Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 10

Arbitration clerks
Original announcement


 * Contgratulations to all of you, both the new clerks and the confirmed clerks! Don't let us down. :) ( X! ·  talk )  · @247  · 04:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Congratulations and welcome onboard! - Mailer Diablo 06:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice job.  MBisanz  talk 09:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks to all of you for volunteering to help. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 09:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I see the poster worked - all US (though perhaps not all male). LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm male, yes, but most definitely not 'US'. I was born in Cambridge, United Kingdom and currently live in Morocco. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And, given the demographics of enWiki, relatively expected. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 19:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How about we not criticise the clerks for things that are completely immaterial? Criticise when they actually do something wrong in the course of their clerking duties, sure, but over unintentially forgetting to appeal to minority groups of editors on en.wp with a poster on ACN? The Wordsmith Communicate 19:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * LessHeard vanU, you are the only one making a big deal out of it. Just because something is different does not make it bad (ie: an American poster opposed to a European one). I mean, unless you live in a culture that recognizes such differences (race, gender, Americanism, etc) as significant, they are socially irrelevant and therefor, in one way or another, do not exist. Had you not brought up the issue of "bias" in the poster, I highly doubt it would have been an issue, or would have influenced the outcome. Tiptoety  talk 01:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Country-of-origin did not really enter my thinking during our discussions on who to promote, but I would point out that, if you look at the timezones that the active clerks are in, Europeans were previously over-represented and Americans under-represented. The new trainees bring a bit of balance back to that.  If you look carefully at the candidates, you'll see that there is a fair bit of diversity in their backgrounds and interests, something that I think will be a positive for the clerk corps.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 21:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC).

Arbitration motion regarding Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong

 * Original announcement

Appeals to BASC: Shamir1 & DollyD

 * Announcement


 * As checkuser involved, I'm good with this. So long as DollyD abides by the conditions, I can't see any problems - Alis o n  ❤ 22:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As the editor involved, I found the dubious block (which apparently morphed into a complete, Talk-Page-locked-down "ban" with zero community consultation) completely humiliating. It was very illuminating to see the true faces and motives of many of Wikipedia's most lauded functionaries. DollyD (talk) 09:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Vassyana

 * Announcement


 * Since Vassyana has resigned so soon after the recent election, perhaps AGK can be seated in his place? Nathan  T 16:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Part of the reason the Committee is so large is to deal with attrition since, to my recollection anyway, midterm appointments are disfavored.--Tznkai (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sole Soul (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting point. Mr Wales's statements appear to indicate that such an appointment could be expected.  As a matter of general policy, the desirability of late substitute appointments is up for debate.  In the specific case, I have no doubts about the suitability of the named candidate. —  James Kalmar  23:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh bloody hell. No offence intended to the potential arb in question, but the candidates from this cycle of elections had such low support percentages in many cases that it's difficult to claim the lower (potential) arbs have proper community approval. Don't get me wrong, I like the candidate, but the idea that we can appoint new arbs from a lower trust standard than we'd expect from administrators is bemusing. Ironholds (talk) 10:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's impossible to compare RfA approval ratings, where there's only one candidate, with approval ratings from past open arbcom elections, where simple strategic voting ever lead people to oppose candidates, to arbcom approval ratings in a secret election, where strategic voting is even more prevalent. But I certainly agree that the election is over, and no runner-ups should be appointed now. I found it already quite problematic to increase the number of slots during the election; The number of slots to be filled needs to be fixed while the nominations are still open. Amalthea  11:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As was noted numerous times during the recent elections, expecting to be able to compare the support percentages for candidates elected by open and secret ballots is exactly equivalent to comparing chalk and cheese. It is impossible to separate the change in support caused by the candidates from the change in support caused by the ballot process, and pointless to try. Happy ‑ melon  11:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That certainly could cause the reduced percentages, yes. My main problem with the election is the idea that people with marginal community approval should be made arbs once the process is over to fill a gap (on a board of 18? I'm sure they can handle it) without some form of special election. As amalthea points out, the expansion of the number during the voting period is difficult; many people vote tactically, and the result could have been different if early voters were aware of a larger "pool". Ironholds (talk) 12:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My point is that it is not justified to call a support percentage of 57.6% "marginal" (or at least more marginal) than the highest-loser (59.9%) or even lowest-winner (63.9%) from previous elections, because the ballot method was so different. I agree that filling the gap is unnecessary/undesirable, but not because of a lack of support.  Happy ‑ melon  16:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really want to get involved in this discussion directly. But my opinion on this, since it was asked for, is here. As for the issue of voting tactically: yes, I think it's improper to (even belatedly) appoint more candidates than the number that was initially promised. AGK 12:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If there's a need to fill the vacancy (and I'm not convinced that there is), my own preference would be that be asked back. --Elonka 16:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a bit late to encourage him to run in last year's election. Durova 403 16:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Elonka: We are only interested in the preferences of the voters. But I too am unconvinced that we need to fill Vassyana's seat. AGK 16:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

A proposal

 * Moved to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee as this does not discuss a specific notice on the Noticeboard. –xenotalk  20:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee appointment

 * Original announcement

Motion regarding BLP deletions

 * Original announcement

See also Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As per my comments on the now closed and removed case request, the bias displayed in this motion, whether it exists in reality or only in appearance, is extremely disturbing. The apparent endorsement of the unilateral deletion of articles in violation of existing policy, and the "admonishment" of those who sought to put a stop to it in favour of community discussion has already led at least one editor to argue that ArbCom has given him sanction to cause widespread destruction of content without discussion on the basis of his personal view of WP:BLP.  Many arbitrators independently noted that the endorsement was not intended to give administrators carte blanche to continue with such a destructive deletion spree, yet no attempt at amending this motion, or filing a second one was ever attempted.


 * It was also noted by another editor that the "review" and endorsement of the original actions occurred very early in the process as statements were still being created by numerous editors. The rush to support the coordinated activities of the mass deleters exposed an obvious bias within ArbCom over this issue and led to a poorly phrased motion that several arbs felt the need to clarify independently.  In the future, the members of ArbCom should take their own advice and join the community under their status as editors in the RfC process to help update and form new policy.  Hiding behind a position of power as an arbitrator to try and force policy change - even if only in appearance - does absolutely nothing to help ArbCom regain credibility in the eyes of the community.  Resolute 19:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Aye, I'm not sure how much drafting was done behind the scenes, but it seems rather peculiar that Kirill posted this motion and (to my knowledge) there were no subsequent edits to it. I don't think it's difficult to foresee this motion coming back to haunt both the Arbitration Committee and the Community. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by "bias". It is evident that (a majority of) the Committee saw a clear interpretation of policy and Foundation mandate; it was not a matter of deciding between two equally plausible alternatives.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's biased towards the idea of sourced, verifiable content and against the idea of leaving unsourced articles lying around in the pious hope that someone will eventually fix them. I think quite a few of us are comfortable with that, but others obviously won't be. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Most everyone who has been here for any real period of time is biased towards that, so feel free to stop patting yourself on the back at any time. The bias I speak of is the commendation of those who think they are above the community. Carcharoth is the only arb who had the courage to state the truth: that neither ArbCom nor the instigators of this debate have the right to hold the community in such contempt.  While it does appear that some good might well come out of this, the disdain shown for the community by the instigators is not acceptable.  Resolute 22:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The most disturbing part is not the intentional "disruption", it is that Mr. Jimbo Wales gave Scott MacDonald a warm thank you for the disruption. The "utter contempt" (to quote Scott MacDonald) for what we editors decide as a community goes all the way to the top, and, indeed began at the top.
 * Editor contributions continue to drop. Deleting 50,000 articles, spearheaded by editors who tend to be extremly bullying, is going to send yet another strong message that new contributors are not wanted.
 * For the very future of wikipedia, I would strongly support a petition to Mr. Jimbo Wales to say thank you for your many years of service, but please step down. Ikip Frank Andersson (45 revisions restored): an olympic medallist for f**k's sake  23:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe much of the consternation stems from: (a) The community had previously failed to support immediate deletion of all unsourced BLP's; (b) administrators did so anyways, claiming some moral imperative beyond the community's expressed will; (c) the Committee appeared to support these actions, with one arbitrator even claiming that the Committee is responsible to "the project" and not the community; (d) regardless of your view in this instance, the aforementioned sets a very negative precedent in the view of many (I daresay the majority of) editors. —  James Kalmar  22:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Majority? Have you taken a poll?  Woogee (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that was an unwise term to use. I would note that at present, a majority of people at the current BLP RfC are opposing the "immediate deletion" option.  And in looking at the statements on this issue, it appeared that a sizable number had significant reservations regarding the Deletion Squad's actions.  However, I agree that "majority of editors" is not actually provable. —  James Kalmar  22:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * One of the worst motions I have ever seen. The bias and the activist approach are so obvious. The ArbCom could have reached the same end results and at the same time showed that it is impartial. Sole Soul (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * On your head be it I say, again. This motion is a retcon of actual events that George Lucas would be proud of. As someone else said, you have opened Pandora's box here. You have irrevocably changed the nature of NO BIG DEAL and the notion of consensus. The plans for the next campaigns of insurrection and subversion are already out there on the wires, seeing as how this one was a resounding success. This is probably the final nail in the coffin of the concept of a truly flat community, not even banning IPs or using flagged revisions would alter that as much as this will. In the short term, you have thrown the future of countless utterly harmless articles into chaos. In the long term, you have turned the 'BLP problem' from one of apathy into one of anarchy. You certainly have not motivated any of the many thousands of committed and experienced editors who care about BLP but are not activists, and believe in fixing problems with your mind and your skill, not your fist or your mouth. I have no wish to enter any of the 'discussions' you urge us to join, as you have done nothing at all to discourage or dismiss some of the deficient reasoning and appeals to emotion that dominate them, never mind the out and out flagrant disrespect for policy and people. Despite the hype and the mantras from the activists about what causes the problem, it is their very own approach that produces the environment that is the real reason why their past 'do something' projects have failed to utilise the real tools of this project, the 99% of other experienced editors, to fix the articles and policies, while more and more articles pour in. You haven't done anything with this motion but extend this broken dynamic into 2010. I commend the minority of arbs who truly get it, there was a real opportunity here to both reign in the out of control activists, and bring about a structured and timetable way of moving forward with everybody on board. MickMacNee (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Quit with the exageration. There are not thousands of editors who oppose this, there are a few there are a few democratic activists like you. As for "believe in fixing problems with your mind and your skill, not your fist or your mouth" - after many years, I see no fix.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is so very hollow and hypocritical that the editor who has "utter contempt" for consensus is now arguing that the community supports his self-proclaimed "drama" and "disruption". Ikip Frank Andersson (45 revisions restored): an olympic medallist for f**k's sake  23:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I claimed nothing of the sort. I focus on the needs of the encyclopedia rather than imagining I know what the "community" supports. Would that you'd do likewise, rather than engaging in name-calling, selective misquoting, and assuming every deletion is about notability (whatever that is).--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

There are essentially three distinct matters: — James Kalmar  05:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Comments regarding the BLP issue itself, which should be directed to the above mentioned RfC.
 * 2) Discussion regarding the actions of certain administrators in the recent BLP Deletion Squad, which should most appropriately be discussed at an RfC/U or, to some extent, at the recent WP:Petition against IAR abuse.
 * 3) Constructive analysis of the Committee's response to the situation, which most certainly belongs here, not at the BLP RfC.  Such analysis may focus on certain general issues raised, such as: Does the Committee have a mandate of loyalty to "the project" above its execution of community norms?  How is an editor saying "I am ignoring expressed community consensus in order to help the project" different from saying "my view is more important than everyone else's"?


 * #1 is buzzing along nicely. #2 is perhaps moot at this point given the declaration of amnesty and the passage of time, and I think everyone has had their say about #3.  However, to the extent that the motion may encourage further trouble rather than quieting it, we may or may not see this issue back here in a hurry, depending on whether all of the parties agree to resolve their differences via #1 rather than continuing to duke it out in article space.  I'm not sure that's going to happen but we'll see.  Any help to nudge people in that direction would be appreciated.  - Wikidemon (talk) 07:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Various Arbs have made clarificatory statements in various places. In the interest of clarity could those clarifications be gathered together and appended to the motion? DuncanHill (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I second this call for clarification. Lots of arbs seem to be backpedaling from what the original motion implies, which may mean that the wording of the motion conveys something different than they want to convey. a Clarification or Amendment would go a long way towards solving this impasse. The Wordsmith Communicate 21:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf

 * Original announcement

Appeal to BASC: Green Squares

 * Announcement

Stephen Bain

 * Announcement


 * Thanks for your service, bainer. –xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 16:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nicely done.  MBisanz  talk 17:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Parole at last. Good luck with a real reality. billinghurst  sDrewth  01:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Eastern European mailing list (1)

 * Announcement

Arbitration motion regarding Eastern European mailing list (2)

 * Announcement


 * Why not simply unban Piotrus?  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 10:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Does "proxy" editing abide by our licensing (GFDL) requirements? Peachey88 (Talk Page · Contribs) 03:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say it does, as long as the edit summaries used are clear about the proxying. Graham 87 03:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light

 * Announcement


 * Can somebody please unban Brews? Yes, he made a few errors in judgement and in technical content, but the ban was not justified. It is senseless to throw people away like this.Likebox (talk) 05:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, let's not. The dust finally settled, and the physics articles are once again editable without getting bogged down in incessant discussions of obvious things, and of the ban itself (as was the case for several months after the ARBCOM case was closed). Let's not re-open this can of worms, let the ban run its full course.


 * The exception for the image is sufficient. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Fully agree with letting Brews back to editing physics articles again. Count Iblis (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I oppose lifting Brews' physics topic ban. I supported the recent motion and made a complimentary motion, both of which passed, to make an exception to the topic ban to allow Brews to edit images in connection with the FAC. I supported Brews in 2 enforcement actions against him where I thought that the ban was being (mis)interpreted overbroadly. I am glad that, a month or so after the arbitration decision, Brews dropped the stick and returned to productively and peacefully editing articles outside the physics topic. However, ArbCom, in its judgment, decided that 1 year was the appropriate term for the topic ban. Physics disputes got Brews into trouble in several articles, and see no reason why he should return to that troublesome area now. I also note that Brews has not asked for this relief, which shows good judgment on his part.—Finell 01:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I have not asked for relief because such relief is not simply a decision of arbitrators regarding my behavior, but also that of other editors, and there is no prospect that Talk page behavior is going to be equitably adjudicated. Brews ohare (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this subject is worthy of a longer discussion, but I want to make sure that Brews is up for it, because it involves him. If he is OK with me arguing stuff that involves him, I'll bring up a separate motion with ArbCom to discuss this in a forward looking way. The past is over and done. So please, can we drop this for the moment, at least until Brews says its OK? If he thinks it's right, I will try to put together an argument, and ask that it be considered on its merits then. I think that this block has many unintended consequences, many of which have a negative impact on the basic functioning of the encyclopedia.Likebox (talk) 10:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that's a good idea. Also note that Brews was banned from all topics he was contributing too, which happened to be only physics. Had Brews also contributed to math topics prior to the Arbcom case, he would have been banned from those pages too. Since the Arbcom case, Brews is conducting himself differently. When he has a dispute with someone, he is not going to dominate talk page discussions anymore. See e.g. the way Brews discussed an issue with another editor at the p-vector talk page. Had Brews edited the p-vector page prior the the Arbcom case, then that same dispute would have led to much longer talk page discussions which would have led to him being banned from math pages too. This clearly implies that Likebox is correct in his assessment that the topic ban makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Count Iblis (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Although I am unfortunately a bit jaded in this matter, and actually do not believe the sanctions against me had any effect whatsoever (changes in my behavior were learned before any admin action occurred), I do believe some discussion of Talk page conduct would be helpful. Probably the sanctions against me preclude much interaction on my part with such discussion. The basic issue is that discussion is fundamentally different from debate, although it has superficial similarities. The objectives differ and the rules have to be different too. Brews ohare (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC). I'd like to remind you all of my essay. Brews ohare (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC) The discussion page for this essay is of particular interest. Brews ohare (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

For reference, it appears that Likebox has been canvassing for editors to come here and argue for Brews ohare and David Tombe's topic bans to be lifted, as well as trying to reargue the contentious topics which led to the original arbitration: Talk:Speed of light, Talk:Speed of light. It appears that Likebox's campaign has so far been unsuccessful.

For what it's worth, I don't believe that Brews ohare had any prior knowledge of Likebox's intentions, nor should his steady improvement over the last couple of months be overshadowed by the regrettably counterproductive zeal of his self-appointed defenders. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * TenOfAllTrades: I do not interpret Likebox's actions as you do. I understand the issue to be one mainly of tolerance in the face of vocal opposition on Talk pages. Brews ohare (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW: I applaud Likebox efforts. I'm not sure how contacting editors involved in the Arbcom case to take another look can be "canvassing". Rearguing a contentious topic should be a routine thing. Why do most legal systems in the World have a truly independent appeals system if this is seen to be so bad? Count Iblis (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * To respond briefly--- I wasn't sure what this dispute was all about, so I read all the old speed of light talk page debates. I looked at the last text Brews was arguing for, and thought "should this be in the article", and I decided that it wasn't so great, and that I couldn't argue in good conscience that it should be put in.


 * But I found the point cogent and interesting, although minor, and I thought that if the point is explained clearly enough, people will understand how trivial this dispute is, and decide to put it behind them, and briefly accomodate the point of view on the page with a short text.


 * This didn't happen. Instead, the new discussion (which is different from the old one, mostly because I don't agree with Brews on all points) was archived repeatedly, and I was accused of being disruptive for talking about it. This led me to mull things over, and I will officially ask ArbCom to reconsider some aspects of the decision in a forward looking way. ArbCom does the best job they can, but sometimes things can drag on a little long. I'll bring it up in the proper venue. I brought it up here because I thought people would be unanimously for this. I was wrong. Sorry.Likebox (talk) 03:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I really don't know how you could have thought that people would be unanimously for this when you've specifically asked me and TimothyRias (and others opposed this as well, such as Michael C. Price) what we thought of this and vehemently disagreed. It particularly puzzles since you said "I don't want to raise it [the unban motion unless I have your support--- I am asking for your support. If you say "yes", and whoever else says "yes", then I will do it. I don't want to go there with hostile editors against the motion.]" on JohnBlackburne's talk page. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Headbomb, It seems to me that you are attaching a grossly disproportionate weighting and importance to your own prerogative in a field of many thousands of editors. Likebox unfortunately asked the people who had been most hostile towards Brews from the outset. I'm sure you will recall that the entire arbitration hearing arose exclusively as a result of an AN/I thread which you yourself started for the sole purpose of getting Brews sanctioned.

This matter needs to be investigated by an independent panel. David Tombe (talk) 04:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am pretty sure, knowing Michael Price, that he does not care very much about the ban. He only cares about the accuracy of the science. It took a while to get your responses, and I respect them, and I thought about them. Given that there is opposition to this, I had to carefully weigh how to proceed. I believe, despite the opposition, that there is merit here, and I will make the argument soon (I am preparing the motion). Please, argue it then--- it is senseless for us to argue here.Likebox (talk) 05:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to explain the timing of everything--- I put the first comment here before doing anything else, and then I went to read the archives, then I asked people's opinions, and I got one or two neutral/positive responses at first, and later a few negatives.Likebox (talk) 05:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh please don't Likebox, not another 3 months in ARBCOM again. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}<sub style="margin-left:-4.0ex;">κοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't expect this discussion will take three months. Nobody will be accused of misbehaving or of showing bad judgement or anything. It's just a simple request for redress, hopefully with no negative impact on anybody.Likebox (talk) 06:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

My ears are burning, so let me say that I am presently neutral with regards to Brews' ban being lifted. If Brews showed understanding that his past behaviour was not appropriate and would not be repeated I would support an unbanning. A simple and sincere statement by Brews to this effect would probably go a long way to persuading others as well. If, of course, Brews chooses to blame everybody else.... --Michael C. Price talk 08:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, Brews still does not understand that his past behavior was inappropriate. To the contrary, he has made it very clear, as I understand it, that he believes that the arbitration decision was wrong, that his behavior on physics articles and talk pages was not problematic, that the problem was other editors' rejection and suppression of his valid positions, and that the Wikipedia's polices regarding talk page and editing behavior (including use of edit summaries) require substantial revision. While I respect Brews and am pleased at his peaceful and productive editing recently, I disagree with him on these points as much as I did during the arbitration and in the arbitration decision's afterglow, when Brews campaigned with his well-known zeal and persistence for reform of Wikipedia's policies. No one can change Brews' mind for him, but these opinions of his, and his actions based on them—classic disruptive conduct (even though Brews honestly doesn't see it that way)—led to his well-deserved arbitration sanctions. Going through these arguments all over again will result in the following:


 * 1) Brews will have a few supporters, as before.
 * 2) A very substantial consensus of editors will oppose lessening of Brews' sanctions.
 * 3) The arbitrators will conclude, unanimously or nearly so, not to modify the arbitration sanctions.
 * Likebox: Although you mean well and are seriously trying to help Brews, you are actually doing him a severe disservice by dragging him through this all over again. This is the kind of dispute that Brews is not good at handling, the kind that led to the arbitration decision in the first place. Brews will not enjoy the process, and will enjoy the result even less. Further, if Brews conducts himself in this replay of the arbitration the same way that he did in the arbitration, it could lead to additional sanctions, rather than reduction of the existing ones. Indeed, some of Brews' supporters—Tombe, Hell in a Bucket, and Iblis—are likely to egg Brews on and get him into more trouble, even though their intention is the opposite, and Brews is more likely to listen to them than he is to more sensible advice. Brews will have to be very careful to prevent that from happening. Brews is better off staying out of disputes and editing articles peacefully. So is Wikipedia.—Finell 14:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Finell: Of course, reading people's minds is a delicate business and can go easily wrong. Here is how I read my own mind:
 * 1) The Speed of light debacle was completely mishandled. There were problems, and they were fixable by the right actions, but that did not happen.
 * 2) The notion that the difficulty was that I had the physics wrong [Brews: I never said that this was the problem you had on physics pages.—Finell 23:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)], and therefore the problem was that I didn't understand the physics was nuts. The problem was that the patience of the prevailing vocal group was exhausted.
 * 3) The correct remedy to this situation was not a topic ban that was decided upon, which had nothing to do with the problem, but some behavioral remedy. I suggested some guidelines that would avoid any such problems in the future, and the response was to enlarge my bans to include comment upon procedure even on my own Talk pages!
 * 4) My present frame of mind is soured by these experiences. I have undertaken to avoid pursuit of arguments where resistance is encountered, but that is not really good for WP. It simply means that nuanced and detailed argument will not appear in WP, and defended errors will persist. Brews ohare (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, as far as I can see this is the only thing that matters: Brews saying that "I have undertaken to avoid pursuit of arguments where resistance is encountered" and not only saying that, but also demostrating that he has done so in his recent editing behavior. Therefore, I think Brews is now ready for an appeals process to overturn the topic ban. If Arbcom is competent they will agree to overturn the topic ban and not listen to the majority of editors who want to keep the topic ban in place, because they don't have any good arguments in favor of the topic ban. If Brews were to edit an article on, say, classical mechanics, then how on earth would that be of any relevance to the issues encounterd on the speed of light page? As likebox said, this is more of a problem for Arbcom to decide. They make a ruling that makes no sense whatsoever, so it is for them to correct this error. Likebox could start a process in which he emphasizes this aspect, rather than argue on the basis of Brews right to edit and revisit all the details of the old conflicts. Count Iblis (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * To Finell: I know the political situation is sticky. I just want this to end. This is sewing bad seeds everywhere, for no reason. It obviously won't recur, and it's obviously a waste of everyone's time.


 * I know that a couple of editors will oppose lifting sanctions, but I feel it is important to get them lifted at this point. I will ask the editors that support lifting sanctions to be completely respectful of the difficult job ArbCom is forced to do. They didn't create this mess--- that was a subset of the editors at speed of light.


 * Brews does not have to acknowledge wrongdoing to move forward. Frankly, it's a little embarassing to ask an expert editor to apologize for defending mostly obvious technical comments. It's also a little jarring--- we don't need an apology, we need productive discussions.


 * Brews did misjudge the politics terribly, but that's not a rules violation. Some people, especially scientists, are completely tone deaf with regards to politics (I know, I'm one). Letting arguments drag on for too long causes problems, and can be disruptive, but I wouldn't say that to prevent this one needs to find fault with anyone. Instead, you just say "let's not do that again", which Brews has said and done.


 * I ask you to save your text for the actual ArbCom motion. I have prepared the request, and I will post it in the next few days.Likebox (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that the whole purpose of this is to get the new ARBCOM to take an objective look at the whole concept of topic bans arising from talk page discussion. The vocal opposition to this motion is coming exclusively from those who opposed Brews's point of view at the 'speed of light' debate. The old ARBCOM clearly pandered to that group and set a very dangerous precedent for wikipedia in general which has got repercussions far beyond the specific 'speed of light' dispute. There is a danger after the first ten years of wikipedia, that it is entering into a new era which will eventually be written up in the History of Wikipedia as The Reign of Terror. We have currently entered an era in which anybody involved in prolonged debates on talk pages is in fear that at any moment the thought police will arrive and drag them off to the pillory.

The new ARBCOM need to make sure that this current reign of terror is swiftly brought to an end. The topic ban on Brews ohare was ostensibly brought about to end the argument on the talk page at the speed of light. It didn't have that effect. It failed in its purpose. As for Brews, I can see that he is probably too bitter about that particular dispute to want to return to it anyway. Why would he want to go back to that dispute again? We all saw what happened to Likebox when he tried to raise the issue there a few days ago. There is a problem on that page which is a matter for the wikipedia administration to sort out. I doubt very much if Brews will want anything more to do with it. But nevertheless, he should still have the right to involve himself in it if he so chooses. Why shouldn't he edit there? Why the gagging order?

Clearly the old ARBCOM made a big mistake in pandering to a wolf pack at 'speed of light'. The new ARBCOM need to reverse that injustice ASAP and usher in a new era of impartiality. This appeal needs to go ahead as a test case. Protestations from biased editors such as Finell and Headbomb need to be ignored as a matter of importance. David Tombe (talk) 03:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * How can you say these irresponsible things? ArbCom is a small group of volunteers in charge of an editor base which rivals a large city. Their task is to make sure people who don't know each other and disagree virulently can come together to make collaborative writing, something which anyone would have told you is impossible ten years ago. What makes you think that you would do a better job?


 * I agree that my own selfish motivation for looking into this was because I was worried that bans like this would become common, and editors would start to think that arguing for a point of view on a talk pages is a dangerous thing. But what would it look like if 500,000,000 english speaking internet users started putting four pages of random musings on arbitrary talk pages? There are guidelines for behavior: don't harm collaboration, stay on topic, be brief, don't monopolize, don't repeat yourself too much, and don't disrupt. These rules are sensible, and by themselves they don't prevent points of view from being heard.


 * Enforcement of these rules is necessary--- everyone acknowledges that. But there is a danger that enforcement decisions can be misused to make censorship. This hasn't really quite happened yet--- your position on speed of light can still be heard (briefly), if you follow the rules. The only thing that the committee expects from editors is to be mindful of their actions, to take responsibility for their actions. That's not a blame game--- it just means, act wisely to prevent disruption, because it is always right around the corner.


 * So please do not demean others with inconsiderate comments. It is irresponsible, and a blatant display of irresponsibility makes people wary of entrusting a person with editing the encyclopedia.Likebox (talk) 05:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Likebox: I hope that you are beginning to see how the motion that you have proposed is just going to re-open old arguments that were settled in a lengthy, bitter arbitration. And I hope you will reconsider. In the end, this is not going to do anyone any good, least of all Brews.—Finell 06:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right--- this isn't what I expected. But my worries about the chilling effect on talk-pages remain, and incivility should not rub off from one editor to the one standing next to him.Likebox (talk) 07:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we can meet halfway here, and remove Brews'/Tombe's physics-related ban on their own talk pages? This restriction does seem to fly in the face of natural justice. I can't see that anything would be lost by lifting it. --Michael C. Price talk 11:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that personal talk-page bans do smack of thought-policing. But I am not sure that this is the main issue here.


 * I think the main problem here is the secret motives. When you ban someone, and your true motives are different than the stated ones, you don't really let them know the problem, so its difficult for them to fix. You also make outsiders (like me) start to suspect that Wikipedia is based on Kangaroo court justice, which isn't true.


 * I read the ArbCom case, and I looked over the example diffs provided, and for Brews, they took a bunch of pedestrian talk page comments and called them "disruptive". I had no idea what was going on. For David, they took a bunch of talk page thoughts and called them "inserting original ideas in the encyclopedia", but when I checked his edit history, he never did any of that on the main pages (at least not in any way that could be attributed to bad faith). He mostly tried to get the history more accurate. He did discuss some offbeat ideas in talk, but that's normal for science, since explaining what you think usually helps people get a clearer idea of where you're coming from.


 * But I now believe that the real cause of the disruption is not any one individual comment, but the total "K" devoted to comments--- people didn't like the number and verbosity of the comments (correct me if I am wrong).


 * If the problem was verbosity, dominating talk pages and such, it should have been stated more prominently in the case, because I wasn't sure what the violation was. Neither was Brews, by the way. He thought people were hounding him out because they didn't like his view regarding the meter! I thought so too. That would be silly, now, wouldn't it.Likebox (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no secret, it was a combination of factors, as testified to, and detailed by, the arbcom judgement. Obviously different people place a different weighting on them.  I suggest that Brews's and Tombe's talk pages be unrestricted.  If their behaviour is acceptable (as you have assured us it will be) I'm sure further debanning will follow.--Michael C. Price talk 22:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to reassure one and all, I do realize that my tendency is to try to get my point across when others don't seem to pick up what I am talking about, especially when they really don't care in the least what I am talking about. I will earnestly attempt in future to avoid lengthy exchanges where it seems such efforts fall on deaf ears. Brews ohare (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding User:Craigy144

 * Announcement

Arbitration motion regarding Abd-William M. Connolley

 * Announcement

Impossible for Abd and William to stick to given these facts which also apply to wiki-editors. Count Iblis (talk) 01:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Oversighter retirements
Announcement


 * This seems like an appropriate place to ask a question relating to this recent edit: . Three former arbitrators were removed from the list of persons with access to the functionaries mailing list, including the recently-retired Stephen Bain.  I was under the impression (perhaps incorrect) that former arbitrators retained access to that list unless some misconduct were present.  Is there any comment regarding this removal or its justification?  Not that there needs to be any comment - no need to respond if it involves sensitive or personal information —  James F Kalmar  06:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's possible that they just didn't want to be part of the functionaries list, for want of time to participate. I have a related question, though - is this sort of like adminship, where someone who sets it aside voluntarily can have it reinstated by way of a simple request? Or is there a more formal process? Just curious, really. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 17:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In answers to the above questions, Stephen Bain requested to be removed from the list in an email to the Arbitration Committee at the time we were sorting out what permissions and accesses he wished to retain after his retirement. Continued access to the Functionaries-L mailing list post retirement is standard, but it is not in any way mandatory, if the former arbitrator does not wish to participate. The rest is just routine mailing list management. We have not yet received requests from any former arbitrator who wanted to be reinstated to the Functionaries-L mailing list, and I don't really anticipate any, given that it is considerably less exciting than non-subscribers would imagine. Should one arise, we will discuss it at that time. Risker (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The announcement is a little unclear... Did they retire themselves, or have they been retired? –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 18:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Appeal to BASC: Mjgm84

 * Announcement

Statement on the block of Roux

 * Announcement

Do you mean that Roux called the admin "an obscenity", or that he called the admin "a [insert obscene word here]"? <font color="#FFB911">╟─TreasuryTag► quaestor ─╢ 16:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The latter. Cool Hand Luke 16:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is why we need incivility defining - was it a gross obscenity, minor obscenity, general obscenity or just something regarded as obscene by a few in the American bible belt? I don't care if he stays blocked for ever or a few minutes, but just saying an admin has been called an obscenity in a private email is not good enough. The time has come when we need a list of forbidden words, so that if we are told "someone is banned for obscenity" we at least know they have been pretty vile and incivil.  Giano   17:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I strongly disagree with actually having a list. While I'm not likely to write "You fucker. :-)" in a WP discussion, the odds are good that I would mean it in a humorous way, meaning that someone just scored on me bigtime and I didn't have a good comeback. However, if "fucker" was added to a list, as you suggest above, tone of font/intent wouldn't matter, and I'd be blocked.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is usually pretty obvious when someone is joking, I have sen one editor call another a "cocksucker" in anger and Admins saying it was not incivil enough to block for. We need some defining rules.  Giano   17:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

While I thank CHL for adding trustworthy useful context in an ongoing conflcit, the choice of the Committee to comment on this matter is a little bemusing. If they thought it worthy of our attention, the admin could have disclosed the issue publicly without fear of contradiction. I understand that in the case of urgency or privacy ArbCom justifiably makes statements or takes action outside of a case, but the inclination to become involved in routine block proceedings is worrisome. You have more than enough on your plates already, there is no need to issue proclamations on high on issues the community can deal with tractably. <font face="New York"> Skomorokh 17:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It was not our choice. Ryan announced that he strengthened the block on the basis of the email, but did not describe the email. We felt that by summarizing the problem Ryan found with the email, the community would be able to make an informed decision about how to handle the user. We prefer that it be handled by normal means. Personally, I believe that such incidents should be handled precisely as you describe, and I hope that this statement is a strong hint in that direction. Cool Hand Luke 17:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The confirmation on the talk page would have been enough in my opinion, making an announcement here brings undue (and undesirable ?) light to the issue. Cenarium (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You may be right. Cool Hand Luke 17:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see where you are coming from, but as a matter of best practice (so as to discourage the inclination to bring every little fracas straight from ANI to ArbCom) it might be best to make such disclosures at the normal forums as an editor who happens to have something privileged to contribute to the discussion, rather than an announcement from the Committee at large.


 * As for the incident itself, if the rationale for block was in doubt, it is up to the blocking admin to give a convincing explanation to the community. If they felt no compunctions about forwarding or revealing details to arbitrators there is no reason they could not have done likewise to another trusted editor for confirmation, just how privacy-sensitive issues are handled (and handled well) at RfA.


 * On the whole, not a big deal, but the way small issues are handled creates expectations about future. Thank you Cool Hand Luke for your clear and prompt responses. <font face="New York"> Skomorokh  17:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Believe me, I'm with you; I would not post at AC/N for this kind of matter in the future, and I accept responsibility for it happening. Cool Hand Luke 17:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries whatsoever. There is no harm done here and this isn't an area with established norms so you can hardly be faulted for anything. Good to clarify things going forward. Thanks again, <font face="New York"> Skomorokh  17:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

How was the comittee able to confirm what they were sent was geniune, exactly? Not that I doubt the honesty of RP at all, but when I do doubt the honest of someone in the future, I'll have this to point at as evidence of my even-handed behavior. Hipocrite (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How is the community supposed to make an informed decision without any information. we are told obscene - obscene by whose defiition?  Giano   17:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess the arbitration office doesn't like its clerks feeling battered, so gave the incident more attention? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly, they're comparable to statements he made on his talk page. The main point of this announcement is that the email did not contain a legal or other threat. Cool Hand Luke 17:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't get it...why isn't the main point explicitly made in the announcement? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is. "The block may be reviewed by the community in ordinary fashion." There's not much to add here. Cool Hand Luke 17:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, the community has always reviewed such blocks in an ordinary fashion; even where legal threats are present. What I was asking was...why didn't the announcement plainly say "The email did not contain any threat"? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's easier to describe what something is than what it isn't. This is more detail than the community had before, and we have decided that it is sufficient detail to evaluate the case. Cool Hand Luke 17:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, realistically speaking, the only additional information that we are given in the announcement is that ArbCom received whatever it was Ryan forwarded. In reality, what that notice should've explicitly specified is the additional information that you've supplied on this cluttered talk page (about no threats being present), but even then, it would've been reviewed in an ordinary fashion without ArbCom's intervention. But if the announcement attracts more attention to Roux's appeal, I guess that's not necessarily a bad thing either. Thank you for your answers. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We are not intervening nor do we intend to intervene; that's the whole point. I apologize for posting this on AC/N, which I now see was misleading. You're welcome. Cool Hand Luke 17:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The reason why I forwarded the email to the Arbitration Committee was because I added an "email block" onto the original block because of the email I received (and I was the original blocker). As I'm not allowed to post what he said on-wiki, or show it to anyone else for that matter, I sent it to the Arbitration Committee just in case anyone had a problem with it. For what it's worth, I didn't expect an announcement or anything - I was just covering my own back. I certainly wasn't attempting to strengthen my own position by involving ArbCom - I only sent them the email in case anyone had a problem with me adding the email block after being the original blocker.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's understandable, and it seems as if there is not much in the way of conventions in these matters. Perhaps it would be better to forward such emails to the functionaries list rather than the arbitration list as standard? Thoughts welcome. <font face="New York"> Skomorokh  17:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This incivility business is getting ludicrous, blocks left, right and centre for whatever is considered incivil at the moment. I don't doubt he hs been truly invivil (if you say so) but there are other Admins where I would seriously doubt it - this all needs sorting and defining.  Giano   17:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with trying to give a set definition for what is, or is not, offensive language is that any such definition is sensitive to context and cultural norms. My own standard is probably on the conservative side: if one uses language that, in an typical office workplace context, would lead to sanctions or dismissal then the line has definitely been crossed.  I know from experience that the level of language in (say) a garage is different, but I'm pretty sure that nobody who would causally use such strong language in that context would be unaware that the same language would be inappropriate at the post office. What confuses me about the issue is how that minimal level of courtesy can possibly be viewed as unreasonable.  Yes, it is possible to offensive using a perfectly courteous level of language; but there is no reason to tolerate either.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * However, we don't all come from the same cultural environment or visit the same post office. Therefore, we need definitive guidelines.  Giano   18:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Giano. In the environment I work in, it's far more offensive to tell someone they are lying than to tell someone they are a f****** a******. Perhaps we should translate that here.Hipocrite (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not doubt, however, that regardless of the environment you work in, you are aware that this level of language would not be considered acceptable in most environments. And, regardless of whether you knew of it in advance or not, persisting when told that it is inappropriate lacks basic civility.  I don't think anyone is seriously considering making a list of "bad words" that will get you in trouble by simple utterance; what is a problem is habitual and repeated offensive language despite being warned off. And yes, calling someone a liar is also problematic though our guidelines here have chosen to separate that from simple language issues (NPA vs CIVIL); but it's just as important to maintain decorum as it is to maintain respect.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * re: lie (characterizing statements vs characterizing persons) &mdash; Obama's "A lie, plain and simple." and Wilson's rejoinder "You lie!" ... illustrate a significant (or trivial:) rhetorical issue (distinction). From my (rhetorical analyst) perspective, usually the problem is "bullshit" (mixtures of mis-emphasized fact laced with traces of pure crap) ... and while I never find it useful to call someone a name, there are times it is clearly appropriate to call "bullshit" on misrepresentations. (Aside: For those wondering why Joe Biden was selected as Vice President, note that he publicly called "bullshit" on some of Bush's comments &mdash; before quickly restating it as the highly unsatisfying "malarkey.") But to focus this comment toward "solution" ... Wikipedia exists amidst a public culture of totality of spin (or, as the late George Carlin once phrased it: "A Tyranny of Bullshit") &mdash; but our educations are not rhetorical, so we do not have the analytical language for bullshit control. But one thing I can assure you, is that outlawing the word "bullshit" is NOT the solution to bullshit control. (smiling but not joking) See also my earlier brief proposal at the Civility/Poll. -- Proofreader77 (interact) 07:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI: Incivility blocks is being drafted as a proposed guideline to address some of the concerns expressed in this thread.   Will Beback    talk    21:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that link. Just a passing comment from me to say that I find the use of certain abbreviations to be incivil even though the phrases in question are not being typed in full. For example, when someone says "FFS", the level of exasperation is clear, but the offence possibly caused is no less than if the phrase had been typed out in full. Ditto when people talk about a "load of BS" or (moving away from abbreviations to circumlocutions) "horse excrement" (or even cleverer ways to say what you mean, but using different and "OK" words). It's just a way of swearing while trying to appear not to be doing that. Which is silly. Carcharoth (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I can only laugh at the attempts to codify incivility. What about "Don't be a fucktard / idiot / dick!" and similar imperatives that don't directly call someone names, but caution (really?) one against acting like said villain. I've seen these used often enough on ANI, by administrators. What about qualifying an action as "that's trolling / idiocy / insanity!"; isn't the implication obvious? What about sarcasm like "only a genius would say that!", with the obvious implication of the contrary? The attempts to codify incivility remind me of communist censorship, which had similar troubles stemming the expression of forbidden ideas, often enough circumvented by creative writers using new metaphors. If I'm allowed to quote from the master himself, on the talk page discussing civility blocks themselves (the irony), are the following sentences civil or not? "They have blocked in a bullying, gratuitous and vile fashion. Sooner or later rules will be imposed to curb their disgraceful and overpowering behaviour." If I'm allowed to roughly quote from my user page, what level of name epithets is uncivil: "reference nazi", "totally irresponsible", "part of the problem", "a bit of a bully"? (Others have more extensive quote farms, e.g. User:Psychonaut -- he even bothers with diffs.) I'm taking bets. Pcap  ping  20:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2

 * Announcement

General comment: Feedback on our decisions is welcome both before and after they are issued. However, in general, input on how exceedingly clueless a decision allegedly is, whether because it is allegedly too harsh or because it is allegedly too lenient or for no specified reason at all, will generally be more useful to the arbitrators (and more likely to influence the result) if provided while the case is still pending rather than after it has closed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm quite glad that this one came up so early in the new ArbComs term, if only to prove that that the new tranche is equally as fucking clueless as the previous ones. Thanks for the heads up, everyone. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is beyond the pale. Killiondude (talk) 01:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems like a correct and proper decision. Administrators shouldn't be facilitating breaching experiments by banned users. IAR isn't enough of a fig leaf to cover that up.  -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 02:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And all they get for it is a bad puppy? Yeah. Don't disrupt wikipedia or we'll tell you what a bad boy you are..and really do nothing else..--Crossmr (talk) 04:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Before the case was filed, MZMcBride had the sysop flag. Now the case has closed and MZMcBride must undergo an RfA to get that flag. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory <font color="#555555"> (u • t • c) 04:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Which he gave up himself. Arbcom imposed no further penalties except "Oohh you... don't do that again!" *imagine a shaking finger* Sorry. Someone abuses tool server, the communities trust, etc. I'd expect a little more.--Crossmr (talk) 05:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What would you have them do? Arbcom can't take away his toolserver access, it falls outside of en.wikipedia arbcom's jurisdiction. If you want him banned, take it to the dramaboard. The Wordsmith Communicate 07:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Speaking as someone who chronicles ArbCom cases, I (and I assume most of the rest of us commenting here) appear to be under a seemingly-mistaken impression that the only place we can really say such stuff is after the case on this page, not during it on any pages related to the case unless we're already in it. —<font color="32CD32">Jeremy <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Boribori!) 04:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You are free to comment on the request, evidence, workshop and proposed decision talk pages of any case at any time. Reasoned arguments, backed with facts, are always welcome :)  Roger Davies  talk 05:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol Brad. Viridae Talk 05:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely you mean: Brad and Roger are absolutely correct? :-) They are, of course, quite right. Some cases do suffer because they lack uninvolved people taking the time to dive in and sort through the evidence and give their opinions. Calm input from a wide range of people during the case is helpful. Post-case disagreement or agreement is still helpful, but less so. The bit at the top of this page is worth reading again: "This page is for discussion of formal announcements by the Committee, including clarification of the specifics of notices." The discussions that tend to be most helpful here are the ones that look forward, and try and work out what is needed next, and where to start new discussions based on the issues raised and (hopefully) resolved by the case, including issues left unresolved for the community to resolve. I would suggest a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Toolserver. Carcharoth (talk) 05:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that, with most of these cases, there's a jagd mentality because the subject matter of the area that the behavior's occurring in is the type of stuff most uninvolved editors don't want to involve themselves in because the main participants in that area do not believe in the word "disarmament". Thus, to even discuss the case and not take a side is to be attacked by the partisans - at least, that is the general feeling. —<font color="32CD32">Jeremy <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Boribori!) 06:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That is an extremely valid point, which can be addressed by more vigorously policing the arbitration pages.  Roger Davies  talk 06:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But that only solves issues that arise on the Arbitration pages, not anything that winds up on user talkpages or, Lord forbid, a mailing list or similar starchamber. What can be criticized as badgering on an Arbitration page can't be considered the same on a user page unless the user requests the badgerers slot off. It's less that the ArbCom is damning users with a spot and more that (and these aren't mutually exclusive) (a) most users are unwilling to expose themselves to the type of Hatfield/McCoy mentality that's a hallmark of most ArbCom cases and (b) these same users think (especially with more recent decisions) that the ArbCom is being incredibly mercurial, at some parts banning users who they feel should not have been banned (Macedonia II) or slapping users on the wrist for doing things practically any other user would be indef'd, if not community-banned, for (Abd-Connolley) . —<font color="32CD32">Jeremy <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Boribori!) 10:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In my experience, people respond to uninvolved commentators in kind. If you don't approach it like a Hatfield, very few people will respond like a McCoy.-- Birgitte  SB  17:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That holds less true at arbitration than elsewhere. Durova 409 19:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I came here to quickly browse through the comments out of a bit of morbid/bored fascination (the opening ceremonies are kind of boring...), but I feel impelled to reply after reading most of this sub-thread. I just wanted to state that, misconceptions and all, I completely agree with Jeremy's stated views here. I'm happy to see that many of us seem to have been mistaken, in that third party comments on an open case are actually encouraged. You may want to publicize that outside of the ArbCom space here, because I can fairly confidently state that comments on open cases being encouraged is largely unknown (although I don't have statistics to back that up or anything...). Not that myself and others will suddenly start commenting, for the reasons already expressed above, since the concerns about actually interjecting comments during a case most likely will override even with "permission", but it's still good to know. — V = I * R (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 03:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately--and my opinion isn't exactly a neutral one--it's hard to remember a recent arbitration case in which that laudable ideal has held less true. Durova 409 04:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeek. And this case isn't about an ethnic or ideological struggle. I'm unsure as to what Ncmvocalist said to warrant such a response from Ryan, could someone enlighten me? —<font color="32CD32">Jeremy <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Boribori!) 21:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have commented on the case, Mr Z.man commented, on the bias in the findings w.r.t. MZMcBride's use of his toolserver access, and we've been completely ignored by the arbitrators active on the case. The case has been closed in no more than 23 days, that's very fast for an arbitration case. There were still many users commenting in the workshop when arbs decided to go on the proposed decision page and ignore new input. Useless to comment when you're ignored. Cenarium (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is, of course, a no-win situation for Arbcom. Keep cases open, and we're dallying; close them in a timely way, and we're not listening to input. Of the two, I believe that closing in a timely way is healthier for the encyclopedia and for the parties. The facts of this case were laid out very early on; there were proposals on the workshop page for more than a week. The opinions of commenters w.r.t. the toolserver issue were not ignored, as far as I can tell; when the Arbitration Committee does not make the decision you prefer, I would hope you assume good faith that it is because the Committee as a whole (or individual arbitrators, as reflected by their personal votes) does not agree with you, rather than that it failed to consider your position. I say this as someone who has the responsibility to vote on cases; sometimes my colleagues will agree with me, and sometimes they won't, but my responsibility is to vote according to the way in which I perceive the facts. Risker (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the remedies in question didn't pass so it's not that much the decisions I'm concerned with; some arbitrators may have listen and it may have influenced their vote, though they didn't actually respond. But the findings of facts are still biased and so give a false impression to readers, which is not negligible. This is in part why I feel we need a system where some users make the accusation, some others defend, and then 'judges' make the final ruling (imo simple, feasible and fair enough); instead of a system where arbitrators charge then rule. But this is a question that can't be resolved here so I won't continue on this. Thanks for the reply. Cenarium (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting points, Cenarium. I suppose, thinking about it, that ArbCom operates a hybrid system, based on adversarial and inquisitorial (non-adversarial) elements. The latter is widely used especially in tribunals, which is probably closer to what ArbCom actually is (even though it is sometimes mischaracterised as a Supreme Court). In ArbCom proceedings, the preliminary stages are adversarial, with the two (or more) sides advancing arguments which are weighed by the arbitrators. The arbitration itself is non-adversarial. This probably goes a long way to reduce drama as a formal prosecution/defence process would be much more polarising. It would, for example, create winning and losing camps, which we don't have the moment, and is likely to encourage "big accusations" if the discussion gets heated. The next question I suppose is how much weight should arbitrators place on comments by editors not named as parties. My take is that it depends on what the editor brings to the table, which is itself a difficult question. Often, comments are made by people whose evidence speaks only or largely to character, which again is has a polarising effect. By contrast, dispassionate analysis of the actual evidence is exceedingly useful.  Roger Davies  talk 07:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I wanted to reply but got distracted and my reply was getting longer and longer... I won't have time to complete it in the following days. I think I'll write an essay or something and link to it when finished. Cenarium (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Frankly, in my opinion, this case should have never been opened at all. MZMcBride's loss of the bit should have been confirmed via motion, and everyone would have been better off. Open cases toll a lot of contributors, and I'm glad this one closed relatively quickly. Cool Hand Luke 00:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're probably right.  Roger Davies  talk 08:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There were no need to open it in the first place, yes; the incident was blown out of proportion. Cenarium (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Not that it's much of my business, but I wonder why there was no motion to temporarily block or ban Mz? What he did was extremely bad. Does the Arbitration Committee wish this aspect to be considered by the community? 140.247.38.208 (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Appeal to BASC: Offliner

 * Announcement

I trust that Offliner's block and appeal had nothing to do with off-Wiki activities against my person and others as the result of the EEML case on WP. All I have to say on the topic. <small style="background:white; border: 1px solid #a12830;"> <font style="color: #a12830; font-family:sans-serif;">PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 00:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Do bans include activity as an anonymous IP, as here? I personally believe these are one and the same editor but have no appetite for filing checkuser and formal enforcement requests. <small style="background:white; border: 1px solid #a12830;"> <font style="color: #a12830; font-family:sans-serif;">PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 22:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I just noticed this ban. I'd be interested to know why the original ban was enacted the way it was: no public announcement, neither on his talk page nor on this noticeboard; talk page immediately full-protected; no indication of the reasons for the ban; no indication of what process had preceded or on the basis of what evidence. Of course, I trust this would all have been communicated with him in private, but I do think some transparency to the community would be required too: What were the charges? Did he do something that is no longer visible or not immediately obvious in his editing history? If not, which of his contributions were deemed so seriously unacceptable?
 * I'm a bit concerned that Arbcom seems to have taken a habit of making such in camera ban decisions without even a minimum of transparency of late. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Offliner's block log clearly states: "Consult ArbCom privately for any discussion of this block", did you some how miss that? Public discussion of privacy cases is inappropriate as it brings further distress to the victim and provides oxygen to the perpetrator. --Martin (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Eastern European mailing list (3)

 * Announcement

The diff on the second part of it, at least according to my popups, points to an earlier motion on the same case regarding Piotrus, rather than the actual passed motion here. —<font color="32CD32">Jeremy <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Boribori!) 20:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You didn't scroll down far enough. Better yet, click on it. Dougweller (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Appeal to BASC: WVBluefield

 * Announcement

Ban Appeal Subcommittee membership

 * Announcement

Motions regarding Herostratus and Viridae

 * Announcement


 * I really cannot see what the Arbcom considers Viridae has done wrong. The Arbcom set a precedent by saying it's right and proper to "act first and question later." If that is the correct procedure, and it's certainly their undisputed view that it is, in instances where an edit may reveal potentially embarrassing information concerning an editor (thus needing to be oversighted), how then, is that any different to a compromised account that may suddenly start to produce personal or embarrassing information? This looked to be a distinct possibility in this instance.  Giano   17:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I accept my strong admonishment and apologize for my action in mistakenly unblocking myself. I should not have done that. I won't do it again, should the situation arise. Wheel warring is a cancer and must be nipped in the bud. The ArbCom has apparantly decided that this was not an instance of true wheel warring but just a comedy of errors. If so, I agree. I would, if I may, try to comfort Viridae with the admonition to wear proudly all scars bought in the struggle to build Wikipedia. If we never made mistakes we would never improve to be better editors and administrators! Herostratus (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We must be reading different announcements.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, yes, I think it was worth it. It's very unfortunate for those immediatly concerned; they have been sacrificed to the Arbcom's pride and stupidity, but for the rest of us it will be a turning point. No longer will they lightly dismiss previous judgements, precedents and Wikipedia rulings in favour of whim of the moment. Hopefully, in future they will deliberate more carefully. However, we do now need a ruling on the "act first, question later" (regarding potentially dangerous jokes) ruling issued by amongst others, Brad and Risker.  Giano  18:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Was this really worth it? <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  18:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Can arbs pleaase confirm that in the Viridae motion, the word "administrator" can be read to mean "editor", specifically if an editor (not being an admin) finds themself blocked without warning or discussion, and wishes to point out to the admin involved that Arbcom does not like this kind of thing? DuncanHill (talk) 10:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, "administrator" in this case can be (and probably should have) read as "editor". The editor happened to have been an administrator in this case but that is not the cause for the admonishment towards Viridae (though, obvioulsy, no self-unblock could have then taken place otherwise).  &mdash; Coren (talk) 13:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. As a follow up, it may have escaped the committee's notice in the past, but wordings which tend to read as though admins are more valued and better protected than non-admins are divisive and cause ill-feeling. With this in mind, could the Arbs exercise more caution in wording motions, or at least be prepared to revise wording when asked? DuncanHill (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's trivially done before much voting has taken place, buy I'm sure you can appreciate that changing the wording of a motion after some have already voted is a delicate matter. &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I was trying to delicately suggest that Arbs think a bit more deeply about a motion before they submit it or vote for it - and I think you are able to issue official clarifications aren't you? DuncanHill (talk) 17:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

When reading up on this case I couldn't help but think of it as a comedy of errors. Everyone should have had a laugh over the misinterpretation of a very obvious joke and gone off for a beer together. Lighten up, people. (Apologies to the admins caught in the middle of the community's absurd overreaction. I would hope that I'm laughing with you, not at you.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Tempted as I am to agree with you Boris, having "a laugh over the misinterpretation of a very obvious joke" is not really the Arbcom way - is it? You must realise that, unlike us, Admins and Arbs are very important people, like Queen Victoria, when their pomp and dignity is compromised - they are not amused.  Giano   23:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Resignation of Fritzpoll

 * Announcement

Well that sucks. --Conti|✉ 23:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what I said. KnightLago (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for all your volunteer work on Wikipedia. Best wishes for you in your new endeavors. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 23:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC) The reason for this resignation is not announced. This is too early resignation looks irresponsible. refactored per the angry responses, but which still puzzles me greatly. 01:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC) --Caspian blue 23:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not even going to dignify that comment with a response. Happy ‑ melon  00:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Precisely, per HM. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 00:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. SirFozzie (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * C'mon, I voted for him. However, this announcement for the sudden resignation without "any reason" is disappointing. He only has served for ArbCom for one and half month.--Caspian blue 00:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * May I gently suggest that claiming people are irresponsible with zero knowledge, is best avoided. You have no idea really. Suppose he had someone seriously sick or in difficulty in the family and didn't wish to be public about it, or a major change of work or study. Suppose the workload is greater than non-Arbs know (which it is). I am sure he too is sad and reflected deeply on the decision. You rate him, you trust him, you don't know anything to the contrary, consider assuming it's a responsible decision and offering support. FT2 (Talk 01:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree that this is extremely discouraging and comes at a bad time. I am speaking for myself and for what I see is happening on Wikipedia. Purely a personal sense of futility and disappointment.     — mattisse  (Talk) 01:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Aye, you'll be missed.  MBisanz  talk 02:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This really does suck :( Sorry to see you go ... - A<font color= "#FF7C0A">l<font color= "#FFB550">is o n  ❤ 02:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Enjoy life outside the madhouse! Take it slowly if your head spins. billinghurst  sDrewth  12:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Was Fritzpoll replaced? Or is the seat going to stay empty? Everyking (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The seat is still empty. I'm guessing that Fritzpoll won't be replaced until the next election, because no arbitrator has been appointed to the committee without an election since February 2007 (excluding term extensions that are resulted by an arbitrator being moved into another Tranche). — Mythdon (talk)  (contribs) 22:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If the other arbitrators think that having another arbitrator on board facilitates their work, then someone should be appointed to fill the seat. The appropriate thing to do would be to simply appoint the next ranking candidate from the last election. Why not? Everyking (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * At this time, I think I can say there are no plans to fill Fritzpoll's seat. One of the reasons the Committee was expanded is to handle situations like this. SirFozzie (talk) 04:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Ireland article names

 * Announcement

And where might I find a summary of what the approved and inviolable consensus is? Powers T 13:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for pointer to list of admonishment ordering
Hello,

Can someone point me to the list of possible Arbitration Committee scoldings? I think I've seen it before somewhere. I know it has admonished and strongly admonished.

Something like (..., lightly admonished, admonished, strongly admonished, very strongly admonished, lightly reprimanded, reprimanded, strongly reprimanded, very strongly reprimanded, lightly rebuked, rebuked, strongly rebuked, very strongly rebuked, lightly upbraided, upbraided, strongly upbraided, very strongly upbraided, ...)

Thanks, Uncle uncle uncle 18:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you missed "Wrist-slapped" from your list. Spartaz Humbug! 18:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's shorter than you seem to think. We generally go with "reminded", "admonished", or "strongly admonished". Anything lower than a reminder isn't going to get mentioned in a case or motion, and anything more severe than a strong admonishment is going to be a proper sanction; sanctions will often accompany the latter two anyway. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 18:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) It might sound humourous (although Wikipedia doesn't have an article on humor only a redirect), but there really is such a list (I think). I have a memory of seeing one at one time, but a search on Wikipedia for wp:admonish brings up over 1000 results (it looks like everyone gets admonished eventually) and I can't find the list of scoldings version. Uncle uncle uncle  19:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Might I ask why this matters? Regardless of the "level" of admonishment, ignoring such an admonishment by the Committee is a Bad Thing™ most of the time, and can result in anything from topic bans to desysoppings to site bans. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 19:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've actually just been corrected by a colleague by email: The levels of admonishment from the Committee range from "reminded", to "cautioned", "warned", and "admonished", with various adverbs thrown in as needed (strongly, etc.). Desysoppings and bans (proper sanctions) may be applied alongside an admonishment or as a higher grade of sanction (that is, in place of an admonishment). Sorry for the misinformation. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 19:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I agree that "ignoring such an admonishment by the Committee is a Bad Thing™ most of the time, and can result in anything from topic bans to desysoppings to site bans." Here is a link to statistics of arbitration requests . Wouldn't it be useful to include the admonishment level?  Perhaps it would be revealed that those given a "strong admonishment" are more likely to "behave" than those given a "regular admonishment" or perhaps those given a "strong admonishment" deserved it because they are more likely to be naughty. Anyway, I don't want to sidetrack the discussion - I still hope someone can point me to the list.  Uncle uncle uncle  19:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, but where would something like this user who was "urged, cautioned and admonished" (but none of them strongly) fit into the scale?19:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Casliber clarified that one: "The items under A, B and C are requests, hence "urged" would be the verb, probably with an adverb like "strongly" to qualify it." Uncle uncle uncle 19:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. It appears that some of the arbitrators were unaware of the scale that other arbitrators treated as conventional wisdom. I certainly didn't realize that this was the conventional order. It's not intuitively obvious that "warned" is less severe than "admonished." At any rate, in the context of the motions, it seems clear that one user was considered more over-the-line than another. Cool Hand Luke 19:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I think that we all (each arbitrator) have our own scale guided by precedent and tradition. Personally, I will "suggest, recommend, urge and enjoin" things that should be done with various levels of urgency and importance implied, and "remind, caution, warn and admonish" against things that should not have been done with levels of severity implied. &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and "trouted" for things that shouldn't have been brought to us in the first place. :-)  &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Why not, in cases like these, simply issue a finding of fact "(some action) was an inappropriate use of admin tools/dispute resolution/e-mail function/user page/whatever."? Why bother arguing over verbs or the ranking of various inappropriate things that do not individually merit further action?-- Birgitte  SB  20:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any actual arguing over this, or that there ever was. Uncle expressed some curiosity at the system, and we realized that we don't have a very strict system in the first place, is all.  :-)  &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * May I suggest my Gruntled system of ascending degrees? It begins with 'gruntled', then 'not quite as gruntled as previously', followed by 'not gruntled' and then the universally familiar 'disgruntled'. It then goes to 'very disgruntled' followed by 'swop your fucking bollocks for your brains and see if anyone notices the difference you piece of shit gruntled'. After that I tend to get sarcastic and a little aggressive, although I find there is rarely situations that needs to go that far - and it sort of skirts WP:CIVIL as well. I trust this helps. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So someone who makes amends and returns to productive editing is then likely to regruntle the committee? &mdash; Coren (talk) 03:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If anyone is really interested in seeing how consistent ArbCom have been with such wordings, there is a wealth of arbitration case pages that can be searched (though some were blanked) and examples quoted. Some of the various stats pages also list sanctions by type as well, I think, so it is trivially easy to find examples of such wording. Maybe the confusion indicates the level of awareness individual arbitrators have of the history of ArbCom decisions? Though I should say there that I think it is a *good* thing that some arbs aren't able to recite past arbtiration decisions from memory, while others (and those commenting on cases and decisions) can remind people of past decisions and wordings. Carcharoth (talk) 12:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight

 * Announcement

I would like to thank the Arbitration Committee for taking this case and coming to what looks like the only reasonable conclusion. <font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;"> Sandstein  06:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "User:ChildofMidnight is banned from Wikipedia for one year/User:ChildofMidnight is restricted to editing main (article) space, the talk pages of articles he has edited, Template talk:Did you know, and his own talk and user talk pages only" makes no sense to me. Is he banned altogether for a year and when the year expires, restricted to the named spaces - or is he banned from all parts of Wikipedia other than the named spaces for a year? – iride  scent  09:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The former. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It probably ought to be spelled out, in that case. I'm more experienced than most in translating Wikipedese to English, and I couldn't understand what was meant by "this remedy is concurrent (and cumulative) with any extant topic bans, and consecutive to any editing ban". – iride  scent  11:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd probably agree, though...it's not Wikipedese by the community's standard - just the reflection of an incredibly pompous ArbCom. I think the parties and the community would relate better to: "This remedy is an additional restriction, to any restrictions that are currently in force, or any restrictions that are enacted in the future. This remedy will remain in force indefinitely." But it's not like I can do or say much when ArbCom "disagrees". Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the wording could be better. "...is banned for one year. After the ban expires he is permanently restricted..." something like that. The permanent nature of the latter should, I agree, be spelled out. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 13:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What a foolish statement to make; or so I thought due to the fact that the community has always emphasised the difference between indefinite and permanent. But now I think it is quite an enlightening statement, and your candour would've been appreciated by ChildofMidnight, given that it reveals the ultimate reality about his future on this project. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It should be "indefinite" not permanent, as in without fixed expiry. That would be the normal way of describing such things, I'd say. Guy (Help!) 16:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion the sanctions are unjustified. Dr. Loosmark 14:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to your opinion. However, arbitration is binding and final, so you need to respect the decision.  Please accept it and move on. CoM could have saved themselves at any point by acknowledging concerns and taking heed of them.  Many opportunities were provided. Jehochman Brrr 14:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Really?. Sole Soul (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Haha --MZMcBride (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Did I say that arbitration isn't binding or that I plan to not respect the decision? I came here following a link "Discuss this". Does "Discuss this" mean one is only allowed to write comments in support of the ArbCom and its decisions? Dr. Loosmark  14:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * and you know what Jehochman, that's the key issue. I'd welcome him back now with arms wide open if he'd only stop being so stubborn and admit that his behaviour was less than acceptable and vow to improve it. He's not a bad guy 2/3 of the time - it's the other 1/3 when he's walking around shouting "abuse" when there is none that's the problem. I'm sad that it came to a ban to be honest - I thought CoM might realise half way through the case that he was actually severely in the minority when he said his behaviour was fine and everyone else was the problem. I'd suggest CoM takes a couple of months to get together his thought - hopefully he'll realise he made some mistakes here. Then I'd like to see an appeal to the committee, with an apology for acting the way he did and a commitment to behave better in the future - I could honestly see him back within 3-4 months if he can show he has been doing good work on another WMF wiki.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 14:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I thank the Arbitration Committee for their service on this case, but at the same time wonder why a year-long ban was chosen over a shorter length. It seems a long time to kick out a prolific content contributor given the fact that the edit restrictions when the editor gets back would probably keep problems to a minimum. Could some arbs point out which facts in particular lead to such a long ban rather than a shorter one? Ks0stm (T•C•G) 14:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This is explained at WP:TURNIP. I think it is better to be strict and demand improvements than to appease or enable bad behavior. Jehochman Brrr 14:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well true, but I wasn't exactly thinking way short...I was thinking on the order of 6-9 months area rather than a year. Shorter, but still pretty hefty amounts of time. Ks0stm  (T•C•G) 14:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The ban, like any other remedy, can be appealed after a couple of months. If ChildofMidnight were to return to us with a desire to return to constructive contribution, he would certainly be listened to.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The sanction is very strange. You have a one year ban and then also all sorts of editing restrictions. Why not simply impose those editing restrictions with a review by ArbCom some time later (say a month from now) with the understanding that not strictly sticking to those restrictions will lead to a ban, but now only ArbCom decides this without some lengthy process in which CoM could argue his case again? Count Iblis (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That was one of the possibilities, and the one I favored, but has been overwhelmingly rejected by the committee as a whole. I think that ChildofMidnight's complete refusal to even consider the possibly that he might, just might have been in error played no small part in this, so was lack of constructive participation in the case itself.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Where exactly was that "overwhelmingly rejected by the committee as a whole"? Dr. Loosmark  15:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say that remedy 1 (the ban) being favored 9-1 over remedy 2 (the restriction) is an overwhelming rejection, would you not? &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I was there at the start of CoM's problems, so even though it'll break my self-imposed policy of never making a substantive comment on an Arbcom page, I suppose I ought to be there for the end. I agree with both Ryan and Ks0stm above. I've found CoM intensely irritating in the past for his apparent refusal ever to admit that other peoples' opinions could ever be right about anything (this is a good example to show that his "my way or the highway" mentality didn't just apply to politics) but I never had any doubt he was acting with the best of intentions and doing more good than harm; that is, the value of his "productive time" still outweighed the time wasted by other people in dealing with his outbursts. The comparator here, I'd say, would be Ottava, who was ejected from Wikipedia in very similar circumstances, and in both cases I think they ought be be allowed back if they could curb their argumentativeness and propensity to call every decision they disagree with "abuse". – iride  scent  15:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm always unhappy when we have to ban anyone, much less a serious contributor to the encyclopedia such as Ottava Rima or ChildofMidnight. (And I am sure the other arbitrators are unhappy as well, even if they don't emphasize it on-wiki as much.) In both cases I urged them in my votes and comments to give us some indication that they would change their behavior if given another chance. ChildofMidnight knew well how and why the case was unfolding and chose not to give us a scrap of comfort that he would try to change his style of interacting with other editors if he were given one, three, or a dozen more chances to do so. I know that the immediately preceding commenter has little use for me as an arbitrator, as has been made clear in Another Place, but I hope it's accepted that when I say that I try my best to avoid these types of outcomes, I mean it. And I've made my share of motions to modify sanctions when they were called for, but I would need to have some sort of basis for making the motion and convincing my colleagues to support it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree and I'm not blaming you (plural); I can see that CoM didn't grab any of the "Get out of jail" cards that were being laid in front of him. I would say that (for both him and Ottava) you should at least consider making a formal (not a nudge-and-wink or off-wiki-and-later-retracted) offer that if they agree to the conditions, they're allowed straight back on the understanding that if they breach any of the terms they're straight out again. As you presumably know, it's worked regarding Ottava at the aforementioned Other Place. – iride  scent  15:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be reasonable. I think a three month ban would also have been reasonable given the other restrictions, but there's no doubt that the major problem here was and always has been CoM's steadfast refusal to acknowledge legitimate complaints. Guy (Help!) 16:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It can be difficult to acknowledge complaints if you're also arguing your case. Perhaps people need to be represented by "Wiki-Lawyers" during ArbCom cases. You can imagine having elections for Wiki-Lawyers just like we elect Arbitrators. An editor facing ArbCom proceedings can then choose to represent him/herself by a Wiki-Lawyer. Count Iblis (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That has been tried. It didn't work, unsurprisingly. (Besides, in no legal system that I know of are lawyers elected; rather, their clients choose them.) <font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;"> Sandstein  17:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly possible to acknowledge valid criticism without at the same time accepting foolish grudges and other nonsense. Guy (Help!) 18:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, several users already regularly play the role of 'prosecutor' in arbitration cases, and there are from time to time people who will 'defend' users. Most uninvolved users commenting though will generally just comment on specific points and their stance on a certain point may be favorable or unfavorable to the user. As for 'advocates', it's quite certain that no formal system could work, but nothing prevents a user from choosing to routinely 'defend' users in arbitration cases. Cenarium (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sandstein: The AMA was a failure because it was overly-bureaucratic and prone to wikilawyering. The underlying idea—assigning advocates to those who are going before the arbcom—might actually have some merit. In this case, as with many underlying ideas, creating a dedicated organisation to pursue the idea didn't end well. AGK 20:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's your view. Mine is that they were acting as enablers for trolls and other abusers, taking the side of their customer without any heed to its merits (e.g. failing to advise them to drop it when that was the proper course and instead prolonging the dispute), and their selection process was woeful, with some of the worst possible candidates acting as advocate. I think there were other factors too. Regardless of the merits of the idea it was so badly executed that failure was inevitable. Guy (Help!) 09:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Guy: That too is my view. I am saying that the problem with the AMA was not in the idea itself; it was in the flawed execution of what was at least a valid idea. AGK 13:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know how AMA was set up, but this seems to call for community oversight, election of members etc. In the real world where clients can choose lawyers, the lawyers are subject to ethic rules, can be disbarred etc. Count Iblis (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ryan. I actually came to like CoM after interacting with him for awhile (even gave him a barnstar at one point, which I don't do often). He reminds me of a friend I once had, who was really great to hang out with, but every once in awhile he'd go off on some rant that made everyone uncomfortable (about religion or politics, in my friend's case). For myself, I'd rather have seen the restrictions without the one year ban, but I definitely agree that for the most part the community is tired of his rants in one venue or another, and getting involved in others' disputes where his involvement makes things worse. But personally I'll miss some of his humor (and I never got around to making that bacon-themed article for his contest). --  At am a  頭 17:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the user above who argued that the ArbCom should have applied the editing restrictions as an initial measure. If CoM chose to ignore those restrictions, he could've been banned for a year at that point, but it would've been good to see if a mainspace-only restriction would've been effective. I understand that it is obnoxious when users display no spirit of compromise, but the alternative strategy would've produced no additional risk and would have allowed for the possibility of continued content work. I hope the ArbCom will consider cases like this more carefully in the future, because retaining experienced content contributors is extremely important. Everyking (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Extremely important, but as a project we need to balance individuals' contributions and their ability to act creatively and constructively here with the needs and behavior of the project and other contributors as a whole. It's always regrettable when good people set themselves up to butt heads with the project as a whole on a regular basis.  But we have to understand and acknowledge that sometimes that happens, and sometimes the damage done by that overwhelms the good they do when editing articles.
 * I think that in a perfect world, once we got to Arbcom, it would have been nice if CoM had cooperated, and any finding was then limited to edit restrictions as has been suggested. But that was not the case.  There was refusal to cooperatively engage from the beginning of the RFC, independent requests to calm down, and throughout the Arbcom case.
 * Cooperation and compromise have to come from both sides. CoM was yesterday loudly declaiming that civility enforcement was terrible for the project, more defiant and angry about it than ever.
 * I know why he's pissed off about it. But it's not a Shrubbery to ask that someone who's been taken all the way to an accepted Arbcom case at least acknowledge that there are a number of people upset with them and attempt to engage cooperatively and civilly regarding that.  By the time it gets here, it's pretty much the "cooperate or leave" point in someone's Wikipedia career.
 * CoM stuck by his guns that he was doing the right thing. Which is consistent with his beliefs and prior opinions.  But not the way for him to have worked his way into a compromise.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * GWH, I think that's the best summation of the arbitration process in general I've ever seen. I think there's a general feeling amongst the community that if you find yourself faced with an ArbCom case, there's no hope, so you may as well go out all guns blazing. That's not the case. If you genuinely show an understanding of what the problem is, and are willing to fix it, then you're much less likely to get banned or face other sanctions, and in the event you are still sanctioned, it'll be less than it would have otherwise been. Of course, we'd like this revelation to happen much sooner, but if it takes being faced with an ArbCom ban to make that hit home, so be it. (And the Monty Python reference gives you bonus points) <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 02:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hersfold. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My basic point was that contribution to the encyclopedia should be the overriding concern, so if there's a way to fix the problem that involves restricting CoM in some ways while leaving him free to write articles, it would be good to pursue that as an initial step. It's not that CoM doesn't deserve the ban; it's that the ban is possibly counter-productive if we could still be getting good work out of him. I'm much more interested in having people writing content than I am in notions of crime and punishment, contrition, or reform. Sometimes people are so supremely obnoxious that we cannot tolerate them to any degree at all, but I'm not quite sure CoM was on that level, and it would've been easy enough to find out. Everyking (talk) 06:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But what do you believe is the expected success rate of a restrictive measure when the editor is outright stating that any such restriction is harassment borne of malice and personal vendettas? The only predictable outcome would be multiple boundary testing, appeals and continuous soapboxing; and that is almost as costly in community effort wasted towards drama than the original problem might have been to begin with; I can name several past cases where that happened and I'm sure you can as well.  (And, incidentally, lest you think this is a jab at you, your behavior of the past several months can be cited as an excellent counterexample).  &mdash; Coren (talk) 11:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What Hersfold said (it worked for me, anyway). Guy (Help!) 09:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe this community particularly cares for a summation of the unfortunately deteriorating state of arbitration that is currently in place; I think it cares for improvement to the system. For example, last year I could see substantial improvement in the workshop of at least a few cases; this year I've seen reversion back to the ineffective format. If arbitrators aren't waving political handkerchiefs around in the air, and are genuinely trying to avoid such outcomes, then the first step is to offer the user an incentive to continue contributing to the project. Frankly, when a member of the arbitration office pokes an user like this shortly prior to a site ban, or calls them a drama-loving troll in a high profile venue, I'm not sure what person in their right mind would believe that it is remotely probable that the user would be receptive to the concerns. Ottava Rima's problems began in 2008; ChildofMidnight's in 2009; they were given the same outcome only a few months apart. In the latter of these cases, the user didn't feel the need to out users on his talk page because he didn't actually lose anything - only the encyclopedia did. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Deteriorating? I don't think so. Obviously as Wikipedia's profile increases it will become increasingly important to people to get their views reflected here, which will result in more cases requiring bans and more people who will assert as loudly as possible that these bans are wrong because they stop The Truth&trade; being told but I don't see any evidence of ArbCom deteriorating. I agree that workshop pages should be more vigorously clerked but that's not really a very big deal. And while I agree it would be better to keep the trap shut than raise hostages to fortune by making ill-judged comments I am forced to agree that CoM had adopted the persona of a drama-loving troll with new discussions about behaviour almost daily at some points, and refused to drop that persona or even acknowledge that it was in any way problematic. CoM should have listened to comments from friends, uninvolved parties and many others. I suspect that even now a contrite statement would result in a reduction of the severity of sanctions. It's not even new, m:MPOV documents it perfectly. By the time it got here it was not the time for ArbCom to pussyfoot around, CoM has shown bullheaded refusal to accept valid criticism and instead dug in and fought harder. That was never going to work. Guy (Help!) 11:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd have agreed with you about a non-deteriorating ArbCom, if I hadn't followed a recent case where poor clerking caused plenty of problems, which could not be dismissed as "no big deal" for those familiar with the relevant readily verifiable facts. It was a stroke of luck that there would be no issues in this case as the main party refused to participate. The ill-judged comments and actions may be isolated from the user who makes it; but it's not isolated for the user who constantly receives them.


 * Anyway, why stop CoM's future content contributions? Was he a tendentious editor? ArbCom seems to have relied upon the following question and answer: "what do you believe is the expected success rate of a restrictive measure when the editor is outright stating that any such restriction is harassment borne of malice and personal vendettas? The only predictable outcome would be multiple boundary testing, appeals and continuous soapboxing; and that is almost as costly in community effort wasted towards drama than the original problem might have been to begin with." ArbCom seems to have forgotten that dispute resolution involves making attempts/steps; i.e. sometimes you exhaust an attempt or step, no matter how certain you believe you are of the adverse outcome.


 * Based on the indications he was giving elsewhere, the odds of retaining his positive contributions (while curbing the not so positive ones) weren't so dire with the other workshop proposals that were on the table. ArbCom missed the hint and signalled that 0 of his content contributions are welcome on Wikipedia for the next 12 months because of an uncertain success rate - frankly, I think that's a sign of a deteriorating ArbCom; when an user no longer has incentive to volunteer their time here in the future, or no longer wishes to return, I don't see much wisdom in ever expecting a contrite statement. Interestingly, I found similar problems in a community matter; certain administrators appeared to be ready to sacrifice one of their peer's contributions to keep a more prolific content contributor here - I would've thought that aiming to retain both editors contributions was the proper way for administrators to act, but hey, maybe this year I've just forgotten how administrators are meant to conduct themselves. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Without sidetracking too much, I feel the need to point out that "the peer whose contributions were sacrificed" in the case you mention above had a grand total of 31 mainspace contributions this year, almost all minor and/or automated, and that he was only "sacrificed" because he chose to walk off Wikipedia in a sulk when other people wouldn't tell him how wonderful he was.116.15.129.147 (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I said the "peer's" contributions - I didn't limit it to content contributions as his conduct wasn't considered a problem in the namespace, and he may very well have provided useful contributions outside of the mainspace. My understanding is that he walked off when his peers did not take his concern(s) seriously, but perhaps you know some facts that I don't? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So we agree that more vigorous clerking may well be in order. We could always propose that, you know? I don't want to sound as if I'm getting at you personally, I'm not, but I've seen several cases recently where people run around shouting that the sky is falling, the project is doomed and so on because $PROCESS did not give the outcome they wanted and they couldn't work out what to do about it (which, I have to say, often comes down to "get over it", but that's another discussion). Jimbo's talk page occasionally degenrates into an episode of Jimbo'll Fix It because people go there demanding that the world is changed to their liking, it doesn't seem to work. In this case the outcome does not seem to have been materially affected by the observed problem, but the observed problem should be amenable to solution if people ask. Guy (Help!) 15:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI, apropos - (I have no connection to this, just think it's interesting) Wikitruth Through Wikiorder - "Focusing on Wikipedia, we argue that the site's dispute resolution process is an important force in promoting the public good it produces, i.e., freely-accessible encyclopedia articles. We describe the development and shape of Wikipedia's existing dispute resolution system. Further, we present a statistical analysis based on coding of over 250 arbitration opinions from Wikipedia's arbitration system. The data shows that Wiki-dispute resolution ignores the content of user disputes, instead focusing on user conduct. Based on fairly formalized arbitration findings, we find a high correlation between the conduct found and the remedies ordered. In effect, the system functions not so much to resolve disputes and make peace between conflicting users, but to weed out problematic users while weeding potentially productive users back in to participate." - see also the blog post's hilarious flowchart -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 06:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That flowchart reads like a plot synopsis of Animal Crossing, with far too much "shower with [Wiki]love" options. :P —<font color="228B22">Jeremy <font color="00008B">(v^_^v Dittobori) 06:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Minor wording issue
Is it too late to have the wording changed? Per comments above, I'd like to see "ChildofMidnight is restricted" changed to "After the expiration of his ban, ChildofMidnight is indefinitely restricted" if that's what ArbCom was saying. I'm not asking for the sanctions to be changed; all I ask is for clarification. Nyttend (talk) 16:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from ChildofMidnight's talk page
On ChildofMidnight's talk page there is a link to this arbitration discussion which says "Discuss this." These are all of the comments that people have posted on ChildofMidnight's talk page so far:


 * COM, I won't comment on the process. Don't think the outcome is terribly productive. Hope to see you return either in a year or earlier in the event of a successful appeal. Hang loose. <sup style="color:green;">Bongo  <sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex; color:blue;">matic  04:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I'll chime in with Bongo. I'll miss seeing you around, buddy, and it will be a lot less fun while you're gone. Good luck if you appeal. Drmies (talk) 05:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Dang it, CoM, it won't be the same around here without you. We'll keep the bacon warm until you're back.  (Doughnuts too, if you're good.) - Dravecky (talk) 05:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to see this happen CoM. I had hoped the outcome would be better but hopefully you'll be back before too long. <font color="#1E90FF" face="Arial">Shine <font color="#000000">runner <font color="#000000" face="Arial">(talk)   11:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * All seems rather odd to me. For the record I have never found you anything other than agreeable and pleasant. It all looks rather like a small storm in an even smaller teacup. Frankly a year's block means that you are unlikely to be back. That's a shame. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and even after a year, some things might continue to have a "permanent" effect it unfortunately seems. It's a shame that the arbitration office had some of its members persistently poking, even in the last moments prior to the ban, but no tactic they employ is exactly shocking anymore. Anyway, all the best in your endeavours ChildofMidnight, and we'll hopefully see you again sometime soon. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I leave for two weeks and this is what I come back to....--kelapstick (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Words fail me. Nevertheless, all the best, Child. <font face="Bauhaus 93" color="blue" size="2">Geoff Who, me? 19:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good luck to you in the future, CoM. Dayewalker (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Would it be TOO Pollyannaish of me to hope that you come back once the year is up? ::: sigh :::: Oh, CoM. This really does suck. Be well, hm? GJC 01:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Too bad it's come to this - I hope we'll see you back editing again in time. For all the problems that have apparently happened, I've never personally had a single bad experience with you, and I wish you the very best of luck. ~ mazca  talk 09:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your punishment is about 364 days too long. The fact that they keep adding DYKs based on your contributions even after your ban has taken effect proves that you are an asset to the encyclopedia. Grundle2600 (talk) 07:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This seems like a grossly excessive punishment. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)</i>

I hope that the Arbitration Committee will take those comments into account in the event of any possible future appeals regarding the length of ChildofMidnight's ban. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Grundle, if anything, this only cements the necessity of a ban. This was one of the primary problems with this user; this seeming Jekyll and Hyde act of being a productive content editor in non-controversial subjects on one hand and an atrociously disruptive voice in policy discussions and political articles on the other. Tarc (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps some topic bans on the relevant subjects could be added, and then perhaps the length of his overall ban could be substantially reduced. If he could come back in a day or a week or a month, with certain topic bans, then he could still continue to be a productive editor in the areas where he was a productive editor before. My own topic ban, while not perfect, seems to be working out reasonably well. Perhaps the same type of process could work for ChildofMidnight. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that this outcome is very sad. If CoM had shown some sign of cooperation or recognition of a problem, he probably would have received at worst some kind of temporary topic ban from project space. It's now up to him to set things right. Mathsci (talk) 01:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Motions regarding Trusilver and Arbitration Enforcement

 * Announcement

Discussion:

This decision is clearly in error. No action was taken to upset an ArbCom sanction. What was done was to upset the interpretation of the ArbCom sanction by a single admin, Sandstein. His interpretation is not more correct or valuable than any other admin's interpretation, and so Trusilver's interpretation that led to his action was on exactly the same level of sanctity. No admin (e.g. Sandstein) should feel that their actions are beyond reversal without elaborate appeal to ArbCom simply because they did some deed first.

To claim that somehow Trusilver acted against ArbCom itself is nonsense. And Trusilver's reversal of Sandstein is nothing but a difference of interpretation made possible by a very murky sanction, further removed from ArbCom's original decision by the sloppy, individual changes of Tznkai. Brews ohare (talk) 05:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This committee failed to interpret this matter as a dispute between possible interpretations, requiring a decision upon which action was better for WP, and instead interpreted the matter as a threat to their authority demanding disciplinary action. That wrongheadedness led to no deliberation upon the actual issues, and a derailment in a completely inappropriate direction. The result is damage to credibility of the committee members as a group and individually, and damage to WP that is startlingly beyond anything remotely at stake in the original actions. Brews ohare (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're oversimplifying this, Brews. The current take on arbitration enforcement is this: If an editor is restricted in some way, it was not without cause. If said editor violates the restriction, then he can be blocked. No admin may unblock them without clear consensus or arb consent. If an admin looked into AE, they, and knew that it should be appealed. An arbcom response to such an appeal will not always be timely, the blocked editor will often have to live with the block (which in the end they brought on themselves), but since arbcom reserves control to overturn "questionable enforcement administrative actions", they monitor the situation and all is eventually as well as it can be. That approach certainly can work, it's not unreasonable, and is supposed to be the way of least drama (if folks stick to it). However: What is required then is that arbcom gives responses to disputed AE blocks, as timely as possible, but even if the block is already in the past. Otherwise, the supervision arbcom has specifically given themselves is pretty much circumvented. I haven't had one look at the AE block, the cause, the noticeboard discussion, or the restriction, and only glanced at the case page, so I don't know what it's about, and have no opinion about it, but from what I read it seems to me that the enforcement block was very much controversial in the community. I haven't seen an arbcom statement so far whether they see the block as correct and proportional. I'm not looking for motions, admonishments, whatever, just a "yep, that's what we'd have done" or "that was over the top" - but I feel that some such a statement is absolutely required for future guidance, and most importantly to give admins in the same situation as Trusilver, who believe that an AE block was unfair in any way, assurance that it will not simply be ignored even if it's only a few more hours till it expires. Without such feedback, the system will break down again. Amalthea  17:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I made a statement about this on my talk page. The only thing I would say here would be to just rehash that, it's easier just to link it. <font color = "#ADA96E">Trusilver 06:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I thank the Committee for making a difficult and probably unpopular decision, one of those decisions that make nobody happy (including me) but may be necessary just to make sure that we do not have to have this same discussion again and again. The clarified rules regarding AE will hopefully help to prevent that as well. It's of course not good that we lose, for now, the admin services of Trusilver, whose judgment I have never had the occasion to doubt until this incident. A sanction restricting him from undoing blocks without the blocking admin's or ArbCom's consent, as I've also proposed, might have had the required preventative effect without requiring a full desysop. Still, desysopping is not permanent, and from what I read Trusilver is not about to give up on Wikipedia, which is good to hear. I'd like to emphasize that I bear no bad will towards anybody as a result of this case, and look forward to working together again with all involved, including with Trusilver. I also assure all who might be concerned about this that I have been and remain ready to discuss any and all of my admin actions, either directly or in a community appeal as envisioned by the 2008 and 2010 motions, and do not resent any (hopefully infrequent) consensus to undo or modify my actions. Thanks again, <font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;"> Sandstein  07:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein, How can you say it's not good that we lose the admin services of Trusilver, when only yesterday you were stamping your feet and demanding that ARBCOM desysop Trusilver? And some ARBCOM members let it be known that they took your opinions very seriously indeed. They were clearly quite uncomfortable on realizing that you weren't happy. Well you've got your way now, so please spare us all this display of phony modesty.

The book that you need to read is Les Misérables by the French author Victor Hugo. There is a character in that book called Inspector Javert who you could learn some valuable lessons from. Inspector Javert was obsessed with enforcing the letter of the law over the head of the higher picture of natural justice, and as such he destroyed a good man called Jean Valjean. In your case, your actions in blocking Brews ohare gave Brews a poke in the eye at the behest of editor Headbomb, who was merely abusing the ARBCOM tool to settle a private score. But you didn't care about that aspect of the picture. Inspector Javert realized the error of his ways in later life as a consequence of the fact that he was saved from execution as a result of the actions of somebody who held the complete opposite point of view to his own. He then saw the light, but struggled with the dilemma that he had spent so many years dedicated to enforcement of the letter of the law. In the end, he couldn't stand the mental anguish any longer and so he threw himself into the River Seine.

And one final point. ARBCOM repeatedly turned a blind eye to some key facts in this case. Those key facts were that discussions did take place at an AN/I board that indicated a consensus in favour of unblocking Brews ohare. ARBCOM were notified and their opinion was solicited. One arbitrator arrived at the AN/I board, spoke in riddles, and disappeared. There was a strong consensus expressed at the original AE thread which opposed your decision to block Brews ohare, and indeed you even removed one editor's comments. And Trusilver did hold discussions with you. ARBCOM were repeatedly made aware of all these facts, but they continued to turn a blind eye. I reminded them last night, but Charcharoth merely brushed it aside as the writings of a 'charged partisan'. The whole situation looks very bad indeed, because certain arbitrators continued right up until the end, to claim that no discussions took place and that nobody attempted to involve ARBCOM. There were alot of lies involved in this case. The manner in which ARBCOM pandered to you, while brushing aside the views of Brews's allies was quite a disgusting display of bias. David Tombe (talk) 08:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're posting stuff like the above, I can sure understand that you were seen as a charged partisan. And seriously, categorizing editors into allies and, by extension, enemies, lays the groundwork for many of the disputes here. It's an encyclopedia. Amalthea  08:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the input of people like David Tombe seriously degraded the process and impeded a dispassionate view of the issue. The Brews camp insist on making every single incident an excuse for refighting the arbitration case, the Trusilver incident was not a refighting of the case it was an individual admin whose reading of the issue led him to conclude that an error had been made. It is most unfortunate. Luckily I think any new RfA is likely to pass, since Trusilver did not, in my opinion, undermine the trust of the community - rather the opposite if anything. But he will be feeling bruised right now so I would think some time will have to pass first. The clarification of enforcement rules is welcome and ironically would have weakened still further the case for this particular block. Guy (Help!) 09:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * JzG by some unnatural mental process blames Brews_ohare for Headbomb's stupid actions and Silverstein's stupid enforcement of them, and for the startling damage to WP inflicted by this committee. If the preponderance of committee members had a mote of wisdom, none of this would have happened. In no remote way possible are my few sentences here and here on how to write an introduction responsible for this ridiculous, damaging brouhaha enjoined by Headbomb and Sandstein and made into a chasm of incomprehensible nonsense by this committee. Brews ohare (talk) 13:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Complete bollocks. I blame your small band of devoted followers for making so much fuss and noise about every single attempt to enforce this that they made it impossible to view the incident in question as anything other than a bunch of anarchists who won't accept an ArbCom ruling. That is not actually what happened but David Tombe, Tarc and HiaB made it virtually impossible for anyone to see it. Had it not been for them I believe that a different outcome would have been achieved. I told them this several times and they refused to listen, they refuse to listen still, they are still doing the same and I'll be amazed if they escape sanctions themselves for being a massive drain on everyone's time. Guy (Help!) 00:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Almathea, You have got it the wrong way around. Brews has allies, firstly because of a dispute, and secondly because of the mishandling of the dispute. It seems that the dispute should have gone to the mediation committee, but instead it went to ARBCOM whose name seems to be somewhat of a misnomer. That misnomer is part of the greater problem which now needs to be addressed. Is ARBCOM actually an arbitration committee? Or is it something else? David Tombe (talk) 11:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Breaking an editing hiatus to commmend the Committee for upholding and clarifying the principle of order in an instance where it would have been easy to look the other way. Well done arbitrators. <font face="New York"> Skomorokh  14:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Echo this sentiment. AE is probably the most thankless task in the whole of the project, and I'm glad that ArbCom supported those who do it. The whole Trusilver 'camp' (but not Trusilver himself) was incredibly detrimental, in my opinion, to the resolution of the whole thing... as a group they managed to take WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to an awe-inspiring level. I would probably support Trusilver is he ever chose to run for admin again, however. A  le_Jrb talk 21:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

<- Trusilver also unblocked recently, another action that verges on the maverick. Mathsci (talk) 01:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops. He just offered to unblock conditionally. Mathsci (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not according to GoRight's block log...? <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 02:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's easy to misremember these things. Trusilver initiated and played a major role in the unblock discussion (see here) but did not perform the unblock. User:Bwilkins performed the unblock but did not participate in the discussions. Seems a bit odd, but that's the way it happened. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Misremembering things is one way to put it; poor quality commentary is another way to put it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Initiating discussion, eh? It's a wonder he wasn't de-adminned sooner! This site is such a joke. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * @Mathsci: So I don't get it. Are you going to label Bwilkins a maverick now that we know the facts or is this possibility only reserved for Trusilver? Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos πraxis 04:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't unblock GoRight, but I had every intention of it. There are two areas of Wikipedia that I feel should be dealt with using the utmost expediency - WP:AIV and WP:RFU. The former has never been a problem, the latter always is. I don't have a lot of tolerance for unblock requests that sit for days or weeks because nobody can muster up the balls to make a decision. There are remarkably few administrators that are willing to make tough decisions. That's not necessarily a condemnation, it's far more easier to pass on something and let someone else handle it than to make a difficult decision yourself. The problem is when EVERY administrator just sits on their collective asses waiting for someone else to do something. Wikipedia is run by volunteers, even someone who has been blocked. As such, any serious unblock request deserves respect, and should be acted on with respect. The breakdown in the system occurs when you have a dozen administrators, including the blocking admin, gathered around (pardon the imagery) with their thumbs up their asses because nobody wants to be the one to step forward and say "Sure, I'll do it... here's my conditions." <font color = "#ADA96E">Trusilver 06:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll say this much, if you ever come up for RfA again, you'll receive my 2nd ever support vote. Especially after reading the above reply. — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 07:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's a pity that although Trusilver has such useful and admirable principles, he seems to invoke them in the wrong situations or in the wrong manner. The inability/unwillingness to see through problematic and tendentious editors can be counterproductive. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And who determines exactly who "those" editors are? You? By making an unblock request, I think it's a given that someone is going to consider you a problematic and/or tendentious editor just by the nature of the fact that you were blocked to begin with. That's the entire point behind unblock requests being handled by an uninvolved admin. It should be by someone who has not previous stake in the dispute. (In theory, of course. I've seen some pretty damn involved "uninvolved" admins over the years.) If we don't intend to allow problem editors to reintegrate themselves into the community, then what really is the point of WP:RFU? If we create a mechanism for allowing people that have screwed up in the past to come back and then don't allow anyone to use it, then what really was the point of having it to begin with? Why not simply tell anyone that is blocked for longer than a month "Sorry, but you can't appeal this block." GoRight is a perfect example of this. He was indefinitely blocked, now he's back. He's had a few little speed bumps since his unblock, but I think overall his editing pattern is a few hundred times more constructive than it was before the block. Cooperation is the foundation upon which Wikipedia rests, yet there are a HUGE number of Wikipedians that think the definition of cooperation is "Working with people that agree with me." <font color = "#ADA96E">Trusilver 19:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Preach on, brother. I agree 100%. — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 00:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Protest
In my opinion Arbcom is taking itself too seriously and is on a very bad, power-grabbing path that can only lead into serious problems. Arbcom, like any court, government or similar institution in real life, derives its power from the fact that people do what it says, i.e. from its authority. The tweaking of the SlimVirgin decision was very necessary, although it would have been better to scrap it entirely. (Such things work better if they are not formalised.) Executing the SlimVirgin decision in a situation where there was no compelling reason because it was a borderline case: This was a stupid decision. Evidently it was intended to strengthen Arbcom's authority, but it actually does the opposite.

According to Max Weber there are three types of authority:


 * Rational-legal authority: It comes from the fact that according to our founder and the Wikimedia Foundation we should do what Arbcom says.
 * Traditional authority: It comes from the fact that we always did what Arbcom said.
 * Charismatic authority: It comes from Arbcom's pattern of leading the community by doing the right thing.

If we look at authority from the point of view of a single member of the community and ask why this member does what Arbcom says, then we see that we need to consider additional factors:


 * Authority by force: It comes from the fact that if you don't do what Arbcom says, Arbcom's authority will lead someone to punish you.
 * Authority by persuasiveness: It comes from the convincing arguments made by Arbcom members supporting a specific decision and from the impression that Arbcom consists of reasonable people who have considered all facts carefully.

The SlimVirgin decision came at a time when a persistent disconnect between Arbcom and the community (lack of authority by persuasiveness) had caused an almost complete breakdown of charismatic authority. In other words, Arbcom's authority at that point was based only on formalities, tradition and the force that it could exert with what was left of the first two.

This was obviously a problem. The right solution was to (1) immediately make sure that Arbcom decisions were followed because of their persuasiveness, and (2) restore Arbcom's charismatic authority through a pattern of persuasive decisions and effectively dealing with their internal problems. This solution was made possible with the 2009 election and was carried out to a satisfactory extent.

The wrong solution, tried by a panicking 2008 Arbcom shortly before the 2009 election, was to tweak the only parameter that they could tweak without changing their own comportment: Trying to strengthen authority by force. Setting aside the ethical problem of a dictatorial Arbcom, this was also dangerous for Arbcom itself because in an open wiki environment force based only on otherwise weak authority (what they were trying to address in the first place) simply doesn't work very well. Hans Adler 10:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The committee's legal-rational legitimacy is not based on us abiding by instructions to "Obey them" by the powers that be. It comes from the fact that, year upon year, we elect new arbitrators—and, as a by-product, confirm that we continue to be okay with delegating some of the community's power to a small group of editors. AGK 13:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure where Max Weber put authority through elections; I guess under rational-legal, although traditional would be another option. But that's not the point. Is discontent with an elected body so unheard-of? Is the authority that comes from elections really absolute? I don't think so. You missed my point, which was that Arbcom's actions have an effect on the amount of authority it has, and that it is on a path that looks as if it increased their authority but does the opposite. Hans Adler 17:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * AGK: You miss the point here, which is that the committee has no legitimacy based upon voluntary acceptance of their actions stemming from the perceived substance of their decisions and good judgment, but has only de facto ability to cram decisions down throats. Even the military with a top down command structure that brooks no resistance to authority encourages explicitly the role of leadership, recognizing voluntary compliance is to be striven for, despite a commander's de facto ability to force matters. This committee's failures show contempt for leadership, and have added one more back-alley beating to their unenviable record of abuses of authority and indifference to the good of WP. Brews ohare (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:DEADHORSE. Tarc (talk) 13:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You completely missed my point. I am not particularly interested in this specific case. I want a strong Arbcom that makes Wikipedia run smoothly, and I believe they just damaged the institution. Hans Adler 17:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Tarc: You bet, time some attention was paid to leadership. I guess you don't agree? Brews ohare (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * ArbCom decided to beat a WP:DEADHORSE in this case. After all, it was Brews posting on Wikipedia namespace territory that led to these events (Headbomb wikilawyering about that using an unclear restriction imposed on Brews, to win a point in an edit war, Sandstein blocking Brews and then Trusilver unblocking Brews). But what is happening right now? Brews actually being invited by ArbCom to give his opinion here (on a namespace page) on this decision. If that's not ridiculous, what is? Count Iblis (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Brews is still posting in Wikipedia space. Why isn't the sanction being enforced? Jehochman Talk 14:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Is this a rhetorical question? Count Iblis (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that what Ironholds is trying to tell us is that there was a problem in the past with administrators wheel-warring, and so a system was devised in which editors who had been perceived by a select committee to be perpetual problems in a particular subject areas were to be topic banned, and that if they broke their ban and got blocked, that no other administrator was then allowed to unblock them. That seems to be the rationale behind ARBCOM's existence based on what Ironholds has told me.

But the result was merely to replace one unsatisfactory state of affairs with another unsatisfactory state of affairs. Let's forget about ARBCOM for a moment and concentrate purely on the administrator system in isolation. That is also unsatisfactory as it stands because every administrator has the power to undo the work of every other administrator. Also, appeals against blocks are made blindly to all administrators, and so the chances are that the appeal will be answered by a trigger happy administrator who likes to keep blocks in place.

What is needed is for the admins to lose their power to unblock, and for all matters relating to unblocking to be put into the hands of a special appeal board which possesses unblocking powers and desysoping powers. Division of power is the key to harmony.David Tombe (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's ridiculous in practice. Given the sheer number of unblocks it would rapidly be overwhelmed. My point is this; certain actions cannot be performed by an admin - a topic ban, for example, can not be arbitrary, and neither can a standard ban. There are some users who divide the community to the point where SOMETHING needs to be done, but the community cannot agree enough to do it. It's that sort of thing the arbitration committee was set up for - situations where the community can't do anything, and not doing anything would fracture it. Ironholds (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ironholds on that, there is a huge number of unblock requests that come in on any given day. Having a specific group or (god forbid) an elected board take control of that would only serve to complicate an already slow process. And just keep in mind that probably 90% of unblock requests are handled within an hour or so of being made. It's only the difficult 10% that sit forever on RFU's doorstep. <font color = "#ADA96E">Trusilver 06:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"Trusilver, you've just been desysopped by the arbitration committee, what are you going to do next??" "I'm going to Disneyland!!" (No seriously, I am. Taking my kids there for my youngest daughter's birthday today.) I think that one of the things which makes Arbcom so universally untrusted is the lack of transparency that you see in every other facet of Wikipedia. Every time we see this, it causes issues, it certainly did with IRC a couple years back (and still might, for all I'm aware). Anyway, have a good day :) <font color = "#ADA96E">Trusilver 15:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really agree. The present system mostly works OK, the problem here is that Brews' followers have never accepted the arbitration outcome and have pushed back against it from the very outset, usually in the wrong way and in the wrong places. Most enforcements stay enforced, no problem. In this case you took what I think was a defensible course in a debatable situation, but they made so much noise about points of principle and disputing the validity of the original case that the noise completely drowned out the fact that in this case the specific issue was not necessarily as it appeared. Anarchy is not going to work, so ArbCom decided as it did. I think this time they were wrong but I can see why they called it as they did, and the main cause was, IMO, David, Tarc and HiaB - I guess we should call them the "anti-Headbomb cabal" to echo their own rhetoric. Guy (Help!) 00:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Ironholds and Trusilver, OK I take your point. I didn't realize that there were so many unblock requests everyday. I assumed that people only filed unblock requests for long term blocks. An appeal board would therefore only be used to deal with long term cases that had been repeatedly declined by the ordinary process.

Anyway, in that case, I would say that wheel-warring is a more preferable state of affairs than to have a system of ARBCOM based blocks with no unblocks. The latest resolution has made the situation worse than ever, because now no admin will touch an ARBCOM unblock request with a barge pole. Ultimately I fail to see why an unblock should ever cause any major controversy unless it was in a case of blatant vandalism. In any civilized system, the benefit of the doubt should always been given to a good faith appellant. David Tombe (talk) 11:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact is that many editors, who believe they are acting in good faith, are extremely disruptive. This is particularly true in the nationalist disputes we often see here. In these circumstances, simply agreeing to any unblock request is not in the interests of the encyclopedia. As ArbCom is the end of the road as far as dispute resolution is concerned, it is entirely appropriate that the appeal options are limited.  Roger Davies  talk 12:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Roger, that simply fails to address the issue of why priority should be given to the first administrator's interpretation. The system as it stands is wide open to abuse. I appreciate that it may not be easy to find the perfect system, but the problem with this latest episode was a total refusal on the part of most of the arbitrators to examine the full facts of the case. They focused on the unblock and blatantly refused to look at the block. David Tombe (talk) 12:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There wasn't a "total refusal ... to examine the full facts" at all. It's simply that most arbitrators decided that the bright line that AE restrictions may not to be overturned by administrative IAR actions was more important to the stability of the project than the alternative.  Roger Davies  talk 12:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That is ruling through fear, not wisdom - you could have done both. Without feedback on the proportionality of the block, this will happen again. Amalthea  12:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I suppose any bright line enforcement can be characterised as ruling through fear.  Roger Davies  talk 13:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Probably, and having strict consequences is absolutely OK, I agree with that part, as I've said elsewhere. But if the analysis of the cause is omitted and you neither work nor acknowledge the problem that led to ignoring the AE rules, you're just playing Whac-A-Mole. "Most editors under ArbCom sanction are neither trolls nor vandals and should be treated with the same respect as any other editor." Yes, they brought in on themselves, but controversial blocks shouldn't just be accepted without question. Amalthea  13:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Briefly: first, we did push through a clarifying motion on AE appeals to address the underlying point; second, as an individual, I'm always ready to look at ways to improve process; third, the unblocking admin's responses may not have worked in his favour.  Roger Davies  talk 13:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This a more measured and nuanced reply. I respect that. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos πraxis 13:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree completely with you Amalthea. Thank you. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos πraxis 13:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Amalthea and I add that talk of bright lines without examining the deeper issues is skirting the real issues in favour of simplistic notions of rigid discipline. Fit for a camp perhaps but not for an encyclopedia full of intellectuals. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos πraxis 13:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact remains that Wikipedia has bright lines all over the place.  Roger Davies  talk 13:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Cool Hand Luke said it best when he described hiding behind AE enforcent motions to mete unjust and excessive punishment as a "license to kill". Carcharoth, Risker as well are not talking about bright lines but are taking a more nuanced and intellectual approach to this. Ruling through fear and suppression without regard to deeper issues is no way for Arbcom to rule. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos πraxis 13:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The committee is made up of sixteen individuals, with differing priorities. Motions, by their nature, reflect broad common-denominator consensus but not complete agreement and it is all but impossible to reflect nuanced positions.  Roger Davies  talk 13:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your predicament and that the dynamics of a complex environment like the Arbcom decision making process may make it unwieldy or unresponsive to the finer points of a case. But this case had fundamental principles involved that cannot be described as mere nuances. They involved fundamental issues such as administrative abuse of blocking power, among others, and that is not a mere nuance. If Arbcom cannot deal with such core issues maybe we have to find another way of resolving these issues. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos πraxis 17:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Roger, An administrator overturned another administrator's actions. Nobody overturned an ARBCOM action. There was a clash of interpretations as to whether Brews had breached his ARBCOM sanctions or not. Why did ARBCOM unequivocally come down on the side of Sandstein's interpretation just because Sandstein got there first? That's the bit that doesn't make any sense. It was then exacerbated by the harsh treatment of Trusilver on the one hand, and the total turning of a blind eye to the fact that Sandstein blocked Brews ohare for a second time, after he had taken out arbitration proceedings which involved Brews. William Connolley was desyspoped for doing the same thing.

And ARBCOM have also failed to address the fact that they only desysoped Trusilver because of a motion that was initiated by Sandstein. If Sandstein hadn't taken out those ARBCOM proceedings, nothing would have happened to Trusilver. Sandstein should have kept neutral on the matter. Sandstein blocked Brews ohare the first time because he believed that Brews had broken an ARBCOM sanction. Trusilver unblocked Brews because he believed that Brews hadn't broken an ARBCOM sanction. This should have been no concern at all to Sandstein as it didn't effect Sandstein adversely in any way. But Sandstein took the matter personally and used the ARBCOM tool to settle a private score with Trusilver. The overall picture is not satisfactory in the slightest. David Tombe (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No. This is very simple. An editor was under a legitimate discretionary sanction, and was subsequently blocked for breaching it. The administrator unblocking them therefore crossed the bright line. The question for me therefore was purely one of mitigation. Please also be more circumspect in what you say about motives and try to assume good faith.  Roger Davies  talk 13:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Good teachers often look the other side when a pupil crosses a bright line in good faith and they can plausibly pretend not to see it. They know that their authority is in danger if they don't pick their battles intelligently. Hans Adler 13:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. That's the point I was making about mitigation (or the extent to which one turns a blind eye). The thing here is, to paraphrase Newyorkbrad, almost every decision ArbCom makes is supposed to be without clue. It's just the constituency that suggest it changes from case to case :)  Roger Davies  talk 13:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Mr. Davies, what you've said here today is reasonable. I would have liked to see this much involvement out of you during the actual case. I'm curious where you think the line exists with the additional language added to the policy? I am happy to see any change for the better, but the vague wording makes the change very small. There's still the non inconsiderable problem that any admin can make a block in the name of arbcom with no more rationalization behind it than "because I say so." I can't see any reason why language that insists that the violation of sanction must be "clear and indisputable" can't be included. <font color = "#ADA96E">Trusilver 18:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Motion regarding Durova and Shoemaker's Holiday

 * Announcement

Can somebody explain the ArbCom dynamics to me? Only two ArbCom members accepted this, is that sufficient for an arbitration to occur? Woogee (talk) 06:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The motion was proposed and passed in lieu of a full case. Usually when arbitrators vote to accept or decline a case, it's only accepting or declining a full case, not any motion that may occur. SirFozzie (talk) 06:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But with only two accepting it? Woogee (talk) 06:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Two accepted that a full case was necessary; that doesn't mean the rest felt it was a non-issue, simply that a full case wasn't necessary to deal with it. I think the approval ArbCom gave to the motion is indicative that the majority of the committee felt there was a problem - just one that didn't need a full case to address it. Ironholds (talk) 06:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Woogee, if you look, 8 Arbitrators actually supported the motion to propose the restriction. SirFozzie (talk) 07:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Would an exception be made if the two could be persuaded to agree to mediation? Guy (Help!) 09:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would recuse on any such request for an exception... however.. considering the level of rancor and ill will I saw, I would think that I would prefer any such mediation to occur off-wiki. This is something that if it's going to be solved, the two of them need to solve it themselves (with the help of a mediator of course).. it doesn't need the onlookers etcetera, nor folks hoping for another equivalent of a car crash. SirFozzie (talk) 09:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please drop this line of conversation, I am perfectly satisfied with the situation as it stands; should it be necessary to adjust the agreement in future, there are obvious ways to go about arranging for the proposal to be modified, such as either of us e-mailing to ask the Arbcom or a mutually-respected admin to contact the other. I find this insistence that I must be friends with another user, and all these behind-my-back discussions of how to achieve this goal, completely inappropriate, particularly as I have already talked to JzG about this. Shoemaker's Holiday talk 23:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Woogee: Look at the number of recusals, both for the original case acceptance and the motion. That's the only way to see a real glimpse of the underlying politics here. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm bad at glimpsing. What underlying politics? Amalthea  17:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied at your talk page. GJC 16:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Motions regarding Per Honor et Gloria

 * Announcement

New Arbitration procedure
(the announcement, moved here from the main page)

The Arbitration Committee understands the concerns and commiserates with those who invest a significant time and effort into arbitration cases before the Committee, only to not get the results they were hoping for or expecting. As a direct result, the members of the Committee would like to announce the following change.

In lieu of lengthy and emotional arbitration cases, conduct and content disputes will be resolved via the new Arbitration Magic 8-Ball. Please note: The rulings of the Magic 8-ball are inviolable, and completely binding. Anyone who fails to completely abide by and enact the Magic 8 Ball's rulings will be subject to their own Magic 8-Ball remedy. If you want to try this out (use at your own risk!), Click here.


 * Discuss it here, and remember.. keep it low-key. Have fun, but not too much fun. SirFozzie (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So everyone knows, this new procedure is the result of several months of discussion amongst the Committee, and we truly hope this will make for quicker, fairer, and more effective resolution of disputes. Best of luck to all who must face the 8-Ball. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 00:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You know, in my day, we didn't disclose these sorts of secrets. We just waited a few months, consulted the 8-ball, and then told people that there was "deliberation" and stuff. --Deskana (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I can think of a few other remedies that should be included, such as "Banished to Wikiquote for one year." Any others anyone can think of? Cla68 (talk) 00:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought we salted WP:BJAODN. Skinwalker (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, we gave it a bit of a lemon glaze.. a little salt.. a little spice.. and then grilled it for 15 minutes or so.. SirFozzie (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I fully endorse this product and/or service. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So what will it's first official try out be? The non b arbie reverting the announcement? Peachey88 (Talk Page · Contribs) 00:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like I've been wrong in all those MFD discussions. We do practice damnatio memoriae on Wikipedia. --Carnildo (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought we were giving up on arbitration :( My ¡vote is to handing 'em off to Wikiversity and letting Jimbo decide.  fetch  comms  ☛ 01:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Or maybe the 8-ball'll have enough influence to turn ArbCom into this... who knows? ♠  03:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You posted it two minutes too early :P Filest (aktl) 08:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You posted it two minutes too early :P Filest (aktl) 08:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If I were not in class right now I would be on the floor laughing...as it is, it feels like I cracked a rib keeping myself from laughing. This is right up there with this. =D Ks0stm  (T•C•G) 13:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am surprised that there are not more potshots... LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A hearty *golf clap* for this. Nothing like a sense of humour! Tony Fox (arf!) 16:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Where is the new arbitration procedure posted ? Abecedare (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Click on the announcement at the top of the section, Abecedare. :) SirFozzie (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Did that already. But where are the new arbitration procedures ? ;-) Abecedare (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Makes note to add "draw-and-quarter to the 8-ball someday soon. Good one, Abecedare :) SirFozzie (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks all for the response. Of course we do not use a Magic 8 Ball to determine how to handle Arbitration Cases. That's what the Ouija board is for. SirFozzie (talk) 23:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Phishing attempt on administrator accounts

 * Announcement

Let me get this straight. Every on-wiki thread about these e-mails and even an article (created by admin, by the way, WTF) have been closed or deleted under WP:DENY. So you all decide to push out announcements and official&trade; noticeboard threads about it? And this falls under which aspect of conflict resolution, content mediation, or user mediation? I think the academic term for this behavior is "HURF DURF." Seriously, either be productive or be quiet. Needlessly adding to the noise with an "omg official proclamation from the Arbitration Committee" further erodes any sympathy anyone might have for you for being "forced" to deal with the legitimate issues this site faces. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The Arbitration Committee, as you are well aware, is also tasked with handling issues of administrative misconduct. An administrator handing out their password to random passerby is certainly a case of administrative misconduct, and therefore within our remit to do something about. It is our intention to be productive and protect the integrity and security of the project, as it always has been and always will be. You offer sage advice, but a wise man heeds his own words. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 17:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Arbcom is most certainly not "tasked with handling issues of administrative misconduct", much as those who keep pushing for them to accumulate ever more influence would like them to be. If anything, Arbcom go out of their way to make it clear they don't deal with admin misconduct other than within broader cases. – iride  scent  17:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Erm... yes it most certainly is, iridescent. There are several instances of cases of admin tool use/misconduct review. It's also the only way someone can be desysopped. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "It's also the only way someone can be desysopped." &larr; No, that's patently false. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * He probably intended the "except by decree of the GodKing or emergency desysopping by steward" to be understood. Granted, requesting removal of ones rights is technically desysopping. –<font face="verdana" color="black">xeno talk  20:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) "It's also the only way someone can be desysopped"? Cas, you know as well as I do that that's patently untrue. Arbcom requests desysoppings following cases which themselves fall into their remit, not because they feel like it. – iride  scent  20:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

This "urgent" announcement, basically says "do nothing". Hersfold, you say an admin handing out their password is "misconduct", but do you have any evidence this has happened? Have you any faith in the admin corps that they would not do anything so dumb? As MZMcBride says, it's a rather useless notice.

I do have a question, for Iridescent; if ArbCom are not tasked with handling admin misconduct, who is? I thought they were the people to go to! Aiken  &#9835;  17:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * For a bright line offense, such as giving access to an admin account to a person obviously acting out of malice toward Wikipedia, ArbCom seems quite capable of taking decisive action. For more subtle cases it's usually expected that a user RFC is run on anyone, admin or not, before dragging them here. This kind of infighting and indeed attention of any sort is just what this alleged "Wikipedia freedom fighter" wants. We should stop giving it to them and just go about our business. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec)Arbcom has a clear and (intentionally) narrowly defined remit: "to impose binding solutions to Wikipedia disputes that neither communal discussion, administrators, nor mediation have been able to resolve and to handle issues where exceptional factors such as privacy may preclude public consideration". The "admin misconduct" process is here; Arbcom should only be stepping in as a last resort when other processes have failed; WP:Requests for comment/WikiFreedomFyta is still a redlink, and the subject is absent from Arbitration/Requests/Motions. There has been a tendency in the last year or so for Arbcom constantly to try to grab "supreme court of Wikipedia" powers and issue ultra vires rulings (the one time one of their land-grabs was actually discussed by the broader community, it was shot down in flames). There may be good grounds for Wikipedia needing a governing body, but that is not what anyone was voting for when this Arbcom was elected and people need to speak up against the periodic attempts of arbitrators and arb clerks to act like they're the Provisional Government of Wikipedia. – iride  scent  18:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but it is utter nonsense to suggest that there is any process capable of stopping an abusive admin, except for Arbcom. RfCU is about as much use as a chocolate teapot - admins can and do abuse the insane convention whereby "resignation" is taken to mean "just taking a break" and "under a cloud" to mean "caught in the act of singeing Jimbo's beard". Only Arbcom has the power to actually stop an admin continuing being an admin. The community does not have that power, so "community based processes" are worthless. DuncanHill (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec x2) I'm glad I read this thread before I replied and sent my credentials. Thank you ArbCom for alerting me to this possible phishing activity! Other admins: beware, the e-mails can sound really convincing. :) <b style="color:#c22">^</b><b style="color:#000">demon</b><sup style="color:#c22">[omg plz] <em style="font-size:10px;">18:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Aiken, there have been cases in the past where administrators have voluntarily relinquished control of their account to another, usually (reportedly) for some sort of fee. I do have faith in the vast majority of administrators on this project, and commend and thank those who took what steps they could to stop these emails from going out, and those who forwarded their emails to the Committee. However, there remains the fact that over a thousand administrators received this email, some of whom left the project in disgust for various reasons, some of those reasons among those cited in the emails. Even if only 1% of those who got the emails sent in their passwords, our vandal now has at least 10 admin accounts he can do whatever he wants with. That, in fact, is the worst thing about this - we cannot know how many responded. I am certain that most did not, but most is not all. Even one compromised admin account here presents a substantial security risk. It's that risk we are hoping to mitigate or eliminate. Ideas or suggestions here would be welcome.
 * And to Iridescent, you may also note that we have emergency procedures in place for desysopping users, and can also accept cases without previous dispute resolution in a number of situations. While we don't intend to open a full case here, some sort of response is needed to resolve this security breach, for the reasons I've outlined above. If you believe you can form a consensus of 160,000 active editors before our vandal makes his move, please do so; if the community is able to form an effective response to this, that would be ideal, however in practice that hasn't always worked out well. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 18:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that's nonsense. You can't simultaneously hide the mention of this at AN "per WP:DENY", and issue an Official Pronouncement From The Supreme Soviet on the exact same thing, and expect to be taken seriously. If you're that concerned with denying recognition and reducing drama, all it would have taken would be a bulk email to all admin accounts with email enabled warning them about the issue. The "only Arbcom is allowed to talk about this, we have to hide it from the rabble" mentality serves no benefit at all. – iride  scent  18:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm confused why you think the actions on ANI were done by the Committee, when the collapsing was done by NuclearWarfare, who is neither a member of the Committee nor a clerk. <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:blue">Hers <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:gold">fold  (t/a/c) 19:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Collapsing was also done by Risker, a member of the Arb com. Aiken   &#9835;  19:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What was that, Hersfold ? --MZMcBride (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Government? LOL! We're just telling you we're aware of this because we received hundreds of emails over this in the last 6 hours. It's this simple. If we sent out a bulk email, we're only just going to get more emails. - Mailer Diablo 20:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So, err, what's this upcoming announcement going to consist of? There are so many questions yet unanswered! --MZMcBride (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hopefully they'll tell us they've reported these scammers to the authorities and they're going away for a long time. This kind of behavior shouldn't be tolerated. Again I commend ArbCom for trying to keep us so helpfully informed. Lots of people fall for scams, I sure don't want to be one! <b style="color:#c22">^</b><b style="color:#000">demon</b><sup style="color:#c22">[omg plz] <em style="font-size:10px;">10:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Re Demon, I don't see how you can say the emails are "really convincing", unless you got a different one to everyone else; the text of the bulk email was " Dear username, We tried to get in contact with you almost a year ago, detailing our desires to utilise your account to help rid Wikipedia of the corruption and bureaucracy at every level that continues to plague it to this very day. We are hoping that, almost a year on, your circumstances may have changed and you may be more willing to aid us in achieving our goal. At the end of the day we all want the same thing - an encyclopedia that is informative and accurate, but one that is also run in a fair manner so all can contribute on an equitable level. As a reminder, here is an extract from our original message: "We are currently expanding our portfolio of administrator accounts, and as yours remains dormant perhaps you could consider donating it to us - to do so will take you only two minutes: change the password (if desired) and then reply to this email with your login details. We'll do the rest!" Once more, thank you for your time and consideration, and naturally do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. Kind Regards, The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters ", which I don't think anyone would fall for for a moment. – iride  scent  18:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That's not what mine said, which was " As an advanced user here at wikipedia, I am sure you are familiar with the corruption and bureaucracy that exists at every level, with the site effectively being run by a clique of editors who are only looking out for their own interests. Heck, maybe you are one of them! Hopefully though you are not, and would be willing to help us restore fairness and integrity to the project... We are currently expanding our portfolio of administrator accounts and perhaps you could consider sharing yours with us - to do so will take you only two minutes: change the password (if desired) and then reply to this email with your login details. We'll do the rest! Thank you for your time and consideration, and naturally do not hesitate to contact us if you have any question, Kind Regards,The Wikipedia Freedom Fighters ". Dougweller (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I assume demon's line was supposed to be sarcastic hence the :), it is hardly a convincing mail and not what I think would be called phishing since it isn't trying to appear official or use any form of social engineering. Can't say Hersfold's response above is that convincing, people have left the project maybe on bad terms and will have received those mails so maybe tempted, of course those self same people on reading an Arbcom pronouncement (and no doubt are still regularly reading such) are going to no longer be disillusioned and keep it all secret. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * iridescent, I think demon might have been being just a tiny bit sarcastic with his comment. Oh, and I agree whole-heartedly with MZMcBride's first comment in this thread. AGK 11:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So noted, Hersfold. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this Tea Party emergency is a little bit overblown. Yes, it was silly to make a big announcement (or announce a forthcoming announcement) just after undertaking a series of redactions in the spirit of DENY, but saying "We know about this, stop e-mailing us" isn't exactly an egregious violation of the peoples' prerogative. <strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan <strong style="color:#0033CC"> T 21:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My complaint is that as soon as I got the email, I sent my password to ArbCom so they could keep it safe - but they still haven't told me when I can have it back. That is capricious and disrespects my rights as an editor. Franamax (talk) 11:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I gave WikiFreedomFyta my password but he hasn't restored fairness and integrity to the project yet. He LIED to me! – iride  scent  11:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hahahahaha at both.  Enigma <font color="#FFA500">msg 19:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It has taken me a while to understand why this response offends me, & it is one assumption in Hersfold's statement above, where he writes, "Even if only 1% of those who got the emails sent in their passwords, our vandal now has at least 10 admin accounts he can do whatever he wants with." I strongly doubt that any Admin, present or former, content or disgruntled, would respond to this clumsy phishing attempt -- this is why the ArbCom was flooded with reports. Heck, I doubt any Admin would even give Jimmy Wales their password if he emailed them with a request. (FWIW, my response would not be a polite no.) If a disgruntled Admin wants to do something destructive to Wikipedia, they'll do it with their own hands before they quit, not hand their account over to some stranger long after she/he has left. Most of those who have left Wikipedia have moved on with their lives; those who haven't hang out at the known fora where they bitch about how Wikipedia is corrupt & too rules-bound. We Admins who haven't left simply want to be trusted to know what the right things are & that we will do them. Unless the Admin selection process is severely broken, it selects only those who are seriously committed to the ideals of Wikipedia to become Admins. And if it is broken in this way, then this response by some or all of the ArbCom won't fix it. Nor will the suspicion expressed above against us Admins fix it. -- llywrch (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Llywrch. I have to at least slightly disagree. A good amount of the 1400 or so administrators on Wikipedia are inactive, either from drifting away from Wikipedia, real life issues, or perhaps active disillusionment with Wikipedia, or some of its members. The concern is that the email could be the tipping point of one or more administrators from "I won't even go back to resign", to "Hmm. It's not like I'm ever going back ANYWAY"... I found it funny that they used such a scattergun approach.. (I think just about all the Arbs got it, for example). But yes, there is concerns (and I feel they're pretty realistic) that at least one or a couple administrator's accounts are now in the hands of the people who sent this mass email out. SirFozzie (talk) 17:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * An admin account in the hands of an obnoxious nutjob? Oh noez! Emblem-ohno.svg – iride  scent  18:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Er, yeah. Or in other words, what's to prevent one or a couple former Admins coming back from a long silence & abusing their priviledges? Sure, a partial fix might be to revisit the proposal of de-Admining users after a set period of inactivity, but it all comes down to we Admins trusting each other to not cause unwanted havoc, either as active members or inactive ones. I believe the vast majority -- if not all -- of us Admins actually care about what our peers think of us, & wouldn't do anything that would unreasonably damage that impression. (Those who obviously don't get de-Adminned.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It might be of note that a bunch of admins have come out of hiding/retirement since the emails were sent. Most of them did so because of said emails, I would assume. --Conti|✉ 17:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, this could also be related to the InactivityEmailBot which recently sent out this email to inactive admins. –<font face="verdana" color="black">xeno  talk  18:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I received one of these "freedom fighter" emails a few days ago. I was wondering why they sent it to me specifically, but I guess I just got caught up in the mass-mailer. Good to know I'm not alone. Of course I didn't reply or do anything with the message except delete it. --  At am a  頭 18:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Or you could be a freedom fighter and now you're just trying to throw us off.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * <peers suspiciously at Atama> Can you please get on this weigh-scale?... As if you weigh the same as a duck... –<font face="verdana" color="black">xeno talk  18:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I must've missed the announcement that said it was witches sending out emails. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory <font color="#555555"> (u • t • c) 19:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Frankly I think the thread closings were a mistake, as are most attempts to swiftly close reasonable discussion on-wiki. My first impulse is always to revert such actions. WP:DENY is only an essay, not policy, and i don't think it is helpful nearly as often as it is invoked. I also don't see any valid reason to ask admins not to respond to the email, I have already responded (indeed i responded at once, before going to AN), and i urge others to respond in a proper way. ArbCom surely had no mandate to tell me how to act in off-wiki email except that responding positively, by giving out a password, would obviously violate policy. Or by "urged NOT to reply to any of these emails" did the arbcom mean "don't give out your password to these probable vandals"? if so that is an odd way to put it. DES (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Replying to the e-mails could have divulged what the e-mailers were really after. But you are right, ArbCom shouldn't be in the business of telling administrators about basic e-mail security. What is really needed (as someone said) is a captcha for Special:Emailuser - now how annoying would that be for everyone else! Carcharoth (talk) 00:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, DES, replying to such an email is an extraordinarily bad idea unless you don't mind an obvious troll having direct access to your email address without having to use the WP email system. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought all the smart people set their Wikipedia email address as a safe, throw-away email? :-) Killiondude (talk) 05:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Question Do we know how many administrators got the e-mail? I'm certain all of them did not, as I did not get one! (yes I have e-mail configured, and it goes to an address I check regularly). <b style="color:#c22">^</b><b style="color:#000">demon</b><sup style="color:#c22">[omg plz] <em style="font-size:10px;">11:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC) I just thought of an interesting problem. Ok, so the Committee knows about the phishing attempt. But given the methods (email being off-wiki), how can they do anything about any accounts that the phishers might have gained before they start causing mass havoc (i.e. how will they spot which of the 1,000+ administrator accounts might have been compromised before those accounts are used to create massive problems)? Ks0stm (T•C•G) 15:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know that there is anyway we can know, unless everyone who received an email said they have done so. FWIW I got one identical to that DougWeller copied upthread, I guessed it was because I am currently active at RfD and DRV. Thryduulf (talk) 11:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As I am rarely involved in normal admin areas or noticeboards and still got the email, I think it's likely the intent was to hit all of us up. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Most administrators got them. Actions have been taken to make it more difficult for similar e-mails to be sent again. I can't say exactly how though, since we're not supposed to stuff beans up our nose. --Deskana (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If they were able to monitor which accounts got emailed from these folks and which accounts subsequently had their passwords changed they might at least have someone to watch (probably not technically possible at this point without developer intervention and might also be considered an invasion). But I'd like to think that admins wouldn't even consider giving away their password, no matter what kind of disputes they might have with Wikipedia. –<font face="verdana" color="black">xeno talk  15:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I for one have no problem sharing my password. But I'll change it to something else the moment I do. :) -- llywrch (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah I finally got mine. Have blocked the offender indef. <b style="color:#c22">^</b><b style="color:#000">demon</b><sup style="color:#c22">[omg plz] <em style="font-size:10px;">17:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Question Has there been a checkuser run on the various accounts used to see if some kind of rangeblock can be implemented? I'm not sure how many different usernames sent a variation of the "WFF" e-mail, but I'm guessing at least four. Signed, the one admin who gave up his password, not realizing the vandals were not serious about giving it back. WE HAXORED U!  Enigma <font color="#FFA500">msg 19:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)    in case you're still wondering, this is a lame attempt at an april fool's line
 * Ah, I see I'm not the only one who got one of these. The user's already been blocked in my case. -Royalguard11 (T) 21:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Nobody

 * Announcement

While I am certain that this was not the intent, I feel that this results in a massive disincentive for A Nobody to return to the project - at least in an acknowledged manner. I have no opinion on whether the consequences of the main part of my comment is a good or bad thing, but the addendum is certainly bad. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? What would be the benefit of allowing him to duck conflict resolution in the same manner as the Le Grand Roi de Cireilles/Elizabeth Rogan/A Nobody return? This gives Arbcom the ability to block any alternate accounts the moment they are detected.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. What the heck is a "cireille"? :-D ) --Enric Naval (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I speak a lot of languages, but no French, and never bothered to figure out what that name meant. "Big King of the Pumpkins"? What the hell is that?&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's the Great Pumpkin, Kww. Badger Drink (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Only that it may be an unintended consequence of ArbCom's motion, and that they are aware of the potential. As for having no opinion, it is because I am unaware of the circumstances and wished to clarify that - to those able to understand. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please note my comment accompanying my vote in support of the motion (although it doesn't actually speak for anyone but me). Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * However will the encyclopedia go on without the contributions of this long-term, single-purpose disruption, and the swarmy faux-niceties he drops left and right while feigning incomprehension or bending any rule necessary to further his agenda? Kindest of Well Regards, Have A Great Day, Badger Drink (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I for one applaud ArbCom for not allowing him to simply duck and cover as he does every time the heat is on. Frankly an ArbCom case on A Nobody has been a long time coming, and it's only delaying tactics like these that have kept it at bay. If he comes back, he'll have to face the music. And I couldn't agree more with BadgerDrink about the smarmy fake "best wishes" thing, but that's another story. XXXOOO S.W.AK. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I find both of the above comments to be over-the-top and ask that they be revised. You are both referring to an editor who remains in good standing despite his absence. The Arbitration Committee has done nothing more than open a case and put it in abeyance. There is no reason for grave dancing (as one of my colleagues put it) here. KnightLago (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no grave to dance on, as you point out he is not blocked or banned at this time. Look, the "best wishes" and "happy editing" and so forth at the end of every message, even when he has just strongly disagreed with someone, comes across as phony. That's all. No, it's not really relevant to the ArbCom case, it's just an observation. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. If you put "Sincerely" into your signature, it's clear you're not being sincere at all. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 20:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Putting aside the other user's conduct, there is no need for you, Beeblebrox, to imitate the behavior that you complain of. "XXXOOO and S.W.A.K." are unnecessary and only serve to inflame the situation. Thus, my request that you revise your comment. KnightLago (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Since he's not here the simpler way to avoid inflaming the situation is to just stop talking about it... Beeblebrox (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. After you revise your comment. KnightLago (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, KL, but his comment was illustrating his point. While it may be blunt, even heavy-handed, there are sometimes no other lingustic means with which to express one's continued frustration - and surpressing such expression only results in the root feelings lingering and festering, to crop up again (and again) later on down the road. See: WMC/ABD. Surely you're not going to claim Wikipedia is being somehow disrupted by that comment? (the second most-cited, least-understood of all of WP's guidelines, right behind good ol' WP:CIVIL - but I digress). Your continued insistence that he revise his comment comes across as superficial, at best - the teacher whose dimly-lit train of thought voyages along the lines of "when people apologize, they are no longer angry; ergo apologizing makes people no longer angry; ergo I should stand on my desk and insist with purple-faced, shrieking rage that would put Joan Crawford to shame that Billy apologize to Victor for crying when Victor stole his toy" - in short, in possession of the book and understanding some of the smaller words, but completely ignorant of the psychology and humanity involved. Bottom line: What good does striking his comments do? I don't see any, and that makes it look like some sort of alpha-male power struggle, which I'm sure is nobody's intent. Best Wishes, Vaya Con Dios, Merriest of Meets, and with the Utmost of Heart-felt & Compassionate Sincerity, Badger Drink (talk) 19:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

A few points:
 * 1)  DGG previously confirmed that A Nobody changed names due to offsite harassment and that A Nobody shared evidence of that with DGG that was persuasive enough to be legitimate to that administrator.  So why do Kww and Badger Drink bring up A Nobody's old username (Pumpkin) here? This behavior speaks more of their continued bullying than of A Nobody's alleged infractions. Yet more of the same from Badger Drink. It is pretty easy to mock someone when they are not around to defend themselves.
 * 2) more... Okip   02:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "Continued bullying"? You, of course, have diffs to back up that high horse of yours? I was under the impression that "A Nobody" / Elisabeth Rogen's old usernames were common knowledge, certainly I was not the first to make this connection in the Arbitration case, nor was Kww. With Fondest Regards, Badger Drink (talk) 05:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has become unhelpful. It is closed. Further comment if the case is ultimately opened may be made, as appropriate, on the case pages. Further comment if the case is not opened will not be necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

returned?
A Nobody appears to have returned. Was ArbCom notified, pursuant to the motion ? Can we expect the case to now get underway or will some other action be taken? ++Lar: t/c 22:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope so, because he's returned in a venue making precisely the sort of comments he was brought to Arbcom for.  Aiken   &#9835;   22:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean opposing the deletion of other editors good faith contributions, that isn't a crime here, yet. Okip  22:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No-one said anything about a crime. However, you may have noticed when you click edit it says "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL". The articles/contributions do not belong to anyone but the community. Therefore it is up to the community to decide whether an article should be kept. It is not about violating good faith - that misses the point of the process completely. We're discussing whether an article is notable enough for our encyclopedia.   Aiken   &#9835;   22:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am very, very aware of it, sigh. I am also aware of the way in which rules are unequally enforced, and the mosaic law behavior in which editors enforce the rules here, leading to a very combative atmosphere....sigh...the reason behind these edits was the "opposing the deletion of other editors good faith contributions".  Okip   23:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A Nobody is aware of the restriction. If he makes another edit that isn't in some way notifying the committee to initiate a case, he should be blocked for violating the motion. Mr.Z-man 22:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Mr.Z-man, he was emailed yes, I have tried to contact editors before via email, and they sometimes take months to reply. Any policy to back up emailing an editor is notification? I have never seen it Zman.
 * I see one edit. Okip   23:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * He's allowed zero, would be my interpretation, so that's one too many, absent the required notification. ++Lar: t/c 23:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * He was notified on his talk page and by email. That is definitely sufficient. If you think it is insufficient, I would suggest you take it up with the clerks, as that is the standard procedure for notifications (I think emailing might be extra, even) and is used for every kind of notification for anything on Wikipedia. We don't collect users' phone numbers, so those are the only 2 ways we really have to notify someone. Just because someone takes months to reply to an email doesn't mean they took months to read it. Mr.Z-man 23:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So there is zero policy to back up emailing an editor is notification? Okip  05:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * He was notified no differently than anyone else subject to an ArbCom decision. If you think there needs to be a policy regarding what is appropriate notification, I would suggest you propose one or stop wikilawyering. Mr.Z-man 18:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

His health concerns haven't stopped him from editing Wikia this past month. <font color="Black">Ryan <font color="CornflowerBlue">4314    (talk) 23:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And? Your point? What _you_ or anyone else believes re: any editor's assertions about their own health is utterly irrelevant, and your opinions re: what they do off-Wiki is even more so. If A Nobody needs to be sanctioned pursuant to this ArbCom motion, ArbCom will take care of it, and I'm fairly sure they would know how to investigate Wikia contributions--if they thought those contributions mattered more than flatus in a cyclone. Evidently they don't. I recommend other "interested" parties adopt that attitude as well. GJC 00:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My point? A Nobody's not too sick to participate in an arbcom. You should chill out mate. <font color="Black">Ryan <font color="CornflowerBlue">4314    (talk) 01:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I imagine that editing Wikipedia would induce a much higher level of stress in a person than would editing a Wikia site. But that is all secondary. Speculating on an editor's health, or indeed any aspect of their real lives, is very, very inappropriate. This issue should be considered suspended until A Nobody returns to editing—at which point it can be re-examined in full. We are not delaying a case in order to subvert the process of scrutiny of editorial conduct, but to protect an editor's well-being. If you cannot approve of that decision then consider the possibility that you have your priorities wrong. AGK 23:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about wikia diffs, but he's been importing regularly to that annex from en:wp, so he's been around here to find and get stuff that's at AfD. And this is the best diff from over there. Jack Merridew 01:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC) damn; now deleted (5 minutes after I posted it here); it was adding this link to his wikia user page.
 * The diff link still works for me, and the content is still on his user page. Looks like it was among the changes he restored.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still getting an error message from the link I first posted, but the edit is back here. All par for the course. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Cache fully cleared and the diff works again. 'nuf said. Jack Merridew 04:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If he's been active over at wikia while claiming to be too sick to be here to participate in the ArbCom, that is about the clearest act of bad faith I've seen in quite awhile. This is like finding out your "sick" co-worker spent the day at the beach. Tarc (talk) 03:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Leave him alone. In the fast moving world of modern medicine, the science of why wikipedia participation causes kidney masses to grow uncontrollably when arbcom cases come up, and why happy wikia participation does not is poorly understood. But it's a fact that wikia is healthy and wikipedia is not. So stop trying to kill A Nobody. A life is on the line here, and you could snuff out its most excellent candle in the service of an online encyclopedia. You all should be ashamed.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is a new ruse from the master tactician. A Nobody has apparently gone into a sort of semi-retirement where he feels he can just pop his nose in every now and then to take potshots at editors he hates, without answering the community's concerns over years of poor behaviour. I mean, who's going to kickstart a dormant ArbCom decision over one edit where he's defended Okip? And if he comes back in a few days or a week to do some minor pottering around, who's going to care? Then we'll see his involvement ever so gradually increase until he's back editing at his usual levels, with the same usual baiting, deception and disruption. You'll see. Reyk <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  04:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * AGF, please. Someone block Reyk immediately.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Update
Hi folks, as this case has been re-filed as an Arb request, and it appears there is at least some issues going on, I just wanted to provide an update. As a measure to relieve the bickering and to restore the status quo, I have placed a block on A Nobody's account until such time if and when he wishes to return, at which time, the Arbitration Case previously opened will become active.

I cannot stress enough that this block is ONLY to enforce the situation regarding the Arbitration Case, and is NOT pre-judging or judging (or even post-judging!) of A Nobody's behavior. Any administrator who sees that A Nobody has returned and wishes to participate in the Arbitration Committee case should quickly unblock him and notify the Committee via email that we may proceed.

Also, please note, I detect a large amount of sarcasm and snark from various parties above. I think that the parties would best be served by going back to their respective corners and de-stress this issue. SirFozzie (talk) 05:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm? Where? Best! --MZMcBride (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I see that the arb com motion was "This case is accepted, but will not be opened unless and until A Nobody (talk · contribs) returns to Wikipedia. If A Nobody does so under any account or I.P., he/she is required to notify the Committee." This is not a block on his participation. It is not even a requirement that he participate in the case. It is just a requirement to notify the committee.  DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

"


 * Do they back off before you issue gag orders or is this the new status quo of dealing with controversial issues? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Changes in Checkuser and Oversight permission holders
Announcement
 * It'll be great to have John back on board. Hopefully Thatcher will have some more time for Wikimedia related projects in the future and he'll be able to get back involved as a functionary. Thanks to both of them from me.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Both are/were worthy holders of the posts mentioned. I wish both best of luck.  Aiken   &#9835;   15:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light

 * Announcement

See here for my comments. Count Iblis (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, that's certainly an immediate and deliberate violation of the restriction, along with a clear illustration of why it was imposed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The link on my talk page, posted by ArbCom itself, clearly says "Discuss this". And note that the text I linked to here (which I posted today on my talk page) was written precisely because I cannot engage in detailed discussions about this issue from the moment the motion passes. So, everyone can now read on my talk page everyting what I have to say about this issue, without me having to violate my gag order. Count Iblis (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The restriction doesn't say you "cannot engage in detailed discussions", it says the following:
 * "Count Iblis...[is] indefinitely restricted from advocacy for or commenting on Brews ohare, broadly construed."
 * That's a pretty unambiguous statement. Saying 'Here's a link to my comments about the Brews ohare case' is a straight-up violation.  You shouldn't take a talk page template notifying you of the decision as an invitation to immediately violate the decision.  You are barred from commenting &mdash; full stop; your post above violates both the letter and the spirit of that restriction.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, all. Guy (Help!) 21:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * is certainly something to consider. Unless I made a mistake in reading timestamps? <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 21:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This was not a violation of the gag order, as I wrote it before I was notified of the gag order. The actual posting appeared a few minutes after the notification appeared on my talk page, though. It took me a few minutes to write up my text, I started to write before I had received the notification, but when I posted it, the notification had appeared. Count Iblis (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Likebox is blocked already for this bit of trolling. The wording was quite clear in the restriction - don't discuss Brews ohare - Given he's willing to test that, he's got himself 24 hours off.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Count, why don't we just chalk this one up to bad timing and assume that you know better than to make anther such posting? Seems the quickest way out here. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, good idea. Time to move on. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * With the understanding being, of course, that if Count Iblis again violates the restriction, he will be sanctioned. AGK 22:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'll stick to the resriction. Note that when I posted the text on AE I included the statement that the motion has not yet been passed. So I was already addressing that issue (and staying to the point so as to stick to the spirit of the restriction, i.e. no advocacy that drowns out relevant facts). Now, it turns out that I was too late by a few minutes. But, what I wrote does show a willingness to stick to the restriction, as I could not have written that with a straight face ten minutes later :) . Count Iblis (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see this essay for general observations. Please see this for specific comments regarding the lack of clarity of this decision, comments made in plenty of time to do something about it. Brews ohare (talk) 00:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I know I'm pretty low on the list of persons you would care to get feedback from, but this is a topic I have been discussing elsewhere recently. Not your specific case but rather the vagueness of many policies/rulings/guidelines/etc on Wikipedia. It's not an accident. We cannot and should not try to envision every possible interpretation or violation. Administrators, and indeed everyone else, are expected to use judgement and common sense in interpreting policy. The phrase "broadly construed" is often used in ArbCom decisions for precisely this reason. If you have to ask yourself if you are violating the restriction or not, then you should err on the side of caution and not do whatever led you to ask yourself that. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Wikipedia is supposed to be a cluocracy not a bureaucracy, the more detail you put in the easier it is for the Wikilawyers to have a field day - however, it is also fair that if someone is in doubt they should be able to get rapid clarification. Part of the problem here is that requests for clarification go in after the event and get bogged down in sideshows. Perhaps we should give some thought to providing a simple mechanism - which can be notified as part of the notice of restrictions in the case itself, when restrictions are part of the outcome - for the restricted user to ask up front whether something is in or out of scope. Guy (Help!) 08:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen: Thanks for your comments, which indicate some interest in the issue of clarity of measures and rapid ArbCom response times. My notion of how to approach such matters is simply this: let the editors on a page thrash things out. It's the editors' problem. Keep ArbCom out of it.

ArbCom simply referees to keep the editors from breaking into bloody combat, by enforcing very clear, general, non-specific policies & guidelines that can be arbitrated very quickly, because they are black-and-white transgressions. Because of clarity, no Wikilawyering is possible. (If arbitration is necessary, usually infractions will be obvious enough.) Forgive this observation: I think ArbCom is over-involved in undue details and too slow because many Administrators just like involvement, regardless of its effectiveness.

BTW, for those Admins that like to be more involved, I have proposed a filtering stage be added to ArbCom decision making. The purpose is to sort out in advance those cases where a rapid decision can be made, and send the rest back to the conflicting parties for further clarification before ArbCom gets into it. Brews ohare (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

or --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Ministry of Truth
I generally oppose "drama" on Wikipedia, but in the case of User:Brews ohare being appropriately restricted from generally polite but eventually tiresome edits, I am a bit shocked by the restriction against selected other editors speaking on his behalf: Three editors (some of whom seem to have actually had a clue about the substance of the "Speed of light dispute") are "indefinitely restricted from advocacy for or commenting on Brews ohare, broadly construed." How can one sit and do nothing when any dissent from or comment on the "officially correct" viewpoint is to be suppressed? Martin Niemöller said ""THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. THEN THEY CAME for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. THEN THEY CAME for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. THEN THEY CAME for me and by that time no one was left to speak up." ("We have the sole and absolute truth right here in this bucket. DO NOT QUESTION IT!") So I feel it is incumbent on me to SPEAK UP and object to this suppression of dissent from the "only correct viewpoint." Shades of Nineteen Eighty-Four. Edison (talk) 05:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your comparison with Niemöller is disgusting because it compares a minor online thing with the industrial extermination of millions of people. It also makes you lose your argument automatically by Godwin's law. I suggest trying again without the comparison in a week or so because there isn't much else you can do at this point. Hans Adler 06:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There should be a policy that if you're going to link an article, first you need to read it.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Normally it's good enough to remember correctly what an article says, but obviously that's not the case if someone has recently removed a key part as in this case : "[...] there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress." This is what I meant to cite. Hans Adler 19:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I opposed this restriction, but analogizing a Wikipedia editing restriction to the Holocaust is profoundly inappropriate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It is a red herring which distracts from the heart of my post, to dismiss my complaint by falsely claiming that I likened the committee's actions to the Holocaust. The article First they came... says Niemöller's  poem "is a popular model for describing the dangers of political apathy, as it often begins with specific and targeted fear and hatred which soon escalates out of control" Besides being an historical account of the Holocaust, the poem has been applied to people adapting to an abusive environment or societal injustice, or standing passively by to save their own skin, when their conscience calls on them to question what is being done.  The antipathy in the present case started with one editor who was restricted from continuing an obscure scientific argument which went against consensus of a few other editors who seem to understand the abstruse issue. I do not disagree with that action. But then the antipathy spread against several editors who criticized the restrictions against the first editor, and they were "indefinitely restricted" from questioning ("broadly construed") the restrictions against the first editor.  Let's get back to my point: Only as a last resort should we impose secondary gag orders. They should not be indefinite in duration, and they should not be "broadly construed." Edison (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What is it about this case that produces such flagrant and numerous violations of Godwin's Law? Any sympathy I might have had for "Team Brews" has been eliminated by this sort of obnoxious hyperbole.  Skinwalker (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As a thought exercise, Edison, try to imagine what would happen if you started going into court with a loudspeaker and yelling constantly at the judge(s) (whatever the actual case might be) about how insane some previous ruling was and how unjust everyone has been and how corrupt the judge is. Constantly.  If you're lucky, you'll have just a restraining order slapped over your hyperbole. Any value the substance those editors might have had behind their incessant disruption of the process was buried under the noise &mdash; to the point where the "victim" they were supposedly "defending" was harmed significantly.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is incumbent on all good folks to denounce any judges who promulgate injustice or ill-conceived edicts. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edison (talk) 04:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Edison here. The gag order was not rationalised properly and it was a severe overreaction. Also I don't subscribe to the notion that the advocates harmed Brews's case because I cannot believe that anyone is so naive as to accuse Brews based on the arguments of his advocates. That simply is nonsense or at best doublethink. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos πraxis 04:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If people would treat others the way they'd want to be treated, rather than using wiki as a personal battleground, we wouldn't have these problems. You reap what you sow. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 23:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perfect Day. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Coren, You wrote, "Any value the substance those editors might have had behind their incessant disruption of the process was buried under the noise — to the point where the 'victim' they were supposedly 'defending' was harmed significantly." - It appears that any decisions you made against Brews Ohare were "significantly" exacerbated by your perception of the way his defenders conducted themselves. In your opinion, to what extent were the various decisions by ArbCom against Brews Ohare also affected in this way? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's always difficult to figure that out fairly&mdash; certainly none of us set out to do so. Enough, certainly, that we didn't think it out of line to shorten Brews's original restriction given the realization that much of the disruptive campaigning didn't come from Brews himself (though he is not entirely blameless either).  At the very least, the enforced topic ban will allow us to reevaluate the case fairly.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 12:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's instructive to read the comments of various arbitrators when they voted this motion if anyone thinks this is a "Ministry of Truth". Coren's own response seems to sum things up nicely: "If anything, the only effect your "defense" [by and, by extension, that of the other parties] of Brews has achieved is make certain that we were unwilling to examine the restriction for a while, and probably did so with a more jaundiced eye than Brews's behavior alone warranted."To put it plain terms, the advocacy was, in the eyes of ArbCom, disruptive. I didn't agree with the motion, but I will admit that the sort of disruption which has occurred around this case needs dealing with for the sake of working towards improving our encyclopedia instead of just arguing procedural ponts: I can only be sorry that ArbCom couldn't agree to the solution I have consistently proposed. Physchim62 (talk) 13:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Coren, Re "...certainly none of us set out to do so." - To reduce the possibility of this occurring in future cases, and if there are guidelines for administrators and ArbCom members, perhaps something along the following lines could be added to those guidelines,
 * "The perceived improper conduct of an editor's defenders should not be held against the editor who is the subject of the case. The subject editor should be judged only on that editor's own behavior."
 * Also, because of the future possibility of cases that involve restrictions like those just imposed on the four defenders, perhaps in those same guidelines there could be a definition of what it means to be disruptive in these type of proceedings and what the possible remedies would be. Also, this could be included in the existing guideline WP:Disruptive editing, since this guideline doesn't seem to give sufficient guidance for these type of proceedings.  Then such rulings would be less susceptible to having the appearance of being arbitrary, which could lead to further arguments.  I think the overall confidence in ArbCom would improve in situations of this kind.  -Bob K31416 (talk) 09:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed, we need to clarify these policies. In this case Arbitration by Arbitrators led to an Arbitrary ruling :) . Count Iblis (talk) 16:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Clarification would be nice.....A gag order to stop disruption is one thing, a gag order that is issued to remove consensus is completely another. Whatever my personal opinions on the rightness of this ruling, like it or not Arb moved into new and somewhat dictatorial authority with this one so they better be damn sure it's used properly. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with most of the arguments that Bob K31416 makes, even though his statement: The perceived improper conduct of an editor's defenders should not be held against the editor who is the subject of the case. The subject editor should be judged only on that editor's own behavior. is stating the obvious and as such, in itself, i.e. that we need to state this self-evident fact as a future guideline, shows that a systemic failure has occurred, such that we now have to legislate what hitherto was considered to be common sense. In other words in this case common sense was not followed as a guiding principle in rendering this decision and we are now trying, a posteriori, to patch up the damage done by the shortcomings of the judgment. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.0ex;*left:-5.2ex">πraxis 00:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

To Iblis, HiaB, Brews, and others. What part of "drop it" do you not understand? You just got yourselves a sanction to STFU and get back to doing productive stuff rather than keep at it, and the first thing you do is you're back on the noticeboards poking at the wounds. Seriously, we're all tired of this shit and you've created so much crap over this that we frankly don't give a damn who's right and who's wrong at this point. All we know is that current disruption comes from your side not being able to drop things and move on. Let the past be the past. Water under the bridge. Whatever you want to call it.

Quite frankly, I'm astonished none of you got a block for keeping at it yet. 142.167.50.119 (talk) 06:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No we did not get a sanction to "STFU" at all (and note that the main participants in this discussion are not the four sanctioned editors). We got a sanction against advocating for Brews, and I have made it very clear that however strongly I disagree with that sanction, I will stick to it. But that does not mean that I cannot discuss anything related to adminstrative policies, ArbCom processes etc. at all. Of course, I should then not be hijacking discussions to bring in those very specific arguments I raised in the past against the ArbCom sanctions against Brews. I have not done that, not even in a very indirect way.


 * Note that we did not abuse process by e.g. starting AN/I threads or launching ArbCom appeals every day. That was not the sort of disruption experienced by those people who thought that we should be sanctioned. It was simply that whenever Brews was brought at AE, we gave our arguments (while sticking to the rules for that) which to ArbCom looked like "rearguing" the original case. As a result, ArbCom found it difficult to look at the case objectively, and/or they found it difficult to make a ruling that would go in some direction toward what we were arguing in favor for. That, as far as I understand it, is why we were restricted from commenting on that case.


 * Note also that this page is specifically meant for discussing the ArbCom rulings and the restricted people are specifically invited to do so here. I think that is a good thing as the Arbitrators can then clear up possible misunderstandings here. Now, specifically in this respect but also more in general, I find your choice of words inappropriate. Let me make bold some problematic phrases you use:


 * To Iblis, HiaB, Brews, and others. What part of "drop it" do you not understand? You just got yourselves a sanction to STFU and get back to doing productive stuff rather than keep at it, and the first thing you do is you're back on the noticeboards poking at the wounds. Seriously, we're all tired of this shit and you've created so much  over this that we frankly don't give a damn who's right and who's wrong at this point. All we know is that current disruption comes from your side not being able to drop things and move on. Let the past be the past. Water under the bridge. Whatever you want to call it.

Quite frankly, I'm astonished none of you got a block for keeping at it yet. 142.167.50.119 (talk) 06:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * So, we are here at Wikipedia where unfortunately there are editing disputes from time to time, which in some cases can escalate and then you can have an ArbCom process which is designed to solve problems. Now, you come here and use exactly that kind of language that you would need to use to escalate some minor dispute as much as you can. And you do that on an Arbitration board of all places where you as an uninvolved party lecture against others. Poking at wounds? ROFLMAO! Count Iblis (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Pot, kettle. Physchim62 (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)