Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive 2

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

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

In particular, the protocol for unblock reviews is actually a little confused now. We make a promise that blocked users can have an independent review of their block by another administrator, and blocking/unblocking may be the most important admin action there is vis-a-vis the contributors, so it's important that our policy in this area be well-understood and make sense. Situation: Administrator A blocks. Administrator B reviews the block and decides an unblock is warranted. There are at least four possibilities about what our policy should be about how this gets handled.


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

I've seen all four of these methodologies and standards relied on and defended on-wiki, and I don't know if there's any consensus as to which is "the rule." Consulting with the blocking admin is certainly best practice, time permitting, but is it absolutely mandatory? Related questions:
 * The "Blocking Admin Discretion" position would be "B must consult with A and can only unblock if A agrees."
 * The "Seek Consensus; Default to Blocking Admin" position would be "B must consult with A. If A agrees to unblock, fine.  If not, B can take the disagreement to a noticeboard (typically ANI).  If there is a consensus to unblock, B can unblock.  If there is a consensus not to unblock, or there is no consensus either way, then the block stands."
 * The "Seek Consensus; Default to Reviewing Admin" position would be "B must consult with A. If A agrees to unblock, fine.  If not, B can take the disagreement to a noticeboard.  If there is a consensus to unblock, B can unblock.  If there is a consensus not to unblock, the block stands.  If there is no consensus either way, the reviewing admin makes the decision, so B can unblock."
 * What should B do if it's obvious that A is offline?
 * How long must B wait after contacting A if A doesn't respond (being offline or distracted or whatever)?
 * Does the length of the block cut in either direction in answering these questions?
 * Who judges whether a consensus has been achieved on ANI or not?
 * Can there be a block so obviously bad that the normal procedure should be skipped?
 * If a block is wrongly undone, is it wheel-warring to restore it, even though that leaves "the wrong version" of the block log in place?
 * How is consensus to be sought if the unblock is requested on unblock-l instead of on-wiki?
 * Where does the ArbCom fit into this picture?

Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe the simplest way to treat this is like we do the inclusion of content: the burden of proof is always on the blocker, not the unblocker or the blockee. rootology /equality 03:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe that one of the two "seek consensus" options is right - and either one works, though I slightly prefer default to reviewing admin.
 * I believe B should leave a note for A and take it to a noticeboard (default assumption implicitly - blocking admin does not change mind / consent to unblock) if A is offline.
 * I believe that B wait time before a report to a noticeboard can be zero - it would be politer to discuss directly first and seek individual consensus but in some cases simultaneous notes to A and the noticeboard would be ok. If a consensus of administrators on the noticeboard immediately develops to unblock, then wait time for A to respond could be short (15 min?  30 min?)
 * I believe that length of the block can be used in considering reasonableness of the action - but probably should not affect the wait times.
 * Who judges? Current default seems to be B, or anyone else bold enough to call it.  Complicating factor: Half the current respondents on ANI aren't admins, and I've seen a purely non-admins discussion and consensus form.  I don't want non-admins shut out - but perhaps we should specify some format for admins to !vote (section at top of admin-only !votes one way or other?) in addition to comments or back and forth.
 * So bad that one can skip the process? Currently fuzzily defined - we've had incidents where something which seemed obviously wrong was just undone and nobody complained.  But the flip side is that sometimes "seemed obviously wrong" was someone misjudging, and the block was valid...  If we ask everyone to follow the process, and it's obviously wrong, the noticeboard process generally converges that opinion quickly.  Leaving a message for blockee "I think this was wrong, we're discussing on ANI now, please be patient for a half hour or so until we've had time to talk about it" would ameliorate perceived damage without placing the unblocking admin in danger of excess BOLDness or making their own mistake.
 * Wrongly undone... I think if everyone is talking it out, there's a consensus one way and it's acted on, and then consensus evolves and a few hours later it's done again the other way, that's ok. I think if there's a discussion but people just act boldly without seriously participating in the discussion, then that's not ok.  The meat of my request that the case be taken up as it were.
 * If someone emails unblock-en-l the time scale is already set to email time, not wiki time - and there's less excuse for not asking people or waiting for responses. I don't know that we've had a problem with this - the people seeking out membership in unblock-en-l tend to play nicely with others in this regard, but there may be counterexample incidents I am not thinking of or haven't seen.
 * I don't know what Arbcom's role should be. Fits in with what the ultimate answers to a lot of the above are.
 * Perhaps the concept of a "rate limiter" would be applicable here. B should not unblock until a half hour of notification on (A's talk page or ANI, whichever is less) and discussion have ensued.  C should not reblock until another hour's discussion on ANI after the unblock (barring someone who's unblocked returning to abusive behavior, which would warrant an immediate reblock w/o discussion if necessary).  D should not re-unblock until at least another hours or two hours discussion on ANI, etc.
 * That wasn't a problem in the current case - but would help with some prior incidents.
 * A combination of notification requirements, rate limit, and a clearer !vote mechanism would be a lot helpful. Truly exceptional circumstances may arise (IAR still applies) but if we set a "This is how polite we expect admins to be to each other, in terms of notifications and discussions" standard that would be a good thing.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have explained what process I followed in this case, and what I believe is the correct application of current written policy, at Arbitration/Requests/Case. (If arbitrators or a clerk believe that comment is too long, I've no objection to it being copied to this page.)  Sandstein   06:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have started putting together my rationale for why I did not contact Prodego or discuss the unblock on the AN/I board before unblocking Giano. Some is already explained in my edits at the time but I will try and make the thought process a little more transparent. It is currently half finished. I will paste it here when it is done, or where ever it is most appropriate. David D. (Talk) 06:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You are going to have a big problem with that, and it is the message I left on Giano's talk page. I will quote it: "Oh and for the record, anyone who has any comments, complaints, suggestions, feel free to contact me. And if anyone wants to change the block, please, let me know on my talk page or via email, and wait for a response before doing so." Italics are original. Prodego  talk 06:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI, I don't have a problem explaining my rationale. You might not agree with it but that is not the point of the exercise. Anything that leads wikipedia away from the huge time sinks on AN/I is a good thing (just to clarify, this was my hope, obviously it did not play out that way). The point is to learn from past events. David D. (Talk) 06:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have more extensive thoughts on the matter I am trying to put together in a better fashion, but I think we need to respect the discretion of the unblocking administrator, especially in the case of muddled, mixed, or absent community consensus. A place where this principled is already enshrined is in our definition of community bans, which invoke the "no administrator willing to overturn" not "absent community consensus to overturn" The vast majority of admin actions are done on discretion, in large part because on a wiki, everything (except old oversights) can be undone easily. Blocks need to be the same.--Tznkai (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The is a subtle variety of the "Reviewing Admin Discretion" position. The Reviewing Admin must make an effort to consult with the Blocking Admin before overturning, but is not bound by Blocking Admin's agreement.  This position was discussed somewhat extensively Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/SlrubensteinII.  Perhaps there should be an RfC on this issue (focused on "What is best practice when overturning admin actions?" rather than "How to define prohibited wheel-warring?") and we might discover some more subtle varieties of the 4 positions besides mine and maybe even come to broadly supported compromise.-- Birgitte  SB  15:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the ideas found in WP:SILENCE could be helpful here; Especially the sentence: "When real people are affected by a decision, such as blocking users, or using material covered by the biography of living persons policy, positive confirmation is preferred. Even in these cases, however, dissent might show up later, and it is then no longer appropriate to assume consensus. " → Aza Toth 17:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The role of discussion should be considered, too. Once someone is blocked, getting consensus to unblock is often difficult. However, blocking any established user is likely to be controversial, and getting consensus to block an established editor in the first place would be difficult in many instances. I think a system that favours the last admin action will tend to produce some admins who "shoot first and ask questions later"; it's easier to get forgiveness than get permission. Therefore, my view of how blocking *should* work is probably a variation of Birgitte's. I almost want to say that any block done without prior discussion and consensus at ANI should be reversible without prior discussion, but of course the reviewing admin really should ask the blocking admin if there are any hidden factors involved. So, at the very least, if a controversial block is undone, I don't think it should be reinstated without discussion and clear consensus - and that means somewhat more than just the consent of the unblocking admin. We should favor not the last admin action, but the unblocked situation. Bad blocks of established users are damaging to the encyclopedia, not just in the short-term loss, but in the potential for losing an editor forever. Gimmetrow 18:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with defaulting to unblock as a default position, and enacting high scrutiny on blocks, but there are certain and important exceptions. Blocks based on consistent BLP violations, Checkuser blocks, blocks done by an oversighter in view of oversighted material and other immediate harm problems. Garden variety civility, edit warring, and vandalism blocks can be undone with no irreversible damage.--Tznkai (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that defaulting to unblock in the absence of consensus is the best position. Certainly for deletion we default to keeping and for protection we default to no protection.  And at most we'll give someone enough rope to hang themselves.  I've always understood the reason to consult with the blocking admin was to elicit any data or rationales that they might not have documented when they did the block, not because they had any special rights to get their way.  GRBerry 20:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not have time to discuss this at length, because I am traveling, but I have time to post a very short note reiterating opinions I have stated before. The practice that allows any admin to lift a block without consensus to do so has the effect of permitting these admins to (knowingly or unknowingly) enable the very behavior that led to the block. I disagree with the argument that this causes no damage.

In the case of a truly bad block, there will be consensus to lift it; if the length is excessive there will be consensus to shorten it. Hasty unblocks prevent the discussion from developing any consensus or coming to a conclusion. If there is disagreement about whether a block was valid, with sound arguments on each side and no consensus, we should defer to the judgment of the admin who made the block. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 05:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not that simple. Many areas will have people who support a block, because they have a personal vendetta, or that person annoyed them. There are also people who oppose a block because they are good friends. When a prolific editor is blocked, then there will inevitably be some people annoyed over the block because they are a good contributor somewhere else. Now whether these arguments are good or not goes up for debate, and it just causes more drama. When there is a lot of discussion raised, it's unavoidable to anger some people. X clamation point  01:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

B can go ahead as the reviewing administrator and unblock. Anything else discourages admins from self policeing.Geni 01:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The concept of self policing and independent review is in no way stifled by opening discussions with a blocking administrator and a noticeboard notice. The first is both good etiquette and can provide additional information into the debate - if a blocking administrator knows of more history (this is a sockpuppet of XYZ) they didn't include in the block, or other behavioral issues not evident from immediate context, they can then provide it.  It also gives a blocking administrator a chance to reconsider their own actions.
 * That does not inhibit an unblock reviewer from acting. It inhibits snap judgements - but that's probably not a bad thing.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Wheel warring case
The wheel warring case (currently titled "Giano II wheel war") should be renamed to not include Giano's name if ultimately accepted. There's no need to throw Giano's name around if he has left the project. He should be able to leave in peace. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It would depend on whether or not the case is about wheel warring in itself, or the wheel war over Giano. If it's the former, then it's probably a good idea to rename. But if it's the latter, then it should probably retain the name. From what I can see, it looks like it's being more oriented in the "general wheel warring" category. X clamation point  14:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you took Giano's name out of the case, the whole matter would just look bizarre. But then again, that's pretty much the whole point. MickMacNee (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Application for taking part in J&S guidelines discussion
I hereby apply for permission to take part in the guidelines discussion per. MeteorMaker (talk) 04:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You appear to have only made two productive edits in a fortnight. Perhaps you have been productive on another project?  On what basis would you like us to consider your application? John Vandenberg (chat) 11:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * John, I've used more than 700 hours on the J&S issue, including the ArbCom case, so I was a little behind on other projects. Forgive me for not contributing more time the last two weeks. Naturally the final decision was a somewhat dispiriting experience too. Also, the formulation "Editors restricted from participating in certain discussions as a result of this case may apply to have those restrictions temporarily suspended for the exclusive purpose of participating in the discussion of draft guidelines for this area. " did not indicate to me that I should have edited more in order to have my application considered.


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

Target dates
Is there any point in setting a target date if it constantly slips? Stifle (talk) 09:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If we don't set them, how will anyone know we slipped? ;-) The intention is that the slipping doesn't remain a constant feature... John Vandenberg (chat) 11:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a reason they're called "Target dates" and not "Ending dates". X clamation point  15:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

A different kind of request
Hi AC, I was wondering (and feel free to close this if it's too much to ask) if there was any way that you could, as a condition for unbanning (formerly?) disruptive editors. . .keep them from participating in community discussion(s) concerning currently disruptive editors. You know 'birds of a feather' and all that. I don't know that they make that big of an impact, but still. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The conditions for unbanning a certain individual should be based on what the problems were with that individual. If the individual was being disruptive on AN/I a lot, then a topic ban from AN/I might well be in order, for example. If they were only ever disruptive on the talk pages of articles about a particular topic then banning them from AN/I isn't going to serve any purpose. --Tango (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Unblanking Requests_for_arbitration/Alastair_Haines
As Alastair Haines seems to have a continuing habit of ignoring his RfA sanctions (See his 1st and 2nd arbitration enforcement requests as well as his block log), it would be quite useful to actually have access to his RfA (without having to dig it out of the history every time). I understand that it is often a courtesy to blank RfAs for editors who use their real names. However, I don't think we should be paying a courtesy to someone who isn't interested in respecting their RfA, and indeed is probably benefiting from its inaccessibility. Thus, I would like to request that his RfA be unblanked, so that it is easier to access and cite when necessary. Kaldari (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We wear the white hats around here. Unless its gone beyond "being a pain" to actually harming someone, leave it blanked.--Tznkai (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

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


 * A motion to allow this has been declined. &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


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


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


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

Request for clarification: Appeals process
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)

Statement by FT2
With the "Appeals" section gone, it might help to clarify what route users wishing to appeal a Arbitration Committee remedy or enforcement should take. Or was the removal inadvertent? I'm thinking about users such as Everyking, Tango etc who have had cases whose restrictions or rulings (as opposed to bans) they wish to appeal. I'm fairly sure those aren't intended to be handled off-wiki, and yet "Amendments" doesn't state they should be posted there either. Clarification required, please? Thanks.

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

FT2 (Talk 12:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Question by Rootology
I was meaning to ask why we don't just toss up a nice pretty and small "global" header template (the sort that goes dead center, up top) on each of these main RFAR pages so that people just know where to go for what? rootology ( C )( T ) 05:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

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

Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann AND Ancient Egyptian race controversy
I have been enforcing elements of Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann over the last day, and it strikes me that it either needs more teeth, or Ancient Egyptian race controversy needs a level of protection or editing sanctions that are not currently applied to it. The basic problem here appears that there are two camps of editors who disagree about what the actual subject of Ancient Egyptian race controversy should be about. Now, since I have taken only administrative action on this article, I am not going to weigh in on what the correct subject of the page is (even though I do, indeed, have an opinion). The reason for this is that the above referenced ArbCom case only really provided the ability to act against disruptive editing. What is also needed, however, is a statement on the actual subject of the article. In other words "Ancient Egyptian race controversy IS about XYZ, and any editors who seek to change the article so that it is about ABC are engaging in disruptive editing". Without this key piece, the article is just going to jerk back and forth ad infinitum.

Currently relevant discussions can presently be found:


 * AN/I
 * Fringe theories noticeboard
 * Article talk page

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


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

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


 * Being a party to a case is mostly a way to say that you are somehow involved, and to ensure that you are notified of the progression of the case. It doesn't change your status with respect to potential sanctions; the committee traditionally reviews everyone involved in a case whether they are official parties or not. Nathan  T 20:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That is understood. I was notified about the case. Can you now remove me from this list? If not, can you please give me any links to relevant wikipedia policies? I would like to be removed.Biophys (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Biophys, you're clearly involved in the battling and edit warring and were involved in the three recent threads requesting enforcement. It is appropriate for you to be listed as a party. Shell   babelfish 22:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for expressing your opinion. I asked about the official rules. Can anyone answer please?Biophys (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. If you take a look at the instructions for opening a case, folks opening a case are asked to list as parties anyone who is involved.  This isn't any kind of an indication that you are to blame or have done anything improper, simply that you have been involved in the issues being discussed. This is why two of the admins who have dealt with the threads on AE are also listed.  Also, you might find the page Arbitration_guide helpful to understanding the process. Shell   babelfish 22:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Does it mean that everyone can add any new users at will:, but no one can remove users from the list?Biophys (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Pointless bickering in AE threads...
... is a problem in the recent Eastern Europe cases. Does anybody object to adopting the rule against threaded discussion as in WP:RFAR on this board? I.e., one statement per user, and any threaded dicussion belongs on the talk page.  Sandstein  20:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not pointless bickering. It's the clubbing/shielding/complaint backlog dilemma.  Possibly also crudism.  Durova Charge! 20:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you think this is a good situation to develop new solutions to those problems? Jehochman Talk 23:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


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


 * I agree as well. It is annoying when people ask questions or make challenges and we cannot respond to them directly.  Moving such commentary to the talk page allows for threaded discussion, and keeps crud out of the way. Jehochman Talk 00:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (comments refactored, below)
 * I think you've missed the point entirely - continuing personal or content disputes on AE isn't appropriate and I for one would like to see that habit curbed. We don't care about the bickering, the fighting and the endless accusations without evidence.  If all editors could be trusted to factually and without emotion state their viewpoint with appropriate diffs then there wouldn't be a need for this discussion.  Allowing a statement instead of threaded discussion allows open participation without encouraging continued fighting. I don't know where in this you see admins being recruited or allowing themselves to become part of a conflict; wikipedia processes evolve over time.  Shell   babelfish 01:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup. I think we should make a habit of sanctioning people who file frivolous requests, as well as sanctioning people who disrupt AE threads with irrelevant bickering, or who harass AE admins by filling their talk pages with invective.  We also need to get at least a few ArbCom members going on the record in support of AE admins.  I for one am not keen to be second guessed and be accused of admin abuse by the hardcore troublemakers who often get reported at AE.  The current situation is appalling.  AE admins are outnumbered by disruptive editors, and we receive little to no support. Jehochman Talk 01:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (comments refactored, below)
 * Vecrumba, we are not discussing the Eastern Europe drama here. We are discussing the management of this noticeboard. If you would like to contribute to this discussion, it would help if you would stay on topic.  Sandstein   09:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (refactored) I support a venue where arbitration request conversations can be properly threaded to be be more readable than the current "Comments to"--which should all be moved to the discussion page with admins committing to read both the request page and discussion page with equal attention. To the drama, I support a moratorium on filings of arbitration requests to compel editors with opposing POVs to resolve their differences through improved article content. Moreover, this will also afford admins the opportunity to observe editorial conduct over a statistically significant period during which the "arbitration method" of content warring is unavailable, removing tit-for-tat from the equation. Hope this helps on both issues. The answer is not finding more admins to assist in resolutions—increasing the throughput of the system being gamed will not help. Vecrumba    TALK 17:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

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


 * I hadn't thought about it from that angle. Since there does seem to be coordination/collusion in many of the more difficult cases, it may be that the only solution is going to be good old fashioned elbow grease.  Yes, its probably a lot to ask for admins to take several hours to go through articles and contribution histories to make sure they have the entire picture but any kind of reliance on the commentary of involved editors is asking for trouble. Shell   babelfish 03:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If any better solution comes up than elbow grease, I'll be the first to celebrate it. :) Durova Charge! 04:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Disallowing threaded discussion does not mean that rebuttals aren't possible, just that they may not be made in threaded form, but rather as an appendix to one's statement. This seems to work well enough on WP:RFAR. And admins would need to be ready to move overly long and off-topic contributions, such as the interruption by Vecrumba above, to the talk page, much like clerks do on RFAR. We cannot prevent offsite collusion, but I do not see how the noticeboard format has any impact on the effectiveness of such collusion.  Sandstein   09:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


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


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


 * Would this work - one statement per user, one section for threaded discussion among uninvolved admins, all other threaded discussion goes on the talk page?  Sandstein   17:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a similar format to RFAR would work, with each participant able to make their statement and any rebuttals in their own section and threaded discussion moved to the talk page. Also would some rule on age of diffs be useful? --Martintg (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreeing about format. Older diffs are useful when the older diffs demonstrate a continuing behavioral pattern and more recent diffs also exist of similar action.  Durova Charge! 18:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


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

Talk page separation?
If we agree to change the format, do we need to set up Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement as a talkpage of its own, rather than having it redirect here? Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case currently redirects here as well, but AE might have a higher talk volume.  Sandstein  09:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See my suggestion below: likely better with large disputes to implement an AE format modeled after arbitration evidence where everything remains on one page, but each editor posts in their own section. Durova Charge! 18:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Deposit EE admin side points here

 * Kirill, your flippant response is most unhelpful.  All you need to do is look at the nasty wikilawyering in the responses here and the lengthy messages on my talk page and at User talk:Sandstein to understand what sort of badgering and drama mongering will follow any serious application of "discretionary sanctions" (a euphemism for "ArbCom passing the buck").  User: Shell Kinney suggested sanctions, and I concurred, but Sandstein thought otherwise, which was his prerogative.  WP:AE does not work when there is no consensus among administrators.  I was not about to ban Digwuren after Sandstein refused to do so in a thread immediately above.  Would you prefer that we start a major drama and then come here, or should we have the good sense to recognize when such a situation is incipient and come here for help first? Jehochman Talk 03:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


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


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


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


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

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

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


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


 * Poitrus, are you involved or uninvoled in EE controversies? Jehochman Talk 18:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied there.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) Respectfully disagreeing with Piotrus: primary antagonists do exist within most disputes. Regardless of the subject, a disruptive editor's first tactic is "it's all his fault"; with the fallback position being "he's just as bad as I am". A basic strategy of disruptive editors is to drag other people down to their level and muddy the waters. In order to stabilize these topics in the long run, it's crucial to maintain the trust of the individuals who are willing to take the high road--and demonstrate at sanctions time that a track record of productive contributions with occasional bursts of honest frustration will be handled differently than months of POV pushing, baiting, and wikilawyering. If the sanctions response gets reduced to a binary warn everybody v. sanction everybody, then the disruptive editors gain the upper hand. Because when people who are responsible for making distinctions stop attempting to do so, then regular Wikipedians caught in the dispute despair and actually do sink to the level of the disruptors. There has to be some benefit for attempting to take the high road. Durova Charge! 18:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ummm. I think I agree with you - I can't find anything in your post above that I'd disagree with. So... which part of my statement above you disagree with, exactly? :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps we misunderstand each other. The 'we'll sternly warn both sides' has been a handwaving solution in past situations at various disputes.  Occasionally stern warnings on both sides are actually appropriate if accompanied with detailed analysis of why each individual deserves a warning.  More often, blanket warnings occur without specific reasoning--which tends to give the impression that the decision is really Admin-ese or Arb-ese for "My eyes glazed over when I tried to read this mess, so please all of you just go away".  Durova Charge! 05:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Another wrinkle to consider, most admins don't have the time to handle these cases - I'm in 15 hours reviewing and I'm not halfway through. Its like running a mini-Arb case. Shell  babelfish 05:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well put, Shell. This site ought to have a way of honoring the admins who roll up their sleeves and do that hard work.  Most of the labor never shows up on an edit history--chasing down diffs and double checking and taking notes.  Durova Charge! 22:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki Help
Which page has the edit notice for WP:AE containing the template for filing requests? I'd like to edit the request template. Jehochman Talk 18:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * See Template:Arbitration enforcement request and Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.  Sandstein   22:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


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

Requesting advice re. Obama editing restriction
Is it is permissible under Obama articles remedy 11.1 (and by extension 11) for editors restricted from interacting with each other to unilaterally criticize each other? I am troubled by ongoing accusations of bad faith, trolling, and stalking made against me by an editor with whom I am not to interact. To keep my equanimity, and avoid running afoul myself of the editing restrictions, I will not follow suit, respond to the accusations, take this issue to forums other than Arbcom, or otherwise interact with the editor (hence my not mentioning them by name or notifying them). However, these personal attacks are troubling and I wish they would stop. They follow many similar accusations made both before and during the arbitration, and were themselves a subject of the arbitration. If the aim of the no-interaction remedy is to stop this, and restore a healthy editing environment, surely that remedy means to stop repeating the accusations, right?Wikidemon (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note - per advice I have received, I will make a request for clarification. Thanks all, Wikidemon (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Xenovatis
The editor seems to be intentionally mistyping my user name (changing the numbers). I don't know if it is intended to be annoying, rude, provocative, cute... But it should stop. Jd2718 (talk) 23:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1)
 * 2) neutrality disputed due to removal of sources and tendentious editing by user Jd2871
 * 3)
 * 4)  <-- this edit consists of nothing more than mistyping my username.
 * 5)

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

Ugh!
Can someone please put the box that showed the status of all open arb cases at the upper right corner back? Removing it has made following Arbcom cases significantly more annoying. Jtrainor (talk) 05:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not been removed; it's just that now you have to scroll down below the TOC, and it's not pink anymore. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't find it either at 9.41 UTC. AlexandrDmitri (talk) 08:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Who to name as parties?
Do I need to add other parties to the new request I have opened today re use of disputed/occupied territories etc.? I've not named anyone and what to focus on how to resolve this matter rather than on individuals. An option could be to name every contributor to the 19 threads I have identified this year, but that seems excessive. Also I have noticed several editors since topic-banned from the Israel/Palestine area among the previous contributors. On the other hand picking out individuals (the admin who closed the RfC? the editor who questioned his appropriateness as an impartial judge? etc) might seem invidious. I'm tempted just to flag this matter at the IPCOLL and the Wikiprojetcs for Israel, Palestine and Syria. Any views?--Peter cohen (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes you should. Use your best judgment in picking users who are likely to want to be informed about any decision request and will have something to say on the issue. Please also ask a clerk for assistance in formatting your request.--Tznkai (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paul August &#9742; 19:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

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


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

Definition of an (un)involved admin
Since my comments were moved (first time, second time) under a claim that I am somehow involved in a discussion, I'd like to ask were is the applicable definition of the (un)involved admin? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * When the arbitration enforcement thread mentions a case that bears your username, that is probably a sign you are involved as least in the eyes of the users who seek to apply that case. Even if they are completely wrong, it would be beneficial for you to let your peers handle such matters. Jehochman Talk 04:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Which case in question bears my username? Digwuren or EE? EE was renamed exactly because people got confused about this. The EE arbcom case did not mention anything about my judgment not being sound; in fact the majority of findings and rulings involved other editors, not me. That I am from EE doesn't mean I am involved in all the editing going there; I make comments as uninvolved admin in cases where I have not participated in a particular editing conflict. If there is some other criteria for determining (un)involvement, it should be clearly stated somewhere. Please note that I have never attempted to use my admin tools to close a debate or pass / enforce a decision. However, I believe I have the right to be seen as neutral for the purpose of discussion. That I am from EE or that somebody cries "he is involved" without citing any evidence is no reason to disqualify someone (I could just as well claim you are involved because we interacted in the past and you made comments about editors from EE... which I won't, because that would be ABF and plain ridiculous). Finally, please read my essay on how active editors (like myself) are penalized simply for being well known. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, if your level of involvement in these areas were to be the benchmark for uninvolvedness we might as well delete WP:UNINVOLVED. I think you should just respect the judgment and intelligence of guys like Jehochmen when they say you are involved. They are no fools, and so trying to argue around it will be rather pointless I think. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 04:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The argument "You are involved because you are Piotrus" somehow fails to convince me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well Piotrus, the whole purpose of a straw man is that it's supposed to be thoroughly unconvincing. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 04:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, as you were the subject of substantive findings in both the Digwuren and Eastern European disputes cases, you are considered involved per se for the purposes of any enforcement matter stemming from either case. Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Are there any other arbitrators administrators who are involved in a similar fashion, or am I the only one? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Assuming you mean "administrators", I believe Deacon of Pndapetzim is the only other one to be the subject of findings in these cases (or at least the only one I recall being an administrator at the time the findings were written). Kirill [talk] [pf] 04:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I refrain from admin involvement when I know in my heart I can't act fairly, and I think we should be able to trust admins to do this. Other rules of thumb are gameable and unworthy. You stay out when you can't be fair. By extension, if Piotrus was interested there'd be no reason why he couldn't act as an admin in a dispute between Bulgarian and Macedonian nationalists, or two Russian nationalists, but the rule of thumb above seems to prevent this. I suppose we have to live in reality though. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 05:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The fallacy here is that every admin who becomes involved in those issues will be eventually listed as a party to some arbcom and will thus find himself unable to act on AE... I find it a bit strange. Still, the above clarification is helpful - at least now we know were we are standing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be true if the criterion were merely being listed as a party, but that's not the point I'm making. Other administrators (e.g. Alex Bakharev) were parties to the case, but there were no (adverse) findings about them in the decisions issued.  In your case, however, and in Deacon's, the case resulted in substantive and adverse findings about your conduct.
 * I have no problem, generally speaking, if administrators who are merely listed as parties, for whatever reason, continue to work in enforcement after the case concludes; but it's not a good idea, in my view, for someone who was actually found to have acted improperly to do so. Kirill [talk] [pf] 15:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Substantive"? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As opposed to findings which did not really say anything about the subject's editing, such as the various "no evidence has been presented" findings in Eastern European disputes. Kirill [talk] [pf] 15:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright ... thanks. I think "adverse" on its own would have covered it. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's probably true. Kirill [talk] [pf] 15:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Does the "you've had an adverse finding in a ArbCom case" in your view rule out any admin involvement in the topic area generally, or is it just for AE matters? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm content to leave that up to the individual administrator's good judgment and the normal policies about admin involvement. Unless we do something like explicitly prohibiting you from taking admin actions in an area as part of a remedy (which I believe we've done in the past?), you can assume that we're not taking a stance on general admin activity.  The involvement with the case itself presumptively covers discussions directly related to the case (i.e. enforcement threads for it), but not necessarily anything broader than that. Kirill [talk] [pf] 16:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And how long since the case's end one is considered involved? Would one need to feel a new arbcom case or such and ask arbcom to consider his recent edits (let's say from a year after the case) to reevaluate this, for example? Or is it a permanent stigma? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, your involvement is with the case itself; it'll stop being relevant if or when the case is no longer central to the discussion (e.g. if the case is superseded by another, and is no longer used as the basis of enforcement decisions), but I can't see how that involvement could actually end short of the findings concerning you being rescinded (which is not something that's going to be done merely on the basis of good behavior since the end of the case). Kirill [talk] [pf] 16:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Banning
How do I get arbcom to review this banning ? An admin has stepped in and unilaterally banned everyone on one side of an editing dispute. This seems problematic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:DR.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that page is very interesting. It discusses all the processes that the admin neglected to follow before banning a group of editors on one side of a content dispute without any evidence of disruption or consensus that a unilateral and one sided enforcement measure of that sort would be appropriate. So, could an arbcom have a look and suggest how to have this admin abuse fixed so that further disruption is avoided? Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Arbcom generally takes cases as a last resort after community efforts to resolve an issue. Has anything at all besides this thread be tried? You may want to try WP:ANI at this point. Right now I'm not seeing the need for arbcom to jump into this case.  — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 02:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As is often the case once Arbcom decisions and remedies are invoked, arbcom is looked to for help resolving related issues. There is a very extensive ANI discussion starting here wp:ani, as well as some discussion on editor talk pages. But I think the main question is whether it's appropriate for an admin to unilaterally block a group of editors on one side a content dispute, without any evidence or consensus, based on the discretion given in Arbcom's adopted remedies. The answer seems quite clear to me, but now that it's been done, resolution is needed from arbcom on whether this action is warranted and appropriate. I would suggest nipping the problem in the bud and avoiding the bad precedent it sets, not to mention the disruption it's going to cause, by simply undoing the inappropriate banning and encouraging those involved to use dispute resolution first. But maybe you have other ideas? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's the article in question Ancient Egyptian race controversy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As an uninvolved admin (I have not commented on or acted in any part of this dispute) I only note that community consensus seems clear that this be sent to WP:AE for further review and clarification. Several people commenting on the tl;dr thread above cited by CoM recommended this venue for resolving this issue.  Since it is part of the enforcement of the Dbachmann arbcom case, this seems like a logical path towards resolution.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  02:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm still waiting on an answer to whether it's appropriate for an admin to unilaterally block a group of editors on one side a content dispute, without any evidence or consensus, based on the discretion given in Arbcom's adopted remedies. The admin has refused to provide diffs and says the bans are based on a pattern of behavior. How can this determination, which I totally disagree with, be reviewed? The editors who were banned don't even agree on the basic content issues, they simply agree that an admin rolling in and reverting months of their collaborative work and then having other admins ban them is improper. Surely this isn't how we do things here??? ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As noted by Jayron32 above, reasonable suggestions were provided by a number of editors in the ANI thread. WP:AE is an appropriate venue for a review of sanctions imposed under arbitration rules. As per its explicit purpose, and also suggested in the ANI thread, WP:RFC/U is an suitable mechanism for soliciting community feedback about admin actions and general editor behavior. I also recommend utilizing the fringe theory and neutral point of view noticeboards to shed light on the situation. Indeed, clarifying some of the content points in relation to fringe theories and NPOV would aid in the review of the situation, as the views on both sides of the dispute (over the bans) are heavily based on such considerations. --Vassyana (talk) 09:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Addition of parties to a pending RfAr
With Arbitration/Requests/Case, after the process began but before formal acceptance, it became clear to me that certain editors were continuing to be highly involved in the primary matter (WMC's actions around cold fusion and me and my ban), so I added them as parties. One had already added himself. Mathsci edit warred to keep his name and the proof of notice out. On the one hand, those names were not there when arbitrator voting began; on the other, I was not aware that one could refuse to be a subject of arbitration, and I know of an editor who was added, at one point, while he vigorously objected. Names can also be added during the process, but I'm not clear on procedure. I added the names, not to widen the arbitration into a cold fusion arbitration, though I think all of the editors have edited cold fusion, but solely in connection with the behavioral disruptions and the ban. --Abd (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note, the names were added after it was a clear accept and several parties had already commented. I'm feel this is an abuse of process, and an unnecessary widening of scope of the request after most votes had been placed, and feel the names added by Abd should be removed. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  16:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Abuse of process"? You're kidding, right? How can something be abused that's fundamentally broken? "Widening of the scope... after most votes had been placed" is exactly how the arbitrators do business: see the sickening mess that was the "Date delinking" arbitration. You are talking sense in a roomful of silly people... children climbing into adult clothes and putting on powdered wigs... that insist on being addressed deferentially instead of the derision they've earned.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 09:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also note Abd has been warned for his editwarring on the page, a fact he neglects to mention in his summary. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  16:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Typical for Verbal. There was a lot I didn't mention in the summary, that's why it's called a "summary." I didn't edit war. When I was adding the notification diffs as required, I saw that Mathsci's name was missing. It never occurred to me that he would have removed it, so I assumed that I'd made some mistake, and put it back. It was only later that I saw Mathsci's edits. Mathsci, on the other hand, did edit war, repeatedly removing the name. If you count my replacement as a revert -- dicey but possible -- that's 1RR. Mathsci, I count 3RR, but counts can be misleading, it could be 2RR. And purely disruptive, with no actual effect on whether he ends up as a party or not, except probably to encourage that outcome. --Abd (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The notification on your talk page by AGK calls it editwarring. It is typical of me to get things right :) No need to argue about this, and as an established editor I was also unaware until seeing this that you can't simply remove your name if added by another editor rather than a clerk or arb after the initial posting. The substance of my first comment hasn't been addressed. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  20:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, it could look like edit warring -- a single revert -- though, Verbal, I would never conceal a revert under addition of new material. I'd make two separate edits. I do respond to the "first comment" below. --Abd (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think, rather than adding parties after the case is leaning towards acceptance, you should have instead suggested certain parties be added to the case and arbitrators could make the decision whether or not to add them. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 17:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That suggestion sounds reasonable. Another course would be for Abd to have proposed it on the talk and awaited a response. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  17:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Simplicity. The alternative would not be to discuss it here, this isn't a place where ArbComm makes decisions. No, the alternative would have been to file a motion during the case. Which would require notice to the parties. Six of one, half dozen of the other. I think earlier is better, and that's why I didn't wait. To request that a party be added, add the party to the request, if it hasn't been closed, otherwise present a motion. I could well understand if the arbitrators decide to reduce the list. However, the statements the added editors made before the committee should be adequate to show involvement in the dispute, particularly with my assertion that these statements aren't from neutral editors popping in with a fresh opinion. The one exception is Hipocrite, who is inactive, and who thus made no statement, but who was clearly in up to his eyeballs, possibly deliberately trolling for me to act in a sanctionable way. If I broke some procedure by adding names when I did, I'm sure I'll be told. I can say for certain that I have no such intention. --Abd (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Out of respect to arbcom I'm not going to respond to these kinds of posts any more. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  20:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If the case is accepted the arbs, and only the arbs, will decide who is a party to the case. Further edit warring will result in blocks.  MBisanz  talk 17:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

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

WMC's edit summary: (rv yet another addition by Abd. You've been told to stop doing this.) No, WMC, the community was told that any further edit warring would result in a block. You just edit warred. I did not. I added a new party, which I'm allowed to do, it's part of the filing and no uninvolved editor has told me I can't do it. There has been no consensus that the names added were edit warring, they are original content, relevant to the case, and the removal by Mathsci was considered edit warring, as must, now, be yours. Fascinating. --Abd (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If Adb or WMC continue this silly edit war, I'll block them myself. This is totally silly and lame. And one of you is an admin.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 21:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


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


 * I think Abd should not have removed Xeno's comment. I don't at all understand why Abd's "accidental edits" had edit summaries attached to them. I'm also sure that he's perfectly aware that I have made 0 edits to cold fusion and 16 edits to the talk page, although the actual number of posts is probably more like 10, because I usually make corrections. With so few edits, some even placed into huge collapse boxes by Abd, I am surprised that he included me. It's hard to guess what his motives might be, although there are some obvious possibilities. It's also hard to get contribution statistics for Abd on these pages since he hasn't enabled article breakdown. However his namespace article contributions sit at 16%, whereas mine sit at 58% Mathsci (talk) 00:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hasn't enabled article breakdown. What's that? How would I enable it? As to collapse boxes, I think those were placed by others, generally, not by me, normally I only put my own discussion in collapse, though it could look like I did it, because I took a huge collapse box Hipocrite had made to cover many discussion sections and posts by many editors, and I broke it up into individual collapse boxes by section title, so the individual discussions could be found in the table of contents. As to inclusion as a party, that's basically moot now, the request was withdrawn, but the reason can be seen simply by reading Mathsci's arguments in the request, now at . He has a huge axe to grind, and is thus clearly involved, and his edit warring to keep himself from being named as a party will have no effect, in the end, except that he deprived himself of preferred position in debates on the Workshop page. He will be mentioned, not mentioned, reprimanded, or sanctioned, whether he is now a party or not. --Abd (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Enabling article breakdown" means creating a subpage like this User:Mathsci/Editcounter, which I did back in Nov 2008. It can be useful. Mathsci (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Done. Hope it makes things easier for you. --Abd (talk) 03:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

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


 * Because I will do something simple and obvious to me, and, whether it was right or wrong, it gets reverted, debated to death, or otherwise disrupted, often obviously on the basis that it was me who did it or suggested it. Above, I'm criticized for removing Xeno's request for me to sign my edit, since it was now moot. That removal was done exactly correctly, with a request in the summary to Xeno to revert it if there was any objection, and I made it a separate edit precisely to make that easy in the unlikely event that it was considered improper. (Perhaps someone wants to show that I make mistakes? Okay by me, I plead guilty before the charges.) But someone looking for reasons to criticize and condemn will find them. Always.
 * Adding parties, when they have already been notified, only has two real consequences: they get preferred position in discussion, that's the main one, and they are also thereby reminded of what was already true and which remains true whether they are parties or not: they can be held responsible for their behavior. Being named as a party has no negative consequence in itself, and it establishes no blame, and sometimes the contrary. So I'm amused in one way and a bit sad in another that an editor objected so strongly to being named that he would risk a block by revert warring before ArbComm. --Abd (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I don't mind that my prompt for Abd to sign his edit-whilst-logged out was removed. It was indeed moot and would've just been a distraction. A non-issue. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 19:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Abd received a block warning from AGK, which he ignored. A second block warning from Rlevse referred to his subsequent "silly edit war". I think that's what Enric Naval means by "mess". Rather than premature gloating and crocodile tears, it's probably best for Abd to stay silent: remember less is more. Mathsci (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * eh? ignored? The warning and my response. Rlevse indeed later referred to a "silly edit war," referring to "Adb and WMC," but I had done nothing additional that could be considered reversion, and I've asked for clarification. I effectively made one revert by mistake, it was not an intentional reversion, I thought I'd omitted Mathsci's name by some accident and simply replaced it when I put up the diff for his notification. It never occurred to me that anyone would be so foolish as to revert war on an RfAr page. Mathsci, you hit at least 2RR at the Request page, with, , and . Then I added Hipocrite as a party, and this time WMC reverted, which was also improper, and he was also warned. Note that there was no warning from any clerk that adding parties was not allowed, and there is still no warning on that. WMC also reverted the notice on Hipocrite's talk page, and revert warred with Rootology about it. Rootology was faulted for using rollback for one edit, clear wikilawyering in that context -- the effect was that of a single undo --, and almost immediately retired in frustration; possibly this silly edit war contributed to it. --Abd (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Abd I would just drop this. You're simply flogging a dead horse. Putting names on the list which had little to do with the case was not helpful. Mathsci (talk) 02:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you would just drop this, why haven't you? You're involved, whether your name is on the list or not. That's why your revert warring was silly. Not a dead horse, Mathsci. "Dead horse" was JzG's refrain. The protective value of that mantra is over-rated. I think everything needing to be said here has been said, and perhaps more, so I assume I'm done here. What's to be said will now be on evidence and workshop pages. Thanks, all, for your support. --Abd (talk) 03:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the waring by AGK was issued mainly because Mathsci initiated the "silly" edit-warning almost up to 3RR, so Mathsci was warned for the disruption. So WP:KETTLE saying hello to the pot? Not wise.--Caspian blue 19:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Rlevse's second warning to AGK is here. In which diff did AGK use the word "silly"? Here is our dialogue: some conducted by email User talk:AGK. No need to make things up Caspian blue: in fact I'm not quite sure what you're doing here. Mathsci (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your edit warring to remove your name from the list is indeed "silly", so my comment is to "remind" you that you are not in the position to "be quiet" to your opponent regarding the waring issued by AGK that you received together. Think about what good you're getting by making disparaging comments here.--Caspian blue 20:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't it past your bedtime Caspian blue? Mathsci (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not quite, Mathsci, and not even a good try. However, this is obviously "your bed time" for sure.--Caspian blue 20:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it's now 3 in the morning in France, so you're quite right. Since you seem to have involved yourself in this ArbCom case now, perhaps you should be given the opportunity to respond to the question posed to all contributors to the request page by Jehochman: how old are you exactly? (On the basis of your editing record I have placed you between 12 and 23, but this is only approximate.) Mathsci (talk) 01:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not as much as your involvement in the ArbCom. As for the age thing, 12 years old? Mathsci, you're pushing your luck repeatedly with typical "ad hominem attacks". You're warned by the clerk as one arbitrator told him to do so. If you do the same thing one more time, I of course let the clerks to handle you with the final warning. Since you're fishing to figure out where I live and how old I am, you're planing to do the same thing (WP:Outing) to A.K Nole? Always, not nice try.--Caspian blue 01:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Where you live: how so? Please answer Jehochman's question. My estimate is based only on what you write. I would love to be 23 years old again. I responded to his question immediately and even gave the year of my Ph.D. and my Ivy League University (this actually identifies me precisely). Please stop this WP:BAITing or you are likely to be blocked. You seem to be trolling here. Mathsci (talk) 01:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Mathsci, I let Rlevse know of your ad hominem attacks, and baiting, and fishing that I've received enough from you not only here. And you switched the "12 years old" with 23 and erased "what I write". Not nice try since we can still get the diffs.--Caspian blue 01:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Both of you: Don't moon the jury. And if someone does, don't point at it. --Abd (talk) 01:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

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


 * As a reminder to everyone, the Committee will consider the behaviour of any editor that is relevant to the dispute at hand. The list of parties is mainly there to ensure that everyone who ought to be notified of various things that happen during the course of the case do get notified, and so long as an editor is aware of the case, edit-warring to include their name in the list of parties is simply foolish.
 * As a further reminder - though it shouldn't be necessary - we have a civility policy here on this project, and all editors would be advised to follow it, especially when commenting on this page or any other arbitration page. Enric, Caspian, Mathsci: this means you. --bainer (talk) 03:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My thoughts exactly. Thanks. (There was no edit warring to include, beyond a single accidental reinsertion, but there was edit warring to remove, as well as to remove the notice to Hipocrite on his Talk page, so Hipocrite may not have been as effectively warned as possible, but I'm certainly not going to raise a fuss about that. I'll let the committee decide on the motion I proposed, fine with me.) --Abd (talk) 03:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


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

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

Meanwhile, Bishonen might find it relaxing to take a break for a while, if this is really bugging her so much. If she can't find enough AGF to believe the explanation applied from the beginning, maybe she can treat it as a retcon and go along with it anyway. Mediation with Jimbo might or might not help. Yeah, the block in retrospect was probably an error on Jimbo's part, but not all that egregious a one, and not a frequent one either. And while I hate Jimbo's guts (and I mean that in a nice way), he is certainly supplying better leadership than the towel snapping idiots ever will, so I'd prefer that he continue to exert it even though I disagree with him on some pretty fundamental things. Anyway, holding an arb case over the block would be ridiculous. There are plenty of both random toxic cretins and really evil assholes trying to corrupt wikipedia who need the venom a lot more. It's senseless to burn one's energies battling something that was done with good intentions where the other person is trying to make nice, even if it was something dumb. 67.117.147.249 (talk) 09:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Publication of half-year summary of arbitration activities
Pursuant to the Arbitration Committee agenda item Review Committee performance, a half-year summary of arbitration activities has been published at January to June 2009 report. Comments and feedback are invited on the talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Carcharoth (talk) 04:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Obama articles amendment
It seems like nothing has happened on the Obama articles amendment for a while. The last edit to the case was 5 days ago. Do these things go stale, or is there always some form of resolution (even if it is a resolution to not amend anything)? Is the Arbitration Committee looking for additional statements/comments? Just wondering. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still looking for some kind of response to this question, even if the response is "go away" or "this is the wrong place to ask questions" or something like that. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Right now it passes with the abstentions, but barely, so a clerk would have to take care of it. Wizardman  16:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response. I didn't realize that the motion had reached the "pass" threshold. The number of active arbitrators has fluctuated quite a bit recently! -- Scjessey (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Other obligations
Normally I keep pretty close tabs on case requests I file. This is an exception, partly because it's likely to attract greater than the usual share of trash talk that's better left ignored and partly because other obligations (related in substantial part to a recent Signpost open letter) really are taking up a lot of time. Other than FPC I'm not checking much ATM; looking at RFAR about once a day. If something urgent arises please ping me at user talk. Durova 284 03:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Wikifan12345
Hi, a thread at WP:ANI was auto-archived before being formally closed, but after a possible consensus for sanction. It's been suggested the matter be brought here. Would that be appropriate? See Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive556. Thanks. Rd232 talk 15:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Resolved now with an ARBPIA topic ban. Rd232 talk 19:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Date delinking amendment
Doesn't the amendment pass, with the current voting counts? It's been idle for three days now. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It has passed and been enacted. There are a few loose ends not tidied up that I need to follow up. Carcharoth (talk) 10:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

SlimVirgin/LaRouche 2
I am confused about the way things run here. 11 minutes after I filed my request for enforcement, it was closed by Shell Kinney, who as far as I can tell is neither a member of the arbcom nor a clerk. Shell's comment also seems to betray a misunderstanding of the issue I was raising. In case it was unclear, the provision to which I refer in Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2 is It is also pointed out that the principles of Biographies of living people, formulated since that first case, must be applied strictly to all biographical material appearing in articles relating to the LaRouche movement. I think that Shell is mistaken in asserting that this particular section "specifically refers to actions of LaRouche supporters," which I should think would be unnecessary. because they don't seem to be inclined to demonize their leader. I think it is directed more at the other side, which has been a bit over-enthusiastic in using Wikipedia to "expose" LaRouche. So, how do I go about getting a second hearing on this motion? --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to clear up a misunderstanding, I believe any admin is permitted to work on WP:A/R/E requests. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 20:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if Leatherstocking is right, I don't see how this goes anywhere. The "it is also pointed out" sentence isn't a remedy, only a pointer to a policy that was created after the original case.  As such, it isn't a matter for AE -- it would belong at BLPN. Looie496 (talk) 21:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement, which means the enforcement of the remedies that the Arbitration Committee has issued in a case that has already closed, can be performed by any administrator (although it is most often done by experienced administrator who has taken a knowledgeable interest in this area&mdash;and often there are too few administrators working this function, which leads to excessive workload and burnout for those to take it on, so additional help is always appreciated). Indeed, traditionally, the enforcement function is not taken on by the arbitrators itself, both for workload reasons, and to preserve their impartiality if the dispute later returns to the committee. (I can, however, readily understand the confusion created by the fact that in the full arbitration page layout, the enforcement noticeboard, which used to be a separate page, is now included with the other sections on which the decision-making is by the arbitrators.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I do think arbitration enforcement should have its own talk page, and not have it redirected to this one. All that would be needed would be for someone to undo the redirect and sort out what happened to the archives. Tricky, but could be done. Or failing that, talk page discussion about the AE process could have its own section here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue is that so few arbs edit frequently in general that adding more pages just leads to more lost requests.  MBisanz  talk 03:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

How to add a party?
A pending arbitration request (Arbitration/Requests/Case) names me as 1 of 8 parties. A few other editors, who were not named, are active participants in the disputes that are the subject of the arbitration request. What is the procedure for adding parties to an arbitration request? Thank you. —Finell (Talk) 22:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You would have to make a statement explaining why you are adding more people, and then add them and notify them. Ask a clerk for more advice if you need it. Generally, when a request is in its opening stages, the party list is fluid, but later changes tend to be more contentious. It is best to keep a case tightly defined and not bring in too many people. It is best to list only the major participants in the debates, not minor players. Carcharoth (talk) 01:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. —Finell (Talk) 04:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Format of Implementation notes
Example: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley/Proposed_decision

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

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

For a rough example, maybe something like the bottom of the collapsed template, compare it to the current system at the top of this collapsed template. Ikip (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

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

to close a link instead of, which confused the parser enough that the entire subst didn't go through. T. Canens (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Notes


 * Hi, I am the guy who wrote Arbitration enforcement request, and I welcome suggestions how it can be made more easy to use. Perhaps the instructions need to be clearer. But the use is, I think, very straightforward: you copy and paste everything, and then you fill out everything after the "=" signs. Yes, you need some understanding of wikitext markup for the diffs and such, but that's rather basic. I agree that preloading the template might help.  Sandstein   14:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the template is perfectly usable, but simplification is always a good thing. AGK  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 16:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Any process that requires the use of templates is inherently biased toward editors who feel comfortable using templates. For areas such as arbitration enforcement, where one can reasonably expect that editors of wildly disparate experience and knowledge will be drawn, any templates for editor use should be as simple and intuitive as possible. I'd suggest they not be incorporated into the process until they have been tried out and deemed satisfactory by editors with limited familiarity of template use. This one is complex enough that I wouldn't use it, and you'd get a straight report from me, but I wonder how many valid and perhaps serious concerns are not reported because editors uncomfortable with templates cut their losses. (And no, there should be no removing of reports just because the template isn't used.) Risker (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Right. That's what I meant by "make sure arbitration sanctions are actually not reinforced:" I think many look at the template, despair, and leave. Both Tom and I had to be extremely concerned before we'd fill in something like this, and we're experienced editors, in fact comfortable with wiki markup. Our reports would have been submitted sooner if it had been simpler. But the responses above, except Risker's, reflect what I expected: that I'm sure it's perfectly simple for you guys.. And Sandstein, of course you meant the template to be helpful, and I'm a little ashamed that all you get for your work is complaints from me.


 * [Through gritted teeth, swallowing several profanities: ] And I don't know what "preloaded" means. Bishonen | talk 05:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC).


 * I agree that people unfamiliar with templates may experience difficulties. The instructions do say "You may also choose not to use this template and format your request by hand, as long as you provide all relevant information as described in the template above"; perhaps that needs to be made clearer. The point of the template is of course that we get a reasonably structured and complete report and a framework of sections to work in, just as with requests for arbitration, which also use a template. Otherwise we would often get long enraged walls of text that do not tell us what exactly the problem is, no diffs and no proof of notification, etc., and it would take a lot of back and forth just to get some usable information.
 * "Preloaded" is a feature of MediaWiki that allows the construction of a link to an edit box that is already pre-filled with content, such as this request structure. I don't know exactly how it's done either, but perhaps somebody who does could give it a try.  Sandstein   06:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * <-- Click that link for a demo of what "preloaded" is (it is for AN3). We can actually get rid of the top-level template with preloading and instead use a pre-filled form with section headers and content to be filled in, which should make the result more obvious (and less likely to confuse the parser). Ideally, we would have a form where you can fill in the relevant stuff and it generates a well-formatted request for you. The problem here is that MediaWiki doesn't have something like that, so we are left with templates as substitutes. T. Canens (talk) 11:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I just created a demo preloaded version for AE: . Does this look better? T. Canens (talk) 11:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, this is a substantial usability improvement. The pages that now control the format of AE requests are Sanction enforcement request header, Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/preload and Sanction enforcement request footer. I am going to make some minor edits to them, but otherwise I think this can be deployed.  Sandstein   17:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've asked Tom to see how he likes it. Bishonen | talk 17:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC).
 * Yes, that is much improved over what I used. I kept having to preview and I couldn't figure out why some of my text disappeared and why some of it was in another, larger font, even though I opened up the ones that were on the page. It took as long to post as it did to find and copy the diffs. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I also find the template difficult and a pain in da butt, and I've filed several reports in the past. Formatting them properly (nm tracking down the diffs and writing the text) can be very time consuming. One recurrent problem is, as I recall that if you put a space, " ", in the wrong place after the "=" sign, or thread your paragraphs in a particular way, the whole thing becomes misformatted and then you have to spend oodles of time looking for that one particular space, " ", that is messing everything up.

Having said all that, I'm actually not against the template. The way I see it, there is way too many frivolous, battleground motivated AE requests already, and having a complicated template, by imposing a cost on the filer, cuts down (though not enough) on the number of these. It's simple economics - costs up, quantity demanded for frivolous sanctions goes down, the block/ban market works more efficiently (yes, there may be side effects in that some legit requests don't get filed, but that's true of any medication that packs a punch). In fact, I would encourage Sandstein & Co. to put some extra effort and work into the template and make it even more complicated. I'm not familiar enough with wikimarkup to offer any concrete suggestions, but it sounds like T. Canens has the skills.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The new system uses a preload editintro, which only displays on the initial edit. I've moved it over to the page editnotice, so that it displays permanently; whilst this means that anybody who edits AE will see unnecessary instructions, it also means that an editor will not lose the instructions if they make a mistake at the first edit. On balance, this is better I think, especially as the feedback here seems to be that the template sometimes breaks and needs one or two further edits to get right. AGK  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 19:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I've tied in all the changes with a new input box, so the system for request submission is now at WP:AE. This basically uses T. Canen's changes and, I hope, incorporates some of the feedback from Bishonen and the other people that have commented here. We still haven't developed a system for easier submission of appeals, which are basically ignored by the new request submission (although could easily be added back in); that's not an urgent issue that needs immediate attention, as appeals are relatively infrequent, but we should get round to finishing that side of things up pretty soon. AGK  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 19:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! But the current code: does not seem to work as expected; the text entered into the editbox does not appear in the preloaded content. Does it need to be passed as a parameter or something?  Sandstein  19:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Haha. As long as I don't have to pretend to understand it, I love to hear you guys talk. It's like poetry. :-) Bishonen | talk 00:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC).
 * The only way those boxes would work well (with our preloaded page) would be to make enforcement requests subpages (like WP:SPI), which we don't want to do. Also, the instructions make scant sense when used as an editnotice. T. Canens (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I made some changes that should make everything make somewhat more sense. T. Canens (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Question
I didn't think it relevant enough, or rather my place, to request some clarification on the "Single Account" terminology. (This question is brought about by the "Jack Merridew" issues. I long ago read through all the WP:SOCK, and WP:Alt Account stuff and other various policies and guidelines; but, I don't recall that IP (that is, not logged in) was considered "an account".  I've noticed lately that there seems to be some confusion to that end, at least from my perspective.  So, my question is: If a user who has an account edits without being logged in, is that considered to be editing from a second account?  Is that explicitly stated somewhere?  Perhaps AC would consider mentioning this when they address the current clarification request before them.  Thank you for your time and consideration. — Ched :  ?  17:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP" (my emphasis) is explicitly defined as sockpuppetry; the exact wording is "Editing under multiple IP addresses may be treated the same as editing under multiple accounts where it is done deceptively or otherwise violates the above principles. Where editors log out by mistake, they may wish to contact an administrator or an editor with oversight access to ensure there is no misunderstanding." and "Sockpuppetry [includes] Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP" (both from WP:SOCK). – iridescent  17:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you Iridescent, I appreciate the clarification. I know the JM issue is much more complex than that, especially since he is open about who the IP is attached to.  In that respect, it's far more convoluted than I care to sort out, so I'll leave that to all you good folks here.  I hope all is well with you and yours, Cheers and best ... — Ched :  ?  18:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Article permission request
I'd like to write an article about Israeli medical high pressure bandages please. This article is not falling under my topic ban restrictions as they were specified here There are not going to be any single word about the conflict, and I mean this.user:Gatoclass requested I consult him about my new articles, if I have a doubt about the topic. I have zero doubts, but I did ask Gato, and he eventually agreed that I could write this article without violating my topic ban. I also asked my banning administrator, and he declined my request, but kindly allowed me to ask for a review of my proposal at AE, so here I am.

If I am to write the article, I will write it in my user space and present it for review before it is moved to main space. I will not touch the article and its discussion page after it is moved to the main space. I will not nominate it on DYK, and, if somebody else will I will not comment on the nomination.

IMO it is important for a topicbanned editors to be allowed to write such articles in their user spaces, the articles that are not violating their topic bans at all, but might be seen as borderline. Why it is important? It is important because it teaches an editor to behave in the topic he/she is banned for. It is a very harsh punishment not to be able to edit and/or to comment on your own articles, it is very difficult not to watch what's going on there, but it does teach to be patient and more tolerant to other users opinions.

May I please write this article? Thanks --Mbz1 (talk) 05:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the fact that no one seems to have responded to this request (this is partly because you posted on the talkpage rather than on the actual requests page, but still, one of us should have noticed this before now). Have you received a response in another venue? If not, I'll follow up and make sure this is reviewed quickly. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There's nothing to apologize for. It was my fault nobody responded because I posted it in a wrong venue. It was reviewed, and I am really touched by your comment. Thank you!--Mbz1 (talk) 05:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Re-organisation of Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
''Moved to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, because this page seems (per ) to receive very little attention. AGK [</nowikI>&bull; ] 21:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)''

Just wondering
Where does the existence of this notice in the "Results" section at WP:AE come from: ''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''? As far as I can tell, and maybe I'm wrong about this, there's nothing in the original ArbCom ruling which says that such a section must exist, or that it is somehow necessary to forcibly exclude non-admin editors, many of whom are more familiar with a particular topic area than the AE-admin-regulars, from the general discussion.

Admins ARE the only people who can enact bans/blocks and discretionary sanctions, but there is nothing here which says that non-admins cannot participate in the discussion of the proposed results. We are still a community of Wikipedia editors, even if some of us are admins and others aren't.

I could just as well make a notice which says that ''This section is to be edited only by right handed editors. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.'' and remove statements made by anyone I suspect of being a southpaw.

Why is that there? Honest question.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Volunteer Marek, the template was created in March 2009 by Sandstein, and there isn't anything in ArbCom's procedures which stipulates it must be used. There's a relevant discussion on the template talk page, which could be of interest. PhilKnight (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Length of statements
Statements posted on requests for arbitration are supposed to be a maximum of 500 words long, with a certain non-specified extra allowance per the judgment of the clerks, where needed. However... FT2's statement in the Mindbunny request is 2,000 words. Is this ridiculous length a special dispensation for former arbs? Or is it a tacit acknowledgement that FT2 is unable to restrain himself, length-wise, and must therefore be indulged? Or have the clerks decided to drive us all mad? Mad, I tell you! Bishonen | talk 17:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC).
 * I assume you mean the BLP & FR request. I would do something about it, but (1) I'm not sure how subsequent replies affect to the world limit and (2) one of us is probably going to remove the case request as declined within the next day anyway. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 20:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It is of course a quite ridiculous length, but I really wouldn't bother doing anything about it because no one on Wikipedia ever bothers to read beyond the first 150 words in any arbitration statement. As my beloved nephew always says: "pack the punches at the begining and grab em in." Mr FT2, I am sure, is a terribly nice man, but he is rather tedious and does need to learn to pack his punches a little more tightly or his comeback as going to fail. Lady Catherine Rollbacker-de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I see that there is a (partially collapsed) statement currently on the page that runs to about 3,000 words.   Will Beback    talk    09:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * 3000 words is, of course, grossly excessive. I have dealt with that particular section. If anybody is interested, I briefly discussed the value of such a restrictive word count with User:Newyorkbrad on his talk page; I don't think the thread has been archived yet, and I am sure input would be welcome there. AGK  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 11:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a problem here. Long statements are generally not helpful, particularly if there are lots of cases for arbs to read, and particularly if a case has lots of long rants that amount to peanut throwing from the gallery. OTOH, we have fewer cases there days, and often the request statements and responses to such by parties and arbs are the means by which the dispute itself is resolved. If is effectively the parties having a last ditch attempt to discuss matters with the eyes of the community and the committee on them - the result of which is often that the case is solved, or another solution emerges which saves the committee the far greater timesink of an actual case. Thus a strictly enforced word limit, even if set higher, may be problematic. I suppose you could limit contributions from non-parties (but often these are more perceptive and objective than partisan screeds). Alternatively, you need to have clerks judge the merits of contributions over a certain length, which has its own problem. The solution, I suspect, is simply to warn people that longer contributions are less likely to be carefully read. The maxim tl;dr often applies. Although long posts by certain people are usually worth reading.--Scott Mac 15:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I was linked to this section by clerk AGK. I'm strongly against any raising of the word limit, and believe it needs to be properly enforced. The bloat rot—both in terms of text and case duration—starts right at the beginning, at the RFAR. The notice at the top says it's not the place for full evidence, but for posts concerning whether the Committee is to accept or decline the application. If an editor can't put their point in fewer than 500 words, send them to me: I'll reduce it to below 500 words without removing any relevant meaning ... for free (seriously ... I figure I wouldn't have to do more than two or three for people to stop bloating). The clerks should be instructed to simply remove text from the 501th word onwards, with a note to that effect, plus a message on the person's talk page inviting them to reword their post so it's compliant. Again, the clerks wouldn't have to do it much after people realised the Committee's rules mean what they say. The Committee needs to encourage succinctness in editor's posts to it: I say this as much for the benefit of the process as for that of the arbitrators and clerks themselves, who should be given the opportunity to make their decisions on the basis of tightly reasoned arguments. It's not a soap-box for editors. Tony   (talk)  15:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Most editors are predisposed to writing at length, but I agree that almost all the statements made at requests for arbitration could easily be shortened through the use of a more precise, tight form of writing. I also think it would be a good idea to institute your suggestion for removing everything from the 501st word - because it is a perpetual source of confusion for the clerks as to whether we should redact statements summarily, blank the entire text, or otherwise delete selectively. I would like to hear the input of the arbitrators here, and will presently take Newyorkbrad up on his offer at his talk page to draw the attention of the Committee to this thread. AGK  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 15:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Tony1/Redundancy exercises: removing fluff from your writing talks about precisely the kind of writing style that I have in mind, and should in future be required reading for anybody who wants to make a statement in a request for arbitration, clarification, or amendment. AGK  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 16:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of a sharp knife at 501, and a note from the clerk about it, the exception is reponses to questions from the committee (not the gallery/other people posting statements). There are very very few posts longer than this that merit it.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I also like it, as it allows swift action by the clerks. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * More expansionism for us all to read as we speak (this one is now 807 words). I do believe that where a statement is knocking up close to the limit in the first place, additions should be "paid for" by a contributor's partial removal of their pre-existing text (with a link to it on their talk page, like this: Text relocated to stay under word limit). So you get your 500w slot, and that's that. OK, it's not ideal to allow the moral hazard of bloating via links to a user's talk page, but it would make editors think twice about adding and adding in a kind of endless dialogue with other contributors—and if they do post tit-for-tats, they'll make 'em short. It's a bit cumbersome for them to remove bits and paste and link them, which is a good hurdle. Tony   (talk)  05:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Points of order: Political activism RFAR
The rules say very clearly (bolded): "State your request in 500 words or fewer, citing supporting diffs where necessary. You are trying to show the Arbitrators that there is a dispute requiring their intervention; you are not trying to prove your case at this time. If your case is accepted for Arbitration, an evidence page will be created that you can use to provide more detail."

But it seems that the clerks are just ignoring this. Quite a few entries are in the 800–1100 range. Which other bolded rules about ArbCom procedure will the clerks ignore? Tony  (talk)  06:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Now I've just realised that AGK is the clerk for this RFAR. I find it weird that he is making partisan contributions to the process. I'd have thought the clerks would be strictly uninvolved, and if they had private feelings would keep them to themselves and either recuse or consciously avoid being influenced by them in their actions. This is the governing policy for admin behaviour, let's not forget. I ask that the clerk recuse and be replaced by one who is overtly uninvolved in the matter and prepared to act with neutrality. Tony   (talk)  07:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I noticed this by chance on my watchlist, and wonder why you did not take this up with me directly. I am not the case clerk for that request, because I have just been assigned to the MMN case - and, as you say, because I have opined in the request thread. I will not be clerking the case, and I do not recall doing anything that would make you think I would be. If you want me to explicitly recuse in the clerk notes section then I will, but that is usually only necessary if a clerk is directly involved in a dispute. Regards, AGK  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 09:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (Post-script) Ah, you mean the warning about word count that I gave yesterday. That was before I decided to comment. As for the clerks "ignoring" Committee policy, I confess myself seriously irked at your tone, and will waste no further time here other than to say that this is the norm. Spirit, not the letter, of the policy, eh? AGK  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 09:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I got this badly wrong. Withdrawn. However, if it's "the norm" that a bolded rule in the box at the top is the norm, there's a serious problem. If that tone irks you, there's another problem. Now, the spirit and not the letter ... 500 words is the bolded limit, so I think 850, 1020, 1050, 830 words is far beyond any subtle distinction between the two. As you know, one of my concerns is that ArbCom cases blow out of control with text (and time) bloat. The fact that clerks don't take the word limit seriously ... I mean really seriously, is the rot that sets in at the start. Tony   (talk)  10:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the issue is that the word limit is widely accepted to be too restrictive, by the community and by the current Committee. There is a discussion on the issue on this page, at . If we can use that to reach some kind of consensus on what the limit should be, then the clerks could more confidently enforce the word limit. By the by, we do regularly draw the line at grossly excessive statements: in the past month, I've blanked the sections of people who had statements that ran to 1500, 2000, and 3000 - yeah, really - words. Regards, AGK  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 10:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a re-occurring problem but, as AGK says, the hard part is deciding on what should be the maximum, and when clerks should intervene, especially when people new to arbitration are involved. Arbitrators generally dont care too much about this because waffly comments that are not addressed quickly end up being read by the entire committee anyway, and we dont enjoy watching someone refine their statement because then we need to read each revision as well. Perhaps we could start to make inroads by having a (similar to the one beside this comment) added to all statements, evidence, etc. which are over length. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Apologies. I am not a regular here.  Feel free to remove my statement as I do not have time to refactor today. (700+ words)  and again, my apologies, it was not a deliberate attempt to circumvent any of the rules.  — Ched :  ?  12:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I relocated a post I made here to the section above linked to by AGK. Tony   (talk)  14:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The template displayed when editing the case page says, "Be succinct. Long, rambling contributions are less effective." Including a note on the word limit there could help. Gacurr (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * We also need to address the issue of replies. It makes little sense to limit initial postings to 500 words, but have no limit for the length of replies.
 * Theoretically, the posting on this page are just to show sufficient cause for opening an arbitration case. However the custom of settling some cases by motion may encourage some to present as much evidence as possible in the request phase. Or, it may be an effort to attack the opposing side with as much evidence as possible, regardless of whether the case moves forward.
 * Whatever the cause, excessive postings are a burden on Arbs and any member of the community trying to follow the request. Some cases are especially complicated and may require more explication, but the "santorum" request does not seem any more complicated than the average case. Perhaps there should be a mechanism for allowing additional material in extraordinary cases when the request itself is so complicated that it's difficult to fully explain in 500 words.   Will Beback    talk    21:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Tony1, (et al) hopefully this is sufficient. — Ched : ?  06:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well ... no! It's nearly 40% over (682 words). Since you've asked me specifically, I'll say that there are slabs at the top and in the middle that could be removed or summarised. In places (the google bit, etc.) it becomes very discursive: I do believe the arbs will glaze over and skip through it, in which case your impact is fatally weakened. Chopping it to less than 450w (including the "response") would do your case a lot of good. It wouldn't be hard. Please let me know if you want me to spend 10 mins doing a version for your consideration, to prove the point. Tony   (talk)  07:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement and reply lengths
I would like to ask that the procedure "Submission of evidence" is changed by adding the following short sentence:


 * "By default, [statements] are limited to about 500 words and about 50 difference links and must be posted on the applicable case pages. Subsequent responses to other users should be proportionate and short."

The issue is that a user who writes a statement of <500 words may then feel obligated to respond to others' questions. They then have to modify the original statement so that original statement and all responses fit into 500 words. Often this can't be done.

For example, in the current "Political activism" case, Coren posted an original statement of 373 words. But his current statement comprises 1110 words, including two replies of 130 and 99 words respectively.
 * MacWhiz posted a statement of 400 words which now has length 1195 words (including 795 words replying to the comments of 5 arbs).
 * Sadads posted a statement of 335 words which now has length 1236 words (including 881 words replying to 4 users).
 * Jayen446 posted a statement of 172 words which now has length 1006 words (including 834 words replying to 4 users).
 * Wnt posted a statement of 225 words which now has length 879 words (including 654 words replying to 4 users).

This is far from atypical. It is clear that users are staying within the limits for the original statements. But if any of these (by way of example) had to later also fit their original point and also replies to all other users within the same 500 words, they struggle.

Could the Committee consider making it clear that replies are outside the original 500 words and providing a limit or a target average words per reply (some shorter, some longer), or simply noting that responses are not formally word limited, because it's clear many users have difficulty on fitting replies into that word count. FT2 (Talk 16:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that responses to other users should be outside the original word count. The idea is not to stifle discussion, or prevent arbitrators getting answers to their questions. And 500 may generally be a little low in complex cases. (And sorry for the excessive length of my original statement. I thought by hatting the background I could leave it up to people whether they wanted to read it or not.) -- J N  466  18:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see my statement here as to why the current 500-word limit should be strictly enforced in all RFARs. This statement has been prompted by the current RFAR because I rarely visit them and was extremely disappointed to see that the bolded rule at the top, and the reasons for it, were being disregarded. Tony   (talk)  00:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Tony, your comment is mainly that you believe all necessary points can be made within 500 words, inclusive of full responses to questions, points of clarification, or rebuttals of potentially 4 - 8 other users who address the users concerned.


 * It's not clear how this would work in practice. Would you 1/ limit all original statements to around 200 words to leave room for responses, or would you 2/ have users continually rewriting their statements to squeeze in responses, causing statements to be in constant flux and other users potentially to have to re-write their statements in turn?


 * I'm dubious but I accept you believe it's possible. I'd be interested how you would propose to do it, and whether you offer (or expect others to offer) a one man service for RFAR statement writing -- because most people don't have that skill and the average RFAR has a great many statements. It wouldn't be a "quick fix".


 * My underlying concern is that RFAR statements need to present the view -- and the evidence for that view -- for the user, also rebuttals for other views if needed, and then subsequently the user often needs to respond to a range of multiple-point questions added on an ad-hoc basis by other users and arbs. I don't see that routinely fitting into 500 words. Nor, apparently, do a great many RFAR participants. Hence the request that responses to questions are considered separate from statement length. The user has no control over questions asked. FT2 (Talk 02:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a suggestion, with several parts, but they all depend on each other: (1)  Raise the limit to 750 words per statement; (2) STRICTLY enforce that limit in all cases; just have the clerks cut off any statement at the 751st word; (3) any added comments, responses or answers should be placed on the TALK PAGE (i.e. this page), with a link from the main statement to the appropriate location on this page; alternatively the editor may edit his/her original statement so that all material will fit into 750 words; and (4) answers to QUESTIONS asked BY AN ARBITRATOR do not count in the word limit; this applies to questions, not statements, and the arbitrator should identify who is being asked the question, e.g. on the requesting party, all named parties, everybody, etc.  I don't think my suggestion requires a lengthy justification; in light of the above discussion, the merits of my suggestion are either self-evident or they aren't.  I would only add that in reading arb request pages from a few years ago it seemed that in cases with a large number of statements, the clerks would (at least sometimes) move the statements of "uninvolved" editors to the talk page.  Part 3 of my suggestion is based on that idea, though as written it would apply to all editors and only to the comments, responses and replies that would exceed the word limit.  It could be tweaked to apply differently to involved vs. uninvolved editors, if desired.   Neutron (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your suggestion, Neutron, but I believe 500 words is more than adequate for both an initial statement and in toto if it's subsequently added to in cross-fire between editors (something we should all want to discourage). Could I remind people that in addition to "State your request in 500 words or fewer", the instructions clearly say: "you are not trying to prove your case at this time" ... "All editors wishing to make statements should keep their statements and any responses to other statements to 500 words or fewer" ... "Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor inappropriate material without warning." At a participating editor's invitation, I sent them an example of how easy it is to reduce statement text and in doing so to make it more effective. The revised version of just their final paragraph came down from 200 to 110 words without loss of substantive meaning, and was greeted very positively by the editor. It's not rocket-science: anyone here can do it. But it won't happen until the clerks apply the existing rules. No one takes the slightest notice of the rules at the moment, yet I believe it's a matter of both social practicality and consideration for the arbs. Tony   (talk)  17:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Tony, many users do not have that skill. Dense yet comprehensive writing of that kind is a skill or art-form, not a "given". You have it. Most - the vast majority - clearly do not. It's a common mistake to think in terms of "A singularly skilled user could do it, so all users should be expected to". A major observation of the strategy and new user retention projects has been that those who are experienced at Wiki matters are (without blame being attached) sometimes least suited to understand that markup and policies are hard for others, because to them, it's easy. This is similar. You find condensing a statement to 500 words "obvious". Quite a few other skilled writers and FA authors probably do too. Most don't, which is why "brilliant prose" is comparatively rare. You need to consider RFAR statements and replies in the context of a community, 95% of whom actually do not have the skill you take for granted and will not be able to learn it - even under threat of forcible word limitation - for an occasional RFAR case. It needs a more widely workable answer. FT2 (Talk 21:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We have two sets of people at arbitration. Parties and everyone else who turns up to say their bit.
 * The only people who we should accommodate are the parties.
 * The others are voluntarily opining on matters that don't directly affect them. They can limit how much they say; they don't need to say everything on their mind.
 * Uninvolved people without the necessary skills can develop their skills by practise; they can do this by sticking to the word limit and trying to make their point in the available "space". John Vandenberg (chat) 01:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I propose that we have: A 1000 word limit for people listed as parties Keep the 500 word limit for everyone else, and this word limit includes any follow up thoughts by non-parties. Replies to arbitrators do not count, provided they are an actual response. (this is part of user:Neutron's proposal above) No word limit is imposed on arbitrators comments within the arbitrator section. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable. Out of curiosity, I wonder how hard it would be to institute some sort of "word count" within the edit box that would warn folks when they reached a certain number of words.  Probably too complex for this single area of WP, ... just a passing thought. — Ched :  ?  02:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * John, sounds good, although I grit my teeth at a whole thousand words (and would prefer 750w for named parties). Ched, your idea of the automated word count is excellent; these facilities are commonplace on the internet, usually as character limits (it's easy to arrive at an equivalent for these purposes). This would save the clerks a lot of time and effort, and would create precisely the environment for the disciplined management of RFARs. I vote that the matter be sounded out with WMF developers: it could be quite easy to arrange. FT2, on your comment "many users do not have that skill. Dense yet comprehensive writing of that kind is a skill or art-form, not a 'given' ": not so much dense as keeping statements tightly scoped (on-topic, if you like). It's easy: you start by writing the message(s) you want to convey to the arbs in short bullets; expand from there if you must, but remember that packaging your message to the arbs at the start of your statement will have the most impact. This is true of all such texts. Tony   (talk)  04:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The WMF developers would mark this as 'WONTFIX'. The word counter could be built initially as a gadget using the JavaScript word counter already designed for DYK purposes.  I don't think it require much effort to develop a prototype.  After a bit of testing we can make the gadget enabled by default for all users. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This would be so useful for the project—not just here, but in a number of venues where text length is limited by consensus. Tony   (talk)  05:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * My apologies - based in part on how other participants were acting, I assumed the replies weren't part of the 500 character limit. My thought on this is that because so much discussion occurs before a case is taken, and because "temporary injunctions" have sometimes made even when a case is not accepted (as with Pending Changes), it would make more sense to start a separate page for a proposed case from the very beginning, even though it may never be taken.  This way people could make these discussion comments in more normal threads on a dedicated talk page, rather than using "@xxx" type responses. Wnt (talk) 02:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer it to be
 * 1000 words + replies for named parties
 * 750 words for others
 * No limit for Clerk/Arbitrator sections. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 10:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In your model, if an arbitrator directs a question at an 'other', can they go over the 750 word limit? John Vandenberg (chat) 07:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Guidelines, not exceptions, are what's expected. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 09:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments by others?
I am not sure that it's a faux pas, but I added "I agree", or words to that effect, to three comments. If it's taboo, please slap me with a fish on my talk page. Thanks. Bearian (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for clarification of an enforcement scope of WP:DIGWUREN
I am posting an updated version of my unanswered question from two weeks ago, as it seems to have been swept aside in the aftermath of the latest big wikidramu, which took over those pages shortly after I posted it, and was later weirdly archived here.

Regarding WP:DIGWUREN (General_sanctions), would it be:
 * 1) ) applicable to an editor who at a general policy page (applicable to EE articles but also others) makes bad faith / incivil remarks regarding EE editors (for example, discussing the bias of "Slavic editors", identifying votes of editors as "X comes from a Slavic country" and makes similar arguments, the gist of which is arguing that EE editors are not neutral/biased
 * 2) ) applicable to an editor who at a general policy page (applicable to EE articles but also others) makes bad faith / incivil remarks regarding another editor, primarily by linking to or mentioning an EE-related ARBCOM case with expired sanctions to back the claim that "this editor is biased, as the XYZ case proves", "this editor has been found to be disruptive, to edit war, has supported editors who were found disruptive", and so on. In other words, is there any recourse when an editor is trying to damage another editor's reputation by citing/linking old ARBCOM findings with the rather obvious attempt to poison the well and win an argument by reminding others "what bad, bad deed that evil person did X years ago"?

If WP:DIGWUREN is not applicable, I'd appreciate comments what, if any, policies are, and where such behavior can be reported (or are editors just supposed to take such poisoned comments for years and decades)? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 23:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Date bump 1. Still waiting for somebody to reply. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 17:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think at this point this should be made into a formal Clarification request here . ArbComs are busy with other stuff so hopefully a formal request will make them pay attention. And this is a pretty low-hanging fruit - editors should not prejudge or discriminate against editors or their edits based on their ethnicity/nationality. That much is common sense. Unfortunately common sense can be in short supply on Wikipedia sometimes and a clarification by the ArbCom to the extent that this kind of behavior just inflames the existing battlegrounds might go some way to calming the place down.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)