Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive 1


 * Preceding archive: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 23

Roles of drafting arbitrators
Hi, I have a question about what drafting arbitrators do for opened cases. For the Tang Dynasty case, is assigned as the drafting arbitrator. As I'm correcting diffs, I found who initiated the ArbCom case contacted Coren just two days before doing it. User talk:Coren/Archives/2009/March. While Coren's comment is about general roles of ArbCom and his thought on the alleged deliberate misusage of Chinese source, Tenmei seemed to determine to start the case by Coren's answer. Besides, Tenmei has contacted Coren like User talk:Coren/Archives/2009/January and User talk:Coren/Archives/2009/January, User talk:Coren/Archives/2008/December and his frequent quoting Coren's comment such a this Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty, he seems to consider Coren as his friend or mentor. I wonder whether Coren should recuse himself from the case since a clerk recused because of previous contact with an involved party and commentator.--Caspian blue 04:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This seems more of a general question on recusal than anything related specifically to drafting arbitrators, if I understand correctly? The role has no difference from that of the other arbitrators as far as standards for recusal are concerned. Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes you're understanding my writing correctly although I'm questioning the two matters altogether.--Caspian blue 05:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You should ask Coren directly before taking this up with the entire Committee, then; inquiries about recusal are considered by the individual arbitrator first. Kirill [talk] [pf] 05:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the advice. I'm still not familiar with many of ArbCom procedures, so raised the question on this page being used for the committee. I thought it is not allowed for editors to previously contact to Arbitrators to get an idea before initiating a case. By the way, I notified Teeninvestor, one of involved parties accused by Tenmei because I'm not an uninvolved party. After Teeninvestor comes here and comments about it, I think he or I or others can question about it to Coren just for the next step.--Caspian blue 05:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't this be a just cause for recusal??? Involvement with one of the editors, and then giving him advice on what to do. Doesn't sound very impartial to me.Teeninvestor (talk) 11:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I should point out that Tenmei's questions (and my answers to them) were on general dispute resolution and philosophy thereof; qualifying my relationship to him as "friendly" is both a stretch and difficult to understand given the, perhaps, half dozen interactions total (something which can be seen through the very diffs Caspian mentions). Arbitrators are, by necessity, both responsive and rather social; and the likelihood of any one of us having never interacted with someone who comes to Arbitration is minuscule. The only question, when considering recusal, is whether that interaction is sufficient to prevent impartial handling of the case.  In this particular case, I can think of no serious argument in that direction.  That he has chosen, on occasion, to quote generalities I have stated on policy and dispute resolution means that he might agree with my general philosophy as arbitrator&mdash; not that he holds any sort of privileged position towards me.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I think it is obvious that he tries to get your favor. We can wait for other arbitrators' opinion on this. However, you would better recognize that Tenemi's frequent quotation of you has been used to make attacks on others or lecture (so he misquotes you for his purpose). His such comment gave me the impression as if he were your friend. In evidence section, you may be mentioned several times for the quote and the prior contact.--Caspian blue 14:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To be honest, none of my philosophical stances towards Wikipedia conflicts and dispute resolution are a secret; and quoting them (in support or not) curries neither my favor nor my wrath. I'm in the process of writing up the proposed decision for this particular case, and I can assure you that neither friendship nor animosity directs any of it. Tenmei may feel some affinity towards me because his interpretation of my stance matches his own, but I've not noticed any attempts to curry my favor (nor would I have responded positively to such if they occurred).  At any rate, I really don't think there is a problem here, but perception is reality in cases such as this.  If you feel strongly about it, I'll leave the drafting of the case to one of my colleagues&mdash; though I can't think of a compelling reason to recuse from the case entirely.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not an involved party, so I don't think I have a right to demand you to recuse from the case but other involved parties can. Still, I'm foggy about what roles drafting arbitrators do. Of course, your view and interpretation on ArbCom would serves good for the community, but as I said, you may be mentioned several times because of Tenmei's misquoting you to attack editors in dicussion. I'm afraid that you're offended by knowing it. If I can ask for the recusal from the drafting arbitrator, I think I want you to defer the job to your peer. Thanks.--Caspian blue 22:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That would likely set a bad precedent. If I may say something here about the role of drafting arbitrators, as an arbitrator who has not drafted a decision yet, the role is more to distill the case down to something presentable and manageable, and ready for voting. When I look over a proposed decision before voting, I do my best to check over the evidence and workshop and talk pages to make sure nothing of major import has been missed. If I object to anything in the proposed decision, I make that clear and will suggest changes and different principles, findings of facts and remedies where needed. The drafting arb may start the final ball rolling, but the final product and published decision is still the work of the entire committee. Some arbitrators who have seen a proposed decision change drastically during the voting process will be able to confirm this. In my view, Coren has no compelling reason to avoid doing the drafting here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Jayvdb and the Dates Case: the question of recusal
Today, information was leaked to me that John Vandenburg, the writer of the draft proposed Dates Case judgement, is a friend of User:Werdna. If this is true, it would be a significant conflict of interest, since it was Werdna who, at the behest of one side of the Dates Case parties, wrote and inserted into MediaWiki's software the patch that was heralded as the centrepiece "solution" to the DA dispute at the RFC held in parallel with the Dates Case. In addition, arb. Vandenburg's apparent conflict of interest in being a professional software engineer is the source of increasing disquiet on the talk page of the judgement draft.

Werdna's involvement and attitude to queries: The MediaWiki bug 4586 Code Review shows that Werdna was deeply involved in the attempt to rescue DA from community opposition, together with UC_Bill (now banned for abusive socking and double-voting in the RFC) and Locke Cole. This exchange occurred from 10 March (my italics):
 * Werdna: This is a very simple fix. Specs are "It applies the same magic applied to linked dates without linking them" (i.e. what I wrote in the commit message and release notes). There was no need to set up a live demonstration, although you're welcome to do it yourself. Like anything committed to subversion (we hope), it was tested before committing.
 * Locke Cole: Would you like fries with that?
 * UC Bill: [Opening para raised coding and ISO problems] I'll checkout a fresh copy of the code and try to come up with some test cases, but you might want to look into it as well. Good work, by the way! I think this might make a template solution feasible, or at least be a step in that direction.... Ah, thanks Werdna for the explanation on enwiki.... I'll still checkout a fresh copy and run some test cases, if only to shut up the critics on enwiki who are complaining about the lack of transparency in the test/commit process....
 * Brion VIBBER: This really needs parser test cases.
 * Remember the dot: How would this function be used? Please give specific examples.
 * Tony1: Pity IP users and the vanishingly small proportion of registered users who choose a preference will see different displays: that is asking for trouble. Pity about the total failure to deal with all of the other major problems with the blue-wash autoformatting, like date ranges (getting the en dash, spaced or unspaced, right, and not requiring huge amounts of redundancy, such as "January 4 – January 6, 1980". And has it been tested, we all want to know.
 * Werdna: With respect, what on Earth are you on about? If there is a specific problem with this revision, please let me know and I'll endeavour to fix it. If you have a specific question, please ask it and I'll endeavour to answer it. Random rants with no particular actionable statements will probably be ignored.

Arb. Vandenburg has arranged for Arbs to vote on the following decision, much of it selectively drawn from Bug 4582 exchanges that may reflect his own particular view (my italics). bug 4582 was raised in January 2006 to allow dates to be autoformatted without a causing "WP:OVERLINKing" (a "sea of blue"). This bug is more relevant to wiki projects other than Wikipedia, especially where the project has little need for "month day" pages, or even "year" pages.

Due to the English Wikipedia Date debate, and the complexity of the problem, the bug was conflated with many issues, suggestions and feature requests. A number of these suggestions were built by developer Bill Clark between September 2008 and November 2008. During the course of this arbitration case, user:Werdna resolved this bug by creating parser function "formatdate", and at the same time resolved bug 17785 (a feature request initially proposed in comment 98 of bug 4582) to add Cascading Stylesheet and Javascript control to all autoformatted dates, such as presenting them as normal text (example), or as another colour to make them stand out.

It is hard to believe that the arbs all have the technical expertise to distinguish fact from opinion here.

Apparent locking in of WP to an unusual relationship with his own profession: Given his profession and the possibility that he himself might take a larger role with the organisation as a systems engineer, it is extremely awkward that Arb. Vandenburg has paved the way for ArbCom to endorse the primacy of software and systems engineers as official policy. Locking Wikipedia into such a relationship with systems engineers does not accord with current best practice in the corporate and government sectors. There appears to be an assumption that WPs are or were rude to WikiMedia systems engineers; was this at issue on the Case pages, or is it pre-emptive?
 * "Deprecation of MediaWiki functionality: ... decisions to deprecate or disable software features are best left in the hands of the technical staff. Likewise, decisions which will involve large scale changes (e.g. hundreds of thousands of pages), should be thoroughly discussed with the technical team ... system administrators are the decision makers to enable new functionality, deprecation or removal of MediaWiki functionality".
 * "Engagement of technical staff: ... the decision to decommission this functionality, and the mass delinking of dates from all articles in mainspace should have involved the technical staff, due to the size and resources used to perform such a large change". [Decommissioning and delinking are quite different matters, yet arbs must support or oppose both issues at once. It is highly debatable whether WikiMedia staff should be consulted about what WP links and what it doesn't. Do the arbs have the technical expertise to vote on this?]
 * "Systems administrators: ... The local community may, of course, challenge these decisions, but must at all times respect them."
 * "Open source: Developers are volunteers, and at no time is it acceptable to expect them to fix non-critical problems."
 * "Lightmouse automation: Lightmouse is prohibited from running bots, scripts, or automation tools in article space [either permanently or for 12 months]." [Arb. Vandenburg's professional connections call into question his attitude towards an expert in automated gnoming; the "supporting" evidence appears to be selective hearsay and gossip from the Case pages.]

Arb. Vandenburg was asked yesterday whether he has "an undisclosed interest in the outcome of this arbitration". He did not disclose a friendship with Werdna. He did say that "the only possible reason I could recuse is due to being a professional software engineer, since this case does relate to one of my professions", and "I would be happy to recuse from all cases and laze on a beach instead ;-) More seriously, if anyone does have serious concerns, please do raise them."

Formal questions posed: I have nothing personally against Arb. Vandenburg; he gives every appearance of being a nice and decent man. However, I must formally ask him to respond to these questions, WRT to the issue of recusal and the recasting of the draft by one or more other arbs:
 * 1) Are you a friend of Werdna? Please summarise your relationship with him.
 * 2) As a WP developer, do you not believe that there is an apparent conflict of interest in your asking ArbCom to endorse the proposals you have written into the draft on the project's relationship to the developers?
 * 3) Are you currently, or is there a chance that you will be, personally involved in bidding for a slice of the US$1,000,000 grant for "improving the user interface"? Tony   (talk)  14:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

John Vandenberg, while he may be a technically gifted user, has not done any MediaWiki development as far as I am aware. Having dealt professionally with the team for the Stanton Grant (Trevor, Naoko, Arash and Parul), I can confirm that John has no involvement whatsoever. I was not asked to leave this statement by John, but another administrator pointed out that I was mentioned, and I felt as if it was prudent to set the record straight. &mdash; Werdna  &bull;  talk  17:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Having re-read the insinuations made here, it is also prudent to clarify that assertions that I was 'deeply involved' in 'rescuing DA from community opposition' (whatever "DA" is) are unfounded. The limit of my involvement is that I spent half an hour fulfilling a long-standing MediaWiki feature request at the request of another user (John). I did this under the assumption that it could be useful for Wikipedia, and probably numerous other wikis. As part of the regular code review process, I responded to commentary on the code review page for my change, made appropriate tweaks, and requested further information where it was necessary. Nobody is obligated to use this feature, as with many MediaWiki features unused at Wikipedia, but which are widely used on other Wikimedia and third-party wikis. &mdash; Werdna  &bull;  talk  17:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The operative words here are the writer of the draft proposed Dates Case judgement, is a friend of you, Werdna. Your involvement in DynamicDates/autoformatting is far more than tangential. The only important metric here is “how close” of a friendship John Vandenburg has with you. If it is anything more than a trivial, passing acquaintance, the committee can’t assume that his opinion should have the confidence of the community. Greg L (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If you are suggesting that for social reasons John wrote the case in a manner that supports Werdna work effort, I seriously doubt that is true or matters much in this situation. But I will take into consideration your comments, and make sure that I vote for proposals that are based on policy and in the best interest of the Community. I think using this approach should alleviate your concerns. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 18:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no conflict of interest here. Wikipedia and Wikimedia users are *expected* to work together in a collaborative way, regardless of any personal relationship or lack thereof. Werdna is an employee of the WMF and his responsibilities include reviewing, analysing, prioritising and responding to bug reports. The fact that Jayvdb does programming in a non-MediaWiki environment using completely different software is not a conflict of interest any more than it is for Tony1, a professional editor, to be working on the Manual of Style. That is, their real world experience may inform their Wikipedia work, but does not define it. Like FloNight above, my voting on proposals will be based on policy and the best interests of the encyclopedia and community. Risker (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I find your arguments hard to reconcile, Tony. On the one hand you argue for the supremacy of community decision making, using John's technical background and his potential friendship with a developer as an indicator that he should be recused from the case. On the other hand, you ask repeatedly if arbitrators have the technical expertise to vote on the matters at hand. Which is it? Is technical expertise of value and necessary for some types of decisions, or is it a drawback when considering actions which impact the encyclopedia and its presentation? Nathan  T (formerly Avruch) 19:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Tony, I have already emphatically stated that I am not aware of any reason to recuse, and I know pretty much everything there is to know about me. If some new information was "leaked" to you, it would have been more appropriate to send it to the Arbitration Committee, directly to a Committee member that you respect if you are worried about my presence on the committee mailing list, or to the new Functionaries list if you wanted a wider distribution list of trusted community members.  There is always a small chance that you have learnt of some reason to recuse that I am not aware of, and I will be happy to try and assist in verification of this new and pertinent information that you have come across. The answer to all three questions is "No." You ask for a summary of my relationship with Werdna, but there is none to speak of, excepting that we are both administrators on English Wikipedia, and are occasionally both in the same discussion on,  and other WMF forums.  I am not a "WP developer", for any definition of "WP developer".  As Werdna has said, I am not a MediaWiki developer.  I do have checkin rights to the WMF code repository, however that is strictly for pywikipedia, and I think Brion or Tim would revoke my checkin rights if I touched the MediaWiki code.  Not that I would want to.  I am more of an Oracle and C sort of guy, and that means I avoid both MySQL and php like the plague.  As an avid user of the MediaWiki software, much like yourself, I have talked with the technical team about the software at times on those forums.  I did ask Werdna to have a look at 17785, as that feature appeared to be very easy to fix, and it would allow 8226 to be resolved quite readily.  He did fix it, and went further to find a novel resolution for 4582.  In regards to your suggestion that I have inserted my own POV into the finding regarding the bug, you have misunderstood "resolved", and consequently the other aspects as well.  In bugzilla, bugs are resolved when they have a status of "resolved".  Go take a look at the bug; up the top, the status is resolved.  There is no nefarious plot on my part - the devs believe they have resolved the problem that bug was for.  They build the software, and they say when a bug is resolved.  You can dispute that status with them.  If you believe that my finding regarding that bug is incorrect, feel free to ask a developer to review it.  My only "relationship" to any MediaWiki developers or system administrator is that Tim Starling is a member of the Wikimedia Australia chapter, but I have neither met him nor talked with him at length about anything other technical matters on behalf of the Arbitration Committee with the full knowledge of the entire Arbitration Committee. If you have any further concerns or inquiries, it might be simpler if we do it via email, where I will be happy to tell you a lot more detail about myself, and I can give you my employers email address; a quick chat to him will probably allay any remaining fears you have about what my future employment aspirations are.  John Vandenberg (chat) 22:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I’m satisfied here. I’ll defer to Tony to see if he has deeper concerns that evade me. Greg L (talk) 22:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ObDisclose: a) John asked me to take a look at this. b) I work in the software industry and have some experience with large, complex software systems and with software development in general. That said, I have a hard time seeing what the actual issue is here. The points given above (principles of the decision), Deprecation of MediaWiki functionality, Engagement of technical staff and Systems administrators seem blindingly obvious to me, that's how software development works if it is halfway competent, and I don't quite see how anyone could reasonably derive a charge of conflict of interest from the need to assert them as a foundation for later conclusions. Consider their converses (that change to the software that impacts hundreds of thousands of pages should be carried out with no consideration of its impact, for example)... As for the last one, Open source... that just is about common courtesy. We are all volunteers here and no one gets to demand anything. ++Lar: t/c 00:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * And I thought the scope of this hearing was about behaviour. I don't believe there to have necessarily been a conspiracy or a conscious conflict of interest, and I am pleased to see the responses above. However, I found it mighty strange to see a rather large bunch of evidence posted by Arb Jayvdb about the bug fix as far back as 6 March. At the time, I was puzzled by its relevance. Still, today, it appears to me there is not much than a rather tenuous link with technology and how it was or should be respected. It's surprising to me how the technology/developers now become a centrepiece of the draft decision. It is a people issue and technology is but the facilitator. Indeed, I would observe, as Werdna said 17:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC) "Nobody is obligated to use this feature, as with many MediaWiki features unused at Wikipedia, but which are widely used on other Wikimedia and third-party wikis." There is very considerable antipathy to the technology as it is currently applied, so isn't the answer very obvious? Ohconfucius (talk) 01:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The three questions were:
 * 1) Are you a friend of Werdna? Please summarise your relationship with him.
 * 2) As a WP developer, do you not believe that there is an apparent conflict of interest in your asking ArbCom to endorse the proposals you have written into the draft on the project's relationship to the developers?
 * 3) Are you currently, or is there a chance that you will be, personally involved in bidding for a slice of the US$1,000,000 grant for "improving the user interface"? Tony (talk) 12:46 am, Today (UTC+10)

Thank you for your response to No. 3. I am satisfied.

However, WRT No. 1, by "friend", I did not mean a social or off-wiki friend, of course, but a collaborator. You do seem to have a significant collaborative relationship with Werdna, by this and other evidence. A question hangs over whether this has affected your judgement.

WRT No. 2, your profession as developer appears to be the reason that the drafting of the Dates Case judgement is so far out of line with the issues: it has dragged in a lot of developer issues for arbs to vote on that appear to have only a vaguely left-field relationship with the case—that is, the case as it was brought by the filer and accept by arbs, and the solution to dispute, which involves a small, loud group of editors who will not accept the community's repeated consensus against the use of DA. John Vandenberg has used the bizzare and totally unjust practice (apparently now to be ended) of choosing whatever scope he likes in the judgement. The scope is one of a professional developer. It is skewed towards highly technical matters and the meting out of punishments to those who have acted to reform, on highly questionable selections of statements from the case, in what appears to be a highly one-sided way. John Vandenberg has declared his biases in personalised statements on the talk page of the draft (apparently I got myself into this mess, he declared ... I disagree strongly). This is scope manipulation at its most unjust and shows not only why scope needs to be stated at the start, but why John Vandenburg's has shaped the case entirely around his personal views.

He should recuse. Tony  (talk)  03:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I heard there was an encyclopedia somewhere that needed work. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * …an encyclopedia that needs work. Yes. It’s about article content. I really was struck when I read the proposed decision because certain wording, which is tantamount to “every decision of the benevolent developers must be respected by regular ol’ editors”, really stood out awkwardly like a sore thumb. The ArbCom process shouldn’t be allowed to be exploited by well-positioned, developer-type insiders to establish that the entire developer community is like lotus-eating Eloi that is entitled to do whatever it wants despite the wishes of the Morlocks. No, it is not. As I’ve stated elsewhere, even Brion Vibber, Wikipedia’s paid Chief Technology Officer subordinated his *personal* opinion on DynamicDates to the community consensus of the regular Wikipedian community. Perhaps certain elements of the developer community feels as if it has its tail between its legs over this DynamicDates fiasco and desires a formal statement read into the record that amounts to “parade viewers shall salute and throw rose petals as their float passes by.” This isn’t the proper place for that. This fiasco will soon pass and be forgotten. Greg L (talk) 04:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This seems rather polemic in tone to me. What is being said is not that "the developer community is entitled to do whatever it wants". Rather it is more along the lines of the developer community are volunteers and can't be forced to do things. If en:wp came to a massive consensus that all the servers should henceforth be operated underwater and powered by vast arrays of starfish pedaling madly, rather than above water and powered by mains  electricity, the volunteer developers are entitled to say "that's an interesting outcome, but I personally choose not to implement that decision, find someone else to do it, I think I'll play DOOM instead" and the paid developers are entitled to say "let me ask the board about that one first, it seems a remarkably imprudent idea". ++Lar: t/c 17:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the developer community really doesn't care much about this at all. Mr.Z-man 01:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Tony1, you keep talking about my relationship with Werdna as if there is one. This flies in the face of what I have said, repeatedly, which means you are calling myself and Werdna liars. Dont be shy; provide the evidence to substantiate this. With regards to my proposed decision being "so far out of line with the issues", my proposals describe what I view to be core aspects of this case; there are many. It is quite plain that you have a different worldview about this case, and that the outcome that you would prefer is not in this proposed decision. I expect that other arbitrators will also have differing views and insights, and it is not unusual for other arbitrators to add their own proposals, during the voting phase, if they feel that a key component of the problem is missing. We have a very diverse group of arbitrators who have strong views on various aspects of this wonderful project. I am sure that they will want to add balance if they feel it is missing, and I would welcome that. On other cases, I have added proposals where I thought that the drafter did not understood one aspect as clearly as they might if they were in my shoes; I expect my colleagues will do the same for aspects of this cases where they feel that I havent represented an aspect of this case as clearly as I might have if I had their background/experience/knowledge/whatever. If there is an arbitrator who you believe is more sensitive to your worldview, please have a chat to them about this to ensure that they are aware of the problems you see. I will also be taking on board all of the PD talk page comments this evening, and adjusting the proposals wherever I think someone has made a valid point. I must admit that I am not prone to try to find meaning in shrill, so if I think that points need to be articulated better, I will make a note of that on the PD and will follow up tomorrow. Finally, I recommend that you take a look at the PD page of some previous cases in order to gain an appreciation of the process, as it happens; irrespective of the reforms you think are necessary to bring about justice, the voting stage in this case will almost certainly be undertaken in the established method. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Too close to one side. John, please calm down: I didn't call you "liars", yet you shouted it at me in here in accusation. The key problem is that you are a professional developer, and appear to have skewed the whole case towards a developer's view. I note that the opposing parties are largely professional or amateur developers/programmers. This is a problem in itself, since the reformist side has seen things and acted not in terms of patches and coding, but of reader and user experience. Sure, we have Lighmouse and Colonies Chris, but they somehow have fumbled their way through the use and tweaking of AWB and scripts without training. They are not trained developers/programmers. Locke Cole and supporters are trained and in most cases professional or keen amateur programmers or developers. I note that Locke Cole has been somehow exempted from your findings of incivility, despite what could only be considered abusive incivility on many occasions, some instances reported in the case pages, but conveniently excluded. This is causing disbelief that the process could be so blatantly one-sided. Have you noticed?
 * Scope manipulation. While you may assert that the current case will be conducted along the old rules (I never doubted that), the fact is that never explicitly stating (and where necessary updating) the scope for a case allows someone to manipulate the scope in the framing of the voting questions, with the perception that a personal agenda might be being pursued. That, it appears to me and a whole lot of other people, to be what has occurred here. Scope manipulation so that the judgement bears very very little resemblance to the application for the hearing and the naming of parties, is the very opposite of fairness.
 * Hard to unravel post-draft. Your claim that other arbs might add new questions for their colleagues brings the shambolic to mind: so the ninth voter adds an option that censures Locke Cole for incivility, or that takes a more balanced, just view of evidence from years ago of Lightmouse's efforts to improve the project. Or disentangles the declaration that my RFC was "disruptive" from the declaration that there was a dispute over date-linking. Messages all around to the previous eight to go back and reconsider their voting in those sections?
 * Beyond policy area. Currently, the draft appears to take ArbCom into completely new territory, far beyond its brief to deal with the behavioural—into retrospective definitions of what Should and May might mean in the style guides, and the relationship between WP and developers. It is a very dangerous turn of events. You have directly addressed none of the many objections on the draft talk page and your own talk page. The draft is huge, complicated and in many places ambiguous. Would it not be safer and more practical to slash it down to the basics? The scope is out of control. Tony  (talk)  14:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you seem to be making somewhat unwarranted accusations of bad faith here. ++Lar: t/c 17:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Tony, you have repeated the allegation that I have an improper relationship with Werdna, after both Werdna and I have said it isnt so. While you havent explicitly said that we were lying, you have mentioned leaked information and "this and other evidence".  It is your responsibility to have substance in your allegation, or to retract it.  Please share what was leaked to you with someone else who can at least confirm that they also believe that there is some merit to your allegations. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not commenting on the allegations, but I will support Tony's assertion that ArbCom seems to be overstepping their duties, and that there are some unsupported principles and FoFs, in particular:
 * Proposed principle 13.2 (the last bit, "and where there is not broad consensus the options should be described and not be considered prescriptive");
 * FoFs 3.1 and 3.2 (I didn't know that ArbCom could rule on what the consensus of the issue is);
 * FoF 5 (I agree with it, but it doesn't seem to be supported by any evidence);
 * FoF 14 (at least 3 of the provided diffs do not constitute incivility). Dabomb87 (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Lar and John Vandenberg: I am making allegations not of bad faith, but of a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of conflict of interest. I asked for and received the assurance that, in his opinion, Jayvdb's interactions with Werdna have not directly influenced his draft; fine. However, this was only one rather specific question; the most important issue is that his professional background is having undue influence: it matches that of one side of the case. Tony  (talk)  03:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In the US, the jury selection process has evolved to where if there is any chance you know anything at all remotely related to the matters at hand in the case, you are excused. Thus, the net effect is that cases are decided in ways that often are remarkably out of touch with reality. That's not a good thing. Fortunately US jury selection precedent has little or nothing to do with how we select arbitrators. Jayvdb (not "Arb. Vandenberg" as you were calling him before... why is that? It's offputting) was selected for his clue. I suggest he be allowed to use it. Your suggestion of undue influence just doesn't hold up to logical analysis, and is starting to get a bit tendentiously argued, in my view. ++Lar: t/c 04:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Calling for recusal based on the mere fact of someone's profession is drawing a pretty long bow. How would you conceptualise the competing interest here? Ensuring that developers, as a generic class, don't look bad? I think what you actually mean to suggest is not conflict of interest but bias – that is, the proposition that developers are more likely to favour the opinions of other developers – though I don't think that would be an accurate characterisation here either. --bainer (talk) 04:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Recusal opinion
I have posted my response to a request that I recuse myself in the Ryulong case, on the workshop talkpage for that case. In my comments, I discuss standards for recusal more generally, so those interested in this issue may wish to read them. (Warning: I address the issue at some length.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Links are nice. :P --MZMcBride (talk) 23:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Tenmei's ongoing harassment on and off ArbCom
Since recent Tenmei's behaviors are pertinent to the ongoing ArbCom case, I seek a proper action on his ongoing harassment against me. Ever since I gave a statement before it was accepted, he has been spreading his view about me to Arbitrator Jayvdb (deleted by himself), and former clerk, Tznkai, and others. After his harassment is intolerable, I gave him a hard warning on April 8 not to harass and wikistalk me. However, even though I'm totally uninvolved in his ArbCom case, he has tried to get me in the case to "punish me" with his conspiracy theory just like his odd selection of "involved editors" who all criticize his disruption.

And then, after I began to comment about Teeninvestor's proposals, he was attacking me just like old days. Then he visited to an admin who has a history with me in order to harass me. I was totally appalled by his harassment attempt, I began writing my evidence about his past behaviors and criticizing his accusations against Teeninvestor because the community should know how he has done to editors. At the same time, I was also alerted by admin Nick-D and Teeninvestor for being careful about his further retaliatory behaviors. As I am providing more evidence, he attacked me again. And even made this attack page. I was also notified it by Teeninvestor again. So I thought it is worthy to document, so I add it to the evidence age. However, since Teeninvestor said the page should be deleted, he takes it to ANI to further harass me.Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents More I write about my evidence, more Tenmei's harassment I have to bear. I think he has breached many policy, and this should be noted to the Committee. Thanks.--Caspian blue 01:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please present this as evidence in the pending case, so the arbitrators working on the case (and ultimately all the arbitrators) can read it. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that's been done in both of our evidence sections.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Tenmei's ongoging behaviors deserve like this admonishment and sanction for Macedonia case in which I'm a party unlike the Tang Dyansty case.--Caspian blue 01:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * He still continues his such behaviors regardless of an admin's advice.--Caspian blue 02:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This message is the one mentioned, appearing on my talk prior to the case opening. The message was removed by Tenmei shortly after.  I have responded over at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Please adduce diffs of his behavior to the case's evidence page. The Arbs will consider an injunction if necessary. - Mailer Diablo 06:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Tenmei keeps continuing the harassment campaign to ANI by throwing irrelevant matters to his own attack page. The guy really needs a break. --Caspian blue 22:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

IPs and new accounts and semi-protecting ALL of Arbitration
Why are IPs allowed to post freely on Arbitration if other users are required to use their main accounts?

I'm looking at Special:Contributions/67.170.104.86 who has been freely posting (and there have been others on other cases). Arbs have ruled in the past that socking is very out of line for RFAR business. Logging out IS socking, no matter how it's argued. Why don't we simply carte blanch semi-protect and lock down the pages to users on their legitimate 'known' names? I would make the following suggestions, which while "hard", are eminently "fair":


 * 1) Semi-protect every inch of the RFAR process. This includes talk pages.
 * 2) Post a prominent edit notice/header on all pages re-affirming the requirement that we use our "known" names.
 * 3) Explicit warning that any socking/fake or obfuscated activities will result in assured Checkusering in addition to public linking of who you really are to your new-for-Arbitration name. We have a right to know who is gaming the highest levels of our systems. Any user can call for this check to be done. Since IPs in this idea cannot even edit under RFAR pages, no "outing" exists, since the privacy policy does not apply nor offer any protection for linking of fictional pseudonyms.

That's basically it. Let's cut the excrement from the system with a hot knife once and for all. rootology ( C )( T ) 15:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you suspect an editor of being a sockpuppet...you report them to suspected sockpuppets. The first suggestion above to disenfranchise unregistered editors at arbitration is a shockingly poor idea. Skomorokh  15:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What I've seen from anons has had some positives but much of it would be considered disruptive if posted by a registered user. An uninvolved CU ought to check the lot of them. I think semiprotecting all arb related pages is a very good idea. ++Lar: t/c 15:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: 67.170.104.86 is self identified as indefinitely blocked user Proabivouac, (who certainly has a dog in this hunt) and I see no reason to disbelieve that identification, so it's not like a CU is needed to make the connection. The CU in that case is needed to address future disruptive behaviour. ++Lar: t/c 16:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The argument that IP editing is needed to allow "occasional" users doesn't apply to arbitration. Very few occasional users will even be able to find the arbitration pages, far less comment constructively. The "privacy" argument is also quite suspect - an IP address reveals more publicly about you than an username. I agree that we should semiprotect arbitration. --Alvestrand (talk) 20:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How telling, Lar, that you liken this arbitration case to a "hunt."24.18.142.245 (talk) 02:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So now Provabivouac has told us his hometown and his cable TV provider. Why is that useful? --Alvestrand (talk) 06:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Back to the proposal: I think Skomorokh nailed it. After all, someone who wants to sock can easily create a second account that gets autoconfirmed. But semi-protecting all pages without any need for this will not stop this but will hinder legitimate IP users from participating. After all, the basic assumption here seems that all IPs posting on those pages are either vandals or socks or both. It fails to take into account those IPs who are neither. Remember the IP which was nominated for adminship and has 20k+ edits? This proposal would lock those editors out as well, which cannot be desired. Regards  So Why  07:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct, the basic assumption is that all (or so close to all that the collateral damage is acceptable tradeoff) IPs posting here are not legitimate. Do you have any recent counterexamples, where an IP known not to be a user logged out participated in a non disruptive way? ++Lar: t/c 12:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) There's absolutely no reason to semi-protect all Arbitration-related pages and to suggest that it would have any impact on those posting to Arbitration-related pages is silliness in the extreme. Any user capable of finding and commenting on Arbitration-related pages could surely make ten edits and wait four days. By using their IP addresses, they're usually giving more information to everyone than a user account would. I have no idea what issue this is an attempt to solve, but I can guarantee it won't. If you don't like the fact that people can create multiple accounts or obfuscate their identities, you may need to find another project. It's always been that way and there are no signs that it will ever change. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We have an example, right here in this thread, of a disruptive user that this proposal would stop. Waiting 4 days for auto confirmation gives time for new socks to be found and blocked. Perfect proposal? No. But better than the status quo. Proabivoouac can make his case to arbcom, he doesn't need this venue to continue his smear campaign, including repeatedly trying to blackmail and out people. Remember, he was blocked for trying to out an editor (and that editor's innocent parents) and has never forgiven anyone who supported that block. ++Lar: t/c 12:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Lar, this this edit (above) really is less than helpful, especialy right at this moment. I ask you, respectdully, to with draw it. Thank you. Giano (talk) 12:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a seriously strange diff. Typo in there somewhere I think. Thatcher 13:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Corrected - how very bizarre. Giano (talk) 13:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Per MZMcBride. If there is no change to the issue, or it becomes more frequent, then we can definitely reconsider, but I see no pressing need at this time to disrupt the process (which is already having issues with timeliness) all for the sake of a small number of (if not 1) disruptive user(s) who appears on this page on occasions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Since checkusers are supposed to be broadly empowered to use the tool to "prevent disruption", I have always assumed that IP editors, as well as new accounts, are routinely checkusered if they begin to act strangely on arbitration pages. Semiprotection is good when a mob of different random people are causing trouble, but useless against a single editor who is patient enough to wait 4 days. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't really rangeblock an entire cable company. So a banned user intent on disruption has plenty of ways to post as an IP. The lag between getting an IP and posting from it is seconds. Disruption can only be stopped after the first post from that IP happens. However, having to wait 4 days slows things down enough that disruption sometimes (not always, but sometimes) can be stopped in advance. (this is the point the original poster is making... which hasn't been addressed by those in opposition... why is it OK for IPs to sock on arbcom pages but not for logged in users?) ++Lar: t/c 12:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * One can simply remove comments by IP users. Arbcom could make this a rule for arbitration pages if they wanted to. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 14:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not. But they should not be dealt with any differently than normal socks except when the protection policy allows it. So far noone adressed the point that banning all IPs from editing these pages is neither needed nor helpful. The basic idea behind the proposal is to say that all IP editors at RFAR are socks. This is an assumption that qualifies good-faith IP editors as disruptive users and is entirely unproven. So it falls to the ones to suggest these methods to prove that this is in fact the case. Regards  So Why  13:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * And when was the last time a good-faith IP user that wasn't later proven to be someone just logged out was a party to an RFAR? It's nonsensical--nearly all the IP comments at all the RFARs are just people logging out to avoid scrutiny. If they won't stand behind their name and reputation, too bad for them, and they can remain silent, in my opinion. RFAR is treated like a game by too many already; anything that minimizes that is a good thing. Standards of "required" open editing on articles are not intended to extend to every inch of this project. Editing Wikipedia is a priviledge, never a right nor an entitlement. We can certainly within our authority decide that certain "high level" aspects of the site can be restricted as we see fit. rootology ( C )( T ) 13:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not a logged out user. Sure I've been warned for my sarcasm already, but I have made some constructive contributions to the RFAR talk pages.  I've even managed to engage a couple of Arbs in a good-faith discussion about the morality of some of their proposed decisions.  Is it really so wrong that I don't want to create a log in name? 198.161.174.194 (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are the IP editor who came to mind as I was reading this thread - and indeed the reason that I don't support permanent semi-protection of all Arbcom case pages. Useful commentary (even some humorous commentary is useful) can come from IP editors, just as inappropriate posts can come from registered accounts. I don't like to see rules made that are essentially intended to control a tiny handful of people who will find a way to misbehave regardless. Risker (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the primary issue here is motives. There are some people in the community who want to ban anonymous editing&mdash;it's no secret. That's not likely to happen anytime in the near future for articles (it was a giant step to get article creation banned for anonymous users and that came from a fiat); so, instead, people are focusing on areas where it really irks them that people can post anonymously and an area where it's possible, though I still think pretty unlikely, that they could get IP editing banned.

Would it be nice to know the owner of IP addresses that post to Arb-related pages? Sure, as someone who just went through this (and even had evidence posted from IPs), it definitely would be nice. But that's the nature of the game, here. People are free to post anonymously, and not simply behind an IP address (which, as I mentioned earlier, gives more information away than most usernames). I see users with accounts all the time who are obviously on their second or third. It's patently obvious and annoying as hell, but there's little to be done about it. This becomes much truer when you're dealing with determined users. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're overstating it a bit that this about pushing IP editors out of the project entirely, but I do see your point, as well as Rootology's above. I think the solution however, is the use of SPI, probably requested through the case clerk if an IP edits as a sock. I'm sure by now IP editors understand they run the risk of being checked and fingered.--Tznkai (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I disagree with SPI being used. If someone tries to game RFAR, they should be called out then and there to discourage the 'bad' activities with a stick. People are using this when they do it to avoid scrutiny and SPI (like other business) can be gamed. A flat "you edit RFAR under a new name, and YOU will get connected from that new name to your 'known' one in public on the RFAR" will all but shutdown games. If a participant or partisan in any case wants to speak up, they can either mail the AC direct or they can log in under their known reputation. There is no valid justification for anything else. rootology ( C )( T ) 16:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with IPs is that users have no business logging out on RFAR pages to comment without the scrutiny that such comments would bring on their reputations. An IP cannot even bring an Arbitration case--the RFAR page is always semi-protected. If an IP was ever a named party in a case, that case can run without semi-protection. The AC absolutely has it in their power to decree that if you post to or edit RFAR pages, you open the door to "immediate" checkusering, and public warnings to "knock it off". If the no-socks rule on RFARs/AC business is to have any weight and to apply to everyone evenly, it has to be mercilessly and publically enforced. rootology ( C )( T ) 16:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Does my point even make sense? I apologize if it doesn't. "Known" users using RFAR to wage reputation-based guerrila war is one of my major pet peeves. rootology ( C )( T ) 17:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Its not your point, as people seem to get it. Its your solution thats the problem.  Yes your solution does, in fact, solve the problem as you see it.  It also has other consequences that some people define as undesirable, one of those is the giant spoonful of badfaith assumtion it takes to say 'all IP's are socks on WP:RFAR'.  You may be comfortable with it, but others aren't.  That, combined with the fact that there are current tools to combat your problem (admittedly they are more work for you) makes things more complicated. 198.161.174.194 (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the proper way to implement this (should consensus ever form) would be to use the Titleblacklist (which has a &lt;noedit|autoconfirmed> option for editing). Protecting individual pages is messy, prone to mistakes, and doesn't account for future cases. However, as I've stated, semi-protection isn't the proper solution to the underlying problem. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

There are reasonable circumstances where an IP address should be able to comment. One case that comes to mind is the Agapetos Angel case where one of the parties was an anon IP address. If an anon or set of anons is being disruptive we can block or semi-protect as necessary. I see no reason to not let them comment. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Naming of parties
If the Mattisse case is going to open, could we get a clear listing please of who's under scrutiny by updating the named parties during RFAR? Durova Charge! 23:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Will do. Kirill [talk] [pf] 03:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Durova Charge! 16:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

FloNight's recusal from the Mattisse case
FloNight recuses from the Mattisse case giving the reason that she has been added to Mattisse's "torment" list, and has been invited by Mattisse to offer "negative comments" on the case. (Big deal; so have I.) It seems to me quite illogical to recuse for those reasons, and especially to do it with the unhelpful comment that "I don't think a statement is needed beyond this comment and recuse". IMO an explanatory statement is needed with bells on. I don't indeed know if an un-recused Flo would have rejected or accepted the Mattisse case; but the recusal reason she—Flo—gives appears to imply that any editor facing arbitration can get rid of any arbitrator from the case, simply by attacking the arb in question. If that is so, we might as well dissolve the committee. Please explain why you recused, Flo. Bishonen | talk 18:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC).
 * Her comments to me were recent, made outside of Committee work, and directly related to the incident that precipitated the filing of the case. I recused because I don't think that I'm able to make a fair ruling against Mattisee because I developed an opinion about her because of our direct interaction. This was a minor incident, so if this was more distant and I had other (hopefully more positive) interaction with her then I might not recuse. But since it happened yesterday, I think I need to recuse. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the point is that Mattisse did not cause an arbitrator to recuse by attacking her over the arbitration case, but rather, they had a recent unpleasant interaction which was part of the precipitating events of the case (which, if we want arbitrators to remain active content editors instead of cloistered high priests, is bound to happen occasionally). Thatcher 19:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Call that a point? Bishonen | talk 19:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC).
 * (edit conflict) I think Bishonen is correct that, in general, we cannot have a situation where parties get to choose their own subset of the ArbCom to hear their cases by deliberately picking fights with arbitrators they don't want, while a request for arbitration is pending or impending, and thereby causing the disfavored arbitrators to recuse themselves. (This principle has a real-world analog: a litigant or lawyer is generally not permitted to insult the judge, or even sue the judge, for the purpose of causing judicial disqualification.) On the other hand, I think Thatcher also is correct in suggesting that the disagreement yesterday between Mattisse and FloNight was part of the events leading up to the case, rather than aimed at influencing the case itself. It is not clear that Mattisse deliberately attempted to cause a recusal in the case, which would not only warrant an arbitrator's refusing to recuse, but could warrant sanctions in and of itself. Rather, as you know, Mattisse left the same talkpage note yesterday, not merely for FloNight, but for a dozen or so other editors as well. Decisions about recusal are generally in the discretion of the particular affected arbitrator, and in this case I think FloNight's decision to step away from this case was a reasonable one. I've also observed recently that the impact of a recusal on the committee's work is less now, when we have 16 arbitrators all of whom are fully engaged in committee work, as opposed to some times in the past where just a handful of people were shouldering the work. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I never supposed this was a scheme of Mattisse's. I still don't think it's a good reason to recuse. Bishonen | talk 20:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC).
 * I wish FloNight was an arbitrator on this case, but that said, I endorse FloNight's recusal and expected nothing less having read that GAR. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Contents table too narrow
Suddenly the contents table has been squashed to a tiny section on the lefthand side of the screen. Has the navbox opposite been widened? It looks like it. I suggest either the navbox be made narrower or the page layout be changed, because I don't think it's acceptable to have the contents table made so narrow. Gatoclass (talk) 04:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of the Vintagekits-Kittybrewster motion
If there is going to be a motion on the main page, there needs to be a better place to discuss it than the fragmented format enforced on the main page). Thatcher 12:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by semi-involved iridescent
I haven't been involved in this latest flare-up other than to post a comment on Talk:Arbuthnot Lake, but can't be considered "uninvolved" as I deleted a fair few Arbuthnots last time round. I think the current proposal being voted on (ban VK & KB from all knight and baronet articles) is unfair; looking at Kittybrewster's most-edited-pages list, seven of his top ten articles are on baronets or knights and a further two (Henry Raeburn and Heather Mills) would be affected by a broad interpretation of this (as they painted portraits of knights and married a knight, respectively). I'm no fan of KB, but a topic ban on baronets would effectively be a community ban from Wikipedia in his case since it would ban him from his area of interest, and most of his work there is non-problematic. Since all this seems to stem from disputes over page titles, how about "VK, BHG and KB are not to make any page moves" as a solution? If there are problems with the consistency of page titles, they can post proposals and get someone else to carry out the moves if there's a consensus to (as VK is already doing on his talkpage). –  iride scent  11:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC) As you know, there has been a post of mine on your talk page for five days welcoming your list of articles to be checked ad suggesting how to do the checks. I have no idea how this issue can ever be resolved when you keep on repeating your big lie that I oppose any removal of titles or have tried to stop the issue being raised. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * iridescent, I appreciate that it will affect Kittybrewster significantly, however he does have many other topical interests, he will be able to appeal in due course, and SirFozzie has given the committee some guidance on that as well. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * KB reaction to the page moves is just symtopmatic of his reaction to articles with regards Baronet. KB is a Baronet is real life and has uncontrollable COI and NPOV and OWNership issue when it comes to articles about Baronets or his own family. At no time did KB attempt to resolve the issue - his only goal was to topic ban those who disagree with his position and therefore keep "his articles" just how he wants them. --Vintagekits (talk) 12:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If it were true that I have a COI regarding baronets (for which no evidence has been put forward and which I refute and deny) then the last thing I should do is attempt to resolve the issue. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  13:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Xaeon (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So what? Is my editing problematic? Should Vk not edit articles about untitled folk? Should I not have reporfted mass POV page moves to ANI? Should I have engaged with Vk? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  16:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In Columbo style fashion I think i have just found the evidence that blows this case open and incriminates not only KB but also BHG. If you see this post in from March 2007 it shows that KB's agrees with the moves that I made - and BHG backs him up. So how come are they labelling my moves as disruptive even though they were exactly in line with what they propse here? Could it have possibly been just to cause some disruption and try and get me topic banned?--Vintagekits (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My concern was that you were disruptively mass moving articles without seeking consensus or first opening a centralised discussion and without regard for disambig. You had previously been told not to do that. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  17:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * All the articles I moved had the "correct form" of the article title as either a redirect or a redlink. You agreed with that in the above discussion as did BHG. But now you are saying that you dont! That conversation in 2007 turns all this on it head and shows that you everything you and BHG have done was to cause disruption and an attempt to eliminate me from raising this issue.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, Vintagekits, even at this late stage, could you not stop and read WP:NCNT. The correct form of article name depends on whether disambiguation is needed, and my consistent concern has been that you moved articles without making that assessment. You just blindly assume that no existing disambiguation page means no disambiguation needed and point blank refuse to acknowledge the existence of disambiguation problems cause by unchecked page moves.
 * I am well aware of WP:NCNT. I agree that if disambiguation is need that the longer form can be needed. However, as you know that articles I moved either had redirects of the "correct form" or were red links. How many article titles did I change and how many did you disagree with.--Vintagekits (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Read my comment again: You just blindly assume that no existing disambiguation page means no disambiguation needed. That's the problem. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've read it - stop being patronising and aggresive - you need to calm down. Like I said - I have undertaken checks - only you assume that I havent - the fact is I have, you consistantly ignore that. Again all article titles I moved the titles to were either redirects or redlinks! Now - do you fancy answering the question that you have ducked since day one?--Vintagekits (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Vintagekis, which part of no do you not understand? You continually refuse to discuss the examples which have already been given to you of the disruption caused by your page moves. Start with, , , , and  ... and then we can move on to the rest.  In the meantime, it's completely pointless for you to demand a complete analysis of everything when you won't even bother to address half-a-dozen specifics which have been already been laid out in front of you. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I full accept that some of them may have to be changed at a later date to accomodate new articles - that is not sufficiant reason to have widespread and purposeful abuse of the MOS just to suit a desire for pomposity. As for "it's completely pointless for you to demand a complete analysis" - its called perspective something you really lack when it comes to this subject and is the reason you have landed yourself in all this.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * what has this got to do with iridescent's point? or are you just spreading your repeated argument across more pages? Kittybrewster  &#9742;  09:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I hold no judgments about any of that. Your statement at least appeared to deny that you were a baronet by denying that there was any evidence of COI without addressing the issue of being a baronet, which some may consider evidence of possible COI.  I simply posted evidence that you may indeed be a baronet. Xaeon (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not denied. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  17:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you say that creating an article about yourself and your father might raise COI issues?--Vintagekits (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say it might. And it is history. Kittybrewster   &#9742;  18:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just for the benefit of the tape, can I point out that, as I think even VK would agree, Kittybrewster has been quite open about who he is and didn't try to "slip an article on himself through", which seems to be the insinuation here. –  iride scent  18:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

May I comment at the sideline, that I wonder how a so called "red" user with in total six edits (including two here) could find the way to this talkpage and how he could get involved into this dispute... Phoe talk  19:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Dont be looking at me!--Vintagekits (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at noone - in fact I see only my reflection on my monitor. :-)  Phoe  talk  19:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hilarious - as ever!--Vintagekits (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Somebody has to do the clown - and if it lightens the tension a little bit, I'm happy to be it.  Phoe  talk  19:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I read through ani while bored at work. Xaeon (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Alternative suggestion
I have an alternative, perhaps a little bit exoctic suggestion to end this quickly, to prevent future disputes between the three involved users and to give both User:Kittybrewster and User:Vintagekits the possibility of a restart:

User:Kittybrewster and User:Vintagekits are both baned from articles related to baronets and the Arbuthnot family for one month. During this month they may create new accounts at a free selectable day and may edit with these accounts, except the baned topics. After the expiration of the bans both old accounts are suspended and both users may edit unconditionally, perhaps under ward of an admin or of probation. User:BrownhairedGirl is prohibited from taking any administrative action against any other user for half a year and User:Vintagekits may start a RFC if he wishes so. User:Choess, as he has already offered, may take a review of the naming of articles about baronets. Phoe talk  01:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Exotic.. ? The games with old and new accounts sound more like whimsical and outlandish. What would be the point of them? I know I'm a fine one to talk,User talk:Gooch but we don't encourage socks, surely. Bishonen | talk 23:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC).
 * Hm ... it's probably better, I do not comment your summary and the statement above, but explain only my thoughts: It is not a news that the atmosphere espially between User:Kittybrewster and User:Vintagekits is poisoned for some time and that every clash leads to another blaze of their conflicts (I believe User:Giano has used in this context the image with the bull and the red rag). Indifferently from the outcome of the current issue, I fear that sooner or later a new dispute would arise, probably in quite another topic (note that there were already baronets, the Arbuthnot family, The Troubles and boxing). I think however that new usernames/accounts could avoid this and could also render the proposed wide and long ranging bans unneccessary; if they would not longer recognize each other, they would also step not more on each other's toes, but could probably interact normally. Special circumstances can request special solutions, and looking at the various userpages of Wikipedia, it's obviously not so much uncommon to (let) change a username to remove/leave behind legacies. By the way the mentioned sockpuppets would only exist so long the old accounts were active. Finally let me say that this was a suggestion - nothing more - and that I now would not like to have further to deal with this whole affair. :-)  Phoe  talk  21:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Alternative suggestion 2

 * User:Kittybrewster is topic-banned from all articles relating to boxing or boxers;
 * User:Vintagekits is topic-banned from all articles relating to baronets;
 * An exception to that rule is allowed for any baronet article previously created by Vintagekits;
 * User:BrownHairedGirl is reminded not to use admin tools in the baronets area, and additionally should not use admin tools against Vintagekits for a period of one year;
 * Any proposed move of an article on a baronet should be done through WP:RM;
 * Any dispute relating to the above to be brought to WP:ANI or Arbcom (where Marquess of Queensberry rules should no doubt apply...). Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 10:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Alternative suggestion 3

 * User:Kittybrewster is topic-banned from all articles relating to boxing or boxers;
 * User:Vintagekits is topic-banned from all articles relating to baronets;
 * An exception to that rule is allowed for any baronet article previously created by Vintagekits;
 * User:BrownHairedGirl is requested not to use admin tools against Vintagekits for a period of one year;
 * Any proposed move of an article on a baronet should be done through WP:RM;
 * Both Kb and vk will be monitored or adopted by a different volunteer for a year
 * Any dispute relating to the above to be brought to WP:ANI. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  11:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

how do I comment on a case when the page is protected?:)/please could this be made a bit clearer on the page
The page has been protected to prevent people accidentally editing the page as a whole, however it isn't made clear what people are supposed to do instead, to get at an individual part of the page to comment. It doesn't seem to let you edit any part of the page, and I can't see links from this page to the succluded (sp) pages. Perhaps these could be placed more prominently? Sticky Parkin 22:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've dropped the protection level back down to semi-protected until we have a more elegant solution in place. Kirill [talk] [pf] 22:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Headers
Some time ago, I suggested a different lay-out of the headers. That was before I learned that the ArbCom pages would be relocated and reconstructed. Now that this is done, I would again like to make a suggestion. The current lay-out is this:

== Requests for arbitration == === {case name} === ==== Involved parties ==== ==== Statement by {username} ====

The disadvantage of this is that the level 3 and 4 headers look similiar. What if we change it to this:

= Requests for arbitration = == {case name} == === Involved parties === === Statement by {username} ===

That way, every case will begin with a level 2 header, and consequently a horizontal rule. It will make it easier to see where a case begins. Cheers, theFace  15:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me. Paul August &#9742; 15:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Me too. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sound good to me. We'll need to change the boilerplate used for new requests to have the new header levels as well. Kirill [talk] [pf] 21:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've implemented the change.[1 ][2 ][3 ] This change will, annoyingly, have the top header as level 1 headers—which I always think looks ugly. Then again, that price effects more usable header levels for the other sections, so it's worth suffering, I suppose. :-) AGK 19:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you AGK, but why do you think those level 1 headers are ugly? I've also implemented the changes in Template:Arbreq, Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Template, and Arbitration/Requests/Amendment/Template. Perhaps we could turn those last two into templates too? ArbClar and ArbAmend? Cheers, theFace  20:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Argh, I'd forgotten about the templates; thanks, Face.
 * I don't know why I dislike level 1 headers, to be honest; I've just never been a fan of them—they always look quite unnatural and out-of-place. It's really not a worry, though. :)
 * AGK 20:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok :-). And what do you think of my suggested templates? I was thinking, maybe we should do it like this: ReqArb, ReqClar, and ReqAmend. Cheers, theFace  17:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

New shortcut
Following the rename of the page to Arbitration/Requests, I've created WP:A/R as a shortcut. Add or omit as you see fit. Skomorokh 16:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that is helpful.  MBisanz  talk 18:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Workshops - thank you and and a pet peeve
I'd like to thank everyone who comments on proposals on the workshop pages, especially the non-parties to cases who offer constructive analysis and comments when I post a draft. In every case where I've posted a draft on the workshop and then used it as the basis for a proposed decision, I've been able to improve the final decision based on the comments I've received. (That doesn't mean that workshopping a draft is essential in every single case, but I find it usually works well for me, unless there are reasons not to in a given instance.)

Just as a personal preference, I would prefer if editors commenting on the proposals would avoid prefacing their comments on the proposals with "Support" or "Oppose" designations. The workshop page is not a vote, nor even a !vote. It's a page for discussion and analysis. Labelling every comment "support" or "oppose" makes things seem much too binary; it also promotes an environment which turns the collegial discussion on the workshop, which in a perfect world would itself give parties an opportunity to talk through the problems that have led them to arbitration, into an environment of one side versus the other once again.

Just my two cents there, ... take it for what it's worth. Regards to all, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Completely agreed about those support and oppose things. I hate those on workshop pages for much the same reasons NYB says. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * NYB the clerks could simple remove the !voting as we already do with header linking. As long as the comment is left intact, the message (which is the thing that matters) remains intact.  MBisanz  talk 04:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be disappointing if it came to that. Users of the workshop ought to be able to restrict their comments to helpful suggestions or comments on a proposal. AGK 19:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Requesting a 1-edit suspension of ScienceApologist's Wikipedia ban
Any user subject to a ban or any other restriction imposed by the Committee may appeal that ban or restriction at any time (unless appeals are limited by the relevant decision). We don't accept appeals by someone other than the banned or restricted user, unless they have asked that person to submit the appeal on their behalf. --bainer (talk) 05:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

ScienceApologist has completely rewritten the optics article off-wiki, likely raising it from C class to A class. The article is completely non-controversial and not related to SA's topic ban. Unfortunately, due to his complete ban from Wikipedia (in addition to the topic ban), he cannot make the edit to merge his fork back into Wikipedia. And because of the terms of the GFDL, it would be problematic for anyone besides SA to make the edit (due to the attribution requirements). I would like to make the unorthodoxed request that we Ignore All Rules in the interest of building the encyclopedia (which is, after all, our top priority). Specifically I would like to unblock SA for a single edit and then restore the block as soon as his version is pasted in. I would be willing to make the unblock and reblock myself. Seeing as that our policy is that anyone can remove edits by banned users without penalty, it would be up to the community whether or not to keep the edit. Kaldari (talk) 00:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikisource has GFDL too. Why exactly would it be a problem copying the text from there to here, with reference to that article, under the GFDL terms? The text is not the work of a single editor. Gimmetrow 00:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * One concern they might be considering is that SA has a lot of enemies, and someone could pull out the "editing for a banned editor" angle. That's what I suspected, at any rate. rootology ( C )( T ) 01:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sadly, I must predict that this rewrite, if allowed under the ban, will be opposed solely because it came from SA, not on its encyclopedic merit. Someone posted the rewrite prematurely a month or two ago and the anti-SA brigade threw a fit on Talk:Optics.  Skinwalker (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * From WP:BAN: "...unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them." It seems to me that anyone confident in that wikisource text could move it over within GFDL terms. Gimmetrow 01:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed. ScienceApologist, however, is currently banned from the site; and that means that he is not supposed to be editing here at all, regardless of whether the particular edit you have in mind would be beneficial or not. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If users would edit and behave, they would not get blocked and banned in the first place and hence wouldn't have these problems. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 03:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that SA's article improvement drive has already led directly to one arbitration enforcement thread against him (in which proxy editing was alleged for an attempted port which was done without SA's consent and that I had promptly reverted), and it probably also contributed at least indirectly to a second AE thread against him. Durova Charge! 04:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Support the proposition. Wikipedia's betterment rates higher than revenge. SA would remain banned, so there is no problem there. This is a matter of common sense. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment 1: This needs to be done in such a way, for example adding a link in the edit summary to a consensus agreement here, that will head off problems, and a new section on the talk page should be made with a statement from ArbCom or referring to this discussion. Let editors know that this is a one-edit special situation, and that SA's ban is still in place. Let them know that any attempts to delete the article will be considered disruption. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment 2: I'm wondering if this model (consensus permission to make specific edits) might become the basis for a system of rehabilitation of basically good editors who have behavioral issues? We need to have such a system. We occasionally have a few editors who can make enormously good contributions to the project, but who let their feelings get away with them, and who thus become a liability to the project. They have great potential but for those defects. If they can go into "rehabilitation" and be rescued, that would be great. We could have a codified project overseen by trusted admins, but with community input to make the consensus, where such requests could be handled. Let's put the project first. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * WikiProject User Rehab - project started


 * Support. From what I have read following the discussions from afar, editors for the most part feel this would be a benefit to the project. I say let it be ported in and if editors attack only because of who initiated the rewrite then they should be dealt with separtately.  I think the project should come first.  SA would still be banned until his time is up.  Let's do it for the project.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  11:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC) I would like to add that I also support what Verbal requests below my post, that SA be allowed to edit the Optic article permanently.  This is an editor who has had a lot of controversary at the project but his editing skills are great.  From reading what others have stated on the Optics talk page, they mostly seem to be in a hurry to get this new version of the article live.  So let it go live and let SA be a part of it. Thanks for listening. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  21:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Support the lifting of the ban for this edit, and then on that page permanently. This shows amazing good faith and dedication to the project by SA. Verbal   chat  14:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Support lifting the ban on that page only, per Verbal. Sceptre (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Support +1 On that page, plus a related FA page/discussion if he decides to give it a FA push. rootology ( C )( T ) 15:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Agree. Basically this also comes down to a question of fairness and giving credit where credit is due. I think SA himself should have the privilege (and it's his right!) to make the addition himself. If two hunters are hunting together and one spots a deer first, it is that hunter who has the right to shoot it. If the other one does it,.... well, I wouldn't want to think of the consequences. IOW, let SA do it. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't be daft Under these circumstances, the ban should be modified to indicate that any editor may copy content generated by SA, properly licensed, into Wikipedia for the purpose of adding non-controversial article improvements. The editor doing the proxy editing is responsible for their actions, and should be especially careful to avoid causing disruption. Jehochman Talk 15:45, May 16, 2009 (UTC)


 * Kudos to SA for contributing a great article. I suggest that whoever copies it in list in the edit summary the editors who contributed, perhaps getting advice from Durova (SA's mentor) and/or Moonriddengirl (who handles a lot of copyright issues) about how exactly to do it. I think it's possible to transwiki it and merge the page histories: that might be best. Note that we can't assume the article will remain at Wikisource. I think it's just there temporarily, until it gets copied to here. So, we can't rely on a link to Wikisource as a way of maintaining attribution for GFDL purposes. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. The loss of SA is unfortunate at best, a big blow to good science writing at worst. I don't see why he was banned to begin with, other than that it hurts others' feelings to be wrong or crazy, and told so publicly. The article would be a plus to WP, and frankly, so would the return of SA. ThuranX (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's the dilemma: SA has written something that's arguably an A-class article. Where does it go after that one edit?  Where it ought to go is peer review, but he can't take it there.  Nor can he implement any feedback that generates--at least not directly.  What about if it's ready for FAC?  There's also the question of his availability.  Has the proposer of this request discussed it with SA?  Neither the proposer nor SA mentioned it to me.  If SA is aware and in agreement, then his schedule must have changed since our most recent conversation.  If that's so then let's discuss the next steps.  Durova Charge! 18:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with Rootology. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * And if it doesn't work out, it's not like it's hard to reblock. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 18:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Rootology, bear in mind that this may have been discussed. What would you do if there's a drive to extend the ban in addition to a reblock?  Durova Charge! 21:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Note: The Arbitration Committee has not received any communication from ScienceApologist whatsoever in respect of this issue. Just a few weeks ago, he narrowly avoided an indefinite site ban. I am sure SA is warmed by the degree of support being shown here, but I do not see how the Committee can seriously entertain this proposal under these circumstances. Risker (talk) 05:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. This seems obvious to me.  I agree with Verbal.  —  Jake   Wartenberg  18:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait per Durova. Let's be courteous by getting SA's input before implementing whatever. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This thread was started and supported without any of the supporters contacting me (SA's mentor).  I'm not even sure whether SA is aware of it.  Durova Charge! 21:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think SA is aware of this proposal, as his talk page at ENWS shows no evidence of any notification. I'll notify him via e-mail shortly; normally I would use his ENWS talk page, but given he seems to be inactive, I'll see if I can e-mail him instead. --  Dylan 620  Efforts · Toolbox 22:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No need; I've already emailed him. Durova Charge! 22:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Ban or not, this kind of wholesale re-write is not the way to improve an article.  There are others who will want to participate, and it will be easier if improvements are made incrementally, re-organizations are discussed, etc.  And this proposal hasn't even been mentioned on Talk:Optics, where it was my impression that we had a consensus to not just accept the SA new version.  Dicklyon (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What? I was in that discussion and don't remember seeing any consensus like that. I only proposed waiting due to GFDL issues etc. I definitely support importing the article (at the appropriate time). (involved editor; have helped edit the article at wikisource) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support limited unban but not deciding content at A/R. The new version, with respect to Dicklyon, I think is substantially better, but the consensus of non-disruptive editors at Talk:Optics should be respected. I am not going to offer an opinion on the GFDL issues other than that obviously we should respect it, but I would be uncomfortable porting this in under any conditions other than ScienceApologist wants it. How exactly a talkpage consensus could be established while ScienceApologist remains banned is a mystery to me. On the assumption that this is what they want, I would support an unban limited to Optics, its talk page, and associated subpages and discussions (FAC or what-have-ye). Subsequent A/R discussion could be mooted to extend the whitelist. - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 23:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * oppose this smells like a stunt to get the ban lifted. Ikip (talk) 03:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong support This is one of the classic qways that banned editors can redeem themselves: By accepting their ban, but working to improve Wikipedia anyway through the subsidiary sites. If we shut down this, we are basically saying people can never come back, however much good faith they show. Suggest unban, but strictly limited to editing the optics article and any FAC related to it. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 03:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support allowing SA to edit the article Optics, and to participate in any discussions related to that article. Paul August &#9742; 05:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised this discussion was allowed to run this long before being shut down. I think that anyone who has watched ArbCom would know that they were never going to agree to something like this. EdChem (talk) 06:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised it ran at all. Not a single one of the people who participated in it gave notification.  The closing arbitrator stated that ScienceApologist hadn't requested it, and to the best of my knowledge SA wasn't even aware of the motion.  One wonders what mentorship is for, when it gets ignored en masse.  Durova Charge! 07:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression that SA was aware. Obviously such an action would require his input, agreement, etc. I also think more generally this is an interesting discussion to have (not specifically concerning SA, any editor wishing to contribute, etc, per BR above). I made an assumption above, but properly proposed I would support this and see no harm in it. I hope no one construes this as a bad faith act against or for SA. I was also unaware/forgotten about the mentorship, apologies for not notifying. Verbal   chat  11:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * To be honest, we don't need really need to ban appeal. I would be fully willing to proxy edit articles for him until his ban expired if he wanted me to; the improvement of the encyclopedia, in my opinion, is a good enough reason to ignore WP:BAN, no matter whether it's a community ban or ArbCom ban. Sceptre (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As noted above, that caused a huge ruckus last time someone did that. SA should be aware of this beforehand, but I think he's not, and by the time his currently busy sked at university is over his ban will be about over. I'm sure he's quite busy now as all college students and professors in his country are very busy this time of year.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 13:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've never made any secrets about being disdainful towards SA's conduct, but seriously, anyone who would lawyer BAN as a reason for keeping A-class content out of Wikipedia shouldn't be editing. WP:NOT a battleground :) Sceptre (talk) 13:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Very well put. The good of the encyclopedia should be our highest priority. If an editor's behavior is disruptive to that process, then they pay the consequences, and SA is doing that. But their positive contributions should be respected and behavior that is obviously conducive to improving the project should also be respected. This is a notable situation where an exception to the rules could be made. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh I think you'll find that most edits by socks of banned users are never repealed and most people don't care, and the people who usually like to harp on about the evils of banned users editing in a hardline way usually are very lax in practice about any policy at all.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 04:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sceptre, we do have people like that. And the last AE thread ate into SA's time when he didn't have time to spare--and considerably more of my time--in order to demonstrate that he hadn't been evading his ban. Is there anyone here at this thread who seriously supposes mentorship hadn't discussed in advance this idea of limited unblock/proxy editing? Apparently the answer to that is yes, practically everyone. The first AE thread happened because people ignored mentor input (on both sides), the second one happened for pretty much the same reason. It's 'oh no, nothing could go wrong' on one side and 'this FA drive has got to be some sort of trick' on the other--and each time I get stuck picking up the pieces. Durova Charge! 16:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well SA has replied now. He didn't know about this thread.  He would like to see the work ported as soon as possible.  That means porting the edit history for licensing purposes and facing down the likely proxy editing storm at AE on your own.  I do featured content drives of my own and intend to return to a nineteenth century albumen print of the partially excavated Sphinx of Giza.  Durova Charge! 16:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Archive of Rejected Requests
Is there an archive or rejected requests for arbitration somewhere? I poked around a bit on the main page and index but couldn't find any. Thanks TotientDragooned (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For case requests, there's Arbitration/Index/Declined requests, which, quoting Arbitration/Guide to arbitration, "links to rejected cases (largely incomplete prior to May 2007)", for all requests from 2008 on, including non-case requests, rejected or not, see Requests for arbitration/Statistics 2009 and Requests for arbitration/Statistics 2008. Paul August &#9742; 17:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you kindly. TotientDragooned (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering re: ADHD
Just wondering why the ADHD case still hasn't been case-ified? I know it says on or after but its nearly 16 hours and the participants who aren't familiar with RFAR continue to add to and/or tweak their statements. – xeno <sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk  18:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We're on it. KnightLago (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * kk. – xeno <sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk  19:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Case instructions box
The box with instructions on how to open a new case, à la Arbitration/Requests/Amendment/Header, seems to have been lost from Arbitration/Requests/Case somehow. I had to look for the template in obscure places.  Sandstein  20:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Equality
The idea has been swirling in my head for a very long time on this, and from a variety of bits of feedback over time, and the massive amounts of commentary on-Wiki the past couple of days that somehow we admins are "above the rules", or somehow held to a differing standard than everyone else, I present an utterly simple proposal:


 * Equality

Feedback on Wikipedia talk:Equality, and thanks. <span style="color:#0D670D;font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology /<span style="color:red;font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">equality 03:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)