Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard/Archive4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan 2 Regarding El C and closure of Essjay AFD 3 Early closure of high profile controversial articles 4 Indefinite block of User:BabyDweezil 5 The ArbCom and the Essjay business 5.1 Section break 6 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2 7 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch 8 Wikipedians by age - my UCFD solution 9 External peer review triggered by Essjay scandal 10 Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#Community_banning 11 WP:N and WP:AI 12 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Occupation of Latvia 13 Briefsism 14 Ads to benefit Wikipedia 15 User:Anthony cfc 16 Emir Arven (proposed ban or indef block) 16.1 Diffs of his behaviour 16.2 Attack pages 16.3 Block log 16.4 Conclusion 16.5 Clarification of this request 16.6 Emir Arven's reply 16.6.1 Cause 16.6.2 Insults 16.6.3 Lies about my contribution 16.7 Looking for Dispute Resolution 16.8 Having wasted twenty minutes of my valuable time looking at this.. 16.9 PaxEquilibrium on Emir Arven 16.9.1 Stephen II of Bosnia 16.9.2 Mehmed-paša Sokolović 16.9.3 Oj, svijetla majska zoro 16.9.4 Njegoš 16.9.5 Some other uncivil points 16.9.5.1 Mood 16.9.6 Conclusion 16.10 Suggestion for solution

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan

The above entitled arbitration case is now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Szhaider, Unre4L, Siddiqui and Nadirali are each banned from editing Wikipedia for one year. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 21:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding El C and closure of Essjay AFD

So, how many times are high-profile debates going to be early closed out of nowhere? often creating turmoil in the process, as they are usually closed against consensus? This is getting really old. The DRV is a massive "overturn" pile-on. User talk:El C is not budging, so the opinions of dozens of Wikipedians is being swept aside at the whim of some admin. I care very little about Wikipedia and it's even bothering me. He's inviting dispute resolution; I for one am sick of seeing this happen over and over and over again, with the early closings - each one creates more chaos than the last. So the question is, is there a potential for a peaceful RFC, or will it just become a flame war like half of them do? And will I be called a "troll" for starting one? I'd like some thoughts, and am seeing if anyone is willing to certify the dispute or whatever. Milto LOL pia 16:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Forget it, he's said someone can unclose it. Looks like the sensible thing was done. Milto LOL pia 16:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • So, who's going to bite the bullet and actually reopen the AfD discussion? Does it count as wheel warring when the closing admin says it's OK to reverse the closure? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I strongly recommend a slow, measured, and considered approach, rather than yet more flip-flopping back and forth between AFD and Deletion Review. Do not take any unilateral action until the deletion review discussion has had time to for editors to discuss and to attempt to reach consensus. That includes allowing those editors who are not in the same timezone as you to fully participate in the discussion. Uncle G 18:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
      • While I feel the Essjay debates have got out of hand and should end, I also think it's very important to note that 'forcing the issue' by closing and protecting debate or speedily deleting an article has never had the desired effect of ending actual debate and encouraging people to move on. It simply adds another dimension to the ongoing dispute. Admins should think twice, three times and more about the actual effect of their actions, not just whether they are within policy, especially since WP:IAR is so controversial. Sam Blacketer 18:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• May I suggest that those in favor of keeping the article present their points, and those in favor of deleting it also present their points, and then have a (gasp) discussion for at least a few days, BEFORE you all start "voting"? I think that might be a good idea. It's my experience when we see the urge for people on both sides of a discussion to "WP:SNOW" the discussion in both directions, there's some very strongly held feelings that somebody needs to get out and the usual AFD/DRV discussion formats aren't very useful for this. In a normal parliamentary environment, I would suggest moving to recess for a fixed time to allow the members on each side of the question to go into their respective caucuses, select champions, and marshal their arguments, then return to a discussion of the question at hand (possibly in committee of the whole) with the champions presenting the respective cases. Unfortunately, Wikipedia's format doesn't allow for a "recess", nor does it readily permit the election of champions in caucus. Perhaps a three-day deferral of any attempts to delete, during which any interested party may write their own summary (or, alternatively, endorse someone else's summary) of the arguments for and against deleting (based on the opinions expressed in the prior AFD and DRV), followed by a discussion and, if consensus can be reached, then and only then a deletion (if warranted)? The regular deletion discussion format breaks down (in my opinion) on contentious issues, and I think the RFC approach method of summaries and endorsements is likely better in this situation. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Kelly is onto a good idea here. Rather than immediately skip to the "voting" of actions in bold-face, how about hold a discussion for a couple of days first? That should help deal with these kinds of cases. --Cyde Weys 23:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It's not a new idea. It's a long-standing maxim at AFD that It's Not About The Votes. There are several editors who reject the idea that every contribution to an AFD discussion should be prefixed with a boldfaced word, and do not do so themselves. If you think likewise, you are welcome to set an example by doing the same. An AFD discussion is a discussion, and is intended to be a discussion. Saying that a discussion between editors in order to consider alternatives and to achieve consensus, with editors presenting arguments and discussing those arguments with one another, isn't "the usual AFD discussion format" is to be misled by the current overuse of such boldfacing at AFD. In fact, such a discussion to achieve consensus is the ideal AFD discussion to which editors should aspire. Many of the best AFD discussions over the years have taken exactly this form. Uncle G 00:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I think, however, it is safe to say that this is NOT what we are seeing in the discussions being spoken about above, and why I suggested that perhaps a more formal, constrained approach to "discussion" might yield benefit in this context. I certainly do not believe that every discussion deletion should be conducted in the more formal "summary and endorsement" format of RFC -- doing so is extra effort to no benefit in most cases. Contrariwise, I think the use of that format, or some other format which helps to provide structure to the discussion, is critical to the development of true community consensus. And that's why I so strongly urge it in the context of this particularly divisive situation. Kelly Martin (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If memory serves, this was proposed as a replacement system for RfA awhile back, but was rejected. I thought it was a pretty fantastic idea :/ —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, I've been wondering if I might see the day that someone decides to be bold and ignore all rules in order to do something like set up a workshop page for determining what's best for an article, rather than directly deleting, protecting, or replacing it. Bitnine 23:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

As you all probably know by now, Essjay has made ABC News ^{[1] Link was on ABCNews.com about 8pm tonight. - SVRTVDude (Yell - Toil) 03:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)}

[edit] Early closure of high profile controversial articles

(edit conflicted with the previous thread, attempting more neutral and general framing)

Per discussion at WP:AN#These_IAR_moves_have_GOT_to_stop, let's see if we can reach consensus about high profile controversial WP:AFD discussions: what general principles should apply when an administrator contemplates early closure? Consider this in broad terms so that the ideas could apply to a range of future situations.

Some points to consider:

• When should WP:SNOW and WP:IAR come into play, if at all?
• Should the civility level in the debate be a factor?
• Should requests to let the debate run its full course be factored?
• How much does WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT affect these discussions?

Durova^Charge! 16:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

My input:

1. WP:SNOW should probably not come into play at all on these big, high-profile AFDs. There's no harm in leaving something open for a short time to make sure, I don't know, things don't develop into a New York Times story.

   When it does come into play, it should be when there is a clear consensus, not for iffy closings. That's just missing the point of snowballing in the first place, although that seems to be the fad lately.

2. Civility? That seems like a more personal issue between the editors and should be dealt with appropriately, like it would be anywhere else. Closing a discussion early because two+ editors can't get along is not the way to go.
3. Requests to let it not be early closed should be factored, as they show clear community acknowledgment of controversy. WHen there are six requests, it should definitely not be SNOWed.
4. "I like it/don't like it" shouldn't have any factor in the discussion, but they always will until people grow up and stop "voting" that way. Milto LOL pia 16:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you were kidding about the NYT article, but this has been on the front of the Technology section for most of today: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/technology/05wikipedia.html Adam 21:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, since WP:IAR is about ignoring rules that "prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia", I see a few relevant sub-questions there. One, does holding a complete discussion prevent improving Wikipedia, or only delay it? Two, does a speedy close actually improve the encyclopedia, given the damage such closes do to the community that creates the encyclopedia? Three, is any improvement worth the cost of the meta-discussion about whether the speedy close was correct?

In our recent contentious speedy closes, the answer to the first is pretty much straight forward - letting the process runs only delays improvement, not prevents it. So WP:IAR was violated by the speedy closes, not implemented by them.

The answers to the other two are less certain to me. For my number two, I think the answer is sometimes yes, sometimes no, but I can't articulate when it is a yes. For number three, I believe that the answer is clear that in a case contentious among Wikipedians, the answer is is almost always that the improvement isn't worth it. An exception here was the speedy close of the Brian Peppers DRV, where most of the contention was not among Wikipedians but instead between Wikipedians and other internet communities. The cutting off of negative contributions by those other communities was of more value than some damage to the Wikipedia community, even though that damage was aggrevated by the Brandt and Essjay incidents.

Additionally, on the original questions - requests not to snow it should always be factored. They are essentially pre-announcements that people disagree with a snowball close. Snowball closes should only be done when there is an obvious consensus. If people are saying they don't see one, there isn't an obvious consensus. GRBerry 17:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• That's the heart of the problem, the resulting arguments from SNOW closes. I mean, this one will inevitably result in the Essjay article being undeleted and relisted for deletion, starting the whole thing over again. We're just sitting around waiting for someone to do it. What a waste of time this appplication of WP:SNOW is. Milto LOL pia 17:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll probably post a little more on this later, but I think that - beyond the question of overriding community concepts - IAR closings pose something a unique danger of wheel warring. Let us say there are X admins, X-1 who want a discussion to occur, and another who wants the mess to be done with. A couple of X post messages requesting the discussion stay open. The other one closes the discussion early without previous discussion. Well, given that nondeletion is a nonaction (and not a use of administrative tools), the second hasn't wheel warred in a sense, yet at the same time the action carries many of the problematic aspects of such. And in general, when discussion is not used and early IAR deletion allowed, deletion will be systemically favored. It only takes one administrator to find the discussion disfavorable, and the early closure is the first "action," with any subsequent objections classified as "reverting" the decision. Would it help conceptually if there were a "Please don't SNOW/IAR close this" template to apply to the top of some discussions? It very well might, if it gave IAR-protection the legitimacy of a technical 'action'. Bitnine 17:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) The SNOW/IAR actions that are going on, especially with controversial subjects, are particularly repugnant to we editors who limit our activity here. Aside from myself, I know several similar editors RL, some of whom have asked me to watch "their" articles because they don't plan to return here. We don't spend hours a day on Wikipedia (not to criticize those who do), and tend to limit our participation to a few subjects, while generally keeping an eye on the overall climate of the place. It's probably coincidental that these two recent completely out-of-process events have been in subjects I'd been watching if not actively participating in. However, it has really repulsed me to see the behaviour of administrators who are clearly not being objective or community-oriented whatsoever. They are not bad people, and I believe they are acting out of some belief that this is a good thing, but their tunnel vision is extremely unhelpful to the project and dissuades less active editors from expanding their efforts. SNOW should only be used if there is a minimum 90% consensus after a discussion has run a minimum of 48 hours, and has a minimum of 20 participants. IAR is never a reason for closing an AfD or DRV. If people feel five days is too long, then shorten the time to four days. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Risker (talk • contribs) 18:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC). (wow, that was fast, sorry forgot to sign) Risker 18:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:SNOW should not apply whatsoever to such cases, it says so itself:

If an issue is "snowballed", and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably wasn't a good candidate for the snowball clause.

The same applies to WP:IAR. If one chooses to ignore a rule, it should be in an obvious case. If the case is contentious and not obvious, every member of the community who wishes to do so should be given a chance to weigh in. Early closing is not helpful in such cases, it is harmful, as it just leads to the matter staying under debate longer. It is the contentious, controversial cases in which we should be most scrupulous about following standard procedures. Failure to do so in these cases inevitably causes more strife and difficulty, not less. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 18:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think SNOW should be used only in cases where the !voter base is large, and the ratio is 10-1 or higher. I think IAR should be used to close an xFD only when it is abundantly clear (preferably to more than one person via discussion on AN or elsewhere) that keeping the discussion open is only giving editors more rope to hang themselves with (more specifically, where conflict is so hot that every passing minute is increasing the likelihood that only admins with blocky bats could deal with the fallout, or where conflict is spilling out into the larger community). In other words, when the continued existence of an open xFD is generating more nastiness than consensus, particularly when the vitriol is sufficient that blockable actions are being taken. If closing the venue prevents the fights that would result in jail time (blocks), then do so. Anchoress 19:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Anything that is likely to cause a lengthy meta-discussion on the closure should not be SNOW'd. If the point of early closure is to save editors' time by avoiding unnecessary extra discussion on an issue, then it's completely counter-productive: yet more time is wasted by discussing the closure rather than the issue, and sometimes even the original discussion has to start over. Are there any other reasons to make an early close? Trebor 19:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• As a preface to my comments, I do think it is a mistake to close early with a delete when there are substantial and contentious counter-views. To offer my own take on SNOW, however: I think that comments have been focusing on a single aspect of the clause -- in an AfD, to take action that is either keep or delete. As has been shown from the voluminous amount of discussion in the four days this particular AfD was open, no clear consensus developed (or could possibly develop). The sensible thing is to realise that the issue will go nowhere-- and close as non-consensus. More comments will not clarify or provide consensus, but will only serve to fan the flames of controversy. The discussion can then move to the article's talk page, as a more appropriate venue. It's time to put the hose to this wildfire, and move on already to actually writing articles, or deciding what policy changes need to be made in light of the controversy -- rather than playing tug-of-war over an article that will, in a short while, inevitably go away. --Leflyman^Talk 21:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It's an assumption to say that no clear consensus could develop. We leave discussions open the full time in the hope that it will (sometimes we even extend them for this purpose). If we truly want to get on with the rest of the encyclopaedia (as you say), we need to stop creating cause for meta-discussions which get further and further away from anything relevant (the discussion of the closure of the MfD on the RfC for Essjay was one of the most ridiculous I've seen). Trebor 21:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Statistically improbable. Unless those who have already made comments went back to reverse themselves, there won't be consensus, no matter how long it remains open. I'd lay any wager you like on that outcome.--Leflyman^Talk 22:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Well-reasoned arguments that are presented late in a given debate have the opportunity to sway the consensus in major ways. Just look at the Brandt DRV - what originally began as a DRV dominated by delete votes ended up dominated by keep votes. I say that WP:SNOW should never be applied to controversial debates, period. - Merzbow 22:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I've given this some additional thought, and I do think that two suggestions/modifications would probably serve this issue well:

• Gain at least a rough consensus before applying WP:IAR in cases beyond the transparently trivial. And consider it good form if you allow another party to actually apply the action.
• Allow WP:SNOW to sit for a day before action and be revertable. With the request of anyone reverting it adding something substantive to the discussion.

While this might certainly see a large reduction in the (successful) applications of SNOW and IAR, that may be a very good thing. After all, if you feel that you can't gain even a rough consensus for an IAR action or that a SNOW closing would be mercilessly reverted, that might be a good sign not to pursue that particular action. Bitnine 22:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

What? A controversial decision cannot be SNOWed period, and asserting otherwise is an over-extention of WP:SNOW, which only applies when a consensus is clear (i.e. relatively uncontroversial). And WP:IAR should never apply to admin tools. That is, unless wheel wars are now ok. Cool Hand Luke 06:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There are limited circumstances where IAR is ok with admin tools but doesn't involve wheel warring. For example, I recently became convinced that an IP editor was unaware of that he had a talk page so I gave him a short block with the request to go there (with a wikilink to the talk page in the blocking message). Within blocking policy? No. Acceptable under IAR? Probably. Involving wheel warring? No. JoshuaZ 06:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I spoke to broadly. In any case, I think the emphasis is "noncontroversial." If an application of IAR is controversial enough that another admin would undo it, it probably ought not be done. Cool Hand Luke 14:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The sooner we depreciate IAR, the better. I don't care if it has a long history, I don't care if it has Jimbo's approcal - it's being abused, it's controversial, and it's no longer a useful part of the project. The last few weeks have more than proven this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I always considered IAR just another way of applying the famous Latin dictum, Rem tenere, uerbis sequentur -- "Hold on to the idea, and the words [or in this case, the policy] will follow." Follow the spirit of the rule or guideline, not the literal meaning of what it says, especially because someone might just change the language on you! -- llywrch 19:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The obvious problem with this is that people don't apply it to WP:IAR itself - they read the single line of text on the page and apply it as WP:Do what thou wilt. —Cryptic 19:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it clearly ironic that I quoted a saying attributed to Saint Augustine, and you one attributed to Aleister Crowley. I don't know what it signifies, but it is ironic. -- llywrch 22:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indefinite block of User:BabyDweezil

[edit] The ArbCom and the Essjay business

One of the things that has bugged me most about the whole Essjay saga is the way in which Jimbo appointed Essjay onto the ArbCom, when he didn't ever run in the last election, after he knew about Essjay's liberties with the truth: nor, apparently, did Jimbo check Essjay's contribs for using those fake credentials to win content disputes, which we now know he did. Fair enough, Jimbo's a very busy chap, and all his actions after the initial mistake have been of the most wise and statesmanlike nature.

Now, my point is that that one bad decision - not that Jimbo makes very many of those - would not have got past us had it been put to community scrutiny, and an awful lot of bad publicity would not have occurred. Collectively, we have the time to check Essjay's contribs for dubious behaviour based on false credentials, which is what we eventually did at the RFC. The further bad publicity incurred by Jimbo's initials response to the New Yorker would not have occurred had the whole matter been put to community scrutiny earlier when Dmcdevit resigned and we needed replacements for the ArbCom.

Anyway, my point is that we, as a community, need more direct control over the final stage of our dispute resolution process, the ArbCom. It is our wiki. I have not been able to understand why Jimbo exercises so much control over the ArbCom, not only at election time but also when replacements during terms are needed. (BTW, the ArbCom terms are ludicrously long and make insufficient allowance for the high rate of admin and arbitrator burnout. But that is a side point). I cannot understand why we turn our brains off when it comes to ArbCom and delegate our responsibilities to Jimbo. As a community we control virtually every other aspect of Wikipedia: why not ArbCom? Why the abdication of responsibility? We need to take control of the process: ArbCom is important and deserves maximum scrutiny. So, any ideas how? Best, Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 22:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the idea of running potential arbitrators by the community would be useful. Jimbo ran them by the arbitrators, and I feel somewhat guilty that I did not catch his use of his supposed degree and position in content disputes. I'm sure the community, with its many eyes would have found that problem. Fred Bauder 16:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the fifth of the m:Foundation issues will be useful. HowIBecameCivil 22:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You are, of course, aware that the ArbCom is a delegation of Jimbo's authority over the community, and acts on his personal authority as "god-king" rather than on any authority delegate to the ArbCom by the community. The ArbCom is not responsible to the community, and the community has no authority over it, except insofar as Jimbo chooses to allow. The ArbCom need only consider the community's interests to the extent that brazenly disregarding the community will cause the community to fail to respect it and render it practically unable to do anything useful. However, be very clear that you are delegating nothing to Jimbo when you "allow" Jimbo to select Arbitrators. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

As Kelly points out above, Arbom is distinct from the community. Arbcom only exists because the community has failed to handle its own problems. I am always surprised by how quickly various cases are pushed onto Arbcom. Each case sent there is really the community saying "please step in we cannot handle this one". I would think the community would try harder to deal with these incidents themselves rather than abdicate responsibilty so easily. I think Moreschi is asking the wrong question. Don't ask why the abdication of responsibility in choosing arbitrators, but why the abdication of responsibility in relying on the "god-king" and his court of last resort to step in and settle so many disputes.--BirgitteSB 23:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I have often said that the purpose of the Arbitration Committee is to make decisions for the community in those situations where a decision is needed but the community is unable to make it. I've heard other Arbitrators say the same thing, so there must be some merit to the claim. Unfortunately, far too often the community abrogates its obligation to attempt to make decisions to the Arbitration Committee; conversely, (especially lately) the Arbitration Committee has occasionally seized the authority to make decisions from the community prematurely. When I was an Arbitrator, I often moved to reject cases where I felt that the community could manage to deal with the matter on its own, or where I felt that letting the community find a solution was likely to cause less damage than the Arbitration Committee taking the matter on. I fear that the sense that the Arbitration Committee should not take on matters in such a posture has been lost with the current Arbitration Committee; this is likely a reflection of the fact that the community has forgotten my oft-repeated admonishment: "The Arbitration Committee is not your mother." It is the community's obligation to police itself, not the Arbitration Committee's. The invocation of the authority of the Arbitration Committee represents a failure on the part of the community, and if the community were healthy would be an infrequent thing.

People, please try to be adults and work your problems out on your own. Don't rely on the ArbCom to do it for you. And remember, if policy gets in the way of doing this, feel free to ignore it (c.f. my above suggestion regarding controversial deletions). Kelly Martin (talk) 23:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

But I would say that invocation of the Arbitration Committee's authority is an infrequent thing. We have 1.6 million articles, tens of thousands of active users, over 1000 administrators, and at present, exactly 10 open arbitration cases. Newyorkbrad 23:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ten? That's high, compared to when I was an Arbitrator (except for that brief period when I was first appointed, and that's because there was a backlog caused by a shortage of Arbitrators). And more informative is not the number of open cases, but the number of cases filed (whether or not accepted). Each case filed represents a situation where the community failed to sufficiently resolve the dispute in question. And I'm quite certain that that number is increasing. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, the community and the number of pages whereon conflict can arise is also larger than when you served as an arbitrator. As for rejected cases, typically when the arbitrators decline to hear a case, they advise the editor who filed it to pursue a more community-based solution to the issue. I would guesstimate that there are maybe about three rejected cases filed every week—still not a lot given our current size and scope. Newyorkbrad 00:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That is not useful metric. How many non-content disputes are sent to RfC without ending up at ArbCom after three months? Is the percentage up or down from a year ago? It seem to me an awful lot of disputes eventually end up on Arbcom. Especially if the dispute involves established editors on both sides (which you would think would be the ones where Arbcom is not needed to lay down the law). And there are many disputes that are just left simmering, sometimes even after Arbcom. There is not alot of dispute resolution happening within this community. It seems that the community as whole simply avoids getting involved with settling disputes as a neutral party, but jumps to get involved as an advocate (of either a position or a person). I really do see it as abdicating responsibility. I like this project and all but I am not so invested in it as to take on such these things. The problem is many people who are so invested choose to aviod the disputes as well. Things would improve greatly around here if the main players here made it a priority to resolve disputes before they get to Arbcom. As Machiavelli said "A battle delayed is a battle deferred to your disadvantage." "A battle deferred is a battle delayed to your disadvantage."--BirgitteSB 00:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Jimbo consulted community leaders about the appointment of Essjay and ones that had reservations have apologiged for not speaking up when they should have according to Jimbo's talk page. It's not all jimbo's fault. Whether he should appoint people in the future is being rightly questioned, but it was what worked in the past,
2. The community does indeed control arbcom any time it has the will to do so. Their decisions care moral weight only. If need be the community can fork the project. The community will not do so without a really good reason.
3. Our current setup has elements of monarchy/president (jimbo), democracy/anarchy (editors), and aristocracy (guess who). Theorists from ancient times to the founding of america have considered a balance of these forces to be useful in the governing of an institution. WAS 4.250 00:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There are alternatives besides Requests for Comment and Arbitration. The Mediation Committee is not backlogged any more, and there is always the Mediation Cabal.  : ) Of course, mediators cannot actually enforce anything, so mediation probably would not work for the types of disputes you are talking about right now. — Armed Blowfish (talk|mail) 01:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I object to the use of :) next to the MedCabal! It's highly productive, and is a welcome break from the intense attitude of DR processes higher up the chain. anthonycfc ^[talk] 20:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Arbitration isn't just a matter of the community abrogating its responsibilities. At the outset of Wikipedia only Jimbo could ban editors personally. In early 2004 when that load got too large for one person ArbCom was created. Community banning didn't become an established concept until last year and community topic banning is a developing issue - the recently closed discussion at the top of this board appears to be only the second time the community has applied a topic ban, and the previous one got appealed as far as RFAR (the Committee rejected the appeal). Wikipedia.en is far larger today than it was three years ago, yet there's still only one ArbCom. So it stands to reason that enough precedents have been created for the community to peel away the more routine and straightforward cases and let the arbitrators crack the tough nuts. To the extent that I can, I've helped with that in coauthoring the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing guideline and spearheading the Wikipedia:Community enforced mediation proposal. I hope the latter gets more attention when the Essjay affair dies down. I've got six volunteer community mediator trainees and am pretty much set to give the thing a trial run. Durova^Charge! 01:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

In practice, how is Arbcom different from, say, something that worked exactly like Arbcom but was instead formed by the community? I would argue "not at all". If the present Arbcom election process was deterministic (the top n in terms of percentage, with a percentage floor of x%, become arbitrators) rather than treated like an elaborate advisement-of-Jimbo process, nothing would change except perhaps who became arbitrators. (An elaborate "arbitration cabal", selected exactly this way and operating alongside Arbcom, with the wide administrator and user support of Arbcom, would replace Arbcom entirely. It might not get this degree of admin and user support because Arbcom already exists and we have no need to recreate it, but that only illustrates how Arbcom is already accepted within the community.) So I don't think it's an issue of the community failing to solve problems and referring them to Arbcom—it's an issue of Arbcom simply being the community's way of solving certain problems. On a similar note, Arbcom has nothing to do with dispute resolution and arbitration—it's more of a formal disciplinary process much of the time, much as User RFC is a means to collect opinions about users who we feel have done wrong, and Article RFC and Mediation are about actually resolving disputes. Treating them as all the same system is about as myopic as pretending Arbcom is something totally separate from the community. (Wikipedia's greatest problem: the names and legal and organizational fictions we employ differ so much from the reality that we have to continually play an Orwellian translation game to stay on top.) Philwelch 01:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting that you describe the current situation as Orwellian in a statement that appears to propose a doppelganger arbitration committee. One of the defining characteristics of a totalitarian society - as originally articulated by Hannah Arendt in The Origins of Totalitarianism is that different branches of government maintain departments that compete with each other to serve essentially the same function. The outcome of that structure is that contradictory precedents and interpretations emerge, which results in a fearful society in which no one is certain of being on the right side of the law. Obviously Wikipedia won't generate a Gulag, but serious change proposals must be thought out thoroughly: I don't see the need to replace ArbCom, although there are certainly reasons to augment it. Durova^Charge! 02:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

By "Orwellian" I refer to the fact that we call things by names that vastly contradict reality. For instance, we vote on deletions, adminships, etc., but aren't allowed to call them votes because "voting is evil". We have an arbitration committee which doesn't really arbitrate in the usual sense of the term. "Orwellian" does not necessarily mean "totalitarian"—playing language games in order to, for instance, reconcile the dogma that "voting is evil" with the fact that voting is an essential tool to reconcile opposing views in a community is the classic sort of thing George Orwell wrote about. Competing government agencies are Arendt's idea, not Orwell's. My "arbitration cabal" wasn't a proposal of anything so much as it was a thought experiment to illustrate my primary thesis—that Arbcom is no different from something that worked exactly like Arbcom but was instead formed by the community. My point in illustrating this thesis is to illustrate, first that the theory of Arbitration Committee being an extension of Jimbo's authority instead of the community's is rather meaningless in practice, and secondly, that Arbcom isn't something external from the community that we go to in order to solve problems we can't. In essence, if we had to, we would solve those problems ourselves…by forming an arbitration committee. Philwelch 02:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

So I don't think it's an issue of the community failing to solve problems and referring them to Arbcom—it's an issue of Arbcom simply being the community's way of solving certain problems. On a similar note, Arbcom has nothing to do with dispute resolution and arbitration—it's more of a formal disciplinary process much of the time, much as User RFC is a means to collect opinions about users who we feel have done wrong, and Article RFC and Mediation are about actually resolving disputes I don't want to be misunderstood here that I have problem with Arbcom; I think it has been very useful. But I still see it is a symptom of the community's failure. There is no reason for a successfull community to allow the collateral damage that has to occur for a dispute to reach the level of Arbcom as simply it's way of solving certain problems. Arbcom is the community's way of giving up on certain problems. If Arbcom leans towards being disciplinary, it is only because the community failed to hold the editors to the most basic standards for months if not years before they stood before Arbcom. User RFC has scant participation, but I have seen policies completely misinterpreted there. I think it works much better as a place to reinforce specific policy interpretations than as a place to collect comments on a user as whole. But it is hard to really reinforce much with six people responding. I haven't participated on Article RFC in long time. Once I discovered the gem of an article that is the nation directly north of Greece that way. I hope it is actually resolving disputes these days, my long past experience was not that favorable. Mediation is seriously the best chance of resolving a dispute. Every dispute where the participants can agree that a resolution to the dispute is actually a priority should be resolved that way. The problems are the disputes where one or more parties would rather have continuing turmoil than to make concessions. Those are the cases where the community has to make it clear turmoil is not an option. However turmoil often seems to be a valid option here.

But I want to repeat that I support Arbcom. They are doing their best with an often floundering and a sometimes failing community. When we talk about the community being in control of dispute resolution (read the intial post in this thread again), we should not be talking about how to choose the handful of people who pick up the pieces when we fail, so much as we should be talking about how to prevent so many issues from falling to pieces in the first place.--BirgitteSB 03:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I respect both of your viewpoints. Here's a rephrasing of mine: on a practical level ArbCom can't be expected to keep up with the site's growth. If we assume user conflicts increase proportionate to total articles and site membership, the committee would get swamped. Somehow the community needs to shoulder a greater share of that burden. I think we all agree that more community involvement is a good idea. I've been working on some ideas that would work on a practical level without rethinking ArbCom from the ground up. One of them is at the proposal stage (linked in my earlier edit). I'd appreciate it if you gave the idea a look. Regards, Durova^Charge! 03:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed—it's not Arbcom's fault that we need them. But it's a little misguided to say that we're failing as a community if we do need them. Any community has courts, judges, systems to settle grievances. Perhaps it's true that if you need a judge to settle your grievance you're failed in some way, but given a community of more than a handful of people, it's gonna happen. Inevitably. The only places you *don't* see these things are highly authoritarian places—companies don't have pseudocourts to settle grievances that arise between coworkers over their work because companies are hierarchical, and there's always a boss who can say "this is what's gonna happen, and you're fired". Unless we want to elevate administrators to some higher level of discretionary power and let them say "this is what's going to happen, you're fired for being a net negative contributor, you should leave because you're a fanboy and this isn't a good place for you, you're a deranged nut, you're a valuable contributor and I trust you more than Anonymous Coward…", we're gonna need Arbcom. That's the price of a free society. Philwelch 03:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I really do not think very differently from what you say above. I do think you are taking my comments too generally. Every case sent to Arbcom is a case where the community failed. There will always some cases where the community fails; it does not follow that the comunity is Failure. I don't think we should aim to get rid of Arbcom. But we should aim to minmize the number of cases that reach Arbcom. It does seem to me that lately many disputes are treated as if an Arbcom case is a forgone conclusion. My point is that community has been giving up on resolving disputes too easily. That they are too quick to pass the buck to Arbcom. This damaging for all that happens as an individual dispute progresses to the level of Arbcom and also because it spreads the idea that anything short of warranting an Arbcom case must be tolerated. It is also an indirect problen because it is not uncommon for people facing an Arbcom case to leave or at least plan on it. This then fuels other disputes by showing the example that if a dispute can escalate all the way to Arbcom there is a chance the other guy will just quit. This undermines the entire dispute resolution process because why would someone resolve a dispute when they can possibly WIN by forfiet. The more Arbcom is relied on the worse the general atmosphere around here will get. It is just a viscious cycle that will continue until the community stops tolerating misbehaivor. Arbcom should be a BIG DEAL.--BirgitteSB 05:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section break

Maybe a few things so I can get my thoughts together.

• Technically, is Jimbo really the absolute authority? I've always thought that if Jimbo indefblocked me in his capacity as project leader - not just as ordinary admin - I could appeal that decision with the Board, if not anywhere else.
• I rather like Fred Bauder's idea of the community having a preview of arbitrators appointed in the manner that Essjay/Mackensen were when Dmcdevit resigned.
• The phrase "community leaders" really, really sucks. Up to a fortnight ago Essjay would have been considered a "community leader", if we actually had any. We have no community leaders here, with the exception of Jimbo. That's rather the point of Wikipedia. In the absence of "community leaders", the community should be consulted.
• A few people above seem to have missed the point. I'm not talking about the existence of ArbCom being us turning our brains off: it's the way in which we elect our arbitrators which, in my opinion, is us turning our brains off: with, as we have seen this week, catastrophic results.
• In practice, whatever power ArbCom has comes from the community, insofar as it would lose credibility if we all started ignoring its rulings. Therefore, I don't think it's unreasonable for us to expect a greater element of control in the way in which we elect our arbitrators. I agree with Philwelch's point that an ArbCom that took its power from the community, rather than Jimbo, would be no different at all to the current ArbCom, which in practice already does, if not in theory. IMO it's time the practice became the theory.
• An awful lot of pages - WP:DR, WP:AC - describe ArbCom as the last stage in dispute resolution, a last stage that can issues binding rulings. And it is a dispute resolution process that exists to serve the community.

Any thoughts? Best, Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 18:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• This website is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation; Jimbo "owns" Wikipedia. Don't like that? The door is that way. This message was brought to you by the harsh reality department. Guy (Help!) 18:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Strictly speaking, the Wikipedia Foundation owns the servers and supplies the bandwidth, but each individual contribution is "owned" by the editor who creates it. You might say that Jimbo ownes the servers but "we" own the contents. These editors ("we") have, however, irrevocably licensed their contribution in a way that allows the Wikipedia Foundation (or anyone else, for that matter) to continue distributing it. It's that sentence below the edit box that says "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL". The effect of Guy's statement is correct: if you don't like Jimbo controlling things, get a copy of the database and start a new Wiki-encyclopedia. - EMET-MET 18:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Forking is easier said than done. The last image dump was, IIRC, in November 2005. Deleted content is not included in the dumps. --Random832 19:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

We could ask Jimbo nicely that next time he wants to appoint arbitrators without an elective process, that there be a comment period so the community could vet the candidate. Thatcher131 23:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

(moved from WP:AN) [context was Moreschi's comment: "In the wake of the Essjay shebang, I've kicked off a discussion at CN on the lack of - as I perceive it - community influence over the Arbitration Committee. Please feel free to tell me I'm being stupid.] You're not being stupid, but you are mistaken about a key issue. Jimbo's authority is written into our policies. If you disagree with him, fine--he's actually generally open to constructive criticism if it's phrased politely and doesn't come (as at present) in the middle of a bombardment. Admins are admins because Jimbo created the position and appointed the first ones; arbcom is arbcom because Jimbo created and appointed the original tranches, and has overseen and had final authority over every subsequent election. So yes, there is a lack of community influence over arbcom--that's the idea. Chick Bowen 21:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, Moreschi, you've put your finger on soemthing that is very troubling. Jimbo's relationship to the English Wikipedia -- let alone any one of the Wikimedia projects -- is undefined. Since he resigned from the Wikimedia Board, he has no official relationship to any of the projects; & that resignation suggests that he wants to limit his interaction with these projects. All of us here on en.wikipedia tacitly accept him as the final say over any dispute here; I'm not clear on what the communities involved at the other projects think. (I suspect Jimbo isn't interested in finding out either in the case of, say, the Arabic or Georgian language Wikipedias, where not only would he need a trustworthy interpreter but perhaps even need to introduce himself to them.) Because of that lack of a official relationship, it is entirely possible that a group of unhappy Admins could conspire to ban him from Wikipedia -- & convince a large number of the rest of the community to uphold their act.

This radical act is not something I am in favor of doing. So far, his worst decision has been to appoint Essjay to the ArbCom without an open discussion, so I'm willing to continue editting under the current ill-defined arrangement. But if someone as slow & unimaginative as I can conceive of doing this, I suspect that this occasion -- which I do not want to see happen -- may come to pass. -- llywrch 19:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

<Sigh>. . . Once again, that's simply not the case. Not accepting Jimbo's authority is not an option: it wouldn't be legal or financially possible. The Foundation still answers to Jimbo and the Foundation owns the server, the domain name wikipedia.org, etc. etc. So enough of this, please. Chick Bowen 21:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"Enough of this"? I'm just describing a serious point of failure here -- & it disturbs me. Right now, all that connects Jimmy Wales to this project is a lot of trust & unofficial connections -- nothing official. A group of (insert your choice from the following: Admins, Developers, Trustees, etc.) could decide one day to tell him to take a hike & ... he'd have to do it. I don't want to see that -- which is why I'm pointing this out, before someone decides to try that stunt. Since this is falling on deaf ears, I'll end this subject here, but I reserve the right to say "told ya so" if this happens a few years down the road. -- llywrch 23:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Foundation does not answer to jimbo alone. Foundation answer to the board. Jimbo is only one memeber. Now we have got the constitional stuff out of the way it is important to remeber that it isn't practicle to hold more than one set of arbcom elections per year so some kind of mechanism is needed for fill in apointments.Geni 03:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for my gruff tone, but I still don't see this as a serious problem. Our foundation principles still preserve Jimbo's role, and far as your (addressing Llywrch here) hypothetical scenario goes, only trustees have that power even on a legal level. Admins and developers don't. Chick Bowen 05:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

jimbo's formal ranks is on the same level as any other board memeber.Geni 10:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba 2

The above-named arbitration case has closed and the complete decision can be found at the link above. Andries, Wikisunn, SSS108, and Freelanceresearch are banned indefinitely from editing Sathya Sai Baba and related articles or their talk pages. Ekantik is instructed to make all future Wikipedia contributions related in any way to Sathya Sai Baba under a single username. Kkrystian is reminded that all edits must be supported by reliable sources. Editors involved at Sathya Sai Baba are encouraged to use better sources and improved citation style. The remedies in the prior decision Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba regarding poorly sourced information remain in force and apply to all editors working on Sathya Sai Baba and related articles. The Arbitration Committee reserves the right to amend these remedies as required and to issue additional remedies as necessary to provide a positive environment for collaboration on the Sathya Sai Baba article, even if no additional case is brought forward. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 00:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch

The above entitled arbitration case has closed, and the final decision has been published at the link shown. The Arbitration Committee has found that Philwelch misused his administrative tools. Because he gave up his status as an administrator in the face of controversy concerning his administrator actions and after an arbitration case was filed against him, he may not be automatically re-granted adminship. However, he is free to seek readminship, should he choose to do so, at any time by a request for adminship at WP:RfA. For the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 12:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedians by age - my UCFD solution

Please take a look at how I decided to close the Wikipedians born in YEAR UCFD. Before I implement it, I want to see if it's okay. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 03:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

A very fair and measured closure that took finesse, is my opinion. Xiner (talk, email) 04:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a fair compromise. It's important to remember that while WP:ENC, it's not harmful to have community-based aspects as well, and this solution cuts down on overcategorization of users while maintaining a definitive age-based structure for those who like that sort of thing. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 04:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have modified User:Ian Moody/User age auto to reflect this (and added equivalent code to other templates which did not formerly categorize, i assume due to this mess). Anyone know what we're doing about the 18-19 set? (and, did we ever reach a consensus on whether identifying users who are (say) 16 or 17 in a "15-19" group is acceptable or not? --Random832 15:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not have categories for Wikipedians born "in the 90s", "in the 80s", etc? This would avoid specific ages while dealing with the issue of older teenagers (including 18-19). —Dark•Shikari^[T] 20:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedians born in the 90s are under 18, and my closure of the debate specifies that children categories are to be gone. Same applies for a small part of the 1980s. Maybe we could have Category:Wikipedians aged 18 or 19, then Category:Wikipedians in their 20s, etc. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 21:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Aren't Wikipedians aged 18 and 19 covered adequately by Category:Teenage Wikipedians? WjBscribe 21:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose... —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 23:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how having categories dividing users up by age or year of birth helps us to write an encyclopedia. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps some people want to encourage age discrimination? Durova^Charge! 14:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose there's a potential for trying to consider generational gap POV issues/systemic bias, though I am personally doubtful that the categories will end up being used as such. So long as no one attempts to create Category: Unsupervised Underage At-Risk Wikipedians. Because there's a point where even the more generous applications of AGF peter out. Bitnine 14:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand why it might be useful to know someone's age; in that case, they can just say it on their userpage. I still don't see what categories are necessary. I can't ever think of a situation that would come up where I would be thinking, "Hrmm, I need to talk with a 24-26-year-old Wikipedian ... better go check those categories." --Cyde Weys 16:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll refrain from giving specific usernames on this example, but about two months ago one of our younger sysops implemented a perfectly normal block. A disruptive editor promptly joined the blocked user's talk page to lodge an ad hominem complaint based on the acting administrator's age. I happened to be active while this unfolded and promptly voiced my support of the block itself and of the good judgement of that particular administrator, whom I've seen operate well under tough field conditions. I dislike the idea of categories that facilitate this type of disruption. Durova^Charge! 21:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External peer review triggered by Essjay scandal

I am not sure that I am posting in the right area, but the whole Essjay scandal triggered an external peer review found at http://www.shoutwire.com/default.aspx?p=comments&id=56188. Should I post this in Wikipedia:External peer review or not, considering the source is Shoutwire and not a traditional medium? This review looks like it has some valid points. Jesse Viviano 20:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say to post it. It seems to be balanced and offer useful, actionable, criticism. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have posted it at Wikipedia:External peer review/Shoutwire March 2007 and have transcluded it onto Wikipedia:External peer review. Jesse Viviano 15:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Ditto, looks OK. This comment by one responder was hilarious, though: "Why would anybody lie about having a PhD in Theology? That'd be like claiming to have a nasty case of herpes when you don't. Weird." Cheers, Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 21:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with above. We should be encouraging this kind of stuff - outside readers providing us with some article assessment is a good thing. --`/aksha 07:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Finally, a productive response from the media instead of gossip. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Not bad grades for a work in progress. I would like to see what grades we get in 2015. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy#Community_banning

I started a thread a few days ago to discuss updating the policy language in light of recent precedents. The folks who frequent that talk page don't appear to have been active on this board. The ongoing WP:RFAR of the BabyDweezil community ban raises additional points. To outline the major things:

• The Arbitration Committee has affirmed the community's right to topic ban (per Miracleimpulse's denied appeal).
• WP:BAN does not link to the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing guideline, which provides a detailed model for community bans. Since WP:DE has been at the guideline level for six months it's probably time for the policy to link there.
• BabyDweezil's request for arbitration raises two interesting points that were not anticipated when WP:DE was in the draft proposal phase - specific notification to the editor under discussion when a community ban proposal opens and a mechanism for letting that user present a defense (if blocked from editing while the discussion is underway). These are reasonable points for the community to discuss, and probably to incorporate at either the guideline or the policy.

Durova^Charge! 14:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:N and WP:AI

Interesting discussions going on at both these places as to how our notability rules should work. Posting here because I think some more input is needed from a wider base of people. Cheers, Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 15:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this here, I forgot this is a good place. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Occupation of Latvia

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The parties identified in the decision as having acted poorly in the dispute regarding Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945 are admonished to avoid such behavior in the future. That article is placed on probation, and any editor may be banned from it, or from other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, inciviilty, and original research. The Arbitration Committee reserves the right to appoint one or more mentors at any time, and the right to review the situation in one year, if appropriate. The parties are strongly encouraged to enter into a mediation arrangement regarding any article-content issues that may still be outstanding. If the article is not substantially improved by continued editing, the Arbitration Committee may impose editing restrictions on users whose editing is counterproductive or disruptive. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 23:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Briefsism

[edit] Ads to benefit Wikipedia

Closing this. I do not approve of it at all and it seems unlikely anyone else will. This was absolutely not the purpose of my work – Qxz 11:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Anthony cfc

Good evening, my fellow Wikipedians. After careful reflection, I've decided I would like to "start a fresh", in a way. Although I've never vandalised, and I'm most certainly not a "bad user", I've acted quite "power hungry" over my one-year career. In short, I've applied for several positions out of my reach.

My NHS G.P. (that's a doctor, for you non-Brits :) has spoken with me, and I've been prescribed a course of anti-depressants. Around Saturday, these took effect, and I've got a positive new outlook in life - and Wikipedia.

I would therefore like the community to suggest methods I could employ to "start a fresh"; my particular focus is on DR work, as well as XfD. However, I believe there are still those out there who are bitter over my past actions. If they can find it in their heart to forgive me, I shall be eternally grateful.

In the meanwhile, I ask the community to rather than forget what I have done, to remain impartial and mindful of my new actions, and judge me on the present, rather than dwindle on the deep, dark past.

With the greatest anticipation,
anthonycfc ^[talk] 00:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Meds do wonders don't they? :) Things get forgotten (most of time) and will be dwindle away once you start expressing this positive attitude elsewhere (in your article writing and your dispute resolution with others in particular). — Moe 01:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

My recommendation would be to steer well clear of xFD and do some Wikignoming. Special:Random is good - keep going till you see something interesting that wants work, it rarely takes more than a few clicks. Oh, and if it's Dosulepin, don't try doing tricky detail things after taking the meds :-) Guy (Help!) 13:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• I have a standing offer to people who get sanctioned at arbitration that I'll give them the Barnstar of Resilience if they create a new article that makes the Did you know? section at Wikipedia's main page. Check out User:Durova/Did you know? for tips on how to get there. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 13:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for your input guys! To Durova - I've not even came close to being in front of the ArbCom! anthonycfc ^[talk] 20:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand, but since I offer the barnstar to people who misstep that badly I can certainly offer it to you. Best wishes. Durova^Charge! 21:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• WikiGnoming isn't a bad idea actually. I think you have a lot to contribute and I've seen you contribute very positively in areas I've been involved with, and you have a good attitude to this. I think Essjay's little graphic is always a good policy to follow when in doubt. Orderinchaos78 08:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emir Arven (proposed ban or indef block)