Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5
• 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10
11 • 12 • 13 • 14 • 15
16 • 17 • 18 • 19 • 20
21 • 22 • 23 • 24 • 25

Contents

Highways

Is there any way I can get some assistance? Maybe I'm just a "nice guy", but I'm not keen on presenting offensive evidence of "this person has done this" etc. Should I be doing this, and possibly escalating the dispute further? Is behavior like [1], at least if repeated, something that can be presented and acted upon? Thank you. --NE2 09:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The folks at WP:EAR will be happy to listen to your concerns in detail and send you to the right place. This is probably the wrong venue. Jehochman Talk 22:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please unprotect Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision?

No doubt there was a meltdown there over the last day but you just can't lock down the talk page of a proposed Arbcom decision like that. I understand a quick freeze to shoo everyone away for a bit but not a lock until after the decision is final. I understand there was a condition under which it could be unprotected but I think making people promise to be nice is just allowing them to hold it hostage against those of us that do have something to say in a civil manner. RxS (talk) 06:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The Committee can do whatever it likes, in theory, especially with regard to arbitration-associated pages. I have no idea whether FloNight was acting on behalf of the Arbitration Committee or merely as an arbitrator, but regardless I'd strongly caution any non-arbitrator administrator not to undo this without assent from an arbitrator. Daniel (talk) 06:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I thought it was clear I was asking a member of Arbcom to do it, this is their talk page. But if it wasn't clear, my mistake. And I would agree that it should come from that group. RxS (talk) 06:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, never mind. If you guys (arbcom) want to review the conversation I was having with Phil go ahead, I didn't get to respond to his last comment but you get the drift. Apparently that page is just a courtesy provided by the Arbitration commitee anyway. RxS (talk) 06:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
It's sometimes useful. More than once, ArbCom decisions have been influenced by behavior on the proposed decision talk page. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying that the page should be unprotected? You and Mackensen were happy to contribute to that page. Carcharoth (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
We don't need yet another venue for the nastiness that caused this case in the first place. There appear to be plenty of places for the principles and their friends to snipe at each other. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Not the only people given to sniping it seems JP. Giano (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If users would stay civil we wouldn't need arbcom so often or page protection. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes it does not hurt to state a truism. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It is never helpful to state an untruth. It's "civility" that ArbCom is for? I thought it was for violations of policy that were intractable. Silly me! It's about manners. I should very much like to see how "sniping" on Wikipedia "caused" the case. I see a previously unheard of user lodging a case on grounds with no basis in policy, and then an acceptance, and then a potpourri and fishing trip to find what could be said. Find "civility" in the complaint. Find "civility" anywhere prior to the Workshop going and going and going and going. Meanwhile, this is getting mischaracterized, and we have continuing insults from arbitrators as well as the people trying to get a verdict. Altogether evil, but "protection" is absurd. That's not how you hear from parties. It's how you create an echo chamber. Geogre (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • One of the abuses that should have been considered already in this case was the misuse of page protection by David Gerard. It was, as he has said, aimed primarily at keeping the single non-administrator from editing. Here we are in a similar situation. The protection, after all, is more of a courtesy than a software wall for administrators. It came about when Snowspinner made an absolutely guttural statement (all the while complaining that everyone else is using "hyperbole"). It would be easier to give Snowspinner an official warning to remain polite, to offer apologies, and to avoid edit warring. I, in fact, did warn him about edit warring, when he set about to erase his comment (but leave the responses), without apology. Protection was hardly necessary, and, on Wikipedia, we use protection only when absolutely necessary. Using it freely is a bad idea. If the persons cannot refrain themselves, then the persons should be spoken to, directly, in person. Protection is not the answer. It's not even a decent plan. I thought FloNight was making a stopgap only, and Gordon's support of permanent protection is an indictment of his judgment. Geogre (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
    • The drama caused by Phil's poor choice of words had largely died out with strikethroughs and apologies on several sides, when the edit war started over Phil's attempt to remove or archive his comments. Rather than edit warring, the situation could have been handled by an appeal to any of the clerks or to an Arbitrator; leaving the page in either disputed state for a few hours while awaiting an answer would have hurt no one. As the nominal clerk on the case I have considered conditions under which I would unprotect the page, despite the opinions of some Arbitrators to the contrary, and I will continue to consider the matter, but statements like the above make me wonder why I should stick my neck out. Thatcher 23:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Why? Are you suggesting, Thatcher, that one person trying to cover up what he said (if he had used strike through, there would have been no controversy, and if he had apologized or promised to be respectful, it would have been well done) by removing information from the page requires a Clerk or Arb to deal with? You're redefining what administrators do, then, and you're making a special page. Both are unprecedented. I still don't understand why, when one person is removing comments, that person cannot be warned? As you say, the controversy over the comments had died, and to highlight something, Snowspinner reignited it with trying to remove his comments. See one person's name over and over? What you're suggesting, Thatcher, is neither the better way nor the easier way. Geogre (talk) 15:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I was planning to unprotect the page soon-ish...but feel less incline to after reading some of justifications for the actions on the page that lead to the protection. I personally do not have time to police the page. For now, I'm going to leave it protected. I already asked the other arbitrators to unprotect if they were so inclined. If Thatcher wants to unprotect of course I trust him to do so. FloNight (talk) 00:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
        I totally support Flo's actions and rationale here. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
        Not having time to deal with something is often a good indication that it would have been best to leave it to those who do have time to deal with it. Protection might seem a good way to stop one group of people arguing with each other, but you are surely aware that other people were using, and may still want, to use that talk page? And page protection is not a carrot to be used in the sense of "play nice and then I'll unprotect" - again, that misses the point that other people use the talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 00:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
      • (Note: this was written at the same time as FloNight's comments above - so some of the comments about being unresponsive no longer apply, but it took me long enough to write it, so I'm just saving it now anyway). Thatcher, I'm pleased to see that as the clerk in this case you think that unprotecting is not such a bad idea. What I see here is some people protecting because they don't want the dispute to flare up again while the case is still going on (this ignores the fact that the dispute could still flare up again on any other page on Wikipedia), and some people seeing the function of the talk page being successfully disrupted by the brief edit warring and the overlong protection. If I had, for example, protected the page for only a few hours, would FloNight have stepped in and upped the page protection to 6 days? I'm extremely unhappy with the way this has been handled, and my question is fast becoming "How is dispute resolution handled during an arbitration case?" FloNight carried out the protection, and since then she has only made two responses to questions about the protection, and has continued to edit on other matters. (1) Here, FloNight says to Rx StrangeLove that "temporarily protection is needed" - since when was six days temporary? (2) Then here, FloNight responds to Lawrence Cohen saying that she will bring Lawrence's comments to the attention of the rest of the committee. What it looks like is that FloNight has ignored the other comments in that active section on her talk page, namely User talk:FloNight#Please unprotect the Arbcom decision talk page, and only responded to Rx StrangeLove. If FloNight will not respond on this matter, where do I go from here? I am happy to be persuaded that protection is needed, but just being ignored is not productive for a collaborative editing environment - at least you and Mackensen took the time to respond and attempt justifications for parts of this. I've yet to see a convincing reason from FloNight, or anyone, that a six day protection of that talk page was needed. I would like to stress that my aim here is, as I said before:

        "[to] help move the situation forward, and enable the talk page to be unprotected (with any necessary warnings added) so that any editor (including those uninvolved in this) can comment on the proposed decision."

        The worst that could happen is that the page might need to be protected again, or certain people warned. Are the arbitrators and clerks saying that they can't handle that, and that protecting the page is the easiest way of handling the situation? One final comment, or rather plea. If the protection is going to remain on the talk page, please don't let the proposed decision dribble out in dribs and drabs. Shut the whole page down. Draft a complete proposed decision somewhere else and then move it and the page history over here. Open up the talk page for discussion, and proceed from there. What would be a bad precedent to set is that people commenting on a talk page (as Rx StrangeLove was) will now be perpetually worried that if an edit war erupts on the page (even if it doesn't involve them), that the talk page might suddenly get shut down by an arbitrator for days at a time, and questions about the page protection may (as is happening here) get little response from that arbitrator. I apologise for the length of this, but I hope that at least some of my concerns are justified. Carcharoth (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

We're not afraid of it, we're just making it know that we won't tolerate such behavior here. It's bad enough people get away with it elsewhere on wiki, but it won't work here. If people behave themselves they wouldn't have these problems. Just as such behavior is not tolerated in law courts, it won't be tolerated here. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. And FloNight should have said that on the talk pages of the people concerned, and on the page itself. What she in fact did was to write this (with typos) in the edit summary after the page protection. She protected but made no attempt to communicate what had happened or to resolve the dispute. Which is what I've been trying to do. Editors on-wiki are not aware that FloNight may have sent e-mails to other arbitrators, so she has communicated the situation to them, and left only a badly written edit summary on-wiki for everyone else to puzzle over. Carcharoth (talk) 00:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Everyone who participated at that page is a very experienced Wikipedian. We ought to be setting the standard of conduct for newcomers. Is this really the example of conduct we want them to emulate, when they get into conflict? DurovaCharge! 01:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I have unprotected the page. I have every confidence that the parties are capable of conducting themselves with grace and dignity. If they choose not to, I am prepared to levy page bans enforced by blocks, as I originally warned at the top of the workshop page when the case opened. Thatcher 02:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank-you. Carcharoth (talk) 11:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Thatcher, you really should address the users not go to blocks and bans. Also, you really should allow ArbCom to be responsible for any bans or blocks in a case like this. I don't know what Snowspinner will say for himself, if he goes over the edge, but I can tell you that all of the folks who have been horrified by his actions have pretty solid justifications for it. Please use user talk pages. As I say to people over and over again: more discussion, not less, more talking to people, less talking about people, is the way. Geogre (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Archiving extensive requests

Obviously it is a bit arbitrary which declined requests should be noted for posterity, but I thought this one here should be:

I did this in the past with the Kmweber request for arbitration. The criteria tends to be when a request attracts a lot of community input. The idea is that the request becomes part of the record of attempts at dispute resolution, along with some often important points that should not be merely lost to the page history. Any ideas on how to better handle things like this? Carcharoth (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests? Daniel (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Goodness me. How did I miss that? Thanks! Carcharoth (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Question about whether a proposed finding of fact has a chance

Is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Workshop#"Decommissioned highway" is a neologism a content decision, or does it have a chance of passing? If the former, is there a way I can reword it to make it acceptable? --NE2 09:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad

Friendliest arbitrator EVAR![2] MilesAgain (talk) 10:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. :) I actually think it's very important to provide these kinds of explanations sometimes. The arbitration process and pages are complicated, especially for newer editors, and when someone is making a mistake or is seeking dispute resolution in the wrong place, we really ought to be steering them to the right place rather than just say "go away." I'm not the only one to do that, by the way; FloNight, for one, was doing much the same thing months before I was elected. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

I suggest somebody should come up with a list of which articles are under the ruleing of this arbcom case, so as to not confuse anyone in the future. There are some articles that are borderline as to whether or not they are considered part of this topic. Yahel Guhan 04:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering the breadth of the topic area, I can't see it being practical to compile a list of individual articles covered by the arbitration. As far as I'm aware we've not done anything like that for other topic area arbitrations such as Kosovo, Macedonia, Armenia-Azerbaijan etc. The arbitrators have made it clear that they consider the scope to be a broad one in this case. Given that, I think editors will need to assume that any article with a conceivable link to the Arab-Israeli conflict is covered by the arbitration, and behave accordingly. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Highways

With all due respect, I am wondering why the Arbitration Committee has been mostly silent about this case. This case has been here for nearly three weeks, and only one Arbitrator has commented on this case (except for the temporary injunction). --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Anybody? --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I can't speak for the arbitration committee, but they seem to be busy dealing with the IRC case at the moment. I would advise patience. And don't spend too much time making proposals. Clearly-laid out evidence is the most important thing. The arbitrators should be able to come up with a final decision from the evidence, and the workshop proposals will help guide them in that. Carcharoth (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
As a non-American I've taken a supportive role in the highways case but I can tell you that we are currently dealing with the vexed IRC case and also sifting nominees for the working group on nationalist editwars. Highways has not escaped notice, though. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks :) --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Addition of parties

I reversed Fedayee's addition of my name to ArbCom case, since I am not an initiating party, not the blocked user, not the blocking admin, and not the facilitator of the disputed block. Atabek (talk) 10:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you can't just remove yourself. Let the Administrators decide if you're uninvolved. VartanM (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

VartanM, I don't believe you're an administrator, so we will let administrator decide. I expressed my stance on Ehud Lesar case, but I wasn't involved with blocking neither with producing frivolous evidence to support the misattribution of identities nor was I the initiating party for the ArbCom case, so don't see how I would be involved party. I don't mind either way, but I do mind your addition without any authority. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You are a party to the case because of your heavy involvement and conduct.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 20:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
And by what authority did you remove yourself?. If you think you're uninvoled you should stop defending "Ehud", and stop your accusations of Fedayee. What are you afraid of? Don't you want Adil/Ehud unblocked? Let let the arbitrators decide if your involved or not. They will remove your name if they think your not involved. Thanks for understanding. VartanM (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Atabek can be considered a party, yes. But unless the subject of this case is expanded to the continuing disputes between some of the parties to the first two cases, as opposed to just the Baguirov/Lesar issue, Atabek probably won't figure into the final decision. I don't think anyone here wants Armenia-Azerbaijan 3. Picaroon (t) 20:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Take a look here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Ehud Lesar. Atabek is clearly heavily involved within the scope of the Baguirov/Lesar issue alone. Otherwise how is everyone else involved? I'm not counting the people who just made a comment or two. John Vandenberg should be added as party as well.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 21:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Before we jump the gun, lets see how the newly amended remedies work out. Otherwise few other users would have been added if this was about AA3 VartanM (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

VartanM, I think you're still under a wrong impression of being any kind of authority on application of remedies. But if it makes you satisfied making 2 reverts on ArbCom page adding my name, by all means :) I hope you have achieved anything useful spending your time doing that. Just to highlight on what Picaroon already emphasized, Ehud Lesar case is not about Armenia-Azerbaijan ArbCom essence, it's about the case of a user charged and blocked as a sock without checkuser or identity proofs. So involved parties in this case would be those who blocked and those who produced frivolous reports, with a particular emphasis on the intentions of the latter. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added you because you used sufficient part of your statement to accuse Fedayee of harassment against yourself. You are involved as the alleged harassed. Secondly, I think you are involved in that you could not have not known he is Adil, since he meatpuppeted to revert for you and other estabilished Azeri users, as his sole edits in several articles. And thirdly you are involved because you were very much active in answering to the evidence provided and your counter answers with WP:POINT and abuse of process as a result of the evidence posted. On the other hand, another retaliation from your part by adding two other users, I hope will be noticed by arbitrators. VartanM (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Atabek has added me as an involved party to the Ehud Lesar case however I haven't taken a position on Ehud and the Arbitrators have not taken a position on whether this case will be broaden to include a ruling on other WP:DUCK type ban on other Armenia-Azerbaijan former editors and also to include a ruling on Atabek's and Grandmaster's behavior with respect to the WP:RFCU process so I am leaving myself off the involved party list for now. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why you would be posting a statement on Atabek and Grandmaster's behavior in case strictly related to whether Ehud Lesar is AdilBaguirov or not. Or were you trying to take community's time on an unrelated concern of yours and thus distract attention from resolving the situation with Ehud Lesar?
You're welcome to bring your baseless claims at WP:ANI, and please, do not get under impression that the RFCU process is over. The report will be further pursued until checkuser, as there are not just myself and Grandmaster but also Kober who provided details and additional suspected users. Checkuser is a formal procedure, and unlike unfounded accusations, as in the case of Ehud Lesar, it does help to establish the evidence of sockpuppetry. I don't see why you were and are opposing the running of checkuser in Wikipedia:Requests_for_Checkuser#Artaxiad_12 so much, if you are confident of not violating WP:SOCK. If at all, your repeated comments in this regard only serve to reinforce the suspicions. Atabek (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Isn't this a poster child for the imposition of Wikipedia:Article probation? MilesAgain (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not consider this as an official statement by the committee. If it is so obvious that the article should be on article probation then there is no need for an arbitration hearing. The Arbitration Committee is here for the difficult decisions, and the decisions that need confidentiality. All uninvolved administrators are empowered to use their tools to prevent disruption, and if there is obvious disruption then they should go ahead and use their discretion to decide what to do. You were chosen for your judgment. If it is obvious that this particular article is the site of disruption, and there's a consensus that it should be on article probation, then put it on article probation, dear Liza. Wikipedia is not bound by bureaucratic procedure. If you need a procedure for putting articles on article probation, then agree one. If you don't want anything on article probation except if the Arbitrators say so, then agree that. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Good idea. Would somebody like to propose this remedy at WP:AN? Jehochman Talk 00:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Workshop

I have noticed that people are still adding comments to the page above, despite the fact that the case is closed. Would it be appropriate to add some sort of comment there to indicate that the case is closed? John Carter (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrators may impose article probation without taking a case?

I have proposed a means by which arbitrators may impose article probation without necessarily taking a case, at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration policy#Arbitrators may impose article probation without taking a case?. I invite discussion there. MilesAgain (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles

Perhaps someone can give some guidance with the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Enforcement requests#User:W. Frank. The abridged version is:

Per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/W. Frank, the User:Alice sockpuppet has been used disruptively by User:W. Frank. The W. Frank account stopped editing in mid September (save for a few votes in ArbCom elections and an RfA in December), and the Alice account started editing in late September. At this time the ArbCom case was still ongoing and W. Frank may well have ended up on probation or another sanction.

Recently, the Alice account has been used to harass and attack editors involved in the case, something W. Frank had done previously. This led to the checkuser request, which confirmed Alice and W. Frank were one and the same. The Alice account has been blocked, and there is a general consensus amongst admins that W. Frank should be placed on the probation remedy from the case.

However due to security concerns W. Frank may not wish to carry on editing using that account (although that's speculation). So, do editors on probation have the right to start editing with a brand new account? If so who, if anyone, do they need to inform of the account they are using? Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 03:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

An important aspect of this situation is that User:W. Frank is the user's real name. His address was posted on wikipedia in what he saw as a threatening way. He was not alone in this interpretation.[3] The account Alice was created after this event, but is now compromised as it is known that it is being used by W. Frank. There was not an abusive use of socks in the standard sense. The posting of personal info about him occurred around 19 August 2007. The edits in question were oversighted. W. Frank started editing as "Alice.S" on 28 September 2007, presumably as direct result of this with the aim of creating an anonymous user ID. The name "Alice.S" was subsequently changed to "Alice" by usurpation, but that's neither here nor there and the contribs history is the same: there have been 2827 edits by Alice/Alice.S. Most have been to other areas and, from what I can make out, he has only re-entered the Troubles arena in the last 2 weeks, presumably feeling that his RL ID was sufficiently disguised. W. Frank was not placed on probation by ArbCom and is not on probation now by admin action, but this is being discussed. To forbid him to create a new account so he can edit anonymously is to force him to use an account which has been compromised. Tyrenius (talk) 03:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The problem is also that if W. Frank wanted a fresh start, there was other ways to go about it then ending up harassing the same editors. The probation which they have likely earned (to date, there is no one on the thread that discusses it that disagrees with it as a a sanction) makes things difficult. The way I see it, the way we have three options. In order of preference:
A) Allow W. Frank to create a new account, but place it under probation. I don't think this will work for the very same reason the reason Tyrenius says above, since the account has been tied to a RL identity, all we're doing is changing the name of the account involved.
B) unblock the Alice account, and let W.Frank edit on that account, under civility parole and 1RR/week on Troubles articles. This is less then optimal.
C) Block the W. Frank account, let him create a new account that does not have the probation underneath it, however, W. Frank will have to agree not to edit on Troubles related articles (a defacto topic ban). This is to prevent any new editors in the Troubles related areas from instantly being accused of being W. Frank. ArbCom would have to be aware of this new account's name.
All in all, I am sympathetic to the fact that W. Frank's RL identity has been exposed, and I considered it a horrendously bad action by the person involved. However, that does not change the fact that if W. Frank had continued to make trouble on the Troubles ArbCom case, he likely would have been placed on probation at that time, and he had his clean start, but drifted back to his old, bad behaviour and more then the checkuser itself, provided the link to his old identity. SirFozzie (talk) 05:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I think this matter should be handled by direct email to Arbcom-L from Frank/Alice, and I have no problem leaving both accounts blocked until something is worked out. Unfortunately, editors who both (a) use their real names and (b) get in trouble with Arbcom are in a real bind. If the user wanted to disappear and reincarnate, and managed to avoid Troubles articles and editors, no one would ever know. The fact that Alice is harassing other editors proves that he/she needs to be under probation. At this time, blocking the Frank account and placing Alice under probation leaves an identity trail that he/she does not want left out in the open. This person could create yet a third account, but if it too returned to the same bad behavior, we'd be looking at the possibility of a community ban for repeatedly evading the Arbcom sanctions through sockpuppetry. One possibility is a new account approved by Arbcom but kept confidential and known to a small number of admin monitors who would administer "secret probation"; watching the user and applying sanctions as needed without publicly disclosing his identity. But that would have to be approved in advance by Arbcom. Thatcher 07:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Franco-Mongol alliance

Could we get some more votes so this case is either accepted, or properly shot down? Jehochman Talk 16:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, we've already talked about this off-wiki, but I guess I need to repeat it on-wiki. I am extremely uncomfortable that you're involved with this case at all, and wish that you would withdraw from participation. I do not feel that you are an uninvolved administrator here. You repeatedly threatened to start a case, and I repeatedly told you that I did not want you getting involved (for or against) in any way. And though I specifically told you on multiple occasions that I did not want you to start the case, you went ahead anyway. I then told you (again) to stay out of it, but I see that you are still poking around. In some circumstances I might see this just as a "difference of opinion," or good-faith efforts that I disagree with, but I am seeing now in other cases that other editors too are raising concerns that you seem to be having a tendency to jump into everyone else's disputes. I can't speak for the details of the other disputes, but it is my opinion that in terms of the Franco-Mongol alliance issue, that your behavior over the last few months has escalated this dispute, not de-escalated it, and I would again ask you to please stay out. --Elonka 18:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how Jehochman's comment warranted that kind of response. Anyone -- involved or uninvolved -- could have made the rather decent request to expedite the acceptance or rejection of this case. -- tariqabjotu 16:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Workshop pages

Several people have commented here or here (depending on whichever page the thread ends up on when they stop reverting each other) that the new workshop template is rather unweildy and difficult to work with. Per Daniel's comment here, I have come here to request that, because of this, the Arbitrators take the comments under advisement and consider changing it back. Perhaps ask what people on the other two cases with this format what they think? A thought. seresin | wasn't he just...? 01:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

New Private ArbCom mailing list?

I've started a discussion on the ArbCom mailing list about adding a new arbitration committee mailing list only for current arbitrators. On the new list, we would discuss issues that only the arbitrators want to discuss among ourselves. And on the new list we would have our discussions and receive evidence in cases where one member of the current list is involved. Thoughts? FloNight♥♥♥ 01:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Fully support. This should have been done long ago. Cla68 (talk) 03:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems all upside from the peanut gallery, only you folks can decide if it has a downside. Thatcher 03:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
It sounds like a good idea. Would this become the official mailing list to which people would send evidence, the privacy concerns Arbcom has said it will accept, and general queries; or will the current extended mailing list (including former arbs) continue to exist and to and receive that information? As well, I am curious as to how the new list will manage to separate out what information an arbitrator involved in a current case needs to be excluded from, without excluding them entirely from the list and the rest of the cases being discussed. Thanks for bringing this up, FloNight. Risker (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Risker, those are the issues that we are discussing. I'm suggesting that we use it for cases that a member of the main mailing list is truly an involved party. FloNight♥♥♥ 04:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Flo, I really think this is an issue that arbs need to decide for themselves. The rest of the community simply don't have the information to weigh up the pros and cons. FWIW I'm always suspicious that compartmentalising communications is detrimental to proper communication, but if this is being done to address real (and not theoretical or perceptual) problems with the status quo, then go to it. But there really is no point in inviting community input here, all it will do is foster drama and uninformed opinion. And at that, since I have admitted I don't know what I'm talking about, I will leave it.--Docg 15:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I spent ages looking for the thread I started on this. I finally remembered I had started it in the more logical place: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#ArbCom mailing list - access issues. Two former arbitrators and a current arbitrator (Raul, Mackensen and jpgordon) all said (in effect) "no". Interesting to see the different response here. I think my proposal is more logical, in that it moves the emeritus arbcom people to a new mailing list (which would also include the current arbitrators), and restores the main arbitration committee mailing list to current arbitrators (as it was when first created - when there were no ex-arbitrators). FloNight's proposal is, though, just as good, and I hope one or the other change eventually gets implemented. FWIW, there is absolutely nothing to stop the current arbitration committee setting up a private mailing list and either reducing, or stopping, the amount that they use arbcom-l. The downside would be a lack of archives, but I think Doc has in the past argued against the existence of such archives. Carcharoth (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm with Doc that this is largely an internal matter, but I see no reason why the default list, whatever it is called, shouldn't include the former arbitrators and others. Except when considering conduct within that group, I can easily see that input from other high level trusted users is a good thing--avoid narrow groupthink and all that. Thatcher 15:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Flo, I'm guessing you guys are curious for outside opinion or views, or else this wouldn't have been posted here. Being an ignorant person, I'd only suggest that 1) the list be limited (as you mention) to just the sitting arbitrators as selected by the community and no-one else; 2) it be available like the current list for outsiders to post to, if they want to use their discretion to exclude ex-arbiters and Jimbo from private communications with the Committee; 3) all grumbling on the various pages I see from various people, the general list with a million people isn't a bad idea for feeling out issues if the seated AC chooses to request private input from Jimbo or the ex-Arbs; 4) I'm guessing this is all coming up due to various issues related to the IRC case, and "feedback" from some individuals that I'm guessing the current arbs based on this didn't find helpful (again, just me being ignorant here and based on the timing of this discussion). If the currently community-chosen Arbs think this is a good idea to streamline process and things, go for it. It's your choice in the end. The most important thing is that if the "new" list is limited to literally just the standing AC--i.e., no Jimbo, no ex-arbs, no outsiders controlling the list as owners/moderators--you will probably get better or more useful confidential information and have a smoother discussion with just the voices that we chose to pore through. Again, all just ignorant guesses here. Lawrence § t/e 16:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. If sitting arbitrators want input from former arbitrators that's their business, but it doesn't make a lot of sense for special inquiries to be sent to both groups for discussion. The former arbitrators currently on the list are certainly in decent-to-good standing, but there are reasons why they're former arbitrators and not current arbitrators. — xDanielx T/C\R 08:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Below what line?

I have filled out a request for arbitration, but I can't figure out where to put it. The steps say to paste it "below the line." What line? Angela Harms (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Your request is posted correctly, so you don't need to worry about the formatting. Could one of the Clerks please check the request for arbitration template to make sure the instructions are clear. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Suggest a change to "...below the "Current requests" line..." (or even "header" instead of "line", but "header" might not be clear either). Carcharoth (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I fixed it already, using the exceedingly literal description, "immediately below ==Current requests==". Jehochman Talk 22:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
You missed Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How-to... :-) Carcharoth (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Notice

User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FMatthew_Hoffman. —Random832 21:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see my response there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

IRC case not listed at Completed Requests

Resolved. Stifle added the case just over one day ago (thankyou!). I promise to boldy go in future. Ta all :-) 59.167.51.178 (talk) 08:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that the IRC case has not been listed at completed requests. Assming this was accidental, would a clerk be able to correct this please? :-) 59.167.51.178 (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I doubt any case would be intentionally omitted. You could easily, you know, fix this yourself. It's a wiki (tm). :-) — CharlotteWebb 05:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, but the Arbitration Committee Clerks can probably do it faster as they are familiar with the formats, etc. If one of them doesn't get to this in a day or two I'll leave a note on their noticeboard. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid the clerk in the case was rather out of practice, and has since been busy with other trivial matters like Archtransit. I shall administer a stern reprimand, and maybe send him to bed without dessert tonight. Thatcher 11:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Disclosure

"Mantanmoreland" case:

This case was presented to the community as a high profile RFC, around 24 hours ago. A number of experienced administrators scrutinized the same evidence presented at arbitration, and gave opinions. I noted that I felt there was a very strong basis of evidence of a connection. I also noted that "Open to an explanation, as always. But this does not preclude forming of a working conclusion given the evidence".

Before the last 24 hours, I have no prior involvement, interest in, or awareness of the actions of Mantanmoreland or Samiharris, and no prior conception of any standing or roles of these parties. My involvement in the last 24 hours was:

  1. 24 hours preview of what is now the RFAR evidence, and comment
  2. Explanation of an administrative nature covering communal norms, following the start of a thread on WP:AN [4] etc.
  3. Addressing a statement that the evidence might be incomplete in one area, by reviewing and creating a more valid summary table for that area. (But no advocacy [5].)

Besides these actions, I am not aware of any involvement in, or knowledge of, the case, and if different evidence shows different interpretations, I feel my ability to be neutral and consider all sides is unchanged from when I wrote "open to an explanation, as always".

I disclose this, in the view that it is appropriate to do so, and that all cases should be transparent. But after due consideration, I do not feel my neutrality or ability to reach a balanced fair conclusion has been affected by essentially a 24 hour preview of Cool Hand Luke's presenting evidence, and explaining from an administrative viewpoint why the venue was best treated as acceptable. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree with FT2's reasoning and thank you for the full disclosure. I do not see any reason for recusal by FT2 from arbitrating this (should it be accepted). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Similarly, I am of the opinion that there are insufficient grounds for recusal, in accordance with the spirit of the Arbitration policy, on FT2's part. Of course, recusal of arbitrators is historically a grey area in the Committee's operations, and there really is no choice but to follow the spirit of the policy, on the basis that there is nothing but spirit and vague boundaries :) AGK (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Curious

Just a question as to why the Highways discussion has been pushed to the backburner. Why? --Son (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I second the motion. Since well into last month, the case has been ignored. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, we have been pretty well-behaved compared to most of the cases... --NE2 23:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but I would like to get the case over with. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The committee is behind schedule on both Highways 2 and Episodes and characters 2. I will push to have things moved along. We do note, and appreciate, when parties to cases conduct themselves in a fashion that facilitates rather than impedes dispute resolution. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I think in this case there never really was that much of a dispute; it's just been slowly festering and nobody knows exactly what to do or whather something can be done. All the parties that I've noticed have continued to work constructively on articles. I, for one, am not complaining; you have tougher stuff to deal with (I was just looking through the Mantanmoreland case...wow.) --NE2 03:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The Committee can occasionally lapse into inactivity, and it is important that both the Arbitrators as individuals, and the Community at large, work to stem any such slow-motion progress, should it arise. I myself have previously contact the ArbCom through their mailing list, regarding a considerable lack of progress and contribution at a case I was Clerking, although it did not appear to receive much of a response, and I suspect the eventual contributions were part of the Arbitrators' own routine, so to speak, as oppose to a proactive solution to my email.
Nevertheless, life goes on, and we can only hope that cases receive enough attention as to be resolved quickly and efficiently, rather than the "stop-start" phenomenon which, in my opinion, can impede a case significantly. Of course, I say this as a passing observation, rather than any direct criticism or "dig at" the Committee or its members—I do still, nevertheless, view case efficiency as one of the Arbitration process' areas requiring progress and change. AGK (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Idle question

Just out of curiosity, what is the record for longest-open ArbCom case to date? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably Matthew Hoffman, although Highways 2 is taking pretty darn long... --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I recall that one on topic of scientology went for a full two months in the spring summer of 07. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The longest in the last year was probably around 2½ months (11 weeks): Allegations of apartheid. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Westminster Committee on Iran

Statement by {Party 1}

Whilst we understand that Wikipedia is not a place for promoting businesses or advertising organisations, we fail to see how the page fell into either of these categories. The Westminster Committee is the only international organisation of its kind. The page described the background, guiding principles, activities and coverage of the group which has been in existence for over 2 years and has received press coverage in the Economist, LA Times, Times, Guardian, Independent and has been recognised by the UN’s InterParliamentary Union. Members of the group have been interviewed on BBC, PressTV, Irna and Saha television. I would therefore suggest that the group is deserving of a mention within the terms of the encylopedic function the Wikipedia proports to provide. I would request that you look again at the page. If there are elements that you feel are “blatant promotion or advertising” please delete them, but perhaps you could leave the main body of the text there. I recognise that you are an experienced and qualified editor but I would request that this matter also be referred to the ajudicators for further assessment.


Statement by {Party 2}

The page for the Westminster Committee on Iran was deleted on 15th February by an editor called Lara Love. The Committee is an organisation that attempts to increase dialogue between parliamentarians in Tehran and the rest of the world with a view to avoiding conflict. It has been around since 2006 and receives substantial coverage in the mainstream media. The page that was up seemed to conform to the Wikipedia rules and we are uncertain why Ms Love deleted the entire page. We have tried to contact editors and Ms Love but since we are no longer to 'log in', it is quite difficult to contact people. If anyone can help retrieve our page or get to the bottom of the mystery of why it was deleted, it would be much appreciated. If the content could be sent to the Committee it could at least be salvaged. Kind regards Convener, Westminster Committee on Iran (London

Other notes

I have left a message for this user explaining about usernames/pages and arb com. etc at [[6]] Slp1 (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Should we remove this from the talk page, or just leave it here as it isn't really doing any harm? --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 17:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Moved to bottom of page and reformatted. Since the main page is semi-protected, it was posted here, and does no harm. Thatcher 17:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Note there are two user accounts here

    • Westminster Committee on Iran (talk · contribs)
    • The Westminster Committee on Iran (talk · contribs)

To the convener; there are several problems here.

  1. User accounts must belong to individuals, not groups
  2. User accounts are not articles
  3. User account pages are not substitutes for article pages.

Now, should you believe that Westminster Committee on Iran deserves an article, you should create a new account (or one per each individual) and create the article. Start by reading Wikipedia:Your first article. Be aware that people associated with articles often run into problems with Conflicts of interest. A conflict of interest does not bar you from editing the article, but you should defer to uninvolved Wikipedians on matters such as style, formatting, and Importance of the topic. Thatcher 17:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Another week goes by...

Another week goes by, and the Arbitration case relating to Highways falls through the cracks. Does the Arbitration plan to do anything about the case soon? --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably it means the Arbs are failing to come to a clear consensus on their email list and private wiki. It also probably means you haven't had administrators getting blocked due to edit warring on the case pages, which at least one other case has had recently. Take solace in the latter. GRBerry 23:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I have been tied up in our internal discussions on the Mantanmoreland case, in which I will be posting a proposed decision tonight or tomorrow, but I will push (again) for Highways 2 to receive priority attention. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to the committee

Being an arbitrator is a tough and thankless job, that does not often do much to endear one to others. They have a heavy load both on and off wiki, and commit significant amounts of their volunteer time to this duty. They deserve a thanks every now and then. I looked in on RFAR today and saw it to be nearly empty, with only two pending requests, both speedily on their way towards being declined, (as opposed to hanging around in perpetuity until enough votes get in). I look at the cases, and apart from the incredibly complex ones, which are getting the attention they deserve, the standard cases are proceeding through arbitration rather quickly. Some of the new arbitrators ran on a platform of "speeding things up" and it's good to get the feeling that this has taken place. Anyway, I just wanted to drop off a word of thanks.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 23:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Mikkalai

Re this change to "accept" by Newyorkbrad: I hope it's not out of line for me to comment on this here, and I make no comment on whether you accept the case nor on whether you consider Mikkalai's behaviour to be acceptable, but your comment "no indication that Mikkalai is willing to consider modifying his behavior at this time" does not seem to me to accurately reflect the edit by Mikkalai which came a few hours after the edit you referred to but before your post, so I wonder whether you hadn't seen this edit, or perhaps you didn't understand what I think Mikkalai meant by it. By (almost completely) blanking his talk page, Mikkalai was making a move towards conforming with the requests being made of him. When I saw that, I thought that you had been wise to wait. But I was disappointed that in your response you gave no indication of recognizing this gesture from Mikkalai. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed it and I hope that the fact that Mikka has reacted negatively to my reluctant accept comment won't undo any progress that has been made. I don't want to lose the services of any editor or administrator, so long as he or she is willing to maintain a reasonable level of civility and adhere to basic elements of policy. If there can be a drama reduction and avoidance of the need for a case right now I am all for it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, the edit that Coppertwig refers to looks quite different in isolation than it does in the context of the previous several edits Mikkalai made to that page. Following the notification of the ArbCom case, he made a succession of quick edits to his pledge of muteness, refining the text. Then a couple of hours later he blanked the page. Some eight hours after that, he restored the page, adding a comment at the bottom that attacked Newyorkbrad specifically. An hour later the page was blanked again (this is Coppertwig's link). These actions, plus the comment in his subsequent edit don't suggest to me that any of this is reflective of someone "conforming with the requests being made of him", as Coppertwig suggests. Quite the contrary, in fact. -- Hux (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I apologize -- I linked to the wrong diff by mistake. I'm not sure whether it makes any difference, but I meant this diff, where Mikkalai "simplif[ied]" his talk page, which is the edit which came, as I said above, before the post by Newyorkbrad that I referred to above.
What Hux refers to as the "comment at the bottom that attacked Newyorkbrad specifically" appears to have been in response to Newyorkbrad's post that I mentioned above, which seemed to ignore Mikkalai's action of erasing. It mirrored Newyorkbrad's language ("bizarre"), and was deleted less than an hour afterwards, presumably as a regretful retraction of the comment. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

When Mikka talks about "witch-hunting", "[]loaded question" and "cornered wolf", he seems to be telling us that he feels he's being put in situations where he has no viable options. I don't know the whole situation and I don't know why he feels this way, but I feel his desperation. Everybody, I think it's time for A nice cup of tea and a sit down. (See March 2008.) --Coppertwig (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ignore all rules

The original version of Ignore all rules was, "If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the Wiki, then ignore them and go about your business." (Lee Daniel Crocker, April 17, 2002)

Apparently rules bother Mikkalai; or the mechanisms for enforcing rules bother him. In the spirit of Ignore all rules, the primary Wikipedian policy, I think perhaps it is incumbent on us to use our powers of creative thinking to try to come up with some way, consistent with the goals of the project and the comfort level of other users, to allow our cornered wolf Mikkalai to edit without being bothered by a lot of rule-enforcing actions. Mikkalai is helping with this by raising his level of civility and by inviting others to revert his actions, which he says he will not dispute.

I invite everyone to do some brainstorming and try to come up with solutions or with partial solutions which can be fit together like the pieces of a puzzle to make a full solution.

As soon as I thought about posting this call for creative thinking a few hours ago, an idea occurred to me, and I present it here as my proposal. I had mentioned a few days ago that I had been thinking about it, and just realized a few hours ago that, given the current state of Mikkalai's talk page, which still discourages communication but is more civil, that this idea is both necessary and relatively acceptable.

Proposal: that a banner be posted on Mikkalai's talk page inviting people with questions or complaints about Mikkalai's admin actions to post their comments on my talk page. I will then try to explain the reasoning behind Mikkalai's actions, or if I am unable to do so to my satisfaction, then I will try to find someone to either explain or revert the action. People with complaints about ordinary editing by Mikkalai can simply revert the edits, since Mikkalai has invited them to do so. I hereby offer to take this on as an ongoing responsibility, reserving the right to resign at any time.

I would post such a banner now, (example), except that I'm not sure whether Mikkalai would perceive it to be a grave disrespect. I'm now posting a notice on my talk page stating that questions and complaints about Mikkalai's admin actions are welcome there. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I am Russian, that is I was born in Russia but grew up all over the world. That helps me understand where Michaeli is coming from and what he is trying to say. Rules are not made of stone! We need to be flexable and consider human feeling and not just go by the book. We should think of the spirit of the project not the letter. How do good editors who are familiar with a aprticular are come to the project and stay here, if at their first visit we bite them call them Trolls, Spammers, vandals, and etc. If anyone protests we invoke civil and call them disrupt. We wave a flag of COI if any one has any relationship to a give n topic. Should we have donuts backers write abour Medieval history? Rules are great and necessary but IGNORE is just important and needs to be respected. Igor Berger (talk) 02:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Igor: I have a lot of respect for your argument that the spirit of Wikipedia's policies is more important than the letter. The trouble is that it overlooks the fact that Mikkalai is all too happy to ignore policy one minute, in order to justify his own actions, and then throw the rulebook at someone the next, in order to justify the wrongness of theirs. I also think that it's been made plain that he's done a number of things that ignore both the spirit and the letter of "the law". Imo, nobody should be allowed to hide behind IAR and then accuse people of being "wikilawyers" whenever they point out that the editor is acting far outside the spirit of Wikipedia. -- Hux (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I just think he needs some time to cool down and blow off his discontent. It's like he is on strike for too many things that went wrong or too many chalanges to his POV. I say give him some breathing room and he will be back to his own Michaeli, whatever that is..:) IMO, just starting this ArbCom request may not have been such a good idea because that is what he expected us to do and we are proving him right. When someone puts your back to the wall, what do you do if not fight back for your own survival. Time heals all wounds! Igor Berger (talk) 05:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Think of him as a big Grizzly bear on whom you have stumbled on while walking in the woods. The bear gets on his hind paws and is formidable. You are scared and start screaming at the bear but the bear gets very angry and launches at you. Why? Because the bear feels threatened by you, and Michaeli feels threatened by the system. Now if you would be quiet and just stand still for a while the bear would come back down on all his paws sniff a bit at you turn around and walk away. Hence, when attacked by a bear play dead! Same here, if we leave Michaeli alone he will back down and see us as wikilove people not like someone who questions his authority and his rights to exist. Do not wrestle with a Russian Grizzly bear! Igor Berger (talk) 05:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, good. Mikkalai has posted instructions on his talk page which (arguably) make my proposal above unnecessary. (Thanks, Mikka!!) I think he has managed to design his talk page so that everything can be worked out comfortably without conflict and without needing communication from him. Inviting people to revert and stating that he won't dispute the reverts is a key element of that.
I think our goal here is de-escalation. I think we need to agree on an arrangement which, while possibly not 100% satisfactory in all ways, is nevertheless sufficiently satisfactory that we can close down the arbitration request, stop having AN/I threads (unless something serious arises) and leave Mikkalai in peace. Then after a period of time maybe Mikkalai will feel comfortable and resume "normal service" and we can, I hope, arrive eventually at a completely satisfactory solution.
Is it now sufficiently satisfactory? People could argue that we don't want a lot of admins doing the same thing. Never mind -- that's one of these OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments. And possibly it would be fine if other people do the same thing, including the part about inviting reverts and not disputing them. People could argue that it adds more work for the people monitoring the noticeboards Mikkalai is directing his complainants to. Maybe the amount of work will be small; maybe the people won't mind. Maybe it will only be for a short time. People could argue that one problem with this system is that Mikkalai won't get feedback to prevent him from making similar mistakes many times. I argue that Mikkalai can choose to get feedback by looking to see whether his actions were reverted; this may feel more comfortable than actively getting involved in conflicts. I also argue that since Mikkalai is said to have had "years of excellent work as an editor and as an admin" that little or no feedback is necessary; that he already knows what's acceptable, what's mildly annoying, what's out of line etc. and can continue for a period of time without feedback, especially if given space to calm down. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe that in general, admins should follow high standards, communicate etc. I'm asking for special consideration in this case out of compassion because it seems to be needed. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply to statement by MBisanz

Admins are allowed to make (a small number of) mistakes. One of the four issues you raise is a page deletion which Mikkalai subsequently undeleted after it was brought up at AN/I. Resolved; no need to bring this up at arbitration. For the other three, you give no indication that they were mentioned either on Mikkalai's talk page or at AN/I. It seems inappropriate to me to bring them up here without discussing them at one of those places first. For all four of these problems, I think Mikkalai's current system would work to allow such actions, if inappropriate, to be reverted. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've changed my vote on the main RfAr page to declining the case for now because it seems that some progress is being made, and in light of the factors mentioned by a number of users. If the problems recur or continue, then a new request for arbitration can be filed, but I truly hope this will not become necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
That was why I elaborated what I felt the issues were. Since the arbs were saying they were basing accepting on the allegations of admin abuse, and someone had pointed out that the blocking feature already provides a form of notification, I figured I should list what I believed were the improper actions, so no one would claim I exaggerated to get the case accepted. MBisanz talk 21:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

A proposal - Matthew Hoffman solution

Seeing as the Arbitration Committee has decided to abandon the Highways case (a shame, really) would they be open to suspending the case for 30 days so that a formal mediation can take place? If the mediation fails, then the case can be resumed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I would not hold up Matthew Hoffman as a case worthy of emulation. It was a mess from start to finish. Jehochman Talk 01:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Some editors disagree. I think that case was handled very well under the circumstances. —Whig (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
It was messier than it should have needed to be. I think Vanished User missed several chances to keep it relatively neat. Heck, we didn't even need a case, IMO, but Vanished User also managed to make it sound as though there was still a dispute between admins before the case was even filed. Had he not done that, there would never have been a case. GRBerry 02:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This is the case, in my opinion. Vanished User set the pace of the proceeding and the result. —Whig (talk) 02:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Well I'm only suggesting a case suspension and a formal mediation. Not anything else from that case. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Could the committee please respond? --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I preface this statement by noting that I have zero knowledge of the Highways case, but plenty of knowledge of Matthew Hoffman. If the Committee were to allow a suspension for mediation (or anything else), Rschen7754, you should ask for some sort of undertaking that they will the slightest bit of attention to the results. After all, the MH precedent is allow the community time to put forward a view and if it shows that the community believes that the case is going in completely the wrong direction, then ignore them and keep going. EdChem (talk) 09:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It also shows that failure to work with the Arbitration Committee, and failure to accept the best of a bad situation, doesn't really help. There is a danger here that a myth will be started that Arbcom were completely in the wrong in the MatthewHoffman case, when in fact they did several things to try and fix or improve the situation, and several reasonable solutions were offered, but for various reasons things spiralled out of control. That arbitration case going out of control was due to many factors, not all of which were under the control of the Arbcom or the community. That's my reading of what happened there. Carcharoth (talk) 10:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Out of respect for Newyorkbrad, I'm not going to comment further on the MH case here. EdChem (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I was planning to take a close look at the Highways case (which has indeed dragged on too long) this weekend and make some proposals. If editors feel that mediation wouild be as or more likely to bring about progress, then a proposal to that effect on workshop with widespread support would lead me to a motion to that effect instead. Let's not post-mortem the Matthew Hoffman case, which was a very different type of case, in this largely unrelated context. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer for the Arbitration Committee to review the case instead. However, as the motion for dismissal is gaining support, I figured that the mediation would be a better alternative to the case being dismissed. Thank you for your willingness to continually update us as to the progress of the case. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions for the Arbitration Committee

In the recently dismissed application of "Linguistic/Cultural Bias Towards United States in the article "Hacker", I specifically asked three questions be answered with regard to how English Wikipedia is governed and policy is enforced by people such as the Arbitration Committee. Seeing as the entire post has been deleted, I repeat the three questions here:

1) In terms of content, is English Wikipedia considered to be a vehicle for documenting the United States, or for documenting the entire English-speaking world?
2) Does the removal of a {{globalize}} with the reason of "spam", or non-US editors being told to "fuck off" when voicing their opinions just because they don't conform to the majority of the US editors already present, constitute a content problem?
3) How does Wikipedia guarantee that the content of other English-speaking countries, and non-IT people who don't edit on this system, makes it into articles when those kinds of editors are not present in the system in nearly as heavy numbers as the United States IT/Academia-related editors? Who actually enforces policies like Naming Conventions, Neutrality, and "Not a Democracy"?

Question (1) was not answered. Question (2) was directly answered as "Yes, we do think it's a content problem" as all ArbCom members who commented stated the same thing unanimously (as opposed to there being a problem of prejudice, racism, or intimidation, as claimed by me the filing party). Question (3) was not answered.

This is an important issue and requires a formal statement. Should ArbCom be made up of (and this seems exceptionally likely) people predominantly from the United States, how do the hundreds of millions of native non-US English readers actually know that their articles are monitored by people who know their culture and therefore are able to neutrally determine that bias is, or is not, actually occurring?

So, again, I am politely asking for anwers to questions (1) and (3).

Many Thanks in advance,

Andrew81446 (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Response by Sam and WAS 4.250

By my reckoning six out of the 15 arbitrators are British, and two of the remainder are not Americans, so only a minority are from the US. However, please be aware that the Arbitration committee does a very specific job and it does not include decisions about content. They are handled by the whole community collectively, under the 'five pillars' fundamental policies. As an observation, not everyone seems to have accepted that your interpretation about British usage of the word 'hacker' is a fair representation of the actual usage and interpretation. Guidance on the form of English to be used in articles is given in Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. Some disputes over British vs. American spellings have ended up in the list of lamest edit wars. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  1. is English Wikipedia considered to be a vehicle for documenting the United States, or for documenting the entire English-speaking world? The English language Wikipedia aims to have useful claims backed by reliable sources on as many topics as we can manage.
  2. Does the removal of a {{globalize}} with the reason of "spam", or non-US editors being told to "fuck off" when voicing their opinions just because they don't conform to the majority of the US editors already present, constitute a content problem? Sometimes.
  3. How does Wikipedia guarantee that the content of other English-speaking countries, and non-IT people who don't edit on this system, makes it into articles when those kinds of editors are not present in the system in nearly as heavy numbers as the United States IT/Academia-related editors? Who actually enforces policies like Naming Conventions, Neutrality, and "Not a Democracy"? There is no guarantee. Anyone who wishes to try to enforce our policies and guidelines, or change them, is allowed to try. It is useful to gain consensus, find allies, give convincing arguments, and contribute to Wikipedia in other ways if you intend to be successful in doing this; because just as anyone can make an edit, anyone can revert. You don't have to be an admin. You do have to work well with others.
  4. Should ArbCom be made up of (and this seems exceptionally likely) people predominantly from the United States No.
  5. how do the hundreds of millions of native non-US English readers actually know that their articles are monitored by people who know their culture and therefore are able to neutrally determine that bias is, or is not, actually occurring? They can't know, anymore than they can know that is true of the New York Times or Britannica. WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


Andrew81446 responds

Thanks for your responses. I must stress that when I asked these questions I wasn't asking about whether there is a "British contingent" on the committee or not; they were general questions aimed at establishing how Wikipedia can justify maintaining its highly respected international reputation for neutrality and self-governance. My observations are as follows:
  1. "There is no guarantee. Anyone who wishes to try to enforce our policies and guidelines, or change them, is allowed to try."
    Given that there is no guarantee that the policies within the system are actually enforced by anybody, it is down to the editors themselves to adhere to the policy out of their own sense of obligation. Therefore, whether you can work well with others or not, should the majority of editors on a single article all not share that obligation, then consensus may be used to enforce any kind of content, regardless of what is actually going on in the world. Furthermore, there are no safeguards (over and above more editors from opposing viewpoints joining the system) for making sure that this situation doesn't happen.
  2. "The English language Wikipedia aims to have useful claims backed by reliable sources on as many topics as we can manage.".
    It appears to me that Wikipedia is now unable to manage the neutrality of its English language content any more, and so should maybe change its name from "English" Wikipedia to something else. I can say this because no system that can manage its content would force a person to give up four months of their life (longer, actually, as ArbCom said that editors should return to lower-level mediation) to argue about something which, in their own country, is widely accepted. Requiring people to go through that kind of upheaval for the sake of documenting something which they don't have to argue about in their own country is a serious failing of the system.
  3. "it is useful to gain consensus, find allies, give convincing arguments, and contribute to Wikipedia in other ways if you intend to be successful in doing this.". The most important part of that response for me is that consensus, and allies, should be found from among the majority of people currently outside of the system. The more people from outside the system who know how the system works, the more there will be who can potentially join, and the more editors there will be to ensure the neutrality of the system.
  4. "They can't know, anymore than they can know that is true of the New York Times or Britannica."
    The New York Times is a US publication so people from all over the world know it is is a US-only publication so they know to caution all content within as being US-biased. This is of course correct, but question (3) wasn't about whether a publication with a specific national audience has to be neutral with respect to other countries. The question was about how Wikipedia, a service which specifically reaches out to an international audience, makes sure it actually is a neutral repository of information from the entire English-speaking world. Whether the predominantly IT-based people within Wikipedia think an interpretation is "fair" or not is not really the issue; the issue is about the fact that when it comes to documenting information, everything is what it is. It's that simple. Question (3) was about whether Wikipedia's administrators have the ability to apply the "everything is what it is" mentality over and above their own beliefs regardless of which country or industrial sector they are from. For example, Oxford University Press in the UK, Mirriam-Webster in the US, make it their business to make sure that their publications document what is and what isn't from the view of everybody (not an IT-based minority) within whichever region is being documented, which is why they are the most solidly verifiable sources in existence. It appears in some casees that documentation of "it is what it is" has all but been forgotten.
Wikipedia's biggest intended (and actual) audience is non-IT people who make up the majority of the English speaking world and teachers and local governments around the world are clammering to use it. As Wikpedia editors, though, all these people are effectively eunuchs as they don't know how to login to a computer system, mark-up a page, use a version control system, and effectively argue against professionals who spend their entire waking lives doing just that in chatrooms, bulletin boards and on academic networks. Ordinary people may not have the time to contribute, or employment/other local restrictions may prevent it. However, every single one of those people is a contributor to their communities and their culture, and so guarantees must exist to ensure that everybody can be documented neutrally within the system should Wikipedia actually be aspiring to be such a service in the first place. I (and indeed, everyone in the world) assumes that Wikipedia is aspiring to be such a service, and that these guarantees already exist, but your statements say that they do not and this misunderstanding ought to be corrected within the community at large outside of the system.
Any kind of system that relies on consensus is a democracy. Consensus and Democracy go hand in hand; you can't have one without the other. If Wikipedia is not a democracy then it should be possible for a single editor to still (with appropriate sources) override the majority simply because that editor is documenting "it is what it is". Being able to "convince" has virtually nothing to do with a single person's reasoning skills and virtually everything to do with whether the people listening want to accept what is being said. People can ignore anything they like, even if it's right, is actually happening, and is documented and believed as such by hundreds of millions of people. Therefore, being able to "convince" is a fairly ineffective and difficult tool to use given the ease with which a big stick like "consensus" can be wielded. This leads me to conclude that, given the deliberate omission of overall control in the system, Wikipedia's core policies are contradicting each other and it is affecting actual content correctness. I don't have enough time on this earth to be checking (and possibly arguing about) the 2,000,000 or so articles currently in English Wikipedia and devoting up to four months of my life fixing each article. That would take up to 700,000 years. But then one person shouldn't have to do the work that a system expects an entire nation to be doing. A system that claims to be aimed at everybody should not be prohibitively difficult to edit (and therefore inaccessible) to the majority of its own audience. However, if that is the reality, then such a system should have enforceable controls in place to make sure that the entire system can be fixed at least within the lifetime of most human beings.
This concludes my observations, and my questions with regard to this thread. I thank you all for your time.
Andrew81446 (talk) 12:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Response by Avruch

Wikipedia is not dominated by IT people. I'm not sure what caused you to come to this conclusion, but as far as I am aware there is no data or anecdotal evidence to suggest that most contributors come from an IT background. Wikipedia is not difficult to edit. It requires a basic familiarity with web browsing, and not too much more beyond that. That would be why many millions of contributors have edited - far more, I suspect, than you will find in the IT community of the English speaking world.

There are no guarantees on content, nor could there be while still maintaining the principle of an "encyclopedia anyone can edit." If you find that there is a problem with an article, then engage in fixing it. You may run into opposition. Since your opinions do not dominate, it is incumbent upon you to convince others to adopt your point of view. If you fail to do so, it does not point up an inherent problem in the concept of "convincing" (though there may be many). It simply means that there are those who disagree with your view of "what is is." If you can't see that content is more complex than "it is what it is" then you are missing more than anyone here can explain to you. No one required you to spend four months fruitlessly arguing that "Hacker" should be used in a particular manner, or based on a particular definition with which you are familiar. You complain that you should not have to convince others of a fact which is simply accepted in your country, and yet this mindset is ironically exactly what you seem to rail against.

Finally, while we appreciate your contributions you must know that while Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone is free to edit, it is also the encyclopedia anyone is free to not edit. It is not uncommon for editors to take issues of WIkipedia content far more seriously than is perhaps advisable. This seems to be the case here, and perhaps you should take some time away and return to Wikipedia with a new perspective. We recognize that there is an issue of system bias, and that the prevalence of editors from a small number of cultures can introduce problems of perspective in our content. You are welcome to join us in combating this problem, but its existence is human nature and a product of reality and not our great failure. Avruch T 00:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Andrew81446 responds

  1. "Wikipedia is not dominated by IT people"
    According to the Systemic Bias project within Wikipedia, which was based on actual research, "The average Wikipedian on English Wikipedia is (1) a man, (2) technically inclined...". Seeing as this is a computer system, and not (1) a mechanical based system involving gears, pulleys, or any kind of automotive component, or (2) a biochemical system containing elements such as gasses or liquids or any geneticly-derived material, the phrase "technically inclined" can be reasonably asserted to mean "those with technical knowledge about, or connected with, computers", or more simply put, IT-familiar or IT-industry related people.
  2. While Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone is free to edit, it is also the encyclopedia anyone is free to not edit
    That is perfectly true, providing that the equal and opposite message is actively promoted amongst its readers. That is, that readers are free to accept or not to accept information that appears due to the fact that editors may all come from one region and so can bias or influence any and all information that appears on it. Readers cannot make a proper choice to ignore content on Wikipedia if they are not made aware of the choice in the first place. And seeing as I see no such cautionary note on the front page of Wikipedia it can be reasonably argued that the desperate situation that exists with a lack of editors is not being transmitted to the readers. As Wikipedia actively promotes itself into schools and local government, children around the world are allowed (or are actively promoted) to use Wikipedia instead of consulting local works. If you already have children, or choose to have children in the future, I am sure one of your primary concerns is making sure that what they learn at school is in line with what you, as a parent, think is best for your child. Teachers who implicitly trust Wikipedia are using it to teach our children something that really could have no bearing on what goes on in the area of the world where we live simply because of the bias created by editors of the system, and the system itself supporting such bias. While you as a parent have a choice then you can always correct anything your child learns once you have an opportunity. However, should usage of information on Wikipedia become government educational policy (e.g. exam moderators being allowed to consult Wikipedia to check "university entrance" exam responses), your right to teach your child whatever you like will effectively disappear as they will have to answer questions on exam papers in a way that corresponds to what appears on Wikipedia. And you will then have to implicitly trust that Wikipedia delivers the neutrality and balanced information that its policies were designed to deliver, regardless of what you actually want to teach your children about the environment in which they are raised and grow up in. Within this context, do you think that anybody is free "not to edit"?
You may think that the information on Wikipedia may reflect your particular environment, and reflects the culture that you wish to instil into your children, but are you really sure? The only way to be sure is to check all 2,200,000 articles which would take up to 700,000 years (as I said). Of course, you don't have to check them all, but then you only have yourself (and human nature) to blame if United States educational policy (for example) advocates use of Wikipedia and your child is being force-fed (for example) United Kingdom culture because the bias in certain articles wasn't able to be fixed.
This is why I said that Wikipedia has potentially already become a system that cannot control itself. However, it isn't necessary to control the system if readers are armed with choice, and are made aware of having that choice in the first place. If my efforts within the system to simply document what goes on in my country are meeting with such opposition from other editors within the system, then perhaps I should take a break and devote my time to making readers in my country aware of how content is constructed, thus empowering them with the choice of whether to accept information regarding things that they generally turned to Wikipedia in the first place to find out about. Seeing as such people would be coming from my community, I wouldn't have nearly as much trouble relating my thoughts due to the "lack of skill" in being able to "convince" people that has been remarked upon in my dealings with other editors within the system.
Andrew81446 (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Response by Avruch

I don't know any teachers, and haven't heard of any, who "implicitly trust Wikipedia." Quite the opposite, in fact. I think we are far, far away from the point where entrance exams are based on or checked against Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't gospel - its words are not revelatory, and anyone is free to ignore anything on any article. You are making the argument that because some people won't think to take something written on the encyclopedia anyone can edit with a grain of salt, we should post giant disclaimers on every page saying "CAREFUL, AMERICANS MAY HAVE WRITTEN THIS!" Sorry, no - this is a free to edit website. Parsing it further, it is (a) free, (b) editable by anyone and (c) a website. Any one of these three things by themselves typically clue folks in regarding reliability. That you or others lack this clue perhaps points out a problem with your pre-Wikipedia education system, not Wikipedia. Coming from my biased, American and IT-related background perhaps I have an advantage in this area - but nothing on or related to Wikipedia has anything to do with the "culture I want instilled in my children" - except, perhaps, the principle of freedom that you are implicitly arguing against.
Regarding technically inclined and my dispute of your assertion that Wikipedians are generally or universally members of the IT-community - the research you refer to is a single survey from 3 years ago on the German Wikipedia. Attempting to apply broad conclusions from this research to English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project, 3 years later, is doomed to fail. Arguments for controls and sweeping changes to inculcate some sort of objective truth should be based on an accurate reading of the research you cite.
You don't address my point specific to your complaint (the Hacker article). You say that you shouldn't have to spend 4 months arguing to have an article reflect what is commonly accepted in your country, and I am telling you that this point of view is exactly why you have lost that crusade. Further, you appear to be criticizing that position and taking it at the same time.
Take a look at WP:DEADLINE. The policies here aren't "designed to deliver" Wikipedia as if it were a finished product on an assembly line. They are ad-hoc (but well thought out) attempts to add to and improve upon our content over time, a task that will not result in a perfect product anytime soon if ever. Feel free to read Britannica or some other reference in the mean time, only Wikipedia is subject to the biases we've identified here. Avruch T 15:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Response by Coppertwig

Not a member of the arbcom, but I would like to comment on this question: "In terms of content, is English Wikipedia considered to be a vehicle for documenting the United States, or for documenting the entire English-speaking world?" My answer: No. English Wikipedia is for documenting everything that is notable. It is not restricted to topics in the English-speaking world nor to topics supported by English-language sources, and certainly not restricted to topics in the United States. The English language is merely the medium in which the documentation is expressed, not an indication of what topics will be covered. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Response by Andrew81446

Response to Avruch: I have some things here that will help you understand the world of teaching that you openly confess - rather shockingly, given the weight which you give your subsequence points - not to know anything about: see this history teacher in a UK school. You'll notice he asks a very pertinent question in fact:

I don't know how they deal with differing interpretations though - it will be interesting to find out.

Well, I personally shall be emailing him to tell him exactly how Wikipedia deals with differing interpretations: by being shouted down, intimidated, and generally being worn out to the point (in most cases) of being forced to give up by a very vociferous predomimantly US-based community who exercise consensus to get what they want. You think my analsys of my experience is unfair? Have you read the entire archived history on the Hacker (computing) article? By the way, he also makes a reference to the article Hutton Inquiry. Such UK-only institutions of course are not going to invite a lot of outside contributions. However, even given that, the (I assume) predominantly United Kingdom contributors made sure that the article was disambiguated from the start, to prevent all readers from outside of the United Kingdom, English-speaking and non-English-speaking, from thinking that there is a Hutton Inquiry in every English-speaking country. It begs the question why is it that United States contributors cannot do the same thing with regards to their articles.
Incidentally, if you think that my appraisal of "glossy" and "wholesome" is incorrect then maybe you should read this (BBC, 7th December, 2007) from Mr. Wikipedia himself, Jimmy Wales. Of course, not everybody agrees with him and Wikipedia's Co-Founder Larry Sanger actually criticised the United Kingdom Education Minister (United Kingdom: The Times, April 11th, 2007) for encouraging national education policy to accept Wikipedia given the bias that is known to exist within it. People outside of the UK (e.g. the United States) may not know about these events that happened just mid- to late last year but then, as I have been advocating on the "Hacker" article talk pages, people rarely talk about, or care about, things that don't concern them. However, that itself does not mean such things do not exist or are wrong. Read the two articles as they are very important.
Wikipedia's Founder openly derides teachers, in a country which he doesn't live in or contribute to, who actually teach your "take it with a grain of salt" principle to the students. If there was ever an attitude of arrogance and disrespect for another country's culture then that was it. And coming from the very top of the Wikipedia instution. It seems that even though he has officially delegated respsonibilities to ArbCOM, his arrogance appears to be living on within the system through its editors. So yes, the effects of protagonists like Jimmy Wales require exceptional solutions and your idea that a warning that "CAREFUL, AMERICANS MAY HAVE WRITTEN THIS!" is actually a very good, if not a little extreme, as that would be documenting the current situation with regards to the ratio's of editors. However, that is not actually necessary as simple disambiguations in well positioned places within the articles (like that in the article Hutton Inquiry) would make all the difference. You can see for yourself what I am talking about by comparing the opening paragraphs of this (disambiguations inserted) with this (no disambiguations).
From my experience, the only thing that all Wikipedia editors have in common is that they are afraid to actually document "as it is". You, as an editor, may have the right approach, but I can dig up thousands of teachers like the one quoted above who implicitly just trust that it correctly governs itself. Unfortunately, it takes an exremist to bring light to a problem which, as I found out, can often damage credibility. However, readers of Wikipedia are not currently aware of the real situation, nor of the real "grain of salt" thinking some (yes, some, not all) of Wikipedia's editors, and that is a fact that needs to be addressed. People inside Wikipedia may not like to believe it, but the situation I talk of is already happening and is much closer than you think and people have a right to know.
As I said before, this situation could, and probably will apply to other countries as well. In the future, for example, should any United States student refer to soccer instead of Football they could be marked down in an exam. I can't speculate about how normal, everyday United States citizens, who don't use computers and don't know much about editing Wikipedia, may feel about having their traditional game renamed because of a Wikipedia article, but it is an example of the kind of anger and sentiment that such a progression will inevitably lead to should English Wikipedia not fix its deep-rooted problems now.
Andrew81446 (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
The above is a long comment that doesn't actually address what I've written, so I wouldn't really call it a response. I have no intention at this point of engaging further in this rather fruitless debate. Avruch T 15:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Response by User:Orderinchaos

I guess I see this as addressing a few issues. First of all, the question of regional bias. I'm an active Australian editor and spend a large amount of my time on Wikipedia writing or editing articles on Australian topics using Australian sources. Our "bit" of Wikipedia, with about 44,000 articles and about 2% of Wikipedia's total content (see WP:AUS), functions almost like its own entity at times, with some even going to the extent of criticising us as being a cabal. Most of our problems (where they exist) come from local editors and local differences of opinion, rather than any sort of systemic anti-Australian bias. More recently, we've been working with smaller nearby nations with little or no representation on Wikipedia (and often with relatively poor access to the Internet and technology) to enhance their coverage. (Most of these things apply equally to most regional projects - Canada, New Zealand and India all come to mind.) While on general topics, due simply to the weight of American editors, one may find some level of undue weighting (not so much bias, as in general the articles in question are fairly neutral but lack scope), this should be addressed by more people editing them. As for ArbCom, the current mix has one North African, several Americans, several Brits and I believe two Australians at the present.
Secondly, to the IT/technical bias. While I plead guilty as charged as an IT-literate person, graduate and former IT worker, many of my fellow editors are subject editors and relatively non-technical, including people with several Featured Articles, the "pinnacle" of Wikipedia achievement. Obviously through use, one acquires a level of comprehension and familiarity, but anyone who can master APA or some other citation system for academic work can master our citation system, and it's pretty much the only complex issue one will ever come across. Wikipedia is packed full of people eager to teach others, run workshops, and of course there's all the links from the typical (and ever more colourful) welcome messages for new editors. Once one knows the basic policies (WP:5), that [[ is an internal link, [ is an external link, the heading levels, bold/italic, that {{ means the page is in the template namespace, how to plant an image, interwiki links and the citation templates, one could write a featured article with those alone and it may not even be necessary to learn more.
And finally, as an educator myself, to the reliability of Wikipedia - I think most educators acknowledge that Wikipedia is a tertiary source and can be unreliable. It is useful as a general guide and pointer, but many topics are not covered, some are inadequately, others have what we might call issues of various characters, while others are excellent, are written by subject experts from good sources and could be regarded as reasonably reliable. On many major and especially historical and scientific topics I generally find the latter case predominates - the only problem can sometimes be that the level of the article is pitched way above the processing level of my students! I am studying Politics at university and our unit guide has a clear warning about using Wikipedia as a source. Orderinchaos 15:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Inactive Arb removal process

Around the last election, Jimbo encouraged the community (IIRC) to develop a method for removing inactive Arbitrators between elections. I don't know if this has been discussed and resolved already, if it has can someone point me to where? If it is still unresolved, it seems like now is the perfect time to bring this problem to a close. All Arbitrators are currently active, and any decision on future inactive Arbitrators will not be seen as directed at a particular member of the Committee. Additionally, of course, any decision that requires the assent of the Committee on its own constitution will have the benefit of a majority of the entire panel rather than a subset of those who are active. Thanks, Avruch T 00:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This was being discussed internally by the committee, and I had circulated a draft proposal, but no conclusion has been reached. I agree that the matter should be discussed now when it is hypothetical, rather than later on in the context of a specific arbitrator who encounters availability problems. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Would you be willing to publicize this proposal? And for clarification on how to proceed, would you say that this issue will be decided by a consensus of the Committee or a consensus of the community, including the Committee members as individuals? I'm not too bothered by it as no action has been taken, but I'm not sure a private discussion about a community policy is necessarily the best choice. Avruch T 00:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
It was part of Jimbo's instruction when appointing the new arbitrators that we formulate such a policy. If I remember correctly it was the arbitrators who were instructed to come up with something workable; remember that the Arbitration Policy is not under the control of the community. The new arbitrators needed to settle in and there were some very intense and difficult discussions which have taken a great deal of time. I personally feel that a simple process is the best. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thank you for the clarification. I've been peripherally involved in both intensely difficult cases, so I can understand the delay. I agree, too, that the process should be as simple and straightforward as possible. Avruch T 01:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing inherently confidential about the inactivity policy (though there could conceivably be a private reason for temporary inactivity of a particular arbitrator), so I'd have no problem posting a proposal here, subject to what my colleages have to say about the matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Any progress on publicizing this draft, or progress as far as consensus on the draft itself? Avruch T 15:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Trusted Users

I see the phrase bandied about (now in the Betacommand RfArb) but I can't find any reference to what it means, except for a failed proposal WP:Trusted Users that doesn't seem to have meant how the term is used anyhow. Is there a reference to who these people are? Jd2718 (talk) 13:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The phrase has no special meaning here beyond its ordinary English meaning. --bainer (talk) 13:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
In proper context, a "Trusted user" is someone that I am will to trust enough to give my bot code to. βcommand 15:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see why standards of trust are being set for this Bot; granted, it can be misued—but surely anybody with intentions malicious enough to facilitate their disruption of Wikipedia with bot code would have enough determination to go out and author code themselves? AGK (contact) 15:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I dont like handing code that can edit at 700 edits a minute to very vandal who wants it. βcommand 16:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • BC, you know as well as I do that speed of editing is simply a number entered in the code. Your code isn't top-secret for that reason, it's top-secret because you want it to be for some reason. And that's fine, apparently, as no one with the authority to do so is forcing you to open it up to community improvement. Bellwether BC 23:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The connection between BC's "trusted users" and any other policy or convention is irrelevant, its simply the personal standard under which he'll release his code. I don't believe he can be forced to do that, so debating his standards seems to be not worth the time. Avruch T 16:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
So maybe the better phrase than "trusted users" would be "users I trust"? Franamax (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrators, please tidy up

The rather-inexplicable Episodes 2 case has had a majority on all its passing items for some time. Yet the case lingers open like a festering wound. For some reason, even the most recent two arbitrators to vote have neglected to vote thence to close. Since the injunction is already out of the jurisdiction of the committee (you are not invited, imo, to inject yourselves sweepingly into consensual processes), has been hanging around for ages and continues to bite unsuspecting editors who probably aren't aware of the speakings of the committee, please would someone get this thing tidied up? Splash - tk 22:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that there might be further findings or remedies presently being discussed amongst the arbitrators, and that is why even the voters may not have yet chosen to vote to close. Currently, there are three net votes to close (the opposition comes from an arbitrator that specifically asked to be given more time to consider further possible evidence). The case should close fairly soon, you'll probably just need a bit more patience. — Coren (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
A couple of us have been discussing whether any more proposals should be made. Editors on the case have expressed the view that the committee has not done enough to address the issues, and we want to make sure that we have done all we can, without crossing the line into making content rulings (please see the comments I left last week on the talkpage of proposed decision). I will withdraw my opposition to closing and put the case into closing immediately unless an arbitrator offers some substantial new proposals in a day or so. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
If you do decide that further items are going to be considered, please simultaneously consider fixing the injunction which is causing actual problems on AfD and DRV, where it is questionable if the committee may even speak (they are consensual content venues). Poor decisions cannot be reversed, and good ones cannot be made; housekeeping cannot proceed and debates around the questions are stifled. Most of us have never misbehaved wrt to 'episodes and characters' and to summarily injunct every editor is rather extraordinary. This has been raised a number of times on the proposed decision's talk page by several different editors and admins, but not so far dealt with. I fear the injunction is approaching, or already past, its sell-by date, and is likely to find itself disposed of by being ignored by most of us before very much longer. Allow the case to linger if you must, but please either dispense with the injunction, or scope it to the parties to the case. Splash - tk 23:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
That's a fair point. If the case isn't closed tomorrow, I'll make an appropriate motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's been closed now. Daniel (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Comments by Locke Cole (BetacommandBot RfArb)

Threaded discussion removed to talk page from here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you should read WP:SOCK, that's an interesting page. His secondary account is a legitimate use of a secondary account.He is definitely not using his second account to give a false sense of greater support of his views, or stir up controversy. -- lucasbfr talk 23:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

His actions are a direct violation of WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY. Special:Contributions becomes unusable when you have an editor partaking in identical discussions from multiple accounts. See also User:Betacommand2, where he suggests ("this is my Test & VandalProof account") this doppelgänger account is only for test purposes (but a quick perusal of the contributions indicates otherwise). —Locke Cole • t • c 23:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Wikipedia:SOCK#SCRUTINY states clearly that "Using alternative puppet accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors cannot detect patterns in your contributions." I've been confused more than once by this, and though I now know to look out for whether he is editing using Betacommand or Betacommand2, it is probable that others have been confused by this as well. Carcharoth (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
You are both overlooking Wikipedia:SOCK#Segregation_and_security, account security is a good reason for using an alternate account. That's the reason why many admins have an alternate account (javascript issues, as I think is the case here, would be an other valid explanation). Perhaps you should ask Betacommand to update his user page instead of assuming he is doing so in order to escape scrutinity. -- lucasbfr talk 00:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
He hasn't stated that the account is being used for segregation and security; as per the user page, it is for "testing and vandalproof". Again, this is a clear cut violation of WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY; his contributions are being split between two accounts without even an attempt at a valid reason for doing so. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I've asked Betacommand here. This threaded conversation really should stop here and now, as such threaded conversation is frowned upon. If neither of you two objects, I will move this to the RFARB talk page (and link to it from here). Carcharoth (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
End quote. Further discussion should be added below. Carcharoth (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Come on Locke will your trolling never end? how am I deceive anyone I redirected the talkpage to my main account. that is anything from deceptive. I have never denied that I use the alt account. WP:SOCK#LEGIT covers it fairly well there are tech reasons that I dont use my main account at times, and a little bit of the security also. βcommand 00:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Three points. (1) Locke is not trolling. (2) People are being confused by this - they are looking for edits they remember you making, but are looking under the wrong account. (3) You should update User:Betacommand2 to state that there are technical and security reasons that you sometimes contribute to discussions using this account (ie. it is more than just a test and VandalProof account). There is no way to avoid (2) if you have security or technical reasons for using the alternate account, but it would be good if you could minimise the use of the alternate account and thus minimise any confusion it causes (eg. someone trying to find some diff where you stated something about some phase 4 stuff, but forgetting to look under the Betacommand2 account). Carcharoth (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Further incivility (referring to my concerns as "trolling") noted at my RFArb comments. At any rate, posting from a sockpuppet account in the manner you have been (alternating back and forth) makes using Special:Contributions nearly worthless when trying to find when you said something. I also wonder if there really are legitimate reasons for using a 2nd account in this manner, as it really only leads to confusion by other editors/the community. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This seems unnecessary and not really appropriate for this page (although mea culpa, I got the same pointer above). If the case is accepted, which it seems like it might not be, you can snipe at eachother where the sniping is usually done - WP:RfAr/BetacommandBot/Workshop. There is a reason RfAr is structured the way it is, without threaded discussion between parties - the point where something will be resolved by further arguing has been passed, according to those advocating the case's acceptance. Unless you for some reason think the back and forth is going to be constructive, you should leave off and let the process work itself out. Avruch T 01:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks for moving it, I apologize for starting the discussion, Locke's assertion just seemed too crazy at first glance. I understand his concerns better now (even if I strongly disagree with him). -- lucasbfr talk 10:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion regarding the appeal of community sanctions

Editors who are subject to a community sanction established by a discussion at WP:AN are entitled to appeal to the Arbitration Committee. It seems overly bureaucratic to start a case for a simple appeal. I think it would be better if any editor in that situation could file an appeal at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Clarifications and other requests. This would allow for an expedited review that would either 1/ endorse the community decision, 2/ overturn the decision, or 3/ establish the need for a full blown arbitration case. If this makes sense, can this process be recorded in the section header, and perhaps also at Wikipedia:Community sanction. Jehochman Talk 01:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jehochman that a low-bureaucracy approach is desirable, but suggest that the present proposal needs some careful consideration. For example, is the function of this review to consider whether the community decision was made appropriately (consensus reached, etc), or to review of all the evidence? If the latter, will this review take in only the evidence cited in the community decision, or also the evidence that editors contributing to that discussion would have submitted had a full ArbCom case been necessary? If the 'appeal' can be decided with an overturn decision, but there is no prospect of the sanction being increased (as would be possible in a full case, and is arguably justified in the case which prompts Jehochman's question), isn't there a risk that every community sanction will be appealled? The Committee's present direction in MM seems likely to be followed by community sanctions of some sort shortly after its closure; there is argument around that case about whether community action should be taken in place of ArbCom proceedings. That being the case, the provisions implemented could well be seen as encouraging or discouraging community sanctions being imposed. It is also worth considering whether the endorsement or overturning of a community sanction in this way would prejudice a full case being requested by dissatisfied editors. I am unsure how these issues should be resolved, but do believe that there are issues here requiring some careful consideration of procedure and (more importantly) potential outcomes going forward. Jay*Jay (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I think expedited review would involve reading the community discussion thread and making a determination as to whether the process was fair, and whether the decision accurately reflected the consensus, in which case the appeal can be rejected. If process was not fair or if there was no proper consensus, the sanction can be overturned, and then it is up to the community to either redo the discussion properly, or file a request for arbitration. Jehochman Talk 02:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a high disruption cost to a process whereby an editor that was of concern enough to be community banned, having the ban overturned by Arbcom in order that the community may then debate whether to refile for an extended duration arbitration case against the unbanned-but-doubtful user instead.
It would be much better that Arbcom would determine either the ban was incorrect or unlikely to be reasonable, and remit it to the community to reconsider, or that it was likely to be well founded, or that a full case would be needed to fairly evaluate it. In each case, given the community performed the ban, unless it is manifestly unfair in the view of the committee, my preference would be some approach involving a decision, that was in most cases (if a basis of concern existed) then remitted back to the community to discuss what next. If Arbcom say "the ban is a concern for reasons XYZ", I'd much rather the community debated it, and I would normally trust them to do so taking the extra views into account, given that the "heat" will have significantly dissipated in many cases. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
That makes sense. Shall we try a test case, or do you want to discuss this amongst yourselves for a while? Jehochman Talk 02:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
What's needed is something in between the very quick and rough "justice" of an ANI discussion and the formal involvement of ArbComm. Mediation? I started to follow a recent case and was disturbed to see what was far from a sober consideration of the issues. ANI is "hot." Most who follow it have little patience for a detailed exploration of the situation, and so snap judgments can be made. Charges and countercharges fly, and are never examined in detail and resolved, so, for example, we don't know of sanctions are resulting from false charges. I think we need to treat these incidents somewhat as we might an article. A case page should be built and should follow NPOV standards. Opinions should be stated as attributed opinions. There should be "findings" that have consensus. Talk for this page would be where editors can rave, within normal rules of civility and AGF, but the project page would summarize it and focus it and find consensus, if it can be found, or report the varieties of opinion, if consensus can't be found. In some cases, ArbComm might be able to take such a page and simply bless it. Or tweak it. The difference between this and ANI is that ANI is over very quickly, and may establish what ArbComm considers "temporary injunctions." I.e., bans or blocks can be imposed, pending further process, if any. The difference with ArbComm is that ArbComm is binding, by precedent, not all cases are accepted, and there is a formal body making decisions by vote. This intermediate process would be similar to article or project process. So many times I have seen editors make claims, say, on ANI, that they would immediately recognize as POV with an article, imputations of bad faith without clear evidence, unsourced and unsubstantiated opinion. And redundant. There is a basic rule of parliamentary procedure that ArbComm follows, but the rest of Wikipedia decision process does not: voting on a question doesn't take place until the question is clear and settled. Voting doesn't start until the evidence -- form all involved parties -- has been presented. With so many processes, a nominator makes a proposal, and then editors comment with their !votes, and at the same time present new evidence, etc. It's backwards. Yes, it starts with a "motion" (and really there should be a second, someone willing to stand up and support dispute resolution for the case at hand, taking responsibility for not supporting a frivolous appeal), and then collection and presentation of evidence, and it is this part which should be NPOV. At any time, the proposed action can be amended, and, if necessary, polling would take place on the amendment; in the end, though, it should be a single proposed outcome that is voted on. As with all Wikipedia process short of ArbComm, votes aren't binding.... In what I'm suggesting here, though, they would indeed be votes. The argument part preceded them, so what is left at the end is pure vote. It still doesn't bind, but measures consensus, at least among the community of those participating. --Abd (talk) 03:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
We have a variety of methods available for hearing requests, from full cases to reviews by email correspondence, and we can select whichever method best suits the situation. A full case may be immediately useful to allow for maximal input from the community, for example. --bainer (talk) 08:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Enforcement requests

Input requested from arbitrators and arbitration enforcement regulars on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Enforcement requests. I have no idea why this case and only this case has set up a special enforcement page out of site of the usual mechanism; it appears to be largely a walled garden where the same participants yell at each other some more. I'm thinking it should be merged into WP:AE and enforcement reports handled via the normal routine mechanism. Comments to Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. Thatcher 14:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As the person who initiated the arbcom case I strongly agree with Thatcher and think it is essential that it is the arbcom enforcers who deal with the case rather than admins who have been involved in the Troubles squabbles since way back when. Thanks, SqueakBox
If you do, get ready for a flood of neverending AE cases. It was set up because we were the only folks willing to give a damn to try to keep this thing in bounds and because the usual suspects were running to us anyway. If AE wants to take it off our hands, well, not quite "good riddance to bad rubbish", but I'm glad someone else will be dealing with them. SirFozzie 128.222.37.20 (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Let me emphasize that it is not my intent to "take things off your hands" but to put these requests in the same place with the rest so they will attract a wider admin attention. Any admin uninvolved in the case is still welcome to patrol WP:AE and act on these and/or any other enforcement matters. I have been the most active admin at WP:AE (up to a month ago maybe, and boy do I appreciate the help) and do not recall any Troubles related requests that were made there and ignored, and I certainly never knew about this subpage before. (If previous requests were ignored, I apologize.) Second, there is no particular reason to tolerate extensive argument on enforcement matters. (See the page header there.) The case is decided; reports can be evaluated with reasonable input from the complaining editor and the subject of the complaint, and then acted on. We (I at least) try to treat it a bit more matter-of-fact like WP:3RR, no need or desire to refight the entire arb case again. In any event, past efforts are most appreciated, and please drop by WP:AE if you want to help out. Thatcher 22:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The Troubles

Reading through Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles, the remedies appear unnecessarily complicated. Reckon we'd be better off with jolly old discretionary sanctions a la ARBMAC? The conflicts here don't seem to have slowed down so much as to make discretionary sanctions redundant. This is a disinterested suggestion: being English, I make it a personal policy to avoid the Irish-British dogfights as much as possible. Moreschi (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Issues with BetacommandBot - ArbCom case?

I think everyone in ArbCom knows about the issues with BetacommandBot.

BetacommandBot was blocked many times because of bugs and other things. Many users complained about BetacommandBot. You can see many AN/I threads about BetacommandBot. Last time, there was a page for discussion about BetacommandBot, but it got deleted as an "attack page".

Suggestions to improve BetacommandBot, like making the bot "open source", got ignored by Betacommand. Last time, there was a case about Betacommand and ArbCom found that he abused bots and desysopped him. He still abuses bots. For example, he used BetacommandBot to spam a user's talk page and make 5000 edits to the Main Page so it cannot be deleted. Also, he is incivil and attacks people who complain about BetacommandBot.

It is quite clear that Betacommand will not fix his bot. When anyone complains about Betacommand or his bot, there is a group of users who will always defend him and accuse them of a lot of things, like incivility, harassing and trying to destroy the fair use policy.

There is a huge mess. I hope ArbCom can help with the mess. I want to file a case, but I am not sure whether ArbCom thinks there is enough "content issue" and "conduct issue" to look into. So I want to ask ArbCom for some feedback here, before I file a case. If ArbCom says "go ahead and file a case", I will file a case. I can find a lot of evidence for all the things I say above.

Maybe ArbCom can also clarify what (issues with BetacommandBot, Betacommand's conduct and other's conduct) they think is "conduct issue" that they will look into and what is "content issue" that they will not look into. The group of users who defend BetacommandBot, I must say to you, if there is an ArbCom case, I think ArbCom will also look into your accusings of incivility and harassing and if those who complained about BetacommandBot really did that, they will also be punished.

--Kaypoh (talk) 15:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not Arbitration is to be filed is immaterial, but I just feel that there isn't a real problem with BetacommandBot. There's also my concern that filing an Arbitration case would prevent BetacommandBot from meeting the deadline. I feel there is a lack of communication from both "sides" if you will and nobody is clear about what BetacommandBot is planning (other than phases). I feel people are still mostly concerned with the fact that the deadline is pretty much solely being dictated by BetacommandBot and that BetacommandBot and the operator tend to draw a lot of problems - some for good reason, some for bad reason.
That said, if there is to be a case, then I think an RfC would be filed first. And if there is to be a case, I hope that the case is done quickly because there is a deadline to meet. x42bn6 Talk Mess 15:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
x42bn6, I welcome an ArbCom case, it might finally mean that I can get concrete proof that BCBot is correct and is enforcing policy. This would allow me to point to the case and stop the harrasment and constant request for me/BCBot to be blocked and or banned. and I can get back to doing what I do best, improving Wikipedia. βcommand 20:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
It would be more correct to say that BCBot is enforcing policy for a small subsets of images where failure to conform to a specific part of the policy can be detected by a bot. This is valuable work, but by no means enough. For true, Wikipedia-wide enforcement of non-free image policy, much more is needed. Summarising that as "BCBot is enforcing policy" is, in many contexts, misleading as people (wrongly) take that to mean that BCBot is enforcing the entire policy for all images. Betacommand, if you feel that people are harassing you, would you consider filing an arbitration case against them? Carcharoth (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
x42bn6 - regarding meeting the deadline (23 March 2008), Betacommand has said that most of the tagging of older images is now complete. The only thing that would be affected by an arbitration case would be the checking and tagging of current uploads. That doesn't require as large a volume of edits, so could be done by another bot. For the record, I don't think any arbitration case is needed, but am also on the record as saying that it is still, in my opinion, an open question as to whether BetacommandBot's tagging of images under NFCC#10c has overall improved Wikipedia. On balance, I think it has, but only just. And I am currently trying to document what happened and what the impact was, though that sort of thing is difficult, if not impossible, to quantify. Carcharoth (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I think someone from ArbCom should say something. --Kaypoh (talk) 05:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment. The question that must be considered in this matter is: would asking the Arbitration Committee to examine this case benefit the project as a whole? For the most part, I would agree with that question: whilst the often intense nature of Arbitration would make it difficult to notice an immediate improvement in the situation, I believe, out with the short-term, a ruling on the case would help—either, if abuse of the bot has taken place, to take down a troublesome bot (that word choice used as a hypothetical for a ruling against BC), or, if abuse of the bot has been deemed not to have taken place, then, as Betacommand states above, to resolve the situation once and for all, and to allow him to return to running his Bot.
As to whether the Committee will/(in my opinion) should accept this case, then I would also suggest that they should—whilst this is only my humble opinion, the Community has been divided on the matter of this Bot for some time now, and prior dispute resolution has been all but exhausted. This dispute is very much reaching its last legs, and is now reaching the point where an Arbitration case is prudent. AGK (contact) 07:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
And as I've said before, I think the question is moot. The big tagging runs of 10,000+ images are over, and it is only current uploads that are being tagged. Most of the problems were from legacy images, and that is mostly a done deal, and there is not much point going back over that. However, if Betacommand came up with another way to find and tag images, and he continued to run his bot in the same way with the same problems (sporadic large-scale runs without notifications of the runs, and the same standard of explanations and communications) then there may be a case to answer. His phase 4, for example, where he proposes using the bot to remove images that "have a rationale" in one or more other article from any articles for which they "lack a rationale" (where, of course, "lack a rationale" refers to images that fail mention one or more of the articles they are used in - which is only a subset of those images lacking rationales). Or his proposal (based on a suggestion of mine, though it is not a new idea) to find images that don't use rationale templates, and get humans to check those to see if the rationale is OK. I would hope that whatever non-free image work BetacommandBot does next, over-and-above the normal 10c tagging, gets discussed and properly implemented this time. Doing a full analysis of the numbers first, using more informative and less aggressive tagging, doing things at a slow enough pace to avoid backlogs building up, and working with and finding humans to help do the work needed. What I think is really needed is a way for people to indicate that an image has been checked and its rationale deemed OK. There needs to be stability at some point. Carcharoth (talk) 09:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Okey, NFCC 10c was over, several days ago in fact, in fact, its now split off into a separate bot function. That question is moot. But now the issue of cat changing has come up. Per this diff, if admins are forcing a user to violate the BLP policy (I'm still trying to figure out how, given that Bot policy specifically prohibits bots from editing categories relating to people), that seems like something Arbcom would be very interested in. Also, I'm beginning to wonder why this same bot keeps causing these real and unrelated issues (NFCC spamming, mainpage run-up, catting and not fixing it till blockd again). Once is a mistake, twice is explainable, but by the Xth time, I really have trouble understanding. MBisanz talk 20:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone else already filed an ArbCom case about BetacommandBot. --Kaypoh (talk) 07:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

A threaded discussion on the Mantanmoreland blocking controversy

I'm assuming a threaded response is allowed here as it's not an RfAr. SirFozzie, I count 30 people in favor of the block and 18 against. By what definition is that a consensus in favour? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 14:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow, the number keeps climbing, Slim. "I hold in my hands..13.. no 16.. no 18 people who disagree with this decision". SirFozzie (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Is that your answer? Please provide evidence of concensus. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The block, not the ban, was supported 12 to 5. For any other editor, that would be a consensus to block. There are some editors who would support a block but oppose a ban. Jehochman Talk 14:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you counting the arbcom members who chose not block him in their decision that hasn't even been formally closed yet? I'd like to see how an editor can support a block but not a ban for someone who is about to be told by the AC that he can edit using only one account. How would that work? We are not saying that you cannot edit here but we are saying that we will prevent you from doing so by blocking your account? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
In what other situation has there ever been a lack of consensus to ban, a block (the technical implementation of one) imposed anyway, an unblock due to said lack of consensus, and then an argument that the "block" had consensus? What you are talking about is revoking the editing privileges of the person, not the account, so refusing t call it a ban is making a distinction without a difference. Calling it something else doesn't mean lower standards of consensus apply. Dmcdevit·t 15:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Might I just politely draw your attention to here, where editing of each other's sections (and thus threaded discussions) are prohibited. (And I'm invoking WP:IAR for my violation of this prohibition - I judge that stopping the threaded discussion to be in the interests of keeping the heat from growing at an even faster rate.) Jay*Jay (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Dmcdevit, blocks and bans are two different things with two different standards. Let me turn your logic around. Has any repeat puppetmaster ever before, when confronted with so much evidence, been allowed to continue editing? There is a lot of uniqueness in this situation. Jehochman Talk 15:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, certainly that has happened before. Not all cases of sockpuppetry result in bans (or indefinite blocks). Some of them result in other resolutions. For example, an arbcom limitation to one account and a parole, much like this case. Much like this case, except that was a case where the sockpupetry was affirmed by ArbCom. Dmcdevit·t 15:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. I have better things to do than search the archives for cases where an account was blocked, a ban was requested, and failed, yet the account remained blocked. However, I think multiple such cases exist. There is nothing that says blocks must be lifted if a ban proposal fails. Jehochman Talk 15:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
As I understand it there were some mitigating factors in that case, so that it is not necessarily a good precedent to use here or elsewhere. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
(deindent) I made a full count and listed names (see my statement on the main RfArb page) - I counted 31 in favour, 12 against, and 4 "others". I don't think I missed anyone. Based on that, I don't think that there was sufficient consensus exhibited for an indefinite community ban, although there was a strong majority in favour. 31 to 3 or 4, maybe, but not 31 to 12 (or 16, depending how you count the "others"). If the discussion had lasted longer, that may or may not have changed. If a community ban falls through, then the ArbCom should step in. As they have already shifted this onto the community, we're at an impasse. A significant majority of the community want (the user behind?) Mantanmoreland banned, but a vocal and not insignificant minority do not. What happens then? Presumably, no block, and Mantanmoreland is free to resume editing. Neıl ☎ 16:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Which is an utter mockery of Wikipedia's rules, mind you. The obstructionists win. Victory by argumentum ad nauseum SirFozzie (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
We have to have agreement before we take big decisions. Where, precisely, is the mockery of Wikipedia's rules? Sam Korn (smoddy) 16:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
"The obstructionists win. Victory by argumentum ad nauseum" - this works both ways. I've sometimes seen cases where a few people object to a block on valid grounds, but they get shouted down or stonewalled and the block stays in place. This tends to be those admins who ask the blocking admin first, and then are left hanging in the breeze when the blocking admin politely (and sometimes not so politely) says "no" to the suggestion that they unblock. Carcharoth (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Fozzie, if you dislike the convention that "community bans do not hold if there is sufficient dissent that a single administrator is willing to perform an unblock", then get it changed - I'd support such a change. I want Mantanmoreland blocked, too, but I recognise that there's a small cadre of veteran admins who do not, for whatever reason, and under the current community norms, they have succesfully derailed such a block. Sam Korn, there is an agreement - just not a strong enough one to block Mantanmoreland indefinitely. 31:12 - to delete an article, yes, to promote a user to admin, maybe, to indefinitely block a user, no. Neıl ☎ 16:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, that's what I said :-) Sam Korn (smoddy) 16:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Make a decision, please. DurovaCharge! 16:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the count of 31 - 12 is wrong. For a start, I am not in the 31, but should be. Then there is the fact that the 12 includes several people massively involved with the case, and at least one who changed views later in the discussion.
Secondly, since when has 'no one willing to unblock' been the standard for fixed-term bans imposed by consensus?
Thirdly, on trying to change the WP:BAN policy, maybe joining the discussion at WT:Community sanction would be an idea?
Fourthly, several of the obstructionists should be ignored for their refusal to look at the evidence and present any vaguely plausible explanation for the evidence. Stating that the evidence isn't convincing over-and-over-and-over is stonewalling.
Finally, this isn't just about abuse of community trust through sock puppetry, it's also about admin protection (which continues - look at today's block of Mackan79), and tendentious or disruptive editing. Would someone please explain to me why having to watch every single post made by an editor who has been deceiving the community for years is better for the encyclopedia or the community than would be just getting rid of them? Jay*Jay (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
If #2 was a serious question, the answer is "the beginning of time", or as near as makes no difference. That has always been policy. Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Mantanmoreland has no history of tendentious and disruptive editing. Apart from deceptive socking, there is no known issue with his editing. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Now I KNOW you're taking the mickey, Tony. What do you call WP:OWNing a section of articles on finance? Or importing an off-WP controversy on to Wikipedia? SirFozzie (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Decorum, please. Thatcher 17:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    Indeed. There were accusations of ownership, but having examined the articles in question I find no credible evidence of inappropriate editing. At most, he might be accused of over-eagerness to revert the pov-pushers and trolls who at one time paid attention to those pages, rather than call an admin to protect them. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Does a billionaire's blog count as a reputable source?[7] DurovaCharge! 17:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Durova, did you know they have a name for people who take short positions in a company and then trash talk it? We have evidence here that somebody wanting to make trouble for Mantanmoreland and Gary Weiss claimed that they were the same person and were editing Mark Cuban's bio. We also see that Mantanmoreland stated, correctly, that Cuban had been criticised for taking actions that look very much like a bear raid. Cuban has justified his position by pointing out that he's disclosing his interests fully. Which is legal, but still rather controversial (I'm sure Cuban would agree on the latter too). If Weiss is Mantanmoreland, it's at most a little odd to be editing Cuban's bio, but if the edits were as Cuban describes them there is no issue. Those edits are perfectly fine. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • In case it matters, the 18 opposes I counted were 16 admins (Sam Korn, Random832, Guy, Doc Glasgow, WjBscribe, Dmcdevit, Blueboy96, Kingturtle, David Gerard, Mastcell, Addhoc, Carcharoch, AGK, Georgewilliamherbert, Fayssal, Theresa Knott) and two very experienced editors (IronDuke, Anticipation of a Lover's Arrival, The). The only one of these that I wasn't sure whether to count was Fayssal, whose oppose wasn't completely clear, but he did say he wished people had stuck to the ArbCom decision, or had waited for it to close, or words to that effect. The other 17 opposes seemed clear to me.
SirFozzie, I know it's not a vote and that numbers aren't all-important, but when you have 18 established editors opposing a block or ban, there really can't be said to be consensus. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 17:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
And it's been proven on the main page, that your numbers are so much hokum misleading. SirFozzie (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
In what way are they hokum? I've given the names. Look them up for yourself. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 17:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
From Neil.

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposed_community_ban_of_Mantanmoreland_and_Samiharris.

   * Clear:
         o 31 firmly in favour of ban (Lar, Lawrence Cohen, SirFozzie, Jehochman, Naerii, Durova, Alanyst, Amerique, 82.19.1.139, R. Baley, Wizardman, WAS 4.250, Rocksanddirt, Krimpet, Mackan79, GRBerry, JoshuaZ, Sceptre, Hmwith, Noroton, Daveh4h, Achromatic, LessHeard vanU, MPerel, Crotalus horridus, Neil, Eleland, Pascal Tesson, Bigtimepeace, Cla68, Viridae)
         o 12 against (Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, Sam Korn, Theresa Knott, David Gerard, Doc Glasgow, JzG, IronDuke, AGK, Dmcdevit, Blueboy96, Wjscribe, Addhoc)
   * Others (7):
         o 1 comment that block may not solve issue (Kingturtle)
         o 2 prefer topic ban (Random832, MastCell)
         o 1 "wait and see" (Carcharoth)

SirFozzie (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Blueboy96: "Having read Coren's statement that he does not intend for this to be a ban at present, I endorse the indef on Mantanmoreland as well" - that's an "oppose" statement, SV? Jay*Jay (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not a vote. You can stop counting now. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Tell SlimVirgin, who is not only counting votes, but adding in bonus points for "respectfulness". daveh4h 17:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, the latter actually counts more than numbers, which is what's meant by saying it's not a vote. Where you have a significant number of established editors saying no to a block or ban, then it really ought not to go ahead. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 17:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Jay, not that it matters, but it was this comment of Blueboy's I saw. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 17:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
SV, you miss the point I am making, which was that the count has problems: "For a start, I am not in the 31, but should be. Then there is the fact that the 12 includes several people massively involved with the case, and at least one who changed views later in the discussion." It also ignores what comments would have been added had the block and unblock not occurred. Anyway, perhaps you can help me to understand by answering the question I posed above, which was: Would someone please explain to me why having to watch every single post made by an editor who has been deceiving the community for years is better for the encyclopedia or the community than would be just getting rid of them? Jay*Jay (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Possibly the experienced editors have seen what happens if you allow an attitude of "just get rid of people". Two things: (1) they come back anyway; and (2) eventually the community turns and someone calls for people in a borderline case that you end up on the wrong side of to be "got rid of". Now, I'm not saying that this is the case here (far from it), but you do have to guard against remedies enacted in the heat of the moment and with the capriciousness of mob rule. This leads to a philosophy of minimalist intervention, which clashes with the philosophy others hold of "maximal intervention". Carcharoth (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This is fascinating! It would be interesting to see "support and opposition" by year that the editor joined wikipedia. I have this feeling that there's something up with that. (no, I don't really intend to dive into this, I'm busy enough as it is ^^;;) Just wanting to point out that this is setting off my spidey sense ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

By year appears to be one dominating factor, another one I suspect is "previously involved" and friends of the "previously involved" (and by previously, I'm thinking prior to December 2007). But that's just my opinion. There also appears to be something else going on here, and while I am somewhat familiar with most of the editors currently involved, I can't quite put my finger on it. R. Baley (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The "final stage" in dispute resolution

Leaving aside the specifics of the case in hand, I think we need to clarify how we make decisions on "user conduct issues". My understanding had been as follows.

  1. Any admin can block, as per the blocking policy. In most case (vandalism - obvious disruption etc) the action will be uncontroversial and the debate ends here.
  2. If there is disagreement after the fact, or anticipated by an admin beforehand, then there is admin/community discussion. This is generally (although not necessarily) on WP:AN. Admins reach some form of consensus, and that is generally accepted.
  3. There can't be a direct decision to ban, a "community ban" happens only when no-one will unblock - it is a verdict that's only shown by time.
  4. Although admins should not unblock without discussion. The default position for a user while discussion continues is generally "unblocked", unless disruption is ongoing.
  5. If admins cannot agree, then the case goes to arbcom. Arbcom are the final stage in dispute resolution and should only accept a case if all other avenues are exhausted, and the community is unable or unlikely to agree. Their word is final, with only a theoretical appeal to Jimbo.
  6. If arbcom cannot reach an agreement on a sanction, then there is no sanction. It does not go back to the community, as if the dispute /could/ be resolved by the community, arbcom should not have accepted it in the first place.

Am I wrong?--Docg 17:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Proposed_decision/Archive1#Community_ban.3F_.2F_specific_factual_findings. DurovaCharge! 17:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Doc, you are wrong. ArbCom was told several times that a majority of the community had a problem with the decision in the way it came out. See this question and answer from the 2nd archive of the Proposed Decision Talk Page:
Do individual arbitrators (or better you, the Committee collectively) anticipate that Mantanmoreland will be community banned within days of this case closing? (Note: question predicated on a closure with no block of MM.)
Here's Jpgordon's answer: It wouldn't surprise me; given the nature and volume of the evidence, the community doesn't really need our help to make that decision. SirFozzie (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem here is that the AC saw it from the blocking/puppetry perhaps as open and shut, and that any lack of action on their part would be picked up by the community. However, the enablement of Mantanmoreland here has instead continued, surprising AC members by their own admission. It all comes down to that. The AC remanded the issue to the community, and the scores of evidence have NOT been countered or dispelled, but a small group of users have decided to now give Mantanmoreland a (record?) fourth chance. Lawrence § t/e 18:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with SirFozzie on this one. However, the caveat that I would add would be that it is something extraordinary to overrule the Arbitration Committee and thus requires something special by way of level of agreement. Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The community of course, though, is not overruling the AC in any way here. Lawrence § t/e 18:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
That's one way of reading it. Jpgordon's word, while important, is not gospel. Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Coriolis.gif Doc, I didn't intend that as an edit to your post. Apologies if it gave offense unintentionally for that reason. I do intend it as an illustration of my point: SirFozzie brought the case to arbitration in the first place because we wanted an orderly proceeding, with a proper chance for Mantanmoreland to give his side of things, and it was looking like a wheel war might follow the premature community ban discussion that was starting up during the RFC phase. Some of the arbitrators themselves hinted that a community siteban might follow the case, and offered the Archtransit precedent. Other arbitrators who disagreed waited until the suggested ban discussion was already underway before they voiced their objections. There are unaddressed systematic issues here, such as how to define and implement a community ban and what constitutes a wheel war. This site really needs to work out these matters better. DurovaCharge! 18:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The idea that arbcom isn't the final level in dispute resolution send shivers down my spine. I'd really not be interesting in editing if we move away from that. It means that there can never be closure of any dispute. If, and I say if, that's what jpgordon said, I respectfully suggest he's dangerously wrong. That leaves anyone anytime to go to ani and round up a posse to deal justice when arbcom sees no justice needing dealt. Woah, no please, no.--Docg 18:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Every level of a system of society must be accountable to someone above them with more authority, to undo bad actions. As only the community itself is higher ranked than the Arbitration Committee on the English Wikipedia, and the community is answerable to itself and the WMF, where else is the AC answerable to? Lawrence § t/e 18:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Wait, am I part of a "posse", or a "lynch mob"? (or hell, maybe I'm one of the many paid secretaries acting on WB's behalf, as noted by one of the open minded arbiters here; happily, that was never retracted). I love the characterizations of/attacks on the many editors who have followed this case, most of whom had no opinion at all on the issue before about January of this year. R. Baley (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Doc, I can understand where you're coming from (it can seem like it's Wild West-ish), but I invite you to read the whole section. [8]. Especially as the Arbitration Committee gets its mandate from the community, I don't see a problem with it SirFozzie (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't my idea, Doc. And I agree, there are policy issues here that the community needs to work out better. Periodically we run into it-is-or-it-isn't-a-community-ban turning into it-is-or-it-isn't-a-wheel-war. Community sanctions are so poorly defined that there really is a danger of mob justice, and that's unsettling. DurovaCharge! 18:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not contest the sovereignty of the community. I hold that the community can sack arbcom and appoint a different process. But to say the community is sovereign does not and should never mean that a community discussion (which by nature will involve only a small percentage of the community) should be able to second guess our elected arbiters (elected by a much larger percentage of the community). To take a real world example, the people may be sovereign but that does not mean Jerry Springer can organise a phone in to overturn (or improve upon) a Supreme Court decision. Popular sovereignty and mob rule do not equate. Even democratic parliaments get to make and enforce (or decline) unpopular decisions.--Docg 18:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

But the community also has the means (here, or in "IRL") to sack a government. In some parts of the world we see it annually. In some states in the United States, the community can issue referendems which are circulated and ratified by a poll. For example, in my state, I can start a poll to overturn a law. If I get a number--I forget, something like 10,000 signatures on a poll--I can then get my referendum turned into an initiative immediately, and it gets put on the general election ballot in the next cycle. The community can thus enforce new laws, change existing laws and decisions, and/or overturn nearly anything in the form of government here, as long as the changes are legal to a higher Federal authority. I believe 8 or 9 states in the USA have similar systems. It's the same thing we have here--everyone is answerable to someone or able to be overturned by someone, from the mundane choices to the hard ones. Without checks and balances you'd have a situation where one group or person's unilateral decisions would be immutable, and no long-term, constantly scaling and growing society can function like that. Lawrence § t/e 18:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
You are entitled to propose a change in any wikipedian policy, if you get consensus it changes.--Docg 18:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
(a couple of ecs) If I had been active on the boards when Archtransit's ban got proposed I would have referred it to ArbCom procedurally. Wasn't the first time an action like that was attempted. At one point last year some people started trying to "vote" on Runcorn's ban. Anyway, we're here now. Let's figure out how to set things right. DurovaCharge! 18:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Not just policy, but decision. No group or user's action on this website is immutable with enough consensus against it. Lawrence § t/e 18:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that "consensus" is just the last result of some discussion and is often unclear. Where there's a clear community consensus on what to do, that's fine - you don't need arbcom. 90% of bans and blocks don't even need discussion - 9% will be solved on discussion. it is how we resolve the the 1%. And we've got an agreed process - we send them to arbcom, and we abide by the decision. The community has chosen that as their method (or at least has never sought to change that). No, we'll not like every decision, but the net gain is by doing that we can end arguments in a fair way and get closure rather than endless debate. That's what we do. We unpick that at our peril.--Docg 18:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
And I agree, but the AC here has declined to decide, and gave it back to us, and now another impasse has erupted, so the AC needs to decide. If they won't even address the question now that its been directly put to them, the entire system breaks. The AC in the current setup must decide one or another with an up and down vote: if they say the decision is back to the community in that up and down vote, they have shirked their duty. They need to decide this matter, and stand by it. Or else, well, it's time for an enforced change of some sort. They chose to take on the mantle, they have to live with those responsibilities or step down. Something has to give and under the present situation the duty lies with the AC to make a call with a vote and stand by it. Lawrence § t/e 19:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The idea that arbcom isn't the final level in dispute resolution send shivers down my spine. I'd really not be interesting in editing if we move away from that. - the problem is, they are not BEHAVING as the final level in dispute resolution. If they really are the last word, they need to step up. The decision was made specifically under the belief that they didn't need to deal with the sockpuppetry because the community would do so. —Random832 19:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I see this being thrown out willy-nilly. I did not sign to any statement that said we did not need to deal with sockpuppetry because the community would do so. In fact, that was the main focus of the case in the first place. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What the current formulation of the AC must do to end this

Specifically, given how nasty this is, the AC needs to do two standard up and down votes on the Proposed Decision to end this. There is no other way out unless we decide to have an insurrection, which would be dumb without a viable alternative to the AC in place. Vote 1: is MM=SH? Vote 2: Is MM blocked for x duration for being caught puppetting three times? Lawrence § t/e 19:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Put the spiderman costume away and step away from the building. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
But arbcom could decide (as I thought they had) that the evidence is not conclusive enough for any remedy. That may not be a "definitive answer" but it is a place to stop. Not every question can be answered. "It can't be known for certain" is perhaps the only correct answer.--Docg 19:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Precisely. If an argument cannot convince a majority of the arbcom to pass, there's a fair possibility that it was because there is simply no way to be certain. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
And brings us back to the core of the problem on another angle--why is the standard of evidence so high for Mantanmoreland, but not for anyone else? Lawrence § t/e 19:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
As I posited near the beginning of all this, Lawrence, the better question is why is the standard of evidence is often so low? --bainer (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The level of certitude required here is beyond anything that has ever been required for any other user. I guess I was wrong to 2nd guess myself about the willingness of editors to protect MM (struck comment). R. Baley (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Just because you state it so, doesn't mean that it's true. We were dealing with two users with no checkuser matches, no slipups in a long period of editing either in terms of IP use or ever seeming to answer for the other, and basically no 'smoking gun' evidence. This was also a pair of users who maintained radically different personalities and online conversational styles, not only on-Wiki but on mailing lists and in personal communications. While they had some similar editing interests, their behavior on-Wiki did not mesh in any way that would give concern that the two were socks.
The evidence for sockpuppetry consisted of textual comparisons that many of us found unconvincing and a statistical analysis of edit times that claimed their edits did not overlap, which was more convincing than the textual comparisons but was insufficient to convince a majority of the Arbcom that sockpuppetry was proven.
We do not regularly block well-established users on evidence like this. In some cases we've accepted such evidence as part of a case for sockpuppetry, but the evidence as a whole has been more overwhelming than in this case. We are also much more likely to block editors without an established history of good-faith editing. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
It isn't such a high level of certitude. Moreover socking even if it were proven does not mean a mandatory ban. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 20:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
My feeling is that arbcom have a higher standard of evidence than the community or some of our, how shall I put this, more 'trigger-happy' admins. There are many cases where I and others (including I suspect many arbcom members and checkusers) would conclude "not enough evidence - not possible to say one way or the other". The normal reaction then is to look for other ways to resolve the incident. Some people, however (and I need to stress that I am talking in general here, not about this specific case), either accept the flimsiest of evidence, or try and squeeze too much out of the evidence. I'm sure I don't need to remind people of the many cases (please note, once again, that I am not talking specifically about this case) where editors and admins have been too quick to cry "sock-puppet" without first stopping to think whether (a) they need to make such accusations, and (b) whether they can prove such accusations. So in conclusion, had some of these other cases that led to bans on lower standards of evidence been brought to arbcom, the result might have been as we have here - a different result to the one that some people would have imposed if they could. Morven's response sums it up well - the arbcom require compelling evidence. It seems that the community standards of evidence are lower. Carcharoth (talk) 20:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Carcharoth, you might want to familiarize yourself with sockpuppetry by working on a few cases at WP:SSP before dispensing advice. Additionally, generic criticisms of people unspecified should be avoided. Which admins are trigger happy? Which sock puppetry cases have been badly resolved? Let's look into these problem areas and resolve them without delay. Jehochman Talk 21:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
You do great work on sockpuppet investigations, Jehochman. I am talking in general about random accusations thrown about on article talk pages. The general air of suspicion and paranoia that sometimes raises its head when a new editor turns up in a controversial area. One example (well, the only one, as you say, I'm not as active in this area as I should be) is Wikipedia:AN#Hou Yifan -- mass redirect creation (may archive soon). The editor who posted the initial report said "I suspect there is sock- or meat-puppetry going on (although probably sockpuppetry as the users have very similar edit patterns, including creating a user & user talk page before going on the redirect spree), and I could use some help in dealing with this", the response was "The above accounts were also indefblocked, though anyone can remove/reduce the blocks if they feel I'm too harsh - stress from real life might be getting to me." The response was "Indef block seems mostly justified to me considering that puppetry was probably going on, and in particular due to Gfeig's use of deliberately misleading edit summaries.". We see the same pattern here as in previous cases. Initial report makes vague (even though good-faith) allegations of sock-puppetry. There is only a small response (in this case one admin). The initial user and admin agree that sockpuppetry "probably" took place. No checkuser. Indefinite block (though there were other reasons given). The block logs gave "vandalism" as the reason, but didn't mention the overtones of sockpuppetry alleged in the AN discussion. I wasn't convinced, and asked the blocking admin if they would consider unblocking, and they did. Maybe the accounts will never edit again, and were trying something on, but let me ask you, Jehochman, as someone experienced in such things, how would you have handled that incident? No-one else at AN seemed interested in it apart from Pegasus and me and the IP (who seems fairly established as an editor despite not having an account). Carcharoth (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I do not have time to review that particular incident in detail right now. In general, I see plenty of unworthy sock puppet reports and close them with no action. People should not swing sock puppetry allegations like a club to gain an advantage in editorial disputes. If there is a suspicion of sock puppetry, the incident should be reduced to a WP:SSP or WP:RFCU report. Otherwise, editors should keep their suspicions to themselves and watch for better evidence to present itself, as usually happens when there is true sock puppetry. I generally avoid fancy analytical methods because we have so many simple cases that can be resolved directly. Through one of these simple cases I exposed a sock of Archtransit and set in motion a chain of events that would ultimately resolve one of the worst cases of sock puppetry ever discovered on Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 22:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Give me a moment to find a barnstar for that... :-) Carcharoth (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Morven's comment no slipups in a long period of editing either in terms of IP use or ever seeming to answer for the other, please refer to Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Samiharris and also the case evidence regarding Tomstoner. DurovaCharge! 21:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Unconvincing. What does "seems to answer as Samiharris" mean? Mantanmoreland was a frequent editor of that article and, despite the claim of the person who asked for a sock check, had edited it the previous week. [9] Significantly, the troll that set up the sock check was in turn identified as a WordBomb sock by checkuser.--Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Which account are you calling a troll or sock puppet? I want to check if they have been blocked yet. Jehochman Talk 21:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Palabrazo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), blocked as an obvious sock, unblocked, block challenged, then blocked by jpgordon on the basis of a checkuser run. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Anticipation, your objection is true but beside the point. Morven claimed it never happened. This occasion was credible enough to file a checkuser and get it fulfilled, and the Tomstoner incident was based almost entirely upon referring to a suspected sock in the first person. Note that MM never answered questions regarding the Tomstoner edit summary issues. DurovaCharge! 22:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Durova; I forgot this one - but did not find it wholly convincing, either. Note that I am not saying that I personally found the evidence as a whole to be utterly without foundation. I felt, rather, that it indicated possible sockpuppetry but that it wasn't solid enough. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand where you're coming from. If there had been a plausible alternative scenario I might have remained unconvinced also. But persistently evading even the basic questions, such as Fred Bauder's checkuser warning--I couldn't continue extending good faith when Mantanmoreland wouldn't provide a nail to hang it on. DurovaCharge! 02:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
You definitely have a point there, I'll agree. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand RFAR: Extremely Disappointing

Copied to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2, including sub-headings "Further evidence of ongoing problems", "Yet more evidence of ongoing civility issues", and "Betacommand vs Abu badali comment". Daniel (talk) 02:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions for ArbCom re: BetaCommand RfAR

Copied to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2. Daniel (talk) 02:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Feedback on draft requested - User:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft, requested cross-posting

It was requested that I cross-post this feedback request here.

Hi, if you have a moment, would you mind reviewing User:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft? I'm just beginning to draft this, but given the recent situations I think this could be valuable to see what community mandates if any exist for changes the Arbitration Committee could be required to accept. My intention was to keep the RFC format exceptionally simple, with a very limited number of "top level" sections that were fairly precise. Please leave any feedback on User talk:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft. Note: This is very much a draft and still probably several weeks I'd guess from being "live", so feedback is requested on the formatting, nature, and structure of the RFC. I do very much intend to put it live, but I want it to be as near to correct and balanced as possible before that. Thanks. Lawrence § t/e 17:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if I have to answer this elsewhere but since I encountered this thread here I decided to answer here. Thanks Lawrence for the initiative. It is like being bold. I have nothing against it - I appreciate it indeed. But believe it can evolve to become an ArbCom arbitration case with no positive or negative results. In my opinion, it is better to discuss the role and the functioning of the Community first. After all, in theory, Wikipedia can work without an ArbCom but not without a community. It is for the Community to decide what to do in both normal and complicated cases - answers to questions like 'what is the role of the Community', 'are there any limits to those roles', 'what do we have to achieve', 'which policies need immediate revising', etc have to be answered. Once that is done, the Community can decide what to do with the ArbCom. At least, the Community would be assured that it is taking the right steps without risking anything.
But again Lawrence. It is up to the Community to decide if this would-be RfC would be productive. The above was just my personal opinion. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Responses by White Cat

Copied from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration; see this. Daniel (talk) 01:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Response to statement by Tony Sidaway

Past case on Moby Dick had been completely ineffective in getting Moby Dick off of me. The ban of Diyarbakir and Moby Dick kept Davenbelle off of wikipedia for something like a week or less if Jack Merridew is ruled to be yet another sockpuppet. This would mean Davenbelle had been stalking me for a full three years in about 1.5 months it will be the anniversary of Moby Dick's indef block. I do not need to express my frustration in words I hope.

I am bringing this to arbcom rather than ani or arbcom enforcement because every person I have asked to date refused to even look at it. I could have named it "Davenbelle 2" but that felt like a movie title for some reason.

-- Cat chi? 19:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to comment by Sceptre

That would require me to have a level of faith in this community. I do not. The community had a consistent hostile attitude towards me any time I bring up "Davenbelle".

Also indefinitely blocking him alone is not an adequate way to get rid of Davenbelle as it has been the case time after another. Additional remedies may be warranted if I am right in my assertion that Jack Merridew is Davenbelle

-- Cat chi? 22:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Despite the claim of Arbitrator Kirill Lokshin

Checkuser has CONFIRMED Jack Merridew's geographic location to be compatible with Davenbelle. Kirill Lokshin's insistence on ignoring this simply baffles me.

-- Cat chi? 22:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to statement by Jack Merridew

It takes very little effort to notice this edit or these edits. I do not need to waste time and study your edits to notice them. Both cases are threads you should not even be aware of. It is a big wiki after all. While your presence on the ANI thread may have some other rational explanation (mere coincidence), your presence on User talk:Johnbod does not.

-- Cat chi? 19:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to statements claiming I have a vendetta or grudge against Jack Merridew (or anybody)

Such people with vendettas and/or grudges are unwelcome on wikipedia. Arbcom should accept this case and ban me indefinitely if such is the case. If that is not the case perhaps evidence can be analyzed and not dismissed without being given a second thought.

I also challenge such people. If they do not even find any of this evidence vaguely suspicious, perhaps they have an alternate rational explanation.

-- Cat chi? 11:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Response to rebuttal by Jéské
While my comment wasn't aimed at your post and instead more of the overall response by several parties, I apologize for the confusion. My motive behind this is not spite. I just want arbitration committee to review the conduct of a user whom I am convinced is a sockpuppet of an indef banned User:Davenbelle who to date had two sockpuppets (User:Moby Dick, User:Diyarbakir) strictly to harass me and on occasion several others.
Since blocking him indefinitely has proved to be inefficient in maintaining the ban placed on Davenbelle, I seek arbcom to perhaps add remedies - not sure what they can be. My discussion with FayssalF gave me the understanding that such an issue would need to be discussed among arbitrators.
-- Cat chi? 12:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of sanity, subpages please

I think each appeal and proposed case should be on a sub page - that way I can follow an individual case w/o paying attention to everything else. Much like how RFAs or AFDs are held in sub pages.

Any rejected case can be either archived or deleted.

-- Cat chi? 14:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

RfAr subpages?

To expand on my discussions with a few folks on IRC of late (and, I have just noticed, White Cat's similar note), I'd like to put the idea out there, regarding subpages for WP:RFAR. The current page is extremely cluttered, and is quite tricky to keep managed.

My experience with case management at WP:RFM and WP:RFCU has shown that subpages really do work: they help give a very brief "overview" in the editing window, whilst simultaneously allowing for a more sensible approach to the bytes of data in these oft' busy processes.

Subpages would be relatively easy to set up, and the "recycling" of the subpages would be very easy to set up: rejected requests are simply removed from WP:RFAR (and perhaps into a subpage, similar to WP:RFCU, or a subsection, similar to WP:RFM), and deleted after a reasonable period (all the Clerks, Arbitrators, and most of the folks that hang around RfAr are administrators); accepted requests are effectively "converted" by the opening Clerk into the full-case format, per WP:AC/C/P.

The downsides are very limited: one could argue the workload will increase, although I believe the organisational benefits will cancel this out; additionally, many arbitrators tend to "run through" all the present requests, voting on each at once. However, I am sure that a little adapting would not be a huge step?

I invite thoughts on the logictics, and the advantages/disadvantages of this process. I am not calling for an immediate implementation—rather, as I stipulated in my opening sentence, I'm simply "putting the idea out there", for general consideration and, hopefully, consensus-building. Regards, Anthøny 23:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It has been suggested before. A major problem is that arbitration requests or comments contained in them are frequently stigmatizing, or just plain frivolous, and keeping such requests rejected by arbitrators around indefinitely is not really a great idea. Dmcdevit·t 23:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Frivolous subpages could be deleted, or an approach like that at WP:DRV could be adopted. Don't ask me how the DRV approach works, but it could be another option. But I do like the idea of a set of permanent subpages (1-8 maybe) that are recycled as needed. You file the case at the subpage and activate it on the main page. Carcharoth (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
A user RFC will get deleted if it doesn't get accepted within 48 hours. An rfar case if rejected by arbcom can be deleted in a similar manner. There actually are license issues in copy pasting accepted requests. Page histories are not carried for example. RFAR and RFAR appeals should be on seperate pages. -- Cat chi? 13:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how the comments in a rejected RFAR could be any more "stigmatizing" or "frivolous" than those in a rejected AFD, or a rejected RFA, or anything else that is rejected, marked as such, but very rarely deleted or blanked. — CharlotteWebb 17:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Reply to Dmcdevit: I am thinking along the lines of the system used in WP:RFM—old RfMs are marked as rejected, and delisted from the main requests page. They are then "subst:"-ed onto a rejected cases archive, which allows a permanent log of the requests to be kept, yet simultaneously allowing the (now defunct) request page to be deleted. With regards to disruptive comments, I reiterate Charlotte's comments: if the need arises, a {{courtesy blanked}} can always be employed for that particular section (or, as it's a section-only action, and thus courtesy-blanked is probably ill-suited, a related template that could very easily be drawn up). Thoughts? Anthøny 19:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
The major problem I see with all this is that it will make it considerably more time-consuming for us to keep track of comments, since we won't have the subpages watchlisted. Kirill 23:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we could use Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration? Anthøny 23:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Nope, that (a) doesn't include translusions, only links, and (b) will catch all links—including articles, user sigs, and so forth. What we'd need is something like {{ArbComOpenTasks}} but listing the open requests (and someone to maintain it!). Kirill 23:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I see no reason why cases in the "currently voting whether to open it" phase can't or shouldn't be added to the ArbComOpenTasks template, regardless of whether said cases are being discussed on the same page or on separate sub-pages (usually only need to change a "#" to a "/" or vice versa). — CharlotteWebb 18:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
If you have, say, four permanent subpages, it isn't that onerous to watchlist them all. Arbitration cases already have the option to watchlist all four of the associated pages, and no-one seems to complain about that. Carcharoth (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
How many open arbitration case requests are there at any given time? Never seen more than 5 or 6... The number of cases did not increase a whole lot, the number of involved people however has. I think arbitrators following every post can watchlist new cases. Any new case would still be announced on the main rfar page. -- Cat chi? 12:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Where do you get "four permanent subpages"? If this is done like RFCU, there will be a subpage for every new request. Lately the RFCU clerks have been incommnicado; I've archived the last 40 cases or so. Not anxious to add to my already busy schedule. Ultimately this page is run according to the desires of the arbitrators. Thatcher 23:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    • You do /1, /2, /3 and /4. People file on those pages (with some sort of natural size limit) and link into there from the main page. Stuff then gets moved around as needed. The main page just becomes a contents page. Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Eh, that's even sillier than the "==Arbitrary section break (\d+)==" headings that keep appearing everywhere. If we're going to use sub-pages at all, they should be divided by subject, not byte count. — CharlotteWebb 18:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The real solution is to enforce the 500 word limit for sections in requests (maybe provide a more chaotic overspill area somewhere), and to deal with cases properly at arbitration, thus avoiding the need for amendments and clarifications! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

  • We try, but people in disputes tend to lack cooperation skill and take direction poorly (otherwise they wouldn't be in disputes. Thatcher 23:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • If this is enforced, people will have to learn to post their actual argument elsewhere (such as in user-space), link to it from the RFAR statements page, and hope the arbitrators actually follow such links when deciding whether to open a case. Of course I'm sure somebody will say this would just be "gaming the system" (well, hmm...). — CharlotteWebb 18:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration clarifications

#Clarifications and other requests section should be moved to a seperate page. Perhaps a Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration clarifications.

Clarifications occupy half of the page now.

-- Cat chi? 14:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I always wondered why "clarification" discussions for a particular case take place on the main RFAR page rather than on the talk page the closed case. A brief boilerplate note here pointing to "Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lizzie Borden#Clarification" or whatever would be more appropriate. — CharlotteWebb 17:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
That would be hard to follow though. -- Cat chi? 12:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually I think it would be easier as the discussion is all in one place. Ideally the "final decision" section of the case would be modified (i.e. clarified) to reflect the result of the discussion, as opposed to holding the discussion in Grand Central Station (a.k.a. the main RFAR page) and hoping everybody who cares will bookmark the final diff before everything gets blanked. — CharlotteWebb 18:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The proposal is to create a sub page that can b transcluded anywhere which can include the talk page of the case in question. -- Cat chi? 10:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

re a request for Arbitration posted at WP:ANI

re Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Please_help_request_for_arbitration. This should be a decision for the Committee if they wish to process this out of process request. If there is not traction for this request then I believe an Arb or Clerk should decide to have the request removed from ANI. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I've copied the request (sans the expansive evidence) to RFA. I make no call as to the merits of the request— that's a job for the arbs themselves. — Coren (talk) 14:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
While I applaud Coren's good faith in submitting the case in the proper venue, in my view the case has no merit. I see the suspicion I had that Harry59b is an Archtransit sock turned out to be warranted. Orderinchaos 03:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I had voted to decline the case before it was removed from the page. The committee has a mailing list post concerning the matter. In the event any arbitrator wishes to take any further action concerning the case, it can be restored, but it appears to be trollish in nature. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Whistles - Clerks needed

User:PHG has been disrupting the arbitration page by posting in other peoples' sections. Please put and end to this, with a block if need be. Jehochman Talk 17:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Why couldn't I, when other users routinely respond in other people's section? PHG (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Tu quoque (Two wrongs make a right version). Get real. -- Fyslee / talk 17:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Then, correct the others as well, instead of just correcting me. Rules have to be applied fairly. PHG (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Give it up, we're "wrong". He did this throughout the entire Arb case and argued with the clerks (and they were "wrong" too) when they moved his statements to his section. Shell babelfish 17:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I just checked his user page to see what type of character would use such flimsy and disruptive arguments. I must say that this all makes his impressive contribution history a sham. Too bad that a user with so much experience still acts like a classic newbie disrupter who doesn't understand anything and refuses to meekly accept good advice. -- Fyslee / talk 17:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Motions page?

Does the committee use the separate motions page anymore? It seems to have been used for two cases in January, and not used since. Over the last few months, I believe a few motions have actually been handled on WP:RFAR itself. If there's no use for this page anymore, perhaps it should be redirected to WP:RFAR in order to avoid confusion. Ral315 (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, most motions in closed cases have arisen after someone outside the committee raised a question of clarification or asked for an expansion of the remedies. The motions then come in below the appropriate section of the request. It's not inconceivable that an issue will come up when an arbitrator discovers them, or the committee is alerted privately; in this case the transcluded page for motions would be used. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it make more sense to move clarifications and motions completely off the RfArb page to the seperate motions page? The main WP:RFArb page can get rather long and confusing at times - having a seperate page would probably help. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Would make sense to me. Easy enough to add another page to the watchlist. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I've been bold and moved it to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Clarifications and motions - it might get reverted, but we'll see. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I support the move, as I agree that the main RfAr page was getting much too long. The only disadvantage that I can see is that it might make more of the amendments easier to "backburner". As it is the motions tend to get very slow responses from the already overloaded Arbs, and having the motions on an entirely different page might exacerbate this problem. But that's really up to the Committee, as to how they want to organize their workflow. --Elonka 23:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Follow up to BDJ arbitration

It is acceptable to list at the BDJ arbitration pages the cases where the arbitration case has been directly cited? Is it also acceptable to draw the attention of the arbitrators to cases where the working of an arbitration case remedy "on the ground" is leading to disputes? In other words, point this out without filing a new request, clarification or a post at arbitration enforcement? I would like in particular to point out the following:

I think my question is whether a clarification or other request filed now would save time and effort in the future? Essentially I am looking for brief preliminary guidance from one or more arbitrators, especially in light of the current debate about John254 and people being too quick to file at arbitration. Carcharoth (talk) 11:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If anyone want to add something to the BDJ case pages, the following seems to have been the upshot of all this: okay, you win, sheesh, sheesh, and Overturned by only person who suggested endorsing deletion (but begrudgingly). The admin actions have been overturned but there has been no response from the admin yet, though one editor has warned the admin in question. This is still a sensitive area, though, so guidance from the arbitration committee might be helpful (or maybe not). Carcharoth (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of case in tendentious terms

This edit [10] by John254 (talk · contribs) is troubling in a couple of respects. First, it includes an edit summary which assumes that his assertion in making the case was valid, based on musing by one arbitrator, yet it entirely ignores another arbitrator's unequivocal comment that I find the request to be distinctly tendentious; there is a minor content dispute and an issue over whether a source is reliable, but there's certainly not the egregious BLP violations claimed. Few if any of those commenting on the case appear to agree with John254's assertion that this is an egregious BLP violation, and most appear to believe that it was another in a series of vexatious cases brought by this user. Second, it's removing a case on which arbitrators were actively deciding. Yes, it was not going to be accepted, but there was at least some chance of a resolution in respect of John's repeated vexatious use of process. Third, one is not, unless one is an ArbCom clerk, supposed to interfere with the statements of others in requested cases - I am as rouge as they come and I would not remove a case or anyone else's comments, I'd simply comment that I withdraw the request. Fourth, by removing the case in this way, no archive or record is made of the case's rejection. I don't know if we even keep records of rejected cases, I'm not much of an arbitration watcher, but it seems to me that the clerks are there for a reason and if you want something quietly nuked because you've made an ass of yourself then you should ask the clerks, who are nice people. In this case, John seems to be asserting the opposite: that everyone but him is the ass. Guy (Help!) 20:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

  • OK, sorry, strike that - the edit has been reverted, the sky is no longer falling, and I am over-reacting to trivialities once again. Apologies, all, normal service will be resumed as soon as possible. I just hope that wasn't normal service. Guy (Help!) 21:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
    • In this particular case, I would have reverted the removal had not Nick intervened to do so earlier. The procedures are fairly clear that only clerks (and arbitrators, obviously) should be removing requests from this page, and there is no exception for cases one has initiated: in many cases (and, indeed, in this particular case) there can be counterclaims that other editors have raised that need to be addressed regardless of the initiating party's desire to withdraw their original request. — Coren (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Very disappointed

I just want to say how disappointed I am to see comments like "It was a bad block" in Arbitrators' comments about whether to accept or reject the case. You should wait until you've actually heard the case before making judgements like that, otherwise what's the point in having the case at all? Just pass summary judgement and be done with it. --Tango (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I find it hard to believe that one can come to a decision before reviewing the evidence. Now you may be able to get some context by yourself, but unless both sides have presented what they see as relevant evidence then any such statement is premature. (1 == 2)Until 14:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Committee members know how that they intended for discretionary sanctions to be used and want to communicate to Community their thoughts about it, I think. Personally, I never intended for them to be used when an editor removes a comment from their own talk page with a snarly comment in the edit summary. I'm quite concerned that other admins are going to duplicate this approach to enforcing our Committee sanctions and what to nip it in the bud, asap. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
There are other ways of making official general comments on your interpretation of previous rulings. It is inappropriate to do so by passing judgement on a case before hearing it. --Tango (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh I don't know, there's no reason to assume they haven't reviewed the same evidence that's available to everyone else. It's not a complicated case and anyone can get a pretty clear picture of events behind the block itself in 5 minutes. If a case is opened, it's not going to be opened to see if the block was bad but to see if sanctions are appropriate and/or there is a pattern of inappropriate use of admin tools. No one is going to open a case to just get Arbs opinion on a block...RxS (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Nods in agreement to Rx StrangeLove's comment. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
People with cases filed against them should still be given a chance to defend themselves before judgement is passed. --Tango (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Tango certainly has a point, and it's why if I see a case that I feel definitely should be accepted I will only note my acceptance and not explain reasoning in detail. However where cases are not accepted it is necessary to explain whether what went on was appropriate or inappropriate. A simple statement of 'decline' is liable to be misinterpreted. If an arbitrator declines a case and says that a particular block is bad, the opinion is obiter, as the lawyers would say. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Since a case may be accepted even when a given arbitrator has voted to reject, such comments should be saved until after the case is actually rejected. Not all such comments were even made as part of a rejecting - Matthew Brown was making purely a comment without a vote. --Tango (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
If you have something to say in defense of your actions that you haven't already said elsewhere, by all means, avail yourself of the opportunity. You've made so many statements attempting to defend your actions that it would be odd to think that you're saving the really good stuff for after the arbitration case opens against you. It is hardly unreasonable for arbiters to arrive at and publicly state a preliminary judgment in the face of such overwhelming evidence. This isn't moot court. ➪HiDrNick! 16:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the phrase "moot court", could you explain? It's really a matter of principle - arbitrators are expected to be impartial. Making such statements before the case (and making them as absolutes, not just statements to current opinion) does not appear the slightest bit impartial. --Tango (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Ooops, sorry. "Moot court" is a sort of practice court that is held in law schools to help prepare lawyers for the real thing. My point was that our arbiters are volunteers, not judges, and I wouldn't expect them to remain silent on the merits of a case when the evidence is freely available on-wiki. ➪HiDrNick! 16:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. I should have thought of just looking it up on Wikipedia! --Tango (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The main RFArb page (where cases are filed) is a public discussion between Arbs and the Community about whether a case is needed because the Community needs assistance dealing with a situation. Often the comments of an arbitrator shortly after the case is filed will differ from those made later because of the feedback of the first arbitrators commenting. If the community adds material that better explains the reason for a case, it is not uncommon for arbitrators to change their votes from reject to accept. Also as events unfold, accepting the case might be the best approach. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Certainly true, but what does that have to do with anything? --Tango (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
If an arb write, ...I think this was a bad block but I rejecting because..., this gives the Community an opportunity to clarify the reason that a case is needed. Censoring their comments as you suggest does not change that fact that arbitrators are forming opinions based on the information presented. This approach is only a problem if the arbitrators are not willing to be open minded as more information is presented during the case. I do not find this to be true, as arbitrators that vote to reject may vote for sanctions later or vice versa. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
A lot of it isn't to do with actual impartiality, but rather the perception of impartiality. If it is perceived that the committee has already made its mind up, people will be less willing to take part in the case, particularly if they are on the side that has apparently already lost. --Tango (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand your concern (as do other arbs) and that is the reason that I'm discussing the issue. If you read comments on our case pages, you see that us and the community regularly struggles with how public our discussions about our cases should be. It is not a simple issue. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

My $0.02. You can fight their perception about whether the block was good or bad. That is in the face of the overwhelming comments by both editors, admins and arbiters that it was bad. Tilting at Windmills however is rarely successful. Or you can accept that it was a bad block and apologize to MONGO and absolve SlimVirgin of Wheel Warring. From a pure process standpoint, the question about the block is over. The only question remaining is whether you should be sanctioned or not. You can't unring the bell so MONGO is not going to be reblocked, you are not going to be able to ever block him again or leave warnings on his talk page in any official capacity. From a pure Prisoner's dilemma, your only logical course of action is apology/forgiveness. That will go a long way to healing the wounds created by the block and it would be alearning process in return. Don Quixote wouldn't approve but the community would. --DHeyward (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with pretty much all of that. Since you haven't stated any reasons for you opinions, I have nothing to respond to, so I'll leave it at that. --Tango (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


Regarding Arbs passing public opoinions before consideration and presentation of eveidence, for once, I am complete agreement with Tango, but unlike Tango I have never been under any delusions regarding this present Arbcom for whom, as a singular body, I have not one jot of respect. When voting. with almost obscene haste to accept the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC case Morven voted:
"Accept. Such behaviour from users and admins who should know better is unacceptable. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 09:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC) Note: I support renaming this case if accepted; it does not appear to be purely about Giano. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC) "
Note how it was only several hour later he mad his minor amendment, at the time of his initial comment the case centred entirely on me. This was for a case they had no right to accept in the first place, let alone pass judgement on. Which is why I do not accept, heed or even notice their sanction of me. I dismiss them as they should have dismissed that case.
Morven made his comment before even having made even a pretence of study or evaluation. That alone should have been enough in any civilized society for the judge to be dismissed, but no, this is Wikipedia. So I'm afraid Tango, you must just clench your teeth and shut up and put up, because you have supported this amazing system. Giano (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
While I agree that Morven's comment in that case was equally unacceptable, we differ in that I accept that ArbCom has power over me whether I like it or not. I will respect any rulings against me (I may do that by simply leaving the project, of course). I may decide not to take part in the case if I object too strongly to how it is being carried out, but that's as far as I have the power to go. --Tango (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
To say DHeyward's point a little differently: Regardless of merit, you have nothing of substance to gain and much to lose by an Arbitration case going forward. Since opinions are, at best, divided over the merit; it would be in your best interest to act contrite about the whole situation and put it behind you as quickly as possible (putting it behind you means avoiding the other parties in the future). Basically do everything you can to convince the arbs to reject this case (i.e. don't argue with an arb on the talk page). What I have said above is equally true whether you acted appropriately or not. Many former admins have been correct about an issue yet continued to march down the path to desysoping anyway because they made the mistake in believing that their personal correctness about issue X was the only thing that mattered. --BirgitteSB 18:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine follow-up

Just in case this becomes an issue I'll be proactive here. Matt Sanchez, who edited as Bluemarine and is sitebanned from Wikipedia, is an editor in good standing at Wikimedia Commons. After the en:Wikipedia arbitration case closed he accepted my standing offer of mentorship and has been making productive contributions there. He has also made requests about the Matt Sanchez article. At first I advised him about policies and procedures and directed him to OTRS. Due to a lack of response from OTRS and several bright line policy issues at the article I chose to involve myself directly. The article had problems with contributory copyright infringements, negative material sourced to non-notable blogs, etc.

I don't want to cross the line regarding proxy editing so I'm proceeding quite cautiously. At WP:AE I have already disclosed my interaction with Mr. Sanchez. When he requests a change I ask him for reliable sources, explain policies, and evaluate the request. Then I propose reasonable changes to the talk page. If no one objects I implement the change. If someone does object we discuss it, and if no agreement is reached then I seek independent evaluation at a noticeboard. I am not Matt Sanchez's partisan; several months ago I blocked him and I endorsed his siteban. If there is any problem with the approach I'm taking now, please advise. DurovaCharge! 19:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That sounds perfectly reasonable to me; with the (generally applicable) caveat that by accepting to proxy the edits you take personal responsibility for their contents— in this particular case you seem to be applying careful editorial precautions accordingly. — Coren (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
<shrug> makes sense to me as well. I keep one eye on that page and think that Durova's doing a reasonable job dealing with it. As long as she's willing to take personal responsibility, I'm okay with it. - Philippe 15:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up: Matt has begun making audio recordings of Wikipedia articles and uploading them to Commons. This isn't editing; it's making articles accessible to the handicapped. He has an excellent voice and has recorded radio shows. As long as there's no objection, I'll be posting these recordings to Wikipedia. DurovaCharge! 15:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well that is unexpectedly pleasant. I certainly don't object as one of the people that was involved in the RFAR fracas and hostility from him. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
But one aside, he should probably avoid articles like Matt Sanchez for this, or anything directly related to his notability. It will just inflame people. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
It'll be on other topics. He's fluent in four languages and when he gets off a couple of hot button issues he's all right. His uploads to Commons, besides .ogg files, have been photography of France and Iraq. DurovaCharge! 17:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Inactive arbitrator removal process - any progress?

Hi folks - has there been progress on the process for removing and replacing inactive Arbitrators? I know Brad mentioned that there were some proposals floating on the mailing list, but I haven't heard if there has been a resolution of the debate yet. As I mentioned last time I brought this up, I strongly believe that it is better to complete this decision while there are no inactive Arbitrators (as I think is still the case at the moment, correct me if I'm wrong please). 14:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, no substantial progress since last time. We have a certain tendency to be too busy with short-term flare-ups to be able to devote sufficient time to discussing long-term matters, unfortunately. Kirill 02:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Question about an old thing - Arbitration policy amendment ratifications

I just noticed Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Proposed amendment ratification vote. Apparently, several times, this process was used to ratify/change Arbitration policy by community fiat? I note that Arbitration Policy is allowed by the community currently to be controlled by the Committee itself. Is this process then how the community would go about compelling a change in the AC's actions, scope, or remit? Just curious. This: Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Procedure for changing this policy led me there. Another vote is at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/proposed amendment revote. Lawrence § t/e 20:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Worst case scenario, you wait until the next election and elect some people sympathetic to your point of view. --Tango (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that's necessary, actually. Discussion is the way we do things, rather than putting our heads together and electing "one of our own". Personally, I think getting in touch with a few arbitrators, describing what you see as the flaws of the arbitration policy, and how you would envisage it as in its improved state, and get feedback. The next step would then be the Committee itself; the arbitrator aforementioned could pitch your changes to the ArbCom, or you could simply email their mailing list. The process would not be, I imagine, a fast one; the Committee seems to be somewhat preoccupied with its work, to be able to devote enough time to the operations by which it undertakes its work–an understandable situation.
But, even better, why not run yourself? Some of the best politicians are those that got sick of the lack of change, and decided to do something about it. Of course, I'm not saying that the arbitrators are politicians, by any stretch of the imagination :) But, the elections system is similar: selection is based on competence, experience, one's platform, and general popularity (by that, I mean people respect you as an editor, rather than they're your "mates"). I would not, however, go by the ratification vote: that was held some years ago, when the arbitration system is very different. If you're setting out to change things, a fresh approach is what's needed. Anthøny 15:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

RfA - request for arbitration or request for admin?

I was going through this RfC by Cla68 and he mentioned a previous RfA. Is he talking about a request for admin or request for arb? Given that I couldn't find him on the request for admin, I figured he was talking about requests for arb. Is there an easy way to search these things? I've done a find on all these pages for Cla68 and I can't find it. I think we should make some sort of distinction between the two acronyms; they should not be used interchangeably. Maybe request for admin could be RfAd or requests for arb could be RfAr. Also, where would I go to make this a formal request or whatever? OptimistBen (talk) 05:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA typically means Requests for Adminship, while RFAr is usually used for Requests for Arbitration. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Optimist, there isn't really a need for a change here. RfA is requests for adminship; RfAr, or RfArb, is Requests for arbitration. Does this eliminate the confusion for you, or do you still feel the two overlap? Anthøny 14:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there is any harm in changing it though - Optimist's view seems more logical. But it's not worth losing sleep over. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

MONGO

I've noticed that MONGO has been listed as a party to the ArbCom filed by Bishzilla. By the rules, all parties to ArbComs have to be notified that the discussion is taking place. I contacted MONGO by e-mail shortly after he retired, and he responded in a way indicating that he was aware the ArbCom was taking place. I have sent him another follow e-mail just recently, indicating, among other things, that he has been listed as a party to the request. I don't know if that's sufficient under the circumstances, but just wanted it to be known that there is evidence that he knows the ArbCom has been filed, and that he has received a form of notice that he is now listed as a party. John Carter (talk) 19:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Shrug. Zilla list Tango only, request de-sysopping. Wizardman add MONGO as party and omit notifying him. bishzilla ROARR!! 20:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC).
Just curious... You don't think that if you are going to be filing Arbs, communicating with blocked folks, participating in policy discussions, etc. that using normal English instead of zillaspeak might be a good idea? Avruch T 21:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Its been pointed out to me that this is being discussed at length elsewhere, you needn't respond here if you've made your position clear on some other page. Avruch T 21:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Unanswered question

The ArbCom has still failed to answer the question I posed concerning the Iantresman case. Some admins are willing to unblock, others oppose this. Iantresman cannot be considered community banned any longer, as the definition of a community ban is that no admin is willing to unblock. How are we to resolve this? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As the committee declined to take the case, there is no formal answer. My individual opinion goes like this: in this case, contacting the blocking admin is not practical since the indefinite block was a result of a Community Sanction Noticeboard discussion, and also the admin who performed the block appears to be away. If an administrator unblocks Iantresman, they should be aware that such a move may be controversial and everything reasonable should be done to avoid wheel-warring. Likewise, an administrator opposed to an unblock should not reblock except as provided under blocking policy to prevent disruption. In all the circumstances it would be best if the matter proceeded with discussion; this could take place on the administrators' noticeboard, or via a request for comment. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration: The first stage of the next round of dispute resolution?

So part of this weekend's excitement arises from some these newly-trendy 'discretionary sanctions'. I would like to appeal quite strongly to the committee to stop using these. Let's take a look at the one I just linked. It says, in reasonable summary:

Administrators may block users in accordance with the blocking policy and the prevailing consensus of the community. Such blocks may be appealed via the usual channels (excepting unblock-en?). Administrators may only so block in situations where they have no prior content involvement.

Well, thanks for that: you just stated the standing policy and practise in about ten times as many words as I did. It changes nothing: admins do not need the committee's permission to block for any duration subject to the block finding consensual community support, and the 'appeals' process is empowered to remove, lengthen or shorten any block anyway. The remedy changes and resolves nothing. It constructs no new limits on behavior, and it creates no new tools with which to confine behavior to acceptable limits. In short, it says that editors must behave and administrators are empowered to see that they do. It fails in the committee's responsibility to end disputes, to be the final stage in dispute resolution. Such remedies merely chew the cud and limply hand the dispute back to the community for another iteration - they re-spin the wheel and nothing more. However — and this is important — because the arbitration committee has cleared its throat with respect to a particular editor/article/etc., admins with a little bit of a desire to exercise some 'actual' power take an amplifying effect from the remedy and, sheltering behind the committee's greater authority, over (re)act. Thus, 'discretionary sanctions' light fires under disputes rather than dousing them, and abdicate the committee's responsibility to reach decisions that the community has not been able to. Please stop using them, along with all the other empty platitudes that dominate arbitration outcomes at present. Regards, Splash - tk 16:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think your summary is a particularly reasonable one, as that's not what the sanction actually says:

The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

(emphasis mine). We are not merely (re-)authorizing people to "block" in accordance with the "blocking policy"; we are authorizing admins to do, quite literally, whatever they feel is necessary, for whatever reason.
Not that you don't have a good point regardless, of course. The discretionary sanctions were, at least in my initial conception of them, an answer to two major weaknesses of the current dispute resolution system:
  1. The Committee doesn't rule on content—probably our last major taboo—and yet a significant number of disputes boil down to questions of POV-pushing that are intrinsically tied to content. The discretionary sanctions basically push the responsibility for sorting these out to the administrators, who have no prohibition on using content in their decisions; but this admittedly comes at a certain cost.
  2. Both the preliminary portion of system, and even arbitration itself, is generally incapable of dealing with valuable or popular editors that are acting inappropriately. Normal blocks against such editors tend to be quickly reversed by friendly admins, and the Committee has traditionally been reluctant to sanction them. When I first drafted the original discretionary sanctions proposal, I tried to come up with a system where sanctions were easier to impose than to remove, in order to combat this effect; the original proposal, if I recall correctly, called for summary desysoppings of anyone reversing such sanctions without adequate consensus. Obviously, the text was watered down in the final version, but the general idea remains.
These sanctions are, however, very crude tools, as you point out. It would be much easier to work with a system properly designed for handling these sorts of disputes; but the initiative for major reform must, on some fundamental level, come from the community as a whole rather than exclusively from us. Kirill 17:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
No disagreement. I do wonder however as to what sort of "reform" could be proposed. I think we'd be clearly talking about some sort of policy proposal, but what would it incline? Binding penalties, perhaps imposed by specifically designated parties, maybe some sort of ArbCom "deputies" or a subordinate, quick-resolution process? I wouldn't oppose such measures, but don't entirely know whether that's what you're thinking or not. John Carter (talk) 17:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure, to be quite honest; at this point, any idea for improving things would be welcome. (That's one of the things the ethnic disputes working group was supposed to work on, but it's not gotten very far in that regard.)
My initial thought would be to have some sort of system for evaluating content-based claims. We've tried to weasel our way around such matters in the recent Sadi Carnot and Franco-Mongol alliance cases, but that doesn't work in the general case (if at all). We almost need some sort of advisory "content expert" body that can evaluate claims and issue opinions on whether parties to a dispute are misusing sources, pushing for undue weight, and so forth. Then, the Committee could make rulings referencing such opinions (e.g. "According to the Content Group, User:X has misused sources on topic Y..."). But this is merely brainstorming, at this point.
Fundamentally, the community needs to determine how it wants disputes to be resolved, and then create a system to match, in whatever form. Kirill 18:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
In response to Kirill, and I know this is a dubious idea, particularly for someone who is currently a candidate for a coordinator position, but maybe it might be possible to encourage development of coordinators for some of the larger content themes of wikipedia, and occasionally call in them for the semi-expert opinions Kirill mentioned above? It would probably result in some changes to coordinator votes and elections, but I don't think that this is likely to be finalized within the next few months anyway, so we probably won't be "grandfathering in" too many potentially prejudiced parties if something like that were proposed. It might make some parties a bit less popular to their constituencies, though. John Carter (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I reckon the main outcome of this would be the acceleration of disputes to arbcom just so that that the disputants can 'prove their case' before an expert jury. (And I can think of one or two experts in the recent past not suited to that jury, so we must be careful). I think things are simpler though: the committee should get back to passing remedies that target the individual behaviours of the editors/admins involved and be more gutsy about it. As you have said, the system you have is fundamentally not suited to squashing decades of international tension etc., so you must use the more limited tools at your disposal with greater confidence and less timidity, and sanction editors who clearly need it. You have escalating blocks and bans, revert restrictions and ratchets, mid-term bans, topic bans, the list goes on. Consider that when you close a case with toast-and-marshmallow but without actionable remedy, you have reversed your earlier judgement that the case needed resolving; you are extremely unlikely to have achieved your own goals in such situations (unless there are problems in the case-acceptance procedures). Splash - tk 20:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
So I'm guessing you prefer the exhaustive-list-of-sanctions approach of, say, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan? It's doable (albeit much more time-consuming), but only if we get people submitting sufficient, organized evidence. In a number of later cases, we've had a problem with there not actually being enough evidence presented against any particular user to justify directly sanctioning them. Kirill 02:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
In general, yes, I think they are more effective even if they do sometimes cause a little indignation. (From a paperwork pov, they could be more easily bundled by remedy than by editor). The poor evidence collation problem is difficult, I agree. One approach (which I think has been taken at least implicitly in the past) is to conclude that the standard behavioural bounds aren't working on Article/TopicList X and thus to apply some new ones. For example, a blanket N-revert restriction on all current and future editors to the article for M months. This is not punishing the innocent, but drawing lines to contain and reduce the problematic nature; it is essentially 'article probation' with teeth. This could be coupled with tougher sanctions against identified editors. Splash - tk 12:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I have not given up on the use of discretionary sanctions, either. I did not support them for exactly same reasons that Kirill names in his above comment, but never the less, I support them. I think that empowering more admins to be more active in arb case enforcement is a good thing for the Community. It is not possible for the Committee to spell out in detail exactly what is needed in every content dispute on these contentious articles. I feel that it is best left in the hands of uninvolved admins that have educated themselves about the issue, and are actively trying to help all the article's editors resolve their conflicts so that a good stable version of the article can exist. We need for the admins to enter the issue with an open mind and a willingness to show patience with all the involved editors. The use of blocks should still be a last resort after attempts to deescalate a particular situation does not work. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I suppose my thrust is that, even before arbcom passes such wide-sounding remedies, the admins can act in any appropriate way they can gain support for. The point is that the community has been demonstrably unable to reach agreement on what the appropriate ways are. Simply mandating the question back to AN/I is therefore very unlikely to change much. I don't think that even FloNight's comment immediately above connects with this: those noble admins trying to help have certainly failed to do so despite their best efforts or the matter would not be before the committee to resolve , assuming the committee is accepting only thus far irresolvable disputes (one need only look at the combined block logs for the editors involved in the ethnic disputes to see this). It is therefore a matter of some importance that arbitration remedies be maximally prescriptive, for that is the only way to achieve the two key goals: 1) Setting narrower boundaries for acceptable behaviour that the 'remedied' parties are clear on and 2) Providing clear disincentives for outstepping those bounds. This relieves the enforcing admins of endless further disputes about proportionality et al., and the offending editor of uncertainty regarding how arbitrary today's passing admin might be. Remedies that fail in either of these respects are not useful. Splash - tk 20:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have thoughts on all of this—unfortunately, I am tied up with real-world work for the next day or two, but Splash has raised some good points and I intend to contribute to the discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've always thought the real way to resolve disputes and improve articles is to get more people editing the article and discussing things on the talk pages. Kirill says "The discretionary sanctions basically push the responsibility for sorting these out to the administrators, who have no prohibition on using content in their decisions" - which surprises me. I've always thought that administrators were meant to stand aloof from the content issues, and instead help deal with disruptive behaviour - keep the extreme behaviour under control and leave the mature and calm and sensible editors (from whatever POV) to discuss things and move the article forward. Admins clamp down on misbehaviour, while editors discuss and write the articles. What this does require though is a certain critical amount of sensible editors to be present over time, and a critical mass of uninvolved admins willing to stay out of the discussions, but still ward off the disruptive behaviour. Most problems arise when there are too few sensible people willing to get involved as editors, or too few admins willing to reduce disruption to allow normal editing to resume. There is also a lot to be said for nipping problems in the bud, before they even get to this stage. Carcharoth (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's expressly written that admins can't use their tools to advance their position in a content dispute. Where's the line if you (Kirill as quoted above) are saying that an admin is supposed to chose a side of the content dispute and then use their tools to enforce their decision?--Cube lurker (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The full quote from Kirill is here: "The Committee doesn't rule on content—probably our last major taboo—and yet a significant number of disputes boil down to questions of POV-pushing that are intrinsically tied to content. The discretionary sanctions basically push the responsibility for sorting these out to the administrators, who have no prohibition on using content in their decisions; but this admittedly comes at a certain cost." It is possible that Kirill meant his comment only to apply to discretionary sanctions, and not to admins actions in general, but obviously he is the best person to explain what he meant. Carcharoth (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The distinction is between participation and awareness. Admins are, indeed, prohibited from using their tools to advance their position in a content dispute; but this is traditionally interpreted quite narrowly, and has never been taken to mean that admins must blind themselves to content issues when making decisions—merely that they cannot pursue both an editorial role and an administrative one in a dispute. There has never been a prohibition—as far as I'm aware of, in any case—against admins blocking people for, say, misusing sources, pushing fringe viewpoints into articles, or otherwise violating content policies (although these blocks have become less common as the centralized community sanction processes have collapsed).
The Committee, on the other hand, cannot really do anything about editors who violate only content policies—not conduct ones—since doing so would implicitly involve ruling on the validity of the content generated by said editors. This is, in large part, why we get cases where editors who were arguably correct in the dispute get sanctioned for conduct violations, while the POV-pushers get away with it by being polite. Kirill 02:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Ouch? Are you supposed to poke your finger like that in Wikipedia's most gaping, bloodied wound? — Coren (talk) 02:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
So basically you admit that ArbCom is unable to take appropriate corrective measures in these cases, because they are bound by their inability to rule on content, and so they ignore the far more egregious offense of trying to subvert the NPOV of the encyclopedia in favor of imposing civility restrictions on the very people who have been doing their best to stop the POV pushers themselves? So why rule at all? You're admitting you can't fix the situation, so why not do nothing and let the community handle it the way they have been? If the community could determine what constitutes appropriate action it would have already, in my opinion giving admins wide latitude to take whatever action they unilaterally deem to be appropriate does nothing but generate controversies like the ongoing MONGO fiasco.--Dycedarg ж 03:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The whole problem is that the community mostly doesn't want to handle it—and sometimes can't even if it wants to. The last significant attempt at community-driven dispute resolution—WP:CSN—was shut down a while ago. Any dispute involving admins on both sides tends to degenerate into pseudo-wheel-warring ("unblock per consensus [among editors I agree with!]"); and much of the community simply assumes that ArbCom will handle things (never mind that we're not actually authorized to resolve them in the expected way). And there are issues of improper conduct that do need to be dealt with, even if the underlying disputes get left to fester.
(And thus my point about us needing a general reform of the dispute resolution system.) Kirill 03:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, Kirill, it is a problem. You once basically called me a fringe POV pusher, or I thought you did. I would fear giving admins more power than they already have: they often don't know what the heck they're doing, and indeed it would be hard for them to learn. So what you have there is the involved are POV and the uninvolved are ignorant. I would fear even high ranking members of the community, as I have seen some of them willing to block, edit, and OWN purely out of their own POV, and against sourcing, and also against the ruleings of the ArbCom. But I'd have no fear of a committee of true or even sorta experts: in my area, even if you chose some of the top people from CSI I'd still be ok. But I'd fear a committee of experts who are either 1) purported experts such as mostly appear on WP or 2) didn't know the field at all. So if expert committees won't work, what do you suggest, if anything? I admit, short of changing basic policy (to WP:SPOV for example), I haven't been able to think of anything. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, there is an important concern to be extracted from Martin's post: the fringe would demand that their "experts" be given sway over their fringe topic. The expert committees would have to be formed from extraordinarily broad fields (science, humanities) to avoid this institutionalization of fringe views on Wikipedia. If the community could come to a consensus on how many committees (covering which broad fields) should exist, this could still be done. Antelantalk 03:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about your points at all - in reading your post, I extracted a concern that you hadn't mentioned. You're labeling them unimportant, not I. Antelantalk 04:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, at least a start of "fields" to be considered would be: Anthropology, Astronomy, Chemistry, Geosciences, History, Literature, Media, Medicine, Music, Physics, Politics, Pseudoscience, Religion, Sociology, and Visual Arts. I think it might be possible to find editors familiar with each field who are at least generally considered trustworthy who could be called in as individuals capable of reviewing sourcing of articles. I can't imagine that they will necessarily be able to prove anything one way or another, but at least they might be able to produce information regarding what seems to be the current academic consensus or alternately be able to agree upon an outside expert in the field who could be contacted as an expert in the field. It still wouldn't be easy, but it would be at least potentially possible. John Carter (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • If anyone seriously has particular method(s) in mind for handling content disputes, I have a practical suggestion. Category:NPOV disputes has over 8,000 articles stretching back over a year. I think the "cold cases" found there would be appropriate test subjects for any bold experiments. Of course many of the older articles are abandoned so any methods that rely on work being done by the parties in a dispute will not be compatible. But any methods that ignore the editors and focus on the content would be a good fit. Such a method would fill in a big gap that is left empty by both Arbcom and Mediation.--BirgitteSB 04:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    One thing that would definitely help is if the various Projects out there all kept "todo" lists of the content problems falling within the scope of their projects, including POV. I know I'm probably one of the worst offenders in terms of failing to keep such lists, but I'm at least going to start a todo list for the Christianity project, and try to include the relevant POV articles in it. One question, though. Do the rest of you think that, if a variation on the standard "todo" template were included somewhere on each project page, it might be possible to have a bot automatically update the contents of the template on a comparatively regular basis? That alone might help address some of the problems we face in this regard. John Carter (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
    If any wikiprojects want to work on these things I am quite willing to keep a list for them updated manually. I am looking through these categories anyways. I can easily post five of the older cases that corespond to their topic and rotate them once a week. Contact me on my talk on exactly where you would like the list. And if you want any backlogs besides NPOV.--BirgitteSB 17:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

From my experience of discretionary sanctions - lengthy experience with WP:ARBMAC and WP:ARBAA2 - they work. They do give administrators abilities we did not have before: to put users on revert parole, civility parole, apply topic-bans and so on, without an arbitration case beforehand or a massive palaver trying to get community consensus at AN. This does require, of course, a certain amount of clue. It requires the ability to stand up and say "You're completely wrong about the content, so either put up or shut up". It is my opinion that many administrators are suffering from irrational fear of the arbitration committee. There is no problem, at least in my book, with taking content issues into significant account when deciding who is editing disruptively and who isn't. POV-pushing, wherever it may occur, is the ultimate in disruptive editing. So deal with it.

The problem with cases such as WP:ARBAA is that they would work fine is Wikipedia was perfectly static - but it isn't. New editors from Armenia and Azerbaijan come in all the time who are not subject to restrictions. They may often be meatpuppets - trolls recruited off nationalist forums. Cases such as WP:ARBAA mean they cannot be dealt with without a new case when all they are doing is continuing the disruptive editing of their predecessors. AA2 means that they can be. This is desirable. Moreschi2 (talk) 09:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again Moreschi2 makes more of his casual references to editors from "Armenia and Azerbaijan", and gets close to racism. He once banned all "Armenians and Azeris" from making comments on a talk page for 5 days. If he had changed that to, say, "Negroes and Asians" would he have got away with it? Admins that are going around advocating or justifying restrictions on editors solely based on race should not be Wikipedia administrators. Moreschi's support for the mess that is AA2 is (like his crude dismissal of editors by referring to their alleged ethnicity) based on what makes his life easy as an admin rather than what is best for Wikipedia. If admins can't stand the heat then they should resign from that position and let others more suited to the post take their place. (BTW, I'm neither Armenian or Azeri) Meowy 21:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I want to respond to this topic too - will add my response here when I have finished writing it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

One option comes to mind. It ain't even close to perfect, but it might be a start.

First, we can and should have most WikiProjects keep track of the articles being discussed, challenged, or whatever. I can and will try to add todo templates to most of the projects I'm involved with to help them keep up on such material. But that's a bit of a side matter.

What we really might be looking for here, and this is the dubious part, is something like formally designated ArbCom ruling enforcers. Maybe a way to institute it would be for either the community to nominate a group of editors, not on the ArbCom, whom they think could be trusted to review material posted on WP:AE and be able to fairly decide whether there are grounds for enforcement, and then have the ArbCom itself "confirm" a group of those nominated. Or it might be done the other way around, with ArbCom nominating and the community confirming a select few of the nominees. These designated individuals could lose their status easily, at any time, without prejudice, just by having their name removed by any arbitrator from the list.

Clearly, there could be and are ways in which the system is less than perfect, and I can think of a few of them right off. But it might be a step toward what we;re talking about here. John Carter (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

CAMERA & Arbitrator participation

I'd appreciate it, as I'm sure others would as well, if the other active Arbitrators (seemingly all of them, at the moment) would consider weighing in with a reject or accept on the CAMERA arbitration request. It would be unfortunate to have it die at the time limit based on a 5/2 split, resulting in no case and no definitive resolution despite the opinion of 5 arbitrators to the contrary. Avruch T 17:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the CAMERA case has been accepted, and is now live. Check out here for the case page.
Regards, Anthøny 22:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Motions page

I think it's time to move it back to the main page (or transclude it). Yes, it clutters the main page, but I don't think it gets adequate attention anymore, either from us arbcommies or from the community. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes please. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree, activity has been below the necessary standards. It was a very good experiment, and I'm glad it was undertaken (I was originally in support of it), but it's not worked, and a revert to the old approach is required. I have reverted the fork: clarifications and motions in prior cases are now handled directly on RfAr, and not via a subpage or transclusion. Regards, Anthøny 21:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Certainly an interesting trial and the arbs are the best people to say whether it worked or not - thanks AGK for undoing my experiment :-) Ryan Postlethwaite 22:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I feel abashed now =) In all fairness, Ryan, it was very well set-up ;) Anthøny 22:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Where are these comments now? I would like to have them available to let the discussion go on, can I move them here?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 07:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd imagine here would be the most obvious medium by which to continue those discussions, yes. However, I would encourage you, Pokipsy, to merge as much of the points from those discussions as possible, to the relevant thread on the motion in prior case/request for clarification at RfAr. Doing so minimises the amount of reading necessary for an interested party and/or arbitrator, and also centralises discussion as much as possible. To re-answer your query, however: yes, continue discussion on this page seems like the best course of action. Anthøny 16:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Anthony, however it's still not completely clear to me whether it is ok to copy and paste those discussions here... Is it ok?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
It is okay to do so, yes. Anthøny 20:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Arbitrators - please look through the request for appeal: Topic ban of Thomas Basboll, and add your views, and slowly work your way up the list.
Would request one of the clerks to please archive (if it is ready to be archived) the IRC case clarification.
Thank you - Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested discretionary sanctions on pseudoscience

If full consideration and/or action is being held until the resolution of the homeopathy case, is it appropriate for the discussion to continue here? Would it be more appropriate to raise the dicussion on AN or the village pump? Should the discussion be put aside until other pending cases/issues are resolved? I am willing to roll with whatever the arbitrators and clerks suggest. For example, if the arbs and clerks feel that discussion should be on-hold until the homeopathy case is resolved, they may consider the motion withdrawn for the time being. I would not object if the request were archived or removed, as such. I understand there is a related dispute and similar issues pending in the homeopathy case and I'm just looking for a bit of guidance. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting point, Vassyana. I would suggest that whether or not the issue of discretionary sanctions should be applied should be put "on hold" should be based upon whether that discussion continuing is actively causing disruption. Perhaps you're well suited to answering that :) What would be gained from placing the discussion on hold, and conversely, what would be gained from continuing the discussion (and relevant motions)? Anthøny 20:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd let it continue until people were done commenting. The reason for that is because Kirill expressed a non-opposition to considering it after the Homeopathy case, presumably because it and the Homeopathy case are related. Comments here, of possible future application, may affect their decisions there. --Nealparr (talk to me) 22:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think either approach would particularly cause harm. "Pausing" the discussion for a short while until the completion of the homeopathy case would allow the arbitrators to resolve a related case. The arbitrators are looking into modifiying discretionary sanctions in the homeopathy case. The discussion could also be moved to the workshop talk page. Either way, it would permit the arbitrators to keep their focus on the resolution of the standing case, in the context of previous cases and continuing issues, without yet another discussion about the difficult area.
Continuing the discussion as-is would allow the arbitrators to get a feel for how people feel about discretionary sanctions and this broad problem area in the wiki. People will generally be more prone to discuss a general motion on the requests page than on a specific case's workshop talk page. Letting the comments continue unrelated to the homeopathy case may present the arbs with a broader perspective from the community of many issues present in the multiple cases, including the homeopathy case.
Some thoughts, for what they are worth. Vassyana (talk) 00:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I think any action similar to this needs to make clear that admins need to follow the wording of the ArbCom decision closely. I was blocked once "per my ArbCom restriction" when it actually had nothing to do with what the ArbCom said. Care needs to be taken. For example, as phrased, in the decision on Homeopathy, "purpose of Wikipedia" would be interpreted "to convey the scientific truth," and editors blocked accordingly. In other words, I'd be happy to see some of the disruptors go, but there's too much hate around. Be careful. There are "uninvolved admins" such as .....never mind...... who are in fact heavily involved or biased, but don't edit certain articles themselves. This applies to Homeopathy as well. I'm hated by admins uninvolved in pages I edit. Not to be narcissistic or anything.

Ok, now something I'd like Kirill and other Arbitrators to consider even more:

I suggest that some kind of mentorship should become optional for editors seen as problematic. This would allow an admin whom the person can agree is neutral to become intimately knowledgeable about the user, and thus to have an expert opinion on a user's behavior. A similar situation took place in the case of Dana Ullman, where LaraLove mentored him. It failed. But her giving up on him should have counted heavily in the case. I, for one, want someone involved who is neutral and actually knows my edits. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Renaming old cases

How would clerks and arbitrators feel about renaming some old arbitration cases. Some old cases have rather long names. For example I would like to rename Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Davenbelle for example. -- Cat chi? 12:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Such a rename would not be appropriate. Your disruptive editing was also covered in that case. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
For someone who threatened me on IRC not too long ago you should not be lecturing me. Do you HAVE TO stir a controversy all the time? -- Cat chi? 14:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Me? Stir controversy? You started the thread :) Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Good god... How dare I initiate a discussion? Maybe I should be banned from it, huh? -- Cat chi? 15:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Why would we want to rename that? Three of the four remedies pertain solely to Coolcat. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The comma looks odd in the url. I guess I am a perfectionist. :) We can name it "White Cat" if mentioning my name would satisfy others. Linking to long titles looks ugly in wiki markup. It is not like anyone cares what the name of an arbcom case from 2005 happens to be.
Also I do not like the old username references. It is rather tiring to explain who is who. In my view RfArs should represent the most recent username if the user is legitemately editing. "Coolcat" would be "White Cat", "Stereotek" would be "Karl Meier", "Davenbelle" could be "Jack Merridew". It has gotten rather complicated.
-- Cat chi? 17:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
No, let's not go down the path of trying to change history here. The case was heard under a particular name, and that's the name under which it should be archived. Kirill (prof) 17:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
What history am I changing? Seriously... This is a very serious accusation and I want to know the reasoning behind it. I am merely suggesting a little tidying. I am not removing remedies or anything. -- Cat chi? 18:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll give my two cents as a Clerk. There are two sides of this proposal to be considered. Firstly, whether the precedent of old arbitration cases being "left be" (I can't think of a single closed case being edited, except for 1/ amendment by motion of the committee; 2/ updating of logs of blocks/bans) should no longer be left to stand. That would open up the Committee's archives to, potentially, a new wave of ammendments, which I personally think to be quite problematic and concerning: by-and-large, I think closed cases are best kept untouched.
Secondly, does the Committee agree to cases being tweaked post-closure, outside of the usual permissible boundaries (i.e., entry to ban logs; updating further to amendments)? This really isn't an area for the clerks, but for the AC: case pages essentially "belong" to them, as they are established as necessary for their efficient functioning. My final view is this: permission from the AC is required, White Cat, to implement the changes you have proposed; whether such permission should be granted, in my opinion, is something I will make no comment as to. Anthøny 18:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
An arbitrator or two can approve the change, thats fine by me. We shouldn't just randomly mass rename pages. I also do not want to invent an entire new process wasting arbitrator time. I think clerks can deal with such renames if arbitrators agree to delegate this. It would be nice to tidy some old cases that are poorly named. -- Cat chi? 18:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
My point is that it is probably best that cases, even if "badly named", it is best to leave it be. Anthøny 19:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, what do we mean by "case name"? A single header = header = could hold the long official full name of the case and the page name (article name that appears on the top of the page could be some shorter name. An array of redirects can be used:
  • Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat
    • Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cool Cat
    • Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/White Cat
  • Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Davenbelle
  • Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Stereotek
  • Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fadix
Let's consider my 2005 arbitration case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek. The title of that case is inaccurate because User:Fadix has gotten remedies too even if he isn't mentioned on the title. Right now the names of arbcom cases are typically determined by the person filing them. Typically people pick decent, understandable, acceptable names.
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek was filed as a complaint against stalking. The name could for example represent that.
-- Cat chi? 10:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't believe for a second that you want that case renamed because it has a "rather long name". Perhaps if you were more upfront with us, we'd be more willing to hear what you say. --Deskana (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

In fairness, White Cat did state that his primary motivation for a rename is that the name is not reflective of the issues decided therein (in his opinion)–that is to say, he believes that the name suggests that he was held as having bad conduct in that case, which is not true. Anthøny 20:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
As a further point, I don't think the rename you have suggested, White Cat, is suitable. That arbitration case involved you as much as it involved the other two accounts, and indeed, contained numerous remedies pertaining to you. I've thought about it for a while, and I must say, this rename really isn't suitable. I for one, for what it's worth, oppose this proposal. Anthøny 09:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
We can pick a different name and perhaps reach a compromise but you should also come up with a suggestion. Please also see my above post. I was honest enough to go directly to the point, please do not shoot me for that reason. :) -- Cat chi? 10:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
(In reference to deskana) Please assume good faith. People typically do not want to be accused of a hidden agenda. I am such a person. What other reason could I have to be renaming the case in question?
(In reference to AGK) When the case was filed (and a name was picked) my only involvement was being the victim. Arbcom ruled of wrong doing on my part as well - no doubt. But had I filed the case, I would probably pick a different name. The case name should represent the accusation or the dispute. It was at no point intended to list the involved parties. In addition the past remedies and findings are more important that the cases name. While I do believe I got more than what I deserved in that case over the course of time other involved users got infront of Arbcom for continuing bad conduct. Fadix was in front of arbcom with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan, Davenbelle with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Moby Dick (as Moby Dick - current username: Jack Merridew). Stereotek with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Irishpunktom (as Karl Meier).
(in general) I was very involved with "/Moby Dick" rfar, my username isn't listed in the case name. I guess what I seek here is having a consistent naming scheme while making good use of redirects. Currently old cases are hard to find and hard to link to particularly if the involved user(s) change usernames. Some old case names are rather complicated and are hard to link to as well. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests lists all old cases. Each case is followed by a list of involved users.
-- Cat chi? 10:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Consider Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war. Just by reading the case title you get the idea what was being discussed which is more important than who was involved. What do you think is being discussed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/K1? Without loading the page that is... How about Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/His excellency? -- Cat chi? 11:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The case concerned interpersonal issues, not tied to any particular article, and not limited just to the issue of stalking, and made findings relating to all three editors named in the case title. I don't disagree that some case names could probably be changed, but in this situation the title is apt and is a good descriptor of the case's contents. --bainer (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Interpersonal issues? Someone was accused of policy violations. The case has been and still is predominantly about that. It is very annoying to constantly type one of the longest arbitration cases name.
As for the general issue a general cleanup is necessary, I obviously will not be allowed to make such edits... Some parties will not allow me to edit like a regular user...
-- Cat chi? 15:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Drive for action: current clarifications and prior-case motions

Folks, we have a number of current requests for clarifications, and motions in prior cases, which require a response from the Committee. I'm willing to undertake any Clerk action required to get the various threads on Requests for arbitration processed and archived.

The current threads are:

That list deals only with clarifications of prior cases, and with requested amendments to prior cases; it excludes ordinary requests for arbitration, of which there is only one. For each entry in the above list, I would like to open discussion as to which of the following categories it should be placed in: 1/ requiring arbitrator proposals; 2/ stale and requiring archiving; 3/ new, and no action currently needed. I'm also open to further categories as required.

Note, by category I simply mean what stage it is currently in; I'm not proposing placing it in a category, tagging the request itself, or anything. Rather, I'd simply like to have a list in this thread, of which stage each is in. For example, an entry in the finalised list at the bottom of this thread would take the form of,

  • Request to amend prior case: Example case is requiring arbitrator proposals and voting.

Suggestions on what stage each thread is currently in? Anthøny 21:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

My appeal seems not be listed, but I would suggest putting it category 1.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
PS: The following statement, made in a related discussion, suggests (at least to me) that this case is somewhat urgent: "Basboll is an SPA who is here to promote conspiracy theories about 9/11 and has been indefinitely topic banned from those articles." [11] Its author makes the reasonable assumption that the topic ban licenses the characterization, which is, of course, a character assassination in the specific sense of terminating the assumption of good faith. I have only one name. It is quickly turning into mud around here.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 23:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Listed now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

OK: Category 1 - requiring arbitrator proposals

  1. Request for appeal: Topic ban of Thomas Basboll.
  2. Clarify: Episodes and characters 2;
  3. Clarify: /September 11 conspiracy theories;
  4. Clarify: /Episodes and characters 2 (B);

Category 2 - stale and requiring archiving

  1. Clarify: /IRC.
  2. User:Benjiboi: appeal of topic ban on Matt Sanchez;
  3. Amend: /IRC;

Category 3 - new, and no action currently needed

  1. Amend: Martinphi-ScienceApologist;
  2. Amend: /Pseudoscience and Martinphi-ScienceApologist;
  3. Amend: /Davenbelle and /Moby Dick;
  4. Clarify: /Commodore Sloat-Biophys;

Done. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that the two IRC ones are somehow combined or partially archived, or that advice its sought from the arbitration committee on whether these (or other threads) are truly stale. I think it should be the job of clerks to occasionally (on their list) forcefully remind the arbitrators of these outstanding issues. It would be silly if inactivity on such threads became evidence in future arbitration cases. Better for the arbitration committee to deal with things properly now. I also share Basboll's concern that the support of single arbitrator (Morven) and the silence of the rest of the committee (apart from the recusal), has led to MONGO's comment about Basboll at the Tango arbitration case. Basboll is attempting to defend himself, but the slowness of the arbitrators in dealing with the appeal is making it difficult. It is the equivalent of keeping someone locked in jail for x days before charging them. Carcharoth (talk) 09:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
As an addendum, I'm also looking at proposing some sort of ongoing version of this list, which could be dynamically updated by arbitration frequenters as necessary. Anthøny 15:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I've recently been trying to help out (with some nudges/questions/comments to arbitrators) in making opened cases move just a little more quickly. If arbitrators/clerks don't mind, I can likewise do the same for these requests for clarification/appeal? Of course, as with the opened cases, I will only give a certain number at a time, and after a certain period of time has lapsed from when the case/request was opened. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Check out {{RfarOpenTasks}}, which is in development (the statuses are not yet accurate). Anthøny 08:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Very nice!--Pokipsy76 (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

How about clearing out the ones that are not going to go anwhere first? There are at least 2-4 of them. That'd at least get the numbers down. This is the highest I recall clarifications ever being. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you be specific? I've listed some suggestions in the categories. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
"This is the highest I recall clarifications ever being". I concur; I do not recall there being a greater amount of clarifications present on Requests for arbitration than the current count of 10. Curiously enough, I also believe the current ratio of clarifications to ordinary requests to be exceptionally high; there are five clarifications to every ordinary request (5:1, simplified from 10:2). Times have certainly changed on the arbitration tableaux. Anthøny 18:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Based on statements by Jpgordon and Sam, [12] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_arbitration&diff=212470663&oldid=212440535, I'm archiving the Benjiboi and Thomas Basball requests. I may close some others too. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I closed the other 9/11 one too. I'm not so sure we should close the IRC one. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree, but you should close this-one - Deskana has confirmed (on the requests page itself) that no action will be taken. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, clear arb consensus on that one. I'll close it right now. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

With all respect, saying that no arbitrator input is needed on the request I filed after two weeks, and when it just needs a few words to say, yes, we're happy with this, or no, they shouldn't do that. We will warn them. - is really rather annoying. Does this mean I'll have to wait another couple weeks before Arbcom bothers to deal with it? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Users, including arb clerks, can not control when the arbs respond, but we do ask them about these situations. They are well aware of the current situation. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I was talking more about being put in "Category 3 - new, and no action currently needed". Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, that list that I've written above is no longer accurate. Please check {{RfarOpenTasks}}. Re: your case specifically, it is not marked as 'arbitrator attention needed' because it is still being discussed among ArbCom. Therefore, it already has their attention (they will be forming their responses after the discussion). Those that have no response (or a sufficient one) after a reasonable time, and appear not to have their attention are marked with 'arbitrator attention needed'. I hope that clears it up. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
If "stale thread" means that no comment will be made, I have to strongly protest that happening to either of the "Episodes and Characters" requests. The storm on WP:AN over the last few days is a sign of how important clarification is. Responsible editors and admins are in pretty severe disagreement as to how to apply those sanctions, and we have an editor blocked for two weeks under a sanction that called for blocks of under a week. It's not a case of refusing to overturn the community, it's a case of the community divided.Kww (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Only one of them has been marked that way - but it will be kept on the list so ArbCom can deal with them simultaneously. I don't think there is enough to separate them as 2 separate cases. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Deadline proposal on clarifications

Similar to the way a proposed RFAR has a 7-day limit, I propose setting a 3-week limit on requested clarifications, as in if the clarification/motion/amendment has had not any comments in 3-weeks, the clerks should close it. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm opposed to this and not only because I feel my situation has been mishandled from the start. Everything to do with the Arbitration committee is full of protocols and wiki-speak which those who are experienced are more likely to prevail while newbies are at the mercy of a confusing process. I have been waiting patiently nearly a month and tried to navigate the waters at the AE board before that. I feel deadlines on justice might be well-intended but have less than positive consequences for the project as a whole. It would be nice to know what is going with my case but near silence has been my experience so far so I can wait until they get around to it. Banjeboi 22:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps more relevantly, it's been a week since I opened a Request for clarification. Many people responded. No clerk, and no arbitrator has commented yet.
In short, I think that the 3-week limit for a part of the page that Arbcom seems very slow to deal with is... probably not going to work. Things would get arbitrarily dumped because Arbcom didn't get off their arses, not because they lacked merit. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
It may be useful to have an AC calendar of sorts. That way clerks can simply schedule cases to move forward. The arbs would of course have to agree to be "managed" a bit, but a good team of clerks could ensure that their attention circulates in an orderly manner. This wouldn't require deadlines (especially not for a final decision). Just a date and time period where the arbs are expected to grant a few minutes of their attention to the case and state their position so far (always open to be revised and even a "still thinking about it" comment would do.) If involved parties knew when the arbs would look at a case, the waiting itself would be much easier (and less time consuming. I check back every day, for example. The watchlist doesn't help much, for obvious reasons.)--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The goal of this is to get quicker repsonses from the arbs. A clerk repsonding is nice, but generally speaking, until the arbs decide what to do, it can't be closed. I feel the requestors, in most cases, are entitled to a resolution quicker than a month. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

After discussion with ArbCom, I've updated the template created by AGK to reflect all of the threads that are stale. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Ncmvocalist, and good work. ;) Anthøny 18:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
"The goal of this is to get quicker repsonses from the arbs". Arbitration elections aren't that far away; if anybody believes they can push the Committee forward in terms of efficiency, workflow, and turnaround, please do nominate yourself. :-) Be ready for a surprise, however; we're all to eager to say "those arbitrators, they're too inactive", yet the Committee's backlog is rather astonishing, when the finer details, and the intensity of each individual task (of which there are many in theirselves), are examined. Anthøny 18:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe they need more arbs or to split their tasking somehow. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm distressed that the thread concerning my ban is now considered "stale". Does this now represent their decision that my concerns are so insignificant they merit nothing but one Arb's comment and nothing more? Banjeboi 20:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Email the arbs and ask them why it's had so little response. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
In my view, appeals against topic and article bans imposed as part of an arbitration finding need not, and should not (except in truly exceptional circumstances), be heard by the Arbitration Committee itself. They can be determined by consensus among administrators. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Appreciate the feedback...but (to Rlevse) I've emailed the Arbcom committee twice and got no reply and (also to Sam Blacketer) was directed here as the only way to overturn an admin topic ban. If there is some other route I should have taken or indeed should take now please let me know. For future users it might help to clarify this somewhere as I looked for where to turn and kept getting pointed here. Banjeboi 00:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

About the deletion of my RFC

May I ask why does my Request for clarification have been deleted before any official expression of the arbcom? The explanation given in the summary seems a bit weak: I have asked four quaestions and the alleged "result" has nothing to do with *any* of my questions and is desumed from the expression of two arbitrators speaking for themselves.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 13:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom agree with the statements of Sam Blacketer and Thebainer and no further replies will be made - as far as I can tell, they give an answer to all of your questions too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's disputable whether they actually answered all my questions. However thank you very much for your informations.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 08:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
If you specify the questions you feel weren't answered, someone else may be able to help. Alternatively, you can mail the ArbCom. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Appeal process

Does someone know what the process is for my appeal? Is ArbCom deliberating? Or are they waiting for something? Is Morven's view representative? Etc.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully this matter should be addressed by the outcome of my below thread. Anthøny 21:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I had asked for some more input from another arbitrator (FloNight), as well as Morven, whom made a (rather unsubstantiated) view on this particular appeal - I only today realized I have got a reply from FloNight whose view was also that there appeared to be no reason to intervene, but she did guarantee that she will look into the issues further as she was unsure that inappropriate admin action had happened in the case.
If you still feel your grounds are solid for an appeal, I will ask 2-3 other arbitrators for their input also. Prior to your reply to this, you may want to consider making any necessary modifications to your statement/evidence accordingly. Evidence may include whether the blocking admin has exercised questionable judgement in other instances - WQA, AN/I, certain article talk pages and certain user talk pages are most likely to contain them if they do exist. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
We could even revisit the perennial question of whether the question of former arbitrators having access to the arbitration committee's mailing list is handled transparently enough. Wikipedia:ARBCOM#Mailing list confirms that Raul654 (the admin who gave Basboll the topic ban) is subscribed to the mailing list. I shouldn't have to ask whether Raul and the arbitration committee have discussed this topic ban on the mailing list. I presume they haven't, but because we don't know for sure, the question is always there in the background. In Basboll's favour, I note that he appears to have kept to the terms of his ban, and (as far as I know) is not trying to edit the 9/11 articles by other means. I also note that Raul's ban of Basboll from those articles appears to be indefinite until further review (Raul said "I am banning you", not "you are banned for a month" or "you are banned for a year"). Whatever the truth or rights and wrongs of the matter, leaving the matter in limbo for this long is completely unacceptable. As Basboll has said: "Almost three weeks later, I am still waiting to hear the Committee's position, and Raul has not yet made a statement." How can that be acceptable?
As if that wasn't of concern enough, we get an Jehochman coming up with the following (I would have said something at the time, back in April, if I had noticed): "The community has been put on notice. Enough is enough. Let the administrators do their work." That seems to be saying that admins should be chosing sides in an intractable content dispute in order to resolve it, and if that is what is being said, and if that is what "discretionary sanctions" ultimately leads to, that is just as unacceptable.
Finally, people have said that the main article in question has improved immensely since the topic ban. Well, I think that the article would improve even more if everyone currently working on the article was banned from working on the article, and 4 or 5 completely new editors (with experience elsewhere) were brought in to edit it. I think they would do an excellent job of editing the article to a very high standard. If one "philosophy" of dealing with problematic articles is allowed, why are others not? Sometimes re-starting an article from scratch doesn't just mean re-starting the article itself from scratch. Sometimes it means removing all the editors that got involved and letting other editors have a clear run at writing an article. The end result might be the same, but the difference in process might make all the difference. Carcharoth (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
This is puzzling. I am not going to base my defense on an attack on Raul654. Raul has made a mistake in this case. If ArbCom does not agree with that, I don't see what good it will do to introduce evidence that he has made mistakes in other cases. I don't understand Flo's suggestion that there is "no reason to intervene". I am not asking for an intervention; I have appealed a ban, which is part of the remedy in the 9/11 case. My appeal should be rejected or granted, not ignored [or "intervened" in]. That was actually my question. Does Morven's remark and the absence of any other remarks, constitute a rejection of the appeal? If so, a clerk could note that the appeal has been rejected and the case could be archived.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 05:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I shouldn't have brought up the mailing list issues or gone on about stuff in general. It just frustrates me when I see this sort of thing going on and, as you say, the inaction. The inaction is particularly galling because ignoring someone is not only injust, it is rude as well. I would say mail the arbitration committee mailing list, but I think you said you had done that, and from what I've heard, it doesn't get much more of a reaction. Anyway, I'll let a clerk weigh in and respond to you, but it would be nice to get a clear answer on whether unanswered or "one answer only" appeals really mean anything other than "the committee is overloaded and unable to deal with the volume of work". Just a regular update every week (eg. this has been discussed on the mailing list, we will get to it at x date) or a date for when to deal with it (eg. we have lots of other stuff to deal with, but we have scheduled a discussion of your case for x date) would help. Everyone knows that we can't have instant responses, but it is annoying when some incident blows up somewhere, resulting in an arbcom request, and suddenly arbitrators find the time to comment on that, but not on more, dare I say it, mundane (or complex, your mileage may vary) stuff like this. I really will stop here, as I am still intensely frustrated by this. Carcharoth (talk) 07:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I think your suggestion to leave a note that it is being discussed on the mailing list would have been helpful (I haven't used that channel). Also, it would be good to say when ArbCom has all the information it needs (no further statements needed). The procedure could then be to deliberate (announcing a deadline would be useful but not necessary) and a clerk could simply notify me on my talk page about whether may appeal has failed (as it seems it will) or been successful.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, it is confirmed that the rest of the arbitrators agree with the conclusion, i.e. ArbCom is not going to overturn the community in this case. Of course, you may make an appeal directly to the community (i.e. at the appropriate administrator noticeboard). Regards - Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts, Ncmvocalist. That's the end of it. Can you make a note of it (under clerk notes, I guess) and archive it? Happy editing.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me but isn't there a procedure to be followed? How is it possible that a request of appeal is closed without any official expression of the Arbcom and based in the information provoided by someone not belonging to it? How does it work?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Sam Blacketer - arbitrator (somewhere below) has clarified and summarised the view of the ArbCom - appeals are left to the community - they will not be handled by ArbCom unless it is an exceptional case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation. But if this is the case it seems incorrect to say that the arbcom "rejected" the appeal: they just considered themselves not the right authority to make such a decision.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 08:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
There are people here and here claiming that arbcom "refused to express because the appeal was groundless", that the matter must not be reviewed and that now I should be sanctioned for having asked a review in WP/ANI.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 13:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Uhm, ArbCom, I think you have screwed up here. Thomas Basboll was discussed at WP:AE, the designated place for handling such matters. They have the right to appeal to the committee. I think you either need to say "yea" or "nay". Passing the buck to WP:ANI is a very poor solution because it leads to more drama, more hurt feelings and more time wasted. Jehochman Talk 13:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Round and round we go...I suppose all that will remain if the topic bans are lifted will be to demonstrate to arbcom that those who have been trying to misuse this website to promote conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 have had a negative net effect on our effort to build a reliable reference base on those events.--MONGO 16:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)