Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive 3A

Increase participation by allowing non-admins to help decide on sanctions
The lack of participation by admins is inhibiting effective operation of this board (I know there are several reasons for this, but this discussion isn't about that). I propose allowing uninvolved, non-admin editors, as well as uninvolved admins, to participate in deciding sanctions in the "Result concerning..." section. Then, an admin can impose the sanction. This will allow these enforcement actions to close more quickly and receive more attention in the results section. Cla68 (talk) 01:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not! I would have to say that such a move would increase drama, result in a more difficult time reaching decisions and lead to general anarchy.--MONGO 02:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh indeed. Let's go with this option. But why stop here? Why don't we privatise all dispute resolution to cronies from Wikipedia Review? I'll start drawing up the paperwork now. Russavia ლ(ಠ益ಠლ) 02:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Have to agree with Mongo, it's just AN/I at that point. Arkon (talk) 02:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Notify editor Dlv999
Please kindly add User:Dlv999 to the AE notifications. Unfortunately, the editor seems to not have learned that we want to keep A/I conflict articles civil and not bring back the battleground. His recent skirting of 1RR by six minutes at Israeli settlement is suspicious yet, I'll choose to AGF at this time, and merely request a notification rather than stirring up an AE action.


 * diff1 13:03, 25 March 2012
 * diff2 13:09, 26 March 2012

Thank you --Shuki (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should all be notified, and all take cognizance of the fact that he reverted a deliberately mendacious or deceptive piece of editing by yourself. The text you inserted
 * "1)	‘Since the signing of the Oslo Accords no new settlements have been established in the occupied territories."
 * The ADL ref for the deceptive edit you made dates to 1997, a mere 3 or so years after the signing of the Oslo Accords, whereas our article covers settlement activity comprehensively after 1993, 1996/7, i.e., covers a further 15 years of activity that makes the ADF data obsolete. You know that; we all know that; newspapers in Israel every other day talk of places like Migron, built after 1997 as new settlements. So don't cry wolf, and don't make fatuous claims that you 'want to keep A/I conflict articles civil' while editing in complete contempt of known facts, in a way that provokes editors to revert you. Thanks.Nishidani (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Nishidani, do yourself a favour and do not mislead other editors. I did not insert that line, it was already there.  You are invited to join the civil discussion at the talk page instead of defending problematic editing behaviour. --Shuki (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * To clarify a piece of hypocrisy is not to mislead. First a deceptive complaint, a feint about honourable behaviour, and now an equivocation that denies, untruthfully, that you are responsible for flagrantly re-inserting a patently false piece of information
 * Worse still, you then intervene with the edit summary per Zero, a source from 10 years ago can't be used to claim a current fact, and other problems, which, if you believed it, means that you shouldn't have reintroduced that patent lie. This kind of hypoocrisy is quite outrageous, and you should not whinge to these boards and expect to get a gentle hearing.Nishidani (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Please, could any admins considering this request please read the discussion on the Israeli Settlement talkpage.    ←   ZScarpia  15:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Nishidani, I suggest that you carefully analyse my edits on that article and then retract your accusation of me lying.--Shuki (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just for the record the second diff quoted by Shuki was honestly meant as a correction to this diff by Zero. Reading Zero's talk page comments and edit summary, he clearly aimed to remove the sentence by reverting Shuki. Shuki had in fact made several intervening edits, so Zero's reversion did not in fact delete the sentence in question (as he had intended). I think it is a bit much to say I am attempting to "game the system" in this instance Dlv999 (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Obscured history
Why do we have a system where the history of every req for arb is buried in one massive page, and there is no talk page for the requests? Surely it would be better for each request to have a new sub-page? Rich Farmbrough, 12:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC).


 * That's actually not a bad idea. I think the reason it's done the way it is currently is because of the weird archiving method we use here - accepted requests are copied piecemeal to the opened case's main page (for statements from parties and opening votes) and its main talk page (for all other statements). Declined requests are simply removed, with the diff of the removal posted here. We also don't *really* need a separate talk page, since discussion about the request takes place on the Wikipedia: space page. Any sort of meta-discussion would usually apply to all requests, and should be placed here.
 * Honestly, I think the whole system is rather stupid, if for no other reason than the point you raised - the history becomes a jargled mess and it's hard to pull up old requests for comparison. Something like a subpage system would be a bit of an overhaul, but might be easier in the long run. Hers fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 16:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Cla68 amendment request status
Committee, is there going to be any more discussion on my amendment request? If not, could you please close it? I was reminded that it was still open when I saw this article in this morning's Japan Times and realized that I still don't know if I can add such information to the appropriate WP article. Cla68 (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Ban appeal by User:Altenmann
On 11 April 2010, User:Altenmann was desysopped and community banned, which the user would like reconsidered. Accordingly, the Ban Appeals Subcommittee seeks comment from the community on suspending the ban and interested editors are invited to participate. For the committee,  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  12:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Appeal discussion

Reversing AE actions with permission
I just now wandered onto WP:AE for the first time in a long time and observed the following statement next to the exclamation point in the triangle: In March 2010, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion which stated that administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except:
 * (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or
 * (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Does that mean that admin #2 may not undo an AE action by admin #1 even if admin #1 gives explicit permission to undo it? I'm really not familiar with AE processes and am not involved in any cases; this question is purely because I'm curious.  Nyttend (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Strictly speaking, yes, the motion in question (the full wording of which can be found at Arbitration_Committee/Procedures) does prohibit overturning a sanction without a discussion, regardless of whether the original administrator acquiesces. As a practical matter, however, I'm not aware of any complaints having been made in such a scenario; and, of course, the original administrator is always permitted to reverse their own actions. Kirill [talk] 01:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nyttend's example could therefore be construed as reversal by the first admin, by proxy. Rich Farmbrough, 17:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC).

RfE length
Regarding The Blade of the Northern Lights' request, I'm wondering why there isn't a limit to how long an RfE is? At least the statement inside the RfE should have a limit. Looking at the current requests, the statements (not the entire request) are as follows: By contrast, Arbitration/Requests requires requests be 500 words or fewer. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Caucasian Albania article -- 1210 words
 * Gregory Goble -- 964 words
 * Ohconfucius, Colipon, Shrigley -- 5011(!) words
 * Indeed. What was that about brevity being the soul of wit and all that...?  The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 03:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Motions
What is the reason and where are the grounds that only Arbs myay propose motions? Isn't this the type of elitism we ahve beentrying to avoid for 10 years? Rich Farmbrough, 01:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC).


 * While only arbitrators may propose motions, the Requests for Clarification and Amendment section allows parties to discuss/propose changes to a final decision. For example, Mathsci's recent request for an amendment in the R&I Review resulted in an arb-initiated motion which endorsed the proposed change.


 * Best, Lord Roem (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Rich, others can propose actions in places other than Arbcom pages. For example, a user can propose that some form of restriction be imposed on a user at WP:AN or WP:ANI, on an article at WP:RFPP, on a topic area at WP:AN, and can seek community consensus. A user can take the same steps to request the lifting of a community consensus restriction. The effect of a community consensus restriction is pretty much the same as an Arbcom restriction. Arbcom makes motions on Arbcom pages, and the only voting members are arbitrators. Risker (talk) 03:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed this is the process that was abused by Xeno to sink community solutions in the Beta case, and ultimately resulted in Beta being banned. Since the plebians could only discuss on the talk page they were ignored.  It is not a good solution to have a hijab between Arbitrators and the rest.  I think the whole "motions" process should be struck. Rich Farmbrough, 08:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

Arbitration request
User and I hope not administrator Maliq Shabbazz, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Malik_Shabazz, reverts then comely pretends he/she is being fair, without a word I did hours of research. I was trying to put a historical context that seems to always be left out of pages randomly against where almost 50% of Jews live on the page 1948 Palestinian exodus which will advance the cause of peace, my claims are that the picture has no source and is a picture of Morroccan Jews not Palestinians, first. Secondly the whole page only shows one perspective please read my edit about historical context and show where I placed a POV, saying that Britain separated its portion of colonial Palestine into 3 parts that is the historical context, not POV and France took Syria from Ottoman Palestine as well, again where did these Arabs go?

Then I checked M.Shabbazz's page he is going to Jewish pages and changing them so that they refer to Israel proper as Palestine, very comely of course. Then he is going to pages about Poland and erasing anything Jews did there while making claims about Poland and the Holocaust that are a joke (evil one). Then he is going to other pages and erasing Jew as he changed Israel to Palestine on a Jewish page, about Jews burying there dead in Israel. He of course gets the trick and has learned to mix his edits with others so you do not see his obsession, and has help from fellow tricksters.

Please show me one word of vandalism on my changes show one, I wrote incredibly well researched facts about the historical context, took me hours of reading. He then got his buddy en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen-chan to go along as a conspiracy. THEN THEY ACCUSE ME OF VANDALISM. Vandalism is to go to a page about American Jews andf change Israel to Palestine that is ruthless vandalism, at least write just "others call it Palestine" as I would if i had his point of view, then going to pages about Poland and the holocaust you gotta be joking. Maryester (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Also other than relating to the picture I did not erase one word from that page, Again show a source for that picture of Jews being Palestinian. He erased and does not allow Jews to call the place they bury their dead Israel. By the way I am not even pro-Israel, I like Jews and 50% of them live there is my honest concern and nothing else unlike him at least I always tell the truth, the best i can. Maryester (talk) 00:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

They have accused me of vandalism twice falsely, I very firmly claim there is no vandalism. First when I attempted to revert Israel to Palestine back to Israel on a page about American Jews burying there dead. Then because the link to the peicture on the pace Arab Exodus does not show the same picture then I searched and saw other covers for the anti-Israel extreme leftist revisionist POV book by Morris and none had that picture. I know for a fact that is a North African JEWISH hat and not Palestinian. Also I wrote 2 paragraphs they erased without giving a reason. Then lied and called it vandalism. Maryester (talk) 01:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't sweat it. I have had a Bureaucrat call me a vandal, on a public board.  He never replied to the fairly quick "WTF?" that landed on his talk page. You have to shrug this stuff off around here. Rich Farmbrough, 16:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC).

Motion on standardized enforcement
To provide for standardized enforcement of editing restrictions imposed by the Committee, and to reduce the amount of boilerplate text in decisions, the following procedure is adopted, and shall apply to all cases closed after its adoption:
 * Standard enforcement provision

The following standard enforcement provision shall be incorporated into all cases which include an enforceable remedy but which do not include case-specific enforcement provisions passed by the Committee:


 * "Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to arbitration enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee.  All blocks shall be logged in the appropriate section of the main case page."


 * Enacted. -- Lord Roem (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Votes

 * Support
 * Proposed. We've discussed having a standard enforcement provision in just about every case over the past few months, since we inevitably just repeat the boilerplate; this wording appears to be the form that we typically use. Kirill [talk] 13:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Go for it,  Roger Davies  talk 13:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * PhilKnight (talk) 14:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Since this is update-our-procedures-to-reflect-reality week, this is pretty high on my list. We've had closes delayed for no better reason than a topic ban was added late, and then an enforcement had to be added on later and voted on appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 16:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  16:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie (talk) 01:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 16:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Like NYB, though, this should be placed on the final case page if it applies, so everyone is clear. Courcelles 14:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the response to my comment I will support, though I'd still welcome some discussion of the initial maximum block length. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How about replacing "initially for up to one month, and then with blocks ..." with "initially for between one day and one month, depending on the circumstances, and then with blocks ..."? This makes it abundantly clear that admins are expected to exercise judgment on the duration, rather than dishing out a standard one month block.  Roger Davies  talk 05:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support provided that it is actually placed on all decisions AND we have a method for declaring that this standard provision does not apply in a specific case. I don't think it is to the project's benefit for us to be inflexible.  Risker (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As the motion says, "Unless explicitly stated otherwise in a particular decision". In order to revise something for a specific case, all that would need be done is pass an enforcement provision disagreeing with this one, which would control that case.  It wouldn't hurt to add a line like "This enforcement provision shall be placed on the final case page of all cases where the Committee has not passed a different enforcement provision in that case" though to make this expectation clear instead of being forgotten about in these votes. Courcelles 17:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps add something alomg those lines as a copy-edit? In the unlikely event it's reverted we can always discuss further.   Roger Davies  talk 18:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Revert or copy-edit further as needed. Courcelles 18:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Made simpler. Courcelles 19:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And even simpler. Kirill [talk] 22:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And double-plus simpler. Revert if you disagree,  Roger Davies  talk 03:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Comments
 * I can support this in general, but would still like to see this enforcement paragraph included in decisions, to make sure the parties to cases (who may not be aficionadoes of the arbitration process who are familiar with all the relevant policies) are aware of how enforcement works. Also, I think we should discuss whether one month as the maximum block for a first violation of a restriction fits well for every case. Traditionally, it said "one week" here although we have gone with "one month" in several decisions more recently. This may not be a crucial point given that one month is the maximum block, but we might want to emphasize that fact in some fashion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, It can be added to the page template so that the information is there but doesn't require a separate vote every time.  Roger Davies  talk 13:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that a month is the maximum and that admins remain free to decide a less severe block better fits the situation, I can support them having the flexibility to go up to a significant length when it is actually necessary. Admins aren't in the habit of blocking for the absolute longest stretch they can when there's no call for it. Courcelles 17:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

General discussion
Take out the long words. Rich Farmbrough, 02:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC).

The following provision applies to all cases which include an enforceable remedy, unless they say otherwise.
 * Standard enforcement provision
 * "If a user subject to a restriction violates it, they may be blocked, for up to a month to start with, and then with blocks increasing in length to a maximum of a year. Appeals against blocks may be made to the administrator who blocked the user, and afterwards to arbitration enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee.  All blocks will be recorded on the main case page."

Something like this. Rich Farmbrough, 02:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC).


 * I would suggest using a standard one week initial block and go from their. In many cases one month could be considered excessive for the first offense especially considering the vague way that some of the recent arb decisions have been worded. One could easily find themselves blocked for a month because of the way someone interpretted the decision, right or wrong. Kumioko (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Any response? This seems like clearer simpler wording. It is of course a standard that committees and people writing rules tend to use more complex wording, as a form of code switching, to be charitable.  However it is also demonstrated that clearer language improves understanding and leads to less conflict. Rich Farmbrough, 22:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC).

Please exercise some control over this board
Regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment:Malleus Fatuorum, please exercise some control over this board. Just go through and scrape all the off-topic shit off it first. Then the ad hominem. It is a disgrace. You set an appalling standard. The topic is MF's behaviour at RfA. Wake up. You are a major part of the problem with the chaos and ill-discipline on this site. Lead by example. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh the irony. In anyone's book, there's 3 ad hominems in the first 4 posts Malleus made on his own talk page in the section that precipitated that request. Are you volunteering for removal duties there? Wake up indeed. Cracker92 (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that Anthonyhcole removed the above comment from me, as "moderation". As I see it, there's no policy or guideline that it breaks, and thus it requires no moderation, not least by the person whose logic it critiques. I can only imagine the drama that would have ensued had he tried to do something like this with one of Malleus' comments. Cracker92 (talk) 18:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Which are your previous accounts, pray tell? Drmies (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Can't you guess? I've got a pretty good idea who Cracker92 is, and as an indefinitely blocked sock puppeteer someone ought to deal with her. Malleus Fatuorum 22:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I've reported Crackers to the appropriate authorities. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Malleus, I have enough problems assigning the proper names to my children and dog. Please enlighten me! Drmies (talk) 02:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As discussed at WP:ANI, Cracker is an undisclosed alternate account of another editor. Therefore, he is forbidden, by rule, from commenting at an arbcom page, and whatever he's posted here should be erased. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:34, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Wha...?
Why is the motion on this talk page? Rich Farmbrough, 03:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC).


 * It was on the main requests for arbitration page while it was being discussed. I assume it was moved here after it passed so that the discussion would be archived. (Ordinarily, discussions on passed amendments or clarifications are archived to the relevant case page, but there wouldn't be one for a freestanding motion.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a fairly typical example of the processes that are broken at an administrative level. Quite the logistical headache. Rich Farmbrough, 06:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC).

Superceded?
Scanning down the list at Active sanctions saw "Betacommand 2". But clicking on User:Δ finds "This user has been banned ..." with link to Arbitration decision (B3). So, if that supercedes the B2 actions, shouldn't the list at active sanctions be updated one way or the other - replace or delete old listing? Shenme (talk) 02:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Dealing with the various Betacommand sanctions that have been placed over the years is anything but straightforward. If and when Betacommand becomes unbanned, we will certainly have to sort all that out. Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion section
I recently commented in the discussion section of a thread here, and got it moved to another section because I am not a sysop. I really think that the discussion section should be for everyone, not just administrators. Ebe 123  → report 21:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The same thing happened to me and I see where you're coming from, but I also see why the admins need a space for themselves. Perhaps it would be an idea to add a "reply to admins" section so that people can be sure that the admins will see their comments. I have to confess to having deliberately commented in the admin space because I wasn't sure they'd read the whole bloated thread and spot a comment that was genuinely important, i.e. that two of the editors involved in a DRN had blown it off.--FergusM1970 (talk) 02:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not think a reply to admins would work, as it would be detached from the rest. To ArbCom: What's the purpose of this discrimination?   Ebe  123  → report 10:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's close it as no consensus. I would of been bold enough to change, although it has no transclusions and is fully protected.   Ebe  123  → report 12:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

How do you solve a problem like AE?
Did that really just happen? Seems far too many of the AE requests are leading to talk of new ArbCom cases at this point. We had FLG2 just recently, the Troubles case that just got closed involved nearly as many admins as an ArbCom case, there is the constant problem of ARBPIA, and the ARBEE case right below that one is another massive sprawl of text loaded with accusations and counter-accusations. Clearly something needs to be fixed about the AE process. More than a few requests end up resembling lynchings or street fights with a good number of blatantly frivolous cases getting filed as well.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I was going to say that AE actually has started to look like it's working. Enough admins are editing it that requests are getting thorough and unbiased attention and admins are seeming to generally work towards agreement on actions instead of fighting and bickering with each other. Of all the areas of Arbcom activity, this seems like the least problematic. Certain ethnic areas will always be problems, but now it seems that Arbcom and the community through the responding AE admins have taken the position that if people can't play nice, when they are taken to AE, they will be stopped from causing further disruption. Sort of like saying that Arbcom won't follow people around constantly checking up on them, but if they cause more trouble in already troublesome areas, they are on notice that they won't be given a chance to do it again. From the situation we had a few years ago, this is a great improvement.  MBisanz  talk 03:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure how you can see this as a good sign. Seems more like a recipe for the heat death of the wikiverse.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 03:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a good thing because we're finally intervening in battleground situations and clearing out the combatants in order to give good-faith editors a healthy environment to edit in.  MBisanz  talk 03:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you may have an overly rosy view of the situation. Rather than making room for constructive editors, I am pretty sure the only notable result will be dead silence in the topic area.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 04:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I spent a few years in the toxic cesspit of asshattery that is the Israeli-Palestine topic area, and if dead silence and lightly-edited articles had been an option back then, I would have greeted it warmly. Tarc (talk) 04:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please, please tell me that somewhere there's one of those this-page-has-been-retained-because-it's-humorous repositories where toxic cesspit of asshattery can take its rightful place in the pantheon of all-time greatest turns of the phrase in WP history. EEng (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Would rather see AE create a situation where people actually feel encouraged to be more productive editors, rather than leaving everyone frustrated and exhausted.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 04:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This is precisely what topic bans are meant to accomplish. Editors are still able edit the vast majority of content.  If you have a better alternative to getting editors out of battlegrounds and into fertile grounds, I'm sure the community would listen intently.  That said, I suspect that any new measure will have to complement topic bans for the foreseeable future.  That people feel frustrated and drained is usually a function of their inability to step away from a particular battleground. aprock (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * First, I-P is a pretty particular area with problems which are unique and manifold even by Wikipedia standards. For many other topic areas which are not as intrinsically effed-up, discretionary sanctions/WP:AE really amounts to exporting advanced weapons technology to war torn nations - it just creates another venue for WP:BATTLEGROUND, on steroids (stakes are much higher). What you end up having is that in the end the "ban them all" scorched earth solution becomes the only viable one. But this is because of the presence of WP:AE/discretionary sanctions - if these didn't exist some of these topic areas would never have gotten so bad. It's a problem that WP:AE solves after it has created it. Second, what really frustrates and drains people is drama boards, of which WP:AE is the worst and most notorious one since it's got very limited input and very little participation from the broader community. I can take people disagreeing with me, I can take incivility, I'm used to bad faith and false accusations on talk pages, hell, I'm even ok with people reverting me mindlessly per WP:IDONTLIKEIT - but defending yourself against the persistent bullshit and sophistry that finds its natural home at WP:AE really IS frustrating and draining.
 * Basically, this little play/battle ground needs to be taken away from disruptive users who routinely abuse it. If you're gonna have discretionary sanctions then give these to the people involved in content-centered (since at the bottom, all these disputes are about content) dispute resolution process like, Mediation. Have folks request mediation at WP:M with the understanding that if they mess around on it or subsequently then whoever mediated the dispute can then slap them with sanctions. That would make helluva lot more sense then the "let's pour gasoline on our biggest fires" approach that we have right now. Volunteer Marek 23:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Having been through the mediation->arbcom spin-cycle, I can honestly say that until mediators are given the trust and authority to deal with the problematic behavior mediation will not be viable. I would heartily support a required hybrid mediation/arbitrartion framework where problematic areas were dealt with at an earlier stage, with sanctions handed out accordingly.  As it is, mediation has no teeth, and it's effectiveness suffers greatly. aprock (talk) 02:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. The mediation cases I've looked at have generally died because the amount of work to resolve them was too great.  However if an effective mediation/arbitration  solution could be put forward, preferably with input in the design form professionals, it might make a big difference to the way the community works. Rich Farmbrough, 04:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC).

Radical comment: This is why the Wheel-Warring policy broke this site. We have BRD on article content, but not on admin actions? Therefore we have timid Admins, and boiling 'WTF, WHY HAVEN'T YOU DONE ANYTHING' editors. Just my opinion anyway. Arkon (talk) 23:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd have to agree with Arkon. Why are admins allowed to 'edit-war' with their tools?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Arkon's point (and Jon Vandenberg made the same point) is that Admins avoid undoing each other's actions to the point that an admin action stands, no matter how palpably wrong it is. The situation where an admin's action was undone by another admin and a discussion then ensued would be less harmful, provided the personalities of the admins allowed that to happen (egoless adminning).  But this does not happen, generally, so "first mover advantage" means that the admin community as a system responds harshly, even when (or if) most or all of the admins are more tempered in their responses most of the time. Rich Farmbrough, 04:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC).

As one of those involved in the AE I was very pleased to see that the admins do recognise battleground behaviour which I think has been blighting editing of Troubles articles, as has what I consider the misuse of AE itself, especially against inexeperienced editors. Only when topic bans expire will it be possible to see whether behaviour improves. One can only hope so. --Flexdream (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Simpler way to file arbitration cases
I am wondering what the committee thinks on an idea that has I have. At present, all arbitration requests are made manually, by filling out a template. From time to time, errors are made in filling it out, but additionally, new editors occasionally file requests for arbitration when they are not ready/suitable for arbitration. Some of the members of the committee may be aware of the form that is in use at the dispute resolution noticeboard, and it has several benefits - it qualifies the dispute (requiring talk page discussion first, but additional qualifiers can be added for ArbCom requests) and structures the discussion. Such a form for ArbCom requests would not remove the current template, just how requests are made - instead of manually filling out the template, the editor would fill out the form, and their input for various sections would be inserted in the template and added to the requests page like normal. It also makes it easier to enforce character limits. I bring this up because I've started an RFC where ArbCom would be a part of the proposed change, and I am hoping that the committee will support this. Regards, Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It runs quite against the spirit of a wiki to say so, but the procedural difficulty of filing an arbitration case may be desirable. We have enough problems with newbies filing very premature arbitration requests, and so I'm reluctant to make it easier still to file an arbitration request. I would not support this. AGK  [•] 12:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * What might be worth considering would be to have a set of "arbitration ombudsmen", analogous to clerks, who would respond to informal queries about the arbitration process, and assist editors in setting up arbitration requests. Looie496 (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If you can find people willing to fill those roles, I'm sure ArbCom would be glad to have them, as ombudspeople or clerks. There are only two active clerks right now though, so I'm not sure you'll find the people you're looking for. NW ( Talk ) 22:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm a British lawyer. I find the procedure of the High Court of England and Wales substantially more accessible, easier to understand and follow, and less convoluted than that of ArbCom. I think AGK can rest easy. DeCausa (talk) 17:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * @AGK, making a request simpler to fill out would not necessarily create an influx of requests- at present editors have large amounts of text to read through on arbitration. Having it all on one page makes for less reading. A forn cab also filter disputes by asking questions that a newbie would answer honestly, i.e.: A question asking if the issue was discussed on a talk page, one that determines whether it's conduct or content, and ensuring that they've attempted other DR forums before filing a case. This way, we kill two birds with one stone, we make the process less confusing, but educate newbies that Arbitration isn't the first step for everything. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The contention that filling out a form is "simpler" than simply requesting for help in a wiki, non-bureaucratic way is debatable. Nobody Ent 22:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The same could be said about the proposed visual editor - the reason we're proposing that is because people have trouble understandnig wikisyntax. Heck, I've been here for over four years and even I have trouble filing an arbitration request. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What "problems" does the AC have with premature requests? Just say no. The problem is some members of the committee appear to be overly eager to get involved in issues that haven't gotten to the point where the Committee is the appropriate venue. Nobody Ent 22:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a total pain for everyone involved when an obviously premature request is filed: from the arbs who have to read and decline the request, to the clerks who have to reformat it, to the party who is wasting their time with it. Arbitrators are not guides to help people with every bit of dispute resolution. NW ( Talk ) 02:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Usability
The "Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/0/0/4)" section really ought to have a colocated explanation for what the heck the numbers mean. The big red box is for folks filing a request, so it's counterintuitive to expect a user browsing AC to go there to figure out what means what. Nobody Ent 22:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Where else would you stick it? -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  22:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Immediately underneath the heading (example follows):

Nobody Ent 02:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Reasonable enough. I'll go make the appropriate changes. NW ( Talk ) 02:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm in favour of this as I usually don't remember what the numbers signify. I tend to ignore it. But with a key just underneath I would both read and update. Yes, please implement when you have time.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  19:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I also would support this change -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  22:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it's a brilliant idea, and I'm now updating by myself, which saves the clerks some work!  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  00:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Watchlist
I think there needs to be more editors watchlisting this page and more discussion from all involved. This is a little disturbing to see so few comments or replies. One would think there would be very active discussions here. I have watchlisted this page an intend to keep a closer watch.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, generally speaking, discussion of specific requests occurs on the request itself. If you come here to discuss requests on a meta-level, you're probably looking at a procedural issue. In that case, the clerks noticeboard is your best bet. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 17:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, Lord, that isn't the point. This isn't about specific requests. Its about the arbitration itself. Surely there are concerns and questions that editors have. Cheers to you as well!--Amadscientist (talk) 03:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Confidence in the arbcom, and confidence in one particular arbitrator
Arising from the current request for clarification of the Civility Enforcement case, there are two declarations of lack of confidence on its talkpage: one declaration of lack of confidence in arbcom and one of lack of confidence in one individual arbitrator. The debate on the case page has been very heated and engaged many people, and there consequently seems to be a good deal of interest in weighing in on these declarations, to support them or to protest against them. But for people who don't actively follow the case, it all takes place on a pretty obscure talkpage, so I thought I'd post links in this forum. The arbcom and its members are, after all, subjects of wider general interest than any single case amounts to, however high-profile. I apologise for not turning the two talkpage declarations formally into proper RFC's and posting them in the "Centralized discussion" box above, but I couldn't face it. There are a lot of formalities and preliminaries involved in, especially, a user RFC, which is of course what the individual-arb declaration would amount to. (In reality, though not formally, there have actually been plenty of relevant preliminaries.) Bishonen &#124; talk 23:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC).


 * The lack of confidence in Arbcom discussion pretty much boils down to the defenders of the user in question attacking Arbcom in order to both redirect the discussion and to move focus away from the policy violations of the user in question. This happens every time Arbcom ends up blocking someone and it's nothing new. And it also doesn't mean much of anything.


 * As for the lack of confidence in an Arbcom member, that boils down to a badly worded statement in the Clarification case that has since been blown out of proportion (again mainly by the defenders of the user who is being discussed in the clarification case). It just serves as another source of distraction. Silver  seren C 23:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, a user requested a simple clarification at Arbcom, then an Arb springs a motion to ban without even having a case, even though the reporting party wasn't actually complaining about him. And the other Arb with confidence issues has failed to strike his "opinion", so obviously it was badly worded, just poor judgement and an honest reflection of his perspective.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 23:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * They "sprung a motion" because they considered the reasons for the clarification request were because the user in question was just finding ways to further violate both policy and the restrictions already previously in place. It seems pretty straightforward to me.


 * While I completely agree that it was badly worded, I have also already stated that it is a completely valid opinion as well. Silver  seren C 00:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Our own policies at WP:BANBLOCKDIFF clearly state that all editors are part of the community, even if they are indef blocked, up to an until they are banned. Malleus isn't even blocked, no less banned.  Declaring he has never been a part of the community isn't an opinion, it is either unnecessary hyperbole or a genuine misunderstand of the policies at Wikipedia.  Even people that do not care for Malleus agree Jclemens actions are below the threshold for acceptable rhetoric.  Floq threw a block template for WP:NPA on Jcemens talk page because of the statement, as a warning of sorts.  Regardless of how you feel about Malleus, Jclemens should strike that comment and apologize.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 00:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't believe Jclemens was commenting on the block/banned thing, but on the mindset. If one is purposefully setting out to not follow the pillars, then one is clearly not trying to act as a member of the community. I mean, he specifically said that if one is disregarding one of the pillars, then that person isn't acting as a Wikipedian. I completely agree with that mindset. Silver  seren C 00:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to be disregarding the fifth pillar yourself. Does that mean you are not a Wikipedian? --Epipelagic (talk) 01:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you mean that I am disregarding that the other pillars can be disregarded per Ignore All Rules, I am not. However, I do not believe that the fifth pillar can ever be used to disregard the fourth pillar. There is no reason to not follow the fourth pillar at all times. Silver  seren C 01:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dennis's 00:12 comment.
 * (Though I think I disagree with Floq's block - it was a block, not just a template - nothing was being prevented there.)
 * Also, though we should never mandate an apology from anyone, I think it would not be a bad idea in this case. - jc37 00:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. Mandated apologies are almost never a good idea, and I see no reason this qualifies as an exception. One rare instance where it might be warranted is if the recipient would find it helpful, and I don't think MF would find it so. A reason to want to mandate it is to send a message, but that message can be delivered more effectively other ways.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  00:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry SB, poor phrasing on my part. I meant that the apology wouldn't be a bad idea. We cannot and should not ever mandate an apology from anyone, we can only merely suggest it. Which is what I am doing. My apologies for the confusion. - jc37 01:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I now see what you were saying, and we are on the same page.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  15:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Jclemens statement came across to me as "You are dead to me and the community", and many others saw it the same way, and Jclemens knows this. He should have struck it and clarified.  By leaving it, it has helped fan more drama. Admin are expected to express themselves in ways that don't create more drama, and correct themselves if they slip up. The standard for an Arb is even higher.   It happens, we aren't perfect, and I am quick to forgive and forget, but he has stood firm.  He could have said "You aren't a good example of a Wikipedian" or "You aren't living up the pillars" or anything else, but I find it hard to believe that this was just a slip, particularly since he refused to strike.  It is hard to keep assuming good faith because of that.  It was a cheap shot and while I could overlook a mistake that was corrected, leaving it is beneath the dignity of an Arb, and indicates he can not be objective in that case.  At the very least, he probably should recuse himself as well.  It is fine to have a bias, just be wise enough to admit it and remove yourself from the conflict of interest.  The project is supposed to be more important than the self for admin or arbs. And Jc37, I agree we should never mandate an apology, but a man should admit his mistakes without being prodded. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 00:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Should", or at least "it would be nice".
 * That said, what may be being missed is that he made the comments concerning a ban. a ban is not a block, as you so clearly explained. And so it could be he was trying to express that, by not following community norms, malleus was voluntarily excising himself from being a positively contributing part of the community. It's not what he said, but it's what I'm interpreting as he meant.
 * Is he correct? Meh. If malleus willfully doesn't conform to civility norms? What if he does? So far he hss not, and has stated he will not. "preventative not punitive" springs immediately to mind. But that suggests blocking not banning. I strongly supported NYB's attempts to try to reopen discussion. And I think MF has been given LOTS of chances. But I think it was a mistake to go for a ban. Perhaps (I'm merely guessing) they thought it was appropriate because recently another prolific contributing Wikipedian was banned for nor following community norms? (I opposed that.) Blocking is the preventative action. Banning says that the person has exhausted the community's patience. Does anyone think that that's the case here yet? - jc37 01:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Jclemens had a Mitt Romney "binders of women" moment, for sure. But his basic argument is sound: A Wikipedian supports all five pillars. About half the time and trouble and space wasted at WP would be saved if adherence to all five were simply enforced. Yopienso (talk) 23:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, pretty much. Silver  seren C 00:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. We, as thinking, feeling, responsible individuals don't need any enforcement of any kind.  What we need is a complete and total devolvement of all and any admin powers to every single user in this community who needs them and intends to use them. We need to disband and remove all hierarchy and hierarchical thinking that enables cliques and power structures to enforce their stronger will over the disenfranchised weak, and an acknowledgement that building an encyclopedia is more important than playing admin games.  If you are active in a certain area and require the need to protect pages, you should request it. If you have a desire to fight vandalism, you should request the right to block vandals.  If you have a need to negotiate disputes and help resolve conflict, you should request a right to protect and block.  If you just need to move pages, you should have a delete right.  If you wan to work on closing AfD's, then request the right.  We don't need sysops; that's an antiquated concept from the 1960s and 1970s mainframe era of computing.  And, we don't need an abstracted layer of admins, which is just an ideological overhead one step removed from our task at hand.  And finally, we don't need arbcom or any other judicial authority.  What we need are editors who want to improve content and have a vision for the future of Wikipedia.  Everything else is a distraction from the fundamental goals and only serves to divide the community. Viriditas (talk) 00:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with everything that you just said, except for the fact that it didn't address really anything this section is about. The issue is the five pillars and upholding them. That has nothing to do with admins. The issue with Malleus specifically involves him and how he contributes to an atmosphere that drives away the content improvers that you're talking about. Silver  seren C 01:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Of whom would you request all the rights you name if there's no authority structure? You are describing anarchy. We're close enough already, what with having major Pillars that support the whole project being flouted. Yopienso (talk) 01:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The community cannot enforce civility. And we don't need anyone to enforce it. All we need is to talk about it and adhere to the golden rule. Viriditas (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Civility can most certainly be enforced; I've seen it on other sites. Expecting people to voluntarily adhere to the golden rule is unrealistic, as has been fully demonstrated. Yopienso (talk) 01:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is the 6th busiest website in the world, comparing it to other sites isn't meaningful. And you can't strictly enforce civility, period.  You can only demand the most basic standard, ie: no personal attacks.  Civility doesn't mean the same to me as it does to you, or to someone else.  It is relative, which is why it can't be strictly enforced.  I might tell someone to piss off, and to one person, that is a mild comment, to another, that is vicious.  There is no single standard.  And some really worthwhile people are assholes sometimes, so if you enforce civility strictly, you will lose all your talent because everyone has a bad day every now and then.  It is about finding a balance, and using a very loose and lax "line in the sand", and not getting blockhappy when someone crosses it. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 01:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Context is everything : ) - jc37 01:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Experience counts, too. A year ago, before I was an admin, I had a much more strict view on "civility blocks" and thought they were just fine, but once you have the tools in hand and you pay attention and see the damage they actually cause, you change your tune.  They don't work, they cause more incivility, they cost us editors, and they don't solve the problem.  They are easy but they cause too much damage and fix nothing in most circumstances.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 01:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As one admin once said (what seems a lifetime ago), there is an art to these things. Lots of things are tossed in the mix. One needs to look at the situation. How severe the incivility, is this a pattern of incivility, etc. And length of block can make a difference as well. After all, sometimes merely a warning will do. (And sometimes, ignoring the incivility is even better.) It all depends on the context of the situation. - jc37 01:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And what about all the new editors that are driven away because we allow incivility from editors to pass? It's not just the ones we have, but the ones that we won't get in the future because we're allowing such behavior now. Silver  seren C 01:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Like I said, it is a balance. And you can't force your ideas of civility on everyone else.  You can only have a lax standard or you create an oppressive environment that no one will want to work in.  If the rules changed and I had to block for swear words, for example, I would just leave. That would be silly and oppressive and I would want no part of that.  We are adults, for Christ's sake, surely we can handle a little rudeness every now and then.  Just like in the real world, people get rude.  Seriously, if someone can't cope with virtual heated debates, they probably can't cope with the real world.  Personal attacks, gross incivility, fine, but admins aren't high school principals, here to scold the children for being blunt.  Editors can't be treated like children.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 02:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

To me the problem isn't that civility problems shouldn't be addressed, rather that you can't have ArbCom deciding out of the blue to ban someone by holding an ad hoc vote. The ArbCom members aren't supposed to run Wikipedia as some internet forum where they are the moderators. This case, the Fae case, and the Cirt case point to this being the case and that is wrong. Count Iblis (talk) 02:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's true. Really, either they should have just said no to the clarification request or they should have extended it to RfA in general, which is where they were leaning anyways. Silver  seren C 02:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The question here, or rather that was brought to AN first, is what Jclemens out of line? I still say yes, and he should recuse himself as he obviously had too strong an opinion of Malleus to be objective here.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 02:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And I still don't think what he said about Malleus is non-objective, as he would probably have it apply to other editors as well. Namely anyone that is willingly disregarding the pillars, the fourth especially. What makes it specifically personal to Malleus? Silver  seren C 02:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem are the enablers of chronic incivility and other misbehaviour, who will allow virtually any crime of their favorite editors to pass "as long as they produce good content". These people are the real cancer of Wikipedia. I've seen it before with Betacommand and others and I'm seeing it again here: "The rules should be different for this guy, because I like him." Who cares if someone is an abrasive jerk that just about everyone who isn't friends with him wants to deal with and has a block log the size of a double decker bus? His contributions mean he should be above the rules, unlike the rest of us peons. That's the line of thinking I see over and over and over again on WP:ANI with chronic offenders. Jtrainor (talk) 03:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * These are very serious charges you are making, Jtrainor. Please be more specific about these people amongst us who allow "crimes" and are the "real cancer of Wikipedia". If you are correct, this matter needs urgent attention. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Treating individuals as a group and referring to them as a "cancer" is the epitome of incivility. I must say, I've observed this type of discourse from you in project space for years on end, Jtrainor. Viriditas (talk) 04:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think he hits the nail on the head actually....I might have phrased it differently. I think the website has become comfortably numb to this issue and no doubt that there is an awful lot of blame deflection going on about how some people are baited, or harassed or misunderstood. Meh...when I see editors leaving as MatthewTownsend now claims because they can't stomach this abuse, and when I get emails from a dozen editors who don't want to face this guy and his cadre of defenders, then there is something wrong here.--MONGO 04:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * For years now, I've found Jtrainor's comments offensive, demeaning, and uncivil on every level. However, I've ignored him and his comments, for the most part.  I suggest you do the same when faced with incivility. Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Point taken. However, since when does the website allow anyone, no matter what their level of contributions may be, to repeatedly ad nauseum and after repeated blocks and warnings, continue to edit when they call other editors twats, cunts and assholes and tells them to fuck off? Now he is running others off the website...this is an issue. I thought we had policies against that?--MONGO 04:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem here is temperament. I think we have a lot of introverts who are highly sensitive to personal attacks, real or imagined. And, it's possible that some of the people making these personal attacks are extroverts who aren't as empathetic as the introverts. The solution is for the extroverts to tone it down and get a grip on the golden rule and for the introverts to practice ignoring the insults. Viriditas (talk) 04:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah...the grow thicker skin argument...nevermind that there are policies against calling people hurtful names...it's their fault cause they just can't take it. I'm just musing here Viriditas but I disagree is all. It is always understandable if someone is having a bad day or they lash out now and then, especially in a heated discussion, but to do so in normal conversations for no apparent reason? I've seen it repeatedly.--MONGO 04:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you have misunderstood me. Introverts literally have "thinner" skin than extroverts, so telling them to grow a thicker skin isn't helpful.(Cain 2012, pp. 141-142)  What I'm saying is that we have to encourage and practice mindfulness and pay attention to our reaction which we are in complete and total control of, which is empowering once you realize it. This is  completely different than saying "grow a thicker skin", because they really can't.  I'm saying, be aware of the personal attacks, but channel the negative energy into positive contributions.  Discuss the problem with the person in a calm manner, and then give it some space. Viriditas (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * @ Seren: I wouldn't say "the fourth especially,", but "also the fourth." That's the one that, in my view, is most often ignored.
 * @ Dennis Brown: Civility doesn't mean the same to me as it does to you, or to someone else. It is relative, which is why it can't be strictly enforced. Yes, you have a point here, but, broadly speaking, we DO agree! Look how everyone jumped on Jclemens, for example. Also, no one is disputing whether or not MF has been uncivil; some are arguing to make an exception for his incivility. See the difference? We DO agree he's uncivil, and for the life of me I can't understand how he could possibly be so indispensable we have to put up with that. To me, it seems to weaken the whole project: pages and pages and hours and hours are spent dealing with this kind of stuff. We don't need to waste our time doing that.
 * Now, that does, I admit, leave a huge gray area that isn't so easily dealt with. I, for one, have had to grudgingly accept that adults with expansive vocabularies still resort to profanity. And you are certainly correct that we need to forbear the gray-area stuff. Yopienso (talk) 04:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A thicker skin does not mean editors will not just fuck with each other as much as possible. Wikipedia is not an island unto itself. Some of us want a better place to edit...but if forced....many of us know how to be just as big an asshole as others. Think about that. The only thing holding people back are the rules. Without them.....we could all just be screaming at each other like any two bit, political message board. If that is what people want......many of us have the experiance for that. Think about it.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We can make a Heaven of Hell or a Hell of Heaven. What matters is how we act and treat others. Do we need a rule for that?  Is the rule against vandalism really holding you back from vandalizing?  Viriditas (talk) 05:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Do we need a rule for that?" We have a rule for that. We need to follow it, and enforce it. Tom Harrison Talk 12:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The way you "enforce" good behavior is by encouraging, incentivizing, and motivating it. 76Strat, myself, and many others have all discussed ways to do this, with the community shooting us down every time, telling us it is more important to punish bad behavior than it is to reward good behavior. I think your strategy has been tried for years now, and I think it is safe to say it has failed.  It's time to try something new and to stop hitting our heads against the collective wall.  We need noticeboards devoted to recognizing good behavior and we need to stop reinforcing negative behavior by devoting 90% of our reporting mechanisms to recording bad behavior.  This is why I have proposed eliminating administrators as a class entirely, because that type of bureaucracy functions "best" by preventing solutions and encouraging conflict.  When you look at problems in the world, when you really look at them, you begin to notice symbiotic patterns popping up, where those who claim to be attempting to solve them are actually contributing to them.  In this case, the community, more specifically the admin class, unintentionally reinforces negative behavior by encouraging negative noticeboard reporting, vandalism fighting, spam hunts, etc.  Many of these things can be done by automated processes like bots in coordination with average editors in the trenches, encouraging people to do good works at the lowest strata making the need for administrators unnecessary. Viriditas (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think you have to have rules to know what courtesy is. It is kind of inbuilt, something to do with basic decency, and we all know what it is at some level without having to consult rule books. But at an emotional level some people need rules, it's just the way they are wired. They get anxious without rules, and fantasize the world will run amuck. Wikipedia needs rules for this group. I certainly wouldn't consult the five pillars if I wanted to assess whether an editor was a committed Wikipedian. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The rule against vandalism probably helps hold people back from the justified and/or really funny vandalism.--Tznkai (talk) 06:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @Yopienso. I've looked through your recent contributions and for the life of me I can't see what it is you do here other than try to stir up trouble. Malleus Fatuorum 05:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh. Yopienso is a wonderful, sweet grandmother who lives in Alaska.  The only kind of trouble she stirs up is when she accidentally burns the toast in the toaster. :) Viriditas (talk) 08:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * When I talk about civility "enforcement", that is different than what Jclemens did. I accept the fact that as an admin, I'm held to a higher standard of civility. than a non-admin.  I accepted this with the admin bit.  Jclemens is an admin, but the fact that he is an Arbitrator does not exempt him from the same standards of conduct that I am held to.  This higher standard of conduct is codified in the policy WP:ADMINS, @WP:NOTPERFECT.  You can't compare his behavior (or mine) to the lax level of civility that is actually enforceable.  Admin are supposed to lead by example, the exact wording of the policy.  This is part of the reason he should recuse himself, along with the fact that he has demonstrated an obvious inability to be objective.  To me, this is clear, and it isn't likely that I will be persuaded otherwise, as his words are crystal clear.  I don't hate Jclemens or even know him, I just want him to do the right thing.  Strike, apologize & recuse.  I'm quite firm on this.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 11:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I have formally asked Jclemens to recuse himself at the Arb discussion and on his talk page. As I've said there, it isn't personal, but it is my opinion that an Arbitrator and/or an Admin has the responsibility to recuse themselves once it is clear that they have an emotional investment in the outcome of a proceeding, and it is necessary both as a step towards fairness to the individual, and to restore faith to the greater community that involved admin will not take action against fellow editors. While I appreciate that he has finally struck his incivil comment, the obvious lack of objectivity requires he do the right thing, recuse, and move his comments into the Statements by Others section. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 14:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks as if User:Boing! said Zebedee and others have retired or became inactive, specifically naming these events as the reason. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 14:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * They retired because of a comment Jclemens made? That seems rather silly. I give it a week, max. Silver  seren C 15:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Frankly, Dennis, you sound like you have a greater "emotional investment" than Jclemens does. He sounds coolly rational, has, after due contemplation, struck his comment, and has at no point raved for his view or against anyone else's views or actions. OTOH, you keep going on about it, (not raving, not dramatically going off in a huff with every plan of returning after Making a Point, just being "quite firm on this".) Yopienso (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * (e/c)1) Everytime, we hear someone say they are retiring -- it is just time to shrug our shoulders, perhaps leave a nice good-bye (and a request to come back sometime) and moveon. Everytime we hear someone threaten to "retire," we should just respond "ok" "good luck to you".  Why users think its effective to claim they will retire, when, when, when . . . is unknown.  2) When an arbitrator makes a decision in an arbitration matter, it's too late for them to recuse, they have already made the decision. It makes no sense to ask for a recusal because one disagrees with the decision.  (When one thinks the decision wrongly reasoned, --yes, criticize it --  but it is a strange and irrational system that demands recusals and resignations after each decision and rationale that is disagreed with).  Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Usually the correct response is for a friend to contact them directly, tell them they are taking it way too seriously, and advise a wikibreak to gather some new content ideas. Guy (Help!) 15:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's good too, also when contacted, one may counsel them to not do that kind of display. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * My emotional investment is in Wikipedia. I've spoken out against Malleus as much as I've supported him.  He isn't the issue.  The issue is to insure the system is fair and there isn't a perception of involvement by the very people who making the final and binding decisions, even if accidental.  If I have a strong emotional bond to the idea that admin and arbs should never give the appearance of bias in an action to which they are making decisions, that is neither new for me nor something to apologize for.  I've been quite outspoken about similar admin issues in the past, it doesn't require searching very hard to find them.  That I would speak out about it now should come to no surprise to anyone.  The principle is larger than Jclemens or Malleus.  Substitute their names with any others, and my argument would be the same.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 18:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it reasonable to suggest that there may be arbitrators that are sympathetic regarding Malleus and may be opposing anything other than the smallest alteration to the exisitng remedy. In what way would they not too be expected to withdraw/recuse? There is anarchy here because there has been delay...Malleus should have been banned for 6 months last time. Some editors are going to be back here in this dramafest before you know it.--MONGO 21:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * MF and the general Civility issue have been in front of the ArbCom often enough that every ArbCom member has seen plenty of evidence of editors' actions, editors' reactions and their impact. If a sitting ArbCom member has not seen enough data to have a clear opinion upon the situation, then we probably don't need them on the ArbCom. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Responding down here because that's a huge wall of text and I don't want to get in the middle. Betacommand is a perfect example of the type of person I brought up: he was rude and abrasive and constantly violated the rules. Yet his defenders continually insisted that his contributions should outweigh any bad behaviour on his part, leading to a years-long circus of nonsense. Jtrainor (talk) 06:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Invited dialogue
Frequently in the course of a case or amendment request, dialogue arises between arbitrators, parties, and commentators. Right now each person is allowed to comment only in their own section, and this is generally good for preventing an unreadable free-for-all. But it makes dialogue between arbitrators and participants/commentators difficult to follow, and I think this probably impedes good communication. I'd like to suggest a solution to this: invited dialogue. This would not replace the current approach but be an optional addition to the request format. An arbitrator (or clerk, at an arbitrator's request) would create an "Invited dialogue" section and invite specific editors to participate in it. Usually the invitees would be few in number and be among the named parties. Non-invited editors would still be free to add to the comments in their own named sections if they wish to respond/react, and the invitees would still have their own comment sections as before to give initial statements and respond to others. The "Invited dialogue" section would be a space where arbitrators and invitees can have a more natural back-and-forth conversation: question-and-answer to clarify the grounds for the request, negotiation of concessions that might help quell the conflict, etc., with a stronger feeling of engagement than the "stand in your corner and yell for attention" feel of the current approach. alanyst 16:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this idea has merit, and might be worth a try in cases where a small group of key parties could provide a representative overview of the entire situation. There's surely some room for efforts between the free-for-all or strictly regimented not-really-interaction we have now. Jclemens (talk) 01:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

No confidence
We elect our Arbitration Committee to be the backstop for decisions that the Community has been unable to take. We do not elect our Arbitration Committee to search around for problems and then try to enforce solutions on them - they are not the wiki police force. A problem was brought here which was arguably of ArbCom's making: a poorly crafted sanction that was causing more problems in itself. It was not a request for ArbCom to deal with a different problem that the community cannot handle. Nevertheless ArbCom has now taken a lazy route out by attempting to pass a quick resolution which does not address the problem they were asked to examine. The community, I submit, is not asking ArbCom dealing with some different problem, because they would rather have Malleus as he is than not at all.

As a result of this poor decision-making, I have to reluctantly conclude:

I have no confidence in the current Arbitration Committee

I invite those who share my view, and those who hold the opposite view to make that known below. --RexxS (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Those who share this view

 * 1) Shocking out of process actions - Sitush (talk) 09:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC) Striking: some of the committee members have shown themselves to be honourable subsequent to my original !vote here. I'll confine myself to the Jclemens section below. - Sitush (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Complaining here doesn't work, you have to do something that will actually lead to change. That's why this year the ArbCom Reform Party will stand in the ArbCom elections. A group of editors running on the basis of the same platform, asking that voters vote for all of them. They will be able to replace a big fraction of the ArbCom all at once and implement reforms that would otherwise be impossible. All editors are invited to join this party! Count Iblis (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) I'm going to have to support this as it relates to the collective group; with the caveat that the individuals are defined by their own individual postings rather than the group consensus.  NYB, Risker, and Elen have all made some insightful observations.  And while it may not be unprecedented, the fact that Sir Fozzie has also attempted to seek alternate means of resolutions and is willing to rethink the situation does give me a bit of encouragement.  Elen makes an astute observation that in this specific case the storm is often born of a response to perceived slights. (usually justifiable)  Perhaps the thing that rattles the chains of some editors is that when Malleus is disrespected, he jumps right from a point by point escalation to the end-game solution of calling "dick" or "ass/arse". (or in the cruder vernacular: dishonest twat).  Sadly, it's seldom that administrators call out those who enjoy poking with sharp sticks because the violations are often technical rather than bright-line.   I once mentioned to an arb (privately) that I was concerned when a motion was put forward without a request. (it revolved around a Delta/Betacommand issue that was ongoing at AN and AN/I).  I understand the desire of the committee to maintain a certain decorum within the project, but I do tend to agree with RexxS that at times they tend to overstep.  In this case a clarification was requested, and it somehow quickly twisted into this "ban Malleus" situation.  I think it's quite easy to justify the "witch-hunt" claims in this case.  Indeed it would be much less drama if the language was tempered, but often it is the drama and straightforward speech that finds a better resolution, way forward, and improvement in the end.  The saying "You can't make an omlet without breaking a few eggs" comes to mind here - and if that is often Malleus' intent, then I do understand that mindset.  Sorry for the excessive wording. —   Ched  ZILLA  17:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) It was an unnecessary and shoddy decision which they were not asked to take, but decided to take by themselves. They disregarded a clear consensus from the community that this was not the way to go. As a result Wikipedia has lost its best copy editor and the trust of content builders has been further eroded. Some individual arbitrators behaved well throughout the process, but I have no confidence in them as a committee. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) This was a disgraceful example of ArbCom taking on an active policing role and usurping the power of the community. I have great respect for a small number of the current ArbCom members, but en masse I now have no confidence in them - there are too many who are out of touch with the common Wikipedian, and who have allowed power to corrupt. I have made further relevant comments here -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Having read comments in the Oppose section below, I just want to reiterate that I believe there are some members of ArbCom who are amongst the most competent, fair, and honourable Wikipedians we have, and they will have my full support at the next election. I won't name individuals here, but in my view the current problem extends beyond Jclemens, and at the moment I believe there are enough unsuitable ArbCom members to render the current committee dysfunctional -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Disgraceful; I have no confidence in this body, have not had for some time, and this latest debacle pushes me over the edge into not wishing to contribute any more. Arbcom should be part of the solution, not part of the problem. --John (talk) 11:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) As a whole, no, as I said in Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment. This clearly does not apply to the whole ArbCom as individuals, and some are doing a fine job. Black Kite (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Yeah....this was my point above. There are issues and it is time to deal with them. Arbcom is one of the biggest problems this encyclopedia faces. It needs HUGE reform. Not to say they are horrible....just not doing what is needed and in someways....just a brick wall.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) ArbCom has clearly demonstrated they are far out of touch from the rest of the community, living in their ivory tower and ruling from on-high. It's time to disband ArbCom and return rule to the community. 134.241.58.251 (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - the Arbitration Committee has in the last period handled cases in ways that has gathered significant opposition (e.g. the Clarification Request regarding the Civility Case that resulted in this convidence vote), handled cases (or came close to handling cases) which they could very well have left to the community, ignored established procedures, etc. etc.  Below list which should give a taste of such:
 * 6) Ignoring procedure: The case request against EncycloPetey was requested after only 2 AN/I threads, without further community attempts to resolve the issue (no RFC/U, no Dispute Resolution, nor Mediation; see also header of this page), yet the case was accepted by an absolute majority of 8 arbitrators (AGK, JClemens, Casliber, Risker, Elen of the Roads, Hersfold, Philknight, Courcelles), and resolved by Motion to desysop (also vide infra);  Similarly, a case request on Psychotherapies (state before final decline) was not accepted, mainly because the community put effort in resolving the case, showing that the community was not exhausted in their dispute resolution.  Yet, 7 arbitrators (Kirill, Casliber, Hersfold, NewYorkBrad, Courcelles, JClemens, Risker) at some point considered to accept the case while community effort was, obviously, not exhausted.  Some of the arbitrators do indicate in their decline or in their accept remarks that they consider that the community may be able to resolve the case.
 * 7) Lack of decorum / lack of respect: At the time of the response by EncycloPetey in a case request against him (revid, vide supra), the case was already accepted by 4 Arbitrators (JClemens, Casliber, Risker and Elen of the Roads; 4 hours since initiation).  The members of the committee, after accepting to handle the case with an absolute majority of 8 accept votes decides to solve the situation by motion.  That motion is already in the !voting process to desysop EncycloPetey (3 votes in favour of desysopping, AGK, Elen of the Roads, PhilKnight) while they failed to notify the editor that that procedure has started .  That early accepting is common, arbitrators can be found on many case requests to accept the case request before all parties have responded (accept by Kirill, 6 hours; revid of statement of last commenting party in case accepted by Kirill and Courcelles, 5 hours (note that Casliber initially also accepted the case, but withdrew his vote waiting for a statement).  These accept votes are regularly within 24 hours of the opening of the request.  This can lead, unintentionally, to situations which show an utter lack of respect, if not grossly insulting, for editors: this accept by SirFozzie, 1:50 minutes into the case - it turned out that the party that did not comment had a death in the family.  And there is in all these examples absolutely no need to react that fast.
 * 8) Ignoring other solutions: With the Motion on Malleus Fatuorum 7 Arbitrators (SirFozzie, HersFold, SilkTork, AGK, PhilKnight, JClemens, David Fuchs) choose to support a ban on Malleus Fatuorum.  While that ban has that majority of votes (13 active arbitrators), one Arbitrator posts an alternative Motion (revid) upon which 2 Arbitrators change their mind.
 * The above mentioned are examples, and the below mentioned remark from JClemens is just one other example. It is a matter of going through cases, and looking at how they evolve, forgetting who is at which side of the situation to be resolved but considering plain procedure, application of policy and guideline, decorum, discrepancies around the cases, the nature and choice of solutions, etc.
 * Many of the remedies that are put into place by the Arbitration Committee follow more the principle of 'pulling out one single straw from a blazing oil fire', then to actually address the core of the problem. This is not a matter of 'the Arbitration Committee solved it, didn't they?  So, it is fine', some issues re-occur just because the Arbitration Committee did not solve the root of problem (or make sure that the community solves the root of the problem), they just remove a bit of fuel.
 * The Arbitration Committee, in its current form, with its current procedures and policy, and with its current way of handling community problems is doing more damage than what they are supposed to prevent. The last full case by ArbCom was closed over three months ago, and the only request that was not declined was the above mentioned case regarding EncycloPetey.  On the other hand, the community seems to do very well in solving the problems themselves (e.g. using community imposed restrictions and community imposed bans).  Remove this dysfunctional body from the sequence of Dispute Resolution, and the community will come with a solution.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Totally. A gross violation of their "election manifesto" (so to speak), an abuse of a position of power, trust, influence and authority which they were given by the electorate.  Vile stuff.  Dictatorship, here we come ... I can see nothing that would really stop a process of the whole lot standing down, and a re-election.  That way, the community could re-elect those with some honour and integrity, and not re-elect those we no longer have faith in.  Pesky  (talk ) 10:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC) Just for clarification: the reason I have "no confidence" in ArbCom as a whole doesn't in any way diminish my respect for those of them who are capable of showing honesty, integrity, and an ability to look at the question which was actually asked as opposed to leaping onto a witch-hunt bandwagon.  For those Arbs (and we can see who they are), I would have no hesitation in re-electing them.  It's when ArbCom can be infiltrated by enough of the other sort, the power-grabbing, axe-wielding, incompetent, vindictive morons who apparently lack the ability to understand and respond to the question which was actually asked, to affect their decisions ... that's when I lose faith in it.  When the incompetent can outvote the intelligent, we have a problem.  Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 06:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) This ArbCom seems to have been a victim of groupthink and group polarization, and has consequently made collective decisions far below the quality of the decisions made by its distinguished members (excluding AGK, JClemens, and Hersfold). A basic problem has been its repeated insistence on trying to solve problems that reflect basic disagreement in the community; consequently, too many of its decisions have lacked policy warrant. It would have been better for individual members to suggest peace-making compromises, such as the good-sense solutions offered by Mogism and ErrantX, which treat all parties with respect.
 * Another problem, also rooted in cognitive degeneration in group decisions, is the decision's scapegoating of Malleus, in cases that are presented to the community as having a wide scope, as having to do with Civility as a policy, and in which the community (naively) presented evidence on a range of problems with civility. This suggests dishonesty or stupidity.
 * The committee has not even mentioned editors with a long, documented history of distortion, disregard for the truth, and failure to correct their misstatements: Demiurge1000, Matthew Townshend, and MONGO. MONGO's lack of self control in recent times has made others judge him as a liar, where Demiurge1000 and Matthew Townshend's dishonesty is more insidious.
 * A problem with administrator Hersfold is his failure to recuse himself based on his familiar association with administrator Alexandria, who launched the first "civility enforcement" decision. He did not even note his past familiarities. In contrast, NewYorkBrad, Elen of the Roads, CasLiber alerted the community of past associations that may suggest difficulty in nonpartiality and disinterest. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  10:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Those who hold an opposing view

 * 1) They do a reasonable job for a bunch of humans. They're sometimes wrong. Meh. I'll be changing my vote wrt some members based on their performance. But, on the whole, I'm very grateful they're there, and appreciate their dedication. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Excitable. Charges of taking "a lazy route" from within a blanket call? Ceoil (talk) 11:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) No. Individual arbitrators or individual decisions made by the Committee may be incorrect, but the Committee has been delegated the power to act by the community (explicitly or implied through participation). As the Committee has not acted outside its jurisdiction in the use of the delegated power or attempted to subvert the democratic process for the selection of their replacements, I cannot support this straw poll.  MBisanz  talk 17:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Lets be blunt here. This entire thread is just thinly veiled whining because Malleus' incredibly poor attitude has finally caught up to him. There are things that need changing (and no, an arbCom hijack party won't improve things - not surprised to see Iblis rushing to spam it), and a couple arbs I think need to leave, but I can't support this specific argument simply because I do not find the premise of the complaint to be honestly presented. Resolute 18:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) No. I think Jclemens' remarks were well out of line, and it concerns me that he doesn't exactly see that. But wrt the rest of the committee, still no. --Rschen7754 18:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) My confidence has significantly waned over the past year, but it would be hyperbole to say I had none. <i style="color:#FF4500;">76</i> Strat String da Broke da (talk) 07:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) I see no evidence of a significant issue, beyond different viewpoints about a specific case. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) I happen to be in shock over the egregiously bad decision to propose a site ban in response to a request for a reconsideration of an extremely limited ban, in light of some observed unintended consequences, but I'm not going to let that one incident color my view that the committee largely does a decent job handing very difficult situations. (Technically, I don't hold the opposite view, whatever that might be, but I do not support a vote of no-confidence, so this is the right place for me.)-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  20:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Some arbitrators, yes. The committee? No. They (as a whole) have performed well over the last term, and a single incident in my mind does not cast a shadow over them as a collective group.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 23:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Unless you have a better idea about how to bring long-term disputes to an ultimate conclusion, then no. Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  23:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) This case has been a mess, but I still have confidence in the body as a whole.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  02:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) No. No, I can't endorse this. As embarrassing as it is to place a comment in the same section as User:Resolute's, I think RexxS conclusion (from the very good points he makes) is overkill. And, as others have asked, what would we get instead, that we could place more confidence in? Year by year, it gets harder to get sufficient numbers of qualified users to run for Arbcom. I'd be surprised if the upcoming election gives us much chance to vote for a better committee than the current one. Bishonen &#124; talk 13:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC).
 * Love ya too, Bish. . Resolute 14:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) I have no confidence in an arbitrator. I think the committee as a whole isn't doing a bad job, and some individual members are doing a damn good job. Ironholds (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) While I don't always agree in entirety with Arbcom decisions, I see no major problem or any pattern to cause concern. In the particular case triggering this, I think Malleus got what was long overdue. There is no place in Wikipedia for such persistent, blatant, unrepentant abuse and baiting of other editors. older ≠ wiser 14:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) "Malleus fatuorum" means "hammer of the fatuous". He behaved as if he believed it to be real rather than ironic (note: I have nothing personally against malleus, as far as I can recall, though no doubt someone can find some argument somewhere, and I did not follow or comment on the case as far as I recall). ArbCom did the needful, according to its views. Some people don't like it, please register coplaints via our customer service website www.boohoohoo.com. You can vote in different arbs next time round, perfect ones if you can find them (note: may require crystal ball). Guy (Help!) 15:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A more idiomatic, and more demonstrative of relevant intent, translation of that username is "Foolhammer". —chaos5023 (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Almost every arbitrator has said something, sometime that I've strongly disagreed with, or which I thought was plain stupid. And on a scant few occasions, I thought that the majority of the committee had gone nuts. The time to change them is called election. And there is one scheduled to happen pretty soon. Honestly, my experience is that if I set too high a standard for Arbs I vote for, there's nobody for whom I can vote. This no confidence motion is a waste of time. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Is arbcom perfect? Of course not. They do a nearly impossible job and do it to the best of their ability. Not every decision is spot on, but there are some good cases and there have been great arbs, just like there have been bad ones. The alternative is to have everything done by the community. That possibility scares me big time, even if it is farfetched.  Wizardman  02:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Whether he ever intended it or not, Malleus is not just another user. He is the poster child for the issue of what, if anything, to do about users who are excellent contributors of content and terrible at social interaction. It's no wonder ArbCom doesn't know what to do about him as nobody else does either. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) I think Jclemens made a disastrously bad comment, and in fact I support the idea of reforming Wikipedia's governance structure. But a no confidence !vote in the heat of the moment is not the way to do it. Arbcom do a hard job, and although I regularly disagree with them as individuals and a collective, they are a product of our system and heaping the blame on them is not acceptable. --Errant (chat!) 09:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) It genuinely pains me to be in this section, as I wholeheartedly endorse the sentiment behind this motion. If this motion is successful, however, it would leave us in a constitutional crisis, which is not a healthy position for the project. The election is only a few weeks away, and I urge those who want to see reforms to express their opinions during the election process or stand themselves.  HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  12:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) There are some fine arbs and some lousy arbs. Shouldn't throw out the baby(ies) with the bathwater. --Stfg (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Per three previous commentators, with especial emphasis on, I think Jclemens made a disastrously bad comment....There are some fine arbs and some lousy arbs. Shouldn't throw out the baby(ies) with the bathwater....If this motion is successful, however, it would leave us in a constitutional crisis, which is not a healthy position for the project...The election is only a few weeks away. St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 19:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose as an uncalled for response to an overblown situation. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Unless an arbitrator has commited a severe breach of integrity (such as being a sockpuppet, or using his or her position to gain an advantage in content disputes), or is otherwise disrupting the functioning of the committee, the arbitrator should be permitted to serve to the end of the election period which we are now nearing the end of. Removing arbitrators through regular elections is far less controversial, and generates less ill-will, than trying to impeach them. Sjakkalle (Check!)  19:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) This is stupid. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) How can we expect to function as a community if we are constantly throwing stones at our leaders? Automatic  Strikeout  17:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) Another attack on our maligned brothers and sisters in Arbcom! I have seen good arbcom members, and I have seen bad ones. I do feel though that, for the most part, the bad ones don't last more than a term or so... or find themselves out the back door due to other reasons. I feel that they were tremendously off target in the issue that brought this about, but that doesn't mean I feel that they aren't doing their jobs. Trusilver  21:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 13) ArbCom aren't perfect, but we're better off with them than without them. Robofish (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 14) Per Rschen7754, et al. Also noting that the job of an arb is not easy, and no one is going to be happy with everything done by ArbCom. KillerChihuahua ?!? 13:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 15) ArbCom isn't perfect but this proposal is silly. If you don't like an Arbs decisions don't vote for them next time. TRying to collapse the committee as a whole is not helpful-- Cailil   talk 21:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Commenting

 * 1) If they are got rid of, who will replace them? And will they be any better? Peridon (talk) 12:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Numbers – Black Kite pointed out that in the last 12 months the six Arbs voting to ban Malleus made a collective 983 edits to article space. During the same period Malleus made 9,291 edits. That says nothing about quality. Difficult to quantify, but it would be highly conservative to say that quality-wise at least 10 banning-Arb edits would be needed to equal one Malleus edit. In short, one Malleus is worth more to Wikipedia than over 100 banning-Arb groups, or over 600 individual banning-Arbs. How does it come about that this little group of banning-Arbs, of minuscule real value when it comes to building content, can wreak such havoc across the editing community? --Epipelagic (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. I propose we scrap Arbcom and elect Malleus the "High Chancellor".  He'll be directly under Jimbo in Wikipedia hierarchy.  In fact, Jimbo only made 131 article space edits in that period.  Clearly, Malleus is more responsible for Wikipedia's success than Jimbo.  Jimbo can be second to Malleus.  Glad we're clear on this.--v/r - TP 23:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, sarcasm is always a winning strategy. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with Jimbo. And Jimbo is not so silly that he would run around banning our top editors. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Jimbo has several controversial bans. Besides, top editor isn't in dispute.  Value to the project is.  I'm in full agreement that Malleus has done great work.  He's actually way more important around here than I certainly am (not being sarcastic this time, Boing!).  Let's, for the sake of argument, just put aside for a minute the question of whether he is a net positive or not.  Let's look at the effect he has had on splitting the community.  Is that beneficial to the project?  I'm not even saying it's his fault, I'm only asking if the split of the community that centers on him is helpful.  Can you answer that?--v/r - TP 01:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course I don't think splits are beneficial, but, since we are human beings they seem inevitable. Banning Malleas will create the worst of all splits. I can't assess how people are split around Malleus accurately, because I haven't seen anything quantifying it. The current arbitration deliberations contain comments from dozens of editors, and if you read them you will see that very few want Malleus banned. The arbitration committee has gone off on a tangent, and is doing that on their own initiative. I was merely pointing out above that the arbitrators implicated in the banning are ones with little experience in adding content to Wikipedia. In my view, that is not a group that should be making a decision like this. A larger number of Malleus detractors have turned up in this thread. We hear detractors assert that editors leave because of Malleus, but is that just something that Malleus detractors make up? I have seen many counter examples. Malleus can be unhelpful the way he uses certain words when provoked. But to respond by banning him is, to my mind, more unhelpful. Wikipedia should have some tolerance for the quirks of long term editors who have made major contributions, and find creative and skillful ways to work with the diversity. Ban Malleus and other major contributors will leave as well (as is already happening). --Epipelagic (talk) 02:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * So why then is the issue centered on him? I'm willing to accept "Because others poke to bear" at some point, but that point is going to be long after Malleus' supporters show evidence of attempts by Malleus to address the concerns of the community.  So why does it center on Malleus?  Are his supports willing to accept that he is central?  Do they have realistic proposals to address the issue?  I'm always impressed when someone is willing to give ground for the sake of honesty so I'm biting my tongue here on what I really want to say about Malleus because I see an opportunity here for some real discussion between us rather than the simple "I'm rights" without any substance above.--v/r - TP 17:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue is not just a Malleus issue, it is a core issue to do with the human condition itself. It is an issue that Wikipedia will never "resolve", but hopefully one that can be accommodated in a rational and functional way. This issue currently revolves around Malleus because it needs to revolve around something on Wikipedia, and Malleus is currently that something. But it is a universal issue: How do we handle the feeling that we have been insulted by what other people say or how they say it? It is not going to be resolved by rule makers who want to bolt everything down inside a civility guideline. I strongly recommend that anyone who is serious about accommodating the Malleus issue views this video. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Great link. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And this is why discussion on this subject is impossible. It's a basic inability of Wikipedians to judge their friends.  "It's not Malleus, it's WP:CIVIL."  Malleus has been the center of the attention, and he has asked for it, since I got here.  A real discussion of this issue is impossible when reality is so blatantly ignored.  How can you discuss with folks like that?--v/r - TP 03:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * TParis, you were silent on the malicious distortions, character assassination (e.g. smearing Lihaas), and insouciance of Demiurge1000 at my RfC/U. Perhaps you also have difficulty of judging your friends from IRC? (e.g. #wikipedia-en.20111130.txt). Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  11:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Except I'd never even heard of Demiurge1000 before your RFC. WormTT I knew fairly well and had a good impression of so if you want to make a counter argument, I'd suggest focusing on him.  Demiurge1000 have spoken briefly on IRC since that RFC but none of that is reflected in the chat log your link and I'm not sure what it's purpose is.  In fact, I don't say a single word in that entire chat log.  I would say that you and I are much more friends than Demiurge1000 and I ever have been.  And I can quote a recent example where I stood up for someone I was in a dispute with and disagree with politically.  I'm not even asking that anyone acknowledge that Malleus has done anything wrong, my question was if the issue is centered on him.  That question couldn't be answered without a diversion.  So how can discussion proceed?  I was specifically not trying to use combative techniques because I was trying to be collegial.  Epipelagic gave me the impression above that he was willing to discuss without dodging.  Let's not make a mistake though, Malleus and I have never truly run into each other.  I doubt he'd recognize me by name.  Our only interaction was a brief spade during Courcelles recall and I am pretty sure Malleus had other stresses that were affecting him at the time.  I've got no hand in the bucket, I've got friends on both sides.  What frustrates and disappoints me is not that we're discussing this issue, what frustrates me is how quickly the lines get drawn and folks stick to them.--v/r - TP 13:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You sound more like yourself today, TParis. I have complained about WTT's signing Demiurge1000's misrepresentations sufficiently, and I wish WTT well. If willing, WTT might be a good ArbCom member.  Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  13:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, well that's why I was on a break. I havent been myself lately.  I have been stressing over college.  CPU pipelining and cache addressing make me what to shoot myself (kidding).--v/r - TP 13:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't understand what you are getting at. Why is discussion "impossible", what reality is "blatantly ignored", and who are the "folks like that". Am I one of them? --Epipelagic (talk) 06:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Enforcing what some perceive as "incivility" impinges upon free expression and limits our freedom. This has nothing to do with Malleus.  If people were able to control their reactions, we wouldn't be having this discussion.  One can quite conceivably turn this around on the accusers whose response to Malleus has been to cry and whimper like children instead of to act like adults and shrug it off. Viriditas (talk) 05:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Shame all the effort made to defend Malleus on the basis of his edit count wasn't spent teaching him to behave in a mature and adult fashion instead. We're likely losing an editor. A decent one, but not one critical to the success of this project (none of us are).  Personally, I think his enablers should take a look in the mirror and ask themselves if they have acted correctly whenever Malleus' behaviour has become an issue. Resolute 01:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much exactly it. Expertly worded. Silver  seren C 01:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Much the same as we have with each successive Giano shitstorm, in fact. Some people seem almost top write good content solely in order to get away with behaving like adolescents everywhere else. Note, I did say seem. Guy (Help!) 15:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The fluency in colored metaphors, Giano shitstorm's, "the Malleus issue", and the undoubted others, is a sad detractor. AGF is extremely strained to imagine their inclusion is other than calculated! The only thing missing is a "fuck off" or two from Malleus; and it does suck when he resists entering the fray; lying in wait; seeing no profit! Gentle colleagues above, please correct your prose to reflect the manner of civil discourse you are promoting as collegial. Malleus, thank you for not appending your indignation with unambiguous candor. It is more befitting that we can highlight the editing utopia we can expect when our colleagues are left, who are so hoping to see MF gone. Exactly how far removed is debasing hypocrisy from a vulgarism? What right does one have to retaliate the former with insulting forms of the latter? And the vulgarities are irrefutably clear violations; while this snide, and baiting is always courteously veiled. Shame on Malleus for not being courteous enough to play by the rules and place the thin veil. Maybe the civility problems are bigger than a "Malleus thing" and maybe some of the things MF says ought also be, ought? <i style="color:#FF4500;">76</i> Strat String da Broke da (talk) 05:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Alternative/additional conclusion from the civility enforcement case: I have no confidence in arbitrator User:Jclemens.
Disclosure: Jclemens' conduct during this case is the point at issue, and I'm assuming that people who watch this page are aware of it; but I should disclose that I have raised similar questions about his suitability before. It seems to me that he's poorly grounded in his arbitrator role. (I know it's a difficult role, that he's a fine user in several other ways, etc.; it's not a condemnation of a whole person to suggest they're not suited for arbitrating disputes. Many of us aren't, such as me, for example.) During his previous term, I lodged some protests against his demeanour in the abortion case, specifically his statements about Orangemarlin, a seriously ill contributor who is no longer editing. I and others challenged JC over the same and related issues when he ran for re-election in 2011. Rather than comment on his style of argument at these links, I invite you to look for yourself. Please comment below, and by all means feel free to support or oppose either or both of RexxS' and my declarations, in any combination; I don't see that either of them preempts the other. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC).

Those who share this view

 * 1) I have no confidence in JClemens as an arbitrator. <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">pablo  20:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Clearly. I'm not keen on the committee as a whole now, and I think they're currently making a really rubbish decision, but I'm not quite to the point of endorsing the above motion. This one I wholeheartedly agree with. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Given Jclemens' behavior during the Orangemarlin situation, coupled with his behavior here in the Malleus issue - I must concur with Bishonen on this.  What strikes me most is that while Jclemens claims to cherish the pillars of our community - he fails to see that his behavior violates those very pillars he prattles on about.  The fact that a person can claim their own civility, while berating another editor is one of the most dishonest, deceitful, and hypocritical types of behavior I've seen here.  The inability to see things from a global perspective, to understand that civility is subjective, and the failure to comprehend and appreciate the devotion and intent of others reeks of ABF to the highest extreme.  Sadly the community has no recourse or ability to rectify such a distasteful situation.  —   Ched  ZILLA  02:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) I don't expect anything out of this. Obviously, the committee itself doesn't see anything wrong in hypocrisy, at best, one of them provided a gentle slap on the wrist, that two others agreed with. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  04:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Sadly, I have to agree with Bishonen, for the reasons stated. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) I have no confidence in JClemens as an arbitrator.--John (talk) 11:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) I have no confidence in JClemens as an arbitrator. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) I have no confidence in JClemens as an arbitrator. For the reasons outlined by Bishonen. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Clemens is history anyway, only days left as an Arbiter, and no chance of any further authority on this project, imo he has clearly lost the support of the community. User:Hersfold,. User:AGK don't have my support either - User:Penwhale seems wrongly positioned as a clerk also. You  really  can  17:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) I've thought about this for the last 24 hours, and I regretfully wind up here. The comment by itself would not have been enough to do it for me, had he apologized and it been a momentary lapse. But even a day later, he persists in what he said, and has only partially redacted his attack. He does not seem to understand the problems with what he said, or why there is an uproar, even though many arbitrators have quickly distanced themselves from his comments. Sure, it may have been a flaw in wording, but when he fails to recognize it or make satisfactory clarifications, that concerns me. What was the kicker for me was that he intends to run again in December. This seems to indicate to me that he thinks that he has a chance at being reelected at this point, which reflects how out of touch with the community he is. After this incident, there's significant concern the community will not be able to trust his judgment, cutting into his effectiveness as an arbitrator. --Rschen7754 19:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) I have no confidence in JClemens as an arbitrator. The "polite" yet shockingly incivil comments have led me unfortunately to follow the views of Bishonen on this matter. I have had friendly interactions with JClemens in the past, and he has been very helpful, which is why I have not commented (I believe, anywhere) until now, but I feel compelled to make this decision.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 23:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) Severe problems with judgment and sense of proportion. Carrite (talk) 02:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 13) I have no confidence in Jclemens as an arbitrator for the reasons outlined by Bishonen. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 14) I have no confidence in Jclemens as an arbitrator for the reasons outlined above as well this statement which he has just posted on this page. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Epipelagic, you may want to double check here, that comment is by User:Jtrainor. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Given the proximity of elections, this may be moot. However, having passively observed the tempest regarding MF, I don't think that Jclemens has a remotely realistic perspective on the events (I see a similar pattern in the older examples provided as well). As such, I have no confidence in Jclemens as an arbitrator. Should this fall through due to the upcoming elections, I'd think it prudent that he should not stand for re-election.  Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 12:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) No confidence. Ironholds (talk) 14:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) No confidence. Jclemens is probably one of the worst arbitrators in wikipedia history.--''  В и к и  T  17:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) I have no confidence in JClemens as an arbitrator. It took me a while to decide that this is what I wanted to do, but I am willing to face the political repercussions that come with this, if there are any, because I believe that ArbCom is in danger of losing legitimacy as a body so long as JClemes is associated with it, and in the long run, that's not a good thing for Wikipedia.   S ven M anguard   Wha?  21:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) I initially opposed JClemens, based on his initial support of publishing correspondence from a vulnerable user (before he came to his senses) and the numerous negative comments from other guide writers, but decided to give him another chance last election. I regret that JClemens's continued failure to acknowledge the consequences of his behavior---the consequences to productive editors, to the Wikipedia community, and to ArbCom as an institution deserving the good works of our most respected editors---has necessitated him to resign from ArbCom (and to serve Wikipedia elsewhere, as he has done before, with distinction). Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  10:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) High time this was made clear.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 10:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) I have no confidence in JClemens as an arbitrator, and I think he should be desysopped. Comments like that ar not merely superficial insults, as jibes like "spotty teenager" or even "dishonest twat" are; they are dehumanizing and in the nature of shunning, as editors have pointed out at JClemens' talk page. To undermine a volunteer's contribution like that is hateful, and it's like stealing their salary. --Stfg (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) No confidence, based on the statement currently at issue and also his interactions with other users more generally (which I've been watching for some time - although I'm sure he acts in good faith, is doing the best he can, etc, which is not the issue here). Arc de Ciel (talk) 01:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Much as I'm loathe to take time out of the mainspace for politics, Jclemens has shown that he is grossly unsuited to the position he holds. His excessive zeal in swinging the banhammer with little regard for whom it might hit or what the victim may contribute to Wikipedia is a danger to the project, as is his insertion of acrimony and personal grudges into arbitration proceedings. It is in nobody's best interests for him to remain an arbitrator.  HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  11:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) I have no confidence in JClemens as an arbitrator or administrator, and have not had any such confidence in a long time.  He has a shocking lack of judgment and a temperament unsuited to the posts he holds.  He goes out of his way to insult, belittle and ridicule editors with whom he disagrees both in edits and edit summaries, and is incapable of civil discussion with those whose views he opposes.  His conduct on the COI RFC, as just one example, evinced a concerted effort not merely to present a point of view, which is perfectly appropriate, but to actively block and preclude the community from reaching a consensus of any kind, conduct that is clearly inappropriate.  He is erratic, immature and foolish in his roles as administrator and arbitrator. This vote of no confidence is long overdue. Fladrif (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) I do not have confidence in JClemens as an arbitrator or admin, and I have held this view for quite some time.  I could pick any number of reasons for this.  He has a long habit of making hostile and prejudicial comments to parties before Arbcom - at one point he besmirched the child raising skills of a petitioner's parents.  He demands civility from others, but in a recent content dispute he openly questioned his opponent's mental health.  He tried to force a Citizens United-type decision on the community during the conflict of interest RFC.  He framed the transcendental meditation 2 decision in terms of religious persecution, a caricature that even the TM cheerleading squad rejected.  The matter at hand appears to be quite similar to Orangemarlin's indef block- when the rest of the committee hesitated to swing the banhammer, JClemens stepped in to make inflammatory comments in an apparent attempt to bait a volatile editor into providing blockable statements.  I call on arbcom to expel JClemens, using their ability to remove an arbitrator by a two-thirds vote.  Otherwise they are complicit in a long-term pattern of bullying and misconduct by one of their own.  Skinwalker (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) The list of problematic behaviour seems to be growing daily and now goes way beyond the initial concerns. I note a further example that had occurred even in the midst of this furore. (The edits in that diff were largely then redacted by - see here). - Sitush (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 13) I tried to stay out of these, since as a former arb, I know how tough the daily grind can be, and there are going to be mistakes. I've never been a fan of Jclemens as an arb, but have nonetheless found him passable, at least compared to how they were in 2008. After the diff Sitush posted above, I've lost any remaining respect for him. The fact that he wants to run again tells me he doesn't get it. Is he the worst arb we've had since the 2008 exodus? Yes, and I hate to be someone who jumps on since I tend to agree with him on many of his calls. It's not about agreeing or disagreeing though, but about how one handles himself. Clearly, if he actually knew what was best for Wikipedia, he would resign without needing to be expelled or not re-elected. I have no confidence in Jclemens, period. Wizardman  15:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 14) I've thought long and hard about this, and this is where my comments fall. The "Not a Wikipedian" comment troubles me - the only way that someone ceases to be a member of the Wikipedia community (that I've noted anywhere) is if they're site banned. Misstepping from time to time is fine, we are all human, but members of the Arbitration Committee should take care in their interactions with the community, and think about the impact of what they say or do before they act. He didn't think things through in this situation, which alone is fine, as we all makle mistakes, but he has failed to acknowledge this as a mistake or err in judgment, even when pulled up on it by fellow members of the Committee, and by the community. Admitting one's mistakes is a minimum standard that I expect from everyone. As a result of his actions, combined with lack of apology, I unfortunately have no confidence in Jclemens as an arbitrator. Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 01:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 15) I have no confidence in Jclemens as an Arbitrator, or in any othe positionof responsibility,and have not had since this exceedingly strange comment. Rich Farmbrough, 22:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC).


 * 1) I have no confidence in JClemens as an arbitrator. the wub  "?!"  12:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2)  OhanaUnited  Talk page  19:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) I have no confidence in JClemens as an arbitrator. --Surturz (talk) 13:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) I have no confidence in JClemens as an arbitrator. I do not disagree with all of his rulings, but this is not about that. It is about behavior expected of an arbitrator. I doubt anything will come of this; the election is near and we shall see then. But hopefully this is at least a wakeup call for JClemens that his approach is met with significant concern; I hope he takes this to heart rather than blowing it off as he seems to have done with previous statements of concern fro the community. KillerChihuahua ?!? 14:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Those who hold the opposite view

 * 1) I have disagreed with JClemens, but I see no value in exaggerating our differences to a tenuous end. JClemens and Malleus Fatuorum have one thing in common; neither is a net negative, and any campaign to assess either in such a light is equally as wrong as it would be for the other. IMO <i style="color:#FF4500;">76</i> Strat String da Broke da (talk) 07:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome to voice your opinion, but you might read my post a little more attentively before you take issue with it on the ground that Jclemens isn't a "net negative". I said specifically that JC was a problem as an arb and not otherwise as a user. I was far from assessing him in the light of a net negative. Bishonen &#124; talk 10:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC).
 * I did read your post and I agree that your regards were clear. Mine were considerably less clear and I apologize to the extent they appear directed against you. I do not wish to direct anything against anyone except perhaps the love of God. I've stricken the part of my post that confused the ground of my stand. I'll simply stand this ground finding it comfortable. <i style="color:#FF4500;">76</i> Strat String da Broke da (talk) 12:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) I fail to see the issue. And from which you linked to, I see nothing. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Elections of ArbCom members exists for a reason. If you don't like them, stop voting for them and they won't be on the Committee. Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  23:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) I don't agree with everything Jclemens has ever said, but that's neither here nor there. That's the reason we have multiple arbitrators - they reflect a breadth of opinions that at various times, we may agree or disagree with. All of us can decide to vote for him or not vote for him again pretty soon. Beyond that, I don't see anything in his *conduct* that would be so egregious as to warrant an explicit expression of no confidence. I would have phrased his recent comment rather differently, but the idea that someone who routinely ignores one of our five pillars cannot continue to be a normal member of the community is not outlandish (I have no opinion on whether or not that is the case in the current situation). Martinp (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) I have confidence that JClemens was duly elected to ArbCom following community procedures. I have confidence that he acts in good faith and puts time and energy into reviewing cases. I concur that he has repeatedly taken a reasonable concept and expressed it in strikingly poor, tone-deaf phrasing. When I have personally achieved perfection I shall strike these comments and condemn him for his human imperfections, but in the meantime I'm grateful for his efforts. I have not only confidence but absolutely certainly that this past couple weeks has seen entirely too many lynch mobs on Wikipedia and it would be best if the content creators went back to creating content and the gnomes went back to their little gnomish tasks. Nobody Ent 01:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Enough "shooting of piano players" - and I am aghast that some members of ArbCom seem to be willing to play along with this strange and useless "no confidence" stew.  Their words are corrosive to any future for the committee as being collaborative instead of being intrinsically "partisan."  They well ought to back each other as being reasonable folks, and not let this silly exercise continue - the issues are real, and have absolutely nothing to do with "confidence" in anyone, but with genuine and sincere discussion of whether the "Five Pillars" are actually of any value at this point. Collect (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) JClemens recused from the current case request I initiated, so I think it's ok for me to comment here.  I think he could have phrased his comment in the Malleus finding better, but otherwise I think he is doing a competent job as an arbitrator. Cla68 (talk) 05:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) While I think we can all agree that the wording could have indeed been better. Or more clear, at least, the meaning behind Jclemen's statement is something I entirely agree with. If you aren't going to follow the rules of Wikipedia (especially the five pillars), then you can't consider yourself a member of the Wikipedian community.  Silver  seren C 17:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) If anything about this situation bothers me, it isn't the comments he made, rather the number of people willing to blindly jump on the "ScrewJClemens" bandwagon. This is beyond a tempest in a teacup. We have so many swooning about the alleged insult of telling someone that they aren't a wikipedian, we forget that this all stemmed from a response to an editor that doesn't even attempt to be civil. If this reaction is what makes one a Wikipedian.......  Niteshift36 (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) I see three possible things which people might object to in JClemens' behavior. First, that he holds to the principle that no editor's contributions are so valuable that incorrigibly bad behavior on their part cannot cause them to be banned, second, the means by which he expressed that principle, and third, the manner in which he applied that principle by voting to ban Malleus. I fully support him on the principle and neither agree nor disagree with him on its application in this particular case for reasons which I will get to in a moment. As to the means by which he expressed it, I find JClemens' statements in this edit very enlightening as to his actual position and understand the references in that, and in the edits which go before and after it, to mean that by "thought experiment" he means that the whole "not a Wikipedian" thing to be a metaphor for an editor who has attitudes or habits which are so inappropriate and incorrigible as to make his continued presence far more of a liability than a benefit to the encyclopedia and that such an editor has by his or her incorrigibility symbolically put himself or herself outside the accepted bounds of Wikipedia society and, thus again symbolically has caused himself or herself to no longer be a member of that society. While I'm convinced that he did not mean his comments to be read literally, I'm not at all certain whether what he did say was the result of careless wording, an arrogant or tunnel-visioned failure to appreciate that others might not perceive that what he was saying was a metaphor, or a knowing intent to slam or shock. Whatever the motive, the language was in my opinion intemperate and objectionable for that reason, but that is all that it was. He deserved to be admonished for it (and I consider what has happened since to be more than enough of an admonishment) and it certainly is something which can be taken into consideration in his reelection bid, but I do not consider it to be enough to support a "no confidence" resolution against a sitting member. Coming back to the application of the principle, the reason we have an arbitration committee is to make those kinds of evaluations and decisions. Unless we choose to do away with it and start making those decisions as a community, we need to cut those who serve on the committee a ton of slack. Their individual actions can and should, of course, be properly considered in deciding whether or not to keep or reform the committee, but they should not come under this kind of scrutiny as individuals or as administrators for their votes. The degree of Malleus' faults was a matter upon which reasonable people could disagree (and did, with the ban vote being 6-5); that's enough to immunize JClemens from any criticism for that vote, in my opinion, whether I myself would have voted in the same way or not had I been in his shoes. In sum, he deserved (and has received) a wrist-slap for the way he expressed his "thought experiment" but deserved no criticism for his vote or his principle. Regards,  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)  Supplement: I had not read through the comments on JClemens' user talk page and in this edit pointed out above by Sitush before posting as I did above. Having now done so I'm now even more convinced that my analysis is correct, that JC meant this to be a metaphor intended to stimulate discussion, did not mean it to be a personal attack against Malleus (i.e. as a claim that Malleus never contributed anything worthwhile to WP), and when he finally realized that it might be read that way he redacted and modified it to avoid that implication. While an apology in addition to that would have been a nice additional touch, I believe that the insult was clearly unintended and the admission that he didn't mean it that way and the subsequent redaction and modification were all that were needed to cure that mistake. —  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) I wasn't going to vote in the ArbCom elections, but I may now do so to vote for JC, and against the "Party".  I don't think JC has expressed himself well, but (this is about MF) MF has done more damage to Wikipedia by harassing new editors who could have been productive (in fact, they were productive, but MF found some (objectively questionable) rule violation and slammed them) than good by his mainspace edits.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) I do not consider that Jclemens's thoughtcrime in this matter rises to the prosecutable level. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) I have total confidence in Jclemens as an arbitrator.  Automatic  Strikeout  17:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 13) I think Jclemens could have been kinder, and I suggested an adaptation/modification which he then partly used and thanked me. I think I am correct if Jclemens doesn't mind me putting words in his mouth, that the gist of his comment is that the 5 pillars are of paramount importance and thaty when someone repeatedly, consciously and deliberately has decided that any one of the 5 pillars doesn't apply to them, then they are no longer part of the community. All society has set rules and boundaries that while often tested and adapated to a degree, are in essence core principles that bind the society together. Allowing one person to set their own standards but asking others to still abide by the old standards simply brings collapse to that society.--MONGO 04:58, 22 October 2012 (UTC) (moved from comments below MONGO 18:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC))
 * 14) Clemen's wording was poor, but the thrust of what he was saying (Civility is part of the intrinsic deal of Wikipedia) is a perfectly reasonable position. It seems a litle hypocritical for folk to be searing with rage at his words, while being so tolerant of far more ungracious and routine incivility elsewhere. I'm left thinking this is a bit of a deliberate (?) diversion. Either one is against incivility and rough talk, or one thinks people should be thick skinned. You really can't have it both ways.--Scott Mac 18:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 15) While Jclemens statement could have been more tactful, I have to agree with the gist of the sentiment: Civility is important to the project, and we disregard it at our own peril. Kaldari (talk) 03:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 16) We need more arbitrators like Jclemens. Robofish (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Other comments

 * I really have to think about this one. I think Jclemens' comments were unacceptable. However, I'm not sure they rise to the level of asking him to resign. And I don't see myself as the type of person who goes around asking for people's heads on a platter; the only other Arb I've asked for the resignation of was FT2 (and he resigned under the pressure of a lot of others). --Rschen7754 19:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Moving to support. --Rschen7754 19:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) While I believe Jclemen's view have gone far far beyond those of the community, even in light of my own outlier views of Arbitration should be handled (that is, a presumption in favor of harsher and broader sanctions as compared to narrow or tailor actions, that those sanctioned should be required to admit fault and apologize prior to sanctions, that those being sanctioned do not have a right to due process, etc.), I would prefer to see this sort of complaint handled at RFC (I say this knowing there are at least two people who would certify, so I don't think there are any procedural hurdles) to permit more finely calibrated opinions to be formulated and also to permit the greater of entry of evidence to support various positions.  MBisanz  talk 19:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that procedurally, that may be a good way of moving forward; seriously, one could put the diff, link to Jclemens' talk page and the arb page, and that would be the entirety of the filing but... I'm concerned about Jclemens being forced to resign solely because of the RFC being filed, due to the mob (in other words, I don't want to see the RFC hijacked or out of control). --Rschen7754 21:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) I've given this significant thought and frankly there are very good points on both sides here. I tend to agree with Kaldari above Jclemens's comment was not tactful, but for me that means as an Arb it was not an appropriate comment at all. Does an inappropriate remark warrant resignation/recall - maybe. In the context of past issues IMHO it warrants a cold, calm examination - but does it warrant this level of hysteria and ad hominem - no. The point that Jclemens was trying to make was that Maleus's conduct is/was at variance from the non-negotiable aspects of this site. He's right but he seems to have forgotten that his remark is/was equally out of sync with those policies. Now in that situation it doesn't make sense for the community to criticize someone for being polite yet incivil by doing the same thing ourselves (see Floquenbeam's block notice). I have a lot of respect for many of the editors above calling for Jclemens removal and I agree above with MBisanz, let's put Jclemens civility before RFC. Having said that it shouldn't be used to remove him from ArbCom - the RFC should be a space for the community to remind him that some of his commentry has been 'off'. As an elected official Jclemens should be removed by the ballot box not the lynch mob. It's better for us as a community to do it the right way, reflecting the aspirations of our policy documents not paying further lip-service them while in fact doing the opposite-- Cailil  talk 16:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

We have an election coming up
Without commenting pro or con on this thread (for multiple obvious reasons), I'll simply remind everyone that we have an arbitrator election process starting in less than a month. A majority of the current arbitrators (8 out of 15) will either be submitting themselves to the community for an evaluation of their service, or leaving the Committee at the end of the year, or in some cases maybe both. The election provides a good opportunity for editors to express their "confidence" or lack of confidence not just in the Committee as a whole but in its individual members, to an extent that doesn't really happen with any other group of editors. I'm sure that many of those reading here will take that opportunity.

Just as important: over the next few weeks, please consider what types of editors, and what specific editors, you believe might make good arbitrators, and consider asking them to run. Some of our best arbitrators over the past few years have come from the ranks of the Committee's critics. I hope that some of this year's critics will run for election and, if elected, add their own voices within the Committee, just as I hope to see some candidacies from editors who think our work has been generally sound. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Why have this election? Why should the community open itself to getting burned again. The current arbitration committee has done massive and probably permanent damage to Wikipedia. Why should we reelect it? --Epipelagic (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * All perfectly true, but this contained a personal attack, which has since been only partially retracted. Are committee members to be excused from adhering to WP:NPA by virtue of the fact that they can be denied reelection? Rivertorch (talk) 04:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, this seems rather like the "Super Mario Problem" that was discussed in the TimidGuy RFAr, in which some arbs were concerned there was a tendency for a misbehaving admin to get no worse than a desysopping. Given the refusal to do anything at all about Jclemens's constant misbehaviour, it seems Arbs are "Invincible Mario", unable to be sanctioned with any number of hits until their Starman runs out. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no personal attack there. You don't like what he says, but it doesn't make it a personal attack. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There could be plenty of debate over whether Jclemens's one remark constitutes a personal attack. However, the pitchfork-waving mob doesn't seem to care that MF has been getting away with personal attacks for forever and his posse will support him regardless of what he does. Automatic  Strikeout  17:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Pitchfork-waving mob", "peanut gallery" (that was MONGO). Oh well, this pitchfork-waving mobster does care about that, and I'm irritated that my and other people's censure of one is being painted as support for the other. Besides, the just concluded event was a request for clarification of procedure, not a new civility case, wasn't it? And now that we have the new disposition about that, isn't it maybe time to move on? --Stfg (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's time to move on, why are people still going after Jclemens? Automatic  Strikeout  18:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether you consider it a personal attack (personally, I would say that lumping a hugely succesful content editor in with vandals is one), it certainly displays an attitude towards that editor which means that Jclemens should recuse from this case. Black Kite (talk) 14:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The example of vandals etc are people who continuously and consistently ignore other pillars. From what I can see, Jclemens point is that editors, such as vandals and those who abuse copyright, who consistently and flagrantly disregard pillars, are shown the door. A consistent disregard for the fourth pillar is not treated differently (or should not be at least). IRWolfie- (talk) 15:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the violation of 5P being a special case is a fictional construct. We have huge amounts of people editing here who violate NPOV in the majority of their edits (indeed, we have editors for whom that is their whole raison d'etre). We have people editing here (including some well-known editors) who have massive amounts of copyright violations to their name. We have people editing here who routinely violate our non-free policies. Very rarely are they banned, and usually only when their entire contributions are a negative. Using 5P to justify a ban in this case won't fly. Black Kite (talk) 15:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The existence of SPA POV pushers and other editors who shouldn't be here isn't really an argument to not take action. POV pushers are blocked when they consistently POV push against consensus, just look at WP:ARE. When the issues are raised, the SPA POV pushers get blocked or topic banned (which is a de facto block in many cases). Alternatively, if the editors work to address concerns then the issues go away. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we all know that POV pushers are rarely banned. Meanwhile, the fact that certain editors seem to want to impose their own civility morals on people whilst many others don't see a huge problem is evidence that the civility pillar is useless as it stands, because it depends on people's own opinions of what civility actually is. Black Kite (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * (edit conflicts) You're right, IRWolfie, that I don't like what he says, but that's not what makes it a personal attack. The problem part is the blanket statement that MF is "not . . . a member of the community", which relegates a valued longtime editor to the status of non-entity, non-Wikipedian, Other. That strikes me as just about the worst thing one can say about a fellow editor around here. It's far, far worse than namecalling or telling people to go fuck themselves or lots of other petty insults that routinely result in warnings, blocks, and ANI complaints. It is invective. The likening of MF to a vandal/POV-pusher/self-promoter/copyright violator is unfortunate, since it conveniently ignores the most critical of distinctions—that MF is helping build an encyclopedia, while those others are hindering that—but I don't see that part as a personal attack, only a compounding of the attack that preceded it. We can legitimately differ on all of the above, of course, personal attacks being somewhat subjective. Still, I'd say that Jclemens's remarks were unnecessarily provocative and hurtful and of a type that any editor could rightly be called out for. That an Arbcom election is imminent is really quite beside the point, and that was my point: deeply suboptimal behavior shouldn't depend on the happenstance of an election to be addressed. Rivertorch (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * NYB: "You will be assimilated." :) :) Obviously some are more revolutionary than that. Down with elections; long live >>placeholder for something someone will come up with shortly<<. Should we say "consensus"? that's so wiki-like. Democracy is the worst form of government, except for uhh, hrm, what? Tijfo098 (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The Piano Player
I recall the famed sign "Please Don't Shoot the Piano Player - He's Doing the Best He Can".

This whole page is full of "piano-player attempted assassinations" <g>.

The folks at ArbCom are doing the best they can, and this idea of telling them we have "no confidence" in them is a pretty silly way of trying to make sure that we get people there who represent all the elements of Wikipedia. Do we really want folks there who will always support "good guys" and always oppose "bad guys" as any group sees them? Do we really want folks who will always be in accord on the issues any specific group favours?

The whole bit about Jclemens using a term, and explaining his use of the term, is purely sideshow here. And the use of "I don't like the guy" comments does not help ArbCom in the short run nor in the long run. What it is, is simple politicking at this point, not substantive discussion.

What should be discussed are the inherent issues facing ArbCom - including, indeed, how strongly the pillars are viewed and whether they have become obsolete "feel-good" scripture for an evolving project. Whether BLP has been over or under ephasized as strong policy. Whether NPOV is attainable during sprited debates about people or groups - including religious, economic, national and social groups, among others. Whether "civility" is like pornography something which "I know when I see it" or whether it is intrinsically impossible to define precisely except by the court's vague "community standards." Whether copyright is an out-dated concept (alsong with intellectual property rights in general) or whether Wikipedia must follow the laws as best it can, whether editors like them or not.

Plenty of "real issues" and I, as a lone voice it seems, feel that dealing with issues is better than this piano-player shooting exercise. Collect (talk) 11:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * All fair points, but atm, the piano players are under fire, and so such discussion(s) are unlikely in the current environment, as you note. - jc37 17:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Other lonely people who agree:
 * 1) I think I agree with everything in this statement to an extreme level.  MBisanz  talk 00:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Duh, duh-duh, duh-duh. Manning (talk) 01:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Call me "Eleanor Rigby". <i style="color:#FF4500;">76</i> Strat String da Broke da (talk) 01:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Another example of The Twelfth of Never... - jc37 01:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Arbcom is a group. It isn't a single person....but I have seen more than enough from individuals associated with this group to feel they (as a group) are the problem and not the solution. Things need serious change and it needs to start here.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Things are going to change. We have an election soon. Problem solved? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect to my valued colleague, the problem with civility enforcement is that it's only practical to get at superficial and obvious incivility such as swear words. But there are others who get their digs in while remaining superficially civil. Now, I know that a constructive editor such as yourself would never think of doing something like that.<g> Still, let's do keep this little point in mind going forward, shall we? Cheers. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

5. Yes. If one does not like the 'system' than propose changes to the process, but when the Arbs are making decsions, it just too late, and too useless to argue vociferously "I would have decided that differently." Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Amendment request: BASC: Iantresman 2
Initiated by  Iantresman (talk) at 00:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Case affected : BASC: Iantresman referring to CSN:iantresman


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Result of Appeal to BASC: "Iantresman is topic banned indefinitely from editing any articles or its associated talk pages related to fringe science and physics-related subjects, broadly defined."


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)


 * Information about amendment request


 * Previous Amendment request: BASC (Iantresman) (unsuccessful)


 * Request: Topic ban lifted

Statement by iantresman
Further to my previous 22 March 2012 Amendment request: BASC (Iantresman), it was suggested that I "produce some audited content and review at a later date". Having done so, I would be grateful if my request could be reconsidered. Since then: ____
 * 1) With the help of several other editors, including arbitrator Casliber, the article Bradwall has now reached Good Article status. I believe that I have made substantial contributions to the article since Nov 2011., including creating about half a dozen original photos and illustrations
 * 2) Since my previous amendment request, (a) my total edits has more than doubled from 6,000 to over 16,000 (b) the number of new article I have created has more than doubled from about 32 to 85 (c) the number of original new images contributed has increased from about 72 to over 110
 * @Casliber: Thanks again for your help. I think the wording of the requirements was slightly ambiguous. I still maintain that ALL edits are audited by all editors, and you can't contribute over 10,000 edits without them being noticed, so I've had new articles subjected to speedy deletion (all rescued). In addition to helping get Bradwall to GA status, I have also been working towards GA on Lobster (magazine) (awaiting review), Elementary algebra (quick failed, but for which I was awarded a barnstar), and the Cerne Abbas Giant (not yet submitted). My contributions to all of these demonstrates that I can take part in the process without any problems whatsoever, as I did in the past helping to get, for example, Plasma (physics) to GA status, a topic from which I am currently banned. --Iantresman (talk) 09:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @Newyorkbrad: Yes, I plan to return to editing those topics from which I was banned. Obviously I plan to be more circumspect with my editing, with more discussion before making edits. I don't envisage the same maelstrom occuring, the main editor I clashed with, is no longer editing, and my last 10,000 edits were without significant problem. I also plan on inviting subject project editors to collaborate on some issues. --Iantresman (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Re: Motion regarding Iantresman (1RR): Obviously I'd prefer not to have 1RR, but it is certainly better than 0RR, and under the circumstances, I would understand it and accept it. I'd appreciate some clarifications (not that I am planning to game the system, but to ensure I don't inadvertently cause more problems) (a) Do the 3RR exemptions apply to 1RR? (b) 1RR means, for example that if I make and edit, and another editor reverts, I could potentially revert to my first edit, perhaps because I offer a better citation? (c) Even if I persuade all other editors that I might have been correct, and have their permission, I still can't make a 2nd revert, and someone else would have to carry this out for me? --Iantresman (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @AGK: Thanks for the clarification. One more, (just trying to pre-empt any accidents). Are 1RR and 3RR identified automatically by a bot, or by individuals? If the former, I can go and check it for details. I am still a little worried that a group effort on one paragraph could result in the inadvertent triggering of a 1RR violation, but obviously it just means extra care. --Iantresman (talk) 09:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @Newyorkbrad: Thank you for detailing your concerns. Of course I intend to edit in good faith, and promise to adhere to policy in all areas. But we all know that it doesn't matter what I say, there is only one way to find out whether I can edit successfully in a particular subject area (just being realistic).


 * Just so that there is no suggestion of me saying anything to save myself, let's see whether I can shoot myself in the foot. I am a bit perplexed about the comments on not succeeding to edit catastrophism within policy in the past (unless I've misunderstood). I can find only two edits of mine in the whole article (both dated 13 July 2007), and assume you are referring to my first edit to remove two category tags, which received this strong warning stating that it "violates the terms of your probation against "aggressive biased editing". As I mentioned in my edit summary and user Bladestorm discovered in my CSN (1) one of the categories I removed did not exist (that's a good edit, isn't it?) (2) the other category, I removed because I felt it was misleading: (a) there was nothing in the article explaining why the subject had the category tag, (b) I wasn't aware of any sources that described it as such, (c) the person who added it offered no rational (d) subsequent editors also removed the tag twice.


 * So with the utmost respect, have I misunderstood the catastrophism policy concerns? Or if my highlighted edit was considered the problem, having looked at the original diffs and explanation, was the warning justified? I was community banned the next day. --Iantresman (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * @Newyorkbrad: Thanks again for your clarification. I do not dispute that I have had problems with my editing, and I don't want to come across as argumentative. But on the subjects of catastrophism and Velikovsky, I genuinely seek specific examples so I can understand the concerns, and then learn from my mistakes. My edits to the article on Velikovsky, all seem OK to me, with no overstating of the facts. In my RfArb/Pseudoscience, Velikovsky is mentioned twice, but never as a criticism of my editing. The Evidence page includes mentions of catastrophism and Velikovsky from one editor; I absolutely refute the notion that I "support Velikovskian pseudoscience" and none of the diffs supplied either support the accusations, and none are article edits. Only one article edit diff is supplied supporting the statement that I "started out at Wikipedia by editting Immanuel Velikovsky [127]", which shows that I added a date and some links, and the subsequent complaints regarding articles like Big Bang, show no inappropriate article edits by me.


 * Hopefully I have been able to alleviate your concerns in the areas of catastrophism and velikovsky. There will obviously be edits I have made in these subject areas that have probably been changed by other editors, but I am genuinely having a problem finding edits in these subject areas that are not only inappropriate, but aggressively and unreasonably pushed by me. --Iantresman (talk) 23:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * @IRWolfie: Are you suggesting that myself and other editors should not waste their time on lesser editing task? I shall think twice before looking at, for example, the monthly Category needed page, where I thought that in addition to regularly editing, I should attempt some of the more mundane and monotonous tasks. I hope that no-one knocks you down because 20% of your edits were the "wrong type", but instead they say that in addition to your x-thousand regular edits, you also did 20% of the more tedious edits. By the way, the page history shows that you made 7 consecutive edits to make up your one post. I am happy to defend your editing style, and promise that I won't out you. There's no place like Gnome ;-) --Iantresman (talk) 00:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * @IRWolfie: I have no idea how to add a category tag to a dozen articles with just one edit. But I am proud to stand tall as a WikiGnome. Please note that "WikiGnomes nevertheless still need to be told from time to time that their work is valued" --Iantresman (talk) 11:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * @IRWolfie: When there are all manner of distractions throughout the day, the phone ringing, emails to answers, people to interact with, multiple windows open, multiple Browser tabs open, the chance of accidentally closing your Browser, crashing, losing your place, researching multiple sources, etc, I know what when an edit is saved, it is committed, and know I can safely move on. I am very sorry that you consider what works for me to be spurious, and needs to be trivialized.--Iantresman (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * @Casliber: You're a hard taskmaster ;-) I don't think that anyone here wants to see me return with yet another amendendment request, I am sure we would all rather be editing, so here is what I suggest. Even though it looks like I might get consensus to have my topic ban lifted anyway, how about amending the motion:
 * The topic ban placed against Iantresman (talk · contribs) as a condition of unblocking in [21] is hereby lifted, subject to Cerne Abbas Giant reaching Good Article status.
 * Even if other editors vote in my favour without requiring this condition, I will still edit as if though the condition was required. --Iantresman (talk) 11:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * @Newyorkbrad, SirFozzie, & Courcelles: You have all highlighted concerns specifically in the topic areas of catastrophism and Velikovsky, but I am having difficulty finding the problematic article edits in order to learn from them, and not make the same mistakes again.


 * I have looked over my edits in the articles catastrophism and Velikovsky, and other subjects. I have looked for article edit diffs in my RFAR/Pseudoscience Finding of Fact and even the Evidence page. I have looked over my Community Ban, and I have nothing in my block log on these subjects. I have already asked Newyorkbrad for examples, above.


 * Gentlemen, my editing privileges were take away from me for 5 years, and have been reduced for the last year. It does not seem unfair and unreasonable then, that if there are concerns in the topic areas of catastrophism and Velikovsky, that I am pointed to the example problematic article editing diffs in order to review them. The impression I get is that these should be numerous, aggressive, repetitive, and unreasonable (and documented in previous dispute resolutions). Help me, please. --Iantresman (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * @Clerk: Thanks to everyone involved, even those that opposed but provided useful comments. Before closing, I hope the Clerk would be kind enough to give Newyorkbrad, SirFozzie, & Courcelles time to reply to my previous post, so that I may review specific examples of their concerns, and learn from my mistakes, and not just "dive back into the maelstrom". --Iantresman (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Statement by My76Strat
The merits of this request favor amending the sanction towards an ultimate restoration of unrestricted editing privileges. I suggest allowing iantresman to resume editing pages restricted by the topic ban while being held to a 1RR for a defined period, perhaps four to six months. Although I'd prefer this interim step, I wouldn't oppose a decision that removed all restrictions.

Statement by IRWolfie-
@Newyorkbrad, I would disagree that many of the edits are unproblematic when you say "Iantresman has edited without problems in other area". the editing strategy Iantresman has adopted looks like one where very little is done in each edit to achieve the maximum edit count: it is designed to maximise the appearance of making lots of edits while doing trivial things like adding single names to lists, or mass adding categories. Many of his edits look like adding categories, or updating numbers. This edit to a fringe topic: is actually 102 of his edits. This addition is just of a list of contributors, 48 edits. Adding some categories, 10 edits. Thousands of his edits are massing adding categories, see some in Nearly all of his edits in the last year have been without interacting with editors and have been wikignoming. Here is actually 72 of the edits. In December 2011 he made nearly 3000 edits, here are 775 of those edits. 775 edits just making wikilinks. It took the editor 517 edits in 5 days to go from to make this article:  (almost every single film etc was added one at a time). The editor has not demonstrated that he can edit beyond wikignoming, let alone interact with other editors in controversial topics.IRWolfie- (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

@Iantresman, No. I'm suggesting that when you wikignome, don't make a task that requires only 5 edits turn into 500. If you are only interested in wikignoming, why do you need the topic ban to be overturned? IRWolfie- (talk) 11:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

@Iantresman. Read what I said, you have a spuriously high edit count for trivial things like adding wikilinks one at a time to an article rather than doing it on mass: is 775 edits just adding wikilinks to the same article. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I guess we should have specified "some audited content" a bit more, but to be more proscriptive seemed to me at the time to be overkill. That said, my idea was that it'd be a more substantial body of work. I think working on Bradwall was a big step in the right direction and I see some work on Cerne Abbas Giant. The former article I think would be tricky to get to FA unless some more content were forthcoming, but the latter is definitely feasible. The initial idea was a substantial body, so see here and scroll up for Jayjg's initial body of work which resulted in the committee lifting restrictions. So maybe not as much as that, but I think some more material would be great. I am happy to give some feedback for a GA push on the giant, a really wonderful landmark in southwestern England. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Repeating my comments from last time: "It seems the original ban was in July 2007. It was a community ban for POV pushing in pseudoscience topics after having been placed on Probation in Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. He was unblocked after an appeal six months ago, on condition he refrained from editing fringe science and physics-related subjects, and informed he could appeal that topic ban after six months. Provided he has met the conditions, and nobody provides any evidence of wrong doing in the past six months, then I would agree to the appeal. It would be fair to warn Iantresman that if he is found once again engaging in POV pushing the community are likely to ban him, and after being twice bitten, it would be much more difficult to get unblocked."
 * Iantresman is running a risk by asking to go back into an area that resulted in a site ban, and which if he causes problems again will likely result in another site ban, from which a second return would be much harder; but if he feels he can enter that area without causing problems, and has calmly accepted four GA fails on the same article, taking the fail comments on board to go back and improve the article to a pass standard, then it seems fair and appropriate to give him that opportunity.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  12:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Waiting for more opinions from the community, but I'm inclined to grant this, probably with a probationary 1RR as My76Strat suggests just to ensure there are no difficulties - something along the lines of "The topic ban placed against Iantresman as a condition of unblocking in September 2011 is hereby lifted. In its place, Iantresman is subject to a standard 1RR restriction on all articles covering fringe science- and physics-related topics, broadly construed, for six months. This restriction may be enforced by escalating blocks up to and including one month in length, and up to and including indefinite length after the fifth such block. After each block is lifted or expires, the six-month period shall reset. Additionally, the original topic ban shall be reinstated if Iantresman is subjected to an indefinite block as a result of this restriction." <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 22:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * My76Strat's suggestion seems good here. For all we know, Iantresman is of an age where the five years between the original ban and now would have a considerable impact. Let's give him a chance. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Inclined to support per Hersfold and Elen. Jclemens (talk) 03:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I ask Iantresman to be a little bit more specific about how he plans to edit articles about "fringe science and physics-related subjects" if this request is granted? Is this an "I don't plan to dive back into the maelstrom, but I don't want to have to risk an inadvertent violation" type of appeal, or are you going to dive right back into spending much of your time in the content areas you were banned from? If the latter, how will you edit those articles differently from the manner that previously caused problems? Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Iantresman, thank you for responding to Newyorkbrad's question. Like my colleagues, I am minded to accept this request. I am keen on the piecemeal approach to restoring the appellant's ability to contribute to fringe science and physics articles. Hersfold, I like your suggested amendment; would you like to propose that as a motion? AGK  [•] 17:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the community doesn't appear to hold any objections, sure. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 17:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Willing to lift per Silk. Seems we're in agreement. Motion time? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a motion being voted on now, see below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's what I get for canceling my page load. :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Motion regarding Iantresman



 * Enacted -- Lord Roem (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

1) The topic ban placed against as a condition of unblocking in  is hereby lifted. In its place, Iantresman is subject to a standard 1RR restriction (no more than one revert per article per 24-hour period) on all articles covering fringe science- and physics-related topics, broadly construed, for six months. This restriction may be enforced by escalating blocks up to and including one month in length, and up to and including indefinite length after the fifth such block. When each block is lifted or expires, the six-month period shall reset. Additionally, the original topic ban shall be reinstated if Iantresman is subjected to an indefinite block as a result of this restriction. The Arbitration Committee should be notified of this situation should it occur.


 * Support
 * 1) Proposed; added a few bits for clarity. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 17:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @Iantresman: There is no currently approved bot that identifies revert restriction violations of any sort; those often require human judgment which a computer program is incapable of making, so I can't imagine one would ever be approved for that purpose. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 16:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) AGK  [•] 19:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Iantresman: (a) Yes. (b) You may make no more than one revert per page per 24 hours, within this topic area. I don't think that restriction needs any explanation. Partial or full reverts are included. (c) Somebody else could make the revert, but you would be unable to do so. Remember that if the restriction does not require enforcement, it will expire in 6 months. Remember also that the restriction applies only to pages within this topic area, and not to your edits within other topics. AGK  [•] 09:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Jclemens (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) On balance, I consider this proposal to be worth trying. If Iantresman's can demonstrate that he is able to edit this topic area in a manner that isn't problematic, then he deserves to be able to edit without any restrictions. Conversely, if his editing of this topic area raises serious concerns, we could reinstate the topic ban.  PhilKnight (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 3)  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  14:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Support as amended. Worth a try. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 5)  Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) I have enough concerns about Iantresman's past editing in these topic-areas that I can't support this motion at this time. Iantresman's editing both before and after the Pseudoscience case (2006) culminating in a community ban (2007) was marked by what was widely considered as POV-pushing in favor of the views of a very small minority of scientists. Any editor is, of course, free to personally hold minority views, and to add information about those minority views to Wikipedia, but only within the framework of relevant policies and guidelines concerning undue weight, reliable sources, and so forth. We reaffirmed the most relevant principles in the Climate change cse (2009): Encyclopedias are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with current mainstream scientific thought, while also recognizing significant alternate viewpoints.... In describing points of view on a subject, articles should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not accord them undue weight. Thus, views held by a relatively small proportion of commentators or scholars should not be overstated, but similarly, views held by a relatively large proportion thereof should not be understated. I appreciate that several years have passed since 2006-2007, that Iantresman has edited without problems in other areas, and that at this point he intends in good faith to edit in areas such as catastrophism and plasma cosmology within policy; but he has not succeeded in editing these areas within policy in the past, and I am not at all convinced he will be able to do so in the future. Hence I would prefer, perhaps, a time-limited relaxation of the topic-ban or a relaxation as to a relatively less controversial group of articles. Since it appears that this motion is going to pass without my support, I will add that I sincerely hope my assessment is wrong, and that Iantresman is able to edit without any further problems. I will also add that a promise by Iantresman to adhere to the principles I have quoted, followed by his adhering to that promise, would go a long way to address my concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * To Iantresman: My concern involves the whole topic-area of so-called catastrophism, such as for example the theories and writings of Velikovsky, and not simply the catastrophism article itself. As I said earlier, and as you have acknowledged, it is your future editing that will reflect whether my concern was well-taken. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Per Brad SirFozzie (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Not yet (very sorry about this) - I was dismayed this request for amendment came so quickly after a single GA. I am pleased with the work on Cerne Abbas Giant however. I was hoping a motion wouldn't arise so quickly but should it pass will be happy to continue working etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Sorry, just can't go along with this one, NYB and Cas have this situation called right in my mind. Courcelles 02:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Abstain


 * Arbitrator Comments

Community comments regarding Motion 1
Will unrestricted editing automatically ensue after six months with no violations, or will it be necessary to file an additional amendment? <i style="color:#FF4500;">76</i> Strat String da Broke da (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If the appellant does not violate his 1RR restriction, the restriction will expire after 6 months and he will be as free as you and me to edit that topic area. AGK  [•] 09:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Conversely, if an indefinite block is instated at any point during the restriction, for a violation of the restriction, the topic ban will be reinstated without need for further amendment. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 16:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Archiving non-AE requests
Currently we have an archive for AE cases, but I do not see that there is an archive for requests for clarification, requests for amendment, or case requests. Occasionally requests that result in no action are pertinent to later discussions about a dispute, but I have found it a bit taxing to locate such prior requests. If these are not archived should we consider archiving them?--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 02:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Full cases get archived as subpages of WP:Arbitration/Requests and show up among the pages that can be viewed here. You might have been asking about declined requests. Those survive only in a list at Arbitration/Index/Declined requests, as diffs into the page history of WP:A/R/C. It's my impression that amendments and clarifications which are specific to a previously-argued case, such as WP:ARBMAC, get archived to the talk page of that case (e.g. Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia). Some clarifications are opened without any reference to a specific case and it appears that they go into the archives of the page we are on now, such as Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive 4. Anything that modifies a provision of a case, such as a motion, is linked from the case itself. The WP:Arbitration/Index can sometimes be used for finding things. EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, well, in a few ways this would be more helpful as an archive similar to those of other noticeboards since those allow for searching through past discussions.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 04:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes. Requests for Amendment or Clarification about a specific case are archived on that case's talk page, whereas those unrelated to a specific case are usually archived on this page. -- Lord Roem (talk) 04:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * @TDA: Using the search box in WP:Arbitration/Index allows all *cases* and *AEs* to be full-text searched. You would have to do your own search to go through the text of past amendments and clarifications. Declined arbitration requests are kept only in the page history so special magic would be required to search their text. EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I am wondering if we should just do standard archiving for declined case requests so that people can search through the declined cases. Sometimes discussions in declined requests can be pertinent to the dispute at a later date.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

No special magic is necessary to review declined case requests. On the declined case page linked above, click on the 'diff' and go back one edit; this will show you the last state of the discussion. I hope this helps -- Lord Roem (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can open an individual declined request and read it, but how do you search the text of all declined requests for something you believe was once said? EdJohnston (talk) 03:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That capability is missing, yes. Now, I'm not strongly opposed to the idea of a declined cases archive, but I wonder how often reading some comment on such a page is actually desired. Lord Roem (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This has been suggested several times before, including by me in 2006 or 2007 when I first began working on the arbitration pages. The counterargument was always that a certain percentage of declined cases contain meritless allegations, and it is not fair to have a permanent library of such allegations (although one could say the same things about the archive pages of AN, ANI, and so on). I think it would be an awful lot of work to go back and create a searchable archive of declined requests today, and I'm not at all sure the effort would be worth it, but I suppose I don't see any objection in principle to doing so as long as the creator was punctilious about ensuring that "noindex" (robot.txt) parameters are applied to each page to keep them out of search engines. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Archived motions

 * This is the record of a motion that did not pass.

Motion on Elen of the Roads

 * In light of the situation outlined at the Committee Noticeboard this morning, and pursuant to item 5, Arbitration Policy, "Scope and responsibilities", the checkuser and oversight flags are removed from . In addition, she is unsubscribed from all arbitration mailing lists, functionaries-en, checkuser-l, and oversight-l, and her access rights to the Arbwiki and Checkuser wiki are revoked. These actions will remain in effect until 1 January 2013.  If she is re-elected in the coming elections, access will be restored to her when the newly elected arbitrators are seated. If she is not, the removals will be permanent, and she may only regain the checkuser and oversight flags through the usual processes for gaining such access.


 * Special note: It is the opinion of a majority of the unrecused voters on this question that this should be considered a matter of suspending or expelling an arbitatror per the Arbitration Committee policy, which means that to pass, this vote will require a two-thirds majority of the entire Committe. There are 15 arbitrators, 4 of which are recused, and 1 of which is inactive. To pass, this motion will need 10 support votes.

Support

 * 1) There is no way in good conscience I can put up with someone who is an admitted leaker continuing to have access to the place she has already leaked from. This plugs the hole, while allowing folks to decide if they want to trust her again after this. Note that this can pass on usual "majority of active, non-recused" arbs, whereas a motion to actually remove her would take ten votes. Courcelles 20:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Access to these mailing lists and tools is based primarily on the trust that their contents, whatever they are, will be kept confidential. I can sympathize with Elen's viewpoint, but there were far better ways to deal with this. In the first instance, providing a verbatim copy of an email sent in confidence is not acceptable. While the content of the leaked email (and others) was (were) considered inappropriate by many, it is the expectation of everyone on the Committee that things said on the list stay on the list. This confidentiality is important; for private data primarily, but also to allow arbitrators the opportunity to speak candidly and honestly to one another. I can understand using someone not on the Committee as a sounding board, but it should not be necessary to quote from an email to express your concerns. With as much stress as this responsibility creates, with as much grief that we receive from the community for whatever we do, we need some sort of venue where we can commiserate with each other, where we can support one another, where we can vent to one another because we have nobody else to vent to who understands what we're talking about (I've tried explaining some of our cases to my non-Wikipedian fiancee, but it doesn't really work; all the weird usernames and policies and shortcut abbreviations begin to get in the way before long). When quotes from the list begin leaking out, we begin to lose that last sanctuary, and that will create a barrier to coming to common understandings, a barrier to teamwork (something this year's committee has desperately needed), a barrier to maintaining our own sanity. In the second instance, and perhaps even more seriously than the leak itself, Elen was not straightforward when the Committee as a whole was asked who leaked content. Even after Coren approached us, Elen continued to deny sending a full email to anyone. Had she done so immediately, this whole debacle could have been resolved much more quickly, and possibly with less severe consequences. In the simplest terms, she lied to us. I cannot trust anyone who would lie to their colleages in this manner, particularly about so serious an issue. I do not believe that she is going to begin leaking private information; user identities, IP addresses, whatnot. That's not consistent with her actions nor motives so far. However, my trust in her is shattered, and so I believe that her access rights that are based on a foundation of trust need to be removed. With the way the relevant arbitration policies are worded, we are unable to remove her from the Committee entirely in the current circumstances, but this motion does the next best thing. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 22:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It sounds as though most are viewing this as a full suspension, and I admit their arguments are convincing. So while it seems this cannot pass without unanimous support from all those eligible to vote, which it doesn't seem like we're going to get, I still nonetheless confirm my support for the motion. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 15:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Advanced permissions, such as CheckUser, and Oversight require trust that the holder of these permission will handle private, sensitive, and/or confidential information properly with regards to all policies. Elen's disclosure of this information was a breach of this trust, and as such, makes this action regrettably necessary. SirFozzie (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This is why I feel that Elen's comments to other users do not fall under a whistleblower campaign. We'd be having a similar but very different discussion if that was the case (I said the exact same thing to Elen back when she first admitted to sharing information outside the list). What was done was not in any way whistleblowing. In the best case, it was blowing off steam to someone who then turned around and started emailing various people. That's not whistleblowing, that's inappropriate sharing of info which was then used to canvass a selective audience (Through no fault of Elen herself, but that she was the source). In the worst case, she leaked information that she knew would affect the election without having to stand behind it (Note that the person who was sending these emails obviously knew it was not a good thing to send these emails, because they did not identify themselves, using an anonymous gmail account). We are rightfully excoriating JClemens for "playing politics". What is the results of Elen's leak, if not "playing politics" on a larger scale? SirFozzie (talk) 02:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) This is a one month suspension (give or take a few days) which I think is a proportionate response under the circumstances. I agree to a large extent with SilkTork's comment, and I'm not suggesting that she is entirely untrustworthy, however I consider that her actions were sufficiently serious to warrant a 1-month suspension. PhilKnight (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) I respect Elen's judgement and her record as an arbitrator, but to share any e-mail from the mailing list is unacceptable. Most arbitrators were appalled by Jclemens' decision to send the e-mail that was subsequently leaked, but if I were in Elen's position then I would have sought the consent of the committee to tell the community what Jclemens sent to the mailing list; I would never have unilaterally shared the e-mail in a private chat, and I cannot agree with Elen's decision to do so. Elen's judgement in this situation was deeply flawed, and in my mind it is only because the elections are imminent that this is a vote to suspend and not expel her. If Elen is re-elected then, privately, I shall be very glad, and I would be happy to work with her again (knowing she is trusted by the community). However, we must decide what to do with her seat on the committee until the election concludes; for now, only the committee can decide if she is trustworthy. This arbitrator's opinion is that she is not. Regretfully,  AGK  [•] 00:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Elen made a serious mistake, and compounded that by concealing it from the Committee. She has explained some of the rationale for her actions (though much was not rationale but emotional reaction, or perhaps both together), and I can see the grey area - she felt she was discussing in confidence some material that would later become public anyway, as that was Jclemens's stated intention. I can see the grey area, but she still crossed a line and made a clear mistake. An important note to add is that even though Elen is the source of the leak, as far as we know, she did not deliberately send it out to other candidates via an anonymous Gmail account. A twist is that a line in the email sent out asks recipients to verify it. It is possible this was done as part of the concealment of it being sent by a Committee member, and we are familiar in the Committee with how people can be quite scheming in their attempts to deceive us. But sometimes you have to make a judgement of a person's character. I have never found Elen to be devious. Blunt, direct, outspoken, emotional, driven, sometimes, yes, a little out of control, but not devious. This is a motion about trusting someone. And I trust Elen. I think what she did was very wrong. I have listened to her explanations on the Committee list and by personal email, and on her talkpage, and I understand where she is coming from, but she did wrong. However, for the stuff that really matters, do I still trust her not to reveal genuinely confidential material? Yes, I do.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  22:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * For purpose of clarity, when I mention judging her character - I mean her moral character, not if I like her as a person. My assessment of her moral character is that she can be trusted with the tools.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  09:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Would have have everyone who writes to us wonder if their information will be considered by Elen to be "confidential" enough to never be revealed? There is a reason why the confidentiality of the list is absolute: no one arbitrator should ever be allowed to summarily waive the privileged nature of our e-mail communications, and (more importantly) we must be seen to uphold that by anybody who will ever write to us in the future. Practically speaking, properly confidential information is safe with Elen (you and I both know she would never reveal most of what is sent to us); the crux of this situation is the fact that, for our purposes, Elen still leaked. One of the most important aspects of having the good moral character you speak of is that one upholds one's morals in each and every situation; for Jclemens' e-mail, Elen utterly failed to do so. AGK  [•] 00:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, and welcome you making it. This motion is not about the community trusting Elen to be an arbitrator. We have an election for that, and I have said below that I will not be voting for Elen in the election. She has damaged the reputation of an already fragile Committee. Other people may see it differently, and may balance Elen's good points against her bad. Each to their own. This motion is about the Committee's judgement if Elen is the sort of person who would abuse or misuse the CU/OS tools. Other Committee members feel she can't be trusted, whereas I feel she can. She hasn't broken the Foundation's privacy policy as there was no personally identifiable information - indeed, Jclemens has copied out the material himself on his talkpage. We've had concerns on the Committee about functionaries making mistakes. We've dealt with those concerns in a much better way than this. Made judgements on their past history, and the scale of the mistake. Matters in this incident got a little heated. While I don't agree with this motion being called, I understand why it was done. And now it's here we vote on it honestly, bravely, and with integrity. Elen is good with CheckUser. She may not be good with keeping her cool when dealing with Committee matters. But for the thing we're voting for, she's fine.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  01:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1) Should Elen have discussed the material with an outsider has been debated, with a significant number of arbs believing not. Part of the question lies with the non-discussability, in that if it is only relative, who gets to decide what can be discussed elsewhere, which has the potential to be gamed/fudged or whatever. One solution to this is an absolute no-discussability unless some committee decision has permitted it. However, this is not what our guidelines say currently, and it can be argued that it wasn't "core arb business". I've never met Elen, but have found her pretty direct, so find it hard to ascribe a purposefully devious motive, but more one of dismay at the original message. Should she have discussed this without checking with the rest of us? No. Do I think she is a serial leaker and at risk of wilfully disseminating information in the future? No. "Should she be forgiven?" then becomes the key question here. Luckily the timing is good for this as we have an election. Now, the very existence of the arbitration committee is as a last-resort tool of the editing community to resolve disputes, examine editor conduct and to handle some sensitive situations that arise. Hence the ultimate decision can be made by the editing community (not us) on whether this event is forgivable. Now if we were robots and could look at this dispassionately and impartially, and if there weren't a massive constitutional flaw in it, then I might support as a significant number of arbs have concerns enough that there are grounds for a suspension, however I feel (a) a motion will effectively influence the community to condemn her when it is not clear that this need be the case, (b) the material leaked was arguably not core arb business, and (c) there is a constitutional condundrum concerning this. I will propose an alternate motion below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Recuse

 * 1) As a candidate in the current Arbitration Committee election, I have (quite properly) not been privy to the Committee's recent discussions of the issue underying this motion. I am thus recused from this vote at this time, both because of the perceivable conflict of interest if I were to vote on the Committee membership of another candidate, and also because without the benefit of the "c-list" discussion, I could not cast a fully informed vote. For the benefit of my colleagues who are voting and the community, I note that Elen has just posted a statement on her talkpage, whose contents should be carefully reviewed and thought through before any action is taken. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Recusing as the leak tangentially involves the present elections and due to that I have been out of the loop on the recent discussions happening on-list. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 00:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Reconfirming my recusal.  Like there was really any question... Jclemens (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments by arbitrators

 * I reworded the sentence regarding mailing list access a bit to include the mailing lists dependent on access to advanced permissions; one cannot be subscribed to checkuser-l, for example, if one does not have access to the checkuser flag on at least one wiki or the steward tools. I am withholding voting on this for now, as Elen has indicated that she intends to make a statement soon. However, given the evidence at hand and her comments so far, both public and private, I expect to support this motion. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 21:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am awaiting further comments regarding the point of order raised by KTC below before voting; at present, I am not certain that we're using the correct threshold of support for this motion. Kirill [talk] 22:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * On reflection, I find myself in agreement with Risker's comment below; because the motion removes Elen's ability to carry out a significant portion of her official duties, it is substantially a motion to suspend her, regardless of the precise language used. Kirill [talk] 01:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * On careful consideration, and having reviewed the votes of my colleagues, I believe that the threshold of support for this motion is 2/3 of all arbitrators. Arbitration policy clearly states that a 2/3 majority of all arbitrators must support a suspension or removal from the Committee. Arbitrators AGK and PhilKnight both explicitly refer to their vote as supporting a suspension. Newyorkbrad's and David Fuchs' recusals explicitly state that, even had they not had reason to recuse as candidates, they would have recused due to lack of access to the relevant discussions on the mailing list; that confirms that removal from the mailing lists would make it impossible for an arbitrator to act effectively.  (Case in point: inability to participate in voting and discussion on whether or not to return advanced permissions to checkusers/oversighters who had resigned tools in anticipation of a longterm absence - as happened yesterday.)  Removal from the mailing lists is the equivalent of a "constructive suspension", by removing the tools necessary to perform the functions.  Risker (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Frankly, that's turning the committee on its head. The single most important thing we do is the cases.  If you can vote on those and not have the clerks come tell you to stop, then you're an arb.  That's the difference between this motion and a vote to suspend; that would remove her ability to vote on cases, comment on clarifications and amendment requests, etc.  That is why we exist; the other stuff is just stuff that gets thrown to usby lack of there being another body, there would be no Committee to handle those matters; on the other hand, there would be a COmmittee just to handle the cases and amendment requests.  Courcelles 01:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * While I'd like to think that cases are the most important thing we do—despite the fact that we haven't had any for months now—the arbitration policy makes no distinction between the Committee's five responsibilities in terms of relative importance. Kirill [talk] 01:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What is beyond dispute here is that this is a suspension motion. AGK and PhilKnight both explicitly say so in their votes. Therefore, this motion requires a supermajority of all arbitrators (ie ten votes) to pass.  Roger Davies  talk 05:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Community comments
What about access to the checkuser wiki? Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That and checkuser-l access are automatically turned on and off with the actual CU flag. (I.e. the Stewards always set up and ensure access is removed as needed when mashing the buttons) Courcelles 21:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I added the checkuser wiki to the list to be clear, but Courcelles is right. Since Elen isn't a checkuser elsewhere, her access would be removed anyway. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 21:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I find this to be hasty, sad, and frankly frightening. Before she even speaks Elen has been tarred and feathered. In case Elen runs amok in the next few hours before she speaks we have to make sure that she doesn't do, what? I don't condone this kind of hasty action nor do I think this kind of example set by the arbs will serve editors who may or may not be in wiki-trouble. This is not good for Wikipedia, not at all.(olive (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC))
 * Elen of the Roads has now released her statement: User talk:Elen of the Roads.  Snowolf How can I help? 21:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Certainly this will include formal banning from Wikipedia for at least a year, yes? 134.241.58.251 (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please stop salivating all over the page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Silktork: what about what the community thinks? --Rschen7754 22:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As I see it, this is a motion about do the Committee still have trust in Elen to handle CU/OS - something that is the Committee's responsibility to oversee. The community will (appropriately, as they should) show what they think in the election, and I will do as well. I won't be voting to support Elen. I think she has handled this badly. But I still trust her not to mess up CU/OS.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  23:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay sure, but if she was standing at CUOS appointments, would she pass? What would the comments be? --Rschen7754 23:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What about it? Arbitrators should vote on the basis of what they think, not attempt to divine the community's opinion (if any such singular thing existed, which it obviously does not). Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it's one thing to oppose the motion because he thinks Elen didn't leak or something. It's another to say that he totally agrees that she leaked, but he's ok with that because he personally likes/trusts her. From the community point of view, the question should be whether she's trustworthy with the community's private information/communication, not whether despite her leaking, SilkTork likes/trusts her anyway. That is to say, if she leaked Arbcom emails, it shouldn't matter if SilkTork thinks that's ok, if the community isn't ok with potentially having their communications with arbcom leaked. Arbcom has a responsibility to protect the privacy of its mailing lists and wikis, because in not doing so they jeopardize the communications/data of many more people than just them. That duty remains, even if one or more arbs may not like carrying it out. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears to me that this issue comes down to a classic conflict between a deliberative body's necessary ability to be able to discuss matters fully and privately, and the need to allow misbehavior within the body to be brought to light by a whistle-blower. The decision to become a whistle-blower is always a difficult one, not the least because it almost always entails the loss of confidence and some sort of punishment.  That Elen felt her actions were necessary speaks to how serious she perceived the misbehavior to be, and it would behoove the committee to look more fully at her point of view before responding with motions stripping her of power.  Taking action at this juncture, when emotions are still running high, is almost a guarantee that the response is not well considered.  I would advise the committee to table this motion (in the American sense) and take some time to consider whether Elen's actions were justified, a different issue than whether they were permitted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said in my vote, there were better ways this could have been handled. The main point of her concerns probably could have been summed up with "An arbitrator is threatening to actively campaign against anyone who voted a certain way on a recent case." It doesn't involve quoting anything, nor even identifying who said it (although if raised in public I'm sure the drama would have dragged out the identity eventually). Whether this is still an advisable course is for others to decide on their own, but it's an option that doesn't involve crossing the bright line. Also remember that we've been aware of the leaks for some time now, and everyone involved has made clear their motivations for doing whatever it is they did. We have had time to consider this, and (unfortunately) what's news to the community is becoming a bit stale for us at this point. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 22:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually Hersfold, that breaches the 'seal of the confessional' rule just as badly as using the verbatim text. Under that, nothing posted to the list can be discussed off list. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't identify who said what, or specifically what was said. The policy says arbitrators must "Preserve in appropriate confidence the contents of private correspondence [... blah blah]" (emphasis mine), which implies that where necessary, paraphrasing is acceptable. Legitimate examples may include mission-critical things such as "Arb X will be inactive for a while" or "We'll be posting a statement once we finish arguing over the wording" or even whistle-blower situations such as this. Excessive detail, such as "Arb X will be inactive for a while because he's having his appendix out" or "We'll be posting a statement once Arb Y gets off his soapbox about [insert specific detail here]" is, yes, probably unacceptable as it provides too much detail. You keep mentioning the "'seal of the confessional' rule" but nothing in policy makes it quite that strict. What policy does say, unequivocally, is that direct quoting is a no-no. I agree it could be clearer, and that's definitely something to work on with the Committee next year, and I hope you participate in those discussions whatever the outcome of this motion or the election. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 23:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really the place to discuss trivia, but where does it say that direct quoting is out (given that contents =/= text, contents = what it is about). If we were only going by policy, what does JC's comments fall under? "Preserve in appropriate confidence the contents of private correspondence sent to the Committee and the Committee's internal discussions and deliberations." What was 'appropriate confidence' for that statement? The policy says nothing like the actual way the list is managed. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Would like to see link to policy prohibiting direct quoting all or portions of arbcom-l list. NE Ent 00:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I just quoted part of it above, but there's also "The Committee treats as private all communications sent to it, or sent by a Committee member in the performance of their duties." I know you disagree with Jclemens's email falling under that latter bit, but certainly it falls under the first. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 01:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought the email in question was sent by Jclemens? NE Ent 02:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah... it was still sent to the Committee. The latter part of that clause seems to be there mainly to protect outgoing communications as well. An email sent by the arbitrator to the list would fall under both criteria in most cases. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 18:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "I will be actively campaigning against those members of the committee seeking reelection...." Personally, I don't see that as qualifying as performance of their duties. NE Ent 22:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Arguably not, but (again), it was sent to the Committee. Under the bit of policy I quoted, it doesn't matter if it was in the performance of his duties as long as it is sent to a Committee mailing list. It's ((sent to the committee) OR (in the line of duty)), not ((sent to the committee) AND (in the line of duty)). <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 01:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "The Committee treats as private all communications sent to it, or sent by a Committee member in the performance of their duties." If the latter clause isn't supposed to refer to emails sent by the committee to the list, what is it supposed to refer to? If you sent an email to someone else it's up to them how to treat it, not the committee. It's weird to describe a member of a group sending something to the group as "to" the group. It's like if I start in Kansas and drive to Indiana, I wouldn't say "I drove to the United States today." NE Ent 02:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Once again the community is faced with attempting to enforce/sanction an editor for some vaguely defined concept. Like all words, the meaning of "private" depends on context; a reasonable interpretation is that discussion of motions and cases related to committee work arbcom-l is expected to be confidential, especially private information about individuals. Using the list for political campaigning seems contrary to the purpose of the list and whether such use (abuse?) should remain private is debatable. If it's really true any content of arbcom-l is a serious infraction, does not Risker's revealing on-wiki the existence of a jclemens proposal not fall into that overly strict interpretation? This idea that Elen's access must be removed because she is going to go nuts and start publishing email addresses and private information is simply ridiculous. NE Ent 22:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * An arbitrator is threatening to actively campaign against anyone who voted a certain way on a recent case is no big deal. Arbs are politicians; they run for office against each other, we expect them to argue. Leaking confidential emails is completely, utterly and totally unacceptable behaviour that cannot be justified under any circumstances. (And "to score political points in an election" doesn't even come close.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

@Hersfold, if "providing a verbatim copy of an email sent in confidence is not acceptable," will you be addressing jclemen's recent postings of emails ? NE Ent 22:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "All these were emailed to me privately." - I don't recognize any of those emails off the top of my head, and that comment implies that they were sent directly to Jclemens rather than to the mailing list. That's comparing apples and oranges, and if it is an issue it'd be between Jclemens and whoever sent the email. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 22:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This is idiotic and punitive. Forwarding an e-mail message that is basically just vindictive intimidation to people outside your group doesn't warrant removing all user rights and mailing list access. Honestly, most of us wouldn't know about this if you guys weren't raising holy hell over it.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am afraid some people here are a bit overheated now. There are a number of facts everybody in principle agrees on, as I see it. (i) There was a factual disclosure of info from the list, and this info in the end was used by unknown parties, which is unfortunate. (ii) Nothing really serious happened so far, since the piece which was disclosed was subsequently published anyway, and the parties seem to agree that it would be published even without disclosure; (iii) Really private information was not leaked, and suggestions that Elen would start immediately leak the private info out are essentially bad faith assumptions; (iv) a sitting arb can technically not be removed, and the elections are underway with Elen running. In this situation, one needs to seriously evaluate the chances that the private info is really going to leak out, and to minimize the drama. Elen could help by resigning as an arb and withdrawing from the elections, but if she is not willing to do it, this is where we are now.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I would be very interested in hearing from both Jclemens and Elen your individual answers to the following. Hersfold has said this about comments by Jclemens that appear not to have been made public, but which appear to have played a role in Elen's reactions to the situation. What do each of you think of Hersfold's characterization? What, if any of it, do you find to be accurate or inaccurate? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This diff gives a prior description by Hersfold. Although this has not been completely clarified, the email addressed to Risker, reproduced by Jclemens on his talk page, seems to be a follow-up to a shorter email from Jclemens. Mathsci (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Tryp, he's right. There was a long discussion, quite a bit of disagreement and other things were said. The only other thing I referred to was the question JC said he was going to ask everyone, which was pretty much why wasn't Malleus banned for [this diff]. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, it went something like this:
 * Arbitrator User:Elen of the Roads passed content from arbcom-l to another user, Monsieur X, who is not an arbitrator. Monsieur X passed all or some of this content to User:NuclearWarfare and others (Messieurs Y), who then most likely passed it on to User:Coren and possibly others (Messieurs Z).
 * I might be misunderstanding something, as I have been struggling to piece it all together, both the ArbCom's and Elen's statements have been fairly cryptic for understandable reasons. Now if the above chain is any indication of what happened, it seems to me to be the prima facie evidence of why stuff from confidential mailing lists shouldn't be divulged outside of it. For all of the claims of whistle blowing, I find that rather misguided, whistle blowing means taking responsibility for such an action, divulge it to the outside world or relevant authorities so that something can be done about it, not gossiping about it with a friend who then gossips about it with another friend and so on (please note I do not believe Elen has made any whistleblowing claims, this is just other people saying so). The higher the office, the higher the responsibility. Whatever the original intent of this matter, it seems to clear to me that Elen bears the ultimate responsibility as arbitrator and source of the material that was released, as well as for not stepping forward sooner. The member of the Arbitration Committee are supposed to be an example to us all in the propriety of their dealings and behavior. Elen has undoubtedly fallen short of this. Not only that, but the matter sadly seems to suggest a certain cavalier attitude towards confidentiality and a certain naïveté. Our functionaries and arbitrators have access to highly confidential data and there should be no doubt that they take all matters related extremely seriously. It is sad that an arbitrator, in a situation like this, isn't motioned by his sense of duty to resign and hence quash the need for their colleagues to attempt to deal with the fallout of the situation. Previous arbitrators have had the wisdom of leading by example, and not putting the community and the committee in such a difficult stop, thru resignation. It would then be up to the community to render the ultimate verdict on the matter thru the upcoming re-election, without any clouds lingering on the current committee's proceedings and without any need for motions such as this.  Snowolf How can I help? 23:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I concur that the cavalier attitude to revealing private info is a concern regardless of what she "thought" about that info/person, but so also is the defense that "I needed someone to talk to", which suggests someone unprepared for the stresses of serving on ArbCom (a concern since she hadn't served long as an admin before she was elected and hadn't performed other jobs around ArbCom that might better prepare her) and is unable to keep a sense of perspective about ordinary issues that arbs face.  I've got a fairly active inbox, and know a lot of arbs, but never ever has something like this happened (discussion of arb business with friends who are arbs), nor have I seen what amounts to whining about the stresses of the job from the arbs I know best.  It troubles me that many observors think this sort of thing is common: I don't believe it is.  Arb business stays with the arbs, and the community elects arbs based on that premise and trust. Agree also that previous arbs have done the right thing and resigned over less, so as not to bring ill repute to the committee or cause further dissension or force the rest of the Committee into this awkward position just as an election is upon us.  IMO the notion that she "thought" the info would become public anyway should be irrelevant: as an arb, she should be held to the standard of confidentiality the community expects.  Disagree with statements from others that concern about what may happen next with privacy of the list has become an inflated concern:  the issue is, the community RFCs and present ArbCom policies have left a hole (thru Dec 31) that needs resolution, since it doesn't appear that EotR will step down as did predecessors who found themselves in similar positions.  I am also discouraged by SilkTork's stance that, well, it's OK because *I* like and trust her he still trusts her with certain tools.  You didn't elect her-- the community did.  The community can rightly be concerned if she will again become emotional over a matter that will correct itself and need to talk to someone, and divulge something confidential.  And we didn't expect this kind of conduct from an elected arb; the rationalization put forward in her response amounts to, she was furious, she was emotional, and she needed someone to talk to ... and then because she valued protecting her confidant over doing the right thing, she lied to the Committee when first asked.  It is all the more disturbing that we had the ArbCom leaks last year, so everyone on the Committee should have learned something from that, and gone the extra mile to guard confidentiality.  I guess it is no secret that I felt that EotR was not ready to serve on ArbCom, had not been "in the trenches" long enough, and her defense of "I needed someone to talk to" about (seriously) a matter that will take care of itself really gives pause about whether she is up to the demands of serving on ArbCom.  There is a bright line; it has been crossed; and we have no remedies because past RFCs have removed reasonable means of resolving this situation.  An honorable arb would resign so as not to put fellow arbs in this position.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Sandy. I appreciate you taking the time to contribute here. Could you amend your "it's OK because *I* like and trust her" sentence above to reflect what I did say. I said I still trust her to handle CU/OS - I'm not talking about asking her to marry me or anything! I trust all the members of the Committee with those tools - whether I personally like them or agree with their views is not the point. I mention judging her character - that is her moral character, not if I like her as a person.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  00:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for the delay, SilkTork-- I just saw this. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's funny Sandy, given that you supported me]. And I know you know perfectly well that since its a mailing list, all the Arbs have your personal info on their hard drives anyway. And I'm pretty certain that you know perfectly well that I wouldn't relay personal information - the kind of thing that actually needs to be kept secure. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did support you-- in a year when an unfortunate RFC forced us to move the committee size to 18 and the candidate pool was quite limited. I have since changed my voting stance wrt freshly-minted admins running for ArbCom. "All the arbs have my personal info on their hard drives anyway"?  That is a very interesting statement, that doesn't reflect very well on you.  The only arb who has any personal info on me, period, anywhere, anytime, any way shape or form is Risker, and I trust her.  My concerns about your preparedness for ArbCom have grown as I've watched you evolve in the role in ways that were disappointing, reflected in posts like this one.  Please take care not to threaten editors about their personal info. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Lol. Come on Sandy, even you're not that technically illiterate. It's a mailing list. It forwards email to each arb's mail client, which downloads it to their hard drive or their Gmail storage area or wherever they keep their emails. It's a major problem with using that mailing list - never mind about leaks from archives, all ex arbs will have their own personal archives that there is no oversight of or control over. It just isn't a suitable medium for handling sensitive personal data at all. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't say that knowing you retain access to these sensitive personal data you keep bringing up is very reassuring :(  Snowolf How can I help? 00:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep ... EotR does demonstrate a most cavalier attitude about a number of things. At any rate, I repeat ... no arb other than Risker has anything about me, so just what EotR is on about is a mystery to me.  But it's not becoming.  Perhaps it's a distraction.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I have to work to very high standards for protection of personal data, but in an environment where nothing that does not contain personally identifying information can be considered private, as it is all disclosable upon request by law. I don't actually have any information about Sandy (too long ago) but would have copies of any emails she might have sent to the committee in the past two years if she sent any. Which I wouldn't confirm, because that would be personal data. I actually intend to clear that part of my Gmail archive when I go, which I expect will be shortly at this rate, because I would have no authorisation to have them, which would be an offense in the UK if Wikipedia were a UK business. But there's no requirement anywhere for arbitrators to dispose of their copies of emails when they leave. Not that there would be any way of enforcing it, but there's no requirement either. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the statement on her talk page clearly shows that Elen knows the difference between private and non-private information; unless someone believes that there is actually a risk of disclosing CU or OS info, I don't think this motion solves any imminent crises. The question of whether disclosing non-private information is something an Arb should do can be handled in an unrushed way, through the ballot box, and through discussion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That has all been interesting reading. At the risk of pointing out what should be so obvious that it shouldn't need to be pointed out, the community elects arbitrators to put an end to dramas, not to create new ones. Maybe Jclemens hasn't seen my question to him, but I choose to construe the absence of an answer from him as tacit acceptance of the descriptions given by Hersfold and Elen. Whatever else was going on, Jclemens appears to have used the mailing list, and its policy of confidentiality, to send messages that go beyond what I saw posted on his talk page. It appears to me that he used the mailing list to say political things about the election, in a manner that appeared confrontational to other members of the Committee. I do not regard that as really being part of the normal duties for which arbitrators are elected, but the fact that there is a confidentiality policy means that the community had no opportunity to scrutinize it. I do not think that's a proper use of the mailing list confidentiality policy. The policy is intended to protect user privacy, not to hide arbitrator conduct from the community. Elen should have answered fully and accurately when first asked by the rest of the Committee about the leaks. It appears that she didn't, and the other members are right to be dissatisfied about that, whatever the issues may or may not be about the leaks themselves (the cover-up may well be worse than the "crime"). But what I'm really seeing is dysfunction in the mailing list itself. It's a confidential list for ArbCom business. It shouldn't be for politicking. And, sorry, but it shouldn't be for the kind of venting and commiserating described by Hersfold in his vote on the motion. I'm sorry and perplexed that arbitrators end up feeling that way, but they have no right to equate their personal desires to unload and perhaps gossip in privacy with what the community wants them to do, which is to conduct arbitration while preserving the privacy of users who have confidential issues. That distinction seems to be getting lost, and I think it is the root cause of the drama here. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Elen's actions were bad, although the theoretically possible damage is much worse than the actual damage. Meanwhile, Jclemen's "bullying" of the Arbitrators (their word, not mine) is going unnoticed by the community.  There are two wrong here, but one is being overly-prosecuted while the other is being overlooked.  In the interest of equity, I don't have a choice but to point out the lopsided nature of what I am seeing.  And as Monty has pointed out, there is some question as to the method being used.  No one is saying Elen's actions were appropriate, but we have to use a little judgement here based on what was released.  I understand the other Arbitrators are having great difficulty in being objective, after all, this isn't about my home address or phone number, this is about their concerns over their own words might be released and used against them.  This begs the question, "why was the list being used for politicking to begin with, and is the level of protection granted to politicking the same as my home address and phone number?"  I would hope not.  I completely understand the frustration, but the appropriateness of the content itself should be considered in the current "punishment" phase, and perhaps a less drastic motion could be offered and considered. And of course, I would ask if any motion if forthcoming regarding what some Arbs called "bullying" by Jclemens, or is that going to be completely overlooked?  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 15:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This is because for Elen it looks like the first-time incident, whereas for Jclemens it fits the general line of his activity. For instance, all voter guides I looked at (about a half) suggest to vote against him, and they were all published before the statement. His posting just does not add anything to the existing picture, whereas Elen's behaviour does. This is why everybody is discussing her.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct. There is no need to beat a dead horse, and there is little chance that Jclemens will be re-elected.  That was clear before it was known that Elen had reacted emotionally to something that the community already understood and divulged confidential info to a non-arb, crying on the shoulder of someone that she probably now understands she shouldn't have been talking to anyway (judgment concern here), much less divulging confidential info to.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Dennis, there actually are people claiming her actions were appropriate, and more people (including you and SilkTork) saying that while her actions might not have been appropriate, she shouldn't be held accountable for them, and others saying that there is no current policy that prevents disclosure of private arbcom communications. There is a whole lot of vitriol against jclemens being flung around here in an effort to avoid Elen being held responsible for her behavior, because somehow if she committed the breach against someone who is unpopular and who may have also been misbehaving, that makes it more ok. People don't seem to be noticing that if we fail to handle Elen's behavior, that means the next time an arb leaks list emails - maybe that time it won't be about someone who's already unpopular, or it will be about something having to do with you, or it will be an email from you because that arb thinks you're misbehaving - there will be precedent saying that it's ok to leak (to one's personal friends, mind you, not publicly) as long as the arb dislikes the content enough. We can quite well handle Elen's behavior while also not saying Jclemens's was great. This is not a zero-sum game where only one of them can have been wrong, but nevertheless, only one of the two violated the policy prohibiting release of arbcom "internal discussions" without permission. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fluffernutter, it is inaccurate to say that I think she should not be held accountable for the mistakes. I have held that she did make a mistake.  I can't speak for SilkTork, although I don't see him overlooking the problem either, just disagreeing with the proposed solution.  I specifically mentioned the possibility of another motion, which would imply a different sanction.  I mentioned that the punishment should fit the crime.  The problem is that we are treating this as a binary problem with a binary solution, something I try to avoid in any sanction discussion. Our job as administrators is to enforce sanctions equitably and fairly, considering all the evidence.  I am asking the same here. Nothing I've said can be construed to mean I think a free pass is in order, for anyone.  That doesn't mean I agree that the current proposal is the best solution. As for violations, there may be more violations than meets the eye, but you and I haven't seen the email in question, only the milder reply. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 16:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * For me, this isn't about whether one of them is more popular than the other. Personally, I like both Elen and Jclemens very much. What bothers me is that there is a very strong appearance that the rest of the Committee are placing a much higher priority on making sure that arbitrators have a safe place (the list) do things that the rest of us cannot see, and a lower priority on using that list the way the community wants it to be used. I don't see this as something where we have to take sides about which arb to punish, but I do see it as something where there may be the kind of rush that Dennis and others are rightly calling into question. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Process questions

 * So, with the candidates auto-recused and Xeno still on his long vacation, there are ten active arbitrators, right? Jeff Kilmar 21:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Making 6 a majority, yes. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 21:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * While motion to remove access to CU & oversight can be a simple motion, removal of access to arbitration mailing lists and Arbwiki is a suspension from the arbitration committee by any other name, which per policy requires two-thirds of all arbitrators. -- KTC (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, she has the right to vote still. --Rschen7754 22:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting point, actually. When the requirement for arbitrators to identify to the WMF was first formalized, the prevailing opinion of the Committee was that access to arbcom-l was, indeed, required in order to fulfill one's responsibilities as an arbitrator; when we considered the hypothetical case of an arbitrator-elect who refused to identify—and who, therefore, could not be subscribed to the list—the general sense was that this would not be a viable situation in practice. Having said that, there is currently no provision in the arbitration policy mandating that arbitrators have access to the arbitration mailing lists (or, indeed, mandating that such lists be used at all), so it's not clear to me whether simply unsubscribing someone from the list would in fact qualify as removing them from the Committee.  On the one hand, an arbitrator not subscribed to the list would still be able to carry out the public portions of their role (e.g. voting on cases, etc.).  On the other hand, certain elements of the Committee's work (and particularly #2, #4, and #5 in the Committee's list of responsibilities) are always conducted off-wiki; an arbitrator without access to the arbitration mailing lists and/or arbitration wiki would be unable to carry out those duties. I'm therefore very interested in additional feedback on this point: is removing an arbitrator from arbcom-l tantamount to removing their ability to carry out their official duties? Kirill [talk] 22:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If a case were to open tomorrow, she would be able to review evidence posted on-wiki, make workshop proposals, and vote in the proposed decision. Removing her from the mailing list only prevents her from being able to deal with the "private information" part of our mandate; a large part, yes, but she would still be able to perform in the Committee's other primary role, that of being the last step in dispute resolution. In some ways it would be the same as if she were on vacation and only able to access Wikipedia through public terminals; she may not want to open up her private email and certainly not access the arbwiki, but she could still vote on matters posted on Wikipedia. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 22:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In an extreme case, she could even participate in #2 (ban appeals) if we routed all BASC appeals through UTRS or Requests for Amendment. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 22:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone is free to send email to her at their discretion, and she can still send email to the list. Also, pulling CU and OS is explicitly allowed to pass with a simple majority. --Rschen7754 22:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there's a distinction between not wanting to participate in a portion of our role—whether for technical reasons or simply because of lack of interest—and being forcibly restricted from doing so. I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea that an arbitrator can be prohibited from carrying out some of their official duties but still remain an arbitrator; it seems to me that holding the position is inextricably intertwined with having the authority to perform all of the associated responsibilities. Kirill [talk] 22:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The only alternative would be to say that the Committee has no ability to remove a confirmed leaker from access to the confidential materials she previously leaked. That is hardly a sustainable position. Jeff Kilmar 00:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the procedural question is merely whether this is an ordinary motion (which requires a simple majority) or a motion to suspend an arbitrator (which requires a 2/3 supermajority); in either case, the ability to remove someone still exists. Kirill [talk] 01:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Kirill, does the procedural question matter? Here, we have an arbitrator who has consciously violated the duty of her office, and several arbs have clearly stated that the only reason she's still on ArbCom today is because procedure prohibits her removal with the number of arbs that must recuse due to elections. This seems like a clear case of WP:IAR to me. And this isn't even IAR per se - this is perfectly within the regulations of the Committee. Anyone can send emails to Elen (heck, even cc: it to arbcom-l, but I sure hope discretion would be used here and stuff wouldn't be just forwarded from arbcom-l), and Elen will still be allowed to email into the list. She can still vote in proceedings. Sure, it's not as convenient, but are you going to let someone who has willingly deceived the Committee and who has violated the privacy policy remain on the Committee, with this access to private information? So she can still perform her duties, without viewing private evidence, which is the key issue at stake here. The BASC membership may be an issue not having CU, but she does not have to be a member of BASC to be an arbitrator and could be switched out. And ArbCom clearly has a mandate to remove any advanced permissions, including CU, OS, and admin, with a simple majority. Finally, does Elen still retain the community's trust? She was dishonest once - while I'm sure we all want to believe in her record and character and that this was the only leaked email, how do we know that other emails were not or will not be leaked? I have nothing against her personally, but this is due diligence, and we would be remiss to ignore the issue and pretend like it was no big deal by writing up a statement and hoping the community resolves the issue for 2013, while allowing the leaker to have access to private information until December 31, 2012. I've heard noises of appealing to the WMF should ArbCom fail to do anything about the situation, and I would personally find that entirely appropriate. --Rschen7754 09:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I certainly think the procedural question matters. How can we condemn Elen for violating the arbitration policy if we ourselves are willing to violate it in our haste to punish her?  If IAR justifies our actions, could one not argue that it also justifies hers? Kirill [talk] 10:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Point taken, but there are concerns that this disclosure may violate the Privacy policy. (I'll be honest, this is the first time I've read it, so I couldn't tell you). I do think the trust of the community has to be considered here as well. But the policy explicitly allows for removing CU/OS rights, and "To approve and remove access to ... (ii) mailing lists maintained by the Arbitration Committee." which arbcom-l would clearly qualify. --Rschen7754 11:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If what happened was a violation of Privacy policy (I'm not arguing one way or another on this), then the WMF have the power to kick her off all relevant access. As such, the argument that someone couldn't be kicked off for violation like this would is invalid. -- KTC (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Being restricted from performing parts of a role is still suspension of at least that part. A suspension is a suspension whether in whole or in part. Anyway, that's my take, others may disagree. -- KTC (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't accept this line of argument. The core function of the committee is on-wiki; cases, amendments, clarifications, etc.  If on the off chance something comes up that needs her attention, she can be read into it, whether that be a ban appeal, an admin caught socking, or whatnot.  You can do this job just fine without the lists or flags, all this motion says is she doesn't get automatic access to non-public information until the community can render its judgment on the leaks, and plugs the hole from her leaking again in the meantime. (That we can't control what she has already seen is no reason to let her see more over the next month.)  Courcelles 16:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If members of the committee can perform their function adequately without access to that private information, then access to it should be removed from all members of the committee, save two or three, who could then provide the same sort of screening for the rest of the committee that you propose for her. Any type of sane privacy practice would not share confidential information with more individuals then need access to it. Monty  845  16:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, it is already possible to exclude members from discussion on the -b and -c lists; since it appears the archives are restricted, this would not be much further than that. --Rschen7754 21:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Apples and oranges. Those sublists are used for discussions where certain members are recused. Here you are arguing that an arb can function as an arb without access to all arbitration mailing lists & arbwiki. If that is truly the case, then shut down the lists & the wiki since there's clearly no use for it. -- KTC (talk) 23:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You're trying to push a false dichotomy here: the lists and wiki might not be necessary for every purpose, but they are convenient. IRC isn't necessary for the functioning of Wikipedia but it is convenient, and there's still a no public logging policy for #wikipedia-en-admins. --Rschen7754 00:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I already had expressed my concern about this motion at User_talk:Courcelles, immediately after it was first posted. I think that this should at least be two separate motions, due to Arbcom using two separate powers in this motion. And KTC's question brings up another good reason to split the motion. And as for Krill's question, that sounds a bit like Arbcom would effectively be voting for a type of censure by committee. She would keep the title, and could help with any work that didn't require that access, but effectively she would be out of cases, and anything else which required that stuff. I think it's an allowable option, per policy. But I welcome others' thoughts. - jc37 22:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The motion is a removal from the committee in all but name. That candidates must agree to identify to even run for a seat on Arbcom speaks to the fact that the tool and list access to which identification is a prerequisite are necessary to function as a member of the committee. To argue that the tools needed to function as a member of the committee can be removed without meeting the requirements to remove a member makes a mockery of the removal rules. Monty  845  01:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Concur. Remove her or don't remove her, but pretending you can take away the functions that make her able to function as an arbitrator by something less than the vote needed to remove is mad.  I would question whether the arbitrators who signed the statement are now uninvolved.  Certainly, they have a vested interest in seeing that what they signed is upheld, and have clearly meddled in the election.  By the same standards of conflict of interest they impose on administrators, they should not be dealing with this.  I will not comment on the Elen-Sandy situation, much as I am tempted to, but note that Sandy's present view of Elen is a lesson for Timotheus Canens in two years, if he doesn't toe the party line if elected.  He's the fair haired boy per the same election guide which so supported Elen two years ago, for pulling the trigger on Br'er Rabbit's wikicide, but boy he better vote to form or he'll hear about it!--Wehwalt (talk) 05:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Noting that after stating you "will not comment on the Elen-Sandy situation", you went considerably off-topic on this page and did just that. My response is here (a more appropriate place to continue this discussion).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Wehwalt, this is a situation where you should have kept quiet. You brought up "involved". A fortiori, Elen was involved when Elen voted on numerous issues involving Raul and/or Merridew. Had any of these issues developed into a case, Elen would have been named as a party. Elen "interpreted" an arbitration remedy involving one of her friends in a way that voided that remedy. The arbitration committee even took the unusual step of censuring one of its own for admin action while involved. Elen should have been removed from arbcom a good 6 months ago, if not much earlier, for abuse of position. There is more than just the present issue. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That comment is proof positive that Caligula has been unjustly defamed as having made the worst appointment by any autocrat. Although your Latin is better than that of the other appointee.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And that comment brings us full circle. What brought us here to begin with is how divided the community is wrt Civility enforcement and the double standard applied to admins and non-admins.  That Wehwalt (an admin who has been lodging similar all over Wikipedia of late), on an arb page, thumbs his nose at civility, and the sitting arbs, to lodge a veiled attack on both Raul and Gimmetrow, while using no foul language, C words, etc (and what he seems to think is "cleverly" disguised language that only those "in the know" will understand), demonstrates beautifully the problem we have with civility enforcement.  I haven't seen a better example in the history of civility discussions as to why the community is so divided on this issue.  Even those of us who do not support the language Malleus uses know that had Malleus written the words above that Wehwalt wrote (calling Raul an autocrat and Gimmetrow a horse), he would already be blocked, but Wehwalt will not even receive a rebuke.  And Wehwalt, please try to stay on topic on these pages.  If you oppose Raul's appointment of Gimmetrow, there is a correct place for you to lodge your not-so-veiled concerns. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've seen that act from you before, Sandy. To quote you, "Did I say, a few hours ago, "Oh, I'm so sure all will be promptly, courteously, and correctly dealt with at ANI !!!"  Yep.  Ok, no action, and people removing the template from his talk even though it's confirmed.  I've been ... ummmmm ... informed that Rlevse still has friends in powerful places.  Not only has there been no block, there's not even a tag on his page.  Yay ANI !!!  So, what's the next step for getting this account blocked?  I'm noticing how little the community gives a darn about the sustained disruption that has been visited upon FAC for months now." here Moni3, who to your giddy agreement had called PumpkinSky an "idiot" and a "dingus" earlier in the conversation, blocked on cue, two minutes later.  You do seem to have the "will no one rid me of this turbulent user?" act down pat, Sandy.  I remind you that you are the one whose election guide contains the words "Wehwalt", "PumpkinSky", "Rlevse" "Davenbelle" and "Jack Merridew" a combined 45 times.  Look to your own "lodgings".  Did you come back only to settle grudges?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Since apparently the clerks don't have the guts to say this, to the both of you: settle down, please. --Rschen7754 18:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Wehwalt knows where to find the page for discussing this that I've pointed him to twice now. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * A review of:
 * Arbitration/Policy
 * Arbitration/Policy (summary proceedings)
 * Arbitration/Policy
 * Arbitration/Policy
 * leads to the conclusion that the above motion requires a simple majority of non-recused, active arbitrators. Recusal could happen by  Arbitration/Policy.  The super-majority/all-committee requirement for removal/suspension from the committee does not apply per Arbitration/Policy, as the above motion does not seek removal or suspension from the committee.  So, the vote to carry, is majority of active non-recused arbitrators (who are identified as doing so voluntarily -- we need not address forced recusal, at the moment). Thus, with three voluntarily recused and one inactive: 6 out of 11 is needed to carry, where the full committee is 15.  (This procedural review does not comment on the wisdom of any action).  Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Even PhilKnight in his support vote explicitly called it suspension. -- KTC (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It is suspension of those access rights until January 1 -- not suspension from the committee. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

@Risker, Kirill: This is ArbCom, not GovCom. --Rschen7754 01:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What's your point? We address disputes. One of the key issues in disputes is whether or not the relevant policy is followed, or if someone has (perhaps unintentionally) tried to work around it or has misinterpreted it. At the very least, Arbcom has to ensure it follows its own policy, without trying to take back doors to achieve a goal.  Risker (talk) 04:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This is specifically referencing Kirill's assertion that all 5 of the tasks on the arb policy page are equally weighted. The primary purpose of ArbCom is to resolve disputes. That Elen can still do while still not being on the mailing list (as she can still vote and look at on-wiki evidence) and thus she is not suspended. And she still retains an email account and can email arbs and even the mailing list if necessary. --Rschen7754 05:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Clerk's list

 * Maybe this is a question for Courcelles: does the motion also change Elen's subscription/write-access to the clerks list? Lord Roem (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Answering as a list admin. Being subscribed to the list gives you auto-accept and read rights; anyone can send things to the list, they just have to be moderated first if you're not on the auto-accept list. I can't think of any reason why we'd need to remove Elen from the auto-accept list, nor why we would discard any of her emails in moderation (something which is only done for spam). <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 23:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Hersfold, that was my understanding of the motion as well. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd even leave her subscribed to that one, at least I didn't intend this to remove her from clerks-l. Courcelles 23:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * O_O I could have sworn that said something else earlier - Yeah, I see no reason for her to be removed from clerks-l. But she could certainly remain auto-accept for arbcom-l, which is what I think I was talking about above. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 06:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Community discussion (cont'd)
The minimum threshold of support and the desired size of the committee are really two sides of the same coin; there was simply no way to fill 18 seats (as stipulated by the 2009 RFC) with a higher minimum requirement. Perhaps the threshold could be increased now that we've gone back to having 15 arbitrators; but, given the results of recent elections, I'm not sure how much; last year, for example, we would have barely filled all the seats at a 60% threshold, and would have only elected two new arbitrators at a 75% threshold. Having said that, I think reducing the size of the committee even further is certainly an option to be explored in the future; we're a little short on actual work at the moment, particularly as far as full-blown cases are concerned. It's actually rather depressing to see that the only open proceeding on any the arbitration pages involves a motion to sanction a sitting arbitrator; one is reminded of the old cartoon of Robespierre executing the executioner. Kirill [talk] 02:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I respect that a great deal of the information can't be given, but the urgency of which this motion has been drawn is worrisome, considering at least one Arb believes the likelihood of Elen disclosing other information is very low. This also distracts from the issue of a "bullying" email being sent by Jclemens to the rest of the committee, which seems to be getting overlooked in this event.  We haven't seen the email, so it puts the community in the position of having to judge solely from hearsay, a less than optimal situation.  I'm not sure how I feel about the disclosure by Elen, likely due in part from not having enough information to form a definitive and informed opinion. The process, however, does seem rushed. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 23:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Making allegedly unwise statements is not an actionable issue - willful disclosure of confidential data is. Jeff Kilmar 00:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't want to put too fine a point on this Hersfold, but had Elen taken your advice and instead said " "An arbitrator is threatening to actively campaign against anyone who voted a certain way on a recent case."", everyone would have instantly known who it was, considering the recent events. This calls into question the process being a bit overkill, or even moot, since fully compliance (by your own standard) would have been essentially just as informational as the obviously improper way she chose to communicate.  I'm concerned this process is too hasty and not completely thought out.  I'm not saying overlook the incident, of course, but does the punishment truly fit the crime?  I'm not as sure as others are, based on your own standard.  This also calls into question how confidential this particular data really is.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 00:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose that is a fair question. However, for many years, disclosing the text of an email without the permission of the sender has been a censurable offense.  This came up in the EEML case as well as several others.  Whether the rules should change is a fair argument, but the problem is that Elen just decided one day to violate the rules without telling anyone.  This created an atmosphere of betrayal and mistrust, potentially making Committee business much more acrimonious and difficult. Jeff Kilmar 00:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Candidates (including arbs) have campaigned against each other for years (2008 was nasty); nothing new, wasn't worth all the fuss, would have taken care of itself, always does, someone got overly emotional over something that wasn't that important in the grand scheme of things (and indicates a lack of trust that the community can figure these things out for themselves). Now, divulging confidential arb e-mail, period, or because you "need someone to talk to" ... that is something new (last year's leaks notwithstanding).  Perspective. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not overlooking or understating the seriousness of the charge, but there is such a thing as "eventual discovery" (or whatever your state or country calls it) and this information wasn't particularly "confidential", by Hersfold's own standard. If you complied with policy (per Hersfold's actual example) then the public would have discovered the same evidence, thus the offense is not as serious as disclosing information that could not have been discovered independently.  Courts even allow illegally obtained evidence under this rule.  I'm not saying there is no foul here, I'm saying that the reaction might be out of proportion to the actual offense. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 00:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And what courts do is relevant to the situation at hand... how?  Snowolf How can I help? 00:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You should occasionally read Lord of the Flies. --87.79.128.230 (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sandy, could you provide links to the campaigning that you mention occurred in 2008? Thanks, <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 00:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I can't-- I received inappropriate emails, and I later discussed them where appropriate, and IIRC, a lot of people came forward who got same and knew it was going on. But I don't divulge private email.  Ever.  Perhaps one reason I don't get that sort of thing any more is that the senders know It Won't End Well for Them.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. I was under the impression that this was on-wiki stuff, which didn't quite jive with my recollection of things. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 01:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Snowolf, I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm only trying to politely express my own concerns as a fellow editor with a deep respect for process. When we do something that is at this end of the sanction spectrum, we should be confident that no other less extreme alternatives will suffice.  I'm not questioning anyone's faith or authority, I'm just politely offering my perspective.  This is the same as I do at ANI and other boards, seeking an equitable solution and insuring we don't rush to judgement. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 01:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I see things very similarly to the way Dennis does, and I'll explain that more completely above. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply to Dennis from way above: The paraphrase I gave is but one example of how to handle this, and different people may not see that as an entirely appropriate approach either. Another approach, unquestionably within policy, would be to push for a motion publicly censuring Jclemens for his comments (idea came to me since he mentioned that he wasn't over at WT:ACN). Another would be to do nothing at the time, but run for re-election anyway and refuse to answer his questions - I don't think I'm wrong when I say that Elen's approaches to civility have more popular support than Jclemens's anyway. I think Sandy's approach may be best. The point I was trying to make is that there were other options available to her that didn't involve leaking information. Since she did leak information, regardless of what it was, we must respond with a removal from the Committee if possible, or the next best thing if circumstances prevent that; doing otherwise puts us on a slippery slope as to what leaks are and aren't acceptable, could jeopardize the ability of the Committee to function as I mentioned in my vote, and erodes the community's trust in the Committee to keep private things private. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 18:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the thoughtful response. It is a difficult situation, as I agree there was a breach, but I don't think she would have breached anything really private, and only release info that shouldn't have been there to begin with.  You are saying ignoring it isn't an option, and I understand.  My thinking is only that treating it the same as if she had shared my address and phone number might be unnecessarily strong as well.   IE: I'm not saying you or anyone is wrong, I'm saying the solution isn't optimal as I think she can still be trusted with genuinely sensitive information. (And I would still easily trust her with my personal information, btw)  As she very well be re-elected, she will be anyway, so a solution that is less drama causing and is more proportionate to the actual damage caused should at least be considered as one possible option. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 18:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate and respect that others feel differently, but I don't trust her with confidential information. That she was crying on the shoulder of an imaginary internet friend about confidential arb business to someone who later betrayed her trust for me at least calls into doubt her overall judgment, maturity, all sorts of things.  That she "needed someone to talk to" for me at least calls into question her emotional stability under pressure.  That she has made it harder for current and future arbs to use the maillist for anything necessary is a lasting problem.  And that she hasn't recognized the dangerous precedent-setting issue here of an arb revealing anything, regardless how small, outside of the arb list means to me at least something should be done.   And that all of this was done over something that would have taken care of itself calls into question her perspective.  But more significantly, she lied to her fellow arbs, and that alone calls for something.  So pass a motion on both Jclemens and Elen of the Roads, but do something.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually think this is somewhat proportionate. If we'd determined that she had leaked genuinely private data of some form, I don't think there's any question that rather than a statement and motion that specifically does not expel her a day later, we'd have gone straight to a motion to expel and it would have passed quickly despite the number of recusals. If we hadn't, it's entirely possible the Foundation could have intervened due to the breach of their Privacy Policy. As it stands, some arbitrators are closer to your line of thinking, others closer to mine, and so a compromise of sorts is being proposed with this motion, which has resulted in a more proportionate response as you're looking for (perhaps). <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 19:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I feel better about the tone now than last night, it has cooled down somewhat, and regardless of outcome, the community deserves to know it was a calmly deliberated decision, even if the opinions are split. I would prefer a negotiated settlement but understand this would be very difficult to do as the nature of the offense seems personal to other members of Arb, or at least makes them feel vulnerable.  I am just wired that way, to want a mediated solution instead of the public drama.  That this happened at this time is most unfortunate, but I guess it couldn't have happened at any other, considering the content.  This still doesn't answer "Who sent all the anonymous email?", which means either it was her, or someone else with access to the Arb list did.  I can only assume this is still being investigated.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 19:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "A negotiated settlement" might include both of them stepping down now and standing down from elections. Recall that both Kirill and Cas resigned in the past, and were later re-elected.  The community has demonstrated its respect for arbs who stand aside when they've brought ill repute to the Committee, and its willingness to re-elect them in the future.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Such a settlement would avoid the need to make a decision about ambiguity regarding the vote threshold for action. No mater how the committee decides, it will be bad; if the motion is rejected they will be drawing criticism for failure to do anything about the breach, or if the motion passes, there will be criticism for acting in a way that there is a real question over whether it has the authority to. Not needing to make that decision would be far superior. I see no reason why such a settlement needs to encompass the ongoing election, leave that aspect to voters. Monty  845  19:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I would offer to mediate a settlement if the parties were inclined. I'm not expecting all the parties to agree to such a method, but on my honor I would go and strike all my votes, electing to be neutral this election, and mediate if this is what the parties wanted.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 20:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The most important thing now is the voting which will reflect community consensus on the issue. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What? No. Can't see how that's true; the election voters are not required to consider the issue, at all. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. First, voting is not about the issue, and some of the voters might have no idea that motion was passed and the issue is being debated. Second, 50+one vote is not really a consensus. If we have for example an AfD which is split 60 to 40 it normally gets closed as no consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping cas meant the voting on this page. On the 50+1 issue, I've been moaning about the low threshold since the stupid 2009 RFC (the same one that grew the Committee size to something unmanageable that was later reduced), that forced all sorts of unforeseen issues upon us.  Now problems forced upon us by RFC are coming home to roost.  Really, 50% support to serve on what is supposed to our highest authority?  Goofy. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * @SandyGeorgia: 50% support to serve on what is supposed to our highest authority? Goofy. -- If it's good enough for the highest office on the planet, it should be good enough for our arbitrators. Also, the higher the threshold, the easier it is for special interest groups to derail the candidacies of people inconvenient to that group. The one thing we do not want is to give more gaming power to special interest groups of any persuasion. --213.168.89.195 (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Questions about disclosures
I have 2 questions that I haven't seen asked yet, plus a couple of comments. Question #1 Was the disclosed material Arbcom business? Or was it misplaced non-arbcom business put into a venue where someone would need to suffer in silence on a non-arbcom matter? I can see the need where it is immensely important to keep certain information highly confidential, but I don't consider it sacred to categorically consider all of those communications confidential. For example, for bodies with governmental power in the USA, with certain narrow specific exceptions, it's common for it to actually be the opposite...actually illegal to have a confidential venue / confidential discussions for the entire group. Second, did Ellen disclose it in a a manner that would try hard to limit to just the disclosed person? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm particularly interested in question #1. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I would add third question and fourth questions to this list: 3) Did Elen disclose in a manner that she could reasonably have expected to fix the issue of mailing list misuse or otherwise have it dealt with by those able to do so, or did she disclose in a manner that could not have fixed the issue anyway? 4) Did Elen disclose and follow up in a manner that indicated that she believed her release of the email was appropriate/allowed under Arbcom policy, or did she behave in a manner that indicated that she knew her behavior needed to be covered up? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll try to answer these.
 * The disclosed email stemmed from a discussion that somehow got turned around to the Malleus/Civility issues; if I recall correctly (I'm away from my email) that topic was rather tangential to the original topic of that particular email thread. As myself and another list administrator made very clear, discussion of election campaigns and tactics on the list is inappropriate, particularly when a number of arbitrators subscribed to the list are running or thinking about running. So that particular email was not proper arbcom business, no; the discussion it stemmed from probably could be considered arbitration business, despite the tangential nature of the conversation.
 * Not sure what you're asking; she disclosed an email, I believe through a private chat thing. She sent it to another person in a manner where only that person could see what she sent, but she obviously didn't have them sign a non-disclosure agreement over it.
 * Since list administrators had already very firmly stopped that line of conversation, there wasn't much left to fix. However, I fail to see how sending the email to someone not on the list and not involved in arbitration would have helped to fix anything anyway. Perhaps I'm not understanding the question...?
 * I'd say a bit of both. As the statement indicates, when we heard of the first leak, we were of the belief that the only leaked content was a sentence or two, which Elen did admit to. She attempted to justify this with the clause in the Arbitration Policy that states that emails should be kept private when "sent by a Committee member in the performance of their duties" - she argued that since this was an inappropriate use of the list, it could not have been sent in the line of duty, and thus was not protected. As I discuss above, I think that this is an invalid line of reasoning based on other bits in policy (some from the same sentence) that offer the privacy protection to "all communications sent to [the Committee]" and that require arbitrators to "Preserve in appropriate confidence [...] the Committee's internal discussions and deliberations." Later, when we discovered a full email had been released, she denied having sending it despite being asked multiple times, which would indicate to me she knew that disclosure, at least, had crossed a line.
 * Other arb's answers to these may vary based on their perceptions of the events. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 16:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Wait
In the recent request for clarification on civility enforcement you waited and listened to community input before acting; and I'd appreciate it if you'd do the same here. You've had a couple of weeks to think about this, we haven't. You may benefit from hearing the perspectives of others outside the committee. There is no need to rush. It is absurd to conclude from EotR confiding in one trusted person (information that is not personal and about to be made public anyway) that she can't be trusted with oversight or checkuser. Please pay the community enough respect to at least listen to our thoughts, and consider them, before acting. You seem to be being played by whoever sent the anonymous Gmails. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear. Yes, that is indeed absurd. If I had a penny for every time an arb ever shared something they weren't supposed to with me in private chat, I'd be financially independent by now. Well spoken, Anthony. Bishonen &#124; talk 14:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC).
 * I also agree with this. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

If I had a penny for every time an arb ever shared something they weren't supposed to with me in private chat, I'd be financially independent by now. If this is the case, then certainly Elen shouldn't be punished for behaviors that are a regular practice. Is this common for Arbs to share "something they weren't supposed to" with privileged members of the community? The general community needs to know before the election. Perhaps Elen's lying is being accepted by some Arbcom and community members because disclosing confidential info to non Arbs is a common practice, the only difference being that this particular incident, including Elen's untruthful responses, was disclosed publicly. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree that that claim is the most troubling thing on this page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing "privileged" about me. I've been here a long time, that's all; that's why the sum of arb confidences over the years would make me so rich. People who know me well enough are sometimes prepared to trust my discretion, and I try to give them good reason to; I never pass anything on to anybody except Giano (jk). And I didn't mean I've ever been privy to anything truly confidential, like personal info about users, or anything to do with a case I was myself involved in. Of course not. The arbs I've been on chatty terms with over the years have been appropriately discreet. But then as far as I can gather (from onwiki information only; I have no other), so has Elen; her chat with a confidante didn't involve anything truly confidential, either. Man is a chatty animal, and I don't like to see the "holier than thou" attitude that comes out on this page and in other places where Elen's so-called leak is discussed. Bishonen &#124; talk 22:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC).
 * A very apt comment, which I agree with. Much of the response I see appears to me to be a drastic over-reaction to the actualities of the situation, including this motion, which seems to me to be punitive and not really a legitimate attempt to plug a leak. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it's not an attempt to plug a leak - it's the turkeys voting against Christmas. It's absurd that we allow this group to be the judges and jury on their own petty political squabbles. Lord of the Flies, anyone? Begoon &thinsp; talk  01:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC) [+ oopsy - to the user above who already pointed us to Lord of the Flies, my apologies - I only just noticed that comment... I guess it IS pretty obvious...]


 * To be 100% honest, I have so little confidence in Jclemens as an arbitrator that I'm actually inclined to exonerate Elen for her lack of discretion in this case. His recent actions are absolutely abhorrent, and I am embarassed that we have someone of his mindset on the committee. Kurtis (talk) 01:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Concur. There's no one to stop you from doing this, arbs, unless the stewards refuse to comply without an expulsion majority.  But if you pass this motion, and then the community re-elects Elen, I think the community will have judged you, too, and a string of resignations should follow.  Your continued presence, then, would inhibit the work of the committee with the community having weighed in on the matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * @Kurtis: Two wrongs don't make a right, though, and I've heard of no overriding reason why the disclosure might have been necessary enough to IAR the privacy rule. If we follow from your "so little confidence" comment, we soon arrive at "I think this is a bad person, so why keep his CU and OS data private?"  Yes, I know you wouldn't support such a stance, but it does seem to follow.  – Philosopher Let us reason together. 16:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This lightweight agrees with the heavyweights. Hold your horses! Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  16:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's take a deep breathe and see how the election plays out. Give Arbcom and the community time to inquire, discuss and think through this matter. Nobody died or is going to. Give it some time. This habit we often exhibit here, of rushing to judgement and punishment, is not helpful to the health of our project. Not in this or in any instance on Wikipedia, in my opinion. It does not forward our agenda of being a global internet community or a world family. When suggesting a standard for behavior and judgement we should ask ourselves if you we would pass such a standard in every instance and in every aspect of our life. We should also consider if this is an error of judgement or an ongoing pattern of wrong doing. We all make mistakes. Yes they should be recognized and responded to but care and consideration should be taken in that process and we should see if there is an opportunity to learn from those mistakes and grow both as individuals and as a community.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> •  Talk  • 17:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * @Philosopher: You're probably right. I certainly don't think Jclemens is a bad person, and I'm not saying Elen was right to leak private data, but there've just been so many issues lately and I almost feel glad that the off-wiki concerns are being brought to light. Kurtis (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hold the hysteria

 * Shut this circus down. It's the last gasp of an outgoing ArbCom; JClemens will be gone in two weeks, Elen will be back. Then what are ya gonna do with your secret mailing list? If you want to suspend anything, don't take it out on Elen, just shut the stupid secret list down and conduct your debate in public on Wiki like grown ups. Carrite (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair and needed
I had intentionally avoided these discussions thus far partially because my own opinions about Arbcom are pretty well known and because there seemed more than enough comments already. I do want to say though that I think this decision to at least temporarily revoke some privileges is both fair and needed as an example. Many of us have been scolded or worse for infractions lessor to or equal than the breech that occurred here recently. If Arbcom would have done nothing it would have proved that they do not hold themselves accountable to the rules they are mandated to enforce. So from someone who has been an ardent critic of Arbcom for some time, well done (and I do not mean that sarcastically). Kumioko (talk) 03:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

What an overaction to what is quite normal and frequent occurance
Firstly, I have had few dealings with Ellen; I am neither her friend, confidante or enemy. In short, I don’t know her. However, what I do know is that yet again we are seeing this hysterical overreaction from the Arbcom and certain sections of the Wikipedia community. In their usual and quite revolting lust for blood and ritual humiliation, it is overlooked that if the Arbcom behaved in a transparent and honest fashion these ‘leaks’ would not be possible, necessary and sensational. That an Arb sometimes informs others of the feelings and ridiculous, puerile and sometimes downright vicious utterances of fellow Arbs is understandable, unsurprising and frankly no big deal. I also know that there are other Arbs quietly squirming and hoping some of their own similar actions don’t come to light – they are of course, the minority - those with a sense of shame. Ellen is not a Roman Catholic priest and the Arbcom is not her confessing flock; neither, thank God, has she ever claimed to be a saint and keeping the Biblical tone: "let he who is without sin...." This motion is an overreaction. All her rights and privileges should be restored retained and the community permitted to speak for itself in the election. Giano (talk) 10:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to say no rights and privileges have been removed as of this point (AFAIK), so nothing to restore. -- KTC (talk) 10:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's good because it's quite obviouse that this is an engineered situation to spike the Arbcom elections and ensure thatt we have more of the secretive, lack lustre Arbs which are all too sadly accustomed. If something shouldn't be repeated, then it's not worth saying in the first place. Giano (talk) 13:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So, the committee is upset that information that was posted to it's mailing list that really didn't belong there was shared. Looking for a scapegoat they pick EotR.  Wanting to extract a pint of blood, they go for both tools that are helpful to an Arbitrator's duties and tools that are mandatory to the duties.  I encourage the committee to put down the hatchet and consider annother tool in their box, the Admonishment.  I do not think that EotR has had an official Admonishment in her record from the committee, therefore to jump directly to summary suspension is a gross overreaction to what is a relatively minor offense in relation to what could have been done. Hasteur (talk) 15:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes! Good suggestion from little Hasteur! Little Elen join Bishzilla in having Official Admonishment from Committee under her belt! All best users have one! Badge of distinction!   bishzilla     ROA R R! !    16:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC).

@Arbcom - The stated reason why this spilled over with the motion on the Noticeboard and now here was to bring an unfortunate situation out into the open and resolve it before the elections. However, the elections are now ongoing, yet there has been no voting activity here for 2 days and only 1/2 of the eligible arbs have voted. One gets the feeling of a committee that behind closed doors sometimes calmly deliberates, and sometimes has the mother of all monkey fights. During these fights, the door occasionally opens and bits of debris fly out, and then the door closes again. The debris that was jclemens' email has already melted on the carpet and can't be cleaned up. The apparently half-baked (given only half of you are willing to opine on it) motion above also flew out, and we assume you are now once again at it hammer and tongs behind closed doors. Given the timing, could you clean up the mess by either voting on the motion and having it pass or fail, or by withdrawing it and then coming back with either a statement or a motion that you are all comfortable stating your positions on publicly? We can debate exactly under what circumstances the committee should debate publicly vs discuss privately, but it is inappropriate when something is discussed off and on based on comfort level and - one is forced to assume - political point-scoring. Especially when the discussion and the conclusions impugn the reputation of several of your current and potentially future colleagues during a time they are up for community scrutiny. Thanks! Martinp (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more. The absurdity of this group attempting to "arbitrate" and "govern" themselves in this fashion does little other than to underline what an unacceptable state of affairs it is that they should be expected, required or allowed to do so. I have no confidence that this is being handled for the community's benefit at all at this stage, and I have heard little to convince me I am wrong. Unfortunately, there is no option open to us, as community members, other than to patiently wait for that door (great mental picture, Martinp) to open and see what emerges. If we do not, as a community, ensure that we are never in this position again, then I despair for the future. Begoon &thinsp; talk  16:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thirding this. It's apparent that a number of arbs are either unable or unwilling to take a public position in this matter. Newsflash, guys: just doing what's right (whichever position you believe to be the right one) takes a whole lot less energy than dithering in the background about what will make you look best or be most political, or will this get you not elected, or will that anger this faction that is politically useful to you. Stop waiting to see how the wind blows, stop trying to arrange each other's deaths behind closed doors, and vote on the damn motion. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes; hurry up and get on with it. All the backlash is because you've delayed long enough. This long delay does not send the right message to the community. --Rschen7754 17:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't say I'm totally on top of this controversy so pardon me if I missed the obvious, but what backlash and what long wait? I though Anthonyhcole made a good point above: the ArbCom has known about this for a while and it's only been a couple days since the rest of us found out, so it makes sense to give the community time to voice input. That said, I understand the concerns with the timing of the election, and I'm not sure how much more there is to be said about this particular motion.  Λυδ α  cιτγ  17:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The backlash is evident by the many comments on this page. The long wait is evidenced by the fact that no arb has voted in over 24 hours, over an issue dealing with concerns about this user's access to sensitive information that has not yet been removed. --Rschen7754 17:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * They're always too slow or too fast, too harsh or too lenient, too this or too its opposite. Ah well, that's what they signed-up for but a dozen editors milling around seems rather not much of a backlash.  (But didn't Sir Issac Newton say there is always a backlash). Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me for not understanding Giano's comment above:
 * "That's good because it's quite obviouse that this is an engineered situation to spike the Arbcom elections and ensure thatt we have more of the secretive, lack lustre Arbs which are all too sadly accustomed."

Does he mean to "spike the Arbcom elections" to ensure that Elen isn't re-elected or that Jclemens isn't re-elected, or both? Or something else? I am getting the feeling there is intention somewhere behind all this. Surely the timing begs questioning. Is a campaigning post (or more) on a private ArbCom list worth breaking privacy rules? Is ArbCom unable to had such issues internally? If so, how can they be expected to handle problematic community behavior?

I think the election should be called off until this situation is resolved. As someone said somewhere, Elen will always have a "fishy" aurora aura about her, if re-elected. And the whole ArbCom will have also. Who will trust them? MathewTownsend (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Someone somewhere"? Bishonen &#124; talk 22:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC).
 * Bishonen: Citation for "fishy" And a more complete quote is "fishy odor". MathewTownsend (talk) 00:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that I didn't make myself clear. To clarify: It's my view that J Clemens is a thoroughly unsuitable person to be an Arb and was using the mailing list inappropriately one might almost say intimidatingly. It seems that he and his cronies don't like Ellen and have escelated this storm in a teacup because she has embarrassed them and they wish to sabotage her chances or re-election. They have certainly handicapped her chances. It would be nice to think that this would backfire on J Clemens, but sadly life is seldom so just. How the damage is rectified is impossible to say at the moment. Giano (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Per Hersford above (1601, 28 November): Later, when we discovered a full email had been released, she denied having sending it despite being asked multiple times, which would indicate to me she knew that disclosure, at least, had crossed a line. How can this be be seen as "she did not do it on purpose" or as apologetic? However despicable people think Jclemens is, I don't see how his behavior in the same league as lying to ArbCom repeatedly. Nor do I see why his behavior on the ArbCom list couldn't have been dealt with by the Arbs themselves. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this motion is inappropriate because the incident involved alleged misbehavior by at least two arbitrators, so they both should appear in the motion. This is assuming there is any urgency to make the motion, but I do not see any urgency after looking at explanation by Elen... My very best wishes (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Jclemens should have been removed, but there is no urgent concern regarding privacy like there is with Elen. --Rschen7754 17:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What privacy are you talking about? If Arbcom considers private email correspondence by other people as an evidence for their sanctions, what is a big deal with leaking a couple of minor details during elections? Knowing about this incident does not change my vote. That's for sure. My very best wishes (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm really surprised at the surprised reactions of many of the people on this page that Arbcom could a) do something like this and b) react the way it did. Regardless of the benevolent mandate of the committee this is precisesly the same problem that occurrs with every csae brought before it regarding individuals. There is almost always an automatic verdict of guilt once the case is chosen. Since it was one of there own there was no need for a csae and they simply reacted but the end result is the same as it has been to other editors brought before them. A loss of tools and or a ban of some length. Whether the mailing list or what it contains is or is not appropriate is irrelevent. The releasing of the privacy related information it contained was a violation of trust to the committee and the community just as if she was a sockpuppetteer, edited through a block or used her admin tools inappropriately. There are a lot of people trying to justify that what she did was right or acceptable and it was neither. Arbcom incurred a temporary suspension of some tools based on her conduct. They could have done much worse like say she isn't allowed to run for Arbcom again which they did didn't do. I agree with many of the comments that it won't affect her reelection but maybe it should. I also agree that Jclemens should also have been suspended but that's just my opinion. Kumioko (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If I understand correctly, she disclosed certain comments made by another arbitrator that does not include any private information about other users. That does not break my trust. If fact, it might be even a good idea to make discussions between arbs more public. That would possibly gain more community trust. To the contrary, suspending a whistleblower decreases my trust. My very best wishes (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not quite. Elen discussed the material with an unknown third person, and decided she was overreacting; then what she disclosed to this third person was disclosed to others.  Then there was a time for finding out from her what was disclosed, which she did not come forward with, until more information made it's way out, which she regrets. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC) (See,, , -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC))
 * Suspending and penalising whistleblowers has always been a favourite passtime of the Arbcom; especially when it's they and their friends that the whistle is being blown on. Giano (talk) 19:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If her intention was whistleblowing, why did she release the email content, secretly, to a friend who presumably had no power or standing to fix any misuse of the mailing list? Surely if one wishes to blow the whistle on serious misbehavior, one does it by publicizing the behavior, not by whispering to a friend, who then whispers to another friend, and so on, during an election. If this was intended to be whistleblowing, it would have been among the most ineffectual whistleblowing campaigns ever. She didn't go to Jimbo, or the ombudsman commission, or the community at large. She didn't go to anyone who had any ability to examine or stop the behavior she felt was so bad. Instead, she went to a friend who could not fix the issue she was "blowing the whistle" on and who continued along with Elen's apparent wishes that the information not be made public so that it could be acted on. I would have much more respect for her if she really had acted as if she intended to blow the whistle on something she felt was a serious problem, but I can't respect someone starting a whispered smear campaign to torpedo a political opponent and then trying to claim it as whistleblowing. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's something best asked of her. My take is that she wasn't intedning to whislteblow mreely exchanging a confidence over something ridiculous and of no great importance. That it has becme a major issue is equally ridiculous. That in doing so, she has exposed the arbcom mailing list as a place of gossip and intrique is enlightening. Giano (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * All right, she is obviously not a whistleblower because she did not do it on purpose and apologized. However, let's consider a couple of key points here. (1) The disclosures involved posts made to the mailing list by arbitrator Jclemens, and pertained to some of his positions in the coming Arbitration Committee election. These posts were themselves considered by several arbitrators to be inappropriate and contentious, with some viewing them as attempts to intimidate sitting arbitrators from seeking re-election. . (2) She at no time ever disclosed any of the sensitive personal information that has been sent to the arbcom mailing list. . Does it justify this motion? I personally do not think so. My very best wishes (talk) 19:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't really know. There are two issues, 1) disclosure of what is claimed is "privileged;" and 2) (mis)representations about the disclosure. We don't have the text of the representations Elen made to the committee about the disclosure (perhaps, ironically, because those are privileged).  Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If she was releasing the information to notify someone or the community at injustices or unethical behavior of Arbcom then that's one thing and could be considered a whisleblower. I do not think that was the case however but if that were true then there is a much larger can of worms to be opened here. It seems as though from what I hear that it was more of a venting of frustration to someone or someones based on something that occurred in discussions between arbitrators where there was an inferrance of privacy. Believing the latter to be true myself I believe that the breach was not one of exposing some illicit behavior on the count of Arbcom but a general disagreement about information in a discussion in which case I do not consider it whistle blowing. The latter would in my opinion justify the sanction currently placed, if not more. I do also agree that she should not have to bare the burdon of this alone. At the least Jclemens should have been called out on the carpet as well as possibly others based on the information in the messages I am not privvy too. It doesn't seem like its a conspiracy but there are certainly more details that we are not privvy too beyond what we already know. Kumioko (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree, "whistleblower" does not seem to fit, from what we know.  The issue is remedy for both the disclosure and not being "up-front" about the disclosure. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course I knew it was going to be seen as breaking the rule. I didn't want to get the other guy into trouble. And yes that was plumb stupid, and I'm sure I'll go down with 'egit' engraved on my forehead. But there was actually nothing Arbcom could do about JClemens (if indeed they thought something needed doing). Even the attempt by several other Arbs to shut the thread down failed. There's actually no comeback for anything you say on the list, because it can't be disclosed anywhere else. As has been cited elsewhere, in October Risker repeatedly asked him (including onwiki) to publish his views and open them up for debate, because she was so concerned. But she couldn't actually say anything. The list is a trap in that sense - you can tell people what you intend,or make personal attacks or whatever, but no-one can take any action. After the big leak from a couple of years ago, several instances of bygone Arbs in quite vicious personal attacks on non-Arb editors were published, along with the very limited response from the rest of the committee. All you can do is say 'tut tut' Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * @Elen: I think my views on Jclemens are pretty clear (I thought he should have been removed after "not a Wikipedian", but whatever). But if you wanted help from outside the Committee, this was totally the wrong way to go about it. I think the community would have reacted a bit more favorably if you had copy-pasted the entire email onto your talk page, or followed the typical "definition" of whistleblowing. Again, it's nothing personal, and I hope you continue as an editor, but to me, this incident is incompatible with the high level of trust required for a functionary. --Rschen7754 00:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Overall, agreed. Once again, WP and folks like the Queen of Hearts are out screaming "off with her head" over the wiki-equivalent of a speeding ticket.  Maybe she went 30 in a 25 zone.   I doubt she'll do this again, ever, particularly after going through this gauntlet.  So give Elen a freaking minor wrist slap and be done with it; it's a first offense, for crying out loud.  No need to throw her to the wolves.   Montanabw (talk) 00:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * More or less agree with that statement. Except I think this was more than a speeding ticket...more like reckless driving to me! Kumioko (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * But what was reckless? If anything, I didn't go far enough. I should have just put it on my talkpage but I wanted to talk it over with someone first, see whether I was overreacting. Too cautious, rather than too reckless I fear. Reckless would have been posting personal data that perhaps endangered someone's safety, made them vulnerable to a stalker. Rather in this case, I can't see how JC could have aright to send a threat of that kind to the Arbs who were up for re-election and expect to be protected by the sanctity of the list. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * At most, 35 in a 25, and that to avoid a collision with a careless driver. But to the point, one citation, even a fairly bad one, doesn't get you enough points on your record to lose your license altogether. Montanabw (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with User:Rschen7754 - and more like reckless driving while drunk going 90 in a 25 mile zone, not wearing a seat belt, and possible man slaughter (of self). Just really really bad judgment. How is lying to ArbCom repeatedly justified? Why not actually "whistle blow" as suggested above? How can secret "chat" be the route to go? MathewTownsend (talk) 01:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * But...think about it. If the other party had just said "oh, don't be silly, it'll be all right" and dumped the information, then there would have been no drama. If I had posted it on my talkpage the reaction would have been pretty much exactly the same as it is now. Putting the information under 'seal of the confessional' rules meant that the only 'right' thing I could do was keep quiet about it. I'm not Boadicea, normal people often ask their friends for advice. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * But, Elen, what purpose was disclosing the actual email supposed to serve? Even if you needed friendly advice, would not an executive summary or a general description have served just as well?  It's arguable that Jclemens misused the mailing list's implicit confidentiality to do politics – but if he did it would have been wrong exactly because those emails aren't supposed to be disseminated; something which you took upon yourself to do.  If you feel one of your colleagues is doing something wrong, sharing it privately with a third party is exactly the worse thing to do.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 01:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Am I absolutely alone in thinking that if one is going to report what someone else said, it is better to report what they actually said than to give your version of it. Particularly when there is the possibility that the version in your head is less flattering than what they actually said. Why are the words so sacrosanct? Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And if you hadn't leaked anything, there would also be no drama. If you had posted it to your talkpage, giving some indication that you felt this was a serious issue that you were willing to step out of the confessional to get handled, there would have been some drama but you would have had a solid basis to claim it was necessary. You did neither of those. You leaked to a friend, you tainted the election with a whisper campaign about the leaked information (whether you intended that to happen or not, the content came from you and you are responsible for its release), you denied it when you were asked if you had violated arbcom's and the community's trust, and you continued to lie about it until you were forced to acknowledge the truth. You did this for your own pleasure/comfort (and possibly that of your friend), not for any moral motivation that might have been a mitigating circumstance. "Normal people" are not arbitrators who signed onto a job that has a written policy prohibiting them from leaking mailing list contents; you stopped being a "normal person" who had the luxury of discussing anything you want with your friends the moment you accepted this job. If you weren't willing to adhere to arbcom's policy, you should not have taken - and you should not have, at this point - this job. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My God Fluff! Normally you talk good sense, but that's a bloody ridiculuous statement. Is this a collaborative project to create an encyclopaedia, which periodically elects a handful of people to deal with intractable disputes. Or has Arbcom suddenly turned into the Obsidian Order. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Your increasingly cavalier attitude is alarming; that you were willing to damage the Committee was bad enough, but that you are holding *our* confidence in such low regard and demonstrating such a sense of being above it all frankly causes me repulsion. And I'm curious to know why we care what the WMF thinks about your breaches of confidence; we didn't elect them either.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't think it's terribly ridiculous to say that if you accept a job which has a policy that confidentiality is required, you have to maintain that confidentiality. After all, you've told us many times in this discussion about how your rl field has confidentiality requirements - would you say it's ridiculous for you to have to adhere to that policy? If not, why is it somehow ridiculous for you to have to adhere to a similar policy here, in a job you volunteered for? After all, if you didn't like it, it's not like this is your livelihood. You could abolutely, at any point in the last two years, said, "You know what? I don't think I'm ok with following this policy. I'm going to either resign, or see about getting it changed" and lost nothing. And yet you signed up for - and remained in - a job with a policy that says you cannot distribute to your non-arbitrator friends copies of what's said on the arbcom mailing list, and you proceeded to do that anyway, and you appear to be utterly gobsmacked that this is seen as a sign of you not taking your responsibilities to the community and your position seriously. I'm...not really sure what anyone can say to that to help you understand at this point. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the more I think about it, the more it's your view that seems out of whack. The information that I deal with is confidential because of what it is. It's people's financial situations, their bank details, whether they get welfare benefits. There are records about children in care that are so sensitive that only a handful of people can see them (not including me although I am responsible for the facility). There's real life implications to it. But no amount of sticking TOP SEEKRIT on someone's opinions will make them confidential. Cllr Foo chewing out the Head of Recreation for closing the swimming pool is a public document, available upon application. There is no reason that 80% of the traffic on that list warrants confidentiality - there's no reason that over 50% of it is even on the list. Information emailed to the committee by third parties and discussions that include personal data both warrant confidentiality, but the rest is just a smokescreen so Arbs can say what they like without fear of censure (although most of what is said is dull, and no-one would want to read it anyway) Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * @Elen, what is astounding is that you've held out this long without resigning, with several arbs and functionaries and admins and editors saying that you should resign. It is clear that you have lost the trust of a significant portion of the community, and arbitrators have resigned for errors that were far less. Obviously not all the community, but a significant portion. I thought it was horrible when Jclemens didn't resign, and that is why I wrote the resignation question on my arbitration election questions this year. Virtually everyone wrote something along the lines of a) inactivity or b) losing the trust of the community, except yourself, which is concerning. --Rschen7754 02:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Some thoughts on the voting from an editor of no importance
Ok, I decided to see if I could follow the voting logic of those supporting this motion. Now, I freely admit I'm biased, because I don't believe Elen did anything wrong, apart from possibly a minor lapse in judgement. Nothing serious, and no breach of any editor's valid expected right of confidentiality. Jclemens could be the only 'victim', not that any victim was intended, and he sacrificed his right to any such protection when he abused the list for electioneering, political machinations, and jockeying for position.

Anyhow, I thought I would share the notes I made on reading the rationales. Only my views, and coloured by my bias, no doubt, but nevertheless, here they are:


 * 1) Courcelles, who cannot "put up" with Elen. Well, ok, probably better ways to express it, but that's his vote.
 * 2) Hersfold, a strange, rambling vote that seems to seek to keep everyone happy. Starts off by saying he sympathises with Elen, and agreeing the posts from Jclemens were inappropriate. Goes on to imply that however inappropriate they should still be confidential, because otherwise the arbs will have nowhere to vent about editors and each other. Explains this is necessary because his fiancee doesn't understand him when he talks about cases. Aside from the interesting question about how talking to his fiancee is any different to Elen talking to a friend, this is an odd statement to say the least. Goes on to imply that had Elen 'confessed', the punishment might have been more lenient - so we plea bargain as well? Does not think she will leak anything truly confidential, but his trust is shattered. So what does he think she will leak? Hmmm.
 * 3) SirFozzie, whose vote I disagree with, but at least he states his position clearly. I disagree, because once Jclemens stepped outside the appropriate use of the list (as arbs have confirmed he did), none of the  private, sensitive, and/or confidential information conditions should apply. But that's my opinion, and he's entitled to his.
 * 4) PhilKnight, who thinks a 'suspension' is a proportionate response. Presumably the logic being that after a short 'punishment' she can be trusted to 'behave herself' again? I thought we didn't punish? Or maybe he thinks it's preventative, because she'll leak stuff during the month.
 * 5) and then AGK, whose "arbitrator's opinion is that she is not" trustworthy. Still, it's not all bad for Elen because "If Elen is re-elected then, privately, I(he) shall be very glad". I stopped trying to look for logic in that statement after that point. At least he confirms that "Most arbitrators were appalled by Jclemens' decision to send the e-mail that was subsequently leaked".

No matter which opinion one has on the issue, one can hardly view these votes without a confused shake of the head. I think the plot is well and truly lost here. Begoon &thinsp; talk 01:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately this is not the first time that an Arbcom decision made me shake my head. Stick around and keep watching and your liable to feel a slight whiplash after a while. :-)Kumioko (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it isn't uncommon, I agree. It's the problem with politically elected "officials" who need to protect their own image as well as fulfil their roles. I sympathise with them to a degree, but when the situation arises that this happens during an election it just emphasises how broken the system is. I don't know what the alternative is but this dichotomy of self interest weighed against serving the community is patently not working. Begoon &thinsp; talk  02:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

AGK's absolute standard
Regarding AGK's claim the list confidentiality is absolute. Risker tipped us off to a jclemens proposal on arbcom-l back 19 October. Admittedly, it was orders of magnitude less of a leak than Elen's, but it certainly revealed a lot to those of us who have been following the Rfa amendment drama. So, either you do the absurd and eject Risker too, or you start applying common sense, context, judgement. NE Ent 02:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * While I wasn't particularly happy with Risker's on-wiki invitation to self-disclose private material, I entirely agree that it was orders of magnitude less serious: Risker didn't conceal what she did, nor did she mislead anyone else about it. Jclemens (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And I'd still encourage you to post it onwiki six weeks later. Risker (talk) 05:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And absent the rest of the context of that conversation, it would be inappropriate to do so, which is why I don't plan on posting anything else I wrote to the Arbcom mailing list(s). Jclemens (talk) 05:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Jclemens, Risker asked you to put your thoughts on civility into the current RFC so that the community could see where you were coming from. She didn't ask you to post any emails. It seems you have a significant view on civility enforcement which will impact your decision-making in the area, but you refused to disclose it to the wider community prior to the election. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Jclemens already published one email outside the context of previous emails written either by him or other arbitrators, so the question of inappropriateness seems moot. Jclemens can presumably pick out the emails he wrote addressing this particular issue and then decide which emails from other arbitrators provide context. (Sensitive personal data should be excluded.) Then he could ask permission of those other arbitrators to publish suitably edited versions of those emails on-wiki. That would only take a day or two. Mathsci (talk) 06:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have published the one email that had already been leaked and then distributed anonymously. The "Well, you published one, why not everything?" argument was the sole reason I chose to try to avoid publishing even that, and I've drawn a logical line: the worst, most offensive email that Elen could not bear to keep in confidence... that is what I've published. What other arbitrators decide to publish of their own contributions is entirely up to them. Jclemens (talk) 06:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Jclemens is being asked to cooperate and arrange matters with fellow arbitrators. Those arbitrators can exercise the right not to have their emails published. According to Hersfold, the most offensive emails from Jclemens have not yet been published. Mathsci (talk) 07:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The motion has passed
When Casliber formally abstained, the number of active arbitrators dropped from 10 to 9, so 5 is a majority. This Motion therefore passed at 02:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC). I left a note on the clerk's noticeboard. --Noren (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As I told you there Noren, it is in dispute what standard to use for the first motion. Until that is resolved, it can't be determined whether it has passed or not. Lord Roem (talk) 05:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Abstained &ne; recused. NE Ent 13:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

What about the other leaker?
With all the usual going for the throat in the above motion, Arbs seem to have (again) dropped the ball on part of the picture. Lest you forget, there is another leaker in your midst, the one who sent the stuff to. There's one scheming devious little coward in your midst that didn't come forward and played some of the dirtiest politics with this. Regardless of what happens with EotR at the elections, it is highly probable that that person will remain on the committee next year.

What is the committee doing to minimize the impact of having one unidentified leaker among its ranks? MLauba (Talk) 09:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The above is based on a likely incorrect premise. While we cannot rule in or out anything, it is believed that the source of the emails to Coren and other cases came from the full email that Elen disclosed to at least one other person (likely multiple other people) who then passed it on to others. To the best of our knowledge, there is only one leaker, and that was the source of our recent statement. SirFozzie (talk) 10:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree. I think the statement gives enough information to indicate that the material that was distributed is the same as that Elen showed to her friend. What might not be clear is that the Committee were not aware that this material was being disseminated until after it had been leaked. The person who distributed the email is most likely to come from the group that starts with Elen's friend and spreads out from there to those with whom the material was shared.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  10:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "In addition, an email written by Jclemens was copied and sent to at least some current candidates on November 19 from a Gmail account. There were certain modifications made to the email that do not match the original or the information shared by Elen of the Roads. All arbitrators have been polled, and all have denied sharing that post with anyone outside of the Committee." That can indicate that the anonymous gmail leak is indeed one of Elen's initial recipients, or that one of you was lying. Are you willing to continue banking the privacy of the real arbcom-l content on that assumption? MLauba (Talk) 11:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Simple balance of probability, MLauba. It is considerably more likely that it came from one of the persons who had received the email as a result of the first leak – none of whom are actually obligated to keep it private – than to posit the existence of a second independent leak from the committee itself.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The timeline of what occurred, plus the full wording of the Gmail does not support a theory that there is another leaker. It is possible to construct a set of circumstances in which another Committee member could be the person responsible for the Gmail, but while some things are possible, that doesn't make them probable. The likelihood is that someone in Elen's friend's group is the person who wrote and distributed the Gmail. And the further you get away from Elen's friend, the more people there are likely to be involved, and - in a sense - the less serious is the "crime". We don't know exactly who received the Gmail - a number of candidates said they did not get it. At least two people who did get it appropriately raised the mater with the Committee. It may well be that is what the writer of the Gmail wanted - simply confirmation that the contents were true, and sent it to people they thought might be able to get the answers. But we don't know. We can go round in circles with theories of motivation. The fact is that the source was Elen. The likelihood is that the writer of the Gmail is part of the group who passed on the material. And the lesson learned is that the Committee, the community and the Foundation need to continue working on improving the way in which the Committee handles emails and discusses business.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  12:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Motion to suspend non-emergency business

 * This is a record of a motion that was declined.

In light of the current debate and deadlock, I propose that we suspend non-emergency business until the election results are known and new arbitrators are sworn in. The new committee in its entirety can clarify (a) the degree and boundaries of confidentiality the list applies to and what to do about the conditional elements within the Arbitration/Policy, namely the "in the performance of their duties" at Arbitration/Policy, and the word "appropriate" at Arbitration/Policy. This will be guided greatly by the community's input into the election which will give feedback on how it would like us to treat this situation. We will still deal with emergencies, but defer all non-urgent business till January.

Support

 * 1) Seriously, the sky is not going to fall in if we do this, but at the moment we're going round in circles. The key factor will be consensus in the voting, and this is central enough that I think we can await an outcome for a few weeks. Really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Seems like a good idea to me. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) 1. Actually, we're doing just fine with non-emergency business. We managed to thank a retiring checkuser and successfully voted on another checkuser's request to return to activity. We have been handling most of the unblock requests per usual manner. Members of the committee have been reviewing an issue brought to our attention per policy. The committee needs to continue its normal functions so that we don't spend the next six weeks failing to meet our obligations and responsibilities. It is what we are doing right and well. Revoking service to the entire community is wrong, as it will send a message that the concerns they would normally bring to this committee are not important enough for us to bother with.  In my opinion, we've sent away people who really needed our assistance far too often this year, and I'm not going to support a motion that institutionalizes it.   Risker (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) No Need. There's nothing on our plate at the moment (other then various appeals to the email list and appeals-en). If new business comes in, we should handle it rather then say "We're too busy running around in circles. Please bring it to us again after January 1". This is a problematic issue, but it's being handled. This is a complete overreaction. SirFozzie (talk) 02:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Risker. While the current interpersonal relationships may be a bit strained, I'm entirely prepared to discharge the necessary duties until the end of my term.  On the other hand, I would note that last year this time core committee business throughput also took a dive during elections as many arbs were running for reelection.  When viewed in that manner, it's really not as bad as to require us to do anything differently... other than the differences inherent in the current situation. Jclemens (talk) 03:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Absurd. The response to a leaker should be to control the leaker, not close up shop and go home.  Courcelles 03:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Per Risker and SirFozzie. PhilKnight (talk) 04:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) The new Committee will likely face a stream of unblock requests, it wouldn't be helpful to add a backlog of requests and other matters.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  08:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Appearance to the contrary, we can get other stuff done while the elections are going on. The above business needs to be wrapped up, whether by tabling the motion or just seeing where arbs fall and finishing it off; but that doesn't affect any of our other business.  Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) I think I'm able to vote on this motion, and I agree with the other opposers that it's a bad idea. (Cynically, I would say that there are two possible bad outcomes if we were to suspend the Committee's work for a month as proposed: either it will turn out that Wikipedia can't function without the Arbitration Committee, or else it will turn out that it can!) Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Arbitrators

 * Essentially this debate needs to be broader than (a) some non-recused arbs, (b) some folks who are commenting here and on some guides and talk pages. i.e. we need a few hundred folks' input Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * @Risker - I suppose I can reword to "not taking cases" - but I'd argue that keeping up our checkuser quota is (almost) emergency business :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Even that is is asinine. If someone wheel wars, or presents us a convincing reason to take a case, to say 'Sorry, we're not taking cases right now. Try again in January' is absolutely a horrible idea. SirFozzie (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ... Except that non-reelected arbitrators would remain on the committee as arbs pro tem until the end of the last case opened during their term. I'm not sure anyone necessarily thinks that's a good idea in this case. Jclemens (talk) 03:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments by the rest of us

 * Yes! Wisest thing I've read in days. NE Ent 02:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This effectively puts the decision in the hands of the community rather than those involved in the dispute and I would consider this the most effective solution. Not optimal, none will be, but the best of a lot of bad choices, and the one with the least drama.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 02:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A proposal to shut down ArbCom because of what Elen and Jclemens did rather than to make a decision about what they did? That the issue would be enough to cause you to shut down business speaks volumes.  Surely the arbs can't find it too difficult to police their own, when they are tasked with policing the community. "Decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent. Churchill, November 12, 1936."  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Errr, no-one is invading Europe Sandy. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Is cavalier contagious? And why is Elen voting? Perhaps you prefer Cromwell? "You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"  I have another idea ... why don't you just not have Jclemens and Elen be involved in any cases?  Oh, wait ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * She is still an arbitrator, as is Jclemens, as is Newyorkbrad, as is David Fuchs (the last three having abstained above). This is a committee motion. As long as they are part of the committee, their votes are weighted the same as the rest of ours. We've been here before, SandyGeorgia, although several here might not have been around the last time we went through it. The difference is that the last time was at the start of a term, not the end of one, and the committee had more internal resources. We didn't, however, have a way of removing someone. Now we do. That the threshold is not being met does not mean that we are doing it wrong. Not even the proposal being made at the top of the page would remove anyone's authority to vote. Risker (talk) 03:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It can be simpler than that, Risker. A blocked arbitrator cannot edit the vote page. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * We hired ArbCom to solve our disputes, not pass the buck. --Rschen7754 02:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not a community dispute but a constitutional conundrum, and we are not GovCom. And firming up some of these really needs more input than a handful of folks here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Both Elen and Jclemens are part of the Wikipedia community, and what about a case request for next week? --Rschen7754 02:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Depends on the urgency, but often enough little would happen before January anyway even if a case were filed tomorrow. Well, yes they are, but had this taken place elsewhere, we'd be having a community-based discussion (RfC) before a case. Finally the community as a wholes view is a really important piece of the puzzle here, so I do not think it is passing the buck. Casliber (talk ·' contribs) 03:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ... so you're now giving people a get out of jail free card until January? This will encourage the sort of bad behavior that a case is needed for. --Rschen7754 03:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In light of the "constitutional condundrum" this is a sound course of action. Don't force an issue that impacts the legitimacy of the committee if it can be avoided. As an addendum, either the Committee or the Community will want to amend the removal policy to better address a situation like this where recusals interfere with the required super majority. The question of the threshold for partial removal of the rights granted to arbs will also need to be addressed. Monty  845  03:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Makes little difference now. The damage to reputations is done. This could have been the basis for a better initial motion, although speculation and drama would still have ensued, but the well is now successfully poisoned by the first motion. Begoon &thinsp; talk  03:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * adding - as for: "This will be guided greatly by the community's input into the election which will give feedback on how it would like us to treat this situation." No, I think the community needs to tell you what the rules will be, not "advise" you. This fiasco demonstrates that self government of arbcom does not work. I mean, how could that possibly go wrong? Judge and jury over yourselves... Begoon &thinsp; talk  03:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree with Risker, "Closed for business because we are incompetent" is a not a good look. Why not just all resign? Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This post gets my vote for the winner; certainly trumps Churchill and Cromwell. Wandering off to figure out who Alanscottwalker is ... Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand the intention here - the paralysis the committee (and, to some extent, the community) is already suffering over this issue is evident - but I don't think crossing your arms and stating that you can't and won't deal with it, or anything else besides, is the answer here. Arbitrators are in their positions because we believe them to be rational, intelligent human beings who are more capable than the rest of us at resolving intractable disputes and behavioral problems. If you're all really, seriously unable to resolve this dispute, in any way, in either direction, with all the tools at your disposal...I don't know. "Why don't you all just quit?" isn't the answer here, but guys, we specifically picked you to do this stuff. What are we supposed to do when you just refuse to do what we "hired" you to do? We can't do your jobs. There are no arbitrator scabs hanging out in the background who can do your jobs. If you also can't or won't do your jobs, they simply won't get done...and we have an Arbcom in the first place because the things you guys do are important and necessary. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 03:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We're seeing the tail-end of a dysfunctional ArbCom, in which I think the community has little trust right now (at least, those of us who care about such things). What I'm seeing is desperate measure upon desperate measure to try to hold things together, just like we see in failing political states around the world. I think the most honorable thing for the current ArbCom to do right now is resign from everything bar the most essential of duties, and leave the community to decide who to trust. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be a start, but do you think that goes far enough? To quote Battlestar Galactica, "this has all happened before, and it will all happen again". It's not the people that are "broken" mostly, it's the system that allows these splits to be so damaging. Refresh my memory - what usually happens next in those failing states? Begoon &thinsp; talk  13:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Good question, and a good point. I really don't have a longer term answer. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't either. I think we will need at some point to ask some serious questions, though. Is it an arbitration body we want? I don't think that's what we have. It doesn't arbitrate at all, most of the time, it sits in judgement and hands down sanctions from on high. That's not the same thing at all. I think we have to accept that what we've ended up with is GOVCOM, complete with all the lovely political trimmings that brings along. We treat it as a government, with election campaigns etc, and once elected, we relinquish all control to it and tell it to govern itself too. That's great, because then we can go to the pub secure in the knowledge we've left someone in charge of the shop. Unfortunately, the danger in that is that when we get back it's not our shop any more. The place we are now is an inevitable result of that. Perhaps that's the first question - how did we get here, and is this where we want to be? I'm rambling, because I don't have the answers - but I'm damn sure there are enough clever people in this community to talk it through and try and find some answers, given the will. Problem is, I don't even know if that will exists - maybe everyone is happy, and thinks this is crazy talk... Begoon &thinsp; talk  16:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The 2012 Arbitration Committee Election is closing today
The 2012 Arbitration Committee Election is closing today (in about 8 hours). Until then, users may review the election page to learn more about the election and determine if they are eligible to vote.

Voters are encouraged to review the candidate statements prior to voting. Voter are also encouraged to review the candidate guide. Voters can review questions asked of each candidate, which are linked at the bottom of their statement, and participate in discussion regarding the candidates.

Voters can cast their ballot by visiting Special:SecurePoll/vote/259.

Voters can ask questions regarding the election at this page.

For the Electoral Commission.  MBisanz  talk 15:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

RE: Request concerning Cla68
Future Perfect at Sunrise just closed an RfE without obtaining consensus first (although they claim that they did). Is this allowed? If it's allowed, is it a good idea? Do the opinions of the community not matter? I seem to recall one of the AE admins soliciting more input for feedback of uninvolved non-admins, but when that feedback is offered, it's summarily rejected. What's the point of uninvolved non-admins commenting on these RfEs if it's just going to be ignored? Are members of the community just wasting their time when they review these issues? Because if I'm just wasting my time, I'd like to know that. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Notice that he closed it before I could come in and give a rebuttal to some of the points raised by other admins in the thread, after he blocked me to prevent me from giving my side? Notice that he moved to close it quickly when other admins were proposing sanctions against the filing party? I'm not surprised at all. Cla68 (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You are free to appeal any enforcement action to a community discussion noticeboard or to the Committee itself. Otherwise, I'm not sure this is the appropriate place to discuss this issue. Lord Roem (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we please handle this situation in a fashion that doesn't give any further encouragement to the banned editors who are laughing their heads off at all of us already? I pose this as a request in the hope that we don't need to do anything else. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * @Lord Roem: I was at AE and clicked on Talk.  I don't know why AE doesn't have its own dedicated talk page, but this is the talk page for AE.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * @Newyorkbrad: No.  I want to know why I'm wasting my time.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad, it appears to be that your attitude towards this is, "We can't do anything to stop this BATTLEGROUND feud, because if we do anything to the established editor, then the banned editor will think that he won." With that attitude, you are contributing to the continuation of this situation.  It's got to be stopped, now.  I will be filing an ArbCom case request about Future Perfect at Sunrise, probably later today.  When I do, please step outside of that (well-intentioned) logic box you've gotten yourself into, and take some action to stop this.  I'm not the one who is furthering it, it's stuff like what Future Perfect did today and has been doing for months which is doing it. Cla68 (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "No consensus"? When I first outlined my proposed closure, at 13:01 UTC, it came as a summary of two sets of proposals, each of which had previously been agreed to by several admins. After that, one other admin (ErrantX) concurred he regarded it as an acceptable solution [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=526541845&oldid=526528702]. Then I made my formally worded proposal , at 17:25 UTC, inviting further comments. Then three other admins endorsed it (John Carter, Timotheus C and Seraphimblade). That's when I finally closed the thread. I dare say you'll rarely get AE closures that have a more clearly confirmed consensus than this one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not a vote. It's a discussion.  You closed the RfE a mere 6 minutes after I last posted.  Do you honestly think that everyone had a chance to look at the issues I raised in only 6 minutes? Please, give me a break.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For me, at least, it became clear that AE is not a venue able to address the broader issues (as my attempt to do so showed). That's fine, I accept the reasoning behind that. There was little point extending the thread further, and I am a fan of quick resolutions when I stops le dramaz. If no one else has done so I will file an Arbcom case in January (when the elections are sorted, filing now would be unfair) in an attempt to have this all cleared up. There is a plethora of evidence and recent comments from arbcom indicate that they too are tired of the various participants in this dispute. --Errant (chat!) 09:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I won't pretend to be familiar with the issues involved here, but wouldn't ArbCom have the greatest chance at resolving them before the end of the year? At the end of the year many of the current arbitrators will be replaced with new arbitrators who haven't previously served on the committee, and who won't have the same degree of familiarity with what's going on. In this situation, I would think having some background about the history is essential for knowing how to resolve it. --Mors Martell (talk) 13:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The knee-jerk idea of a new R&I case is a non-starter, since at present, apart from one loose end after the review, there are no unresolved issues. Fortunately there will be some continuity in the arbitration committee. Experienced arbitrators like Newyorkbrad (assuming he is re-elected) and Roger Davies will be able to help in distinguishing between trolling by Echigo mole (an irrelevance which has been allowed to grow out of all proportion) and the real issues of R&I (proxy-editing for and facilitating of site-banned users). Unless editors familarize themselves with the original case and its immediate aftermath, their input is of very limited value. Mathsci (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not envisioning an R&I case, which largely seems laid to rest, but one examining extant behavioural issues (battleground behaviour, gaming etc.) arising from that and other issues. --Errant (chat!) 21:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Anything remotely connected to R&I or Echigo mole would almost certainly be refused due to "R&I fatigue syndrome". Mathsci (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There's something I've been wanting to say, and this is as good a place as any to say it...is why is there so much effort lately to frame this and other alleged editor misconduct issues as "personal disputes" that should be resolved by interaction bans? You know, if there really is a problem with an editor's (an I mean this in general, not directed at anyone in particular) continued conduct, then how is an interaction ban supposed to resolve it?  An interaction ban simply silences the editor(s) who have decided that something needs to be done about the problem and are trying to push WP's reluctant administration to take care of it.  I understand why WP's administration is hesitant to take on a problem, especially when it involves established editors, because Wikipedia's current system ensures that it will be frustrating, time-consuming, and adversarial.  However, and I'm talking to you Wikipedia admins, including arbs, by becoming an admin you have signed up to deal with editor conduct issues.  Imposing interaction bans when there is evidence of misconduct by one or more of the parties does not solve anything.  It simply kicks the can down the road.  You do this, you are failing in your responsibility.


 * I'm a content editor, so I don't normally hang around ANI and AN looking for problems to solve. I pick my issues carefully that I get involved in.  But, when I get involved, it's because I sincerely believe there is a problem that needs to be addressed.  When you immediately label me as having a "personal conflict" and impose an interaction ban when I'm trying to make my case, you are basically telling me, and other interested parties to "F-off."  That's not the way this should be working.  I appreciate ErrantX volunteering to take this one on, but it shouldn't be necessary to have to work this way. Cla68 (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There has been plenty of opportunity in the last couple of months for anyone to prepare a statement backed by some real diffs ("real" meaning that independent editors can see for themselves that a significant problem exists). As no one has posted anything substantial, the matter should be dropped. If new cases arise that cause someone concern, they can find a way to start a suitable discussion (perhaps initiated by email). Johnuniq (talk) 02:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have posted some evidence with diffs . Cla68 (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: Are you planning on responding? Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that as an admin, you are required to justify your actions. First, you blocked an editor against consensus and then you closed an RfE without consensus. Perfection is not expected from admins, but that's 2 mistakes in a row. You need to explain why the community should entrust you with the tools. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Organizational question
Am I the only one who finds it odd that we put multiple cases on a single page? I've spent ten minutes trying to track down a diff, partly because there is so much activity on Arbitration/Requests. It would also make archiving cleaner, as I have found it difficult to find past cases, and think it would be easier if there were one case to a page. I accept that one might not want a separate page for every little motion, but a request for a full case? Even tiny MfD's have their own page.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  18:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. It would be much better to keep them separate in my opinion. Kumioko (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd advise you to use Arbitration/Requests/Case rather than the full requests page which may make the edit conflicts/tracking down a diff a bit easier. To help with finding past cases (if you haven't already seen it), we have Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Lord Roem (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Page organisation is terrible - someone thought they were "clever" to merge a bunch of talk pages, why on earth requests don't have separate pages is a mystery. Possibly that the harder things are to find the less light can be shone in dark places? Surely not! Rich Farmbrough, 18:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC).

Comment on the SchuminWeb case
The SchuminWeb case illustrates the affect of the stygma that Arbcom now has on user cases. If the case gets accepted, its basically an automatic guilty verdict because they wouldn't take the case unless they thought there was something there requiring action. The result of that is the user just leaves. Because to spend the next several weeks depating about your editing with every editor who you have ever come across, just ends up being a waste of time in the end. Its happened at least a couple times before and now again with Schuminweb. Its starting to be a conditioned response by the users. Hopefully the new shakeup will change that perception with the community. Kumioko (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I know that you make this point frequently. I think it is overstated to an extent; there are lots of cases in which we have decided that no findings are warranted against one or more of the parties, or that even if there is a finding, no sanction or only a mild sanction is warranted. It depends on the individual case.
 * You are probably right that when we accept a "one-user" case (i.e. a case focused primarily on the user conduct or administrator actions of a single editor), it is typically because the statements on the request for arbitration give us some cause for concern about that editor's behavior. However, I'm afraid I don't know what can be done about this. Of course we are only going to accept an arbitration case about an editor if there is good reason to believe there may be something problematic about that editor's behavior. What is the alternative&mdash;that we also open arbitration cases against people who don't seem to have done anything wrong?
 * This isn't meant insincerely or sarcastically&mdash;I honestly don't see what it is you are suggesting that the arbitrators do differently. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that there isn't much that can be done with regard to choosing to take the case. I think the changes lie in how the case is carried out and the result. The problem I see is that the primary result of a case regarding users is, desysop, ban (either sitewide or topic) or both, and that these are nearly always carried out at the end of a case regardless of the arguments presented by the user. The problem with these cases are, they are long and time consuming so typically the only ones that partipate are the accused, the accuser(s) and the Arbcom. This means that the user, essentially has to defend themselves and their actions from all the members of Arbcom and their questons and from 3-10 accusers. Then after all that, the result is desysop, ban or both, in 98% of the cases. So why go through it at all, knowing what lies at the end of that road? I trully do not know how to fix this problem other than to reengineer the Arbcom process to treat cases against individual editors differently than standard topic cases rather than the one size fits all process that currently exists. Kumioko (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. The problem is that I don't think your estimate that 98% of cases result in desysops or bans or both is really accurate. If you take a look at the cases decided in the past couple of years (the list is at WP:RFAR/C), I think you'll discover many cases where there were no sanctions, or only admonitions or warnings or mild restrictions, or where sanctions were voted against only a couple but not all of the named parties. So I think you may be overstating the situation just a bit. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. I have seen that before and have looked at or participated in several of those. I agree that admonishments and lesser sanctions have been doled out but those are typically related to topic cases or to third parties involved. Not at the primary defendant (for lack of a better word). One possibile way to stem some of this is to setup a pool of editors, outside Arbcom, who would be willing to act as a sort of Peer review (a Jury if you will), then they vote in secret, like the voting for the Arbcom elections, so that their vote doesn't sway the views of the other members. Of course the Arbcom members would still get their vote and say but would be more like the Judges and the executioner rather than Judge, Jury AND executioner. Of course this is contingent on having enough editors willing to participate outside those already on Arbcom but its one idea anyway. This would take some of the heat of of Arbcom as being the monsters, it would give other editors a chance to familiarize themselves with the cases and the process, it would, I think, also add a level of legitimacy to what currently looks from the outside as a rather one sided and jaded process. Kumioko (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A form of Grand Jury to decide on whether there is a case to answer might be a good idea. A total review of the process is needed though. Rich Farmbrough, 22:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC).


 * What could arbitrators do differently? I have spent a considerable time suggesting some things that could be done differently, I was shocked on so many levels when I saw how such an apparently august body conducted its affairs.  I believe one small improvement  was voted on, and passed, the rest was at best disregarded.  So there is change number one, listen and act on criticism, and don't assume that simply because  the critic is in a case they are ... what was the expression? "mooning the jury".
 * In the broader matter of how a case can be handled better to avoid the problems Kumioko mentions
 * Decide if this is an arbitration or an adversarial process.  If it is arbitration, get some professional advice from professional arbitrators (if necessary apply for funds to do this).   We  had at least one on-wiki during my case, I believe his comments could have been very useful if they had been taken on-board.
 * Limit the scope of the arbitration. Any long-standing editor will be happy to reply to a 500 word statement, but thousands upon thousands of words posted by a team of accusers is not good. (Again to refer to my case, none of the "findings" against me referred to the matter brought to the committee, but to various other matters, including one in which the drafting Arb was in dispute with me.)
 * Look for positive ways forward. Consider excluding the submissions of parties that will not contribute, or show bad faith. (Again in my case, the parties effectively bringing the case refused to answer questions put by me.  This showed they were simply out to do as much damage as possible, not to look for solutions.  In Betacommand a number of editors looked at positive ways forward. the committee AFAICR ignored these ideas.)
 * Onward and upward! Rich Farmbrough, 22:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC).

Clarification request: Claritas' request for a clean start
Initiated by  Claritas § at 07:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Statement by Claritas
I have been refused a clean start by the Arbitration Committee, although I am under no active editing restrictions or Arbitration sanctions.

The justification for this refusal given by Coren is that my unblock was under certain conditions. This is not the case - there are no restrictions logged against me at the page on editing restrictions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claritas (talk • contribs)


 * Just to clarify, I would accept an indefinite ban on XfD participation on a new account. I will not edit under an account which can be directly linked to this account by the average user, because too many people dislike me for me to have a pleasant working environment. Claritas § 14:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * '''I encourage all arbitrators to review a clean-start when I was still banned. This is how I can and would edit. Content work, reviews, nothing else.


 * SilkTork is right that I am not under any restriction. I offered a topic ban when I was unbanned, but there was no need for it. I fail to see how my XfD activity is contentious (quite a lot of them get closed as delete, you know). It has not been brought up on any of the drama boards. I was banned for block evasion, and blocked because I hoaxed.'''


 * My behaviour may seem irrational, but I cannot edit productively with this account because of the way I used it before and the fact that I feel my reputation is dirt. I plead with you to understand that a clean start would be in everyone's interests. It would be in your interests because I wouldn't be causing AC level fuss, and it would be in my interests because I'd get more done and would feel comfortable editing Wikipedia. --Claritas §  00:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I will not seek a clean start. I think I agree with SilkTork's reasoning, in that the community is best posed to monitor my activity, not the arbitration committee. I will change my username instead, and avoid AfD. Sorry for causing so much fuss. Claritas § 10:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Carrite

 * I've been very loosely in a mentorship position with Claritas. I've been in touch with Claritas off-wiki with regards to his latest dustup at AfD which has prompted the decision to change user names. Claritas feels he is being drawn in to previously existing controversies based on his user name alone and wants the chance to contribute to the encyclopedia in peace. I advised him that this seemed like a good idea and that he should steer clear of nominating anything further to AfD regardless of whether or not he made a user name change. He is not approaching the use of a new name dishonestly, he earnestly wants to terminate the first name and the associated baggage with it so that he can edit with the second in peace. My understanding is that this is a permitted reason for a name change and I'm at a loss as to why he was instantly blocked for attempting to make good faith edits under an alternative name. I urge the new committee to reconsider this matter, even if the solution includes a topic ban of the new account from AfD and absolute termination of the first. Carrite (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * In short: the committee needs to Assume Good Faith here. This is not an attempt to sock around a block, it's a restart where one is needed... Carrite (talk) 21:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * @Volunteer Marek. My understanding was Claritas was primarily interested in a simple name change, rather than a formal clean start — I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong. Since he previously socked around a block, even this was seen in the worst possible light. I hope he's allowed to lose the old name and hope he learns to let the cruft lie and to concentrate on positive improvements. I hope also that the new Arb Com not only makes this possible, but puts teeth behind it by banning AfD nominations, no matter the user name. The problem here isn't dishonest socking around a ban, it's Claritas again stirring up a bee's nest by attempting to bring crufty in-universe material to AfD. (Just let that shit sit, my friend, it's not worth caring about...) Carrite (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * @Hahc21. You've got it. Add a proviso that the clean start account is to be the only account and have Claritas affirm that he will not sock and you're home. Carrite (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * General comment: Claritas's AfD nominations were not "bad" ones — far less controversial than those regularly hauled to AfD by The Usual Deletionist Suspects. "Buckets of in-universe fan cruft from sci-fi," I guess we could characterize the pieces he challenged that way. Probably 75% of his nominations would end as Deletes, I'm guessing. So he has not been abusive of the process, per se. The problem is that there is a contingent of fanboy types that want to take him out for challenging the notability of their treasured articles... The key here is to call it a draw: Claritas needs to concentrate on making positive contributions to the Serious Encyclopedia and to leave the Compendium of Popular Culture alone. It's hard for him, but that's what needs to happen. Carrite (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek
How about just a username change, rather than clean start? That way the new name will link to the old username and anyone who really cares should be able to find it, but there won't be any automatic stigma attached to the username.

And I can't believe that stupid Asmodeus D&D article was actually kept. Tells you something about the project's priorities. Volunteer Marek 22:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough
Since Claritas would be under the restriction to steer clear of XfD, per WP:CLEANSTART or risk having the new account linked with the old, it would seem that disallowing a clean start achieves nothing.

It should be noted, of course, that it is not in ArbCom's purview to allow or disallow a clean start. "You are not required to notify anyone of your clean start." and "no one can grant permission for a clean start."

I think the committee should avoid ruling on this matter, and should rescind any previous ruling. Should Claritas wish to clarify whether the wording of the policy includes unblock restrictions, they may ask anyone they wish for advice, but it would have no binding authority, it seems to me, unless it was a question asked of the community.

Rich Farmbrough, 00:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC).


 * To NewYorkBrad, I would have relatively little trouble with the policy stating that users under sanction were required to have Arbcom approval to restart (BASC might be a better group), however I cannot see where it  does say that.  It even supports my suggestion "you can ask a member of the Arbitration committee or the functionaries team for advice."
 * Secondly, on being "burned" I don't see this as a big problem. A user is problematic, does a restart and is problematic again.  Unless this is serial we deal with the problematic user, very likely linking them with the original account.
 * Rich Farmbrough, 18:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC).
 * Rich Farmbrough, 18:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC).

Comment by Mathsci
A significant proportion of Claritas' contributions since his unblock at the beginning of November have been to XfDs, contrary to the conditions to which he agreed. Even now his current username does not prevent him from moving his editing activities away from XfDs. Mathsci (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by BOZ
When a particularly egregious case of a history of misbehavior occurs within the community, it is in the community's best interest to be able to keep an eye on that user. I noticed Claritas at AFD a few years ago, and while this account seemed to be pretty aggressive on fictional element articles, I suppose this is nothing unique. Then before long, it seemed like... gee... there were a lot more accounts with the same approach, and... on the same types of articles. Hmm, but I guess I did not think much of that until I found out that, oh, these were actually the same person, and some of these accounts were being used to change the course of the same AFDs, while others were being used to circumvent blocks once the earlier socks were found out. Whew. So then Claritas came out with this admission that the user was specifically doing this to mess with people and/or prove some kind of point. Then, after the ban was in effect, the user came back more than once, after short periods of time, to claim they had a change of heart and weren't going to misbehave anymore. I'm sure if I wanted to take the time to go back and re-read all the history, I cound find even more unsavory stuff.

So, needless to say, I was very uneasy when the user came back in October to say they had put their past behind them. The standard offer was put up to a community vote on whether to allow Claritas back, and consensus said we would give the user another shot (but not without reservations). I decided not to oppose, because despite my concerns, if this user was sincere, I did not want to assume bad faith. At first things were pretty quiet, with the user being unblocked at the beginning of November, but less than two weeks later, and after assuring us that Claritas was here to work on article building (which, as far as I can tell, has yet to happen - at all), AFD participation resumed, and two weeks after that, AFD nominations resumed in earnest, with AFD being the sole form of pariticpation for this user since mid-December as far as I can tell. If Claritas actually had any intention of putting the community at ease by avoiding this account's number one problem area and doing actual work on articles, then this was very quickly forgotten.

This user strikes me as being very short on patience, with some deficiency in maturity and civility as well. These are not sufficient reasons alone to ban a user, but given this user's history I think the community has a right be concerned with their participation. It would be doing the community a disservice to have Claritas assume a new name that we would be unaware of, especially if they want to continue with the same sort of activity that they have since the unban. If Claritas sincerely wants a clean start, then let's call this a "false start"; get on with article building and get away from XfD, and I can guarantee your past will be quickly forgotten. BOZ (talk) 06:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Hahc21
A solution may be the next: "is offered a clean start under a new username which will be disclosed only to the Arbitration Committee. Claritas is hereby limited to edit only under the new account, and if he wishes to change the name of the one account he is allowed to use, he must receive prior permission from the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the new account is banned from XfD for a period not less than a year; violation of the ban will result in an indefinite block; the connection with the Claritas account shall be given as proof to support such block, which can only be performed by a sitting arbitrator as a discretionary measure." Just some thoughts, though. — ΛΧΣ  21  06:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * @Carrite: I have made some tweaks; although, of course, it's in the committee's hands the final resolution of the situation. — ΛΧΣ  21  20:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * @AQFK: When he requested to be unbaned, he was recommended to stay away from XfDs, not banned from XfD. So, he did not violate any condition. As Claritas himself stated, he was unbaned under no restrictions. — ΛΧΣ  21  20:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge
If Claritas was allowed to resume editing on the basis that they would stay away from AfD discussions, and they immediately violated that condition, why is Claritas not blocked? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, Claritas should be blocked for violating their condition to stay away from AfDs. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Themfromspace
The request to change name should be denied. Due to Claritas' history with socking, this should be obvious. When we agreed to let him back in, we gave him a second chance. But we didn't give him carte blanche to evade scrutiny.

Ideally, the discussion should stop here, but some editors (mostly ideological opponents) are saying that Claritas has to keep away from XfD. Claritas was unblocked without any special conditions or prohibitions, just an encouragement to mentor with Carrite. The statement he made saying he could stay away from XfDs was never incorporated into his unblock provision. There were no special unblock conditions for him to violate, nor does it appear that editors at the unblock discussion expected him to return with an XfD prohibition.

Finally, arbitrator Jclemens absolutely needs to recuse himself from this discussion and keep his comments away from the arbitrators' discussion section. He is not neutral and his comments stem from an ideological disagreement rather than an objective look at the situation. Proving this point, he has been disruptive in XfDs created by Claritas, using ad-hominem smear attacks directed at him.  Them From  Space  00:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Claritas, considering your history, there was no way a CLEANSTART was going to be granted. Considering your profane email to the Committee after being told your cleanstart wasn't going to be allowed, do you honestly believe that asking publicly will have any different result? SirFozzie (talk) 11:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Claritas, you've been unblocked under the proviso that your behaviour would not return to that which led to your ban (including a great deal of socking); this self-evidently requires the community to be able to examine your behaviour and that you do not switch to an undisclosed account. In particular, you've swiftly ended up in the same trouble areas that led to your initial difficulties; switching accounts at that point (and so close after your unban) cannot be viewed as anything but attempting to evade scrutiny. &mdash; Coren (talk) 13:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Carrite, the baggage Claritas carries isn't with the name of the account, but his behaviour around XfD – which he was quick to return to despite having been unbanned on the promise of concentrating on writing rather than engaging there. It's not a question of assuming good faith on Claritas's part but that the community needs to be able to evaluate whether its trust to allow him to return was well-placed; and that can't be done if he switches accounts. I'd be entirely willing to revisit the idea of allowing a clean start after a couple of months of good behaviour, but not this soon and not on the heels of his having gotten into a spat around XfD again.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 02:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Claritas, your hands are so far from clean in this matter that I think the community should actively revisit the decision to unblock you, which was based on statements you made which are manifestly not true. You promised to "produce quality content in the future" and you volunteered that you were "happy to have an indefinite self or community imposed ban on XfD participation. I'm here to write." when in fact your recent contributions list is filled with fictional elements AfD participation, rather than content creation. In fact you renominated an article that you'd previously nominated as a sockpuppet My term on the committee is ending, so I will not need to formally recuse on any vote relating to this matter, but given that I and other fictional elements editors have been victimized by your previous sockpuppetry campaigns, I would indeed recuse if I were placed in such a position. Jclemens (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Carrite, your statement "The problem is that there is a contingent of fanboy types that want to take him out for challenging the notability of their treasured articles..." demonstrates an assumption of bad faith and shows you are manifestly unsuitable to act as a mentor to Claritas. The problem is actually that there aren't enough editors interested in improving popular culture content using sources that exist, and nominators who nominate multiple articles per day, ignore WP:BEFORE, and ignore WP:ATD-preferred options like merging create a situation where content that could be improved is instead regularly deleted because of the AfD-prompted race against time to prove notability.  You're entitled to differ with my assessment of the situation, of course, but casting aspersions and blaming Claritas' victims for his misbehavior is not appropriate mentoring behavior. Jclemens (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * @Themfromspace--Carrite started the partisan discussion; I'm merely pointing out how inappropriate it was. I already stated I would be recused on any vote.  As far as the examples of my properly applying scrutiny to Claritas goes, I am proud to have appropriately kept the focus on his history of partisan socking.  The fact that you happen to agree with his take on many fictional elements shouldn't play into anything: he socked, got banned, came back, and went back to the same behavior and same topics that were public at the time when he was socking before.  Unfortunately, your post shows a tendency to excuse inappropriate behavior in those with whom we agree--I've made a habit of being harder on those with similar interests and wikiphilosophies to my own, because no one can say I do so because of their viewpoints.  If everyone would take such an approahc, we could keep the wikiphilosophies out of it, and just focus on inappropriate behavior. I think that would be a better outcome all around--wouldn't you agree? Jclemens (talk) 01:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No - behaviour is problematic. Claritas you won't be victimised if you don't go looking for trouble. AfD is a confrontational area where you are extremely likely to end up arguing with others. If you produce good content, the rest will follow and other concerns can be laid to rest. I am good wiki-friends with several editors I would regularly clash with at AfD, yet get on very cordially elsewhere. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Claritas: I didn't participate in the ArbCom discussions but because of the recentness of your unblock, and your rapid return to contentious areas, it was entirely appropriate to intervene in your attempt at a cleanstart.  Roger Davies  talk 01:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * @Claritas: that's certainly something to think about for the future but my colleagues are unanimous that a clean start now would be too soon. In any case, who would police a secret topic-ban? It isn't realistic for ArbCom to do so.  Roger Davies  talk 15:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * @Claritas: that seems the best way forward. I'll ask the clerks to close this now.  Roger Davies  talk 10:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Concur with Coren, essentially. Claritas, I think you've got potential as an editor, and encourage you to focus on content work at this time. Risker (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * To Claritas: You were allowed to resume editing on the basis that you would stay away from AfD discussions and focus on content, but instead, you returned to participating in those discussions and making contentious AfD nominations almost immediately. This would have been an issue, but might have been surmountable, if you had participated in AfD in a routine way, but you returned to the specific practices within AfD that made your participation problematic in the past. You haven't explained, either on this page or in your e-mails to the Committee, why you did this&mdash;and it's not as if you were addressing some issue of supervening importance that might conceivably have justified invoking IAR, such as a serious BLP problem that no one else was addressing. I agree with my colleagues that if you want to continue editing at this point, you really need to focus on content for awhile. If you do focus on content and you encounter problems not of your making in that context, I might be willing to reconsider a cleanstart request from you at that time, though I can't speak for my colleagues. You can also consider the option of a rename.
 * To Rich Farmbrough: Although you are right that ordinarily an editor may effect a cleanstart without anyone's permission, it was decided some time ago that an editor who is under an active sanction must consult with ArbCom first. There were too many prior incidents of users under sanctions or restrictions creating a new account and using it to make edits that would clearly have violated the sanction or restriction if made under the original account name. I am probably more open to allowing such restarts where an editor really does show evidence of wanting to turn over a new leaf, than are some of my arbitrator colleagues&mdash;but my colleagues can probably point to more than one instance in which we and the community have been burned before. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that this is a community blocked user who the community unblocked. The user is not under sanctions, and there were no restrictions imposed in the unblocking, other than encouragement to seek mentoring: . Users often write to the Committee for advice regarding a clean start. When a previously problematic user contacts the Committee regarding a clean start, we may advise against it as that heads off any potential future problems. However, I'm not sure ArbCom has the authority to forbid a clean start for a user not under any sanctions. In this case, the user has apparently re-entered the topic area that caused problems in the first place, and there is some genuine concern that the user would not make appropriate use of a clean start. Though there appears to be a lack of clarity regarding protocol in this situation, sometimes decisions have to be made which are in the best interest of the community even if there is no precise authority for such decisions. It may be helpful to have further discussion on this matter to see if the community are willing to explicitly grant the Committee authority to forbid users from creating new accounts when the Committee feels that such a restriction is in the best interest of Wikipedia.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  21:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Claritas commented (on his talkpage while his unblock request was pending, with the request that it be copied to ANI): "happy to have an indefinite self or community imposed ban on XfD participation. I'm here to write." I believe members of the community relied on this commitment in deciding to give him another chance. That doesn't mean it's an eternal and unyielding commitment, if Claritas had posted an occasional "keep" or "delete" comment, or (for example) posted to an AfD of an article he had contributed to, I don't think anyone would have raised an eyebrow, let alone pressed a block button. But when Claritas returned almost immediately to the same type of contentious AfD participation that had raised problems in the past, an issue was created; and when he proposed to then start editing from a new account, an issue was created for our Committee, as the community would have know way of knowing about it. (That being said, personally I might not have blocked the account right away, but quietly kept an eye on it. That's because I'm notoriously the most mamby-pamby arbitrator, and it's hardly surprising that Coren and others didn't see things that way given his prior history.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not advocating for the user, I'm just not sure the Committee has the authority to forbid a clean start under these conditions. The user has not been subject to ArbCom sanctions, and is currently under no community sanctions. Neither the clean start policy nor ArbCom policy appears to grant the Committee the authority to deny a clean start in this situation. I am informed on the Committee email list that standard practice is to deny a clean start to any previously sanctioned user, and that the clean start policy page is lagging behind such practice. As such, it may be time to update that page, and so I have started a discussion: Wikipedia talk:Clean start  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  22:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The committee didn't forbid a clean start. An arbitrator, of his own volition, stopped it in its tracks once it had happened.  Roger Davies  talk 22:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) ****In areas like this, rigidly applied policies that don't allow for reasonable discretion should be avoided. The reason the Committee has a role in this circumstance is because if an editor wants to make a clean start, he or she obviously can't convene a community discussion about whether he or she may do so. (Even if the sanctioned editor didn't mention the new username, the discussion would lead his or her erstwhile disputants or critics to start a hunt for it, which would be unhelpful for everyone.) Hence the confidential fact the sanctioned editor wants to start over needs to be addressed by a small group of editors entrusted with confidential information, and for better or worse, that's usually us. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The area of concern for this user is apparently participation in AfD. Currently they are under no restrictions regarding participation in this area. Claritas is suggesting not just a clean break, but a clean break with a restriction on participation in the problem area. This seems a better situation that the one we have - though there is the difficulty of monitoring the participation of Claritas if a clean start is given. The only people who would know which account Claritas had moved to would be the Committee - and the Committee is not set up to monitor users. What appears on the surface to be a reasonable request is in fact unworkable. A clean start would need to be without restrictions otherwise it is not an appropriate clean start. I think a clean start is not appropriate for this user in the current circumstances, and while there are questions regarding the clean start policy, those questions can be discussed away from this clarification request. My advice to Claritas would be that the community are very forgiving of users who have erred in the past, have apologised for their conduct, and have gone on to do productive work. Making mistakes is not a sin - we all make mistakes, it is how we deal with those mistakes that is the mark of our character. The community respects a user who redeems their mistakes rather than tries to move away from them. If you show the community that you can do productive work, then we will support you in your Wikipedia career. My suggestion is that you A) indicate that you are no longer seeking a clean start; B) voluntarily stay away from participation in AfD for six months, and C) work on building content in articles.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  09:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Our pale, blue dot.
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M&feature=player_embedded#! Our pale, blue dot]. Good luck to all. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I think that some of us get too caught up in the various disputes on Wikipedia and neglect big picture. I don't remember who, but someone once said that at the end of our lives, few will say, "I wish I spent more working."  Similarly, I don't think anyone will look back on their life and say, "I wish I spent more time arguing on Wikipedia".  It's food for thought for keeping things in perspective.  YMMV.
 * I'll also add that I think that Carl Sagan was an amazing person and scientist. If anyone's interested in getting his article up to WP:FA status, I'm more than happy to help. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "I wish I spent more time working" is a usual phrase for workers in certain vocational fields..... Painter and sculptor Picasso worked until the last day of his life at age 91 despite his bad health. Architect Antoni Gaudí worked until age 74 when he died in an accident. Painter Salvador Dalí had problems working at age 76 because of Parkinson, but he kept working until age 80 when further health problems prevented him from doing any work. I'm sure you can find similar examples with poets, writers, etc. who worked until the last moment and regretted not being able to produce more works. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 January 2013
Please change "have their own committee" to "have their own committees, since "have their own committee" sounds like there's one committee for lots of projects.

71.79.67.209 (talk) 07:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The phrase "have their own committee" isn't on that page... Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's at the end of the lead section on Arbitration (that talk page redirects here). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Currently 64 talk pages redirect here.... Rich Farmbrough, 19:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC).


 * Actually, I think "have their own committees" sounds like there are multiple committees for one project. HueSatLum 15:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * @Rich - I wasn't critising I was just pointing out where it was. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But I was criticising. I think too many pages redirect here, often I try to make a comment and end up here, then have trouble navigating back.  Obv. a lot of these pages are shortcuts, but it's still not useful, although I realise the reason for it, it is an Easter Egg. Rich Farmbrough, 15:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC).


 * @HueSatLum I agree, though I do see where the IP is coming from, but I think it's best how it is now. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: As seen above, there is no consencious for the change. Mdann52 (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Involved party edit-warring over arbitration log
I logged a warning on WP:ARBR&I yesterday. Another editor, who has been involved in the same set of issues and has a previous sanction against himself logged on the same page, took it on himself to unilaterally revert my log entry [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence&diff=532266608&oldid=532149004]. I'd ask arbitrators or clerks to keep an eye on the page and block offenders if this continues. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't followed if someone has acted on this, but I suspect it would be handled readily at WP:AN/EW?  MBisanz  talk 19:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There's been a significant amount of edit warring over this whole issue. I've just warned User:Youreallycan for inappropriate use of rollback at WP:AE, and will revoke rollbacker from any editor who uses it in this way again. There's no need to edit war over a warning, if it's been given, then it has, and that's all there is to it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Warnings are just logging the fact that notice has been served--they carry no implication of wrongdoing.  Jclemens (talk) 04:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * YRC simply restored a comment from him that had been removed by FPS. FPS should not have removed the comment, and YRC was within his rights to restore it.  The use of rollback (if such it was) is really rather irrelevant as it is substantially the same as "undo" for a one page, one edit, revert. Rich Farmbrough, 03:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC).


 * It was a comment under a level 2 header unrelated to any current enforcement request on WP:AE. If it belonged anywhere outside user space, WT:AE was probably the right place. Mathsci (talk) 05:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My point is that the use or otherwise of rollback is a red-herring. There are good reasons to limit the use of rollback, and a friendly note that "undo" would have been more appropriate would have covered that.  There is no point getting hung up on rollback vs undo vs revert in the normal course of events.  There may be substantive issues about eidt-warring or, as you say, the appropriate forum,  it is far more worthwhile to deal with those than muddy the waters.  Rich Farmbrough, 13:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC).

What a travesty
Well Arbitration committee, I certainly hope you are pleased with this outcome. Due to the ridiculously vague way that Rich Farmbrough's Arbitration restriction was written and the preposterous way that you determined constituted automation, Rich is likely about to be blocked for a year, see this discussion because he used excel to sort a table off wiki. Now I know that Rich had a restriction and I know that some of the Arb folks don't like him. But certainly, it should not be the policy of Arbitration that editors be blocked for a year, for using excel. This is just absurd. Kumioko (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You're right. He should have used Calc. Tarc (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Lol, I just do not think that Arbcom or any reasonable editor would consider the use of excel to sort or even word to build an article offline, would consider that automation. Kumioko (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I do use Calc. I just choose not to call people out over it. Rich Farmbrough, 20:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC).


 * A travesty indeed. I'll just have to count to ten using an off-wiki automated tool (my fingers).  --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT  C on public computers) 08:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Just note that it Rich's claim that he only used Excel to sort a table, while the evidence very strongly suggests that he used automation (a script, a macro, whatever) to edit the table much more significantly (and that he didn't check the results afterwards, but just copied them to the article). Sorting a table through Excel doesn't introduce systematic errors in the reference notation used in the table, not does it cause the loss of a lot of data from it. The edit was a clear violation of the restrictions in letter and spirit, not some borderline case. Fram (talk) 08:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I do a lot of work with tables, and while a spread sheet works well to sort the table, as was done, the references get all messed up and have to be put back in by hand. There is a way to do it in the spread sheet but it is harder. I do not see that using fingers, toes, or a spread sheet constitutes using automated editing. The edit window was opened, text was entered, and the edit window closed. However, this after the fact discussion means nothing. I do think though that it would be worth asking is it appropriate in my case for a non-clerk and non-arb member to have issued a warning and closed the case? Is the closer a former arb or arb wannabe? Have the new arb and new clerks not taken their desks yet, and need outside assistance? Apteva (talk) 14:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you mean this request for arbitration, it was declined by a trainee clerk. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And if you meant AE, it is always handled by volunteer administrators rather than arbs/clerks. T. Canens (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Speaking for me personally I don't have so much a problem with the AE admins determination on Rich's case. It wasn't their fault how Arbcom wrote the case. What I have a problem with is the extremely vague way the case was written so that nearly anything would be a blockable offense. I mean Excel as automation, come one. Cut and pasting a URL rather than typing it out, please. I think we need to add a helping of common sense to these cases. I admit I didn't agree with the determination in the first place and I think that the terms "community" and "majority" were grossly exhaggerated I think that punishing an editor for months at a time for doing constructive edits is just plain stupid and mean. Kumioko (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think it decidedly unlikely that Rich manually inputted the data into his excel table. He used an automated tool to create that table, and regardless of what other utilities served as middle men in this process, the output that ended up on Wikipedia was errors. That is exactly why he was under restrictions.  This is neither the fault of ArbCom nor the AE admins.   Resolute 20:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well we can argue about the symantics forever but the end result is the pedia loses whenever an editor is forced out. Especially one who had something like 5 million edits between him and his bots, many of the tasks BTW have still not been picked up. Its just another reason that I need to leave Wikipedia in the rear view mirror. No matter how much I believe in the project itself I also feel that the project is destined for failure because we have become so politically driven and too much power has been pushed into the hands of too few. When we have longterm editors who can't even edit a protected template and have to ask for someon else to post their work, who cannot do simple things because it requires admin tools they will never be allowed to have. Each day saddens me more and more. Every day I see good editors run down. It truly is time for me to go. Kumioko (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if you are simply going to use every issue as a platform to whine about how you can't edit protected templates, don't expect me to hold you back. I didn't comment in Rich's AE case, though I was aware of it. But there does come a point where users who cause work for others need to be told to stop.  And if they won't, then they need to be stopped.  I hope that Rich returns in two months, and returns a productive editor willing to uphold both the letter and spirit of his topic bans. Resolute 20:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There are HTML to spread sheet converters that can be used, but the method I do is CTRL A to highlight the page, or just highlight the table, copy and paste it into a text window, use CTRL H (global replace) to change the spaces to tabs, use copy and paste to paste it into the spread sheet which puts it into columns. Do the sort. Copy and paste back into the text window. All of the spaces will be tabs, do a global replace to change all the tabs to space pipe pipe space " || ", and copy and paste back into the table. Now you just have to put the |- in between each of the table rows. Now if that is automation, ... There certainly are many other methods of doing this. Apteva (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As an aside while there are many editors who choose to leave Wikipedia, and fewer joining right now, it is totally impossible to end Wikipedia. No matter what happens, the body of knowledge we have created can be picked up from a mirror and continue on from there. Wikipedia does not exist as a domain name or as a corporation or organization, but as a body of knowledge, and that part will never go away, and will always be added to by someone. Apteva (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom requests and consensus
Here'a general question I'm curious about, this came to mind after watching some specific discussions, but I'm more interested in the general stance on things. In some AN/ANI discussions about proposed sanctions for editors, in addition to support sanction and oppose sanction people will sometimes !vote send to Arbcom (usually due to the complexity of the situation). My question is: how much weight does consensus in this situation influence Arbcom's decision to accept or reject a case? I know that Arbcom can always choose not to accept a case, but would an ANI consensus that a situation should be sent to Arbcom (because they feel unable to find a good solution) make you more likely to accept it? Or would the result of the ANI thread not weigh very much in your decision making? Mark Arsten (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As an IP I cannot comment on the requests page, but a reading of the ANI thread shows that this is an issue going back years and spanning multiple areas of sexology and involving multiple editors. The behavioral concerns are the use of Wikipedia to promote one's biases, either personal or professional, in the latter case being called COI around here. And lampooning the opposition when it does have Wikipedia biographies. Voting one's opponents off the island is the typical battle stance at ANI, so ArbCom should take on this given the number of editors involved and length of time the Cantor-Jokestress antinomy appears to have been going on. 188.26.163.111 (talk) 08:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Voting one's opponents off the island is the typical battle stance at ANI" -- very true. You are unusually wise for an IP ;) Yeah, that was the specific conflict that brought this question up, and at this point I suspect that it will be accepted. I asked here because I was wondering in a more general sense--how much does community sentiment in favor of a case weigh in Arbs' minds during a request. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In response to your question, Mark - each request is addressed based on a larger reading of the situation. If the only time that an issue is raised is a single noticeboard thread, an "Arbcom should take this" is probably not going to have the same effect as the same comment following a very extended period of behavioural concerns across multiple articles.  Risker (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I generally agree with Risker's response. A question I ask when deciding whether to accept any serious request for arbitration is whether arbitration or some other dispute-resolution method is most likely to produce an expeditious, well-informed, reasonable resolution of the dispute. A community discussion on AN or ANI is a dispute-resolution method (I've never really understood the statement sometimes made that the noticeboards are not part of dispute resolution) that has advantages over arbitration as well as disadvantages. If the community is able to resolve something via discussion and consensus, then arbitration isn't needed unless we think something went wrong with the discussion or we need to look beyond the discussion. If the community is unable to resolve the dispute, either because it is simply too complicated for AN/ANI or because the discussion doesn't reach consensus in a reasonable time, then an arbitration case may be needed. Observations that "someone should take this to ArbCom" are most helpful to us when they explain why the matter should come to ArbCom, e.g. "this should go to arbitration because this is the fourth ANI thread on this dispute in three months and we don't seem to be getting anywhere," or "this should go to arbitration because private information is involved," or "this should go to arbitration because of 30 people commenting on the proposed topic-ban of User:X from Topic:Y, 15 have strongly supported it and 15 have strongly opposed it, so we aren't going to come to a consensus." Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The ArbCom request unfortunately fails to list all previous ANI incidents involving Cantor and Jokestress (uusually both). Here are some more:
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive458
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive526
 * And probably some I've missed. 188.26.163.111 (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Besides, I'm not sure how even admins, never mind less editors are supposed to evaluate ANI arguments, such as the last one on Hebephilia, based on edits which have been oversighted . 188.26.163.111 (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the responses, it's definitely helpful to hear your perspectives. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

TPm
I cannot comment on the main page, but I'd like to point out that two admins (KC and AR) asking for topic bans against each other on ANI is a good reason for ArbCom to take this case. 5.12.84.153 (talk) 11:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know. One could say it is a good reason to not take the case. Frankly I think KC was a little quick on the draw to close the discussion at the AN/I subpage for this request. It took this out of the hands of the community to replace it with an arbcom request. Not like they have to take up the case, but now the discussion is permanently closed. I can agree with the closing but for different reasons. I simply think that the DR process has been somewhat ignored. But i also believe in the good faith of KC.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

E-mailing arbcom about an issue that should not be discussed on the open forum
Unrelated to the current Teaparty issue, I have been advised to email arbcom about an issue recently raised. Is there an arbcom e-mail or some individual I should contact?--Amadscientist (talk) 11:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * At WP:ARBCOM, see "Contacting the Committee". Johnuniq (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was not able to deal with this today so I should have something out in the next few days.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Use the arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org email, and you should be fine —  Ṟ  Ṉ  16:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In case anyone is wondering why nothing came in the mail...I watched a situation that looked a little odd and asked some advise, but...it appears that there is no real situation as the involved editor has basicly outed themselves by posting off wiki content themselves on at least three different locations. While what they posted seems to be an accusation that they were outed, the information is all actually public info from an IP address they associated with themself publicly and have since admitted to by claiming the outing. In short, while this is not a good thing to see, they are the ones that brought it to Wikipedia to air. If there are any follow up questions about the situation please feel free to ask but I see no reason to direct editors to the content.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Next Steps
ArbCom appears to be defying the community. Assuming that they continue to do so, what are out next steps? Should we open an RfC? Call for a new election? All options are open. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Commenting only on the procedure, assuming the Arbs don't agree to what ever your proposing, you would be forced to amend the arbitration policy to implement. Arbitration/Policy requires a petition with 100 signatures to initiate a ratification if the committee does not support it. You would probably want an RFC to develop a proposal if it is to have any chance of passing ratification. Monty  845  03:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hm, a certain amount of entrenchment is in place. Not surprising - and maybe not a wholly bad thing - but very un-wiki.  Consensus should be the requirement, not some random number. Rich Farmbrough, 07:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC).

Structural improvements to AE threads
This relates to WP:AE. As T. Canens recently noted, "if you let an AE thread drag on for too long, it tends to get filled with assorted walls of text, most of which are of questionable relevance, but all of which have to be read. As a result, you'll get very, very few admins who would be willing to look at it." To remedy this problem, I suggest that we add the following directions to the instructions box and to the enforcement request template:
 * "Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statements must be made in separate sections. They may only be made (a) by the user against whom enforcement is requested, or (b) by other users exclusively for the purpose of supplying additional relevant evidence in the form of explained and dated diffs, or for other statements by request of a reviewing administrator. Noncompliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks."

This would prevent threads from derailing into walls of texts or disputes among involved editors, or from attracting a peanut gallery of opponents and supporters of the involved editors, whose opinions about the proper outcome of the request are in most cases not helpful to the reviewing administrators. Because AE is neither a community-based nor a consensus-based process, but rather a workflow tool for helping individual administrators decide about taking enforcement action, contributions by editors other than those directly affected or the reviewing administrators are in principle not needed. The 500 word limit is taken from ArbCom's case and evidence submission rules.  Sandstein  22:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My biggest grip with AE is that important evidence can get lost in all the noise. If there were a more structured way of presenting evidence that would help make AE more equitable and practical.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 22:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That can be a problem too. The enforcement request template directs that evidence be presented in a numbered list in the "date - explanation" form (e.g., "1 March 2013 Personal attack by calling me a "blind mole-rat"), but that's not always observed.  Sandstein   22:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I mean when people commenting on the case present evidence. Sometimes a case become a free-for-all with diffs and accusations flying everywhere from multiple people, making it difficult to sort things out reasonably and fairly.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 23:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It will come as no surprise to those who have seen me clerking, hatting, and advising editors that I strongly support this. My only change is that I would up the number of allowed diffs to 50, although I doubt it will be used. We tend to get too much text and not enough diffs as it is. We get walls of text, people threading conversations with arguments, etc. This makes it far more difficult to handle the actual report. The signal-to-noise ratio on some cases has been problematic. Thanks to Sandstein for suggesting this. Killer Chihuahua 01:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback. There was a recent request with something like 50 diffs, and I and another reviewer felt that this was far too much. I therefore suggest that we see if we run into any practical problems with 20.  Sandstein   20:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 50 is a lot, but limiting to 20 may be too little. What do you think of 30 or 35? Killer Chihuahua 21:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, we can try that, as far as I'm concerned.  Sandstein   21:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable to me. Maybe, and this is just a maybe, it would be possible to institute some sort of guideline or policy to the effect that, if an AE request gets so complicated that it requires more than three dozen or so diffs, that it might, maybe, not really be something that should be handled by AE, but might better be sent to ArbCom directly or some form of more semi-official mid-tier "appeals court". John Carter (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Signal-to-noise ratio at AE is atrocious; I generally hardly looked at discussions for that reason. I'm sure I often missed good stuff doing that, but what else are you going to do? Read all of the nonsense that gets posted? Anything that might help should be tried. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 03:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the signal to noise is atrocious, but, honestly, I wonder whether it's any better at ArbCom itself. I remember The Blade of the Northern Lights saying once that he regularly spent several hours reviewing some of the individual matters he dealt with on the AE noticeboard, and it seems to me, unfortunately, that in at least some cases that might be the only way to really be able to see everything required. Yeah, that is more work and time than most people would want to spend on this, but sometimes, and evidently, according to him, fairly often, that's what it takes. BTW, if anyone else thinks it worthwhile to try to persuade him to become active here again, I would very, very, very strongly support that. John Carter (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it intended that we don't want people to comment on the diffs brought by the complainant without permission? It isn't allowed by (b). Zerotalk 05:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, if they are just statements of opinion (e.g. "Yes please ban X because he's a vandal"). Administrators are perfectly capable of evaluating the evidence on their own. In practice, the only editors offering opinions about AE threads are those who are involved in the underlying dispute, and they rarely offer opinions that help administrators in deciding what to do. Most often, their opinions are just noise, and sometimes they further inflame the dispute or require additional administrative action. However, this wouldn't exclude users from supplying relevant evidence, that is, explained diffs of edits, either in the defendant's favor ("but here he did stop edit-warring after being warned") or in support of the enforcement request. Such submissions are useful and shouldn't be excluded.   Sandstein   09:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with you in principle, but simple useful comments like "the two reverts were consecutive so they only count as one" are forbidden by your proposed rules. Your own example "but here he did stop edit-warring after being warned" is also forbidden by your rules since it is not "in the form of explained and dated diffs" (can't give diffs for the absence of edits). I think your wording is too restrictive. Zerotalk 14:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it is possible to word either example as an explained diff: "After the warning on 1 March, 10:25, he stopped edit warring as apparent in the page history", or "the reverts of 1 March, 10:25 and 1 March, 10:26 are consecutive and count as one". But I see what you mean. There may be some observations of this type that may be helpful and would be disallowed, but in most cases such circumstances will be evident to reviewers anyway, and either of the two parties to the request is free to make such observations as part of their statement. I think what we should focus on is allowing concise submissions of evidence and disallowing long statements of opinion; perhaps the wording can be improved to make this clearer. We could also just provide that admins may remove "unhelpful" contributions, but then there will certainly long disputes about what's unhelpful...  Sandstein   15:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) My initial response would be that in general I am not in favour of wordcount restrictions in evidence, as some issues are complex and require a fair amount of explanation; at the very least I would have to check on what 500 words looks like before supporting such a restriction. Some of the other proposed restrictions sound useful in theory but I wonder whether they might not unduly restrict worthwhile evidence in practice; for example, I found the comments posted by a number of users in (qualified) support of SMcCandlish's contribution history to be useful in forming a judgement in that case. I do dislike the way some evidence devolves into conversational threads however and would be inclined to support the notion that users confine evidence to their own sections. Gatoclass (talk) 05:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the 500 word limit seems to work for ArbCom cases and evidence submissions, and we can always grant permission for longer submissions if they are really needed. And if issues are really complicated then we at AE are probably ill-equipped to deal with them anyway and need to refer the case to the Committee. I agree that we shouldn't exclude any worthwhile evidence, but with the emphasis on evidence (that is, diffs), rather than just statements of opinion. In evaluating requests, we should focus on the actual edits that were made and on the policies and sanctions at issue, not on whatever opinion the friends or foes of the involved users may hold.  Sandstein   09:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * A lot of opinions are completely partisan and can readily be discounted, but opinions from reputable editors in good standing can sometimes be very useful. So in spite of the inconvenience, I would be reluctant to prohibit users from simply expressing opinions. Gatoclass (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If there is a desire to enforce brevity in enforcement requests (I certainly think it's a good idea), I don't mind proposing a motion that codifies a general word limit into the ArbCom procedures. AGK  [•] 13:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object to that, it might make the limit easier to enforce.  Sandstein   15:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Considering the above, my impression is that the one-section-per-statement rule and (with one exception) the length limit are not objected to. I've therefore taken the liberty of updating Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header, Sanction enforcement request header and Sanction enforcement request footer accordingly. I suggest we see how this works and remain open to adjusting the limits in the event of any difficulties. We don't have agreement yet about whether it would also help with improving the signal-to-noise ratio to limit third-party statements to evidence submissions. I'd welcome more comments about this aspect of the proposal.  Sandstein  20:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I just saw this... Like some others, I don't see the point in strict word or diff counts; the phrasing of the rule should be (in RFC-speak) SHOULD, not MUST. Indeed, adding such strict rules while the top of the red box still says (please use this format!), implying it's optional as a whole, makes the whole thing look schizophrenic. The whole huge-red-box-above-the-ToC concept is already annoying enough in and of itself. I wouldn't be surprised most people would prefer free-form WP:ANI to well-structured WP:AE because this all looks literally like red tape. That problem should not be exacerbated. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I like this proposal, as well as the idea floated to somehow limit third-party statements. Many times these discussions turn into wall-of-text vs. wall-of-text. This makes it no only difficult for administrators to ensure they've reviewed everything, but difficult for the other commenting editors who want to give an honest third opinion. I'm not stuck to any specific number for how we implement this limit at the moment, but I do give tentative support for the proposal advanced at the beginning of this thread. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't like the lengthy limits actually, maybe I should have said that. This has been discussed before and I objected to it then because some of us, despite all our efforts, have difficulty staying within such narrow word limits. My concern is, as I said, with the potential for evidence to be lost in a sea of statements. What I would prefer is if the named parties of an enforcement request could all get their own little sections similar to the editor requesting enforcement. They can all present their evidence in defense of their actions or point out any issue of clean hands. You also add a little section below that where third-parties can add some evidence, which would be placed above a section for third-party statements. There is an annoying tendency for AE to serve more as an interrogation of the subject where the filer essentially has all the power to make or break the case rather than an investigation of the dispute.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 04:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I find the idea of an section for "evidence submitted by others" interesting, but experience shows it's often difficult to separate a submission of evidence from its discussion. I suggest that we implement this idea in such a way that all statements by others are subdivided into an "evidence" and a "discussion" subsection, the way the request is now. This would also facilitate the removal of statements that contain no new evidence, if we decide to disallow these.  Sandstein   09:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for initiating this discussion, Sandstein. For AE, I'd suggest an even more stringent limit, something along 250 words and 15 diffs; after all, matters brought to AE should be related to a very limited set of interactions (as opposed to longterm reviews in the full arbcom cases), and I very much support the idea of supporting the administrators who make the effort to help out at AE; I'd hope that tighter limits will make the requests easier to consider and make decisions.  Risker (talk) 06:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Obvious issues may be possible to deal with in 250 words, but many disputes that are taken to AE are not that simple, but are still not complicated enough to merit a re-run of arbitration.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 06:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My view is somewhere in between: there are (a minority of) valid requests that address longterm misconduct, and these will need somewhat more room for explanation; see again the recent request about across-the-board misbehavior. For most standard requests 250 words may well be enough. As an AE admin, my principal concern is (a) avoiding excessively long walls of text and (b) avoiding evidence-less statements of opinion by involved bystanders. Both of these types of contributions make the work of reviewers more difficult and can cause additional problems because people respond angrily to each other, generating more walls of text, continuing the underlying dispute at AE or requiring administrators to take disciplinary action, all of which further complicates the case.  Sandstein   09:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey all, I know I haven't been at AE, or anywhere else on Wikipedia, much lately, but wanted to weigh in here. Yes, we should rein in the walls of text. Exactly where to place the limits I'm not sure just yet, though KillerChihuahua's ideas seem pretty reasonable to me. I'll keep thinking and maybe post again (after a good night's sleep, hopefully!) Regardless of the details, I support the basic idea of this. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fully support the changes made by Sandstein. There is still the matter of what to do with the cases that might be a bit complicated for AE, but not necessarily meriting full ArbCom involvement. Maybe, and this is just a maybe, what might be useful would be to set up some sort of "night court" Arbitration option, like Durova and a few others have supported or suggested over the years. We already have it now that each individual ArbCom case has two lead arbitrators assigned to it, and maybe one option for the rather few cases that require more than AE, but possibly less than ArbCom, would be to have some sort of procedure instituted which would allow for single-page cases (as opposed to multiple pages like ArbCom currently has) where admins (and/or maybe others) who have been specifically approved to function in this capacity by ArbCom can review the matters under discussion and arrive at a conclusion, which each page/case under the supervision of one or more elected arbitrators who might get "assigned" (maybe on a rotation basis) to oversee a page/case with final approval of any decisions made? John Carter (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've made a similar suggestion under your statement regarding the recent Tea Party case request. There may be a need for special procedures for requests that are too simple for a full case but too complex for AE.  Sandstein   20:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Another concern I have is that if users feel muzzled by these rules, they are going to end up lobbying adjudicating admins on their talk pages instead, which IMO would be likely to be even more irritating and time-consuming than having them comment on the evidence page. Gatoclass (talk) 17:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * True, but that already happens (to me at least). My standard practice is to just refer everyone to WP:AE. I've never had a problem with that. It's ultimately up to admins whether to accept such requests, as WP:AC/DS does not require the use of WP:AE.  Sandstein   20:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't mean they will end up coming to admin talk pages rather than opening formal requests. I mean, they will end up posting their views on your talk page because they can no longer post them in the evidence section of a current case. Or else, be pestering you for permission to add statements to a request. So this change could well turn out to make more work for admins rather than less. Gatoclass (talk) 10:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's possible, but it's up to admins whether to react to, or even retain, clearly meritless messages on their talk page.  Sandstein   18:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree with & support Sandstein's changes and I'd echo Risker, KC and Heimstern the walls of text need to stop. I think TDA is right 250 words might be too short for some issues but could be a good guideline. AE sysops could always ask for a second statement of 250 words for clarity-- Cailil  talk 20:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Have you checked what 250 words actually looks like? I just ran a check myself, on the last enforcement request by Enric Naval (the SMcCandlish case). Naval supplied seven diffs of evidence, plus a short paragraph documenting previous warnings and a few extra words in the "additional comments" section. Not an excessive submission by any means, yet it totals 879 words. If there is going to be a limit placed on length of enforcement requests, IMO it should not be less than 1000 words. Gatoclass (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I did check as I assume Risker et al did too (and frankly it's a very reasonable length given that 500 is the word limit at RFAR). Eric's AE report is only over 800 words long because he quoted from the diffs - he didn't need to do this. Without those quotes his submission (including his 2 follow up comments) was 260 words. I agree its a tight limit but that's the point. All they need to do in an AE report is 1) State which RFAR ruling was breached 2) How 3) Whether the user in question has been warned or sanction previously. Everything else is unnecessary - sysops don't usually need users to interpret diffs for them but if they do they ask for an additional statement-- Cailil  talk 10:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Enric may not have needed to quote from the diffs, but it was arguably better that he did so because it made clear precisely what statements he found objectionable, so admins didn't have to try and figure it out for themselves. Regarding the 500 word limit at RFAR, that is only for preliminary statements - the limit on the actual evidence page is 1000 words and 100 diffs, though users can request permission to add longer statements. However, in addition to that, the evidence page has its own talk page where users can give expression to their views at length, then there is a workshop page and a workshop talk page, then a proposed decision page and a proposed decision talk page. Obviously, we don't need all that at AE, but my point is that users have a plethora of venues to express their views at length at RFAR, but only one page - the evidence page - at AE. And I'm concerned that if we have too tight a limit there, either evidence is going to spill over to random pages, like admin talk pages, or admins are going to spend even more time having to decide what is and isn't acceptable evidence, or useful evidence is simply going to be lost. Gatoclass (talk) 11:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I suggest that the complainant be given a generous limit, and other people making comments a smaller limit. If the problem being reported is a long-term one, 500 words may be insufficient to describe it properly.  Unfortunately I think that limits will only help a little bit, but it is worth a try. Zerotalk 11:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Follow-up proposal

 * I still think a 500-word limit for the original complainant and respondent is too short and it should be 1000 words. Other than that, rather than engage in an extended debate about the other clauses in Sandstein's proposal, the implications of which are still not entirely clear to me, I will instead propose that if these clauses are adopted, then AE should get its own dedicated talk page so that users have a venue for commenting on a request beyond the evidentiary restrictions imposed on the request itself. Gatoclass (talk) 12:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No objection to a separate talk page, though I suppose that ArbCom "owns" these pages and may need to agree. As to the word limit, if somebody has the time, a table containing the effective length of the most recent requests and responses would be interesting.  Sandstein   14:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, after consideration, I don't think that we should open a talk page to allow threaded discussion of cases. Freeform threaded discussion will quickly cause cases to derail in back-and-forths, and would be a step back from the relatively structured system we have now.  Sandstein   18:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll start data gathering here. Word count is the output of including signatures.

In view of the data gathered above, I consider that 500 words is a practicable limit. All statements in the above case were either shorter, or could have been shortened to 500 without much trouble, or were the sort of wall of text that the restriction is precisely trying to prevent.  Sandstein  18:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed as Sandstein shows and as an examination of the threads at AE over the last 2 years will show the problem is the volume of discussion by others (usually not the filer or the subject of the report). Opening a talk page only moves the problem and replicates the issue of sysops not seeing evidence due to walls of text. If editors take it to sysops pages those threads need simply to be closed. AE isn't RFAR if they really need to go into such detail they need to open a new RFAR. On teh basis of Sandstein's evidence I'd be happy to agree to 500 word limit or at max 750-- Cailil  talk 21:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Responses are always likely to be longer because it's often more difficult to explain why a charge is wrong than to make a charge in the first place. IMO there is a case to be made for allowing responses to be longer than requests. Gatoclass (talk) 07:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I really don't understand the objection to having a dedicated talk page for AE. Sandstein states that Freeform threaded discussion will quickly cause cases to derail in back-and-forths, but a talk page isn't officially part of a case at all, and there is no requirement for adjudicating admins to participate in talk page discussions or even read them. But they are still there for users to comment on a case in any manner they desire, and those comments may be taken into consideration by adjudicators. The point is that with a dedicated talk page, the case itself can be confined to actual evidence, while admins can where necessary move comments deemed irrelevant to the talk page instead of just deleting them. If we don't give users a venue for expressing their views, as opposed to just adding evidence, I think the likely result is that those views will just get expressed randomly across other pages, like admin talk pages.

Apart from which, I've felt for a while that AE could do with a dedicated talk page, it's always seemed unhelpful to me that it doesn't have one, because means it's easy to miss AE-related discussions if you fail to make the association between the two pages in your watchlist. Gatoclass (talk) 06:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Sandstein's list of sizes suggests to me that 500 words is not enough for submissions or responses. We should outlaw multi-thousand-word responses but a limit of 500 is overkill. Responding inherently needs more words than complaining: a "violating diff" can be presented with a few words, but explaining why it is not a violation takes a few sentences. I propose that complaints and responses be limited to 1000 words, while comments from other people should be limited to 500. Zerotalk 08:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm still not keen on the idea of arbitrary limits, but if we are going to have them, they sound like more reasonable limits to me. Gatoclass (talk) 10:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not normally involved in any of this and came here quite randomly, but after reading the discussion and Sandstein's list of sizes I agree with Zero that 500 words seems to clearly be not enough. Zero's proposed alternate limits seem to be far more appropriate. As for the proposal of a Talk page, I can see both advantages and disadvantages. Any system that claims to be fair and just should allow for open commentary and discussion on the process that's taking place. On the other hand, having such a place for open commentary and discussion may give the confusing false impression that such discussion is actually part of the process, when in fact it's not. &mdash;gorgan_almighty (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Five hundred is too little for most cases. It's pointless to set an arbitrary limit when the amount of content needed will vary greatly depending on case (or request or whatever you want to call it).  In the AE request I semi-recently filed, Sandstein chose to truncate my request down 500 words (and AE now says there is such a limit, despite there clearly being no consensus at all here for a limit that small).  This had the effect, if not the actual intent (I don't read minds), of badly censoring the request, by cutting out almost all of the evidence in it and explanation of the evidence.  Regardless of Sandstein's actual intent in my particular case, the obvious fact is that a 500 or 1000 word limit, can (when more is needed for coherency) very easily be WP:GAMEd at AE to hamstring any complex request/case someone doesn't like.  The sub-rosa implication that the limit would apply not just to the request and someone's initial response to it, but be a cumulative total for each party means it could be gamed in even worse ways, e.g. by proposing sanctions against the requester on some questionable basis, yet not permitting the newly-accused any reasonable means of defense, at least not without rescinding and hatting the original request to "make room" for a suddenly needed defense.  There is no lack of room, nor any strong tradition of making participants remain silent unless asked something from on high; this is not a paper venue and is not a court of law.  If page length and "MEGO" are problematic, use  and  or the like to "roll up" longer blocks of content.  I've done this myself at both the AE I filed and the one someone filed against me a few weeks ago, and it seemed to work well.  Perhaps require outlines for longer pieces, too.   As I find myself saying about a lot of things at AE, not every problem is a nail, and whacking every problem, like "TL;DR" and whoever someone feels is being longwinded, with what amounts to a "STFU!" gag is misusing a very crude hammer. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  07:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

This is only about control
This whole string is nothing but a way to control the discussion to unfairly limit the responses by those who are trying to defend themselves. It doesn't really matter what happens. Sandstein is the only one who does anything here, they rarely listen to the comments of others and they generally do whatever they want anyway. This Arbitration enforcement board is just as broken and badly run as the Arbcom itself. It does nothing but perpetuate the problems of the culture on this site. It gives a venue for the bullies to bully, it gives a conduit for the trolls to snipe their comments about the users, it emphasizes the growing us and them mentality that exists between editors and admins. If you want to make this process better this is not the way. If you want this process to be easier to control and easier for the lone admin Sandstein to be able to do whatever they want, then this is a great idea. Please insert the necessary amount of sarcasm into that last statement. There is no need for me to sign this comment. You already know who it is. Maybe if you start trying to fix some of the problems with the site and the culture to actually get back to building an encyclopedia I will start logging in again and contributing to something other than discussions. As long as you continue to waste time in enabling bullies like Fram and User:SarekOfVulcan and others and quite protecting the bad admins while eliminating the good ones and banning the most prolific content editors this place will actually turn around. As it is, the populace is beginning to feel, at an increasing pace, that they don't matter, that they are second class citizens and that too many people in power around here are only interested in keeping it and gaining more. 108.18.194.128 (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I would also note the hypocrisy in desysopping User:Kevin for unblocking Cla but Sarek was blocked multiple times and did some extremely underhanded things to try and force Doncram into a blockable situation, is well known for harsh and overly fast blocks but gets an admonishment? That makes absolutely no sense. You want to know how this is interpreted by the community, that some admins are above reproach! That they are allowed to do what they want because they are in favor while others that keep their heads down and stay off the radar are expendable. Well done folks, well done!108.18.194.128 (talk) 03:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The hatted thread's two original comments have below been refactored to remove ad hominem comments, but preserve the bulk of the posts, which are about ARBCOM process and problems with it. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  06:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

This whole [thread] is nothing but a way to control the discussion to unfairly limit the responses by those who are trying to defend themselves. It doesn't really matter what happens. [It seems like there is] only one [admin] who does anything here [and I don't agree with this admin's handling of requests and responses to them]. This Arbitration enforcement board is just as broken and badly run as the Arbcom itself. It does nothing but perpetuate the problems of the culture on this site. It gives a venue for the bullies to bully, it gives a conduit for the trolls to snipe their comments about the users, it emphasizes the growing 'us and them' mentality that exists between editors and admins. If you want to make this process better this is not the way. If you want this process to be easier to control and easier for [a] lone admin to be able to do whatever they want, then this is a great idea. Please insert the necessary amount of sarcasm into that last statement. There is no need for me to sign this comment. You already know who it is. Maybe if you start trying to fix some of the problems with the site and the culture to actually get back to building an encyclopedia I will start logging in again and contributing to something other than discussions. As long as you continue to waste time in enabling bullies [...] and quite protecting the bad admins while eliminating the good ones and banning the most prolific content editors this place will actually turn around. As it is, the populace is beginning to feel, at an increasing pace, that they don't matter, that they are second class citizens and that too many people in power around here are only interested in keeping it and gaining more. 108.18.194.128 (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC) Refactored to remove ad hominem commentary — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  06:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I would also note the hypocrisy in desysopping User:Kevin for unblocking Cla but Sarek was blocked multiple times and [... tried to, by his own admission] force Doncram into a blockable situation ... but gets an admonishment? That makes absolutely no sense. You want to know how this is interpreted by the community, that some admins are above reproach! That they are allowed to do what they want because they are in favor while others that keep their heads down and stay off the radar are expendable. Well done folks, well done!108.18.194.128 (talk) 03:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC) [Refactored to remove ad hominem commentary, but preserve the legitimate expression of an opinion about what seems to the anon to be differential treatment. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  06:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)]


 * I can concur, for starters, that these are in fact common and growing perceptions and concerns.  I used to almost never get Wikipedia-related e-mail; now I get it nearly daily.  It lately consists mostly not of article improvement ideas, but of concerns about WP:AE/WP:AN/WP:ANI and some of their "regulars", about ARBCOM/RFARB, and about abusive behavior by administrators and their backing each other up if they're part of the "right" circles, and similar perceived problems.  The content of this e-mail stream indicates that editors with possibly legitimate concerns are increasingly actually  to discuss any of them on-wiki because they are certain they will immediately be pilloried, censured and ritually wiki-sacrificed for doing so.  External sources that write about Wikipedia are increasingly covering broad perceptions of administrative abuses, editors leaving and good admins quitting.  What AE and ARBCOM are doing and how it's being done needs to be rethought, badly, and is under a lot of internal and external scrutiny. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  06:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to agree, if Sandstein can't be bothered to read and understand a discussion (which seems to be the case anyway), then he should simply leave enforcement to someone who will be more diligent.  Being "The Enforcer" and blocking people over petty complaints does not help the project anyway, far better to have admins who will take a sane balanced approach to the role. Rich Farmbrough, 07:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC).


 * It seems that Sandstein's trend of not listening and not caring about comments in discussions have reached a new high. He recently left a notice stating as much on the Voluneer Marek enforcement in the last couple days. If the Arbcom enforcement board is to be taken seriously then these cases need to be handled by more than one editor aspiring to be Arbcom (Sandstein). It makes absolutely no sense for one editor with a reputation for blocking first, asking no questions and ignoring comments to be the sole caretaker of the process. 108.48.100.244 (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Against the 25 March 2013 block of Rich Farmbrough
Fram and Sandstein have again gone too far.
 * 1) The block discussion was closed too soon, without adequate time for response by anyone. 10:29 to 23:04 is just too damned short. The alleged offense simply does not rise to the level of an emergency response.
 * 2) I disagree with the Request for Arbitration, the block, the logic of it, the short timing of it, the "gang of two" mentality, and the lack of actual discussion (replaced by a monologue). Its implicit rejection of the notion of Wikipedia as a socially constructed encyclopedia shocks the conscience. Farmbrough's contributions have so completely outweighed his errors and typos, that this blocking action is just wiltingly, shoulder-stoopingly, depressingly beneath us all. This block is a shameful embarrassment to the project. Of course I wouldn't DARE to unclose the "discussion", but if wikilawyering is what you do, wikilawyering is what you'll get back: Search and replace IS NOT EXPLICITLY FORBIDDEN in the precise language of the linked "the decision", as alleged by Sandtein. Those words do not appear in "the decision". Sandstein wants us to believe they do, but they don't. Decisions are standalone and are atomic; they cannot be arbitrarily expanded at will. Sandstein's rationale cannot stand. It's void. He should not be permitted to fabricate extensions to "the decision". Period.
 * 3) While we're at it, let's have an interaction ban between Fram and Sandstein, to break up this mini-cabal against Farmbrough. No team of two editors should ever be allowed to so egregiously, so repeatedly wage war against a productive, civil, enthusiastic (overenthusiastic) editor. IMHO.
 * 4) Smarter would have been to send notice of all of Farmbrough's "mistakes" to my attention. I'd fix them for the rest of my tenure as a Wikipedia editor. That's a constructive, non-punitive solution. --Lexein (talk) 09:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC) revised to clarify too-short time before sudden action --Lexein (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * An interaction ban between me and Sandstein? I have hardly ever interacted with him. I don't choose who does AE enforcement and who doesn't. Your request doesn't make any sense. Fram (talk) 09:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I've seen prose by the two of you, in time sequence. Gee, where? Oh yeah, the other complaints against Farmbrough, and those blocks of Farmbrough. My request will make sense to people who aren't you, apparently, so it's ok. --Lexein (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fram does have a point here; if you file an AE request about anything then it is very likely Sandstein will be involved. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 16:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * As for the rest of your comments: "to make only completely manual edits (i.e. by selecting the [EDIT] button and typing changes into the editing window);" is the relevant part of the sanction. So it seems to me as if "search and replace" is explicitly forbidden after all. Fram (talk) 10:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As for your false equivalence, search is ctrl-F, and is legal. Search again is F3 (on PCs), and is legal. Copy (ctrl-c) of say, ' ' ', is legal. Paste (ctrl-V) of say, ' ', is legal. Anything I can type in the edit window is legal. None of these are automatic. So it seems your conclusion that the errors could only have been created offline can be demonstrated false, by a series of human errors while searching in the edit window, ' ' ' again and pasting ' '.  You would punish me for coffee jitters, wouldn't you? Your concocted re-imagining of circumstance, without actual literal proof, for the sole purpose of hounding, blocking, and hoping to get an editor banned for editing normally, is not what we expect or want of Wikipedia editors. If you don't mind, please stop. --Lexein (talk) 10:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The conversation above piqued my interest, so I looked into the evidence of violation. I believe that I have the skills to distinguish between automated, manual, and cannot-tell edits, plus I have had no interactions with anyone involved in this.
 * A human typing changes into the editing window does not accidentally change [‘word’] into [ word’] multiple times without ever accidentally changing [‘word’] into [‘word ]. No conceivable sequence of cuts and pastes would result in that pattern or errors (not to mention that pasting is not typing, and thus is not allowed) Clearly some sort of automated editing was used, and the result pasted into the edit window. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but on that basis, copying and pasting a URL into the edit window (or the cite tool) as part of creating a reference would also be disallowed, and I'm sure no-one is going to claim that's an automated edit. This falls into a grey area, IMO. Black Kite (talk) 11:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * For me personally, cut-and-paste is indeed not part of automation (not only the example you give, but e.g. also swapping two sections or some such should still be allowed); what is disallowed is everything repetitive that isn't done one at a time, but appears to be done with the aid of some tool, which has the result that all errors are repeated multiple times as well (which was the basis of the ArbCom case and restriction). Whether this is in one page or over multiple pages is to me not relevant here (although obviously I'ld rather have errors in one place than all over the place). Fram (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think it requires too much imagination to see how the single quotes could get messed up with entirely manual edits. I make almost exactly that kind of mistake myself. In this case, there was a rare angled quote right inside the double single quote for italics. Rich was trying to convert triple-single quotes to double-single quotes (bold to italics) so it's easy to see how he might have found a few tripled single quotes and replaced them. I am not convinced this was done using search and replace. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 16:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Please look at version 1 and version 2 (diff) and search for the following phrases (without the square brackets) in each version:


 * [was an icon]


 * [was released]


 * [of the book]


 * [of a famous]


 * [or better still]


 * Notice the word to the left of each search phrase? None of these errors are consistent with your "there was a rare angled quote right inside the double single quote for italics" theory. Nor are they consistent with manual editing. No reasonable human removes a quotation mark standing alone with no nearby bold or italic wikimarkup to confuse the issue and misses the matching quotation mark on the other side of the word.


 * Now look at the text after [a hatchet job] and before [followed this biography] in each version. A big chunk of the article is gone,replaced by a big red cite error. The same mistake was made on the word Sunday inside the cite error. How does a human making manual edits miss the fact that entire sections are missing and replaced with a cite error and yet manage -- inside the missing text -- to delete a quotation mark while missing the matching quotation mark on the other side of the word? Those edits were made by a computer program and no human looked at the preview before saving. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I would welcome any comments by anyone who repeated the experiment I detailed above and failed to come to the same conclusion that I did. I would especially welcome any theories about how those particular errors came from manual editing. The "Wikimakup bold/italic next to the quotation mark" theory is not supported by the data. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Note project canvassing by Lexein:. Fram (talk) 11:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion there started with a different purpose: to see if that project cares to try to retain editors of all sorts. But you knew that already, since you read it. So, no thanks for the ABF. Cheers, --Lexein (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Blocked until March 2014? That's too severe, folks. GoodDay (talk) 11:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed; 1 year blocks should not be used, ever, in cases like this where so little, if any, harm is being done. Ever. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 16:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Rich Farmbrough agreed to certain restrictions in order to avoid an indefinite site ban and was told in no uncertain terms that any type of contributions that are even reminiscent of automated editing would result in a site ban He violated that agreement. A one year block is lenient.


 * As for harm, when you run an automated tool which makes mistakes, you can harm many, many pages. Users of automation tools have a heightened responsibility to the community, and are expected to comply with applicable policies and restrictions; to respond reasonably to questions or concerns about their use of such tools and to respect the community's wishes regarding the use of automation. Rich failed on all counts.


 * Arbcom found (all findings 9 to 0 or 10 to 0) that Rich Farmbrough repeatedly violated the restrictions imposed by the community on his use of automation, repeatedly violated the letter and the spirit of the bot policy by running high-speed and high-volume tasks without approval, running unapproved bot tasks from a non-bot account with no bot flag and no indication that automation was used to perform them. He kept doing that after agreeing not to as a condition of avoiding a site ban. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Has RF been running automated tools with mistakes over many many pages recently? If not, then what is the harm here that this block is preventing? HaugenErik (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The harm is thus: before he was banned, he ran unauthorized and very buggy bots, leaving a huge mess for other people to correct. This was not an occasional thing. It was an ongoing problem, so the community placed restrictions on him. Which he refused to follow, causing even more problems for others to clean up. Given his history, it is unreasonable to ask us to give him another shot at messing up multiple articles with automated tools. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if we let him, he will repeat the behavior of the past. Enough is enough. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Unblock and if really necessary come up with a more sensible restriction which frees Rich up to help the pedia. I probably wouldn't have bothered to look into this if it was a short block of a week or so. But I really see no attempt at defusing this before going straight to enforcement, and then no attempt to build consensus before blocking for a whole year.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  17:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Outsider's comment: The edit in question is a textbook example of an edit that was very likely not automated: It did change two bold phrases in the article to italics, and it did also remove several inverted commas, wherever they were within italics formatting--no offline search-and-replace would do that, unless specifically instructed that way like:

Wherever you find  followed by ' OR  followed by ‘ OR ’ followed by  OR ' followed by  Replace with ''


 * This would be an extremely stupid thing to do, as there is no use case for such an instruction. On the contrary, had he been using automation this error would not have occurred (Note that there are 3 different characters to consider). I think I can make an educated guess what happened:
 * RF edited Mohan Deep to remove the two bold statements he saw.
 * Without previewing again, he spotted the occurrences of ‘ and ’ in the source code, and mistook them for '''
 * He removed one of the ' and saved-visually there is nothing wrong with comma-separated film titles in italics, the missing inverted commas do not hurt anyone.
 * The other edit is probably automated in some way but do you really want to block for a year for a single edit that clearly improved the 'pedia? --Pgallert (talk) 17:58, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Your theory is inconsistent with the edit you cited, which contains multiple errors removing left quotation marks that were nowhere near any bold or italic wikimarkup. See my analysis above for details. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I also agree this was a bad decision. Rich was only unblocked for a couple days. Fram watched every edit until he say him do something that he could somewhat justify and then submitted the Arbitration enforcement knowing that Sandstein wouldn't question it and would invoke a year long block. A block he wanted to do previously I might add but only reduced because of outrage from the community that forced him to shorten it. There are so many problems with this its hard to start but here are a couple:
 * The AE was opened and with only comments from the one that has been trying to block Rich for years (Fram) and Sandstein a year long block was implemented.
 * The user never had a chance to comment. At minimum AE's should be open for a length of time to allow the accused to respond.
 * AE should not be a one man show as it has been
 * Fram is clearly involved and has been asked repeatedly to stop hounding Rich and following his every edit. No matter how good of an editor you are, the policies of Wikipedia are so open to interpretation as is Rich's Arbitration finding that nearly anything can be justified as blockable.
 * Rich didn't agree he was forced to agree. There is a huge difference. Kumioko — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.42 (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It also seems rather suspicious that this comes on the heals of Rich asking several users why I was blocked. Maybe unrelated but there are an aweful lot of people who want to shut me up because they don't like what I have to say. Maybe its not related but its a rather suspicious bit of timeing at the very least. Kumioko 138.162.0.46 (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There are plenty more but I will leave that since Fram, Sandstein or one of their suppoters will likely delete my comments anyway. Kumioko 138.162.0.41 (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Is this Encyclopaedia now ruled by the likes of Sandstein and Fram? - Don't bother to answer, it's rhetoric. It seems rather sad that good, long term, and productive editors are now blocked in this Draconian fashion as though they are some anon who wanders in off the street shouting obscenities every five minutes. I'm quite sure there is a better and more respectful solution than this.   Giano   19:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Experienced editors should be held to a higher standard, not a lower one. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * @Giano and Guy Macon. Vested contributors are a poor analogy, if a new editor had arrived and done the mainspace edits that Rich Farmborough did in his brief unblock then would they even have had a warning? If they'd been blocked for this it would have been seen as an obvious bad block. There is a rejected proposal that we should exempt vested contributors from some of the rules that the rest of us are meant to follow, but that doesn't really apply here. More pertinently there is an assumption that experienced editors should be judged by the rate of their mistakes, if you ignored the 99.5% least contentious edits that I've made you might get a pretty poor impression of me. Ignore the 99.5% least contentious edits that Rich Farmborough's has done and there would be over 5,000 still to consider.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  20:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Guy Macon, can you then also search for [My Life] in both versions end explain how a computer could have managed to remove the ’ after Life while replacing the ’ in It’s? --Pgallert (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, he decided to remove all the studid ’s and ‘s (except in It’s, where he replaced it with ') while only looking at the edit window, and missed a few, two of them in text that had a preceding . Looks quite human to me.--Pgallert (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I just did the [My Life] search. There are multiple occurrences of the phrase, but there is no problem with getting a search-and-replace to find the right quotes and not the apostrophes. Just search for a space after the character.


 * Why would a human so often miss the quotation marks on one side of a word and not the other? Why are the mistakes not evenly distributed between left and right? If indeed he was manually editing, he would have done what we all have done: "nuke the left quote, nuke the right quote, nuke the left quote, nuke the...OK where is that stupid right quote? Ah! there it is! nuke the right quote, nuke the left quote, nuke the right quote, nuke the... Huh? Another right quote? Must have missed one..." and so on. The only way a human nukes a bunch of left quotes in a row is by using an automated search and replace of some sort. Otherwise hitting the delete key over a bunch of left quotes in a row would have stuck out like a sore thumb. That's a basic part of editing any text: when you add or delete a quotation mark you immediately add or delete the matching quotation mark. And a basic part of editing Wikipedia is hitting the preview button and paying attention when an entire section is missing and there is a cite error that is bold and red.


 * Also, please remember that the restriction he was placed under specifically said "any edits that reasonably appear to be automated shall be assumed to be so" and that what he agreed to was to avoid "any type of contributions that are even reminiscent of automated editing" with the clarification "If it looks like automation, it will be treated as automation—and therefore as a breach". Combine that with the fact that Rich has used automation when using automation was banned not once, but several times before. It was his responsibility to make sure that his edits did not look like automated edits. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * or better still, not to use any form of automation at all. Leaky  Caldron  23:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I wanted to add my voice to those here that think a one year block is an extremely bad policy decision. As I mentioned on Sandsteins talk page, 1 one year block (which BTW is the time limit on the admin tools I believe) should be reserved for things like Copyright violators and Vandals, not editors doing some frivolous edits. Its not bad enough that Rich's automation ban is costing the pedia tens of thousands of edits a month. But we have to make matters worse by imposing a 1 year ban because a vindictive editor who has tried to get Rich banned for years, opens an AE thread, Sandstein closes it 13 hours later with no other comments but his and the one who opened it and then imposes a one year block. And somehow we are ok with this? This doesn't at all seem like a problem to anyone else? Really? I find that rather hard to believe. Especially when we don't know if he was using automation, in fact, it appears the edits were done manually. So we blocked him for a year because an editor who has been gunning for him for years suggested that Rich might have done something to violate his Arbcom determination. Which itself was poorly written and unnecessary. We should all be really proud in this community we have all volunteered our time to participate in. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 01:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Guy Macon, where exactly are you quoting from when you say "any type of contributions that are even reminiscent of automated editing"? Dsp13 (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I am quoting from Rich Farmbrough's talk page. Here is the conversation, with the direct quote in bold.


 * (SirFozzie) "I know AGK has been conversing with you via email. We're trying to fashion terms for something short of a long term site ban. [...] If the Committee can come to a consensus to extend you this kind of offer in lieu of a full site ban, would you accept this?"


 * (Rich Farmbrough) "Yes, indeed I had already said as much."


 * (SirFozzie) :Ok, good. I'll report to the Committee, and you should be hearing from us, one way or the other."


 * (AGK) "I have re-voted to oppose the site-ban motions, in light of your agreement to move away from any type of contributions that are even reminiscent of automated editing. I would re-emphasise point C) of Fozzie's e-mail, which I interpret to mean 'If it looks like automation, it will be treated as automation—and therefore as a breach'." (emphasis added)


 * And, just for completeness, here is where Rich Farmbrough (weeks later) deleted the section without disputing the claim that he had agreed "to move away from any type of contributions that are even reminiscent of automated editing" as a condition of not being immediately banned: --Guy Macon (talk) 05:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. So it was in a side-discussion, rather than the main Arb page. One of the really unfortunate features of this case seems to me the way in which the scope of 'automated' expanded so precipitously in the rulings and subsequent enforcement: (1) from bot activity (through reading, rather than editing, WP using tools) to cut and paste, (2) from activity of a certain sort to appearance (or even more widely, here, reminiscence) of that sort of activity. The interaction between (1) and (2) has been wild. I can't see that Rich F could reasonably have understood himself to have been agreeing in his exchange with Sir Fozzie to not make edits which look like cut and paste. Dsp13 (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Except it doesn't look like cut and paste. Go to my original analysis (searching on "Please look at" finds it), perform the same steps I performed, and you will see a series of edits that cannot be explained by cut and paste errors, but which can easily be explained by cutting and pasting into a text editor, manipulating the text with a series of automatic boolean or regex search and replace operations (along with some manual editing), then cutting and pasting it back into the edit window and saving without previewing. The edits show a classic automation error: first you automatically search and replace all of the left quotes, then the right, only to discover that the second operation caught some apostrophes, so you undo and try other things like searching for a space after the right quote. This misses the apostrophes (never a space after them) but misses the right quotes that don't have a space after them. And the final nail in the coffin is this: automation makes the same exact mistake on every instance of whatever triggers the bug, whereas humans miss a few.


 * Now combine this with the following three facts: First, Rich Farmbrough has been shown to have run automation when banned from doing so in the past. Second, arbcom was ready to permanently ban him, but was searching for a set of restrictions that would keep him working but not using automation. Third, he freely agreed to the restrictions as worded whether or not we think he should have. BTW, has Rich Farmbrough himself ever claimed that the edit I analyzed was the result a cut and paste error?


 * He used automation. In defiance of his ban. Again. That's right, again - he has done this before. Yes, I do realize that some here think that the edit I analyzed can be explained by cut and paste errors, but there are good technical reasons to conclude that they are wrong. All you have to do to prove this to yourself is to load the "before" from the diff into your sandbox and then try to turn it into the "after" from the diff using just cut and paste and just making the kind of errors humans make. (If you try this, please keep a log so others can see exactly what you did). --Guy Macon (talk) 12:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your full answer. I'm sorry (esp. if it caused to you to waste your time): I wasn't clear. I should have included search and replace along with cut and paste as included in the functionality I'd think of as 'manual' (generic, everyday text editing of the sort any WP newbie might be familiar with) rather than 'automation' (bot scripts, wp-specific tools or whatever.) You think of things differently.


 * It doesn't seem surprising to me that different people have different gut feelings about this: the manual / automatic distinction doesn't actually seem to me one it's possible to draw very consistently in an online editing environment. I don't know whether or not you agree with that. Dsp13 (talk) 13:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * For me, the difference between cut and paste is that every paste is done manually, at a place of your choosing, under direct supervision. Find and replace is changing many instances with one click, without actually noticing where you change things and whether you get unexpected results. The chance of having multiple similar errors, which don't get noticed, is much higher with find and replace. Because there is no real, manual/visual supervision, becaues you let "the machine" find the places where your change will be made without the need for you to even look at what is being done, I consider such "find and replace" as being automated, and cut-and-paste as not being automated. (I know that you can do a supervised find-and-replace, where every instance of the replace needs a manual "OK", but that doesn't seem to be what happened here). Fram (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, being able to look at what you are doing, ceteris paribus, reduces the risk of errors. Where the text involved is short, and short in relation to its editing box (screen size helps!), cut-and-paste allows this. (The most common mistakes I find I make with cut-and-paste are mistakes in selecting the exact start / end of the text to copy, and pasting it twice by double-clicking. Pasting between different applications sometimes also causes me character encoding / white space problems.) The risks involved in search-and-replace for me similarly depend upon a range of factors: how structured the text is, how well I know it, etc. I don't think that one is always more risky than the other. Unfortunately even typing isn't (for me) risk-free: my inability to touch-type well means that every key is not always struck "at a place of [my] choosing, under direct supervision": I often have to choose between seeing what I have written on the screen and seeing what I am typing with my hands.
 * So the promiscuous variety of my own tendencies to error make me doubt there's a fundamental distinction lurking here. And certainly using any of these everyday editing processes feels a million miles away from kicking off bots or specialized semi-automated processes which impact large numbers of pages. I've reread the page before and after the edit for which you reported Rich Farmbrough. It was a page needing quite a lot of copy-editing, and he did some but certainly not all of what was needed. He made some mistakes: the first of which - & the most consequential, since in the lede - was actually the typo 'cntroversial'. Copy-editing pages that need it is hard, and every bit helps: he left the page overall in a better condition than when he found it. Does he need especial praise for his edit? No. Does he need condemnation? No. Dsp13 (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

'Tis tragic. RF's currently the second most prolific editor on English Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 01:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * He wouldn't have been so prolific if he had followed the rules about not operating bots from his account instead of a bot account. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with Guy Macon's assessment. Rich has once again littered articles with unthinking, automated errors, and the usual suspects are here pleading for leniency. I'm sorry, but no.  The entire reason why we are here is leniency, and bluntly, a one year block is lenient.  Rich has repeatedly shown that there is no restriction he will follow and that there is no possibility of him editing in a fashion that does not generate numerous mistakes that are left for others to clean up.  Blocking is the only option left to protect the project from these damaging and time-wasting errors. Resolute 01:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No one is stating Rich didn't make errors, the fact that he and his bots did more than 5 million edits, more than a million himself, attests to that fact. You can't do that many without making some mistakes and at that volume even 1% is a lot of errors. What should be considered is this. What message are we sending to editors? Don't edit too much because of you make mistakes, particularly a noticable percentage you'll be blocked; create bots at your peril; we allow editors to follow other editors every edit and submit them for punishment at the mere possibility of a violation of a vaguely written forced Arbcom determination? Because those are the messages being sent intended or otherwise. There is a growing perception that its better to just do an occassional edit and not get visible than to do to many and get blocked. Not a great thing. I would also note that if you have some experience at programming bots, programming in Lua or have the ability of answering the technical questions that Rich is asked to answer, for the benefit of the pedia, then it might be worthwhile to step up. Because whether you or others agree or want it, others need and want his help to make this project better. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 02:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Your entire argument is disingenuous, as usual. Everyone makes mistakes. Not everyone has a multi-year history of making the same mistakes over and over again, even after they are pointed out. And making them so often they were banned from using automated editing. And still making the same mistakes.  Short blocks haven't worked.  Edit restrictions haven't worked. Both have been tried many times. There's nothing else left.  What kind of message do you want to give the community, Kumioko?  That it is okay to be incompetent if you edit many, many articles? Resolute 02:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not to go to far off tangent but just out of curiousity what part of what I said was disingenuous? That he and his bots did aboout 5 million combined edits? That he made mistakes? That people still seek out his knowledge and experience? All of these are verifiable. I'm sorry if I am irritating you because I disagree with you and some of the others here. I simply do not have the zero defect mentality that has rooted itself in this case. I do not agree with the underhanded tactics that have been used against Rich. I do not agree with the extremely vaguely written Arbcom decision and I really don't like being called disengenuous because I do not follow your train of thought. If I said something disengenuous, I invite you to point it out so that I may clarify it with links. This may be surprising since I am not an admin elitist but I have actually been around long enough to be able to interpret the policies and am able to identify when they are being used abusively. And that has occurred on multiple occasions regarding Rich's case.KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 02:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Your entire bit about "what message are we sending to editors" is the disingenuous part. I am well aware of the quantity of Rich's edits, many of which lacked quality, especially when he was running unauthorized automated tools that did useless things like change capitalization inside templates. You are dazzled by a number.  I am interested in behaviour.  And we have long since proven that neither restrictions nor short blocks work on this editor. Resolute 02:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then and I am not dazzled by a number. What does impress me is that after all that has happened Rich still wants to edit and make this place better. Yet here we are quibbling about how to justify a 1 year block over a few rather meaningless edits. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 02:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Rich Farmbrough's bots are buggy. Really buggy. Other bot operators manage to create bots with far fewer bugs, and they fix the bugs when they are found. Rich Farmbrough leaves the messes his buggy bots make for others to clean up. The other bot operators clean up any messes they make. Rich Farmbrough refuses to follow the rules for bot operators. Other bot operators follow them. You throw out phrases like "a few rather meaningless edits", but you cannot tell us how many are bad, what percentage are bad, or how bad they are -- you have never looked and are just guessing that it is "a few". You are making claims when you have no idea whether they are true. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Its fair to say that some of Rich's code was buggy but part of the reason he was making more mistakes was because he was performing edits to actual articles. There are fairly few bots these days that perform edits to aricles. Part of this is due to the utterly inconsistent way that articles are created. There is no standards whatsoever which makes programming a bot to perform many tasks extremely difficult. Most of them create stats (like article assessments or updating the numbers for RFA's, close AFD's and perform other mundane tasks that have little impact to articles). That Rich was willing and able to create bots and bot tasks that would do actual edits and improvements to articles is a big part of why there are more errors and why many bot operators these days are unwilling to create new bots or bot tasks. Requests for bots used to be common. Now they are much less frequent because people are afraid of getting blocked for trying to help and make improvements. You are also wrong that I haven't looked. I am very familiar with the edits Rich did, I am very familiar with the errors and I even helpded to fix some. But most were blown out of proportion by a couple of editors who care more about ensuring minor edits don't get done than that improvements are being made. There willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Do I know specifically how many errors no, was it a lot, certainly just by volume of edits. But many of the "errors" that are being mentioned aren't errors, they are a differece of perspective of the need to do certain changes being called errors. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Just looking at pages on my watchlist, in the mainspace, where the last edit was by a bot, shows that there are still quite a few bots around in the mainspace; Addbot, Chartbot, Yobot, Emausbot,CommonsDelinker, AnomieBot, ‎Lowercase sigmabot, Xqbot, Cydebot, KLBot2, RussBot, .... Looking at recent changes also gives AvicBot, Citation bot, Cyberbot II and Avocatobot. There probably are a bunch more, these are just the ones I could easily find. Were there so much more mainspace bots active before the Rich Farmbrough bot blocks and ArbCom case? Fram (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Certainly there are some left. Yobot your right, sometimes Anomiebot (but it mostly does minor things like dated Maintenance templates), most of the rest of those don't do things that really affect the articles content. The change, add or remove links, add signatures, archive talk pages and things of that nature. But nothing substantial. So yes you are right there are still some, but that number is dwindling and the number of people willing to do them is dwindling. Even the existing operators are leary of taking on new tasks. Yes there were a lot more, Rich did more than 25, 000 on an average month and Smackbot/HelpfulkPixieBot did more than that. So that's at least 50, 000 per month not done. Even if 10% were in error that's still 45, 000 not done. Some tasks have been taken over by other bots, many have not. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Kumioko, all the bots I listed above are editing articles in the mainspace, not "adding signatures, archive talk pages, ..." The rest of your post is mainly a rehash of old discussions of why stopping Rich Farmbrough from using bots and automation was bad. That's a separate discussion from the one on this AE enforcement. Let's stick to the latter please instead of having the same old discussion again at a time and place where it won't change anything anyway. Fram (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Surely nobody is claiming that a bot was used to make these changes. Or that the fixing of multiple broken references by repeated manual search and replace has damaged WP so seriously as to justify a one-year block. There needs to be a vote—for example, something like:
 * (1) Whether repeated manual search and replace qualifies as "automated edits", and
 * (2) Whether the fixing of multiple broken references by repeated manual search and replace for consistency (but leaving orphaned quote marks) has damaged WP so seriously as to justify a one-year block. LittleBen (talk) 06:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It appears that Farmbrough was blocked for edits to an article that was not in main space. Here is the location where the edit was made.
 * Here is the only diff brought forward to AE in the section Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it:
 * 2013-03-22T23:10:25‎ (Italics for book titles, not bold. Wikipedia is not a reference for Wikipedia MInor fixes)
 * Here is where the article was moved to mainspace:
 * 2013-03-23T11:05:41‎ (Titodutta moved page Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Mohan Deep to Mohan Deep: Created via Articles for Creation (you can help!) (AFCH))
 * Unscintillating (talk) 03:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And this is relevant how exactly? Articles at AfC are meant to be brought to the mainspace anyway, and his restrictions are not only for mainspace edits anyway, but for all his edits. Fram (talk) 07:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The relevance is that there was no proof he was using automation, just speculation. In fact, the evidence shows he didn't even use find and replace because a couple of the potential changes on the page were missed. So that leaves some of us wondering how this was justified based on the evidence presented. I looked at his edits and although I wouldn't call all of them necessary I couldn't see anything that indicated they were automated. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 10:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Kumioko, your reply has nothing to do with the remark by Unscintillating and my response to him, so could you please post it somewhere else? If you have some questions for me or others, fine, go ahead, but don't insert them where they have no connection to what proceeded at all. It is disruptive. Fram (talk) 11:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Just because you don't like the message Fram doesn't make it true. Unscintillating gave examples and you asked for the relavence. I gave you one. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * ''Note: I've undone AGK's archiving of the continued discussion below. NE Ent moved it here to talk, archive templates and all, and the combination was quite unfortunate. Restoring AGK's archive comment from the Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement page: "I'm ending this dialogue. If you believe this enforcement action is unsupported by evidence or was procedurally flawed, you need to have Rich bring an appeal. Unsubstantiated criticism of the enforcing administrator is inappropriate and disruptive." AGK [•] 11:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Bishonen &#124; talk 12:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC).


 * This block is disputed by a powerless, regular, everyday Wikipedian, as having been closed too soon, without adequate time for response by anyone. 10:29 to 23:04 is just too short. The alleged offense simply does not rise to the level of an emergency response. See Talk. --Lexein (talk) 10:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Point of order: arbitration enforcement actions are taken by a single administrator, so that administrator is not required to wait for discussion and approval of his proposed decision to take place before he can act—especially in unambiguous or simply enforcement requests. It might also be simpler if you take up your objections with Sandstein directly, and you might have more success if you argue against the actual decision rather than against the time he took to make the decision. Hope this helps, AGK  [•] 10:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thanks for that info. However, your encouragement aside, I'm seeing no evidence anywhere that communicating directly with Sandstein would work, or help. I would appreciate a link to some block decision Sandstein made being reversed by Sandstein solely on the basis of discussion; starting to hold my breath while I search now. I feel it's necessary to reign in and indeed slow-the-hell-down some of these so-called "simple" actions, based as they are on flawed foundational logic which goes directly against the Five Pillars. I'm of the opinion that wide consensus should rule here, rather than an individual administrator. Arbcom is needed, and AE, but not against Farmbrough, for this arguably manual edit. --Lexein (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think part of the problem is that 99% of all Arbitration enforcement actions are taken by that same admin. No one else seems to get involved and this particular admin always seems to lean towards the severe end of the spectrum. Its like watching a hanging for petty theft here every day. Murder, Guilty, hang' em! Stole a dollar? Hang him too! This process is just as flawed as the Arbitration process is but in different ways. Personally I think Sandstein got duped into the ban by Fram because Fram knew that Sandstein wouldn't really review the matter. Rich had an arbitration case on file and Fram found a couple of edits that could be argued were automated in some fashion so that's enough for Sandstein to justify it. Sandstein known for being a strict enforcer, a pitbull for the Arbitration committee, but not very meticulous in his research of the evidence. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 10:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I think we should have left the discussion open for a modicum of time. There was no rush to block, it could have been done in a way that avoids this appearance of it being 'summary judgement'. I happen to have no problem with the specific outcome, but it wasn't necessarily so obvious to preclude some more politeness. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am curious as to what extended discussion would have accomplished. Basically, we have two camps here: One side notes that Rich has violated his editing restriction in a fashion that resulted in the very same pattern of errors that has been a constant and long-running problem with him.  The other says no action should be taken because he has millions of edits.  Policy vs. emotion.  Emotion often wins at ANI if you have enough friends.  Fortunately, AE is structured a bit more logically. Resolute 13:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Except that's not an accurate reading of the situation at all. A more careful reading of the discussion would reveal more than a few editors who are saying no action (or less action) should be taken without even mentioning Rich's edit count. They are instead saying that either they don't believe Rich has violated his edit restriction, or - as in my case - that it is very borderline or a grey area. Or, they are saying that they agree that a minor infraction has taken place but that a year's block is too severe. Black Kite (talk) 14:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, Black Kite, and I agree with Joy that it would be better to let these discussions run for a bit longer. I've also let Sandstein know that I feel this way, but Sandstein disagrees and as AGK noted, there isn't any kind of requirement for group discussion or consensus. See Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough; for example. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 17:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I already said what it would have accomplished. The quality of being judicious and polite is a worthy goal in and of itself, especially in this kind of a serious process. It's not impossible that we would have just seen appeals to emotion in the extra time, but so be it, it wouldn't have hurt us a lot, certainly not as much as this kind of acrimony. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 15:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * @ Resolute, So it seems then that the one with the most admins wins! KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Not open long enough
It is my position that the AE request for Rich was not open long enough to allow the community to determine consensus for an action being taken. Specifically, the request was not open long enough to obtain comments from multiple uninvoled administarators. It has been pointed out that this is not required before taking action. But I believe it would be beneficial to the project if muliple uninvolved admins were allowed enough time to comment before any action is taken on any non-urgent AE request. Several people have mentioned this as being an issue and I believe allowing enough time for multiple comments by uninvolved admins would be helpful for a healthy project. I would like to know if others agree. Thanks. 64.40.54.134 (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC) my contribs for those unwilling to WP:AGF.
 * In a word, no. Leaky  Caldron  16:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the block was too severe, was submitted by an involved Admin/editor with a vendetta and there is obviously a number of people in the community who disagree, largely due to a poorly worded Arbcom decision that doesn't clearly define what automation is. Find and replace is not automation any more than using 4 tildes for the signature is. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Others have stated that discussion is not the norm at AE. Fooled me: there's a space right there called "Statement by (username)". I don't like being lied to, when the evidence for room for discussion is right there in my face. --Lexein (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * AE doesn't work that way. They may require discussion if it is unclear what action the original Arbitration requires, but otherwise any admin is empowered to take enforcement actions. AE is not ANI. Looie496 (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If discussion is not necessary or is discouraged then why have the option? Why even allow the accused the opportunity to comment? That logic doesn't even seem to compute. Aside from that, look at Blocking. Multiple places in this policy indicate that extremely long blocks like 1 year or indefinate should be used by extreme exception. Not as the norm or for insignificant reasons such as this. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Discretionary sanctions are not community based. It is up to the individual discretion of an admin. There is no requirement for multiple admins to comment. There is not even a requirement that the action even be requested at AE from what I am aware of. All that is required is an official warning. AE is a place for people to propose sanctions be placed, and helps uninvolved admins get different opinions when they are reaching their decision, but an admin can do their own independent research without asking for the opinions of involved editors. The decision can of course be appealed. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it's ideal, I'm just saying this is the way it is. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Understood, now is as good of a time to start refining the process as any. If the process favors the accuser over the accused without allowing the accused an opportunity to comment or prove their innocence then the function of AE is broken. It's mean to enforce Arbitration decisions but it shouldn't do so blindly or in a vacuum. Disctretionary sanctions also doesn't give the Arbitration enforcer unlimited power to indefinately ban a member from the community nor does it allow them to do whatever they want. Its merely designed to give them some latitude in making determinations without being bogged down with red tape. It seems to me, that based on this decision of a 1 year block for nothing more than the suggestion that he might have violated his sanction, that the process need some review and fine tuning. Perhaps we should require more than circumstantial evidence to levy a block longer than say three months. I mean if the edit summary said it was done with AWB, twinkle or whatever that might be different. But in this case there is nothing more than 1 involved admin trying to block someone they have been hounding for years. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 19:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, quite correct. There is no rush. A longer discussion may well end up imposing the same sanction, but that was not enough time for enough uninvolved admins to participate. Black Kite (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that the discussion was closed hastily. The issue was clearly non-urgent, and there seems (to say the least) disagreement about whether search and replace, cut and paste are 'manual', 'automatic' and so forth. Dsp13 (talk) 02:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This all looks fine to me. The sanctions imposed by ArbCom were pretty clear cut, and Rich appears to have breaching them. He chose to not post a statement in the AE thread countering Fram's analysis, and Sandstein's reasoning is sound. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for voting on

 * According to the block notice, this block can be amended or overturned, "following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page".

Proposal for voting on: Blocks are supposed to be preventive—to prevent disruption or damage to Wikipedia—not punitive. Overlooking eight orphaned single quotes has not caused serious disruption or damage to Wikipedia, so a one-year block is excessive, disproportionate punishment, and should be reconsidered—surely a block of no more than one month is more appropriate. (Support or Oppose, please). LittleBen (talk) 15:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Dsp13 (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * per Sandstein and Kumioko, I've withdrawn my vote here - though nothing either of them has said has changed my mind about the merits of the case. (In Sandstein's retelling of the Arbcom ruling, the language has accreted new epicyclic flourishes: now it's not just that search and replace is to be regarded as included in automation, but that RF must (per impossibile) demonstrate convincingly that he understands the original decision to have implied this; it's apparently not Sandstein's opinion, but the factual basis for his opinion, that RF's recent edits 'clearly' appear as automated; and, mostly oddly, only "typing characters into the edit box one by one" is allowed. (Is using the Shift key in combination with another keypress allowed? Two clicks on a mouse to highlight a word before typing over it? Three clicks to highlight a line?) Dsp13 (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This proposal is made in the wrong forum. This is a talk page, not a community noticeboard such as WP:AN or WP:ANI. Any consensus resulting from this discussion is therefore not a sufficient basis for overturning an arbitration enforcement action. Additionally, as long as the blocked user himself does not signal his opposition to the block by appealing it, there is no basis on which to even begin discussing its reduction. On the merits, as the blocking administrator, I oppose reducing the block, and I will not lift it as long as Rich Farmbrough does not very convincingly communicate that he understands that he is forbidden by decision of the Arbitration Committee from making any automated edit whatsoever, including by search and replace, and that he will scrupulously observe this restriction until it is lifted by the Committee. This proposal proceeds from a mistaken assumption by putting the duration of the block in relation to the damage (if any) done by the edits at issue. These two factors are unrelated. I would also have had to block Rich Farmbrough if his edits had been clearly beneficial. The reason for the block is not any harm done by his edits, but the fact that they violate an editing restriction by the Arbitration Committee, which prohibits all automated editing whatsoever, and explicitly allows only typing characters into the edit box one by one. As WP:BAN makes clear, "bans apply to all editing, good or bad". Therefore, undoing an enforcement action on the basis of consensus for the argument that the edits at issue were not harmful would violate the Arbitration Committee's binding restriction, and would expose whoever reduced the block to the risk of sanctions for doing so. The only thing that an appeal discussion can review is whether the edits were in fact automated and therefore violated the restriction. Because Rich Farmbrough did not contest that he used automation to make the edits at issue, and because the remedy specifies that "any edits that reasonably appear to be automated" (which the edits at issue clearly do) "shall be assumed to be so", I am of the opinion that no convincing argument can be made that Rich Farmbrough did not violate his editing restriction.  Sandstein   16:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Although I hesitate in opening up yet another forum with a Rich F discussion I actually agree with Sandstein that this is not the best place for the discussion. This venue is not really the best place to get to a meaningful and unbiased consensus on the merits of this block and/or whether what he dis should or should not be considered automation.


 * I do think that last half of the paragraph is complete bullshit though. Just because a blocked user doesn't somehow find a way to argue the block doesn't mean they agree with it. Just because the user didn't immediately rush to reply to the comments at AE does not mean they agree with it. Just because the user did not argue what they did was or wasn't automation does not mean it is. All of these arguments are complete nonsense and an utter and complete lack of good faith. In cases like this where there is some reasonable doubt, we should be assuming good faith, not assuming the user was doing something to violate a policy. That's just the wrong attitude to have and a pretty piss poor justification for a one year block. KumiokoCleanStart (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I would have to disagree with your statement "The only thing that an appeal discussion can review is whether the edits were in fact automated and therefore violated the restriction." A community discussion can also determine that, although the restriction was indeed violated, a one-year block is inappropriate, and should be reduced to a shorter duration. Otherwise, that would allow a single administrator to unilaterally impose any block duration desired without the approval of either the community or Arbcom. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're of course right that the block duration can also be the subject of an appeal discussion. (Although the AE procedures do in fact authorize admins to impose blocks of up to a year without anybody's prior approval. The question is rather who may review such blocks.)   Sandstein   19:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Where does one make appeals
Where does one go, to appeal one's topic-ban and/or Arbcom restriction? GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Guide_to_appealing_blocks (not sure if that includes those imposed by arbcom directly, but presumably you can appeal to arbcom). Jimbo also reserves the right to overrule the committee JIMBO. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If the Arbcom restriction was the result of an arbitration case or motion, you can file a request for amendment. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 23:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there a less complicated way of appealing a topic ban? This form is long, confusing and frustrating. Humanpublic (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Previous requests for clarification have gone unanswered. It seems that a (topic) ban cannot be reversed or reduced without community discussion or a Ban Appeals Subcommittee (BASC) decision, but there seem to be no guides to the former.
 * Arbcom (BASC) is probably reluctant to overturn AN "community" topic bans—it appears that such bans should at least initially be appealed at AN. Arbcom is supposed to be for problems that the community has not been able to solve.
 * Admins at AE seem much fairer and more lenient about topic bans than the "community" is about AN topic bans. Recently somebody was given a one-month topic ban at AE, whereas at AN people have routinely been given indefinite "community" topic bans—without due rationale, process (due diligence), or discussion (a bare 24 hours on a holiday weekend)—for very much less disruption in essentially the same topic area. Lots of people who participate in ANI topic ban discussions seem to be just there to participate in a lynching (they don't have any knowledge of the topic or person)—this is the reason that I put "community" in quotes above: I don't think "community" has anything to do with lynching mobs. It takes courage for an admin. to implement a fair decision (and take flack for it), but it doesn't take any courage to participate in a lynching.
 * If GoodDay's "mentor" does not support lifting of his topic ban, then perhaps he could look for a new mentor. LittleBen (talk) 02:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I've much to think about in the coming hours. GoodDay (talk) 03:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * As I like to say, "ANI: You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy." But I have seen at least once, ANI (or was it AN?) overturn an ill-conceived and ill-thought-out topic-ban given at AE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * From what I've read, there's a way to appeal a block for allegedly violating a Arbcom restriction. However, I'm not seeing how one can appeal the Arbcom restriction itself. GoodDay (talk) 14:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You need to make an amendment request. T. Canens (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * What is AE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanpublic (talk • contribs) 14:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * AE = Arbitration Enforcement. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if there are any hard rules about this, but you probably should appeal to the same venue that (or higher) applied to the restrictions. Although, as I pointed out earlier, there's at least one case where an AE applied sanction was over turned by the community.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * AN topic-banned me yesterday. What would be the point of appealing there? Humanpublic (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually it was a community ban. Try respecting the ban for a minimum of 6 month and the return to AN and request an community un-ban. You jumped straight to Arbcom (which I understand was suggested from your request of how appeal) but you did it immediately after the actual decision was made. If you can't accept it then maybe you are to attached and interested in these subjects to see your own bias. I really suggest working with the community as the best route to take at this point.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There needs to be a way to appeal the correctness of a community ban. If we have to submit to the ban before appealling it, there isn't actually a way to appeal. Humanpublic (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * When do requests get archived? At the moment the vote is 5-0 against. Humanpublic (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Request for unique section headings
On the clarification and requests page, every section where the arbs give feedback is entitled "Arbitrator views and discussion". When I see an edit summary in my watchlist like "Arbitrator views and discussion: my views" I have no way of working out which of the four requests ‎Carcharoth is opining on short of searching for the timestamp of their edit.

Please could we have section titles that reflect the case names as has been recently set up for he case requests page. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)