for sincere editors having trouble getting with the program and that b) really problematic editors would get more frequent and longer blocks and topic and site bans when necessary. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

One idea, maybe a bad one: multiply the number of arbs, and put more redundancies in the system?John Carter (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Not a bad idea at all, but one that time has proven less effective than you'd expect. The committee was once increased to seventeen arbitrators, but decisions came more slowly then so the sized was reduced back to fifteen. There are also the obvious issues with getting enough electable candidates to fill such a large committee. (To repeat from above, this decision is delayed because users served by some WMF servers were basically unable to load large diffs for a number of weeks. This meant the drafters assigned to the case couldn't quickly look through the case evidence.) Regards,

[•]

21:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a pretty bad guess AGK. I doubt that users or their workload (Except in perhaps specific purposes) are assigned to ervers like that. The WMF servers are most likely load balanced and arrayed due to the size and the activity. So they disperse the users and workload evenly and if one goes down, the others take over. So what I am saying is, if they had a problem with the loading of diffs, the rest of the wiki would as well....unless the Arbs have a separate wiki, in which case all arbs would be unable to view the diffs if that went down and not just a few. I'm sorry AGK, that just doesn't make sense. 208.54.35.148 (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

We do have a separate wiki, but that's not where the trouble was. Many editors, not just arbitrators, were affected by the diff issue. In my case, it was astonishing when a diff I attempted to load actually would, maybe 5% of the time at best. Normally, it would spin for a while and time out. I had similar issues editing, though that didn't always correlate with those bit by the diff issues. The issue was well documented and was addressed by WMF sysadmins. As one might imagine, it is rather difficult to review evidence while essentially unable to view diffs.

Quite realistically, we are all volunteers here. If something major in real life had come up and prevented me having the time, I'd just say that. I have neither the need nor desire to invent some phantom technical problem. But that is what it is. You can take that or leave it, but unless you've set up a seat I don't know about behind my desk chair to look over my shoulder, I somewhat doubt you know more about what's happened than I do. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

No one really expects you guys to step up and say "Yep , we're dragging our feet" and certainly no one wants the Arbcom to rush to judgement on cases. It would be nice if the Arbcom was a bit more transparent and did a better job of communicating to the community (a problem that is shared with the WMF unfortunately). It shouldn't require multiple discussions to stimulate a response that things are taking longer than they should. It also shouldn't take weeks for the Arbcom to respond to requests for action on the tasks they have been assigned.172.56.2.75 (talk) 22:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Adding a couple of points down here following the further responses above:

• Anyone doubting the technical difficulties being referred to should be referred to the Village Pump technical thread where this was discussed (hopefully someone has a link available, I don't have that link in front of me right now). That issue cannot account for all of the delay, but it was (as I said above) a genuine problem.
• Replacing the drafter of a case is not a step to be taken lightly. Finding another arbitrator willing to step up and do this is not always easy, and even when you do have someone willing to do this, it takes time for them to get up to speed and to co-ordinate with the existing work done by the drafting arbitrator. Generally, the only time a drafting arbitrator is replaced is when that arbitrator pulls out. I don't think the rest of the committee has ever lost its patience and forced replacement of a drafting arbitrator. The closest you would get to this is a non-drafting arbitrator putting up a proposed decision on the workshop page.
• Co-ordination of ArbCom's activities is not done in the executive hand-on style described by one of the IPs above. It is more a matter of pointing out stuff that needs doing, and cajoling and herding of cats. That is the nature of a volunteer role. If, more than a few times, any one arbitrator tries to 'order' another arbitrator to do something (or to politely 'insist' that something gets done), the results are predictable. Things only get done by agreement or calls for something to be actioned. Specific requirements for individuals to meet specific deadlines is not the way ArbCom works (partly because the underlying culture of Wikipedia also avoids this).
• It has been argued in the past that ArbCom should be co-ordinated in a more hands-on way, but that view has never really gained traction. It would only work, in my view, if a specific non-voting co-ordinating set of positions was established, still subject to election (because of the need to see everything that goes on), but devoted full-time to ensuring timely co-ordination and tracking of tasks. But that can veer towards being overly bureaucratic.
• In the absence of tighter co-ordination, the default is that the drafters pretty much control the timetable. As long as they keep things moving forward and keep the parties and clerks and other arbs updated, they can and should extend the timetable for as long as needed to reach a well-crafted decision. I know the drafters have left some notes on the case pages. Whether that has been enough I'm not sure. I have suggested to both the main drafters that now the technical difficulties are over that they establish new deadlines and commit to providing regular updates (as has been done in some past cases).
• On the overall workload of ArbCom, one of the IPs above is incorrect to say "the Committee has agreed to do so many tasks for the Foundation". Nearly all of ArbCom's non-case workload comes from functions the community has asked, or originally asked, ArbCom to fulfil. We have tried (and are trying) with varying degrees of success to delegate or divest ourselves of some of those roles to allow more focus on case work, but it is not easy. On delegating in general, I have on the mailing list and privately pointed out to some arbitrators that they are trying to do too much and should do less or delegate, but that only works if those arbitrators listen to you or realise they are overworked. Pointing out that an arbitrator is doing too little is even harder. Establishing what is expected of individual arbitrators in terms of workload would be good, but it takes time for new arbitrators to work out what they are capable of doing, both in terms of actually doing the work and managing their available time. Arguably some arbitrators never quite get to grips with that.

And having written all that, I'm now going to go look at the recent case requests and WP:ARCA requests. The drafters of the two cases should provide updates at the case pages at some point. Until they do, there is not much the rest of the committee can do, other than comment on the material posted so far by the drafting arbs to the workshop and bring themselves up to speed on the evidence (if they have not done so already). Carcharoth (talk) 06:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like the system is working very well. Maybe the arbitrators should just do everything on-wiki? Everyking (talk) 02:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, because having the peanut galler commenting on everything that happens is really going to speed them up!
  Spartaz ^Humbug!
  13:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The instructions on how to structure an appeal against a ban that appear at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Ban Appeals Subcommittee include the parenthetical comment "lengthy statements may delay your appeal or make us to request a shorter statement". The phrasing "make us to request" is not good grammatical English, but I'm unsure what is intended? Either removing the word "to" or adding "(more) likely" before it are both possible. Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Or re-phrase to "lead us to request".  Roger Davies ^talk 10:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Change from

Set out briefly anything else you wish us to consider during your appeal (lengthy statements may delay your appeal or lead us to request a shorter statement).

to

Set out briefly anything else you wish us to consider during your appeal (lengthy statements may delay your appeal).

NE Ent 11:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I doubt I'm the only one who's been more than a little dismayed at the duration of the ongoing Austrian economics and gun control cases. I'll note that the drafting Arbitrator Seraphimblade has attempted to get things moving again for the latter by adding a new set of proposals to the workshop page, which had hitherto been all but abandoned since early February. Floquenbeam has done likewise for Austrian economics, but this did not preclude Steeletrap from expressing his complete dissatisfaction with the arbitration process. Don't get me wrong, I am very aware of how time-consuming and thankless being an arbitrator is — but remember, the most important aspect of the job is communication and transparency. I'm not saying you should respond to every email you receive, which would be a task so yarduous that Hercules himself wouldn't touch it. It's just that I've been monitoring the status of these two very important cases on a regular basis, and instead of getting a clear and unambiguous reassurance that the current situation is far more intricate than what public evidence would have us believe, I feel as if I'm being stonewalled. Kurtis ^(talk) 22:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

At this point, I'm concerned they're just being lazy. How can one blame me for assuming that when they have all of these massive delays, react super defensively to any criticism of them, and provide no clear reason as to why it's taking so darn long? If they are just being lazy, that's a problem, because it means we can't rely on them to read through the evidence carefully. Steeletrap (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm also not reassured or impressed by Floquen's posting those principles yesterday. That "work" presumably took all of 3 minutes, since the principles were copy and pasted from other contexts. Steeletrap (talk) 23:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the Austrian Economics dispute has lasted now for nearly a year, and has ranged over (by my count) roughly 60 articles and 110 different project-space venues, not to mention user talk pages, the arbitration case itself, and the flare-ups that have happened since I made this tally in the Evidence phase. Unless you are asking for a hasty decision based on general impressions rather than on a full and careful analysis of the evidence, then you ought to expect that it will take some time to sort through it. It is certainly fine to ask for better communication of progress; but given that you (Steeletrap) and the other parties have together spent nearly a whole year making this mess, you have little ground to complain about how long it's taking for volunteers to sort it out and even less ground for casting aspersions of laziness. If only you and the other parties had been too lazy to fight each other in the first place, we'd all be better off. alanyst 23:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Your attempt at brown-nosing fails because the gun control issue is clear cut (fringe nonsense) and limited to one page, yet has lasted even longer than AE. It also fails because the Committee has failed to live up multiple deadlines which it imposed on itself long after the convoluted nature of AE was made clear. Finally, I think you vastly overstate the time-commitment it would take to look through these articles. They don't need to (and won't) read (nearly) all of the pages you mention to come to an informed conclusion. I read much more than that for work every week, and I don't work particularly hard. (am a SOC/ ANT instructor) Steeletrap (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

"Your attempt at brown-nosing" is the point at which I exit this conversation. alanyst 23:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Mister Alan, I was just ribbing you a bit. I hope you don't take offense. I certainly don't take offense at your judgments of me at Arbcom. Steeletrap (talk) 00:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Getting back on topic, I would specifically like for us to hear from multiple Arbitrators so that maybe they can clear things up. Kurtis ^(talk) 00:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell, the delay in these cases is partially because they are complex and involve a lot of evidence to examine, and partially because the committee (as is its wont) gets distracted by other things. In an ideal world, arbitrators tasked with drafting decisions would concentrate solely on that to the exclusion of everything else, but that rarely happens. The technical delays are real (the timing out of diffs being loaded), and that didn't help. Part of the delay may also be because these are the first cases drafted by the arbs in question (it takes time to get to grips with the technicalities of drafting a decision). Again, in an ideal world the more 'senior' arbs who are co-drafters would help move things along, but for various reasons that hasn't happened or is happening slowly. We are all trying to pitch in where we can to help move things along faster, but it is more important to get the decision right, than to move too fast on this. If the end results are two well-written decisions, with changes suggested by other arbs and case participants as needed, then that will have been worth waiting for. Carcharoth (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
    • This is a window into the systemic problems the committee has on a basic level. There is no reason why drafting arbitrators should be habitually "distracted". Their time as arbitrators should be spent reading and analyzing the case and drafting proposed decisions! This is not a hard concept. Case analysis and drafting is the public face of this process, is the part that determines the community's faith in the body and the process. To say nothing of principles of fairness to the parties. Don't burden them with other crap. Learn to delegate tasks internally, now, when the caseload is small. I can't imagine what would happen if this committee faced the 5 or 6 simultaneous cases that have happened in the past! Actually, I can. I assume half of them would blow deadlines until they were the next tranche's problem! For that matter, you promise us appropriate results, but why should we expect that's what we'll get, when the drafters are "rarely" focused on the case they are drafting for? And if the co-drafters can't or won't help, then they shouldn't be co-drafting. I'm not unsympathetic to the actual technical problems, but those should have been announced without the need for prompting. But at this point, they are long behind us, and using them as an excuse is just trying to wave a flag in front of the bull, a distraction from what's really wrong here. 153.2.247.31 (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Reviewing evidence can be done within a week at most, assuming you have several hours to devote to analyzing evidence, contrasting statements, and coming to an objective conclusion that will be to the benefit of all involved. Let's say the proposals drafted are disagreed upon by a broad spectrum of the community, or even the rest of the committee - it's not a problem that is difficult to resolve before voting. Just discuss it and add new proposals; actually, gauging community input is precisely what the workshop is for, and I'm glad it's being put to good use. On the other hand, if certain arbitrators are so tied up with their real-life commitments that they cannot effectively handle this role, it begs the question as to whether or not they should even be arbitrators. I don't mean to be so impatient (and I myself am a notorious procrastinator). But these issues are too big to sweep under the rug for a later date. Kurtis ^(talk) 17:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
      • As someone who has been on the Committee and who at various times both fell incredibly behind or tried to push the rest of the Arbitrators along: unfortunately, things just aren't that simple. It's a volunteer project. You sign up expecting to do work, but who here knows how busy they will be for each of the one hundred and four weeks of a two year term. The Committee can move faster, yes, but long delays that we have seen every year for a variety of different cases are not caused by complicated procedures, improper prioritization or the wrong people being elected to the Committee. NW (Talk) 18:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
        • The "volunteer project" thing only goes so far, though. I don't expect laser-guided precision and I don't think anyone else does either. But the arbitrators aren't just volunteers. They're volunteers elected to a position of responsibility. Me? I coach youth sports and provide transportation and materials services for a cave conservation non-profit. Those are volunteer projects, too. And, sure, sometimes I miss a game. I had to back out of a cave gating project I'd committed to helping with once last year. Shit happens to everyone, and volunteer stuff winds up on the block when you have to make choices. But when your volunteer project involves more people than just you, especially when you're someone important, you've got a responsibility to follow through on your obligations in some fashion, or at least make sure someone else can take up the slack. If I can't make the game, I'd damn well better make sure someone else will be there to fill in for me. If a bunch of kids show up for a game and no one is there to coach them and organize things, know what those kids' parents are not going to accept as an excuse for even as moment? "Hey, it's a volunteer project." And that should be a strength of having a fairly large committee like we do. You don't need everyone to be available, just enough of you to be available. There should always be someone who can draft for the current cases. Sure, if you wind up with 6 on the docket, and one of them is Footnoted Quotations or some omnibus nonsense, there's going to be delays. That's not this, though. This is either the committee not assigning its internal tasks in a reasonable manner, or the people assigned those tasks missing the game without making sure there's someone else there to coach. And, yes, we've seen this every year, and more deadlines are blown than respected, but the only place "it's always been this way" belongs in the List of excuses considered the worst ever. 153.2.247.31 (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Only the Arbs know for sure. But, for the reasons stated above (esp. the appalling simplicity of the gun control issue), I'd have to bet on laziness as the cause. Steeletrap (talk) 04:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Several arbitrators, including Seraphimblade, experienced technical problems while reading diffs. It looks like the problem has been solved now. → Call me

21

04:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Fewer issues would have to go to Arbitration if there was a way to encourage Admins to be more proactive with obvious problems, especially those involving Biographies of Living people. I keep saying find a way to hire a bunch of admin who might be less thin skinned about the blow back from even the most obviously necessary blocks and bans. But maybe an administrators support group or email list would help. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Few issues do make it to arbitration. In the 3 months of this year, There have only been 2-4 active cases (depending on how you count the 2 that started in December and ended in January). The issue isn't an overload of cases.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Good point. On top of other issues, maybe Arbitrators do have a similar problem to many Admins, fear of blow back. Thus some may feel they must be very careful (leading to procrastination) with even simple issues. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I know there may be some trust issues here, people always assume the committee has some hidden motivations, but you all might want to consider the possibility that you have actually been told the truth about what happened here and there is no need to speculate as to the "real" reason.

I don't think there's a secret nefarious purpose behind the committee's problems at keeping a schedule. I think the committee just simply lacks a culture that takes its public deadlines seriously, and lacks any real accountability process that would prevent that from being the case. 153.2.247.31 (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

And what disciplinary measures would you suggest these unpaid volunteers be subject to if they fail to make a deadline due to coming home from their actual jobs and finding they are having trouble accessing WP?

talk

) 20:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Technical problems are what they are, and certainly contributed to the current debacle, but surely you're not claiming that's the sole cause here, are you? Regardless, if it is clear to the designated drafting arbitrator that he is unable to meet the posted deadline for whatever reason, it should be incumbent upon him to advise the committee of that fact in a reasonably timely fashion so that an alternative drafter can be selected. Although, really, isn't that why there are co-drafters? Look, I get that you all have real lives and real jobs, but these deadlines aren't exactly tight. I also assume, perhaps overly generously, that the committee keeps some sort of scheduling and task assignment website or spreadsheet or sharepoint or listserv thread or whatever floats your collective boat, so that arbitrators who are currently busier outside the project aren't put on point for time-sensitive tasks, so that unexpected events don't cripple the committee, and so that last-minute rushes can be avoided. If not, maybe you should. And, yes, I do think that if an arbitrator habitually finds himself unable to fulfill the expectations of the office that he should consider departing it, or at least going on an inactive list so there's no confusion and so that tasks with deadlines can be assigned to people with the time and ability to complete them. 153.2.247.31 (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

@the Beeb - There are hundreds of thousands of volunteer positions in libraries, religious organizations, healthcare charities, and other settings. Some of the positions involve meeting deadlines that others in the organization rely on. In the most important and critical volunteer positions, failing to meet promised deadlines with no explanation would lead to reassignment to a less critical position. My city council is unpaid, but if the members of that council promised to perform a key function (such as a approving or denying a zoning permit) of their position by a certain date, then mysteriously blew off the deadline by several months, while not communicating with their constituents or the affected parties, I am sure they would not be re-elected, and would face severe criticism. You volunteered for the job: do it or let someone else. 50.45.159.150 (talk) 01:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Your analogy is inaccurate. A better comparison would be with a city council who:

• have no budget whatsoever and have no secretarial or administrative support;
• are required to maintain their building, maintaining, re-roofing, re-wiring and re plumbing it when necessary;
• are expected to provide 24/7 cover as the city's firefighters and coastguards;
• are expected to handle appeals arising out of parking tickets (not only the tickets they've issued but also those issued by the surrounding counties);
• are expected to short through 3000 letters a week to find the 20 which are not actually circulars;
• are expected to act as a disciplinary tribunal for the local police;
• are required to explain their actions at zero or short notice at permanently open public sessions; and
• is expected to smile sweetly at barbed anonymous criticism.

 Roger Davies ^talk 10:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

What? No. Stopping internet flame wars doesn't make you firefighters. There's nothing physical, nothing dangerous about this job. And, yes, it's a volunteer job, but it's still a job. One that, need I remind you, you chose. Nothing that's been said convinces me that the committee couldn't be massively more efficient if it cared to be:

• There are 14 seats on the committee. Let's assume that at any given time 2 of them are unavailable, and have notified the committee of this (as is the case now, based on inactive listing).
• Five arbitrators sit on the BASC, which I assume carries a great deal of the senseless busy work as tendentious misfits plead for clemency. Establish a practice that the BASC members don't have lead drafting positions except when unavoidable (they're usually veterans, so it should be fine for them to co-draft). If I'm wrong, and BASC isn't a soul-grinding sewer of busy work, then toss them back in the pool and ignore any reference to exempting them from rotations below. Unless I'm badly mistaken, AUSC membership shouldn't be sufficiently burdensome to warrant special treatment.
• That leaves 5 active non-BASC arbitrators, the precise roster of which changes somewhat as arbitrators enter and leave availability. These arbitrators rotate roles: one should be set aside as the lead responder for clarifications and amendments, one can be reserved at the committee's discretion for handling miscellanea not otherwise included in this policy, and the other 3 are lead drafting positions. Co-drafters are chosen from (at your option) either the full pool or the BASC arbitrators. If there are more than 3 active cases, then BASC members are added to the lead drafting rotation as needed (ideally on a volunteer basis accounting for BASC workload). The non-drafting task assignments probably rotate on a timer (or as soon afterward as available), while the drafting roles obviously cycle on a per-case basis.
• As long as there are generally fewer than 3 active cases at a time, that will give non-BASC arbitrators some time off from being lead on any tasks, which will hopefully limit the number that go inactive.
• Right now, the default timing is for proposed decisions to go up two weeks after the close of evidence. Clearly, that's too hard for the committee to manage, so give yourselves an additional week de rigeur. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that three weeks is ample time, even on a volunteer basis, to read through the evidence in most cases, and produce an appropriate proposal.
• In unusually contentious or time-consuming cases, like the various omnibus issues cases, footnoted quotations, and the like, assign two lead drafters automatically (personally, I'd permit BASC members to be chosen as second lead drafter here, but you can fiddle with those details, I'm sure). and add an additional week to the deadline (obviously, this doesn't count as a blown deadline for the logging below, unless it becomes one). Frankly, it's pretty obvious which ones these are before the case even opens.
• If a lead drafter is unable to perform the duty in a reasonable manner to the extent that even the assistance of the co-drafter is insufficient to meet the deadline, they should convey that information to the committee and either request an additional week, or be replaced as drafter on the case. A drafter who consumes that additional week without providing a proposal is replaced as drafter automatically (that's been a whole month since evidence closed). If necessary, adjust the deadline so that there is no less than two weeks' time for the replacement lead to handle the case. In general, the full committee should focus attention somewhat on cases that have slipped their initial deadline.
• Maintain (or direct the clerks to maintain) a public log of blown deadlines. The community will (or should) be understanding that an occasional deadline will fail. But if a given arbitrator is habitually unable to generate proposals in the appropriate time, that should be an easily-referenced matter of public record and a more germane topic come election time than 90% of the drivel brought up regarding candidacies.

I'm not going to pretend this proposed system is perfect, but it's literally a workforce solution I came up with in a half hour this morning. With refinement, I'm sure the process could be smoother. There will be fewer calls for the committee to explain itself if you give the community fewer reasons to make such calls. And, as for myself, you don't have to smile sweetly at my criticisms if you don't want to. There's no requirement to like being criticized. And I'll identify my former account to the committee if it would make you take me more seriously. For the record, however, I had a clean log, but check arbitration every few months because I was filer in an indefinitely suspended case (and retired in large part due to receiving quite a bit of abuse as a result of said filing, but that's neither here nor there). 153.2.247.31 (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll second what 153.xx said above. I don't view the Arbitration Committee as a dishonest or malicious group of people, but as fallible human beings with plenty of real-world obligations — counseling for complex litigations, university exams, a wedding anniversary spent in Thailand, etc. Delays of this duration are unusual, though. I don't feel as if we've been given adequate updates from ArbCom, and so these cases have arguably dragged on for much longer than they should have. Kurtis ^(talk) 00:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I also agree with IP 50 and the others that commented here. This current Arbcom doesn't seem to take the task of arbitration seriously and instead provides excuses of technical issues or brushes it off with the old "but were only volunteers" bit. If the Arbcom needs more members to cover then fine or maybe we need arbs who take the job seriously. I don't know what the solution is, but since all the arbs have edited or used the admin tools frequently over the last few weeks, I can only conclude that they just aren't that excited about the Job (not that I blame them, who would be) and just do the stuff their interested in, further leading me to believe they just don't take it seriously. I would also suggest to the commenters here that you should take care with criticizing Arbcom, they have recently blocked a couple people from the project for criticizing them. 172.56.2.229 (talk) 12:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

You wanna provide diffs to support that allegation? NE Ent 12:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but I am gonna get beat up for saying them here. NinaGreen and KumiokoCleanStart are the last 2, several others have been as well like Giano. Sure there were other circumstances to all three, but the Arbcom has been pretty intense in getting rid of all three and several others. All three had been here a long time and had between a good amount of contributions to a holy crap that's a lot of edits! Looking through the history, pretty much anyone who has questioned Arbcom with regularity has either been banned or run out of the project. Now you can justify this a variety of ways, but it still looks like questionable conduct to me. 208.54.35.148 (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to have to call shenanigans on that. Both of them were not blocked for criticising ArbCom, they were blocked/banned for serious disruption of Wikipedia, up to and including where we have folks having to maintain edit filters to catch the latest Kumioko sockpuppets. SirFozzie (talk) 23:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

From what I can tell those edit filters don't work very well. I also don't expect anyone to admit they blocked them for their criticism because that wouldn't be a very good justification for a block or a ban. I also don't think KumiokoCleanStart was socking until after they were banned. I can hardly blame them for being annoyed that someone kept resubmitting ban requests until one stuck. It doesn't matter that multiple attempts to ban them were rejected by the community, it only took one to pass to get them banned. That seems like bad policy to me. Personally my desire would be to keep someone with that many featured articles and with the technical background that KCS seems to have. If someone who has been around that long beleives so strongly that there is a problem with something, they probably have a valid point. Its not like they just showed up last week after all. I also know there is probably more going on, but, from the outside looking in, it looks very strange and questionable that the 2 main people arguing about the changes to the Discretionary sanctions system and who both have comented against the arbcom and their associated processes got blocked for a long period of time. Sometimes in life, the truth isn't as powerful r as meaningful as the perception of the truth. This is one of those times...to me.172.56.3.163 (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

To try to claim that... yeah. The previous Ban requests were "Not yet" and telling Kumioko to stop throwing their collective toys out of the pram, and they couldn't stop. It was textbook disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. (WP:POINT). SirFozzie (talk) 01:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Well I doubt I'm going to change your mind so there is no reason to dwell on the issue and I don't think (but I could be wrong) that the Arbcom doesn't have the authority to unblock one of the three anyway since it was a community ban and not an Arbcom ban. But I personally think all three were blocked for reasons other than the ones actually used. All three made a lot of noise and people wanted them to stop so they found a reason. Like me, I only came here because of the note on Jimbo's talk page about the Arbcom and did A LOT of reading and I have seen KumiokoCleanStarts name before because I read a lot of Medal of Honor recipient articles and other military history stuff. Also, people could accuse me of socking because I have used different IP's because I turn off my network off when I am at work and every night when I go to bed. So when I edit, it looks like I am using different ones. I'm not trying to hide my edits, but there are a lot of people in my neighborhood and they have used my internet before for stuff they shouldn't. So from my perspective, a lot of the fighting about his socking for editing from different IP's, which was what generated at least 2 of those discussions, is just an excuse to make him quite. If you have created edit filters to keep him quite, then all the more curious. Anyway, my thought is that if all these experienced editors are causing a stir about arbcom and admins, then I can't help but think they have a point. So like I said above, I don't agree with those three blocks, I think they were done to silence criticism and I clearly am not the only one. And last but not least the comment that KumiokoCleansStart made on that editors talk page that started the final discussion is no worse than that of a lot of others and some editors did seem to be targeting a new editor. You might want to look into that before passing judgement. 172.56.2.132 (talk) 13:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Nina did sort of get a raw deal because ArbCom folks were dropping hints to someone clearly wasn't going to get them (instead of having a clerk make a clear, unequivocal statement that she was topic banned from the DS review), but she was blocking for criticizing the committee, she wasn't blocked for posting the same criticism over and over and over. And the contribution that led to the filing of the K site ban request that was stuck was not for criticizing arbcom, but for misleading a fairly new editor on their talk page. And G's blocks were essentially self-inflicted "martyr" blocks for stupid edit warring, not for criticizing the committee. NE Ent 03:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that all the folks at WP:ANI who supported NinaGreen's block would agree with your analysis, NE Ent. It was pretty much a repeat of the behaviour that got her a twelve-month ban a year or two back. In any case, there's zero point in t-banning someone from one page when they can go escalate on plenty of others,  Roger Davies ^talk 06:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty much a tautology that if disputes which become arbcom cases were easy to resolve they wouldn't be arbcom cases. Having observed dispute resolution for many years and arbcom for a few, it's my opinion it is far better for the committee to get it right than get it fast, and an agonizing slow procedure is better than the alternative of some pro forma principles, "findings of fact," followed by punting to

I don't see how anyone can believe they're spending these months carefully reading through diffs. That's the height of naivety and credulity. On gun control, for instance, you could read through the several dozen diffs (which are confined to a single page) in a about 3 to 5 hours. And you wouldn't even have to read half of them to figure out that the 'nazis practice gun control' stuff is fringe nonsense, unsupported by RS, and tendentious. The evidence establishes that at least the drafting members of the Committee are being lazy and that the process as a whole lacks transparency. Steeletrap (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@

[•]

21:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I think Roger makes some fair points in his analogy above. It is true that in most supervisory boards of this nature, significant secretarial and clerical support is provided. However, I think a large part of the issue stems from the fact that the Committee has agreed to do so many tasks for the Foundation (ban appeals, blocks, privacy issues, child protection issues, appointment of functionaries, etc.) that public arbitration cases sometimes feel like an afterthought, when they were meant originally to be the sole concern of the Committee. As well, communication is not the best - it might be beneficial to have coordination and assignment of duties done onwiki so the public can see what is "going on" - in the same way they can with a volunteer school board, for instance (most official email of public agencies and boards is subject to public records requests - why is the arb mailing list not public on Wikipedia?). Finally, it was a fair point that extensive admin and editorial actions by arbitrators taken while parties are expecting those members to be working on Committee decisions can send a strange message. 50.45.159.150 (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The notion that cases are an afterthought, and the point about drafters being otherwise active on Wikipedia, fails to account for the fact that a very particular technical problem (with the loading of diffs) was what caused the delay. As for communication, I understand the parties were clearly informed of the delay. While they subsequently might have been unhappy, I don't think they can assert we were not forthcoming about the progress being made by our drafters. Regards,

[•]

22:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

How were the parties notified? NE Ent 22:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Anthony's explanation is reasonable. I appreciate him taking the time to explain the situation. The technical difficulty lasting for many weeks and involving evidence from this case was a bizarre circumstance. It might be beneficial to post a notice in a clear and obvious place on the case pages. Take care 50.45.159.150 (talk

) 05:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem with your arguments AGK is that they don't match the evidence. Did the arbs have plenty of time to review the cases? Yes. Did they meet the deadlines? No. You cannot argue that the Arbs have been actively discussing the cases this whole time. There is no way. I can see just by looking at their edits and logs that they were doing a lot of other things as well. Which is totally fine and understandable. But it does not appear that some of them take the task of being an Arb seriously. Its just a "whenever I get around to it" kind of attitude. 208.54.35.148 (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• I realize that commenting here is more likely than not to result in me being censured in the Gun Control case, but I can't take it any more. Can we all just drop it and let them get on with the proposed decision and result? This bickering is unhelpful. Hipocrite (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Their dogs ate their laptops. Seriously though, the comparison to a recalcitrant college student is apt. The kid may be working hard, but if he doesn't get his assignment done when he says he will (even after multiple extensions), that's irresponsible. Steeletrap (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• Grosly after the fact observation I do endorse 50IP's comment that once evidence closes Arbitration becomes a black box that no amount of cajoling can get any sort of response out of. I do recall multiple cases where the deadlines for proposals/final implementations have slipped multiple times without a singular comment from anybody on the committee explaining why the committee is alloting more time. I strongly suggest that any deferment of case date be explained by the "case manager" arbitrator (which I conflate with the primary drafter) so that parties to the case (and interested onlookers) understand exactly why the delay is occurring and what steps are being taken to prevent the delay in the future. I would also strongly suggest that the committee as a whole renew the tradition of using the workshop page to communicate with the community at large the viewpoint of members of the committee so that future decisions come not as unexpected attacks from left field. Hasteur (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed decisions

I have just posted the proposed decision in the Austrian economics case. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics/Proposed decision. We anticipate that the Gun control decision will also be posted within the next several days. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Original announcement

• I am very pleased with the end result of this case; it shows that the drafting arbitrators gave it a thorough review and made nuanced decisions that considered each party while maintaining the best interests of the project in mind. Nevertheless, the duration was a source of frustration. The question is, how long did it take to conduct the research necessary to reach these conclusions? Was it really a two-month ordeal, or were many of the arbitrators sidetracked? Kurtis ^(talk) 00:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

  The last few months have been extraordinarily busy for the committee, between the Discretionary Sanction review, a number of ban appeals which required in depth discussions, the cases and a few other matters. Combining these factors with some technical difficulties and the generally limited resources afforded by committee members has lead to a much longer time frame than was expected. I know I regret the length of time it's taken, but unfortunately sometimes these things happen. Worm^TT(talk) 09:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

  Thanks for the explanation, I really appreciate it. Were these specific factors brought up previously? Kurtis ^(talk) 13:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

  I believe they (and other factors) have been mentioned separately by different arbs, yes - possibly not all together and definitely not in a single place that would have been helpful! Worm^TT(talk) 13:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

  Giving an explanation with all the relevant factors listed would definitely have helped, but I guess it's better late than never — just try to set realistic deadlines next time, yeah? ;-) Kurtis ^(talk) 15:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

  Once I realized I was going to have to take over as lead drafter, it took me about five days to read through everything and prepare the proposed decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

  Stop making excuses! You folks are way overpaid and it's time you started earning those fat salaries. I'm also thinking none of you deserve any of those lavish frills anymore either...the unlimited use of that Wikipedia private jet to take trips to Tahiti should be eliminated or at least cut way back until you start showing us some results commensurate with all these perks! It's an outrage I tell you!--MONGO 17:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm pleased that an editor who for almost a year got away with violating BLP policy left and right with only minor slaps from admins finally got banned from whole topic area. The editor who so industriously assisted them got at least narrowly topic banned. (I'll be watching him like a hawk because up until a few hours before the final decision was announced to we participants officially he was editing the bio of one of the Mises Institute co-founders. Clarification of when he is or is not breaking the ban is the thing I'm most likely going to have to come back for.)

As for my topic ban, I've learned not to say I don't care if I get one! Of course, I'll probably be making jokes about my allegedly making "certain insufficiently supported personal attacks on other editors" (Finding of Fact B which linked to an ambiguous ANI.) I did give you guys a chance to link to something really uppity or snotty I said instead.

I have wasted half my editing time over 7 years dealing with ridiculous and/or nasty, often coordinated, POV attacks on individuals in BLPs.

After I recover from my current burnout, I guess I better put my energy into organizing a more strenuous effort among editors to protect BLPs in general by getting more Admins to take BLP complaints (including related to past Arbitrations) more seriously. Meanwhile, I'm not even peeking at a whole nuther set of related BLPs of women that have been ravaged by POV pushers. Maybe I'll deal with it if we somehow beef up the system. Sigh... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Please post any current concerns about BLP violations to the BLP noticeboard. There's no guarantee they will be addressed (assuming they are violations), but that certainly increases the likelihood they will be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Original Announcement

This is a step forward, I think, in that the AE request has been stopped. I hope it also clarifies that over eager enforcement such as Sandstein's of March 2013, based on the first !vote at a RFCA is deprecated. There are some important questions that remain unanswered. I shall only ask one at this time.

1. Given both community consensus, and the fact that policy permits fully automated user-space editing for any user, and that no case has been made against it, on what concrete objective preventative grounds does the committee maintain the sanction preventing it?

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC).

To move this beyond the purely hypothetical, and explain the importance to those arbs who weren't involved in the original case. If Rich Farmbrough is allowed to refresh it, we can move updates from his userspace to

Wikipedia:Articles_with_UK_Geocodes_but_without_images and resume offering image adding as a gentle entry level task for new editors. If he isn't allowed to help Wikipedia in this way then we are stuck with a list that is too stale for an effective outreach exercise. With typos and vandalism both now quite rare and dealt with too quickly for most readers to spot them we need new entry level tasks. It seems obvious to me that the pedia would be a better place if Rich could update that page directly, but allowing him to do this in his userspace would be a step in the right direction. ϢereSpiel

Chequers 19:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason why Rich has to be the one to maintain that list. Resolute 23:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Theoretically someone else could volunteer, but in practice we need Rich as he is the only one who has volunteered to run it. Remember we are short of people who can run things like that, especially now that DeltaQuad has retired. ϢereSpielChequers 23:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I sort of expected that answer. However, I personally feel similar to Beeblebrox below. Rich has to stop pushing the boundaries of his automation ban for a period before any relaxation should be considered. And at that point, my preference would be that any initial relaxation be restricted to user space with an explicit caveat that such edits not be moved or otherwise copied to main space. Resolute 23:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Would that explicit caveat apply to him or to others? A rule that applies to him may be illogical but still be something that can be communicated to him. A restriction that applies to everyone else is more problematic. I couldn't use this list in a training session with newbies if I had to warn them that if they were to copy a section elsewhere, even with attribution, they risked being blocked due to a bizarre mixup in Wikipedia governance. ϢereSpielChequers 07:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response. I don't think your example applies, since a list of articles missing images would not be intended for copy to main (article) space. If given a period of time without breaching experiments, Rich could conceivably have his restriction relaxed to help you with such lists that are not meant for direct use on the main page. Then move from there. Just my opinion, however. Resolute 13:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Resolute. Thanks for your response. Let me reiterate I am not "pushing the boundaries" I am just editing - albeit with one hand and both legs tied. I am careful, now, if I see an error occurs more than one time in an article, not to fix both - at least not in the same edit. I also try to make sure I leave a few typos uncorrected first time 'round. And I keep changing subjects, and the type of editing I am doing.

But supposing I was pushing my boundaries, like a lion pacing in his cage and pressing against the bars. Is the belief that once I stop, the gates can be thrown open and Young Albert will be safe? Or that I am not sufficiently "broken"? Or that I am a danger to myself all around me? Or is it part of the unwritten new Wikipedia ethic can't have just anyone editing and I am persona non grata? Or just because it annoys Arbs not to see what they command treated as holy writ? Or some other reason? I don't mind what the connection is, I just don't see a valid one.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC).

Sorry Rich, but I am not buying it. Right up until your long block last year, too many of your (semi-)automated edits have resulted in errors for others to clean up. So if you want to carry the analogy forward, then yes, you do seem to be a danger to those around you, and consequently to yourself. The cage is of your own making, and railing against the bars isn't terribly impressive. Likewise unimpressive is how little your attitude has changed over the years. Almost from the first entry in your multiple page, personal ANI archive is a general unwillingness to even admit to your own mistakes. Resolute 13:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• I can't speak for everyone on the committee, but I believe the prevailing opinion is that we would like to see Rich edit within the current restrictions without further issues for a while before we consider any loosening, however minor, of those restrictions. The reason is that both the committee and the broader community have found that Rich's past editing with any kind of automation has been problematic more often than not.

If Rich can demonstrate the self-control needed to edit entirely without the benefit of any automation for a period of several months I imagine the committee would more willing to consider incremental reductions in the current severe restrictions. If there are further problems and/or an apparent unwillingness to let this matter drop for a while and simply respect the sanctions for the time being it is likely (as expressed in this motion) to end with a siteban. He doesn't have to agree with the restrictions, just abide by them for a while, and then we can talk about reducing them.

talk

) 23:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

"More often than not."^{[citation needed]} I'm afraid that this sort of poorly founded statement is why any attempt at discussion goes off the rails. I quite understand that anyone active on AN AN/I a couple of years ago might believe this, and I am further quite willing to discuss all my many faults (real or imagined), and how to correct them. However let's divide this set into two disjoint subsets: Those faults that have been found by ArbCom, and all the rest. The rest, please take to my talk page, or private email. As to the Arbcom found faults, it appears that I am "incivil" and "unresponsive". There are even diffs to back these up - mostly from one edit on the workshop page that I self reverted after the comments I was replying too transpired to be made by a noob, (now blocked/banned) rather than someone who should have known better. But please, help me understand how requesting someone who called my work "crappy" that he take a more positive tone is incivil. Even if it was "crappy" - and I don't deny it might have been, it doesn't seem to me even now that this is the collegial way to approach a discussion. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC).

I doubt anyone is interested in re-arguing the original findings with you. I'm certainly not going down that road. We were discussing your editing restrictions designed to prevent you from using automation. You asked for an exemption. The committee did not grant one and has asserted that you did in fact violate the sanction and you have been warned that if it happens again you will probably be sitebanned. The discussion would seem to be over for the moment.

talk

) 03:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

OK I understand that you don't want to clarify findings you weren't involved in.

However you did say "both the committee and the broader community have found that Rich's past editing with any kind of automation has been problematic more often than not" - this remains an unfounded personal attack. The committee made no such finding, nor did the community - indeed I found the community consensus at RFAC rather supportive. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC).

I would say the findings of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough are pretty clear backing for those statements. This simple dispute over the very nature of why these sanctions are in place is I believe the reason arbs are unwilling to give you any leeway. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree - though it shouldn't be. According to Roger Davies "The purpose is to permanently wean Rich off high speed edits with collateral damage to a slower considered style where every edit moves the article forward and requires no external intervention to fix."

Zero errors is, of course, a lovely idea, but I cannot tell whether this is the view of the committee. Certainly it's not the vibe I get from AGK. Carcharoth something more useful (if slightly patronising) to say:

Rich, if he is to understand the problems here, needs to get to a stage where the number and type of errors introduced by his editing are at a level where others are both willing and able to correct those errors, or (ideally) he can correct them himself when they are pointed out.

Now that is something we could perhaps work with. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC).

Regarding the "more often than not", I'd disagree with that terminology - Rich has made over a million edits, and we're not looking at 500k problematic ones. I would personally change it simply to "too often". It's arguing over semantics though, the point Beeblebrox was making in the comment was well founded. Worm^TT(talk) 09:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

If we are talking total edits.

The expression "it's not worth arguing over semantics" is one that has always puzzled me. Once the semantics are resolved we have only self-interest left to disagree over. And I maintain in this case (as in many), that the stated self-interest of all parties will mean that we we can reach agreement.

It does require everyone to be prepared to listen, and to respond honestly.

I am prepared, for example, to be convinced that this edit is not in keeping with community norms. Indeed I would welcome any clarification as to why that is not "editing like a human" - unless indeed I should have expressed my irritation more vociferously.

Or to take another "semantic" difference - if it is not OK to say "Tosh!" why is it ok to say "Bof."? Is it the punctuation?

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC).

The semantics here are very important, is this insufficiently responsive?

Fair notice: I have requested further clarification of this motion based on a request at the Bot requests noticeboard. Hasteur (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Testing the boundaries? Note that Rich Farmbrough also has another restriction:

"Regardless of the editing method (i.e. manual, semi-automatic, or automatic; from any account), Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from mass creating pages in any namespace, unless prior community approval for the specific mass creation task is documented. The definition of "mass creation" and the spirit of the restriction follows Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Mass_article_creation."

He created 133 identical redirects in 41 minutes [7], and has corrected some double redirects he created in this way inbetween and afterwards, but has missed others like

Those redirects were, however, discussed before he created them. Novusuna ^talk 07:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Posting this as a courtesy, given GoodDay appears to not have email so cannot communicate directly with ArbCom unless anyone here follows his talk page: User talk:GoodDay#Requesting reinstatement. Resolute 16:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. T. Canens (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Original announcement

Original announcement

I did not realize the committee could be "seized." Which, pray tell, of the nine definitions of wikt:seize, is meant? (And why does the arbitration committee of the English Wikipedia, from time to time, have such apparently difficulty writing English?) NE Ent 01:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a

WP:ENGVAR issue; the sentence is fine in British English but makes no sense in American. (I'm familiar with this usage of "seize" only because it's used in the United Nations system, which uses British English; cf. the periodic "list of matters with which the Security Council is seized", and wikt:be seized of). I picked this point up independently as I was voting; we'll make a copyedit to address it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk

) 03:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah. It is a tricky language, isn't it? I've added the tenth definition to wikt:seize. NE Ent 11:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, screwed that up somehow. NE Ent 10:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Original announcement

Congratulations on a forward looking motion. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC).

Original announcement

The language of this procedure would appear to prohibit appeals by email in all cases where the appellant is not blocked. As I recently commented (I think in another context), there are circumstances (e.g. for privacy reasons) where a user who is not blocked may wish to appeal by email and I think it important that this be explicitly allowed. The Committee may (and probably should) choose to direct a user to appeals by email to do so on-wiki if they do not believe there to be a good reason for privacy, but the option should be available. Thryduulf (talk) 08:56, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree; unfortunately, I did not notice that the wording of the new procedure seems to disallow appeals by e-mail except for editors blocked without talk page privs. If there's a second, I'll propose a new motion (sigh) to correct what I perceive as an oversight. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I also agree. Salvio, let's consult and see if we can deal with this by unanimous-consent copyedit in lieu of a formal motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

If copyedits are being considered, may I suggest a minor one? Please could "ARCA" be defined? I confess the acronym (though not the page it refers to) was new to me. "AE" and "AN" (which are more familiar to me) are defined... WJBscribe (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. (I seem to be very agreeable this morning.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

It's defined at

WP:AC/DS but I agree too—it's certainly not well known enough. "Amendment requests page" works just as well. NW (Talk

) 13:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If we can avoid a formal motion, I'm all for it. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

No objections to either change from me. Worm^TT(talk) 13:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The changes are fine by me too. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the change to be made would be to replace item 3 in the "Appeals by sanctioned editors" with this?

If so, that's fine with me.

On a side note, the reason why ARCA, etc. aren't defined in this motion is because it was originally part of the DS motion (which has a definitions section), and we split it out a separate motion at the final stages when we realized that we want the same procedure to govern appeals from non-DS AE actions as well. T. Canens (talk) 20:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with the addition of "amendments request page" but - per beans - I do not think the proposed addition re email appeals is either necessary or a good idea. It's not necessary because (i) policy already says that private matters can be dealt with by email and (ii) hardly any AE stuff is private anyway. It's not a good idea because (i) per WP:BEANS, if private appeals are explicitly included (and they are not explicitly excluded) it will rapidly become a popular new growth area; (ii) it increases ArbCom involvement in the process at the expense of AE or AN appeals and (iii) it's potentially time-consuming.  Roger Davies ^talk 02:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I note that the important notes relating to appeals refer to a requirement that there be "clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN". Why is ArbCom formalising the disregarding of views of uninvolved editors at AE? EdChem (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I heard that one of the AE admins pushed for the sole on-wiki appeal venue to be at AE so that there is some sort of compulsive 'order and structure', but that was thrown out for want of a wider audience (for the appeals of course). Also heard something about a suggestion allowing AN to decide to begin with as that would attract a wider audience, but there was no real response to that - except that the idea was to leave it up to the sanctioned user to choose which of the 2 appeals they preferred. That's more simplified context than an answer though, and someone else may need to confirm its accuracy. In addition to your question, I have a few to add myself. When did arbcom first formalise that, and was it intentional or not? Also, which users made the proposal to formalise that? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

(ec) AE has always been a place where only admins have final say. Part of the reason it was made that way is because misbehaving cliques could always count on their friends to muddy up the waters at AN/ANI enough to get no consensus declared and no progress made at resolving the issue. AE was designed to bypass that tactic. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the IP is incorrect. The original formulation of the template had a result section that stated "This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement". These later edits introduced the language "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above". This edit added a much better formulation, "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators and is not to be used to conduct discussion or debate. Comments by non-admins, and any discussion or debate will be moved to the section above", a change which was reverted in seven and a half hours because it "Does not seem to have been a problem so far". The identity of the admin who made these edits is not difficult to guess. Also relevant are this obscure discussion of the admin-only section and this old discussion where I pointed out that uninvolved editors were being side-lined. The new formulation formalises the disenfranchisement of all non-admin views at AE, an outcome consistent with the wishes of the admins controlling this very exclusive fiefdom. Not happy, ArbCom. EdChem (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Nothing in your statement says I am incorrect. Even in the very first diff, it is only the admins opinion that has weight. The editors can bicker to their hearts content, but the admin closes as he see's fit. The 'later edits' simply allow for admin discussion, but keeps the separation of editors and admins. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

In the original formulation, all discussion was in the "Discussion" section and the result section for the admin closer... it looked like a close was to be based on the discussion of all uninvolved editors in the discussion, like many on-wiki discussions. I do not read it as a unilateral decision by a single admin (as it operates now) but more of a consensus summary and closing. Excluding all non-admin involvement has evolved over time. EdChem (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Six of one, half a dozen of the other, I guess. To me it has always read as unilateral admin action. As proof, I point to how the action is overturned. At ANI, admin acts, another admin overturns. Any admin action after that is wheel warring (barring a consensus). At AE, admin acts, any admin action after that requires consensus or is sanctionable. That process shows the AE admin is acting unilaterally and was specifically done so to remove the 'second mover advantage' in those disputes. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, and probably more convincingly, nothing in the original discussion section stated the admin is required to participate it even read the section. Nothing is stopping an admin from swooping in, laying down a sanction, and logging it in his section without having read a word. Except, y'know, common sense and decency. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@EdChem It has nothing to do with disenfranchisement and everything to do with real choices for the appellant. The new set up offers sanctioned editors a variety of appeal options (four venues in fact) so everyone can find something they are comfortable with. Those who will never go to AN because they fear their enemies will bay for their blood can appeal at AE. People distrusting admins can appeal to the community at AN.  Roger Davies ^talk 02:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

My question involves this section:

No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without:

*the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or

*prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Has this section always been there or is this a change in policy? Does it pertain to blocks as well as topic bans? Because it doesn't seem uncommon for one admin to unblock an editor and I don't think permission is typically sought. I understand that this motion concerns discretionary sanctions and not ordinary blocks (for disruption, socking, etc.). I am still surprised to read that failure to get approval from the enforcing admin, admins at AN or ARBCOM could result in a desysopping. If this is a change from past policy, I think it needs to be more fully publicized. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The restriction on overturning arbitration enforcement actions has existed for a long time, first adopted in 2008, later amended in 2010. T. Canens (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

It also bears noting that even in the case of non-arbitration-related blocks it is considered proper in most circumstances to at least discuss the situation with the blocking admin, although their opinion is not binding. See

talk

) 20:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I appreciate this clarification,

Beeblebrox. I think it is a great idea, in principle. But have any administrators ever been desysopped for modifying sanctions placed by another administrator? I think what caught my eye was the threat of desyssopping is severe but I'm aware of cases where admins have modified sanctions. I guess if the original admin doesn't complain, it's unlikely these incidents will catch the eye of the committee. Liz ^{Read! Talk!}

18:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

There have been cases where admins have been either desysopped or admonished (essentially, "Do it again and it's a desysop") for

wheel warring. I don't recall the cases off the top of my head, but yes, it has happened. I don't recall that having happened specifically for reversing or modifying an arbitration enforcement action, but that's likely because it's considered a bright line issue. It's not, though, that AE sanctions can never be modified, only that either the admin who applied them must consent, or a consensus of other uninvolved admins must be in favor of such a modification. So it's not surprising that you have at times seen modifications of AE actions, under the right circumstances that's entirely permitted. You're also correct that if no one were to raise a complaint, we would generally consider that an implicit consent and would be unlikely to take any action. We generally act reactively to complaints brought before us rather than seeking out things to act on. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}

14:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful and helpful response, Seraphimblade. It's much appreciated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

@Roger Davies:, I have some questions which I hope the arbs will not inadvertantly miss or avoid (again); I would ask that the arbs please answer them. :) In your comment above, it seems you denied that there is any disenfranchising via the AE process.

1. As far as coming to a consensus with uninvolved administrators on an appropriate action to take in relation to AE complaints and appeals, does the committee consider that input from experienced uninvolved editors is untrustworthy or unhelpful to be considered as part of the consensus?
2. In relation to the AE thread templates, would the committee be prepared to (a) change the instructions for the last "Result of" section to the original formulation, and (b) create a separate section for uninvolved editors and administrators to comment in relation to a proposed result? The separate section would appear directly above the last section, and the last section would only be filled out by the administrator who takes the action while the thread is being closed. (Edchem made a fairly similar proposal in 2010, which was apparently not answered by any arbitrator at the time for some reason.)

In your comment above, you essentially said that AN is feared by some editors as enemies will bay for their blood.

1. Isn't it the case that some editors who are considered as enemies will still be able to "bay for the sanctioned user's blood" at an appeal at AE, if in fact the same can occur at AN?
2. Isn't it the case that some administrators who are considered as enemies will still be able to "bay for the sanctioned user's blood" at an appeal at AN, if in fact the same can occur at AE?
3. Isn't it the case that some arbitrators who are considered as enemies will still be able to "bay for the sanctioned user's blood" at an appeal to the Committee?

Thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

You are suggesting that appeals to AN are problematic, appeals to AE are problematic, and appeals to the Committee as a whole are problematic. I am afraid I am not coming up with any other options. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: ...or, perhaps I am actually suggesting that the reason cited by your colleague(s) for allowing sanctioned users to appeal to a consensus of just a handful of administrators (rather than uninvolved users) at AE may appear flawed, if not problematic. I note when EdChem raised his concern here in 2010 during your tenure as an arb, you didn't respond. If you reflected on it again, I think you will find that you are not being expected to "come up" with an option, but rather, that your consent is being sought for a proposal I raised here which would address his concern. As nothing in your comment provides a direct response to the proposal, I will ask the question more directly to you: could you please clarify whether or not as an arb, you are prepared to permit the proposed amendment to the AE thread templates raised in bullet point #2 of the 5 bullet points I posted at 16:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC) in this discussion? If you are not prepared to permit the proposed amendment, could you also please answer the single question raised in bullet point #1 of the 5 bullet points in my post? Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

This has already been discussed in the

[•]

09:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Despite the obviously limited discussion on the subject at that DS review (which had an obviously overwhelming number of issues to deal with), there was still a sufficiently strong concern against an appeal at AE. Unless you are relying on statistics which are different to those assessable by the rest of the Community, the nature of which you have not made clear in your comment, it's a fact that very few admins from the admin corpus use or watch AE - and even fewer who actively perform AE actions. As far as I can see, there are still two different systems of appeal maintained in adopting the proposal. Both systems are differently structured; they do not involve the same body of users just because uninvolved users would have the opportunity to (provide and) have their input assessed as part of the consensus. The same goes for AE complaints. Adopting the proposal ensures that further input is not being discarded, purely because the users providing the input do not have the technical ability to perform actions which are the subject of the review or which are determined at the conclusion of the complaint. I think your reference to "Everyman editors" is fairly offensive to the Community and it improperly suggests that the mere fact that users are not actively involved in performing an AE action means they do not understand how an appeal should be dealt with. It does not really matter whether it's the 11th or 12th hour; I certainly wasn't made aware of this "review" at the time, and I don't think the matter being raised here is so unreasonable that it should be rashly dismissed or otherwise ignored in the fashion that it has been. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

To your reply on Everyman: you have misunderstood me. The average editor assesses appeals according to whether the sanction appears fair;

[•]

13:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

To be very frank, based on both of your comments here, I think you've misunderstood the concept of forum-shopping. I don't see how you can apparently suggest that your predecessors (including a current colleague) permitted forum shoppingwrong when they expressly said the community consensus to support an appeal can occur at a community discussion noticeboard which can, for example, be AN or ANI. In those instances, if we were to follow your logic, the audience is the same and sanctioned users were therefore able to forumshop at more than one venue; quite clearly, that has not been the case. I'm not sure where you (or your colleagues) got the idea that another supposedly separate audience was necessary or desired. And this is not a case where the suggestion is to give a sanctioned user the ability to post their appeal at two venues simultaneously or one at AN after AE has failed. If anything, the currently enacted version promotes exactly that. For example, there is absolutely nothing which even implicitly requires any AE regular to refrain from giving its input at a Community appeal concerning the same user in relation to whom that admin has expressed a view in an earlier AE appeal or complaint (after the relevant time has elapsed for the next appeal).

Looking at an earlier wording, I think it's fairly clear which the actual intended or preferred audience always has been and still is, and why less issues are raised. In fact, are there any actual instances you or your colleagues can link me to where a sanctioned user has actively preferred the AE test, seeing you all wish to give sanctioned users such a luxurious "option"? And can you or your colleagues actually specify who made the proposal to introduce this AE "option" in the first place?

As for your consultation advertisements (during my absence), while it's very good that arbcom complied with that minimum expectation in order to be in any proper position to consult with the Community, I can also see exactly why many users from the Community would have clicked the link and figured it was too overwhelmingly long to read in full or identify all of the issues. That doesn't make the matter too late to raise. Or is it your position that individual issues, such as this one, were raised separately in each of those announcement/bulletins that were sent out? On another note, given the issue was raised here by EdChem in the first place, I guess he can reasonably explain for himself why his concern was not raised until now...despite the fact that he already did raise the matter some four (4) years ago, apparently without reply from an arb. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I have rather a lot to say about your latest opinion, but in the interest of balance I will let another arbitrator step in here. (My point about

[•]

22:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

As an admin who sometimes participates at AE I would be glad for the review of the new DS system to be finally over. Personally I could live with either rule (closure of appeal based on all uninvolved comments at AE, or on only the consensus of admins). The new language that the closure should be a consensus of the uninvolved admins has been in the DS draft since September 2013 and

WP:ARCA. EdJohnston (talk

) 02:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• Ncmvocalist, we had a couple of discussions concerning appeals and different arbs had different opinions (AE only/AN+AE/AN only - all editors/all uninvolved editors/all uninvolved admins). This solution was a compromise; it may not be the best in your opinion, but it is (in my opinion, of course) the best one on which we all agreed. After all, it's up to the individual sanctioned editor to choose the venue, knowing the differences between AN and AE. If he believe he won't get a fair shake at AE, then he can go to AN or even skip this step altogether and directly appeal to ArbCom... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Insiders have long understood that if they have something to add to an AE discussion, they should either keep silent or seek out an admin willing to say it for them. Attitudes of AE admins towards non-admins are hardly secret. [8] [9] And with the adoption of these new procedures, any non-admin can now be automatically added to a list that allows them to be banned or blocked without warning, just for posting a comment on the noticeboard. Might as well just spell this out in plain English, so that non-admins will know their place, and so the noobs have some chance of avoiding at least some of the WP landmines. —Neotarf (talk) 06:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Original announcement

Disappointing. Before the request was even over he was stirring up more trouble, not sure how much more of a clear demonstration you needed that he is as self-obsessed and combative as previously. And yet you still relaxed restrictions? Maybe now Jimbo lives in London a good portion of the time Fae can go to him next time he wants to try and exert influence over arbcom. Unless arbcom's motives behind this was some sort of ROPE. It wont be arbcom who have to deal with him. It will be people like Kurtis. Perhaps you should also have looked at his actions elsewhere before voting. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I think if you look at the actual discussion we had you will see that several of us did indeed invoke the spirit of

talk

) 21:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Which is why I mentioned it. However ROPE does not extend to infinity. He was given more rope than most are allowed after he executed a duplicitous RTV. He was given even more rope after that and ended up in front of ARBCOM and banned. How much rope do you actually want to give him? ROPE is misnamed as it implies a user hangs themselves. On wikipedia it still requires a hangman to drop the trapdoor, and as yet no matter what he does, all he gets is more rope. He made it clear he is not here for the community, he is here because the community can help enrich his pockets. Why given that motive do you think anything will change? IN THE MIDDLE OF HIS REQUEST he kicked off another drama storm because another user brought up his history pertinent to the discussion! He has a record of wanting to evade any scrutiny, and he has shown no sign of change. Wikipedia doesnt need him to be given more rope, it needs its leadership to recognise when enough is enough. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

My vote for the motion reflects that I don't believe the issues with Fae's editing, past or present, are implicated by images relating to 1000 or more years ago. Nothing else. And can we kindly not use metaphors such as axes and hangings. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Well I could use a different metaphor, but sadly offhand I cant think of another one that has an essay on wikipedia devoted to it, nor one that is so often used as an excuse for removing restrictions on disruptive users. But since you dont believe the issues of Fae's editing past or present are implicated by images 1000 or more years ago, did his actions during the request not give you pause to think 'actually we should probably be increasing restrictions not removing them?' what exactly are you waiting for? Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I find This permission may be withdrawn at any time by further motion of this Committee. the most interesting part. The statement itself seems to state something which is always true -- it there any time the Committee could not withdraw a permission per motion? There seems to be some sort of implicit message meant here. NE Ent 14:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

While not speaking for the Committee, I read this is more of a implicit (ok, semi-explicit ;)) warning that should ANY disruption occur as a result of this motion,, the previous status quo would be re-established quickly. SirFozzie (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

It's my fault really - I cribbed from previous motions where there was someone who was a mentor who could pull the permission as well as the committee. There was no mentor here, so I just removed that bit, leaving the committee. I really didn't mean anything implicit! Worm^TT(talk) 12:31, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Original announcement

The notice did not say if any other restrictions are still in force or if they are superceeded at this point. I think it would be beneficial to be clear one way or another. Agathoclea (talk) 08:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. This motion is only regarding the site ban and should not affect any other restrictions that GoodDay is under. Worm^TT(talk) 08:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• Horrible decision, due to the "legitimate block" provision. We rightfully give administrators wide discretion in using the sysop privilege, and there is great variation in practice in what individual admins consider blockable. If admin A issues a block it's not uncommon to see admins B, C, et. al. say, "Well, I wouldn't have blocked but..." As long as the block is of relatively short duration (e.g. 24 hrs), no one is going to argue very much. But by setting up a stupid tripwire where an admin could unknowingly be site banning someone, that's just asking for a ruckus on anything less than a totally righteous block. It would be far preferable to a) strike the "legitimate block" provision and b) require the user talk page notice for the full year. This will allow administrators to reimpose the site ban, if appropriate, but only by explicit, conscious decision. NE Ent 11:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• @
  [•]
  11:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• I generally agree with that, NE Ent. But I would suggest that if Arbcom has put GoodDay's future into the hands of any admin - who would be acting as a representative of the community - that the community itself should thus have the power to re-suspend the ban if it believes that would be excessive under a given circumstance of such a block. Resolute 16:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• I hate this wording, as well. "Furthermore, if GoodDay is given any legitimate block by an administrator during the period, the ban will be restored." That wording really should be "Furthermore, if GoodDay is given any legitimate block by an administrator during the period, the admin may reinstate the ban at his/her discretion as an AE action.". The current wording leads to the rather silly situation where a "routine" 24 hour 3RR block nine months from now would reinstate a permanent site ban automatically. The irony is, I think this would make admins less likely to issue a block no one could dispute (like four reverts) because of the trip wire. @
  AGK:, the RoslynSKP example does look superficially similar, but it was for a trip-wired topic ban, and only counted blocks in a fairly narrow topic, but it was effectively a pretty strong suggestion to stay away from the topic; not the entire project. Here, it is a fairly strongly worded suggestion to mind his P's and Q's, but the severity of the remedy compared to the things that earn blocks that are totally valid makes me wish admins had been given discretion to wave the site ban but still impose a short block if they felt it was the right move sometime over the year. Courcelles
  00:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• That assumes a blocking admin nine months from now would be aware of the sanction. Additionally, the RoslynSKP remedy specifies states that if the block is reversed per any usual channel -- which I'm inferring includes an accepted unblock request -- the ban would also lapse. It's not clear to me the GoodDay motion includes that provision. Finally, there is a significant difference between a topic ban and site ban. NE Ent 00:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• The difference between a topic and site ban was sort of the point I was making about why the earlier remedy being less problematic. ;) Unban conditions being left on the user talk page for a good long while is such SOP that I failed to notice this case only includes a month of such provision. If you're worried that the sanction will be forgotten, make it something such that the blocking admin can positively wave the siteban, but if they do not, then it would attach, which would solve the problem of this fading into obscurity yet not invite out-of-proportion sanctions. (Also, NE Ent, I'm not denying your point, the bare use of the word "legitimate:" here is problematic given how our unlock process operates.) Courcelles 02:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• @
  [•]
  12:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

• If the RoslynSKP remedy worked so well, why a different one for Good Day? NE Ent 01:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• The same approach is being used with the respective remedies.
  [•]
  10:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• We have an editor who has had many chances over the years until he was finally the subject of an arbitration case, severely warned to follow all conduct policies and when he didn't he was banned for over a year. The restriction is harsh, but necessary. I also don't buy this argument that there are such things as "routine" blocks - it's not hard to stay unblocked. For instance 3RR? Don't edit war. Simple. GoodDay needs to prove he can be the model Wikipedia editor. Worm^TT(talk) 07:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Clarification

Is it permissable for me to request appeals of both/either of my 2 topic-bans, before May 2015? GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the short answer is yes, but you probably shouldn't.

talk

) 15:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Understood. GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Is it actually the intention of the committee that this "housekeeping" motion result in cases closed before the advent of standard enforcement provisions would now have the new and improved standard enforcement provisions applied? Even if there were no approved enforcement provisions originally?[10] I don't see any indication that anyone had really given that point any consideration. Risker (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Yep, wherever there is an "

[•]

22:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? Going back 6-7 years, remedies that have already been enforced and are long since expired or completed? (e.g., "User:AAAAA is banned for one week") And if there is no "enforceable remedy", i.e., there are no enforcement provisions, too? It's not like you're getting cases from 2006 coming back before you. Risker (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Wait a sec, I thought only the standard appeals provision applies to all cases, old and new (as long as an AE action is possible based on the remedies). Not the standard enforcement one. T. Canens (talk) 02:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The standard enforcement provision applies to all cases which:

1. include an enforceable remedy and
2. do not include case-specific enforcement provisions passed by the Committee.

The answer to Risker's question (should cases "closed before the advent of standard enforcement provisions" now have "standard enforcement provisions"?) therefore is yes, if these conditions are met. The use cases hypothesised ("Going back 6-7 years"; "remedies that have already been enforced and are long since expired or completed") are irrelevant; the conditions are either met or not met.

The answer to Risker's further question (what if "there are no enforcement provisions"?) is obviously no; the new procedure unambiguously answers it, so I do not consider it to require further clarification, let alone a further motion. Does that answer your question? If not, what problem exactly do you see?

[•]

08:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

AGK: Is this edit accurate? If it is accurate, can you please explain how it's possible for a 2012 motion to retroactively apply to a 2010 case? If it is inaccurate, can you please revert the edit (and any similar edits)? --MZMcBride (talk

) 17:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The AC keeps jurisdiction over all past cases, so they can obviously make revisions in your case, to the extent there is anything to revise. The question is whether there is any need to update the enforcement on a case which originally had no enforcement provision at all. After reading AGK's statement above, I conclude that the recent change to your case should probably be undone. The age of the case makes no difference, the only items worth checking are those labelled (i) and (ii) in AGK's comment. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

@

[•]

21:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.

As I said at User talk:Callanecc, I think making edits to old cases is not a great idea. Let's let sleeping dogs lie, please. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The vast majority shouldn't be a problem, I don't have a lot of time at the moment but I'll check through the cases I've added the standard provisions to. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)