Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 1

Quick question
Just so everyones clear, can I ask how this board is going to be run? Is it only editable by Arbitrators, or can anyone comment on it if they have questions/concerns/comments? It seems like a good idea to me regardless.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * We're not sure yet; there's been some discussion of a more general revamping of the various pages to create a single, centralized discussion area (which this board may wind up being), but I don't think we're going to make any decision on that matter for some weeks yet.
 * For the time being, I think it's fair to say that anyone can comment on it; we'll make an announcement if that stops being the case for whatever reason. Kirill 12:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Might be clearer how this will work if there was another announcement up there, a header and an archive? Carcharoth (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I would expect non arbs/clerks would have permission to respond to announcements. It might be, in the for seeable future, too difficult or too much of a hassle to constantly reference this noticeboard in conversation on AN, ANI, and ARBCOM talk. On the other hand, if this purely for for announcements (understandable), then I'd suggest it be moved to Arbitration Committee/Announcements.  Syn  ergy 01:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Right now it looks more like an argument board. If you want a talkback noticeboard for arbitration matters, what's wrong with Talk:RFAR or Talk:AC?  Probably should either redirect those pages here or make this page a restricted announcement board (and then pull the premature IRC announcement). Thatcher 16:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, we are working on an overall structure for arbitration pages that will probably redirect a lot of discussion here, but the full scheme isn't ready yet. We're a bit swamped at the moment, so logistical matters like that aren't really the top priority.
 * As far as IRC is concerned: community feedback is good, and community feedback that points out problems with something we're doing doubly so. :-) Kirill 21:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I fear long discussions like the IRC one may overwhelm the noticeboard. Shouldn't this noticeboard, like the village pumps, be used to announce things and point to the place for things to be discussed if needed? Well, I know Village Pump threads get long as well, but this board should be for people to come to for news, unless I've misunderstood the purpose. I thought it would be more like the Clerks Noticeboard, rather than ANI or WT:RFAR. There does need to be a place for announcements, and a place for general discussion, and places for specific discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Use the noticeboard for announcements, this page for discussion of them, and provide links from the noticeboard to the thread here. DuncanHill (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Can it be that simple? :-) I agree. Carcharoth (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that sounds good. Kirill 20:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

New noticeboard open

 * Sorry I missed the roll-call on this one; belated support. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was going to make one of these myself before I read the e-mail. Great minds think alike... --Deskana (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Paul August &#9742; 00:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

New IRC patroller

 * I believe this is still actively under discussion and no final decisions have been made. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The last status update I have is that everything is going forward, but maybe you know something I don't. Kirill 17:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What is an "IRC patroller", and what is its remit? Martinp23 17:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's an informal thing; basically, the role involves keeping an eye on conduct in some of the IRC channels. Kirill 17:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you be more vague? Specifically, which channels?  What are the conduct rules?  Is this done with agreement of the existing channel management? Martinp23 18:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What does this have to do with the ArbCom. ArbCom has no authority on IRC, the only authority is held by User:Sean Whitton and User:Jdforrester, and beyond that the WMF board. The idea that ArbCom could create some sort of 'IRC patroller' is ridiculous. Any such position would have to be created by the channels themselves, or, alternatively Sean and James. Prodego  talk 18:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To the best of my knowledge,this is formally under the chanops' authority rather than ours. Kirill 18:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And if they find "bad" conduct, they do what? Kick the user from the channel? Remove their access if applicable? Block them on-wiki? Report them to ANI? Create a secret evidence file on the arbcom wiki? Mr.Z-man 18:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspect it's in the event there's a case filed on-wiki, so proof of off-wiki behavior is logged with someone reliable (a sitting member of ArbCom). —Locke Cole • t • c 18:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * FT2 can probably speak to the day-to-day work far better than I can, but I'm fairly certain the activity stays entirely on IRC (since I don't recall ever seeing by in another venue). Kirill 18:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Was FT2 the previously appointed person then? Martinp23 18:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * When this was discussed, the channel ops were generally against Wizardman taking on this role. FT2 was there and it should have been obvious to anyone that we weren't happy about the proposed appointment. I'm not sure why this has now been announced. Fair enough, if ArbCom want to overrule the chanops then so be it, but what were the arbitrators told about the discussion with the channel ops? It's also been stated that FT2 has held this role for the past year - well as far as any of us were aware he was just another op taking an interest in the channel. If he did have some role it was self appointed and it didn't have consent of the channel operators.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the first I've heard of any such discussion; do you recall the date on which it took place, and whether any arbitrators other than FT2 were present? Kirill 19:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It happened on Sunday night if I recall correctly, and happened because of the discovery of this edit by FT2. FT2 was obviously there and Flo was present for a short period, but I'm not sure that she was there for the discussion about Wizardman. Many of the ops disagreed with Wizardman simply because of a lack of knowledge about IRC and the inner working of it, along with no experience in running or operating IRC channels. We were planning to discuss again at a later date to come to an agreement about who could take a leading role in the channels. The next thing we hear is that Wizardman has been appointed, yet he wasn't even on the ops list of people to consider.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the edit Ryan linked came the day after the discussion on IRC; that discussion where FT2 was the only arbitrator present. FT2 had told us (channel ops and a few others that were around at the time) that he wanted us to take a look at something before he posted it on the wiki.  This was discussed for a couple of hours where most people expressed their (extreme, for some) objection to it.  FT2 posted it the next day, and said he misunderstood the outcome of the discussion.  Quite a bit has happened since then, however and I personally would have thought that FT2 was keeping the relevant people in the loop - apparently that isn't the case. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does seem that there has been some bad communication here. I will take this up with the rest of the Committee; for the time being, though, I think it's fairly safe to say that this particular measure is not in effect. Kirill 20:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * A note: ArbCom can't overrule the chanops. Only the people with +F in the channel can do that. Prodego  talk 19:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry folks for not following up myself. I don't frequent IRC much anymore but I logged several days during the past week. One of the days I briefly joined a chat about selecting chan ops for #admins. I knew there were ongoing issues related to selection of #admin chan ops, and more discussion was to happen later, but assumed from the comment FT2 made to ArbCom that the issue had been resolved. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

After reading through all this, I can safely say that I'm lost. If there was other discussion going on that said i shouldn't be IRC monitor, than i won't take the job, that's fine. I was unaware of any chanop discussion about me going on until a few hours ago. Wizardman 22:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * [To Ryan Postlethwaite] You say that "the ops disagreed with Wizardman simply because of a lack of knowledge about IRC and the inner working of it, along with no experience in running or operating IRC channels." That is exactly the reason why Wizardman should be a monitor.  The IRC's needs an independent, neutral monitor who hasn't been influenced by its history to monitor the behavior in there. Cla68 (talk) 05:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You wouldn't hire a financial auditor with no accounting knowledge, why would we want to appoint someone with insufficient technical knowledge of IRC as arbcom's official IRC liaison? There's more to IRC than #wikipedia-en-admins. Its perfectly possible for someone to have knowledge of IRC and channel operating and not be a part of the evil IRC cabal. Mr.Z-man 05:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I've been a chanop before for other pretty big websites (i.e. GameFAQs during a short-lived group of chat rooms in 2001). Granted, I haven't done that in years, so while i have the experience, i'd be very out of practice. Just throwing it out there. Wizardman  07:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Z-man, everybody who has technical skills and knowledge of the way IRC works is part of the evil IRC cabal. The qualifying criteria for being part of the evil IRC cabal are: uses IRC; does something that Wikipedia Review does not like (e.g. kicking a banned user for trolling).   Guy (Help!) 17:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I must be missing 50% of this, because it doesn't make too much sense at the moment. If FT2 was a "liaison", that's fine. He didn't have to use ops, or even understand how it worked (just know how to log relevant conversation pertaining to Arb Com matters and or report back this information to the committee for appropriate action). I don't see why Wizardman cannot "take over", serving in this function. From whats been stated, its an informal role and as such, would have no overlapping effect and no bearing on how channel ops function and operate on IRC. To put it simply, its an arb idling in a channel observing conversation like some already do. Any offwiki action needed, would (I'm assuming) be done through the coordination of said liaison and an op from whichever channel this irc patroller is currently idling in (whether it be #wikipedia, -en, -accounts, -help, etc). And I'm assuming if and when Wizardman was given the oppurtunity to be granted ops in any one of these channels it would not be based on this informal role, and would probably do just fine.  Syn  ergy 22:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem is that what the function of this person is doesn't seem to be defined anywhere. Mr.Z-man 23:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, then this is the perfect time to ask (while this is still fresh) but then again, Kirill did say It's an informal thing; basically, the role involves keeping an eye on conduct in some of the IRC channels. It doesn't sound like much of a job to me, and as the previous one stepped down, another steps up. This seems less of the matter of "zOMG Arb Com is trying to dictate IRC" and more of a "changing of the hands" if you will (point being: you may of only heard of this role now, which can only mean its nothing to cause drama over and as such, now that you know, lets get on with constructive conversment). I don't know that I would need any more definition here, since it seems so simple of a role, that others are not taking it as face value.  Syn  ergy 00:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Do the existing IRC channel "no public logging" rules apply to this position? Best regards. --Chasingsol(talk) 23:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would presume if any conversation was released, all parties would have to agree (in keeping with existing guideline of course), prior to its release. But lets let an arb handle that more in depth. :) Kind regards.  Syn  ergy 00:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologize if my question is out of order, it is mere curiosity and certainly not a concern. Since IRC is an extremely free flowing format of communication, I was interested in knowing whether channel logging is a function of this position, and if so, under what conditions can those logs be used. Thanks again. --Chasingsol(talk) 01:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. An arb would know better (for obtaining and using information found on irc), but irc conversation cannot be used on wiki unless there is consent between all parties (last I checked).  Syn  ergy 02:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Suggest this thread is archived and discussion continued elsewhere? (See also comments on the talk page). Carcharoth (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

FT2 steps down from ArbCom
Sorry to hear.  Syn  ergy 21:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * He did do a great job in the Poetlister scandal..Modernist (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Does it mean the Committee has decided not to pursue the matter further? -- lucasbfr  talk 08:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is being discussed in a few places, but the clearest statement so far seems to be this View by Jimbo Wales at the talk page of the request for comments. In case that is moved or archived, diff here. I'm not speaking for the committee here, but I personally agree with what Jimbo said there. Carcharoth (talk) 11:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

New mailing list structure
Original announcement

No objection to this. But I do have a question. Where was this discussed, and where was the vote taken? Was it on-wiki, or in a private place? And if in a private place, what is the reason that secrecy was required?--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The actual vote took place on the Committee's private wiki; given that it's purely a routine internal matter, we didn't feel there was any need to go through a pre-adoption public phase. (Compare the CU/OS election proposal, which was moved to an on-wiki venue still in proposal form, since it was not purely an internal matter.)
 * We are, incidentally, working on a more standard approach to what gets moved on-wiki, and when; in fact, that's the next item on the agenda after the mailing list reorganization. Kirill 23:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that there was a need for a "pre-adoption" phase. But I really dislike the fact that arbcom discussion is by default on a provate wiki. That's a real transparency problem. The default should be that you discuss things, and certainly vote for things, on this wiki (on special arb edit only pages if you like) and only take things into closed session where these is a real need (and I accept there often will be).--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Tend to agree with Scott Mac here - transparency is always critical; I've never seen the need for ArbCom to discuss things privately except in rare occasions, in which the mailing list was perfectly fine. Private wiki seems to be encouraging keeping things closed, and also makes Arbitrators having two places to post... 140.247.14.141 (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Good. DuncanHill (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Not to be pedantic, but functionaries? Certainly there is a better term that can be used here.. (Overall, I do think the decision is a good one.. ) -- Versa geek  23:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Category:Wikipedia functionaries? We're open to suggestions, though. Kirill 23:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Emeritus-l and Alumni-l?--Tznkai (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * functionaries is fine. "Special rights users" is the best alternative that I can think of.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, given that the category exists (wasn't aware of it), I probably am being pedantic.. I'm thinking some variant of "advisory-l".. or even just "functions-l". -- Versa  geek  00:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Another pedantic question, but if nobody abstained, how were there only thirteen votes? There are sixteen sitting arbitrators. seresin ( ¡? )  00:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not everyone votes on every issue. Even if the remaining 3 opposed, it would still have had a clear majority.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If a person declines to vote, he is abstaining. seresin ( ¡? )  00:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I had trouble with that as well. On wikipedia and some parlimentary systems, abstaining is different from not voting - and other systems, they are the same thing.--Tznkai (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In arb land, it's different, if they not vote, it doesn't change the required majority, they have to formally abstain for it to change the required majority.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not concerned with the majority. (I never mentioned it, actually) I wanted to know how three people did not cast a vote, but there were no abstentions. In the mind of the committee, when an Arbitrator "abstains", what is he doing? seresin ( ¡? )  00:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To me, it's like they are recusing, which also reduces the majority, or saying "I can't support this but I also can't oppose it", ie, neutral. — Rlevse • Talk  • 01:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) It's a formal statement that one will not vote, rather than a mere failure to cast a vote.
 * Formally, the Committee does not have the concept of voting deadlines; there's no rule that states arbitrators must vote within a certain window of time. As a consequence, until a vote is actually closed and the results enacted, an arbitrator may vote at any time.  Because abstentions are considered to reduce majority, we've adopted the convention of only counting formal abstentions in this way; otherwise, we'd have to use a fluid scale where votes coming in would change the required majority, making counting much more difficult, and requiring a separate quorum rule.
 * (This is all, admittedly, extremely legalistic.) Kirill 01:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Would the Arbitration Committee consider rephrasing such announcements in the future? I understand the distinction between abstain and merely did not cast a vote, but how the announcements read is odd. Perhaps retaining the line about abstentions, but adding that three arbitrators didn't vote? seresin ( ¡? )  01:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Kirill 01:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It would also be helpful to list those who didn't vote. Not all of us can remember at all times just who is on the Committee, and it is annoying to have to flick back and forth between two pages ticking names off on a list to work it out. DuncanHill (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We could always saddle ArbCom with Roberts Rules of Order or something similar - but that would probably be just for my own amusements. How about something like:


 * Voting in favor were: Adam, Betty, Cameron, Dilan, Edgar, Frances, Gerald, Heather, Ian, Jacob, Kyle, Liana, Mike, Nancy,
 * Voting against: none
 * Abstentions: none
 * Did not vote: Octavian, Perry


 * either before or after the substance of the announcement.--Tznkai (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

↔Yes, that sort of thing would be very good. DuncanHill (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Please can we add "en" to the new list names. e.g. functionaries-en-l. There are other languages in the Wikimedia universe. Sorry that I forgot to mention this previously. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please! Note that (conceptually similarly) I've been stumping for oversight-l to become a global mailing list and a new oversight-en-l be constituted for just en oversight. ++Lar: t/c 21:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

How is ArbCom going to restrict access to the private wiki? There is currently no way to do this short of having a sysadmin scramble the users password. Of course you can disable write access by blocking the account, but not read access. 13177 could solve the issue, but who knows when that will be enabled. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We're going to have a sysadmin scramble their passwords. ;-) Kirill 01:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Great idea! ;-) Thanks. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is also possible to disable accounts on that wiki. There is a test account right there now in the user list that has "(disabled)" next to it. Dunno if this is an option that has only been enabled on the private wiki, and dunno if it disables read access. Carcharoth (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm rather sceptical that the "functionaries" list will have any worthwhile use. We shall see. I'm also rather disgruntled to find myself labelled a "functionary". I suggest mandarins-en-l as a more colourful and interesting name. Finally, I note that the coincidence in the timing of my removing myself from the AC mailing list on Friday and this announcement was indeed a coincidence (I mention this only because I have already been approached in confusion about this). [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 02:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Or, indeed, cabal-en-l. It would at least be refreshingly honest ;-).   [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 02:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How about Crotchety-ex-arbs-en-l? (Then again, there be the CU/OSers to consider). I assume the list is used to discuss larger matters that require a certain amount of trusted access (problems involving privacy) while the Arb-L and Arb-Wiki will be focused on case and arbpolicy matters.--Tznkai (talk) 02:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, that name would work too! I'm not opposed to the removal of former members of the committee (my self-removal the other day should bear witness to that).  I'm just far from convinced that the extra list is necessary.  I would not, for instance, be mad on discussing CU matters on a list with dozens of members; matters for wider attention should go to the existing, cross-wiki checkuser-l.  I am not convinced that the level of traffic will make it worthwhile.  And the name is so unsexy...  [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 02:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * [sexy-beasts-en-l]? More of a ring to it? -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 22:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Now you're talking ;-).  [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 22:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

One other thought that occurred to me -- what about the AC's two IRC channels? [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 22:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Taking my normal view of the need for long-winded on-wiki discussion in order to result in the right result - neatly summed up in two words beginning with "F" and ending with "uck process", this is clearly a sound idea; nobody really knew which ex-arbs were on the list, and some of them are viewed with suspicion by some users. Now, if you email arbcom-l, you know who gets to see it and that can only be good.  Guy (Help!) 23:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? The list members have long been noted at Arbitration Committee (which someone with the requisite knowledge should update, preferably with members of the new list too). But I still think this is a good idea, it makes things clearer. the wub "?!"  09:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Guy, I'm confused. What does "Firetruck process" mean? JoshuaZ (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Long overdue. Thankyou. Viridae Talk 09:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Some quick comments - 1/ as said, not every arbitrator votes on every matter. If theres a good turnout, that's been the norm, nobody much thinks twice of the few absences. It gets a serious problem when you have 15 arbs, 5 - 9 stay silent, and it needs 8 minimum to pass a decision (since silence isn't the same as abstention). That's where a lot of arb work has been caught in the past. One item on the discussion list was to amend internal-facing decision-making to make that less likely, and more clear. 2/ I had asked Brion a short while ago to add a "disable account" function. 3/ Functionaries-en-l was chosen to make sure nobody got it in their heads to think of such users as other than mere functionaries :) FT2 (Talk 04:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we have an update on whether the functionaries e-mail has been set up and whether EN ml's are getting the -en designator?--Tznkai (talk) 15:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's all up and running. The address is: functionaries-en at lists.wikimedia.org. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 15:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the large number of functionaries, could we get a list of the subscribership somewhere? Maybe Arbitration_Committee or Mailing lists?   MBisanz  talk 15:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've taken a cut at the membership at Arbitration_Committee. There are typos I need to fix but I wanted to get it out there. ++Lar: t/c 16:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Typos fixed I think but check me! I love it when other people find my errors :) ++Lar: t/c 16:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Are we going to transfer Arbcom-L and Clerk-L (and other -Ls) to Arbcom-EN-L and so forth?--Tznkai (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongly think we should. ++Lar: t/c 16:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Only if their archives move with them, and emails sent to the "old" address are automatically forwarded to the "new" one. Of course, that will mean double the load of spam to sort out, which is not something I look forward to. Changing a widely-known and widely-linked email address without good cause is counterproductive; Clerks-L isn't so heavily used that it should be a big problem, but Arbcom-L might be more of a challenge. For the record, in the past month or so of moderating the list, I have yet to see an email intended for any of the other WMF arbitration committees, which presumably have their own lists or email structures. Risker (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Some of the people on the functionaries list seem strange - retired arbs from years ago who have left the project, for instance, or with very little project-space work in a long period of time. Are people sort of grandfathered into the list with no review, or was an attempt made to determine which people actually needed to be on it? Avruch  T 18:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Committee agenda as of January 20
Original announcement
 * Are the following dates accurate? :


 * Draft by October 31
 * Finalized by November 30
 * Draft by October 31
 * Finalized by November 30

They seem offplace with all the Jan/Feb/Mar dates. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 01:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, they're accurate; those two are things that just need to get done before the end of the year. Kirill 02:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Very ambitious agenda Committee and very commendable that these are being addressed. Cla68 (talk) 02:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your taking this step to publish an agenda. I hope you will keep it updated as time goes on, and that keeping a formal published agenda is something that will be an accepted part of the Arbitration Committee housekeeping --Barberio (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I support the publishing of an agenda, I believe that it will enhance understanding of the committee's work, and better enable the community and the committee to work together productively. Of course, I reserve the right to grouse about things not being on it that should, or being on it that shouldn't, or timescales, or anything else that pops into my head from time to time, but on the whole a very welcome and constructive step. Thanks, :) DuncanHill (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * All your rights reserved —of course. Timely input from the community is highly recommended. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  11:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It is, of course, excellent that the Committee has chosen to publish this now, and the plan is admirable and detailed. I note that points 3 and 7 appear to be the same thing.  (I believe both are unnecessary -- though I know members of the Committee disagree -- but I'm sure that whichever way we have it, we only one!)   [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 16:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not the same. Generally speaking, point 3 is the process for the appointment of people with CU and OS access, while Point 7 is the method to audit people with CU or OS access. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 17:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My mistake -- I can't read. Well, in that case I still think both are unnecessary, but that's an issue for another day, I think... [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 17:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Kirill. This can only be a positive step in the professionalization of Wikipedia arbitration. Moreschi (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This seems an excellent proposal, covering all or most of the perceived problems with Arbcom. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Workshop pages
Kirill's agenda is a much needed improvement. Number 9 on his list is "Determine workshop page structure". I haven't followed past conversations on the topic, so I apologize if this is old business, but process reform is badly needed. I have been meaning to catch up on Requests for arbitration/Date delinking for days; looking this morning, I find 650KB between just the Evidence and Workshop pages, and a particularly unhelpful and unwieldy Workshop page. Because of the way the ArbCom process is structured, it appears that one has to set aside several days to sort through the basics of a case; the Workshop page in particular doesn't seem to be a helpful format, and badly needs reform. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 14:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll confess that I don't follow ArbCom enough to know for sure, but I have been following the date delinking case. I suspect you may find once you slog through that Workshop page that the problem is less about the format of the page than it is about some of the parties to that case. Mlaffs (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, not specific to that particular case. :-( FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That is unfortunate. Mlaffs (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of many of the long-standing behaviors, which is why I hoped that the ArbCom process would permit some "cutting through the crap" to get to the issues; instead, the format seems to allow for "more of same" as we've seen all along. I will try to slog through it on Sunday.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you (or any reasonable editor for that matter) have any suggestions about how the pages might be structured or organized in a better fashion, we're always open to productive suggestions. Vassyana (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this the right place to offer suggestions? If not, please point me to the right place to move the following:
 * I think that arbitration cases (or at least the new ones if not requests for clarification) ought to open with a clear statement of scope from the committee&mdash;not just the individual arbitrators' "accept to look at all behavior" statements, but a post-acceptance official statement more along the lines of "The scope of this case is the dispute on Subject M between users X, Y, and Z. We will investigate allegations by User:X that User:Y is POV-pushing on the articles on Subject M, and allegations by User:Y that User:X and User:Z have been uncivil. We will also decide whether User:A's intervention in the dispute has been helpful or disruptive."  Then encourage the clerks to keep the workshop and evidence pages strictly limited to the pronounced scope.  If someone (whether arbitrator, clerk, party, or onlooker) feels the scope is too narrow or broad, they may present a motion for the committee to change it.  But defining the scope up front should reduce the clamor on the case pages, especially if the clerks are empowered to nuke off-topic stuff. alanyst /talk/ 18:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Another suggestion: The evidence page should be structured with a "Requests for evidence" section, reserved for arbitrators to ask the community for diffs or other public evidence regarding particular points of the dispute. These requests should be numbered/labeled so that responding editors can reference them in their own evidence sections.  This might make it easier for clerks or clerk-ish onlookers to collate evidence from the various responding editors and present a more coherent picture of the evidence to the arbitrators. alanyst /talk/ 18:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as the workshop page is concerned: To reduce the amount of drive-by opining and wiki-politics that occur on these pages, require that the chain of reasoning be explicit. By this I mean that proposed remedies must specifically reference proposed findings of fact and principles, and explain why the remedy fits them.  Likewise, proposed findings of fact must cite to evidence brought forth in arbitration, and not just be unsupported allegations.  Any submission to the workshop that fails these criteria may (should) be removed by a clerk or arbitrator.  An onlooker should be able to trace a proposed remedy back through to the evidence and principles that motivated it.  If this is enforced, then there should be a lot less noise on the page, and I don't see it harming the parties' ability to make their case, good-faith onlookers' ability to assist, or the committee's ability to resolve the case. alanyst /talk/ 18:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is how I always approached arbitration cases. Trying to make a continuous link from the evidence to the findings of fact to the remedies. Referring back to the evidence at each stage. Sadly, not everyone does this. I didn't always do this, but it should be what people aim at. They don't even have to assemble the evidence - they can propose FoFs and rememdies based on the evidence provided by others. But "out of thin air" FoFs and remedies on the workshop pages are particularly unhelpful. Carcharoth (talk) 01:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * All of these are good ideas; all of them would save us and the community time and effort. #1 would prevent users from gathering evidence that won't interest the committee. #2 would improve evidence for any potential findings, and further focus the efforts of those presenting a case. #3 would increase the signal-to-noise ratio on the workshop page. Some arbitrators aren't fond of the workshop, but I am. A major problem with the status quo is conclusory proposals by both sides. Each side, for example, proposes a suite of findings commending their side, while submitting a symphony of sanctions against the other side. These are never helpful, especially when they degenerate into votes. Good ideas all around. Cool Hand Luke 06:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In support of #3, what if the Workshop pages was posted in two parts? When the case opens the clerks start the Workshop page with just the "Principles" & "Facts" sections.  After a set time, perhaps 1-2 weeks, then the "Remedies" section would be opened.  This could further encourage grounding proposals in evidence. --InkSplotch (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * #1 requires in effect a mini-trial to determine the scope. This formalises RfAR requests (which is good), but requires the voting arbitrators to change their examination of case requests in the accepting case: rather than a simple statement to "accept" or "accept to examine behavioural issues" or "accept because the community is unable to resolve this issue", a reductionist approach is mandated to accept X/Y/Z/M/A/POV/CIV/OMG. Where exactly does the exact scope get defined? Surely not in the original case statement - when has that ever been presented with all faulting parties condemned equally? Therefore by either the accepting Arbs in their detailed statements, by the clerks (most unlikely), or by the disputants/Arbs/clerks somehow during the request, or by a series of motions which implicitly convey first-mover advantage to the filing party. And motions by parties during the RfAR itself is a mini-trial - QED. :)
 * Implied then is that the initial RfAR request is rejected, or accepted to first determine scope. This should be a good thing, since it will make later steps simpler. But in some way there has to be a preliminary hearing - right? So then, taking an example from Canadian common law-civil branch - the initial examination of evidence by the court in the mini-trial decides first on the preliminary evidence and the potential damages (for en:wiki, Remedies). The full trial ensues, if everyone has still got the guts for it. So we end up with a three-step process: 1) RfAR like it is now; 2) accept for mini-trial to determine scope and damages(/remedies); 3) settle or go for the big show, where alanyst's #2 (with reservations) and definitely #3 apply.
 * Alanyst et al are correct that the ArbCase should be streamlined and it starts with strict attention to the issues at hand - but those issues have to be defined first - hence a mini-trial. Franamax (talk) 11:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

[Outdent; re Franamax:] Great feedback. I envision something less rigid than a mini-trial. After the case is accepted, an arbitrator proposes a statement of scope on the arbcom mailing list (or whatever medium they decide works best for them). The arbitrators confer and eventually come to agreement, and post the statement on the arbitration case page. Thereafter, up until the case is closed, anyone (non-recused clerk(s) excepted) can present a motion to change the scope, and the committee publicly votes on the motion&mdash;and of course motions that are simply vexatious or otherwise not made in good faith can be ignored. Allowing the scope to be changed by motion should give the process the flexibility it needs so that there doesn't need to be a big rush up front to throw everything plus the kitchen sink into the original filing, and so the first-to-file advantage isn't really that great. I think from the type of case filings and accompanying statements that are made these days, the committee shouldn't have too much trouble getting a good first cut at what the original points of the dispute are, or the general boundaries of the investigation, and probably won't need anything so formal or process-intensive as a mini-trial. alanyst /talk/ 03:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you add links to these as they are done? For example, where is the RfC scheduled for January 21? (If the answer is "nowhere yet", that happens, but we should have some way to tell.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Added link. It opened as scheduled. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 15:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)````
 * WT:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Noticeboard has a thread concerning workshop pages as well.--Tznkai (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Motion Re : Bishzilla
Original Announcement

Note that the "Bishzilla" account is no longer a sysop, as user:Bishonen transferred the tools back to the primary account. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Community expectation of Checkuser
In connection with the pending creation of a Review Board to monitor Checkuser and rule on complaints of inappropriate checking, I thought it would be useful to open an RFC to gather the community's views on exactly what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate checking. If the arbitrators consent perhaps this could be posted on the official noticeboard, since it is directly connected to the review board proposal. Could a clerk or someone add it to any other place (centralized discussions, etc) where it should be listed? Thatcher 04:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If arbs desire, we can put the AE RfC and this RfC both on RfarOpenTasks or another arb related template.--Tznkai (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions for arbitration page reorganization
On WT:RFAR, I've made some suggestions for reorganization of the Requests for arbitration page. I know not all arbitrators read that page much, so I'm posting a notice here. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration (permanent link here). --TS 04:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarification by motion relating to arbitration enforcement restriction
Original announcement

Requests for arbitration/PHG
Original announcement

CU and OS elections
Original Announcement

That's not how policy is made. See here. <font color="#0000DD">&gt;<font color="#0066FF">R<font color="#0099FF">a<font color="#00CCFF">d<font color="#00EEFF">i a n t &lt;  17:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Apparently it is now. See also here.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sade desysopped
Original Announcement
 * Good. Daniel (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * After reviewing the sockpuppet accounts contributions, and especially in light of his unresponsiveness to the ArbCom, I endorse this decision.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 03:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Right decision. Congratulations to those who made it. I wish it hadn't taken so long.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad to see this.  MBisanz  talk 04:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, he's no longer an admin but not indef blocked/banned. Hmmm... If I understand what happened, an admin used a sock account to push a pro-pedophilia POV for years, eventually got caught (apparently after earlier complaints were ignored), used his "legit" sock status (claimed on his user page) to intimidate editors opposed to pro-pedophilia POV pushers into leaving him alone and the result of all this is (drum roll please) he's a normal editor in good standing on wikipedia? I recognize this is an academic point -- "sade" will not likely be rearing his head again -- but I don't like the principle of the thing. People get banned for calling other people mean names; this guy was involved in something much uglier, much more reprehensible(morally) and much more disruptive. It would be best for arbitration to be more open about how its decisions are reached (i'm just some guy who's trying to do less here, but this troubles me).Bali ultimate (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Without going into detail, I can set your mind swiftly at rest. Despite lengthy inquiries, ArbCom found no hard evidence to support the scenario you suggest. Sade was desysopped for associating with sockpuppeting editors and for failing to provide any explanation of how and why this had come about. If the evidence had been there to support a ban, believe me, it would have happened. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 13:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What does "associating with sockpuppeting editors" mean in this case? --Conti|✉ 16:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is probably a sensible decision. Could I ask for clarification, though?  What are the terms of the desysopping?  Is it intended to be permanent?  Would an RFA be satisfactory?  Or is it "Sade is desysopped pending an explanation of apparent associations with abusive sockpuppetry"?   [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 13:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If and when an explanation is received, we can take stock. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 13:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, one would hope so :-) It would be nice, however, if the motion was presented a little less in terms of "this is final" and more in terms of "this is a temporary solution until our concerns are satisfied".  Unless there is a lot more evidence than I am aware of, the findings are shaky; the finality of the remedy, on the other hand, does not reflect this uncertainty.  [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 14:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There's considerable truth in that ... The actual motion is long, nuanced and contains detail that's unsuitable for publication. What we have posted is a probably too skeletal summary. Next time, we can make sure that the motion is better drafted so it can be published in its entirety without being too mysterious. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 14:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * All ArbCom decisions are open to being reversed either by the Committee or by Jimbo, right? Obviously, the Committee does not desysop someone on a whim. There were serious concerns. We tried for over a month (close to 2 months?) to discuss the concerns with Sade with no reply. Desysop seemed like a logical next step since leaving this situation open ended did not seem like a good approach because the Committee is moving away from having a massive amount of open unfinished work that falls through the cracks. As Roger says, the Committee discussed the situation and took a vote on the arbwiki and also prior to posting here opened a discussion on the new functionaries-l. I think that there was plenty of due diligence into this desysop. If there is a change in the situation, then ArbCom will review the matter further. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am in no way questioning the Committee's diligence or decision-making. Quite the opposite!  I agree with the approach and admire the persistence of the Committee in attempting to contact Sade -- I am obviously already aware of that.  I am merely attempting to point out a certain inconsistency in the presentation of the desysopping.  It is foolish, I think, to present things as being closed when that is inaccurate; an explicit statement of "until things change" is an acknowledgement of reality, not leaving things unfinished.  I am very grateful to Roger for his contribution here in elaborating on the decision.   [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 15:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, the bald support/oppose lists do not capture anything like the nuance of the individual positions taken. Suffice it to say that there was virtually unanimous support for temporarily suspending Sade's sysop bit pending explanations and further enquiries, which is the essence of the motion. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 16:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Bit moot surely? He's just been associated with "abuse" "sockpuppetry" and "paedophilia". Whatever the links are, I think we can rest assured that neither arbcom nor RfA will be flipping the switch back on anytime soon.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Moot, possibly. As it is, the motion is exceedingly vague.  Sade is desysopped ... for failing to respond to enquiries from ArbCom could be read as a desysopping for lèse majesté, though obviously that is not intended.  I would just like to see the wording be a little tighter and more focused on the crux of the problem.  The "why" part of the motion (what are "associations with abusive sockpuppetry?" We, including the AC, don't know!) is too vague to support the apparent finality of the "what" part of it.   [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 13:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think, Sam, that this is better described as "there were concerns that needed to be addressed and clarified; and that Sade was unable or unwilling to contact ArbCom to make those needed clarifications." The suspension of the bit isn't because there was no communication, but because the concerns could not be clarified.  The difference is subtle, and might have been made clearer in the announcement, but important.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I realise all that -- "though obviously that is not intended". I'm just looking for clarity, which has, I think, been provided.   [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 16:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The wording "Sade is desysopped for associations with abusive sockpuppetry and for failing to respond to enquiries from ArbCom." seems less than ideal. Was he really desysoped because he did not respond to requests for explanation? Something like this might be more reasonable: "Sade is desysoped due to associations with abusive sockpuppetry for which no convincing explanation has been provided to the committee." &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 16:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Something like that would have been excellent, I agree. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 18:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To clarify further, several points about all this were uncovered after further investigation. All these points can be seen by anyone with admin tools, but due to the nature of the concerns discussion was mostly kept off-wiki. Sade was given over a month to reply to our initial enquiries, and nothing has been heard from him yet. The desysopping is effectively a suspension until we hear from him. If we hear from him, we will take things from there, as there are questions that will need answering. Carcharoth (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Workshop
I would be grateful if Arbcom would police the appalling cesspit of vindictive bad behaviour that this page is becoming. --Dweller (talk) 10:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Dweller, what exactly don't you agree with on the workshop? If you can point to the things that you object to it would help.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Vilification of editors. Users being listed without notification. Untruths. Partial truths. Score-settling. I have next to no experience of Arbcom cases, but find this page upsetting and disturbing. Are they all like that? If so, shame on us. There has to be a better way. --Dweller (talk) 13:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks as if all the nonsense that habitually goes on in the MOS talk pages has moved across to the workshop. And yes, Dweller, it's appalling. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 13:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I decline to participate any further in it. --Dweller (talk) 13:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually disagree. I think there's some strong comments, but I don't think there's rampant incivility. Most editors claims are backed up with diffs either on the workshop or at the evidence page. What someone believes is a necessary remedy, someone else will disagree with. I can't see anything where there's a need to refactor. One thing I will do is that I'll get on with notifying editors that haven't already been informed.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, no incivility that I've seen. But plenty of other bad stuff. --Dweller (talk) 13:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that puts the clerk in a bit of a bad position. It's not our jobs to decide what is relevant and what isn't per se - if somethings completely out of place, we can remove it, but where people have presented evidence of poor behaviour which could be considered part of the case it's not for us to make those decisions. I'll happily deal with incivility or attempts to derail a case, but in this case I don't see that - in the mediation committee, we encourage all the parties to be as open as possible and this is also important at arbitration - if the arbitrators have all available information at their hand then they can make a more informed decision. Disagreeing with some proposals (which as far as I can see is what you're doing) isn't a reason to increase the policing on the pages. Why don't you create your own proposals for everyone to discuss?  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No thanks. I found the experience decidedly distasteful. If someone can come up with a better way to do things, they'll have my sincerest admiration. --Dweller (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this is kosher or not, but an editor (admin) is removing comments without prior discussion from the workshop page—see Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking/Workshop. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This has been brought to the attention case clerk.--Tznkai (talk) 03:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser and Oversight election policy amended
Original announcement
 * Thank you. --B (talk) 06:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This section is linked from WP:AN to discuss the voting of oversight and checkuser.

Voting on checkuser is potentially a very dangerous way of selecting checkusers. The qualities to be popular are not the same as the qualities to be a good checkuser. Possible scenarios that could bring disaster to Wikipedia include a checkuser with a political agenda (such as an agenda in the Israel/Gaza conflict or the Northern Ireland troubles or US politicians (such as the fanatical wing of Barack Obama and Ron Paul supporters) or the Republic of China on Taiwan v. People's Republic of China or Basque Separatists, etc.)

Voting also does not take into account a potential checkuser's qualifications. They may be very quick to accuse or they may want irrefutable proof as their standard.

What we need here is a person with good technical skills, good grasp of due process, and an uninvolved editor. But being an uninvolved editor means that they have no record. If they are an editor that writes a lot, they may have strong opinions and bias.

What we really need is a paid expert to be a checkuser. Ipromise (talk) 07:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you intend to pay for one? I don't, not when there are plenty of honourable and committed editors who are prepared to do it for free. I think you are too quick to dismiss both the checks-and-balances in this system (the whole point of the ArbCom vetting is to remove candidates with issues such as you mention, and you forget our absolute proscription on the sort of voting practices that would allow candidates with political agendas to gain the upper hand), and the intelligence of the community in both identifying unsuitable candidates, and in not supporting such candidates. <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 11:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am willing to pay. WP also asks for donations.  This would be a useful way to use some of the money.  We'll get a professional job done if a paid professional does the work.  Nothing in life is free.  The volunteers either spend too much of their time on Wikipedia.  This means that only unemployed people, people collecting disability, students, and wealthy trust fund babies become checkusers. Ipromise (talk) 07:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that the point of support/oppose voting is that users with a strong view on Israel/Palestine, China/Taiwan, and other controversial topics will not be given the tools. I intend to be very discriminating when it comes to who I vote for.  On a side matter, I applaud the ArbCom for dealing with this promptly and efficiently, this sort of attentiveness and responsiveness is exactly what I was hoping for after the latest election, and so far you have not disappointed.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC).

An inevitable move, but an unfortunate one. [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 09:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * More than that, it's a necessary move. You either need oppose !votes or you need a single ballot (like special:boardvote) where you are required to !vote on everyone.  Otherwise, you don't have an election&mdash;you have a set of 15 petitions no more reflective of community support than any other internet petition. --B (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a whole lot more than voting involved. It's about genuine scrutiny. That means research and questions. It's about whether individual editors are prepared to trust the candidate with their names and home addresses, phone numbers and so forth. That's the kind of information that advanced permissions is about. If we/you can get this across to the community, this'll be a great election. -- R OGER D AVIES   talk 19:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's an acceptable procedure now that oppose votes are allowed. The original system couldn't properly measure a (hypothetical) situation where all of the nominated candidates were unacceptable to the community, but to varying degrees of severity; under the original balloting system, some unacceptable candidates would be promoted. The current system is at least resistant to such problems. It's worth pointing out, however, that in such polls it's measurement of opposition that's really important; it's entirely possible for someone to have the support of the community and also be an unacceptable candidate, in which case, they should not receive priveleges. Equally, it's possible that some objectively qualified candidate cannot gather the community's support, in which case they also should not receive priveleges. Gauging legitimate opposition is what matters. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Mattisse 3
I'd appreciate some input here from an experienced but uninvolved ArbCom member and/or clerk. I have thankfully little experience of RfCs, so am unsure of appropriate protocol. --Dweller (talk) 10:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

How to raise the tone of the wiki
I posted to the functionaries-en list; it was considered a good idea, so Carcharoth suggested I put it here as well to help lift it up the AC's agenda.

en:wp has a chronic ongoing civility problem - there's a culture of open personal attacks as a routine standard of discourse in project space. This has been noted widely. The arbitration committee has fluffed several opportunities to make examples of particularly bad offenders, and many are at a loss for how to stop people from being driven away from the project.

Various arbitrators have suggested a willingness to knock heads on this matter, particularly admins who behave badly.

My suggestion: Put the following notice or something similar on WP:RFAr or AC/N:


 * ''The Arbitration Committee invites cases and discussion of chronic ongoing violations of No personal attacks, which is fundamental hard Wikipedia policy. Not one-offs and not (at this stage) mere incivility, but chronic ongoing personal attacks. Attempts to work through the problems (e.g. RFCs) will be expected to have been tried and failed before a case is brought.

That is:


 * noting that No personal attacks is in fact hard policy
 * indicating willingness to enforce it
 * an expectation that people shape the hell up.

The frustrations of wiki life are many, mostly dealing with blithering stupidity and then exploding in frustration. (I'm far from perfect in this and have an appalling history of snapping at people, but I do actually consciously try to behave better these days.) This would help set the expectation that people behave better.

Then it'll be time to make examples of those too socially inept to get it - David Gerard (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank-you for posting this David. I agree with the general premise of what you have proposed here, while not agreeing with the precise wording used. I also agree that a generalised warning period is a good idea to give people a chance to "shape up". I'll let others and my colleagues say more, as a change like this will have to be discussed extensively both by the community and the committee. I'll make sure the committee don't miss this, and I would suggest notices are posted asking for community input on this specific idea (of a warning notice) and the general issues (though that might be better at WT:CIVIL). Not everyone watches or is aware of this noticeboard. Link from an appropriate village pump, WP:AN, talk pages of the relevant policies and Wikipedia pages, community portal and/or noticeboard, making a link here from the RFC policy section, adding this to template "cent", and so on. The more input for a change like this, the better. Carcharoth (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've posted it to foundation-l (as per the above link) and wikien-l, VP policy and AN. Not at all wedded to wording, but the idea is simple enough: clear warning, publicity, some will not get it and the AC will have to act. Things are noxious enough I think this is warranted - David Gerard (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (e/c)@Carcharoth: If I understand you correctly, the "generalised warning period" would come after an ArbCom case? How is that any different from "civility parole," which is mostly a failure? <font face="Broadway">Mr.Z-man 20:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I was suggesting a general "we're watching" warning period to bring awareness hopefully without bringing actual cases. Some are certain not to get the clue, unfortunately, but that comes after the general warning period - David Gerard (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Any examples? I think this problem is being blown out of proportion a bit. Though perhaps I'm just missing something? --MZMcBride (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Go read longer discussions WP:ANI in full. There's been quite a bit on 'civility blocks' - these don't seem to be doing the trick; perhaps starting at the admins will - David Gerard (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:AN/I is a self-declared shithole. I need examples from some place that isn't that awful noticeboard. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This affects behaviour throughout policy space, no reason not to start there. Read some of the regulars' edit summaries for remarkable and inappropriate levels of snark - David Gerard (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is this particularly uncivil edit, which was written up in the press, actually. -- 76.98.14.41 (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think there is a general problem with increasing incivility and personal attacks which are passing without reprimand, and thereby making it acceptable. Civility and No personal attacks are hard policy and are not to be ignored; it is certainly a matter that it is legitimate for the Arbitration committee to take up. We don't actually need to invite cases but perhaps it is helpful to remind the community that they can expect such cases to be accepted, and to remind the committee members that such matters are not trivial. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, there was this particular not trivial comment of incivility, wasn't there? -- 76.98.14.41 (talk) 02:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

(cross-posted from AN)(ec)I don't understand the idea. Is your proposal to have the well-known policy announced and enforced? Because I believe that that is already the procedure here. <font color="#A20846">╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict)
 * Actually WP:AN/I is the best place for an editor to have a cheap pot-shot taken at them by an admin. I can't imagine it would be the place to discuss a civility block, except to give the pot-shooting admins something amusing to laugh at.  I'll be glad to watchlist you MZMcBride and start posting them to your talk page when I get up the energy to withstand the gauntlet of personal attacks and time-wasting on Wikipedia again.
 * The problem is so deep on en.wiki that professional conversations about the validity of contributing to Wikipedia never fail to raise the issue that you have to be thick-skinned and realize the probability you will be personally attacked by another editor or administrator is 100%. I read this thread on AN/I with interest because the most recent conversation I had about Wikipedia and contributing professional knowledge ended with every one agreeing that one could contribute safely in other languages and hope en.wiki editors might translate it into English.  --KP Botany (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hence the notion to start at the admins - David Gerard (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is it observably isn't enforced - David Gerard (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I may be wrong, but this seems like forum shopping to get "certain editors" who tend to write articles banned, while those who make the decisions can explain away their excesses as being provoked by trolls and vandals. It would go a long way toward allaying these fears if you were to give a few examples. --NE2 20:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You are. The AC idea is to start at those with most administrative bits on the wiki so they will be inspired to lead by example - David Gerard (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please give examples of edits that no one was blocked for, but you feel they should have been. Thank you. --NE2 20:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you don't feel there's any problem and everything's just fine, by all means please say just that - David Gerard (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Given your avoidance of the issue, I must oppose this proposal, and I urge others to do the same. Without examples, it is impossible to evaluate. --NE2 20:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose what proposal? The proposal that ArbCom should actually enforce the civility policy rather than repeatedly hand out wrist slaps and unenforceable "paroles"? <font face="Broadway">Mr.Z-man 20:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The only "unenforceable parole" I'm familiar with is Giano, and I'm aware of and oppose David's "hard-line" manner in dealing with him. Are there any others where you feel the existing processes have been applied and failed? --NE2 21:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll state I'm not actually talking about Giano at all. I'm talking about the general tone of the place. I hear the same sort of things that KPBotany notes above: a sufficient number of Wikipedian act enough like arseholes to make this seem like a place to stay away from, and that's bad. It takes just a bit of incivility to get rid of a n00b and a sustained dose of it will get rid of regulars. This is a bad thing, a really bad thing. The top is an excellent place to start on enforcing no personal attacks - David Gerard (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Tell that to Jimbo, who, when he blocked Giano today, seemed to be citing some of your language ("NPA is a hard policy"). As expected, the principles you espouse are being used first and foremost against those on the outs with the establishment power structure, not those within it. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this, as I have also noticed increase in incivility. I've been editing wiki since early days, and it is getting more and more unpleasant (and hostile!) place (one of the reasons why i stopped using an account). Now, incivility is an act, and as most actions, it is usually caused by something. We can try to prevent uncivil acts, but to do so, we may also try to understand why they appear, and to prevent its causes. There are several things that I have noticed which contribute to the unpleasant tone of communications between editors:
 * NE2, I understand your concern, but I don't think it applies to this proposal. Admins should be (and as far as I'm concerned, will be) held to the highest civility standards. I consider it a problem on the site, and this notice seems like a good start. Cool Hand Luke 20:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I also consider it a problem, but I would like to see examples. My particular concern is of practices similar to "baiting", where, for instance, one party dances around the issue and never discusses it directly, while the other gets frustrated and says something he probably shouldn't have. --NE2 20:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, definitely. Hence the bit about (a) chronic ongoing (b) personal attacks, not mere "incivility" (which seems in practice to be endlessly fractal in nature in discussion). I think in practice the arbitration committee could be trusted to apply it sensibly, judgement being what they are in fact elected by the community for - David Gerard (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * NE2 it seems you are talking about some specific event. I have no idea what.  However, if there is a single event that makes derailing civility on Wikipedia worthwhile, please let the rest of us know what it is. --KP Botany (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * They were actually elected by the community as the most accepted of the various choices - doesn't mean they are in fact sensible, just hopefully more sensible than the alternatives. I repeat my call for examples, and pose a rhetorical question: if the ArbCom were not sensible enough in the past to block for incivility, what makes you think they'd do it now? --NE2 21:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * One said "hey, post it here" and one has concurred above. That leaves, um, some! I live and hope - David Gerard (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * NE2, the idea is to deal with frequent occurrences and not with rare and random ones. Don't expect the committee to be harsh with everyone who says 'f**k off' once a year. Plus, an admin who gets trolled before getting offensive easily --and frequently-- doesn't deserve to be an admin. And producing a blacklist of expressions deemed to be personnal attacks is better than giving examples. For instance, I'd expect myself being sanctioned if I say 'someone is an idiot/douchebag' more frequently. -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  22:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

1. we are humans and its hard to control ourselves all the time :O) having that out of the way, here are some real causes, in no particular order: 2. there are admins who simply abuse their power, and issue warnings and blocks, and tag your talk pages with irrelevant boxes way too much 3. there are some editors who watch each others contributions and appear out of nowhere to backup each other, often just because they know each other without actually objectively looking at the issue at hand. 4. the most important thing, IMO, quite often it happens that within politely expressed comment, content of it radiates arrogance, unfriendliness, etc. (i wish i could be express it more eloquently in english...) 5. people often project POVs of edits onto their contributors 6. there is an increasing mentality of 'controlling' shadowing that of 'contributing'

I've read an interesting proposal recently: assigning few admins to patrol some page, and having rotations with other groups of admins from other pages each few weeks. This helps bring fresh perspectives into discussions and issues. It also reduces creation of prejudices and frictions among editors (and probably PAs, etc.).

Anyhow, i'm not trying to suggest any prescription for preventing PAs, just to express few thoughts. Cheers. 212.200.240.232 (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not going to happen. We can't just order admins to patrol certain pages, I certainly wouldn't work on articles I had no interest in. Besides there are 2.7 million articles and only about 1000 very active admins.--<font face="verdana"; font size="2"; font color="green">Patton <font face="verdana"; font size="2"; font color="green">t /<font face="verdana"; font size="2"; font color="green">c 21:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * About 99.9% of articles are totally uncontroversial and most have no active discussions. Though I agree "assigning" admins to do things won't work, unless we start getting paid. <font face="Broadway">Mr.Z-man 21:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * David's statement of the problem is quite correct, and has been a concern of mine for some time. No-personal-attacks and civility are policy not because they're nice, but because they are essential for maintaining the community necessary to write a neutral and complete encyclopedia. It may be trying too late something that might have worked two years ago, but I support his proposal. Tom Harrison Talk 21:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Civility rules are, all too often, used as a weapon by whoever is on the "right side" of the dominant clique of a given time and place, against enemies who are on the "wrong side". Whoever those with the most power are out to get will be slammed for the slightest trivial infraction, while the powerful ones are untouchable no matter what they do, and to even suggest that they might deserve any sort of scrutiny of the goose-and-gander sort is to get yourself dismissed as a troll.  I note that the essay linked by the commenter right above me has as one of its "See Also" links a diff of a prominent admin telling users he disapproves of to "fuck off".  Will people like that be dealt with under this proposed policy enforcement, or will it merely be one more arrow in the quiver of those admins to use against the more powerless? *Dan T.* (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think one of the major points of this proposal is to start enforcing the civility policy as it relates to the conduct of admins. It wouldn't be "one more arrow in [their] quiver", it would be a top-down approach to making the atmosphere better. Hermione1980 21:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As Hermione1980 puts it: starting from the top down will help. As will starting with chronic personal attacks, not mere "incivility" (which is way too fractal in nature in practical discussion). Note that the enforcement in this proposal is to come from the AC itself - David Gerard (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I find it very hard to believe this is such a widespread problem when nobody is able to give concrete examples or point to diffs. However, I am seeing a stronger and stronger case being made for the abolishment of AN/I. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MZMcBride (talk • contribs) 17:06, 8 February 2009


 * Exactly what Tom harrison said. NE2, you want names? I could name off a dozen people and so could you. But perhaps the reason David isn't naming names is because maybe a word to the wise might do the trick? Naming names takes us down a rathole of "was/wasn't/was too/was not"... Been there, done that, didn't like it. Reminder, this is not about losing one's temper from time to time, this is about chronic problematic behaviour. And starting with admins seems a good place to start to me. ++Lar: t/c 22:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (note, no endorsement/disendorsement of Tom's essay was intended, just that his words in the post just above are almost exactly what I was about to type) ++Lar: t/c 22:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that's nice to know, given that I find the essay sexist (assuming women are helpless victims and men are obnoxious louts), as well as containing implied endorsements of the toxic "Claim 'harassment' as a trump card in Wikipedia disputes" meme, not to mention (my favorite not-so-dead horse) BADSITES ("God forbid we should tell people not to link sites that attack our volunteers.") *Dan T.* (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This current proposal has somewhat less to do with BADSITES than it does with spoiler warnings - David Gerard (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be why I'm only providing the vaguest of examples. In any case, if someone is convinced there isn't a widespread problem, examples aren't going to help - David Gerard (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

One problem is that is the policies (and in some cases, many policies) are not enforced in a standardized way. If there was a top-down enforced policy--hard-enforced by the AC, let's say--that all editors, from the IP up to the Arbiter himself, were equally subject at all times to uniform enforcement and standards of all policy, wouldn't that be a better approach? If it's a personal attack, BLP violation, violation of protection, violation of well, whatever, what does it matter who did it?

Specific to the NPA side of things, if a personal attack would net a 24 block for an IP, any username regardless of it's standing, +bits, or the operator should be blocked for a comparative length of time, no matter who it is or their "position". So, if an IP were blocked for calling someone a "wanker", "cunt", "asshole" or "idiot" in a summary of some sort, that same principle would apply up to and including users that have been around for years, admins, and Arbiters? <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 22:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please, please don't let this turn into a "civility-enforcement" drive without giving the matter some deeper thought. How do we intend to enforce or promote civility? If the answer is with blocks, ArbCom cases, and harsher punishments for incivility, then take a long, hard look at the history of such attempts. Blocks don't make people more civil. Never have, and never will. Being blocked or sanctioned makes people angry. Anger makes people uncivil. Civility parole is well-intentioned, but its practical impact has been 10 times more damaging to the community than the incivility that it was intended to address. I'd like to see some brainstorming about how we intend to promote civility, before we get gung-ho about "test cases". What are we going to differently this time to succeed where previous efforts have epically failed? Personally, I think the answer is to change the system of rewards. Ignore people until they're able to express themselves civilly. Every time someone rushes to AN/I demanding a block for incivility and triggers a 100kb thread, we're heading in the wrong direction. Likewise ArbCom cases and civility parole - we should be marginalizing people who can't be civil, not making them the centerpiece of increasingly elaborate quasijudicial proceedings and sanctions and the attendant media circus. I've come to view WP:SHUN as one of the wisest things in projectspace - granted, not a huge endorsement :P Operant conditioning will work here - if people don't get the desired reaction by being uncivil, they'll stop. If they find they need to be nice to get things done, they'll be nice. Or so I think, anyway. MastCell Talk 22:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm after a "no personal attacks" enforcement by the Arbitration Committee - David Gerard (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm after admins losing their bits if they are consistently toxic to others. Not civility blocks, which don't work. Since adminship is such a "no big deal" that people will do anything to avoid losing it, that's an incentive for admins to set a better tone, from which civility will follow. Lead by example and all that. And I don't consider myself exempt from it just because I think there's a problem. ++Lar: t/c 22:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. It would be silly to start an enforcement drive on editors when there are still admins setting bad examples.-- Birgitte  SB  22:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And non-admins who are uncivil we just ignore? <font face="Broadway">Mr.Z-man 23:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course not, but we gotta start somewhere, so why not start with those who are supposed to lead by example? --Conti|✉ 23:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, but having those voted by the community as having good judgement being expected to exercise it will set a very nice example, and avoid charges of hypocrisy when calling someone out. (Not that being able to say "NO U" makes any difference to whether it was rudeness, but it does make it clearly less acceptable.) - David Gerard (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to come by here and laugh. LMAO It's all I could do when I came across this. - <font size="+1" color="red">&#10032; <strong style="letter-spacing:1px;font-family:Verdana">ALLST☆R <font size="+1" color="red">&#10032; echo 22:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Could we all laugh together if you can tell us about it? -- FayssalF  -  Wiki me up®  23:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a hopeless idealism to have an online project that absolutely anybody can contribute to without first having to demonstrate their fitness for the task, and to have a project where civility is universal. Most of the worst civility issues come from not having a filter on who is allowed to participate in the building of the encyclopedia. The simple reality is this -- some people on this planet are obsessive, perpetually angry, and/or generally fucking loony, and are mentally and emotionally incapable of civility. That's the truth. You all know these people exist in the real world -- you encounter them everywhere you go. If they can't swing civility in the real world when faced with real people, they won't do it on Wikipedia because a piece of text with the word POLICY over top of it tells them to. These aren't people who don't have much to contribute to the building of an encyclopedia other than to create a foul environment for those of us who bust our asses trying to write some decent articles. Fuck those people. Get them off of the project. We don't have time, or a mandate from the Foundation, to be a free anger management, psychiatry and babysitting service. <span style="color:#1018ff;font-family:Zapfino,Monotype Corsiva;"> Warren -talk- 02:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't "Fuck those people" itself a personal attack and incivility? *Dan T.* (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes it is, but who does it hurt other than those who are actively distracting us from building the encyclopedia, or worse, actively seeking to damage it? We have a lot of those people around nowadays; people who are mentally unstable; people with a bone to pick on a topic and have come to a high-profile place to do it; people who think that it'd be funny to make the encyclopedia read that Ted Kennedy died or Bruce Springsteen is a fag.  Again, we aren't here to serve as a mental institution where we try to help people through their problems.  With six billion people in the world, we can afford to lose everyone who demonstrate that they're not willing to do things that don't directly result in a better encyclopedia. <span style="color:#1018ff;font-family:Zapfino,Monotype Corsiva;"> Warren -talk- 18:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I edit on Polish and French wikipedia, and I belong to a couple of heated mailing lists. I see this overt hostility to others only on en.Wikipedia.  It's also raised to such an extreme and unpleasant level on Wikipedia that other places don't compare.  It sinks expertise.  I don't edit in my area of expertise, for example, because that area is carefully guarded by a non-expert owner who attacks me when I attempt to correct his mistakes.  I user references, write well, support everything I say, but it doesn't matter: he's a long-standing and hostile Wikipedia editor, and supported by his peers: other long-standing and hostile Wikipedia editors.  So, my area of expertise has some amusing and some not-so-amusing long standing errors (years) that make the Wikipedia articles good office jokes--or did a few years ago, but no one bothers to get past the guardian of the wrong any more.
 * En.wikipedia's notorious incivility hurts the quality of its articles. Why isn't that enough reason to do anything about it?  No one ever wrote an encyclopedia as a random group project before, Warren, yet it's being done, so why can you allow the one but not say we can do it while treating each other as human beings?  --KP Botany (talk) 03:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Given your experience with other language wikis, have you any insight into what the differences between them could be to cause this different, more hostile atmosphere on the English wiki? --Malleus Fatuorum 18:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I discussed this with a group of en.wiki editors a couple of years ago, after the question arose on a scientific list serve. The conclusion was that the non-english wikipedias value and encourage the participation of experts, whereas experts are sniped at on en.wiki. I personally don't see how it's related, if it is, to the low tone overall of en.wiki, and I didn't know enough about wiki bureaucracy at the time to quite follow what was being said.  I only bring it up now because it did make me curious about this aspect of en.wiki versus some of the other wikipedias, and because the other editors (linguists) were so certain that this really is the reason for it.  My opinion, though, on expertise in general, such as some of the Western European wikipedias: they value the contribution of experts.
 * One thing I have noticed is the other Wikipedias don't have a lot of admins-taking-potshots-at-others edits. Also, most of the other wikipedias, as far as I can tell, don't allow users to call each other cunts and fuckers or have essays that they post around called "Don't be a dick."  The immaturity level on en.wiki is about the highest I've ever seen on a semi-functioning website.  It's hard to fathom why Wikipedia editors and admins in particular can't see how bad, how unprofessional, how incompetent, how stupid, and how pointless they look throwing around cunt and fucker.  And you want scientific experts to edit here?  What makes you think anyone wants to be associated with that stuff?
 * I think there are a lot immature administrators on en.wikipedia, and they support each other; and the community as a whole, and other good administrators in particular are unwilling to do something to deal with this issue. I think that the allowance for drama on en.wikipedia is ridiculously high.  These two things coupled with the repeated allowance of the use of foul language while dealint with other human beings is hostility defined and establishes to all comers, but particularly the less civil comers, that this not just tolerated, but apparently the way to deal with others on en.wiki.  --KP Botany (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This actual proposal is much to vague and far beyond what arb com could probably handle, but the problem is very real. What arb com needs to do is to make a positive statement that it does not regard good article contributions as an excuse for bad behavior, nor tenure here as a license to treat others poorly. It has already said that admins are expected to have exemplary behavior. It has said it quite a number of times, but now it;'s time for it to start doing something bout the ones who don't. In the past, all they have done in this direction is urge them to behave better. It's time to start enforcement. Enforcement of our policies against those who are too well established to be dealt with elsewhere is what they're here for. A few deadmins or substantial blocks of the worst would have an excellent preventative action both with respect to them and also to the less confirmed delinquents. The ed. above is as resilient as any WPedian, and if it affects her, it must affect a great many people. I'm not anywhere as sturdy, but I will also say that the behavior of a few people who try to dominate some areas I would otherwise naturally contribute to has kept me from working there. I'd not want to be on arb com because I do not want to deal with this, but I expect those who do want the job to actually do it. This is not meant as criticism to the present arb com, but an exhortation. DGG (talk) 04:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Quite agree with KP Botany and DGG (and Tom Harrison way up there)above. There is an on-going acceptance of some pretty immature and uncivil interaction here. Editors barking at each other has become a common way of communication. We should expect the same respect and civility that we do in a workplace/school or anywhere else people work on serious projects. This, or something like this, could be the first step in pulling back from what can be a pretty toxic atmosphere. And if people can't behave themselves, they should find another hobby. RxS (talk) 05:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. If Editor X, whom you disapprove of, calls someone an arsehole or invites a "troll" to fuck off, you want them hit hard with the banhammer, and if you do it, you want plaudits? Well, what's different? This is how you've always approached the wiki, Dave. There are lots of ways to improve the "tone". I'd like us to stop the Stanford Experiment for Nerds that adminship has become, and maybe stop pretending that if you get ten people to vote for something on a page basically no one knows exists that you have "consensus". Oh, and when someone just isn't doing anything constructive, and we know damned well they're not, let's not have the three-month show trial, and just get them gone right now. Etc etc. The thing is, Dave, your solution is a tool for your problem, not one that would actually fix the toxicity here.

Everyone is aware that there are two kinds of thing being done here. There's a second-rate Britannica being written (sadly the dream of an all-inclusive Borgesian Tower of Knowledge has been throttled by people who want to "own" a small part of an outdated modernist enterprise, and we're much the worse for it) and a roleplaying game. They occasionally overlap, but generally the encyclopaedic part is only a pretext for the game. That's not to say that some people don't enjoy both. You could definitely re-emphasise the former, particularly by removing some of the loci of conflict that have formed as part of the game: administrative noticeboards, RfA, requests for comment etc, and at least diminishing the system of rewards for playing the game in particular ways -- it's astonishing that people can be seriously considered for what in effect is the nobility when they don't actually do any content construction, just because they play skilfully in areas where they can be noticed.

Also, we could start admitting that creating rules for what will be considered "civil" has resulted in a system where people are fucking horrible to each other within the bounds of the rule, to the point sometimes where the person suffering from the bureaucratitis and arseholery snaps and is uncivil in an oldfashioned way, and that is as much the problem as someone occasionally calling someone else a rude name. I mean, really, which hurts the place more: someone calls you an arsehole or someone cans your article without letting you know, and when you complain in the wrong forum because you don't understand the system, you get drowned in alphabet soup and borderline insane messages on your talkpage? Grace Note (talk) 06:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well said. Thank you. 212.200.240.232 (talk) 09:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Polite assholery is much worse than using naughty words. Jehochman Talk 11:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Concisely said! 100% agree. 212.200.240.232 (talk) 11:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Except when naughty words are used to attack or demean someone, then it's as bad or worse. And that's not to diminish the corrosive effect of Polite assholery and passive aggressiveness.
 * I agree with a lot of what Grace Note says, there are lot's of ways to be incivil and Wikipedia has managed to find most of them. But that doesn't mean we can't start in and try to fix it. This place is a bureaucratic nightmare in many ways...and a lot of people are more interested in making and enforcing rules than in working on content. We can make Wikipedia a friendlier place by insisting on high levels of civility and by making it easier to contribute to. But we have to start somewhere.


 * Some people here seem to think this is about Giano, but it really isn't. Wikipedia would have the same grinding incivility problem whether he's here or not. RxS (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Honest to God, this wasn't inspired by Giano. (Who I still think writes fantastically good articles and article content.) It was inspired by ridiculously arrogant shitty behaviour on the part of many admins. With added irony, when making civility blocks. What on earth. It's been a consistent ArbCom principle that admins are supposed to set an example; it'd be a nice change for them to actually do so - David Gerard (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * All your concerns are entirely valid and relevant. I am under no illusions this would in any way be a magic bullet. What it is, is a tiny approach to a tiny part of the problem, with (I think) hope of good knock-on effects - David Gerard (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm late to the thread it appears, but I'd like to repeat an observation about Wikipedia that I know I've made in the past: it's the village that has become a major city. Once upon a time, we could monitor behavior with a note or two on a Talk page, & if that didn't work discuss on WikiEN-l what to do, like a user block. Now we're at the point where not only are most of the regulars strangers to each other, but even the hardcore Admins are strangers to each other. And so we're all treating behaving like New Yorkers in the 1970s -- don't make eye contact, be aware of your surroundings, have your can of mace at the ready, consider every stranger as a potential mugger/rapist/Scientology recruiter. I don't know if this suggestion for more "law & order" will work, although based on my big city analogy I doubt it. We need to figure out a more gentle way, something along the lines of fixing the broken windows. -- llywrch (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * DG, trim this down to a Code of Conduct for admins and you will have no opposition. There is no reason for incivility or personal attacks from anyone - but we can debate endlessly the precise definition of same. So get the admin corps to demonstrate leadership, establish the standards, stick to and enforce them amongst themselves. When there is a recognizable ethos extant, it will be easy to extend it to the broad editorship. Clean up the mops first, the floor will become shiny by consequence. Franamax (talk) 03:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

How do you keep this from turning into the "Let's gently poke an admin with a stick over and over and over and over again, while being sure no single poke is overtly uncivil, until he snaps" game? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a few thoughts. I don't think that enough is done to welcome new editors and help them understand how Wikipedia works. This can lead to problems, with new users becoming upset at their contributions being reverted or deleted, and no-one bothering to help them improve, rather resorting to warnings and blocks. One far too often sees obviously good faith (but misguided) new editors being greeted with increasing warning templates, with no offers of personal help along the way. I am also concerned that there seems to be an increasing movement to remove the "fun" bits of Wikipedia - small bits of userspace or project space that editors use to let off steam, or to get to know each other. People who aren't allowed to "play" together are likely to find it hard to get along when differences of opinion arise. Some concerns have been expressed above that civility policy appears to be enforced against non-admins much more rigorously than it is against admins. My impression is that such concerns are valid. So, in short, we need to do more to help new editors understand how to contribute constructively, we need to remember that Wikipedians are human beings and need to be able to let off steam and relax now and again, and we need to find a way to ensure that those who are trusted by the community to uphold standards actually behave in the way that they expect others to. DuncanHill (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking back over the last year and a half, I am aware of three major community interventions on the civility front targeted at specific editors who are arguably vested contributors. one type worked.  Another type did not work on two separate occasions.  Notice that the two that have failed have been the ones where ArbComm has imposed remedies.  Given this track record, I don't believe that the tools currently in the ArbComm's kitbag are useful for the problem, and thus don't believe that it is the right way to deal with it.  I'd go even further and say that the ArbComm imposed penalties actually have made things worse in both cases.  If there were new remedies on the radar screen it might be worth trying them, but merely suggesting we draw an even harder line with remedies that have already failed looks likely to generate more failure, and is thus a bad idea.  Find an intervention that works and replicate it, don't replicate failure.  GRBerry 01:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * the reason they did not work is because of the nature of the remedies. I very much would say that much stronger remedies would have prevented further disruption and incivility from at least those particular sources, at least for a considerable time. For the second of them, there were short blocks and narrow topic bans. For the third of them, the remedy was enforced by successive short blocks. Those clearly haven't worked.  Do we actually want to get clear of the problem? the sometimes good editing we will lose will be compensated many times by the good editors who will come and stay.   DGG (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a reasonable position, and one I personally believe is the right solution for long run improvement in the encyclopedia in one of the two cases. In the other case, I think it is the wrong solution for long run improvement.  In making my comment below on Lar's recommendation of desysopping, I saw and looked at a few older cases of civility paroles as ArbComm remedies.  I did not encounter any case of that remedy working.  GRBerry 05:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

For Lar's recommendation of desysopping, which was a possibility in the wings in the RFC that did work, there aren't a lot of ArbComm case examples to go on. 1) In Q3 2007, an admin who had problems of not communicating at all and sometimes being incivil when they did communicate had adminship suspended for 30 days. 2) In Q2 2007 an admin was desysopped for the combination of "abuse of administrative tools" and incivility. 3) In Q4 2006 two admins were desysopped in the same case for the combination of "abuse of administrative tools" and incivility. 4) In Q1 2006 an admin was desysopped for the combination of "abuse of administrative tools" and incivility. Those are the only four relevant cases I can find back through January 2006. Four data points are obviously statistically meaningless, but I see a real pattern there - incivility by admins is considered an aggravating factor when combined with abuse of tools, but on its own has not been treated as particularly serious. GRBerry 05:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's usually treated as welcome entertainment--the poor little us admins against all the not-us-scum attitude is how it comes across to the ones who aren't laughing. --KP Botany (talk) 06:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: This is one of those "looks ok on paper" ideas but IMO in practice it the effect will be to enable civil stick-pokers, to use an image Short Brigade Harvester Boris invoked. There is also the rather impossible-to-work-around issue that what is Civil in town/country/society A is not necessarily Civil in town/country/society B. This will surely lead to huge arguments and/or extensive, anal-retentive rules. Let's not have more db space spent on what is and is not civil. If someone is truly attacking someone, yes we should do something. Blocking often does not work. Banning might work, but should be used only for the most egregious cases. I support the repeated idea that we should set an example. I reject the idea that we should legislate this in some way which is not already in place. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The irony of this is I've always understood "raising one's tone/voice/tone-of-voice/etc." used interchangeably to mean responding in anger and/or contempt. Or what was it Beldar used to say, "maintain low tones" (in place of the standard fatherly "quit yer bitchin'")… — CharlotteWebb 19:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong agreement with Lar. I too am strongly in support of stricter civility restrictions on administrators, and feel that administrators who are not setting a good example, should be de-sysopped.  Admins are, like it or not, rolemodels within any online community.  It's standard community management stuff: New users will observe how more experienced users behave, in order to pick up their own cues on how they should behave.  So any administrator who is not behaving to a high standard, is causing far more damage to the project than just to the particular editors who they may be antagonizing.  The problem is chronic. Right off the top of my head, I can name multiple administrators whose behavior is, quite simply, appalling.  They direct profanity at other users (admin and non-admin), tell people to "fuck off" on their talkpages, and there are plenty of other blatant examples.  These examples are not the case of a usually good admin who just has a bad day and snaps at someone on a one-time basis: These are administrators who have a reputation as jerks.  I'd like to see the Arbitration Committee take a stronger stance on any admins who present "un-admin-like" behavior.  Give the admin a warning, off-wiki or on, tell them that their public behavior needs to improve, and then if the behavior doesn't improve, demote the administrator to normal editor status.  The benefits will be immediately apparent: If it's clear that there are consequences for bad behavior, people are more likely to use better manners. But if there are no consequences, there is zero incentive to adopt a better standard of behavior, and telling someone over and over, "Stop being a jerk", will have no effect. However, if there are consequences, then once the administrator community is emulating a better standard of behavior, this will ripple out into the community.  Many regular editors will notice if the authority figures are being more careful about their language, and the regulars will start being more careful, and this will further flow out to the rest of the encyclopedia. So yes, let us definitely start with the administrators. --Elonka 00:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with your comments except for the use of the phrase "demote" to describe removal of admin privileges. Do you feel that admins are a higher rank in Wikipedia than non-admins?  Perhaps, in reality, they are, but from what I understand, they're not supposed to be.  I understood that this was an egalitarian encyclopedia-building effort, not a hierarchical exercise. Cla68 (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Elonka, and I think the word "demote" is (all too) appropriate here. The reason it's such a good idea to focus on admins here is that admins are more powerful than... other users. It's very diificult to get an admin blocked for even rank incivility. A normal editor can get blocked sometimes for just normal crankiness. The difference is power, which comes, on WP, in the form of cliques. Admins should know they can be desysoped for violating NPA -- this hasn't worked in the past because it hasn't really been committed to. There will be a learning curve -- a lot of admins may not believe this is happening. When a few have been warned and then lost their bits (with, I would think in most cases, an option to run again in a year, say), everyone else will fall in line. I can virtually guarantee it.  IronDuke  02:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Desysopping for personal attacks, really? Attention all admins: please, please use an alternate account when discussing matters other than sports and weather. Or consider the real world, if the police impound your car for littering out the window of it, you'll be littering out the window of the city bus (with a vengeance) next week, because you know the punishment did not fit the crime or come anywhere close to addressing it. This flow-chart sends the clear message that [civility] police would prefer a pound of flesh to an ounce of reform. — CharlotteWebb 03:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your mind reading ability is really amazing. I actually thought these people were looking for reform.  But then again I can only read what they decided to post ;) -- Birgitte  SB  03:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What reforms did you have in mind? IronDuke  03:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How about a little guidance and less mockery if it's so obvious to you that it is out of line to desysop administrators for the use of foul language? My mockery would go the other way, because I just don't see the need for administrators to be calling anyone bitch, cunt, fucker, dick.  This is the sort of language that goes without anyone batting an eye on Wikipedia.  There was a noticeboard comment recently by a user complaining about another user calling him/her foul names at AN/I as if it were the first time to consider it, and all prior times had been allowed--huh?.
 * There's simply no use or need on Wikipedia for calling editors names; not for administrators in particular, whether it be repeat offender harrassment accounts or IPs or other foul-mouth editors or anybody. There's no room for it in civil discourse.  So, does Wikipedia want to be an encyclopedia or a hang-out site?
 * Administrators have been given a certain level of trust, as evidenced by their greater access to protected pages, deletions, oversighted information. If an administrator has more trust of the community, given to them by the community, and this language is certainly inexcusable for an ordinary editor to use it, why should an administrator be allowed to use this language without consequences?  And why is it so awful to remove power from someone abusing it?  If you show you can't be trusted to use power in a responsible manner, if you show you don't represent the best of Wikipedia, if you show that you can't lead by example, why should you be allowed to continue with the trust of the community that asks you be responsible, represent the best of Wikipedia and lead by example, not by demanding and cursing?  --KP Botany (talk) 04:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

There's something to be said for the line of reasoning that administrators set the tone and are therefore responsible for a higher standard of conduct than the average editor. A history of civility tends to be required to pass RFA, but we generally haven't been very good at handling the few cases where matters take a downward turn afterward. A rare outburst or occasional borderline snarks might be understandable, but if an administrator builds up a substantial history of gross profanity and blatant insults, that becomes a problem. And it isn't simply a problem for the unfortunate editors who get targeted directly--it's a problem for the entire admin corps. Because when that behavior goes uncorrected then that lends credibility to trolling claims about corruption and so forth. It doesn't take too much offsite surfing to find those wiki-conspiracy theories. Even though it's generally a tiny minority of administrators who do this, the rest also suffer the consequences of that loss of trust. And that's not right because these are generally our best and most dedicated volunteers. The concept of 'vested contributors' is a problem when people construe it as a licence to be rude--no matter who the editor is. But because of the power administrators wield, it's especially problematic there. Durova Charge! 05:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, this downward turn is not just a few cases. I believe any study would show that virtually all users become "meaner" when promoted to admin, if only there were some objective way to measure it. Even something as simple as measuring changes in the number of four-letter words used by Bob or Alice over time would support this conclusion. But one could get more sophisticated with this. Let's say more newcomers quit after interacting with Alice than with Bob. Is Bob better at identifying people who are likely to stick around or does Alice actively scare away potential contributors? Even if one or both of these things are true it wouldn't help determine which one was more suitable for being an admin.
 * I don't think the downward turn has anything to do with skin-shedding or cake-jumping. Power will always corrupt to some extent, but ever more so when it is measured at collector's value rather than face value. Unfortunately the value of adminship is a matter of dispute. According to the blue book it starts at approximately six buttons to make specific types of database changes based on the perceived will of the community, but then it wanders off into soft sciences of "leadership" such as role-modeling and evaluating consensus and mediating disputes and interpreting unclear policy and enforcing the worst arbcom decisions they can find and declaring article probation or BLP-immunity or topic ban or closed thread or martial law (or whatever magic words arbcom has empowered them with this week where they can't objectively be held accountable for the result). Sure these things are important, but while they require skill (albeit in different areas) they are not rocket science. However they are a de facto part of the "no big deal" package which only continues to grow beyond its needs. Some of the power is delegated from above, but most is abdicated from below.
 * So as far as social engineering goes I think we're approaching this from the wrong end. I honestly believe if we can stop propagating the view of admins as "super-editors" or the generalization that they are inherently wiser and have better editing/decision-making/"people" skills (RFA doesn't screen for most of this crap, not when the hardest question is usually something like "'Cool-down blocks' are bad, right?"), they might not feel so bloated by entitlement. They'd certainly be under less stress and be less targeted for general harassment based on status. Call me crazy but I believe once they stop believing they're 10 ft. tall and bulletproof the erratic defense mechanism behavior will stop too in most cases.
 * There will be exceptions I know, but they can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Right now if an admin blocks or reverts another admin it will most likely trigger a megabyte of drama on AN/I if not an arbcom case. I know that's part of the problem too. But if adminship was "no big deal" blocking an admin for insults and personal attacks would be no big deal (of course, the fact that we just had an admin making insults and personal attacks would be no big deal either) but the most relevant differences are that there would be fewer admins making personal attacks because this figure would no longer be astronomically higher than "admins who would make personal attacks regardless of access level" (as is the case now, where much of it is as an unwritten part of the job), and fewer people seeing the admin corps as a collective role model (perhaps also fewer motherless children needing one—or consider what my own mother told me: "be your own damn role model").
 * So if adminitis makes otherwise civil people act like shitheads why not have them take some time off and recuperate? Well, that wouldn't scale well considering the number of admins who need a vacation and the amount of work the rest of them would be expected to do. The pros and cons of any remedy would have to be weighed, and it wouldn't be fair to punish the select few who haven't gone nuts yet, but if we're going to do this it should at least be kept short, and only considered in concert with something that addresses the problem, rather than its symptoms. — CharlotteWebb 19:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Becoming an admin does not cause people to act meaner. It certainly didn't have that effect on me or any of people I am well-aquainted with. Frankly people learn how to use wiki's by imitation, not by reading instructions.  Certainly admins must be the most prolific editors of "Talk" spaces throught the project.  So it only makes sense to change the behaivour in those spaces through them.  Just as it would make sense to change a standard for mature articles through changing the GA or FAC process.-- Birgitte  SB  20:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * First, this section is getting long -- 60 kilobytes. Wow. This has touched a nerve.


 * Second, Birgitte, the point is not that being an Admin is stressful, it's that frequently Wikipedia is stressful. The motto "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" means anyone edits it: the kooks, the troublemakers, & the incompetent. If you care about the quality of Wikipedia content, you are likely to feel stress over this. And if you are an Admin & care, you will feel stress over this. And if you try to avoid the stress by taking a philosophical view & avoid getting sucked into the Drama de Jour, you are likely to feel guilty over not doing enough to either (1) fight the kooks, troublemakers & incompetent, or (2) help protect the newbies & hapless from grumpy/angry Admins who want to ban everyone & let Jimmy Wales sort the innocent from the guilty. Besides, online communication truly sucks: it is so vague that one has to work hard not to project ones own apprehensions & fears onto other people's posts. -- llywrch (talk) 06:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is an incredibly interesting and insightful discussion, but to be fair it probably should be moved somewhere else (with a link left here in its place). I would suggest WT:Civility, but maybe not. Can anyone think of a better location. Would an RFC on the civility policy help, or has that been done already? Carcharoth (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt you could find a big enough rug to sweep it under, but a big enough broom might not exist. — CharlotteWebb 13:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)