Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 11

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asgardian

 * Announcement

Promotion of Amorymeltzer and AlexandrDmitri to full clerk status

 * Announcement


 * Congrats both of you... well done indeed! SirFozzie (talk) 10:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for volunteering to do more work :-) FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 10:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Congrats both of you - it's great to have you. Shell  babelfish 13:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

What's the difference between a clerk and a trainee clerk?  Aiken   &#9835;   12:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Clerks are trainees until they learn their way around - no real difference in practice except that they often work with more experienced clerks and have someone check their work until they're comfortable with all the silly bits they get to do. Shell  babelfish 13:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I see. And how do you become a clerk, or trainee?  Aiken   &#9835;   13:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Brown-nosing. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha. No intention of becoming one of course, just curious how these things work. No election or anything.  Aiken   &#9835;   15:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It used to be less formal in that people just jumped in and helped, but as Arbitration became more bureaucratic with templates and forms and whatnot, the process for becoming a Clerk got more complex. Every once in a while the Clerks will put up a notice that they need to add some members (usually around 3 at a time) and accept applications (which I believe consists of a few questions).  They come to a consensus on their top three (or however many) and start them as trainees while remembering who else was interested in case they need a replacement, or just to ask them the next time around.  They do run the candidate list by the Arbs in case there's any non-public information that might make a candidate unsuitable - having not been around long, I can't say if that's ever happened. Hopefully the clerks will jump in and correct me if I got anything wrong here. Shell   babelfish 16:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed the |previous announcement made on the Arbitration Committee Noticeboard calling for candidates. I submitted my candidature and received a short questionnaire. I was pleasantly surprised to find that I was accepted as a trainee. As a candidate&mdash;and this is only my own perception of how things went&mdash;, I personally I did not feel that the process was bureaucratic in the slightest. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * MZ, consider this comment a "stfu": I feel like I should have been offended by your remark. :-) AGK 19:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a heads up that, judging from some comments that have been expressed on the clerks' mailing list, that we will probably be taking on some more trainees within the next month or two. If you're interested then I suggest you watchlist this noticeboard and the clerks' co-ordination page, and then keep an eye out for an announcement of the type that Alexandr described. AGK 19:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone ought to nominate AlexandrDmitri for adminship. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * sofixit. I honestly didn't know he wasn't one, although it probably was brought up when the applicants to the trainee openings were being vetted. But yes, somebody should. He's more than good enough. AGK 19:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

BASC Statistics

 * Announcement

And before anyone asks, yes, hopefully these will become a monthly feature and no, we will not be posting anything more detailed than this. Shell  babelfish 02:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding User:Altenmann

 * Original announcement


 * The stuff about being restricted to one account and having to run for RfA to regain adminship are just technicalities, right? I mean, I thought we decided to ban this guy permanently. I can't imagine letting him edit at all ever again. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You're correct, Burpelson AFB. These additional remedies would only kick in when and if the community ban is lifted. It is not surprising to me that the community was perfectly capable of coming to a decision on how to deal with this user; the Arbitration Committee only needed to take care of the admin bit, and share the facts. Risker (talk) 02:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for explaining, that makes sense. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Can someone create a list of AFDs that Altenmann improperly closed/influenced, so that the deletions of those articles can be reviewed at relisted AFDs or DRV ? (I am hoping there is an easy automated way of creating this list.) Abecedare (talk) 03:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Administrators'_noticeboard has a good discussion of this. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I missed all the weekend happenings. Abecedare (talk) 04:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Bloody hell, Mikkalai! I wondered what happened to him. Pity, I liked Mikka - a fellow grumpy old man. It's a shame he felt he had to go down this path. Guy (Help!) 08:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I did not meet Altenmann, but I did meet Mikkalai (well, before the rename). I would have disagreed with him on political stuff, but he seemed an OK Math editor. And so was Twri; never suspected they were the same person. The Twri account did stress another editor though, which seemed a little odd. The claim that they had never met wasn't true Oh, well... Pcap ping  15:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Clarification in re Offliner's ban

 * Announcement


 * Please note: discussion of the clarification itself may be appropriate, but given the nature of the private information dissemination leading to the sanction it should do without saying that discussing that information itself will not be tolerated. &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

It should also be noted that Offliner strongly disagrees with the correctness of this explanation; nevertheless, this is an accurate description of the incident leading to the Committee's decision to ban him. &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record, it was not just one but multiple editors suffered off-wiki harassment, and that harassment included not only outing, but also death threats. --Martin (talk) 10:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

To Rich, the violation was the circulating of any of the EEML materials in the first place. Offliner is being punished because of a temptation he could not resist, a temptation that was not of his own making, rather, one which as created by the flagrantly improper distribution of the archive (a) "leaked" to an antagonist who publicized it with a gross misrepresentation of the contents and then (b) distributed it to editors that individual "trusted" who were combative antagonists of EEML members sure to pass the archive on in glee, and then through lack of any meaningful oversight whatsoever (c) shared with the entire planet. (Someone had to send me a pointer to A PUBLIC COPY so I could get a copy of the archive to review, not having a copy myself ! ) I can count on the fingers of one hand the times I read something on EEML that I had not already come across and was fully aware of. For that, I am topic banned for a year (not to mention people tracking me to post libelous crap about me) and Offliner is semi-perma-banned because my personal information and that of others was shared owing to the "most likely" scenario the EEML archive was leaked (being "hacked" would present legal issues) and therefore shared like a community vodka bottle. Don't blame Offliner (even though it's still his fault, I had expressed my hope upon his ban that it was NOT EEML related), blame yourselves for your lack of respect of individual privacy and having the hubris to think that WP is above common rules of decency and rules of law. You sowed the seeds, what Offliner did was merely one of a number of unfortunate resulting actions focused on destroying the reputations of individuals. (I suspect I should not appeal my topic ban anytime soon.) User:Vecrumba (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The question here is one of ultra vires. We have touched on it with other items, such as the "mailing list cabal".  To what extent does the writ of WP apply to off WP activities, even where they affect WP or Wikipedians? The further we enlarge that extent, the more work we take on, policing and enforcing it, the more risk we take of breaking legal, moral and ethical bounds, and the more we cease to be editorially independent. Furthermore we are using bans as a tool, not in the intended way.  Bans and blocks are not "punishment", they are solely to be used to protect the encyclopaedia.  It would seem to me that banning this user does not achieve that end.  Distributing personal information off-wiki may put him in breach of various laws, there are law enforcement authorities to deal with that.  It may constitute a tort, and he may be subject to civil redress, again the courts have jurisdiction, they certainly do in the case of death threats, and of course the organisation could receive subpoenas, which it would both wish to and be bound to respond to.  However on-wiki sanctions do not serve a purpose here, nor do they enhance our claim to be a common carrier.  Rich Farmbrough, 17:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC).
 * It's a valid question, and one which ArbCom sometimes have to struggle with; and we usualy shy away of on-wiki sanctions for things that do not have on-wiki effects (which wasn't the case here), and to at least avoid serving as a platform for harassment. At any rate, your reference to common carrier status is a red herring: it does not factor into our decisions, and does not apply in any case (i.e. having terms of service preventing abuse through a common carrier in no way weakens the status or confer higher liability).  &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty

 * Announcement

Arbitration motion regarding Eastern European mailing list

 * Announcement

Emergency desysop

 * Announcement

Done. For reinstatement please ask the enwiki bureaucrats. --Thogo (Talk) 01:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

lawl Seems ArbCom needs more practice drills with these emergencies! --MZMcBride (talk) 01:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not an emergency. It's not even urgent. A cup of tea is required. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This is one of those bright line THOU SHALT NOT things. WHen there is a block applied on your account by someone else, unblocking yourself is not a wise, suggested or allowed action. SirFozzie (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Right-o. Just close your eyes, hold your breath, and repeat the words over and over in your head, hoping that someday it'll come true. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Very droll. If you have a serious point to make, a bit less of the attitude would probably mean more people would listen to what you are saying, rather than comments like this becoming part of the background noise. Carcharoth (talk) 08:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll have a go: while I generally have a rather low opinion of Tan39, nothing he has done here suggests either that he is acting abusively, or that any action he has taken is negatively affecting the content of the project. This has every appearance of an "I don't like you" block; the initial "bright line offense" pretext given ("unblocking oneself is a bright line offense") applies to at least two members of the current Arbcom, and, as MZMcBride has pointed out, even the hastily-amended "unblocking yourself when someone else has blocked you" explanation has not been enforced in the past, and in the recent case of Herostratus the current Arbcom explicitly ignored it (that is, were definitely aware of the situation and chose not to act). Unless there's some kind of secret background to this that you're not making public, it looks from where I'm standing like all you've managed to do here is drive off a regular and productive contributor because one of your committee members is too proud to admit that he made a mistake. – iride  scent  15:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * While I agree there was no abusive action in the use of admin status (before the initial block), I do think it is an abusive action to unblock yourself unless it was clearly a mistake - and even then probably best not to. I think most people agree on this point - it's going to get you into trouble unblocking yourself, if the block was made sincerely (which it was), and I think Tan even knew that. The ability to unblock is, I recall, only there in case of other abusive admins, and is the only "safety valve".
 * I think that pointing to other cases is unhelpful, as each case is different. Two wrongs don't make a right, and it was definitely wrong to unblock himself. I think the emergency desysop procedure is only there to be on the safe side. Blocking is the only thing that anyone can do at a local level to stop an admin (until they unblock themself), so when they do, I think it does become serious. Removing the admin bit, at least temporarily, helps take the heat away.  Aiken   &#9835;   15:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So you think it took the heat away? A curious interpretation of events. Malleus Fatuorum 15:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * For the time being, I think it did. Unblocking himself, then enacting revenge on the blocker, is exactly the sort of reason he is unsuited to be an administrator, at least at this moment in time. As I said, it's only temporary.  Aiken   &#9835;   15:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I think people are missing the fact that he unblocked himself and then blocked the admin who blocked him. Bit of silliness, but removing the bit quickly before he did anything else in a fit of pique seems like a good idea. Now that there's no danger of further escalation, we can discuss the issue, consider any statement Tan has and figure out the best way to move forward. Emergency removal doesn't mean that ArbCom is permanently taking away someone's bit. Shell  babelfish 15:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly! This emergency desysop is one of the most obvious ones that ArbCom will do. 100% to prevent further inappropriate use of the tools. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (To Iridescent) In all cases, self-unblocking except in cases of obvious error, is a wheel warring of the worst possible sort. In this case, unlike in other cases mentioned without context or details, there was no possibility that this was an error, or even than Tan might have reasonably thought the block was an error.  He was aware of the block and its reasons yet, rather than request unblocking, he unblocked himself and then proceeded immediately to block the admin who blocked him.  Comparing this to the proffered list of cases of self-unblocks (that, it should be pointed out, consist almost entirely of reverted errors) is &mdash; at best &mdash; disingenuous and misleading.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You aren't seriously arguing that in the case of Herostratus there was obvious error, are you? Hipocrite (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, but Herostratus stated that he believed it to be an error, and did not act in a manner inconsistent with that belief by immediately blocking his blocker in retaliation. &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to be shifting your ground. What you appeared to be saying when you blocked Tan was that unblocking oneself was "a bright line" offence that left you with no option but to block him. Now you're saying that Tan's real crime was to block the administrator who blocked him? Is that shift necessary in a vain attempt to explain why Herostratus wasn't blocked? Malleus Fatuorum 16:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * *sigh* No, but as you very well understand, the following block simply eliminates the hypothesis that Tan might have thought that the block was simple error.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So what's your definition of "bright line" offence then? Because now it appears to involve mind reading as well as hypocrisy. Malleus Fatuorum 16:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The phrase Bright-line rule has a specific legal interpretation. It would not allow for exceptions for "reasonably percieved error by blocking admin." Please don't abuse the phrase when what you actually mean is that, in your opinion, it's clear that in this case, the self-unblocking was inapropriate. Hipocrite (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain you're replying to me, but if you are, then you've missed your target. I'm not the one waffling about "bright line rules", and changing my explanation of why I blocked one editor but didn't block another who had done exactly the same thing. That would be Coren. Malleus Fatuorum 20:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's who I am responding to. There are too many ::::::::::'s for me to be accurate at this point. Hipocrite (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Tan was clearly wrong to unblock himself. He was perhaps a bit heated and an unblock request would have been the way forward, Tan has emailed his retirement. The whole story reminds me that we should try harder to remember that wikipedian editors are living people and get upset and so on. Off2riorob (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Grievances have been raised and rejected with a rebuttal. Anything useful that can be said already has. I suspect nothing good will come out of this thread, and suggest that it be archived soon. AGK   15:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We should not try to hush up voices of dissent because we don't agree with them.  Aiken   &#9835;   15:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Standara ARBCOM Practices? Fuck up then dust it under the carpet? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) So when Arbcom decisions are accepted, the threads can stay, but when anyone questions one of their decisions the thread has to be isolated like a tubercular badger? Way to run a discussion board. – iride  scent  16:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, dissent has been registered and acknowledged. But the arbitrators clearly don't agree, having said so repeatedly. We've passed the point where this conversation is useful, and are now just wading through drama. There are more important things to be getting on with, y'know – like, well, anything that isn't this. AGK   16:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Iridescent: This is a drama board, not a discussion forum. I removed it from my watchlist a long time ago precisely because the useless sniping far exceeds any genuinely useful content. It's a shame, because having a noticeboard is the closest the committee has ever been to being immediately in touch with the community. AGK   16:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "This page is for discussion of formal announcements by the Committee". Says so in big letters at the top. The Committee made a formal announcement. You're trying to prevent us discussing it. – iride  scent  16:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been discussed to death on multiple forums. There's only so many times that people can say "this wasn't an emergency" or "yes it was" without the discussion becoming a circular, repetitive waste of people's time. Better to focus on whether to restore the guy's tools—or, for the those of us who don't have much to do with this at all (that's most people), on going away and doing something productive. Maybe I'm wrong, and the discussion will yield something productive. All that I'm saying is that that's very unlikely. I was the guy who ran for arbcom last year on a platform of listening more to the community and such. I'm not trying to stifle debate, but I am trying to stop a debate from descending into unproductive bickering. AGK   16:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think a discussion will be over once it's over, AGK. I don't see any productive use in attempting to close or archive this discussion. When people are done, they'll stop posting here. I happen to like a good bicker every now and then! :)  Aiken   &#9835;   16:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This is going to sound like a joke at first but I assure you it is not. What if we simply adopt an unwritten policy of not blocking users for being rude to Malleus. Seriously. While it's no secret that we are not the best of friends, that is not why I propose this. I propose it because the point of blocking someone is to prevent damaging Wikipedia, either the project or the community. In this case it seems like we are protecting someone who does not need or desire that protection. One would assume this is exactly what Tan ewas thinking when removing the block even though he knew your "not supposed to do that." Think of it as a very specific application of WP:IAR. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Tan's comments were to Turian (who was also blocked for personal attacks), not Malleus. Prodego  talk 16:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox is just trying to find some way in which he can blame me for this debacle, not entirely unexpected. Malleus Fatuorum 16:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I somehow doubt that giving everyone a license to abuse any editor on whatever grounds is a good application of WP:IAR. MLauba (Talk) 17:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw that the block was based on comments he made at Malleus' talk page, that's all. I'm not trying to blame anyone, Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Then in what way was your suggestion that "we simply adopt an unwritten policy of not blocking users for being rude to Malleus" relevant? Tan did not make the comments to me. Malleus Fatuorum 18:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I made an assumption that turned out to be false, so never mind the whole suggestion. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that your assumption reveals an agenda that does you no credit. Malleus Fatuorum 18:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

He was blocked and then desysoped. He then was unblocked and immediately retired, still desysoped. For the record, is that “leaving under a cloud”? Leaky Caldron  19:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I very much doubt that a bureaucrat would grant the bit back in this case, unless Arbcom says it's okay. --Conti|✉ 19:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * With the apparent exception of an email to Xeno, Tanthalas39 hasn't edited since seven minutes after the first block by Coren. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 19:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Something which may be actually relevant and constructive would be to discuss what to do with the forthcoming modifications to the blocking interface I implemented some time ago in. Thoughts welcome at VPR. Happy ‑ melon 19:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

To those who constantly hang around arbcom pages and complain about arbcom incessantly...arbcom works toward the global good, not just yours. Take a lesson from the American Hippies of the 1960s-the best way to change an organization is from within, hint ;-)  — Rlevse • Talk  • 20:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't thaqt the arguement the communist use? We're doing this for the greater good? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh my God! Not "The Communists"!!! You can be sure that no capitalist has ever claimed to do anything for the greater good. DuncanHill (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * @Rlevse - surely you're not implying that the American Hippies of the 1960s succeeded in electing McGovern? Or that they succeeded in thwarting Nixon's re-election? Nice soundbite, yes, but I think it represents a certain naivete, both political and local. You're, of course (and I speak towards ArbCom as a whole), free to disregard criticism you feel is unwarranted, but "if you don't like it, get elected" is incommunicative condescension of the worst sort, only serving to frustrate those who feel, correctly or not, that their complaints are legitimate and being ignored. This brief digression into U.S. politics and interpersonal communications brought to you by Badger Drink (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the point was more that any particular ArbCom composition is arguably a reflection of the priorities of the voters and that to change the "philosophical" leanings of the committee involves electing different arbitrators; I never made any secret of my complete lack of tolerance for wheel warring, for instance, and I would expect that factored at least to some degree in the decision to vote for me. Most of the elected arbitrators are "hardliners", and thus the committee as a whole is sterner than it otherwise might have been; but it's reasonable to assume that this is exactly what the majority of voters wanted.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 02:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Tell me, what would the reaction have been if ArbCom had in fact not desysopped Tanthalas39? Perhaps a rage about inconsistency of ArbCom, or them protecting their favorites?--Tznkai (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hard to say. What does your crystal ball tell you? I seem to have misplaced mine. Malleus Fatuorum 20:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would have expected that the committee would have been derided for not desysopping, by pretty much all the same people. Some people are predictable enough that crystal balls would be a wasted expense.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The crystal ball is thattaway. Shell   babelfish 22:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this thread still going on? It would be better to keep this simple. The announcement said: "This desysop is temporary until the entire Committee has had the opportunity to examine the matter and Tanthalas39 is given an opportunity to explain his actions." (my emphasis) I suggest that one of the following two options is followed: Anyone favour option 1 over option 2? Carcharoth (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (1) This thread is reopened and discussion continues until the heat-death of the universe.
 * (2) A fuller (summary) motion is posted at the motions page and the full committee votes on that (with non-arbs discussing on the talk page), and Tanthalas39 can comment and explain his actions if he chooses to or not.
 * OK, clearly some people still want to discuss this, so I'll leave the thread open. But please note that I am drafting a fuller motion, with diffs that explain what happened here, so that the desysopping can be voted on by the full committee. I'll circulate that motion and then place it on the motions page for voting, and discussion can move from here to there. In the meantime, could people please try and be restrained in what they post here? Carcharoth (talk) 00:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hopefully your motion will take account of the entire background to this sorry debacle, unlike Coren's misguided block. Malleus Fatuorum 00:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt it Malleus. I left for a day (I could'nt edit, I sprained my ankle) and this is still going on. Prodego was in the wrong when he blocked Tan on baseless grounds that went against the so called "consensus" that had developed. He had not commented at all until he said "I'm going to block Tan" and his next post was "I've blocked Tanthalas39". What kind of dispute resolution tactic is that? IMHO, that was an abuse of his admin tools and should never have happened. Now what Tan did in response was wrong as well, I'm not argueing that. However, Prodego got away scot-free and despite multiple requests to hand in his mop from several people, he did not. Open to recall? Give me a break. And Prodego also stated that If Tan was not an admin there would be no outcry. Not true. If Prodego blocked Malleus, there would still be calls for an unblock and for him to hand in the tools.--White Shadows you're breaking up 00:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Malleus, what you (and White Shadows) are asking for is a full case. The first right of response here lies with Tanthalus39. Until he responds (or we give up waiting for him to respond) nothing much happens. Only at the point that we move on without a response from Tanthalus39 would we consider requests from others to look at the wider aspects of this. And in any case, a full case would be started with a formal request for arbitration. My further thoughts on this are here. Carcharoth (talk) 02:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If we're going to begin a formal case on this, we should have it begin with the incident between John and Malleus. This did not start yesterday but several days ago. And there is a reasont that Tan has that big black notice at the top of his talk page. I doubt that He'll return any time soon.--White Shadows you're breaking up 02:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * apparently people seem to think that My commets are made in a rude tone. I'd liek to point out that they are not. (My last one was pretty sarcastic) I hope that you finish up on a motion for this soon Carcharoth.--White Shadows you're breaking up 02:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Motion has been drafted. Either it will emerge unscathed from where it is being circulated for comments (the mailing list) or an alternative will happen instead and I'll post the dregs of my motion as a timeline to help make things clearer to some of those commenting here. I'm aware some want to expand the scope of what has been examined here, but that is properly dealt with by other means (you have to first convince ArbCom it is worth examining the details here, and that involves building a proper request for arbitration, not a "but you haven't looked at this bit of what happened" approach). What I really want to do is provide enough diffs to explain what happened here (the current announcement is very threadbare). Carcharoth (talk) 02:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for beign so quick to do that. I hope that you drafted that motion in a neutral point of view as there are two opposing camps now that have litteraly dozens of editors in support of them. I do hope that Arbcom does decide ro listen to the case. We can expand the scope of it once the actual case begins.--White Shadows you're breaking up 02:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no case intended. This is simply a full review (as required) of the temporary desysop, providing details (effectively a finding on what took place) and looking at whether it should be rescinded or confirmed. The earlier matters don't come into it as all you have to do to consider the desysop is consider whether the block that led to the self-unblock was a simple error that should have be undone, or a block that should be contested by the normal means. The propriety or not of the block is a separate matter that was resolved separately at one of the noticeboards later after the block was reset by Coren. i.e. Whether the block was right or wrong isn't the point here. The self-unblocking and then blocking of the administrator who carried out the initial block is the point here. That is what the motion explains in more detail. See also my comments below (same timestamp). Carcharoth (talk) 07:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand Carcharoth. I'm not asking for an ArbCom case at all; I have no faith in the system and I've never asked for a case to be brought against anyone. White Shadows is the one asking for a case to be opened on something or other. All I said was that if a case is brought then it should be framed fairly, and not narrowly focused. Malleus Fatuorum 02:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If a case results, then yes, I would make the scope fairly wide, but at the moment there seems little reason for a case as the earlier matters (to which White Shadows refers) should be dealt with at levels below ArbCom. The only reason ArbCom got involved here was an administrator using his tools in a manner clearly inconsistent with the standards expected of administrators. The other claims about administrative use of tools (by other administrators) are less clear, no matter how much people might insist otherwise, and in regard to those claims White Shadows (and others) will have to convince ArbCom that a case to fully examine this is needed. Carcharoth (talk) 07:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Above, I stated that a motion had been drafted and was being circulated for comments. This has been done, but it is not quite ready for posting yet. This is because it takes longer to get the full committee to comment on something than just the three arbitrators that were required to initiate this process. I'm posting this update to ask those waiting for this motion to be patient a little bit longer. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to wait. Afterall, I'm a little hesitant to draw this out longer than it has to. But there really is nothing to contest if you just mention the secenario from Tan's self- unblock to him being indef and removed of his admin rights. He violated policy and the reaction was standard in a situation like this. (although it did not have to be an indef but there's no reason to argue that) What really is the issue here is whether or not Prodego abused his tools in the first place by blocking Tan and if there were any other mishaps prior to and after that administrative action.--White Shadows you're breaking up 10:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I for one do agree with what you posted. However, I still have feelings that Prodego also abused his tools to begin the blocking of Tan in the first place (though I have a feeling that more people dissagee) I guess that settles it then. We lose a valuable contributor all because of one little post by a now retired editor on Mallues's talk page. Oh well, such is the way of wiki-life I guess. That makes things settled right?--White Shadows <font style="color:#DC143C">you're breaking up 01:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's it for what happened here, though you are free to continue discussing the matter with Prodego if he wishes to do so. It would be better, though, if that discussion took place between him and Tan. Personally, and speaking more informally here, I hope Tan returns to editing, as this was only ever about his use of the sysop tools, not his editing. Carcharoth (talk) 02:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Same here. I do wish Tan good luck IRL and I also hope that he returns. I have also talked to Prodego but I'm not going to continue this on the ANI or anything like that. I basically appologized for getting so worked up over his action. Now we con only hope that Tan does indeed return.--<font style="color:#191970">White Shadows <font style="color:#DC143C">you're breaking up 02:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've now posted the follow-up review which was intended to: (a) clarify what happened here and get that on the public record; and (b) provide a fuller vote and review of the initial decision, which has now been confirmed. In response to some of the concerns raised above, I'd like to make clear that other matters related to this should be addressed at levels below ArbCom, and nothing more will be done on this specific matter until Tanthalas39 makes a statement or appeals this decision. We are aware that an e-mailed retirement notice was posted to his talk page, so this follow-up review announcement will be the last official post on the matter, rather than posting a notification to his talk page as would usually be done. Carcharoth (talk) 02:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That settles it then. No since in debateing anything that has to do with a RTV user. I'm done dragging this out and unless Tan returns, I see no reason to continue any case against Prodego. In other words, I'm through with this issue. (back to writeing)--<font style="color:#191970">White Shadows <font style="color:#DC143C">you're breaking up 02:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, and thanks for waiting so patiently for the promised follow-up motion. Carcharoth (talk) 02:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Notice of Resignation

 * Announcement


 * Needless to say... we all wish Wizardman the best, and thank him for his service as an Arbitrator. Any truth to the rumor that the real reason you're resigining is that you've accepted a job working for the Colbert Report? :) SirFozzie (talk) 06:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Seconded, thank you for all your service and for sticking to your own beliefs about activity and work (not that there is anything wrong about wanting to do other stuff on wiki :) )  James  ( T   C )  07:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Wizardman for your service to the Community as an arbitrator, and the other work that you do, too. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 10:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You have my thanks, too, Wizardman, for all your work while on ArbCom. Carcharoth (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

A shame it's the good ones who go...  Aiken   &#9835;   11:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Wizardman. Your straightforward, calm manner of dealing with so many of the issues that have come before the Committee has been greatly appreciated. You will be missed as a member of the Committee. Risker (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Have a good "retirement" Wizardman. And now, back to work.  :-)  Thanks for all the work you put in.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Alastair Haines 2

 * Announcement

Oversight mailing list moving to OTRS

 * Announcement

"The major effect on non-Oversighters will be the change in email address to which requests should be sent." Why not forward the old address to the new one? 69.228.170.24 (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yours is a reasonable question, and I've been told that it isn't technically possible. I'm sure someone else can give a better technical description of the mailing list address hierarchy of the WMF than I can; apparently the addresses for mailing lists and the addresses for OTRS can't be interchanged. Bottom line, though, the current mailing list will still be needed for threaded discussion of specific cases, for oversighters to ask for a second opinion, or for discussion of practices and similar information sharing. Should a stray request wind up there, we probably will forward it to the OTRS queue for response, but we will still action anything that comes up. Another point to note is that ONLY oversighters who have been duly appointed will have access to this private OTRS queue. It will not be visible to any other OTRS users, and none of them will have access to any information sent to it. Risker (talk) 06:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

If, as announced, the new address will give quicker response times, then I am all for it. I do have one question. Will current oversighters now be OTRS'ers as well or just have access to the email address? OK, that was kinda two :) - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 08:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oversight users will be given OTRS access so that they can access the queue. I'm not sure whether or not they'll also get access to any other queues at the same time . I'd say if you're trusted enough to use oversight then you're trusted enough to access the standard OTRS queues, but such a decision rests in the hands of the OTRS admins. --Deskana (talk) 08:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I have no problem was oversight'ers working with OTRS tickets. Actually it would help cause there would be more people to ask about them if needed.  I just wasn't sure and wanted to ask.  Good move all around.  One final question, when will this take place? - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 08:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The plan is to have us all switched over before the new oversighters are appointed. So, if all things go according to plan, we should be using the new system by the 28th of May. --Deskana (talk) 09:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Just out of interest, has any thought been put into whether response times will actually decrease? Currently, all an oversighter has to do is log into their wiki-email account and they'll have the mailing list threads all there for them. I would say it's a more substantial effort to have to log into the OTRS system. Whereas with the current system, oversight requests are brought directly to the attention of the oversight personnel, with the OTRS, the agent has to physically think that they want to check whether or not there are any requests and to do so must go through a whole new system. It may be a minor concern, but all in all I think this will lead to lowered response times for some of the more urgent requests.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 09:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that will be true for oversighters who use email a lot, especially for the ones who have OS emails sorted into a separate inbox. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 10:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you Ryan. I think we can expect to see response time increase slightly. However, I think that the slightly increased response time is an acceptable tradeoff for the fact that it'll be harder for e-mails to slip through the net, which unfortunately does happen. Besides, I can afford to have an extra tab open with OTRS in it :-) --Deskana (talk) 10:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's the flip side of my argument - I'm unsure what's best to be honest. On one hand, response times will inevitably increase. On the other hand, less requests will slip through the net and it will generally be more organised. I suppose it will be a case of trial and error, but I hope a review of the process can be made within a few months of the system going live to make sure response times aren't increasing too much - Would that be reasonable?  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the solution is for the individual oversighter's OTRS preferences to send them an email when there is new mail in the queue; mail is mail. Much more importantly, it will be very difficult for requests to slip through the cracks and be missed entirely, or left sitting for days. As to NeutralHomer's question, several oversighters are currently OTRS agents, for various queues. If you can imagine an OTRS queue as being kind of like a telephone line, different people have access to different lines, but they only know about and respond to calls on the lines for which they have access. There won't be any expectation that Oversighters take on additional OTRS work, although they are certainly very welcome to do so. Risker (talk) 10:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't even know that was possible to be honest - that would alleviate my concern somewhat - thanks Risker.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * 'Thinks; "I wonder if there is an 'OTRS for Dummies' manual? Just in case..."' LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes there is! It includes instructions on both how to use the oversight tools and how to use the OTRS system, and was written by Keegan and Avraham, who are both experienced oversighters and OTRS volunteers. Current oversighters will give it a test drive in the next few weeks, and it may have a few updates prior to the newly elected oversighters assuming responsibilities at the end of May. Risker (talk) 14:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Why not just update the email address in User:Oversight to point to the new location? Special:Emailuser/Oversight is linked in very many places. –<font face="verdana" color="black">xeno talk  13:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That one can be changed, but the fallback way to contact an oversighter mentioned in WP:Requests for oversight is the list address, which won't be changed. Amalthea  13:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Both of you are correct. Risker (talk) 14:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why won't the email address at WP:Requests for oversight be changed? Am I missing something? DuncanHill (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't clear enough: previously got messages to the oversight mailing list and requests for oversight. In the future, that address is only intended for mailing list messages, while oversight requests should be sent to some new address to be handled in OTRS. That new address is certainly going to be placed on WP:Requests for oversight.  Amalthea  16:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making that clear. DuncanHill (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I should also be more clear: my concern is/was that people will keep sending requests to the old address because they're used to that, and if there's no forwarding then the requests might fall on the floor, or be acted on more slowly. I hope there will be measures against that.  69.228.170.24 (talk) 23:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar

 * Announcement

Resignation

 * Original announcement
 * Tools removed as requested. Sorry to see you go, and thank you for your service! -- Avi (talk) 04:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your work on the Arbitration Committee, and in the many other areas of the project where you've participated. All the best to you.  Risker (talk) 05:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, you will be missed.  MBisanz  talk 05:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Aye. And already the world seems a little less bright. ~  <font color="#F09">Amory <font color="#555"> (u • t • c) 06:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that's just the new "Vector" skin. Risker (talk) 06:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I couldn't resist.
 * Thanks from me as well, Hersfold. Though it is dispiriting to be thanking two former colleagues so close together, I think there is a solid core of current arbitrators active enough and able to deal with most of the business of ArbCom, so no need to panic just yet. Carcharoth (talk) 23:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your volunteer work on ArbCom and best wishes for your other activities. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

So, with all these resignations, will there be replacements?  Aiken   &#9835;   08:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Part of the point of having a larger committee was exactly to guard against our numbers becoming too low in case of attrition. &mdash; Coren (talk) 10:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * God forbid. --MZMcBride (talk) 10:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We never like seeing arbs resign. :-( The numbers look OK for the moment, as long as there's minimal attrition before the next election. Could I put in a suggestion that the new policy draft be moved back onto the agenda? The policy text needs to provide the Committee and the community with options where its numbers fall significantly during the year.  Tony   (talk)  10:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Following 1,000s of emails, I am of course willing to pick up the heavy burden of responsibilities and duties of an Arbitrator should my "co-workers" wish to see it placed upon my frail shoulders. Lady Catherine de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 11:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't tell you how glad I am that your Ladyship has decided to act upon my email and those of so many others. (I can't even begin to count those I know personally who have told me of their own accord how much they would like to see you in this position.) I am sure your future colleagues in the select committee will be delighted and deeply honoured by your generous offer to have yourself co-opted into their circle. Your most humble servant etc. Hans Adler 11:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nah. --Conti|✉ 19:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Catherine: No. AGK   19:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course you are both entitled to your views, I am not a woman to bear a grudge, so can I tempt you to have a lovely weekend at my hunting lodge stalking goats in the lovely and very isolated hills of Sicily with Mario my personal huntsman. So beautiful is the district many of my guests have never returned. RSVP. Lady Catherine de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh my, that does seem like it could be awfully enjoyable… AGK   20:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ask to see a picture of Mario first. And goats? Doesn't quite compare to lions on the veldt, does it? Carcharoth (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well yes: "... with Mario my personal huntsman. So beautiful is ...". I was profoundly let down by the remainder of that clause. Tony   (talk)  04:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

BASC Statistics April 2010

 * Announcement

Motion regarding A Nobody

 * Announcement

Thank you. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles is a protected double redirect that needs a tweak.
 * Fixed by Steve Smith. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick and reasonable solution to this matter. Hopefully this will be the end of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

A good decision by the Arb Comm.  Aiken   &#9835;   23:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * A truly outrageous decision: it amounts to prejudgment that he would lose an arb case if it actually proceeded. It demonstrates the abandonment by Cool Hand Luke, Coren, KnightLago, Mailer diablo, Rlevse, Shell Kinney, SirFozzie, Steve Smith of any attempt at fair process. If there were an impeachment mechanism for arbs, this would be a time for it. At the least, if he does come back and ask for a case, it would be clear and convincing grounds of their prejudice, and a basis for insisting they recuse themselves. If this were being done to someone I truly hated here, I would say just the same as I am saying now. No one at all should ever be dealt with in this manner.  DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * With respect, DGG, it amounts to no such thing (though I have absolutely no doubt that you're speaking the truth in your last sentence). A Nobody was welcome to participate in the arbitration case that we had voted to accept (and to hold in abeyance in deference to his inability to participate).  He remains welcome to participate in that case, and as soon as he agrees to do so, the ban will be lifted—not lifted to permit participation in the case, lifted in full.  What he is not welcome to do is to continue to participate in Wikipedia while refusing to take part in the ArbCom case.  What would you have us do in this situation? Steve Smith (talk) 02:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, with respect to your comments about impeachment, I will resign as an arbitrator if I am recalled as an administrator (see User:Steve Smith/Recall). I believe that Luke also has a process by which he can be recalled as arbitrator, though I'll leave it to him to explain that more fully. Steve Smith (talk) 02:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If arbs resigned everytime someone didn't like how they voted, we'd never have an arbcom. Now there's food for thought. Hmmm....<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 02:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My impression is that the whole saga has been allowed to snowball in a haphazard way, which is highly unfortunate. Yes A Nobody annoyed alot of editors, and a significant part of that was due to differences in opinion on notability grounds. Yes inclusionists are outnumbered in these active debates. The fact that an editor has fled and felt unable to face arbitration does not exempt other parties from examination. Thinking back on it, the case should have been opened at the time and evidence presented, leaving it up to AN if he wished to present evidence or not. I think that if this were so, he would have come to the case and presented evidence in due time, and if he didn't so be it. Instead, we get an editor feeling hounded and unheard and a de facto indefblock. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A Nobody has submitted a lot of information to the Committee via our pages on Meta and via email, so I would not say that he was unheard. SirFozzie (talk) 02:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In which case the grounds for not holding a case are weaker - this then begs the question, does the arbitration committee feel that no-one else in this whole saga warrants any action? Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * like who? Might as well name some names and offer up some justification rather than simply talking about how blame should be spread around.  You keep alluding to these mystery malcontents, so let's put some on the table.  And if you think naming names is divisive or uncivil, then might I submit that continuing to suggest that a broader net might rightly be cast without offering some scope is just as bothersome.  At least if you name names then folks can defend themselves. Protonk (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * An alternate interpretation may be that some of this was his fault. He could have participated at the RfC, could have changed his tactics well before the RfC when it was abundantly clear there was good faith opposition to it (or even on his first indef block), but he didn't.  He consistently evaded responsibility and shifted blame and it finally left him with nowhere else to go.  I agree he was basically compelled to participate in the case at the moment of decision.  But what lesser measure would have gotten his attention?  What lesser measure hadn't already been tried where he didn't take comfort in recasting complaints as an ideological struggle (a position you echo as well as DGG)?  And having exhausted all lesser measures, including some avoided because of a health crisis, what was supposed to happen this time? Protonk (talk) 03:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think the original AC decision to "open but not open" the case was wise. It's led to more than the necessary amount of ambiguity and allowed the situation to fester. If there was a case against AN, and I assume there was, it should have just been opened. That an editor doesn't want a case or decides to "leave" really shouldn't make a difference; if the case is there, it should happen. Delaying a proposed decision for a reasonable amount of time to allow the user to present evidence, OK, that makes sense, but leaving it hanging like this does not. If people don't want to participate in an AC case, they need to not get involved in behaviour that leads to one. Leaving the case hanging left doubts as to the status and seems to have engendered an even stronger attack mode in AN's foes (such as the personal attacks at RFAR). The current motion, furthermore, is essentially just a formalization of the status quo. Can't we just have a case or not? Or alternatively, a motion for a real ban (assuming such a thing is merited) rather than a motion that just punts the issue. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thinking some more on this, I agree with Casliber that the case maybe should have been opened at the time and evidence presented. What was needed was for those who may have intended to present evidence about other parties to make that clearer and make statements at the request. But this was difficult because the request was narrowly framed (wrongly or rightly) about A Nobody. I had intended to present evidence (hence my recusal) about general conduct by a wide number of editors (over several years) during various notability and deletion debates that (in my opinion) crossed the line several times, particularly where A Nobody was involved. Though I don't know whether that would have resulted in any sanctions for other editors from a case, that option is no longer available, which is not ideal (in terms of addressing the wider problems in these areas). The secondary option is to raise the matter with the editors involved, and to ask if they will tone down their attitude in deletion debates. I suppose to really justify that, I may have to become more active in deletion debates, rather than just reading them from afar. One thing I will say is that if the atmosphere at areas where A Nobody particpated does not improve, then the problem is either with the system or with other editors that remain and continue to lower the tone of such debates. Carcharoth (talk) 04:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have never said that some of the fault is not AN's. Some of the ways he was carrying on AfD discussions under an earlier name were not at all productive, and even made it more difficult at times to sensibly defend an article. There were debates I did not join because, although I agreed with him on the issue, I did not want to be associated with his line of approach. Subsequently, a number of the things he did   and some of the ways he responded, were what I can only call amazingly stupid. I gave him a good deal of advice especially at first, as did other people; he took very little of it. (And all this is more or less what I said earlier at a RfC-U on him.)
 * But I think the opposition really was and remains an "ideological struggle". I've always though it wrong to deal with content or policy disputes by   trying to lure an opponent  into sanctionable behavior; that is what I see here. Obviously, sometimes the opponent makes it rather easy to do so, as here, but however facile, it always perpetuates bad feeling; it is a sign of bad faith,  and should not be rewarded. But I would reassure Casliber that although the deletionists may reign in some circles, they are not representative of the ordinary WP contributor, especially the people who more recently have been joining Wikipedia. We can continue to work for a broad coverage in our encyclopedia, and I expect we will succeed in general.
 * I no longer believe the good faith of a few of his opponents. The people who suggested his charges of outside harassment or his illness were false were in gross violation of both WP:NPA and WP:BLP. Even apart from our rules, I cannot imagine any provocation which would cause anyone I respect to do either of these things, ever. What one could legitimately do if one thought such a charge was true and relevant would be to say so privately to arbcom. To do it in public shows actual malice.
 * I have never brought or joined a formal case against anyone at WP, and I never intend to, because on the whole I do not think justice is done, to either the parties or to WP. (Early on, I once did join in certifying an RfC-U, which helped form my view of our formal procedure.) I only suggested a procedure that does not exist because I knew it did not exist. As for recall, why would I ask someone to step down in a minor office they do perfectly well because of being injudicious in a major one? The entire concept of punishing people is alien to me, though I recognize that sometimes they need to be restrained. Arb com seems to be alternate between lack of action altogether, or, more lately, over-hasty over-reaction--both in general issues, such as BLP, and ones involving individuals. I do not know their internal dynamics, but once they get an idea, they seem to stop thinking altogether. It's common among both small and large deliberative assemblies. If asked for a result, I would suggest assigning each case to a panel of 3 arbitrators, the way it is done in RL. I can't be sure it would do less damage, but it would certainly take less human effort. Every individual one of the arbs is to the extent I know them more sensible than their joint decisions. I'd be extremely glad for Carcharoth's input into both general and specific questions involving AfDs, but I sure hope arb com as a body will not get involved in it.  DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that expressing doubt about A Nobody's illnesses and harassment is automatically a violation of WP:NPA and WP:BLP. It can be done poorly and inappropriately, but there's no more reason to require people to take those statements at face value than any other. I've certainly expressed doubt on both issues, but don't think I've violated either policy.&mdash;Kww(talk) 05:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I would be recused in a case about A Nobody, and likely in any case involving WP:FICTION issues or disputes over notability, but I think the aim of any case would not be to resolve long-running ideological issues (other than to reinforce the principle that the so-called inclusionist and deletionist divide is not a helpful way to view Wikipedia, but noting that in practice many people do subscribe to this view), as the community as a whole need to resolve such issues, but to remove the most egregious and "driven" editors (who lower the tone of the debates - many new editors imitate the behaviour they see there and elsewhere in the encyclopedia). There is a fair case to be made that A Nobody was "driven" and obsessed by certain issues, but my view, from what I've seen, is that others are equally "driven" and convinced that they are right, and fail to step back and look at the wider picture. The ideal AfD participant will refer to sources and research an issue thoroughly, rather than make drive-by comments, draw boxes around classes of articles and battle incessantly with others over the same issues (more people that just A Nobody have done this). But I should stop there - all this should be held back for either a community-wide RfC on appropriate conduct in deletion debates, or for a case if A Nobody returns. Indeed, both are possible. But carrying on a virtual case here on the talk page would not be appropriate. Carcharoth (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (TO DGG) Why are you allowed to stop believing some 'opponents' are acting in good faith but the opponents are not allowed to form the same belief about AN? Protonk (talk) 05:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay then, what 'ulterior motive' do you attribute to him. What POV is he trying to push Protonk? I also stated above that he is not faultless, but do you Protonk honestly believe that all on the other side are blameless? Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Specifically with regard to announcing an illness whenever scrutiny arrives? Isn't so much an ulterior motive as it is a question of how many times you can be told a lie and still have to believe it.  With regard to the general 'problem', I really don't see the need to continue to demand that all matters be sewn up before specific problems are dealt with.  Is the inc/del debate a minefield?  Yes.  Are there partisans on both sides?  Sure.  But Neither of those statements precludes judgment on individuals.  I mean, replace the substrate of the debate with any other contentious issue and see if you feel the same way.  Does Arbcom rule on conduct issues in topic areas where partisans exist on both sides and where a generally toxic editing environment exists?  Or do they throw their hands up and call for a pox on both houses? Protonk (talk) 06:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Arbitration cases exist where both those "solutions" have been tried. The community has also taken both approaches as well at varying times in relation to various areas, and individual admins attempting to cool down some contentious areas have also tried both sets of approaches (usually with the backing of discretionary sanctions). Carcharoth (talk) 06:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with A Nobody on content issues, and I would love to see him return to editing. However, under the circumstances I feel the ArbCom's decision was reasonable. I hope he'll return to editing and take part in the case. Everyking (talk) 05:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Question: Why is it such a big deal when vested contributors/established editors get banned or sanctioned, but newbie editors frequently get chased away after making a few newbie mistakes and no one pays it any attention? Cla68 (talk) 06:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Funny you should bring that up, A Nobody was someone who tried to welcome new users if I recall. I'd say his presence was relatively beneficial for new contributors maybe caught up at AfD. You were implying...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec with above) :Hopefully nobody is being blocked for simple error, but if an editor has done nothing but cause problems, blocking them is a fairly straightforward decision. Whether they intended harm or not, some users simply lack the WP:COMPETENCE to edit Wikipedia. This sort of thing is a horse of a different color. Even at the RFC that pre-dated this situation going to ArbCom, there was a general agreement that AN was motivated by a sincere desire to improve Wikipedia, there were just a lot of users who disagreed with how he attempted to make some of those improvements. These are always the tough cases, where we can't sim[ly say that everything the user has ever done is a problem and we must try to weigh the positive against the negative and see which way the scales tip. In this case, ANs refusal to engage in any meaningful discussion of their editing is ultimately what led us to this point. He is obviously not without friends and supporters here, but when you refuse to acknowledge consensus you have has stepped away from Wikipedia's fundamental model for decision making. Despite the remarks that I and others have made about ANs motivations and tactics, that is the heart of this problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (To Casliber) I was implying that Wikipedians spend too much time, and I'm probably guilty of this as well, supporting and defending their wiki-friends instead of focusing on important things, like welcoming newcomers and helping them get past the mistakes they often make as they start editing or ensuring that they don't leave because they get bullied on the talk page of a contentious article. If AN was good at welcoming newcomers, then I hope others, especially admins, are learning and following his/her example. Cla68 (talk) 07:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Er..yeah, well I have been concentrating on content myself most of the time.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I have found myself vexated by A Nobody's points of view from time to time, but I have always defended his right to an opinion, and will continue to do so, once he can have it with respect to others' and without disrupting others — I have awarded him two barnstars in the past and I feel he is very good for implementing checks and balances. It's just the way he does it. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good decision. To all opposers above: A Nobody could have avoided this by participating in dispute resolution and presenting any defence, mitigation, etc. that he wished to put forward, rather than vanishing under whatever pretext or sticking his fingers in his ears and whistling. And as mentioned above, the second he agrees to actually answer the case against him, the ban can be lifted.


 * I think this answer is completely fair in light of Nobody (both as this name and as his previous) would tend to disappear, claiming health problems or other related issues that would take away from being on WP, when signs that his behavior was about to come under scrutiny, and then would reappear after enough time has passed for the issue to have disappeared. I can assume good faith that this situation could happen once, but I believe there's at least 3 distinct instances (excluding this case) in the past that describes it, and its very easy to call this a "boy crying 'wolf'" scenario. Of course, the actual situation could be true, that Nobody's off-wiki life has had cycles that would correspond with editing cycles that would lead to this behavior, and I presume that the emails mentioned between ARb and Nobody have shed light to that situation. But even with these, just because the previous issues were never fleshed out means they don't go away and at some point Nobody needs to account for these; Nobody was fully aware of the review of his actions that were about to take place prior to these disappearances. There's no implication here of the case prematurely falling against Nobody, simply that if he should decide to return, his actions from before need to be reviewed, with quite possibly no further ArbCom action needed at the end of the day. --M ASEM  (t) 13:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I support the expansion of SirFozzie's block to a formal provisional ban. This question is moot in light of the community ban, but what would be done if A Nobody explicitly waived his right to participate in the case? Flatscan (talk) 04:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Question
Out of interest, how does this "the ban will be lifted" thing work? Does that imply that the minute Le Grand Roi / A Nobody agrees to arbitration (which will be the mother of all train wrecks if DGG's outrage at such an obvious correct call here indicates anything) that he'll actually be unblocked and free to edit again? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I do believe that is indeed exactly what it says. Of course, any unblock might be short-lived if the case found for banning. Like I've mentioned above, I'm not a fan of this method of dealing with cases that seems to me to be effectively punting. Still, it's what the committee's decided to do, apparently. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. I can see why arbcom are unwilling to act without LGR present (nothing better for a martyr than a trial by effigy, after all), but it seems somewhat strange that the lifting of the ban would also be accompanied by a lifting of the block. The theory is presumably that this gives LGR an incentive to come back, along with what I can assume are assurances from his supporters that the outcome will be something other than permanent exclusion (a medal, for instance). Given that the outcome probably would be permanent exclusion considering his infallible self-belief in his purpose, it seems a little odd to try to invite someone back just so that he can be banhammered harder. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it's pretty hard to participate in an AC while blocked, isn't it? Also, I wouldn't think a permanent ban resulting from a full case would be likely, simply because AC rarely bans for more than a year.
 * Though as I think about it, this situation begs a question: What if A Nobody socks to get around this formalized ban? Surely then it wouldn't be proper to allow an automatic unban if he participates in the case, right? Is there a provision for this situation, arbs? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, Ecoleetage was "speedy banned" following his stalking and then his sock Pastor Theo banned without a full case when CheckUser confirmed it. Seems a bit absurd to suggest that it's only "formalized bans" which go through a full case which really count; otherwise anyone banned without a full case could plead to be reinstated until such point as they were "properly" banned. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Given that the outcome probably would be permanent exclusion..." Are you are suggesting that this motion is pointless and instead the Committee should just summarily ban A Nobody without a case at all? ~ <font color="#F09">Amory <font color="#555"> (u • t • c) 13:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the community should, and take it out of Arbcom's hands. Fourth time socking conviction should be sufficient, even if you assumed that all other accusations are false and his behaviour has been angelic in all other aspects.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My thinking, as the arb who proposed the motion, is that ArbCom shouldn't summarily ban long-term contributors without the benefit of a case. Accordingly, if A Nobody agrees to participate in arbitration, the ban will be completely and permanently lifted (though there's no telling whether the ensuing case would subsequently result in a new ban, of course).  The problem we had is that the previous motion said that the case would be opened as soon as A Nobody "returned"; A Nobody has subsequently made quite a few edits while vehemently denying that he had "returned" (these edits were always "just one-offs", or "so minor and non-contentious nobody could possibly object to them") and stating his unwillingness to participate in arbitration (since, after all, he hadn't "returned").  This motion effectively gives some teeth to the choice that the last motion was intended to provide: A Nobody may either participate in arbitration as an editor in good standing, or stay away from Wikipedia entirely. Steve Smith (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Steve's pretty much got it here. Since A Nobody indicated that he was leaving Wikipedia entirely, the original case was put aside with the thinking that if a contributor leaves, the conduct problems have solved themselves.  The motion also indicated that should he return, the case would be heard so any conduct issues could be addressed. Recently we became aware that A Nobody was editing again.  Now I don't know about you, but leaving Wikipedia entirely and returning from time to time to edit aren't the same thing in my book.  We had discussions with A Nobody on Meta and through email where he indicated that he planned to continue this occasional editing but refused to participate in a case.  This new motion is simply to clarify that if you're gone, that means no editing - if you're editing, you aren't gone. Shell   babelfish 16:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason to believe that an editor active since at least 2007 and repeatedly indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry was unaware until that discussion that being indefinitely blocked was not an invitation to casually edit under other accounts or IPs? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It should be named a provisional ban then, not an indefinite one. Consequently, I dispute that AN should be listed along with users who were indefinitely banned after arbitration cases here. If this is truly provisional, then don't make it appear like a permanent ban. In those conditions it doesn't seem appropriate to tag AN's userpage with ArbCom-banned, nor as sockmaster since it was visibly a few isolated IP edits. It seems to have become for some users an occasion of retaliation against AN which I'm not comfortable with. Cenarium (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is indefinite in the sense of not being of definite duration. "Provisional" would also be accurate, I suppose, but "indefinite" is the terminology we generally use.  You are very likely correct about the page tagging; ArbCom certainly hasn't mandated such tagging, and that The Community can exercise its own discretion there. Steve Smith (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Removing the arbcom ban tagging wouldn't bother me much one way or the other. Describing his IP edits as "a few isolated IP edits" is inaccurate: more like "demonstrated once again that he violates WP:SOCK at will." He is a confirmed sockpuppeteer that has evaded blocks and avoided scrutiny using multiple socks, both IPs and accounts, and has done so repeatedly over time.
 * I will point out that the A Nobody account itself was unblocked on his assurance that " I am NOT requesting to be unvanished and I am NOT planning on starting up editing again.".&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See reply in section about AN's userpage.
 * Re 'indefinite': words matter, it doesn't convey the same meaning to say 'indefinitely banned' or 'provisionally banned'. I don't think it's fair to list A Nobody along with users who were indefinitely banned after arbcom cases. Cenarium (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I will point out that the A Nobody account itself was unblocked on his assurance that " I am NOT requesting to be unvanished and I am NOT planning on starting up editing again.".&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See reply in section about AN's userpage.
 * Re 'indefinite': words matter, it doesn't convey the same meaning to say 'indefinitely banned' or 'provisionally banned'. I don't think it's fair to list A Nobody along with users who were indefinitely banned after arbcom cases. Cenarium (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I can see at least one user on that list who didn't go through a whole ArbCom before being banned. I'm curious as to where this "people aren't really banned unless they had a full trial at ArbCom" meme came from; I'd never seen it until today. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ArbCom has banned users outside cases, I didn't say the contrary, but most of the users listed there have been banned as a result of an arbitration case, and the few exceptions listed, Runcorn, Proabivouac, Chergles (Archtransit), etc, are not comparable to A Nobody. Cenarium (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thumperward (Chris Cunningham), your statement earlier is presumptuous "Given that the outcome probably would be permanent exclusion considering his infallible self-belief in his purpose, it seems a little odd to try to invite someone back just so that he can be banhammered harder". If people were banned for their 'infallible self-belief', then there are a lot of currently active editors in good standing who would be banned. I agree that displaying an infallible self-belief (a version of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) is not good in a collaborative environment, but you have to demonstrate that the line is crossed into tendentious editing and disruption, and hence warrants banning. The RfC has evidence related to that (so let's not argue here on this talk page about that), but what has been decided here is that a case will only be heard if A Nobody returns. If he socks, present evidence to checkusers about that (but please do so with decorum and without the emotive language that has been used), and if a case is opened, then his conduct can be discussed there, but there is little left to do here. You might not agree with how this has been handled, but please don't misrepresent the provisional ban (as it has been described elsewhere on this page) as a permanent or community ban until it is clear that things have changed. My view is that in order for a case to be opened, A Nobody needs to avoid socking, the problem being that trolls can imitate his behaviour with ease. One interesting option is for A Nobody to go the Jack Merridew route and avoid socking, do good work on another project, apologise for past conduct, commit to maintaining changed and good conduct, and eventually be rehabilitated (whether a case would be required would depend on the length of time and how genuine the reform was, and whether people would still want a case in, say, a year's time). Carcharoth (talk) 07:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Would arbs be amenable to list A Nobody in a new, third section 'Provisional bans' at List of banned users, for the reasons given above ? Cenarium (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Notice on A Nobody's page
Guys, regardless of anything else, we now have a bunch of people reverting each other on A Nobody's user page as to whether it should be marked as "retired" or "banned by Arbcom" and "confirmed sockpuppet". The currently latest edits include Kww placing the sockpuppet tag and Jack Merridew putting in the "banned by arbcom" tag. A few edits down is a retagging by Beeblebrox with "replace lies with fact" in the edit summary. I know some of you are frustrated with AN's behavior, but it is quite unseemly and appears retaliatory for those clearly involved in conflicts with AN recently - through whoever's fault - to be doing this. Could we have someone truly independent, for instance the relevant ArbCom clerk, put an accurate but neutral explanation on the page (given the unusual situation, might be better to be explicit rather than just stick in a template)? And could those of you with any recent acrimonious interactions with AN (and equally those who consider themselves his supporters) voluntarily stay away from that page? Then let's go back to writing an encyclopedia. Martinp (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The tag I placed is pretty directly referring to the facts. The motion said banned by AC, and I linked to that. And Kevin linked to the recent SPI, as did Beeblebrox. I've not kept up with this discussion, but if some clerk or arb wants to post some explicit statement; sure. I'll not fuss over it.
 * Anyone seen this? NOT MY BLOGS; Grawp's work, or some other troll.
 * Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I processed A Nobody's sockpuppeting case pretty much the same way that I process SPI reports every day: I created it when an editor notified me of a reasonable suspicion that A Nobody was socking. It's worth noting that is in response to me asking him not to make unsupported accusations. I requested a checkuser when it was clear that there was enough evidence to proceed. When the checkuser comes back, I would normally tag and block the user. In this case, I waited for Arbcom to act on its open report, and, once it blocked A Nobody, I closed the SPI report and tagged the user page. The only difference is that I did not use, but instead  , because, at this point, I am not convinced that the sockpuppeting is the motivation for the block. There is no doubt that the tag is valid, however: A Nobody has a history of socking that has been confirmed on multiple occasions. There's simply no denying that.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, A Nobody has previously sockpuppeted, but those accounts mentioned above were used in 2007 and 2008. We don't apply sockpuppet tags on userpages of users which have socked in the past then were accepted back, 'pardoned', by the community. Now that he's provisionally banned doesn't change that, the community didn't decide to ban him again and ArbCom's ban is provisional. The sockpuppet tag should be applied only if he starts using socks considerably. This case is a bit unusual so it's normal to have a bit of confusion and disagreements on what to do. I agree with Martinp's analysis of the situation. (I should also note that my rollback was accidental.) Cenarium (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to revert it, but the page has now been courtesy blanked. I strongly object.
 * That said, A Nobody's recent socking has been substantial enough that I would normally block any editor that I caught doing it. shows edits on Apr 9, Apr 22, and Apr 23 by . You can also see that 24.154.173.243 edited heavily during Sept 2008, during the Elisabeth Rogan false vanishment saga. He socked using 172.129.217.86, 172.162.135.112, and 172.131.15.227. This is not some kind of casual accidental socking: it is unrepentant socking from a habitual sockpuppeteer. Trying to treat this as something that should only be handled if he does it "considerably" isn't reasonable. If you showed me this sockpuppet history from any other user, I would indefinitely block that user without hesitation. In this case, I'm not using any admin powers whatsoever because of WP:INVOLVED, but I see no reason not to label a sockpuppeteer as a sockpuppeteer.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The 24...243 IP edited hundreds of times during Durova's blocks in 2006 and 2007, too; right up to the good faith unblock. During my 8 month indef I did not edit as an IP; I could have, too, all I would have had to have done is hang out in a different restaurant in Ubud. What I did do was move on to do good work on other projects. Cheers, Jack Merridew 23:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Considerably' was not well chosen, my position is that the recent socking has not been substantial enough to warrant a tag, and that the socking from past years has been forgiven. If A Nobody socks anew it should of course be handled. Now that ArbCom made their decision, and that A Nobody is provisionally banned, then tagging his page doesn't seem necessary barring new developments. Cenarium (talk) 00:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Since my most recent AC motion states that I am "commended for making a clean return from an indefinite ban" I assume that I've no need to keep the damn sock box on my original user page. Cool beans; I have ideas. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sock accounts, even old, should be tagged, here it's about the main account only. Cenarium (talk) 02:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Davenbelle is not a sock account, it's my original account, the sockmaster; User:Jack Merridew is a sock account. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Forgiven"? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Fighting over the tag doesn't seem to be worth the bother. Protonk (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course not. Cheers. Jack Merridew 02:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Two comments: (1) It seems it was too much to hope for that the calls for calm, restraint and decorum would be observed - squabbling over what tags should or shouldn't be on the userpages is unseemly. Discuss first (remembering to declare whether and how you are involved or not) and then implement what is decided, rather than edit warring over it. If you can't agree on what should be there, ask ArbCom or their clerks to handle it. (2) How to handle tags on other editors' sock pages is off-topic and those discussions should take place somewhere else. Carcharoth (talk) 07:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There's been no edit war. Beeblebrox put an incorrect tag on the page, it was removed. Jack and I put correct tags on the page, and when there was negative feedback on this page, another editor cleared them with a pointer to this discussion. There's been no activity since that point. Not the ideal path, but not edit-warring, either. There's no reason to see squabbling when there has been only disagreement.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I cannot fathom why this was remotely important for anyone to fight over. I trust that this is resolved now that they've been blanked. Cool Hand Luke 16:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody fought. --78.34.253.67 (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There was a disagreement (one where the editor above feels sen was "correct", and has strenuously argued so here and "strongly objects" to the current blanking). This disagreement manifested itself as various messages about what should be shown on A Nobody's user page. I think "fighting over the userpage" is a reasonable description. Cool Hand Luke 18:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

As a note, the reason I put the courtesy blanked notice on the page was I felt it a better middle ground between and the sockpuppet/banned tags, and I only intended them to stand until an arbcom clerk or someone otherwise neutral put a neutral, handwritten statement on the userpage detailing the why's for the ban and the conditions for unblock as User:Martinp requested at the top of this section, because I do agree that would be more fitting to the situation than slapping in a template. Again, I put it there because it was more neutral than the retired template or the blocked/sockpuppet template, not actually as a courtesy blanking. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 23:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The first thing anyone who sees "Blanked as a courtesy" does is say "Oh man there must be some good shit here" and look at the history... where she or he will now see everything. Mission accomplished, so let's go paint a shed. ~  <font color="#F09">Amory <font color="#555"> (u • t • c) 23:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Seen ANI? A strong emerging consensus for a community ban. I'm sure the page will find it's way to an appropriate state. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Apparently we're still talking about this. I propose his page be tagged thus:

At this point, this is the only restriction on his editing. So we have no need for any other tags. ÷seresin 00:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, something like that, plus the ANI close I referred to above. Suggest just waiting a bit. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer 'indefinitely blocked' to 'banned' as the latter often means 'revert on sight' WRT some others banned for very specific and serious reasons Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The motion did use the word 'banned' and that's the term under discussion at ANI. Any new edits should be reverted on sight if it's clear they are by him. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The term "banned" may simply mean: "Admins, don't unblock without community-wide discussion." -- Also, Jack, this is your turn to not be vindictive. --87.79.136.113 (talk) 07:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC) I didn't notice those comments were made before the closure of the ANI discussion. --87.79.136.113 (talk) 07:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Community ban enacted
Per discussion on ANI - a community consensus to community ban exists. I have enacted the community ban, logged it, and noted it on his user talk. The discussion above about the Arbcom ban and his talk page can't override a reasonable notification there of the additional community ban, though I do agree that after a reasonable time a consensus to courtesy blank it again would be fine. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A couple more comments here:
 * (1) When closing that ANI discussion you (gwh) said "This will be eligible to close 24 hrs after it was opened, per our policy on run durations of discussions of this type." I still object to community ban discussions running for less time than we take to discuss deletion of articles (seven days). I think more respect should be shown to editors facing a serious sanction than that (regardless of how seriously they take the process or not), but I realise that this argument needs to be made at a separate page, and that the vitriol seen in some ban discussions necessitates not leaving them open too long.
 * (2) The discussion was opened on ANI by Kww at 00:40, 21 May 2010, but Kww failed to return here to mention the parallel ANI community ban discussion. Surely the logical places to notify people of the community ban discussion would have been A Nobody's talk page and this thread? I only became aware of it (at around mid-day on 21 May) after checking ANI for something else, and as I was at work and out that evening and asleep until only a few hours ago, I intended to comment there later. As it turns out, the discussion closed before I was able to add a comment. Surely the lack of notification and the relatively short time available to comment is not ideal? Would it be possible to consider this for future ban discussions? Also, I think the community ban discussion was only mentioned in this thread relatively late on - can anyone identify the first time it was mentioned here?
 * (3) What I see as the ideal community ban discussion is a calm, reasoned discussion over a longer period of time, where people don't make emotive and sniping comments (i.e. commenting in anger) and have the time to calm down before making their contribution to the discussion. That would ultimately lead to discussions where more people felt inclined to participate (rather than just those who are passionate about the issue), and such discussions can be referred to later without cringing at some of the comments made (especially in the subthreads).
 * (4) I'm also considering suggesting that it be made very clear at WP:DR that Wikipedia dispute resolution should not be used for wikia dispute resolution, as the numerous references and goading and taunting (from both sides) on that matter should have been handled over there and not escalated here. What we effectively had was one side taunting from wikia (using blocks) and one side taunting from Wikipedia (see Lar's "Whew!!!" comment in the ANI thread, the clearest example of taunting an off-wiki action I've ever seen), which continued to escalate as neither side felt able to drop it. I asked people in general and specifically to stop this taunting and lead by example and they just carried on regardless, did something else instead, or ignored me, which indicates the depth of feeling about this, I suppose.


 * Overall, my feeling is that all this was escalated needlessly, firstly by unacceptable conduct from A Nobody but also secondarily by correspondingly poor conduct here. Maybe I am being idealistic, but surely it should be possible for a healthy functioning community to have a ban discussion without resorting to attacking and taunting the user being banned? This should apply especially when the user is blocked, and comments made off-wiki should not be seen as participating in the process, but should be ignored. Carcharoth (talk) 06:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I share the concerns raised by Carcharoth. The way this has been handled is really worrying to say the least. Especially for the ban, you can't have an informed consensus in 24 hours, those with already strong opinions on AN will and did show up in mass and no real discussion of the issues happened; no ban discussion should be closed after 24 hours except in case of unanimity, 1 week is a minimum. There's no way this is a valid community ban. It makes the case for a reform of community DR and the need for ArbCom. Cenarium (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As has been argued in the past, there are very specific reasons why (1) (and part about 'time' in 3) was rejected. On (2), there is no actual need to notify an user who is already aware of a sanction discussion - it can still be placed for the record on the user's talk, though it can be just as much of a courtesy as it is an annoyance. I thought ArbCom would have been made aware of the discussion by the user who started it, and/or that a notice was placed here to that effect, unless that user requested for someone else to do so on their behalf because of X reason. Perhaps asking that user directly would be more beneficial. On (3), presumably, that is how ArbCom decisions are made - I suppose an appeal can be handled in that case. On (4), that is well known - importing external conflicts and/or unrelated issues here is already a type of behavior that is not acceptable under policy, even if it is done during dispute resolution, because it turns Wikipedia into a battleground. Incidentally, ANI/AN is not dispute resolution except so far as removing certain participants (or their conduct) from a particular dispute. ArbCom already exists to discount "involved" opinions during an appeal. Similarly, ArbCom also exist to address conduct that needs to be addressed which the community cannot address by itself; whether ArbCom will do so or not is another matter altogether, particularly in relation to certain users. Lastly, I'd like to express my thanks to Georgewilliamherbert for being courteous in placing this notice here so as to inform both ArbCom and others about this ban being enacted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding discussing with the user who opened the ban discussion, Kww was kind enough to leave a note on my talk page explaining why he didn't leave a notification, and he actually was surprised himself that it was closed in 24 hours. I've replied there and I think that consensus may be changing on the timing issue (it was once considered acceptable to close such discussions after only a few hours!) - could you point to the previous discussions? I think that a slightly different model (initial notice and summary of evidence or link to evidence page posted, then 24 hours with no comments [to allow people to calm down] and then 24/48 hours of discussion with warnings to those who treat the discussion like a battleground, and then closure) would help draw some of the sting from such discussions. Regarding: "there is no actual need to notify an user who is already aware of a sanction discussion" - the point was that the parallel discussion sprung up on ANI without a notice here. You can't point to off-wiki actions by A Nobody as proof that they are aware of the discussion (I'm not even sure if he was notified of the ArbCom ban) - such off-wiki actions can be faked by trolls (though I don't think they were here) so you must notify on-wiki. On another point, can you explain why the actions of some in consistently bringing an off-wiki dispute (the actions at wikia) into the discussions was not called out by the community as importing an external conflict, given your "importing external conflicts [...] is already a type of behavior that is not acceptable under policy" point? Carcharoth (talk) 12:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I can understand your discomfort with the Wikia stuff, but this was not the more normal case of a benign Wikipedia editor whose behaviour in another forum was questionable. This is an editor that was taking on-Wiki behaviour and directly reacting to it in another forum, while refusing to comment in this one. We do a lot of courtroom analogies here: think of a defendant in a US court that pleaded the fifth in court while constantly making public statements. The courts do take such behaviour into account, although not at the same weight or in the same fashion as they do in-court statements.&mdash;Kww(talk) 13:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think our current community mechanisms are generally working fine. That is, I think that model you propose is simply adding unnecessary process wonkery (much like your previous one(s) to stick all sanction discussions at AN - one(s) I don't have links for, sorry). Overall, would not be helpful. Prolonging a discussion for longer than necessary is inviting an avoidable disaster where the sting becomes unbearable - a few hours is not enough, but 24 hours is an acceptable minimum. This doesn't invite that all discussions be closed at the minimum; it means the closer uses their discretion - hopefully in the most sensible manner in each set of circumstances; obviously, I think that was done here. Certainly, if certain arbitration decisions are prolonged for too long without effective delegation (and/or appropriate use of discretion), things start going wrong on all levels in a similar way...but I digress. Policy provides that subjects need to be notified, but as with any policy, follow with common sense in the circumstances that you encounter, even if the thought occurs too late. If you're not sure about whether A Nobody was notified on wiki about the ArbCom ban, a good place to find out would be the user's talk page history. The last point is probably that which deserves the most attention and examination. The community did not call that behaviour out because the majority of it are hesitant to do so due to at least one of the particular user(s) involved; that is the nature of almost any discussion on any noticeboard on Wikipedia. If it was any other users, and I'd seen it, I'd certainly highlight it to either address it (or have it addressed) in a remotely effective fashion. Meanwhile, ArbCom are aware that it is not acceptable under any standard - why did they not take more, let alone any effective measures? I presumed it would be the same bizarre conclusion as has happened before; everything was said within acceptable discretion, might not have been technically correct but based on what's available, whatever and so on and so forth [and insert any other political quibble and wikilawyering nonsense that will ultimately allow it to continue unchecked]. In any case, I suppose this thread shouldn't be hijacked from the fact that A Nobody has been banned and that's that until he appeals to BASC. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I also missed my chance to participate. WP:Banning policy does clearly specify a minimum of 24 hours. A number of A Nobody's supporters did comment, but they were apparently unconvincing. Flatscan (talk) 04:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * On the 24 hrs issue - if it had been anywhere close I would have recommended it be let run longer. We did get a balanced participation across the community, with reasoned viewpoints from what are probably "all sides" involved.  The policy was set to 24 hrs as a reasonable minimum, and can be changed to longer if there's community consensus to do so.
 * Regarding some of the issues raised regarding baiting and unnecessary escalation -
 * I don't want to downplay less than entirely constructive behavior on both sides, which happened. However, a large number of (as far as I know / could tell without extensive cross research) uninvolved editors and administrators commented constructively, and by a wide margin they supported the ban.  The threshold at which individual editors and administrators reach "exhausted patience" varies from person to person and incident to incident.  My personal patience was not exhausted in this case, but I understand the communities' developed consensus on that point.
 * I believe that we're seeing a reduced community tolerance threshold evolving for people disruptively playing silly buggers with sockpuppets. We certainly have seen the rate of community imposed sanctions and bans increase over the last couple of years, and particularly the last year and last six months.  We used to be almost loath to impose such sanctions, as a community, other than by individual admin fiat or by arbcom ruling.  This is clearly not true today.
 * I think that we want to avoid this being used excessively and without good cause. A lynch mob does nobody any good.  But in this case, in my judgement, the uninvolved community cared, had a relatively consistent and reasoned opinion, and that was for action.
 * I have half a mind to initiate a wider discussion on how we disengage formerly constructive editors from disruptive paths, with our resident behavior experts and psychiatrists and so forth. Ultimately, figuring out how to divert people rather than have to get to the point that we resolve as the community that we must flatten them seems like both a more productive and more humane approach.  However, I don't feel that we should paralyze ourselves in the process.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * One crucial point I feel should be made is that if someone has feelings of anger about an editor that is the subject of a ban discussion, they should calm down and make a reasoned comment, not an emotional one. And they should have the honesty to say that they may not be able to be objective and hence should only make a comment and should leave it to others to support or oppose the ban. If you cannot make a calm reasoned comment on why a ban is needed, then you shouldn't be saying "support" or "oppose". We don't allow emotive subjective reasoning when discussing deletion of articles (or rather, the closing admin discounts those comments that don't give proper reasoning based in policy), so why is the atmosphere allowed to degenerate in ban discussions? Incidentally, this is a good reason to have the ban discussions last longer, as it is difficult to warn people and remove personal attacks from ban discussions if they only last 24 hours. Gwh, if you do initiate a wider discussion on this, could you let me know, as I'd like to contribute to that. Carcharoth (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So in your opinion every single comment of those who opposed the ban was a perfect example of civility and calm, focused reasoning? --78.34.247.70 (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all. The tension needed to be ratcheted down on both sides. My basic thesis is that a community ban discussion shouldn't result in discord in the community that remains behind after one member of that community is ejected. The events leading up to a ban discussion will inevitably be fractious and divisive, but I wish that at the point a ban discussion takes place people would respect the process and put down the cudgels and discuss calmly and come to a decision on what is needed. As GWH says, that did largely happen, but there were people participating who were unable to put aside their emotion and who dragged down the tone of the discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

For future reference if necessary, could someone please post a permalink to the community ban discussion. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * At risk of indulging a request which plainly needs a sofixit: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive615. AGK   21:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. As for your latter comment, I thought it was reasonable to assume that it would be easier for someone who was familiar with the discussion to locate it in the archive than someone like me who was not. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That is fair enough. Sorry if I was abrupt there; upon reading I realise I was less pleasant than I had intended to be! AGK   22:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I've just caught up on this thread, and I've a few comments. A Nobody was quite aware of the ANI discussion. He was tit-for-tat blocking and unblocking in direct response to what people in that discussion were posting. MBisanz, for example, was blocked on that wikia quite promptly after making his comment; Protonk was unblocked shortly after making a 'reasonable' comment ("Has moments of reasonability"). Compare his blocking of others with the timing of the editors commenting on ANI. It's as clear as a bell. I posted a few of these blocks 'live' because he was in a sense a participant; lurking and taking shots. I am a calm person; really. I was not all het-up.

I agree with a lot of the comments above concerning the 24h being enough and that clear consensus had formed. Running for days would have been a huge dramafest, and would, I believe, have only found a yet-stronger consensus. I have had extensive discussion with Wikia staff about this. Really, I took most of it there, as I believe was appropriate. Carcharoth, I'd be glad to discuss this in more detail via email, if you're interested. I've kept a number of arbs in the loop on this and you're surely talking with them about it (and those I've commented to are free to discuss what I've said with the rest of the committee, as I've previously said).

Wikia is another site, ya, but it's close-by in several obvious senses. I've included the site owners in these discussions, and they have—presence?—here, too. We also have a handy non-external link syntax that I can use to point at today's comment from Wikia staff about the "Wikia Support Request" (#51986, and I have 3 more of these threads with them). Nutshell is that they've said "Enough". I've also just found out, today, that I've been preemptively blocked on yet another wikia, where he's a bureaucrat (and where I've never edited, either). It is easy to say to ignore it when you're not the subject of his attacks. He and some of his friends have been after me for better than a year and they've been over the top and outright vicious much of the time. While I was under mentorship, I was frequently counseled to let things go and largely did. A great deal of time and effort has gone into trying to resolve this by means short of the recent bans. See here, for example (huge threads in John's archives). John also popped over to Wikia and tried to sort this with A Nobody there; he del-tagged some of the attacks and was reverted; the revs deleted. He called what he saw over there "atrocious behaviour for an admin"; not just to me, to many.

It was suggested (not by Wikia) that I “retire” from Wikia and I have offered to do just that; I've little interest in that .com, anyway. Ironically, most of my fistful of edits there are attempts to resolve this (I'm referring to Community, where I'm not blocked). I want this over. I'm here to build this project and its well-being has been the primary impetus for my concerns all along; it always has been (not just en:wp; all of WMF).

These bans are good and long overdue. They will benefit the project and are part of a sea-change here (reference to someone's comment above, that I'm not finding again at the moment). They will benefit the project, not just by his specific absence; I consider this a major step towards addressing the toxic environment.

Sincerely, Jack Merridew 05:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on AN about duration of ban discussions
I'm going to open up a discussion on the Adminiatrators Noticeboard about the 24-hr minimum currently set for ban discussions to run. I'm going to create the section there after posting here, so give it a few minutes, but I think that's a more fruitful place to pursue questions about the length of time we leave these discussions open. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys

 * Announcement

Is anyone going to answer what I asked here, about why I deserve a six month topic ban? It seems like only one arbitrator understood what my situation is when voting... -YMB29 (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You got an answer; if any arbs disagreed, I'm sure you would have seen more responses. As it is, Carcharoth had it right - you persistently edit warred and made the area into a battleground.  There was no requirement that you edit war with others and that's exactly what we hope you'll have a chance to figure out during the topic ban. Shell   babelfish 19:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How is anything I did because of one user and mostly in one article "making the area into a battleground"? And Carcharoth did not exactly say that.
 * You tell me what else I should have done differently, given that I tried discussion, dispute resolution, notifying admins...
 * Seems like evidence was not looked at closely enough and a decision was made to just ban everyone.
 * I don't need six months to figure out that edit warring is bad... Does the ban apply to talk pages too? I am not saying that I should be completely let go, but six months?
 * What evidence is there that I deserve this much? Misinterpreted diffs that Biophys presented? Or the diffs of me reverting a user Biophys canvassed  and an IP  that almost certainly belongs to a sockmaster? -YMB29 (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You should have continued to escalate dispute resolution; you can always ask other long term Wikipedia editors for other ideas on how to solve a problem - what you can't do is decide to break the rules because article content isn't going the way you wanted it to. The ban does apply to talk pages as well. "Other people behaved badly" isn't a reason to excuse edit warring or any other problems following policy. The fact that you don't seem to understand why your behavior was a problem is a good indication that the ban was well placed. As I've said before, if anyone involved in the case would like to discuss what they can do going forward to avoid problems in the future, I'd be happy to talk about it (check my contact page for all sorts of methods).  However, if your plan is to convince me why edit warring was justified, it's not likely to be a fun conversation. Shell   babelfish 16:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not saying that edit warring is justified and understand that it is a problem, but it has to be looked at in the context of what was happening. The fact is the admins (and arbitrators also in the EEML case) failed to deal with Biophys' highly disruptive behavior earlier. I don't understand why... I still kept trying to resolve the issues with him, but he was not interested.
 * Other editors commented plenty of times, but the problem still remained as Biophys would come back after a while and start his reverting again.
 * My point is that whatever I did, even if interpreted in the worst way, does not deserve 6 months. As Newyorkbrad commented, it is too harsh. Can I appeal the ban?
 * I am involved in discussion on a few talk pages  and have replies ready, so I should put that off for 6 months?? Can I at least post a quick comment there and explain that I can't continue for a while? -YMB29 (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You may post a request for reconsideration or modification of the topic ban in the appropriate section of the Requests for arbitration page. You would probably be best served to allow a reasonable period of time to go by before making this request, although I cannot speak to what my colleagues might consider a reasonable period of time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info; I guess I will try after a while...
 * What about my replies for the talk pages? Can I post them and say that I won't be back for a long time? Maybe an admin can approve what I post there? It is just that the arbitration was closed quickly before I could post my replies... -YMB29 (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Normally it would be OK to make a single post explaining why you have to back out of the discussions, but it should only be that. Don't post anything about the subject of the discussion itself, even if you have prepared those replies. Normally, there would be a 24-hour period after the motion to close a case has passed, a window of time that allows the case clerk to announce the impending close of the case, to give editors facing sanctions time to disengage from areas where they are contributing, and for arbitrators to make sure the case looks OK overall and to complete voting, but that didn't happen in this case (the case is still fine, but some arbs did miss the chance to enter their votes). There is a provision to close cases immediately the motion to close passes, but it is rarely invoked and I'm am unsure why it happened in this case (possibly the edit summary of the last arb to vote on the motion was interpreted as 'can close right now this instant'), but what is done is done. Given the abrupt close of the case, I'm going to say it should be OK for you to post once in each of those threads, linking to this case and saying why you can't participate in the discussions for the next six months, but not saying anything else (e.g. don't carry on discussing things there). If you are unsure about this, please ask a clerk to post on your behalf. Carcharoth (talk) 07:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok thank you, I get it. -YMB29 (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

As the admin who asked the arbitrators to process this case, I would like to thank Shell and the others for taking the time to deal with this latest iteration of EE trouble in a thorough and professional manner and arriving at what appear to be appropriate and useful remedies. I hope that any continued problems can again be handled at the AE level. In view of your finding, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys, I consider it likely that any sort of disruption by a party to a previous case will immediately result in lengthy topic bans or blocks. <font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;"> Sandstein  20:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks to FloNight and Carcharoth for providing explanations about the scope of the ban:, .Biophys (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * As long as you're avoiding the area/topic where these problems occurred, you shouldn't run into a problem. Given the interpersonal problems that exist, you might also want to consider avoiding many of the editors involved in the problems since that interaction seems to cause everyone to behave poorly. Shell   babelfish 16:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree.Biophys (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Results of May 2010 CheckUser and Oversight election

 * Announcement

Why am I disturbed by the fact that virtually nobody got enough support to get oversight?... Does it have something to do with revdeletion being given to admins? (And yes, I'm aware that admin revdeletion isn't oversight, but a mode of deletion that was once only available to oversighters when it was first released.) The Thing That Should Not Be (talk) 03:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to see the election voting being some kind of backlash against sysadmin release of RevDelete, but I can't quite see that being likely. No evidence either way, but doesn't compute for me. FT2 (Talk 06:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hugely disappointing and significantly disturbing. The community seems to be going into lockdown and afraid to give necessary tools to competent people.  If there are the requests to be undertaken, then there needs to be the people to do it. Having seen it in the general WMF community sets the bar very high and you wonders why people don't want to come and participate.  I would reflect that if the level of negativity continues that maybe the pass mark may need to be reset to something achievable as long as a screening process is undertaken. Alternatively, we have a reverse emphasis, get them appointed, and vote them out by a consensus. billinghurst  sDrewth  12:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Unlike adminship these are tools that can do harm if misused. You don't want to given them out then remove them if there's a serious problem later on these ones. FT2 (Talk 20:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, and that is stating the bleeding obvious. I would point out that some of the candidates already have them at sister wikis and operate them without evident issue. Plus with that level of risk averseness, nothing will get done, 1 successful candidate out of that list is simply beyond the pale.  How high does the hurdle go? Seems more like pole-vaulting with toothpicks! Do they have to be personal friends and best mates for everyone?  I think not!  Let's start being objective about this, we need to stop the spreading plague of petty me-ness. Demonstrated trust, demonstrated cluefulness and demonstrated competence must count for something. billinghurst  sDrewth  13:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Time for real elections
Looks like ArbCom isn't very good at picking candidates, eh? Can someone explain to me what the issue is with allowing people to stand without a vetting process? There's no global policy issue and any "vetting" can't really be done by ArbCom anyway (they're not as competent as the WR folks and have had their own share of embarrassments from within (Sam B.)). Other wikis use this process to select their CheckUsers and Oversighters. And not even small wikis with fonts that don't display correctly. Commons is among them. Works fine over there. It'll work fine here. The power falling to ArbCom is a mistake of history, and one that needs to be remedied. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Either switch to real elections or revert back to ArbCom deciding. Either works for me, although the latter does guarantee that someone is chosen. We cannot continue to have this middle of the road situation though, as it essentially gets the worst of both possibilities. In the system we have, qualified candidates are being rejected by the community, and the community is outraged at ArbCom getting to decide who can run in the election. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 03:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This was a real election though (unless by real you mean, top x candidates win, regardless). Prodego  talk 03:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Real" == ArbCom stays out of it. That was pretty clear from the opening post. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Running an election without ArbCom vetting would, at best, result in the same thing that this one did: namely, not enough new functionaries. Would you like to run the queries for 50 SPI cases every ten days, on top of following up two or three unstoppable serial sockpuppeteers, and all the random checks in between? Because I did this last week and a half, and I don't want relish the idea of doing it again. At worst, it would result in the election of people who have no idea how to use the tool properly, because they have a lot of friends/WR gave them a wink/they got really lucky. I actually like the first choice better, because at least then you don't get to go on about there being "so many people with the tool, we obviously don't need any more even though 80% of them never use it". Seriously, if ArbCom isn't going to vet the candidates, who do you propose does it? The Stewards? Let me give you a hint: they won't. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  03:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you don't want to do SPI checks (or whatever), then don't. You're not being paid. You have absolutely no obligation to do any work here. So stop complaining.
 * The method of open elections (in two senses of the word) works elsewhere. You know this and I know this. Give it a try here before declaring that it won't result in new functionaries.
 * And, I don't know what the concern with "vetting" is. It's a silly distraction here. What vetting gets done with these elections (or Requests for adminship or any other position)? A few Google searches? A non-verified ID submission? Give me a break. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * J.delanoy was answering your complaint, MZMcBride, not complaining himself. You are the one doing that.  Keegan (talk) 05:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Try re-reading? --MZMcBride (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I did. Three times.  You are registering a complaint.  That is complaining.  Either that or you're just saying "I'm right".  No matter, let's just open a MZMcBride/Keegan RfC and let Wikipedia enjoy our one-upmanship banter.  Keegan (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Having been involved in the vetting process once, I think it was beneficial for the reasons J.delanoy outlined. For example, several well-meaning non-admins had put themselves forward.  Afterwards, a few people asked me "why didn't you allow <x> into the election?" and I had to tell them that <x> never put themselves forward to be part of the election.  So before we start assuming the Arbcom vetted out viable candidates, does the community know of viable candidates who were not allowed through, or could the committee give us an overview of the types of people who were not allowed through this time around? John Vandenberg (chat) 09:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OverlordQ, xeno, and PeterSymonds are the three I remember that didn't get vetted. There's also an obscenely long application involved (can someone post copies of that on the wiki, please?). This system is broken. You now have measurable results that confirm it. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Obscenely long? Mine took five minutes.  It's only long if you've never applied for a job or you don't know the answers.  Keegan (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The questionnaire ought to be posted somewhere publicly (it might be already, I can't remember). The reader can decide whether its length and depth are appropriate. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The questionnaire is silly, as most interviews of this sort are. Who hasn't filled out a job application form, read the question "What qualities do you have that would be beneficial to Random Company Inc?", and thought "what a lot of silly nonsense" before proceeding to waffle at length? I would still concur with MZM that the questionnaire ought to be posted on-wiki, simply because sending it via e-mail is pointless. I for one request a questionnaire for both CU and OS at every election, just so that I get to read them (I'm nosey). AGK   13:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It comes down to this. The "community" (the less than 4% of active editors who voted) based its decisions on....nobody really knows. The Arbitration Committee put forth qualified candidates who were able to meet specific needs within the roles. Those needs are now unfulfilled. More checkusers are carried out in the English Wikipedia in a month than on almost all other projects within a year; the same is true of oversight, and both are jobs that need reliable staffing around the clock and throughout the year. Voting systems make sense for *political* systems. Checkuser and Oversight need to be perceived as *apolitical*. The information we need from the community relates to privacy concerns and, to some degree, competency. Voting, particularly secret balloting, tells us who is most popular. We should not care who is popular. Meanwhile, voting for checkusers and oversighters has not revealed any substantive privacy or competency concerns in the course of three elections, with one exception that was reviewed during the course of that election. There is a very significant difference between membership on the Arbitration Committee and the CU/OS roles. Voting for arbitrators makes sense; Arbcom is intended to be a broadly representative group with a diverse skill mix, tasked with carrying out a significant range of activities, most of which are carried out in the public forum. Checkusers and oversighters are almost entirely opposite to that; they have a narrowly defined role with specific limitations, carried out in private. There is really very little comparison. The theory that the community actually knows enough about either the candidates or the positions - or more importantly, that the voting is based on that knowledge - has, I think, not been proven at all during the three elections that we have held. Changing the voting system is not going to address that. Changing to a voting system has politicised the positions to an extent that actually compromises the candidates. Risker (talk) 03:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, the English Wikipedia is by-and-large the exception, not the rule here. Most Wikimedia wikis have open elections, with the standardized rules of having over 25 votes total and over 70% support. The English Wikipedia has never used this model. The earlier Cabal was given complete power to appoint. This wasn't a good idea then and isn't a good idea now. The model that's working just fine elsewhere can work just fine here. The issue is getting ArbCom to move out of the way and let it. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you're badly mistaken, MZMcBride. Perennial example is Poetlister - detected by Arbcom (and virulently defended for years by WR and "the community"). Resocking detected by arbs well before WR knew of it. Socking on other wikis both detected and proven well before WR knew a case existed. Even Poetlister's admin sock at WR itself was detected by arbs before WR knew of it.


 * The one notoriously poor checkuser appointment was a result of a community appointment. If you count the known "bad faith admins" who were desysopped over time as an example, you'll find the majority were Arbcom detected and actioned first. Those that weren't, often the difference was Arbcom acts on a basis of hard-core evidence (which is how it should be) and they allow significant time and low profile resolution if it will provide a fairer investigation or reduce harm to the bad faith user (as opposed to flaming them on the front page of a forum on day #1). The "false positive" rates seem very different too (WR and "the community" seem to make or endorse a much higher number of claims and speculations that aren't ultimately sufficiently evidenced). So that kind of argument needs much more rigorous evidence.


 * The problem with this election was candidates getting under 70% at commmunity voting. Your suggestion still only improves that if one makes several assumptions: - other fully capable trusted seasoned candidates existed who would have got 70%+, they had applied to stand, they were rejected by ArbCom, and the rejection was flawed. There's no evidence of any of this so far.


 * Like Risker says, nobody has a good understanding what the community vote really means. Is it bias, ignorance, wiki-politiking, bad judgment, good judgment, a complete mix? Without comments we have no way to know how to fairly interpret it. We need those roles filled. We need them filled by the most competent people we have. A system that our most experienced users (who use and supervise those tools daily) consider candidates' capability and record, not just vote-count, before asking for communal trust levels, is no bad thing. FT2 (Talk 06:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I would've thought that, after a few years outside the cult of ArbCom, you would agree that it's a dysfunctional body incapable of basic tasks, much less "vetting" (whatever that means, still). Oh well. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * These are areas where 'wisdom of the crowds' and eventualism don't really apply. "It doesn't matter if the community edits this badly because eventually someone'll fix it" doesn't scale to "it doesn't matter if we get an untrustworthy oversighter because eventually we'll notice and replace them". Oversight and CU are much more niche jobs needing "good first time" appointments. They have very specific "hard-line" criteria, and the Committee you distrust happens to be those with most experience in what's really needed for this privacy-handling job and at present has the communal role to consider private concerns of users that may not be postable on-wiki. You could argue we shouldn't need CU/OS, or that what works for a small community should work for a big divided one... both those seem a bit questionable. FT2 (Talk 18:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * We should be happy with the current hybrid system: ArbCom short-lists, the community rates the candidates. We just need a realistic threshold with the new voting system: 50%, I see, is fine for arb elections. Tony   (talk)  05:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem seems to be a secretive election system, rather than the ArbCom's role in vetting the candidates. Making it easier to oppose caused every candidate to receive more opposition, which in turn meant that very few got anywhere near enough support to be elected. I would like to hear from the arbitrators why they think a secret ballot is advantageous or necessary. AGK   13:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think removing the oppose option altogether is one possibility. Make support the default option and voters would move to neutral on those they felt unable to support. The reasoning being that the vetting process should (in theory) filter out the frivolous applications (such as those who had only been editing a few months, or only been an admin for a month or so), and anyone with really serious misgivings or concerns should e-mail ArbCom, rather than insist on having the ability to oppose someone in an election. The real problem though is how do you make sure it doesn't turn into a popularity contest? If you have a popularity contest, that will inevitably provide a way for people to build up popularity with the sole aim of attaining these tools. There are many people who would be very capable of using these tools productively and well, but who are not well-known among those most active in the day-to-day areas where people get most noticed. Should people have to spend time in many different areas of the encyclopedia building up a "reputation" before they would stand a chance at any "election" (I include RFA here as well)? In some ways yes (a broad experience of the different areas is good), in other ways no (Wikipedia, and its internal processes, is far too big now for any one person to claim to know all of it, or to be up-to-date on all areas of it, and it has been like that for years now - there are only so many hours in a day after all). Carcharoth (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Comparing with past results
I spent some time looking at the past election results, and previous elections managed to produce candidates with over 70% support. What I would like to see is some discussion of why that was not the case here (with the exception of one candidate) and an analysis of how many people voted and who voted (are the same people voting over the course of the elections?) in the three CUOS elections so far (two open ballot and one SecurePoll) and the AUSC election (SecurePoll), and what the similarities and differences are. The sticking point is analysing the first two CUOS elections, as that needs someone to crunch the numbers and data there (e.g. how many voted). What I'd also like to see is an idea of whether people were aware of the need for these roles to be fulfilled, and in general why voters were voting the way they were: Was voting done after reading the questions and answers? Was voting done by name recognition? And if you didn't support someone, did you oppose or stay neutral? I think if you look at the open balloting versus SecurePoll, what SecurePoll has done is made it easier to oppose, which is fine, but maybe there is a need for each oppose vote to be accompanied by an anonymous comment that gives some reason for the oppose vote, especially as these candidates were, as Risker says, "qualified candidates who were able to meet specific needs within the roles" (the support votes and neutral votes could also have anonymous comment fields). Also, as Risker says, CU and OS need to be apolitical. You need people able to do the job and to get on and do what is needed. I happen to think that is needed for ArbCom as well, and while I think SecurePoll has many great advantages, one thing that is desperately needed is to ensure the levels of open and civil community discussion and scrutiny don't decrease. One of the reasons for community input is because ArbCom will miss things during vetting, and we need the wider scrutiny that the community brings, but a bald statistic of oppose voting doesn't tell anyone why a candidate was opposed. One final question: over the four elections so far (3 CUOS and 1 AUSC) was there sufficient discussion to enable an informed decision to be made by voters? Carcharoth (talk) 08:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Added bugzilla request for comment capability - thought of this on reading the comment by user:Davewild below, then saw you'd mentioned it here. FT2 (Talk 09:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Just a silly thought perhaps, but is it not possible to just do a recount of the votes, while simply discarding, for instance, the oppose-votes (or even all votes) from contributors with a non-empty block log, and/or with less than some number of article space edits? - DVdm (talk) 13:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It could, or it could be done by any number of other criteria. The point being that if one sets up an election by one structure then changes the rules after, a large number of people will complain the choice influences the selection (one might name criteria that sway it, having seen the results) or that "Moving the goalposts" is inappropriate. If the community decided on an ad-hoc criterion, in open discussion, then maybe that would work..... FT2 (Talk 14:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. If we change the rules of the election, we would have to run another one. Cool Hand Luke 14:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, but my suggestion was't actually meant to overturn the community's decision, but to find out whether these criteria did indeed have an influence, as I suspect. Recounting can provide some valuable information for future community votings. DVdm (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * MZM, you've done nothing but complain about everything arbcom does since you got desyssoped the second time (clarification - resigned under controversial circumstances, necessitating either an arbcom request or new RFA). It's time you realized what caused that to happen not once, but twice. The answer can be found in your mirror and the community sees these obstreperous postings for what they are.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 17:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Dismissing the idea put forth by MZ that these elections were flawed by simply calling it anger against ArbCom on MZ's part is an oversimplification. But I'm not surprised that this was brought up. Killiondude (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Rlevse, I've done more for Wikipedia (and Wikimedia) than you ever will. I'm not debating this further with you as you're simply not worth anyone's time. Happy Rlevse Day! --MZMcBride (talk) 04:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not really called for. Writing 17 featured articles is no easy task I'm sure. You both have your good qualities you bring to the project. I think making ad hominem arguments helps nobody.  Aiken   &#9835;   13:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Go back to the way we were
I'm probably in the minority here, and going to get lashed out at for saying this, but I'd prefer we go back to the way we had it before. Let arbcom figure out who's right for the position. To put it simply, the majority of the Wikipedia community stays out of oversight and WP:SPI. With no disrespect to that community, I am willing to believe that many of the people that voted in this election did so not knowing how desperately we need more people in these roles. Checkusers, in particular, are in dire need; as a clerk at SPI I am constantly seeing a backlog even in "quick requests" which have taken days to complete. These "quick requests" can sometimes be quite urgent and that there is a backlog of them is really damaging Wikipedia. Arbcom is one of the best groups to know what we need in this capacity, and I trust them to make that decision. I know some people will not be happy with that decision, but honestly, Arbcom exists to make those decisions the rest of us are too afraid or too indecisive to make. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 04:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahahahaha . . . no. We got Jimbo to release his godking powers, so we dont need to be reinforcing ArbCom's oligarchy. Q  T C 08:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm? Jimbo most definitely still has rights, just the "founder" group really is just for show now, moreso than it was before. That being said, I'm going to leave the remainder of my comments to the RFC. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 13:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

RFC opened at Requests for comment/Checkuser and oversighter selection, to encourage more structured input to the Committee. Also added to Cent. FT2 (Talk 05:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually to correct Shirik, two weeks is how long some of the "quick" requests take. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong support. I was never a fan of the change to community choice. We never really had problems when arbcom just chose them. Then they throw the community a bone, and everything turns to crap each election. Go back to arbcom choice since the community will just oppose those it doesn't like, and many probably don't understand the technicalities behind the tools. I don't trust the community on this matter. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 18:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I preferred the method used in late 2008 (see FT2's and Shirik's comments on the RFC for more detail). I think the community should provide input, and that's precisely what the old method allowed&mdash;any problems would be sent directly to ArbCom without popularity games or fear of reprisal from popular cliques. We knew what the problems were. With these elections, I'm uncomfortable appointing anyone, because the disapproving minority might have had really good reasons for disapproving, or perhaps they were just playing politics. With any election, we can't separate the signal from the noise, and it's a critical failure for a position which should be apolitical.

Electing checkusers (giving more weight to the voice of skillful sock masters) always seemed a little crazy to me, and the politicization of oversighter selection has been a bad thing. We often need oversighters in specific timezones, and posting a whole slate of candidates while crossing our fingers that some from the right timezones win a popularity contest.

I'm with Shirik: elections are not working, and it's not a good method anyway. Cool Hand Luke 18:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I've never been a fan of these elections either, and have another concern in addition to those raised above, which is that the core members of the community who pay attention to these types of processes may simply be overdosing on elections. During calendar year 2009, active editors here were asked to vote in no fewer than six full-fledged elections (Stewards, WMF Board Members, Audit Subcommittee members, ArbCom, and CU/OS twice), in addition to the usual RfAs and RfBs. The total amount of community time that our most conscientious editors spend in reviewing candidate statements, posing questions and analyzing answers, deciding whom to vote for, and voting in all these elections is growing, perhaps at the expense of other activities that our most dedicated community members wish to be engaging in, and it should not be surprising that at some point, diminishing returns will have set in. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thing is, Arbcom are not elected for this purpose. They are elected to arbitrate disputes based on conflicts around the encyclopedia. Yes they have the permission to do so as granted by the WMF, but this is just a perk of the main job (which is to arbitrate). I am not comfortable with a tiny bunch of people making all the decisions on behalf of everyone else, especially when some of those people are not who I voted for, and some of those people make consistently bad decisions. Arbcom are unable to choose good candidates (see the results) so suggesting we allow them to continue to pick is a bad idea. The idea that candidates are put forward and concerns sent privately, again, is a poor idea because if we assume arbcom disagrees that it is an issue, then basically my "oppose" vote is discounted. Furthermore (another issue with private voting) if I have an issue, I think it best to raise it publicly and allow people to make their own minds up. Arbcom do not represent the community's opinions. Arbcom should stick to voting on cases, and allow the community to pick functionaries instead of them.  Aiken   &#9835;   22:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * These candidates were volunteers, not drafted by ArbCom. Why do you believe they were not good? Users were free to raise issues publicly or privately by any means, but the meaning of these election results is inscrutable. Cool Hand Luke 22:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I use the results as evidence they were no good. You must have had many volunteers, and there is one I know of who was not picked, who is currently doing very well on an RFB (a notoriously difficult position to obtain on Wikipedia). I see that arbcom put forward candidates who the community has clearly opposed, and prevented someone who (probably) had a good chance from running. I find that completely unacceptable, and evidence that arbcom is out of touch with what the community wants.  Aiken   &#9835;   22:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I was not involved in the vetting, but the vast majority of users who were not vetted were not admins. The admins who were not vetted could be counted on six fingers; there were not "many." There is simply not a hidden army of people lined up to do this grunt work for free.
 * I also think it's an overstatement to say that the "community" clearly opposed these candidates. Most had more support than opposition, but the 70% threshold probably didn't reflect the difference in this polling method. Cool Hand Luke 22:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * They would have been better than the single user granted functionary rights, would they not? I'm not asking for an army, I'm asking that everyone be given the chance to go. Non-admins would 99% likely be opposed, but I think the admins (such as the RFB candidate) would have had a chance. Why was he not allowed to run? We'll never know, but I don't think it right or fair that such a thing happened.  Aiken   &#9835;   22:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If all of them were put up for election, we would still be very short. The election would still be unsatisfactory.
 * The fundamental failure is that we're viewing these utilitarian positions as political. When we need a checkuser or oversighter in some timezone, it makes no sense to put up a slate of people and hope that the one we need has enough friends and fewer enemies. With ArbCom, I think there's a good reason to have an elected and representative body, but users doing the literally janitorial work of oversight or the gruntwork of checkuser shouldn't have to go through the gauntlet of an election. I suspect that we would get more candidates if we didn't have this process&mdash;we just need to know whether they will work out on the CU/OS team, not whether they can win a popularity contest. Cool Hand Luke 22:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You're assuming that everyone in a particular timezone is always going to be available between x and y hours. I for one am generally around between 14:00 UTC and 01:00 UTC, but it varies. Have a guess at my timezone? Availability varies, people vary, and attempting to get a functionary based on where they live is ridiculous.  Aiken   &#9835;   23:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not. I'm assuming that there are times where our coverage is thin (true), and that users from some timezones are better positioned to fill those gaps than others (also true). Cool Hand Luke 00:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So good candidates are rejected based totally on where they are in the world? No wonder only one person won!  Aiken   &#9835;   01:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No one was rejected for that reason. As I said, "it makes no sense to put up a slate of people and hope that the one we need has enough friends and fewer enemies." That's what we've done with these elections, and it's pounding a square peg through a round hole. Cool Hand Luke 13:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Aiken, Arbcom were elected preccisely for this. The primary and historical role of the Committee, and its core role, is dispute resolution. Things change and for many years (enough that everyone voting knows it) Arbcom have also been the supervisory body for all privacy issues. Any dispute issue that has important evidence that can't go on-wiki, any harassment or "outing" case that can't be handled in public venues in order to protect victims, any private evidence for sock cases or abusive adminship, any highly sensitive cases, any review of and removal of CU/OS rights... all these are Arbcom's role too. WMF checkuser policy and WMF oversight policy both state "On wikis with an approved ArbCom, the ArbCom can decide on the removal of access".


 * Arbcom are nominated by the community in open election to handle these matters. Commonsense says on a wiki these size some issues must be handled by specific users entrusted with the task, being unsuited to the open wiki. I would hope you will understand why sometimes evidence can't be publicly posted and yet should not be dismissed, when the effects influence roles of such trust over people's private information. This is precisely what Arbcom are engaged to do - to make decisions like these if needed. If you don't trust them, then vote for other people next election. But bear in mind those on the Committee now are there precisely because the community voted for them in that role. FT2 (Talk 23:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, their prime function is to arbitrate. Checkuser and oversight didn't even exist in 2004, when arbcom was created. They are elected in a secret ballot (again, with flaws) and keep the position for up to three years. I can't remember if I voted last time round, but I certainly didn't in 2008 or 2007 - when some members were elected. It's besides the point though - I trust all the arbitrators. I just don't think they should make decisions like this on behalf of everyone else - because they evidently get it wrong.  Aiken   &#9835;   23:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Their "prime" function (ie we agree they have other functions).


 * And notice that roles change and are not static. By your logic administrators have no valid right to handle any tool or task that was added to the admin package after adminship was created. Out of the door goes granting of rollback and WP:IPBE to non-admins, AbuseFilter, a range of additional block and delete options, and all the rest. Decisions such as community and ANI topic bans as well - admins only aquired those later on too. Times change and the question is what Arbcom's remit is now, not what it was 6 years ago. Now, and for a number of years back to ancientness in communal perspective, the community and WMF's common understanding has been they handle the role of making various decisions related to privacy tools and privacy-related matters on behalf of the wider community. FT2 (Talk 00:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As you say, roles change, and I believe the role of deciding who gets to see personal data should not fall into the hands of a dozen or so people, but rather every concerned person in the community. Arbcom demonstratably cannot get it right.  Aiken   &#9835;   01:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If you're in the minority, Shirik, then I'm in the minority with you. These elections do not work. It's a huge popularity contest, and most of the people who vote are people who have no idea what the work entails. (And I'm guilty as charged. I'm well aware of the internal processes of SPI, I am aware of the work that goes on there. I know about CU. But OS? I haven't the slightest clue about what they have to go through on a daily basis.) ( X! ·  talk )  · @005  · 23:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You could say the same about RFA being a popularity contest. Is it? We don't know. I for one wouldn't dream of voting to someone just because I liked them. You're making a broad, sweeping assumption that people vote cluelessly. Well, I for one certainly don't. The elections don't work, but for reasons very different to what you're suggesting.  Aiken   &#9835;   23:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Matters of different seriousness get treated differently. You don't need the process to be so careful of avoiding errors at RFA (bad adminship generally does no irreparable harm, although obviously undesirable, and will be noticed over time). You do need a process to be that careful when appointing tools that permit access to users' private data. Different task, different criteria... different process. I would not compare this to RFA, where "popularity" is merely undesirable and its worst manifestations are excluded. Here a decision that would appoint someone for reasons not related to competence and trustworthiness could well have more serious repercussions. So filtering and/or possible risk reduction are that much more serious a concern. The balance of acceptable "false negative" vs. "false positive" error is different. FT2 (Talk 00:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand why any admins who applied were denied the opportunity to run in the election. They can't have any problems associated with them - afterall, if they did they'd have been desysopped, no? Once again, I don't believe arbcom should be the ones to decide who gets to run.  Aiken   &#9835;   01:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "They can't have any problems associated with them - afterall, if they did they'd have been desysopped, no?" No. FT2 (Talk 04:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If they have problems associated with them, they have no business being admins.  Aiken   &#9835;   13:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Aiken, seriously think about it. Most administrators (myself included; I did not volunteer as I am unwilling to ID to the Foundation due to already-persistent 4chan harassment) have made at least one major error (later rectified) or attracted the wrath of one major partisan clique during their tenure. At least one person will view any given admin's - or any given editor's, for that matter - actions as a "problem". —<font color="228B22">Jeremy <font color="00008B">(v^_^v Dittobori) 16:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, you didn't volunteer. But others did, and they are admins in good standing. Unless they somehow demonstrated they do not understand how to read IP address or similar, I can't think what the reason they haven't have been the chance to run is.  Aiken   &#9835;   17:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth, we have been discussing and reviewing the vetting process we use. I can't really say much more than that without going into details (before that happened, I would want to be absolutely sure that a general discussion of the criteria used didn't get derailed into discussion of specific candidates). I support the right for those rejected at the vetting stage to be given clear reasons by the Arbitration Committee (or the arbitrator tasked to handling this part of the process) as to why they were rejected at that stage. I would also support the right for those rejected at the community voting stage to be given clear reasons as to why they were rejected at that stage, but the community (that element of which chose to vote) haven't really been that forthcoming on that issue, which is frustrating isn't it? One final thing, being rejected at the vetting or voting stage this time round does not preclude being accepted at a later date in another round of applications/elections/appointments. Fundamentally, these positions are about trust and ability to do the job. Do those applying to the position have the trust of both the body tasked to oversee the use of these tools, and the trust of the community, and do they have the ability to do the job? (Both questions are different from the levels of trust and ability needed for the admin tools.) Does the current process answer those questions about trust and ability? I'm not sure it does. Carcharoth (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Feedback
Would it be possible to contact all those who voted in the election (bot messgae on their talk page?) to ask them to provide feedback on why they opposed and/or abstained generally? This seems to me to be a critical issue, as we can all speculate on the reasons for all but one candidate to clear 70%, but without feedback on the issues that voters were using in casting their votes we won't know for sure. For instance did voters find things about the candidates that arbcom did not, or was it just a lack of knowledge of the candidates leading to people not supporting, or did voters think no more people with these tools were needed? Once the main reasons for the opposition/lack of support are identified then ways of changing the system can be implemented to address this. Davewild (talk) 08:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Might have been a different result without SecurePoll. Personally, the other part I would suggest is changing the time of all elections (as in, not May and not November). Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What, exactly, is the issue with the timing of elections? They were set so as to not conflict with any other election process where Wikipedians might participate (e.g., WMF board membership, steward elections), and also avoided major holiday seasons. There's not been a CU/OS election in November, but there wouldn't be because that would conflict with Arbcom elections. The AUSC election was in October 2009. Risker (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you're sort of making my point for me. Not conflicting with holiday seasons is good, but where's the need to not let other elections conflict? Having an election season type thing as opposed to having it as a regular fortmonthly type of thing might help avoid the predictable "can't be bothered with yet another election" editor response. Incidentally, November isn't the greatest of timings either because some users have exam committments, or so I recalled from the ArbCom elections. I would presume that May/June poses a similar problem to that of November in some cases. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems Nyb made a similar point above. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Davewild has a good point. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

SecurePoll suppresses the "% support" results
I strongly support the use of SecurePoll in these elections. However, introducing this system to any vote requires a careful reconsideration of the minimum % support vote required for election. As I pointed out during the WP:ACE2009 election, SecurePoll provides new anonymity and convenience for oppose voting. This was born out in the dramatic rise in oppose votes (vertical axis) and the significant suppression of the ranking % (horizontal axis) for each candidate in 2009 compared with the old public, manual voting system used in 2008 (Figure 2). Fortunately, the arbitrary 50% floor in that election was reached by comfortably more candidates than necessary to fill the eight seats vacant.

Introducing SecurePoll into any election, including RfA and RfB voting (i.e, the 70% and 90% minima), risks overestimating the minimum required vote once voters are given private and convenient access to the oppose button for any candidate for whom they are not hitting the support button. Unfortunately, it's difficult to predict the extent to which the ranking % (i.e., the % support) will change, although the direction is highly predictable.

May I suggest that 60% would be a more appropriate threshold for CU and OS elections in future. This would be in recognition of changed voting circumstances rather than, necessarily, a drop in standards of community support. Why not hold another vote in a couple of months with 60% threshold, now we know where the figures stand. A 60% ranking does not mean that 40% of voters oppose a candidate; please see Figure 2 again on that issue. Tony  (talk)  14:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

A waste of time
Well, that was a waste of everybody's time. Just one new checkuser out of 12 candidates. Seems hardly worth all the effort does it? I for one have no idea whether it was the secret voting (contrary to community norms) or the handpicked candidates by arbcom that were the problem here - or something else entirely. But, in future, something needs to change as this way is demonstratably ineffective.  Aiken   &#9835;   14:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The good that needs to happen is one of two things: 1) the community wakes up and realizes that it's too hard on RFA/RFB/CU/OS elections or 2) we adopt Shirik's path. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 17:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think going back to the system we adopted in 2008 is good. i.e. ArbCom takes community input privately via e-mail, but then makes the final decision. This seems like an appropriate balance. I do not, however, think that trying a new system was a waste of time, regardless of whether it "worked" or not. We should always be trying new things to see if we can find something better. --Deskana (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no way of knowing "why?"
In the previous voting method, as used in ArbCom elections and presently in RfA "discussions", people noted why they were supporting or opposing a candidate; with this one there is nothing for a failed candidate to consider and perhaps address if they are interested in running again. There is nothing wrong in opposing a candidate because you don't trust them, and giving reasons, and nor is there anything wrong because you don't like the candidate for specific reasons, or even because you simply don't trust them. Opposing because you don't like the candidate, and/or for no reason given, provides nothing going forward. The same concerns, however, do not as much effect support votes, since it is assumed that the candidate is liked and/or trusted upon the basis of the casting. However, because it a vote and not a discussion each vote is equally valid. I would suggest that there might be an anonymous comments function, where the voter might provide a rationale - if they care - which would be available after the results to see if the community had concerns (that they did not wish to advertise in the candidates question section) in respect of the runners. That might provide guidance for next time, for failed and for future candidates. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a good idea. I suspect there has been a marked increase in bullet voting with adoption of secret ballots, but that's no more than a guess absent people actually stating their reasons. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

no problem, all good IMO
The secure process is good and the arbcom nomination procedure is good, the only issue is the idea that there is a need for a high percentage result or that the result accurately reflects community support. Simply voting, no is not such a big issue to reject the candidate. Simply lower the percentages until you have the candidates we need. In the election were the editors that were prepared to do the work for the wikipedia and filtered through arbcom assessment and we should simply take the candidates that had the highest level of support and accept they had the highest community support and announce the successful candidates, the wheels won't drop off will they, all the candidates are fully capable.. Off2riorob (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with this, the 70% cut-off seems rather arbitrary (does it have historical meaning of some sort that I'm not aware of?) If one of the concerns is the politicizing of the process, I think the high cut-off mark adds somewhat to that. The candidates were all vetted, so presumably ArbCom considers them all of sufficient trustworthiness to serve, all that is being determined is Who does the community prefer out of this batch of people?, hardly a question which requires a 70% support rating.  Anything over 50% means that more people voted for them than voted against them, which really should be sufficient in a non-political situation.  Rather than hold another election, why not just drop the mark down to 55% or 60% and call it a day? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If the nominees have already been vetted by the ArbCom I don't see a need for a 70% majority. A simple majority, or the smaller supermajorities proposed by BMK, would suffice.   Will Beback    talk    00:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree, but certainly it would be both unfair and rather sleazy to change the criterion after the election has taken place? &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think they're talking about in the future, Coren. Keegan (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly for the future, but frankly I don't see anything wrong with retroactively doing it now. The situation is we need more checkusers and oversighters, that's the problem that needs to be solved, and if the backlog at SPI is any indication, it needs to be solved relatively quickly. Now, ArbCom could just appoint some people to do the job temporarily, until another election can be held, or they can retroactively drop the cut-off point and use people that the community has already approved of.  Yes, people will bitch, but if there's anything we know for certain about the Wikipedia community, it's that people will bitch about any choice that's made. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with retroactively changing the threshold is that the voters cast their votes based on a particular model for how those votes would be interpreted, and they may have chosen their vote based on those criteria as much as on any particular candidate's particular circumstances. Changing to a lower threshold won't reflect their intent, and might very well cause painful drama, as in the AUSC election. It's not a good idea. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, as a thought experiment, let's assume we could turn back time and re-start the election with, say, 55% as the cut-off. Do you really think that anybody's vote would be different? "Oh, I would vote for X if the cut-off was 70%, but because it's 55% I'm not going to." Seems highly unlikely. People cast votes foe all sorts of reasons, but the cut off isn't one of them. The intent of a "support" or "oppose" vote is to support or oppose the candidate - no one knows that they're casting the vote that sends the candidate over the mark, or prevents them from reaching it. I'm fully aware that changing the cut off would be controversial, but except for that, there's really no good practical (or ethical, for that matter) reason not to do it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(undent) And yes, 70% has significance: It's the percentage of support stewards are directed to require to turn the bit on on wikis without an ArbCom. Arguably, when the candidates have already been vetted by an ArbCom it's not so clear that it still applies (because any of the candidates could have, at least in principle, been directly appointed by ArbCom). The point of the election should be more "who amongst those candidates do you trust most" rather than raw selection from anyone who steps forward. &mdash; Coren (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that background, I wasn't aware of it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * For the future yes but this process has taken a lot of time and work, we could offer this position to the community now. A simple yes or no, do you support lowering the threshold to allow the highest percentage nominations to be accepted as promoted. Off2riorob (talk) 01:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Sorry, no, not as stated. I think requiring a simple majority of support is a good idea, so the highest percentage over 50% would be ok. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would think 50% is too low. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's why I suggested 55% or 60% above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * IMO It would be better to put this result back to the community for reconsideration rather that push it through with a move of the goalposts or waste the whole work by starting again. Off2riorob (talk) 02:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Coren, the 70% for stewards doesn't involve a SecurePoll election that by comparison supresses the % support and increases the oppose votes. This is comparing apples and oranges. With ArbCom's initial scrutiny, I'm quite at ease with an established number of places on offer, and no artificial threshold. Tony   (talk)  08:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed in principle; and certainly it would solve the immediate problem. Two things need to happen for this, though: that the committee as a whole agrees (I don't think that's a problem) and the community needs to want it.  The former is trivially done (I'll get the ball rolling on my side), but the latter is...  well, let's just say that having a vote on how to use the result of the past vote is beginning to sounds a little overmuch.  :-)  &mdash; Coren (talk) 10:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see the need for another vote. If the committee agrees that it is the best solution, and finds that there is a consensus for it in discussions such as this one, then there should be no bar to instituting it -- no different than any admin closing an AfD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, let's be practical. We elected the Arbitration Committee—put 'em through a gruelling process. We entrust them to run the judicial system. I see no debasing of the vote if ArbCom takes a pragmatic view of what, IMO, was a wrongly pitched threshold. Tony   (talk)  11:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Let the bureaucrats interpret community consensus
Isn't the job of bureaucrats is to interpret community consensus? let them decide. Sole Soul (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Crats can't give out OS or CU tools, Sole. This isn't RfA. —<font color="228B22">Jeremy <font color="00008B">(v^_^v Dittobori) 23:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I know, but they should be able to interpret the results here also. Sole Soul (talk) 23:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Crats interpret consensus discussions where there are comments that explain the opposes and supports. We don't have that here. SecurePoll (as currently configured) does nothing more than poll the opinion of the community in a very narrow way, a straight yes/no/neutral choice. It is not ideal, as we are discovering. Carcharoth (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, this is sort of power-creep. Bureaucrats are elected to close RfAs, handle renames, and flag bots. If I've supported someone's RfB, I trust them to do those things. I don't know why people often propose adding additional sweeping powers to 'crats. If I knew they were going to be entrusted with interpreting CU/OS elections, I'd set an extremely high bar at RfB - much higher than the one I've set for flagging bots and handling renames. MastCell Talk 23:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm at a loss here. RfBs already have extremely high standards. Outrageously high, in some cases. Why, I ask, does closing a CU election require such vastly different skills than closing an RfA as to justify raising standards beyond their already-astronomical levels? Consensus is consensus. Juliancolton (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't, and in fact it requires no skill over and above reading numbers, since there is a predesignated minimum approval requirement. There is, in fact, no case to be made for *anyone* needing to interpret anything under the current process, since the result is obvious, so assigning the "interpretation of community consensus" is a moot point. Risker (talk) 00:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * @MastCell: so what is your opinion on all the extra rights admins have been given over the years?  Aiken   &#9835;   00:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Which extra rights do you mean? MastCell Talk 04:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Granting of rollback, edit filter managing, granting account creation, exemption from IP blocking etc. Probably more I'm unaware of. FT2 summed it up nicely above somewhere.  Aiken   &#9835;   13:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think all of those powers (except edit-filter manager) were already available back in mid-2007 when I went through RfA. The only power I can think of that has been acquired by admins since then is management of the edit filter, and I'm not sure how many people actually use that. Certainly it's not as dramatic as taking a prerogative once reserved for ArbCom and devolving it. MastCell Talk 23:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Erm... revdelete is a fairly powerful tool, and only a handful of admins have passed since its extension to sysops. Juliancolton (talk) 01:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll admit that I haven't used revdelete, but my understanding is that it is not any more "powerful" than the traditional delete/restore tools that have always been available to admins. According to this, it's more of a technical improvement than a novel power. MastCell Talk 03:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not more powerful, but certainly more susceptible to abuse. Delete/restore takes several minutes, and if you're going crazy with it, you'll be caught before you get very far. But I digress. Juliancolton (talk) 12:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Aiken, also, consider whether your question is relevant to this discussion where the matter has been considered moot. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Given a choice between having bureaucrats decide what to do, and ArbCom, I think ArbCom is the obvious answer. Bureaucrats passed RfB's of varying degrees of participation, whereas ArbCom was installed via general election, and are the closest thing we have to a constituent assembly. They should retroactively lower the cut-off to 55%, and award rights to those candidates over the cut-off. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I maintain that SecurePoll is simply a bad idea. We've never had this problem (only one successful candidate) in the past. The chief problem with the internet is that users post under the influence of anonymity, and are thus more likely to take action or call out another user where they otherwise would keep quiet in real life. SecurePoll magnifies and exasperates this issue by making it even easier to oppose a candidate on flimsy or perhaps non-existent grounds. Juliancolton (talk) 11:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Julian - it makes it far easier to oppose people. We already have a problem with oppose-happy people, who will oppose for any reason they can get their hands on. We don't need to make it easier to do so. Then again, I don't agree making it open will make an awful lot of difference if it's kept to a strict vote.  Aiken   &#9835;   13:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

←Julian, I don't know how you get around the rates of oppose. In the old manual, public system, people were inhibited from writing comments because they were in public, and because of the inconvenience of scrolling down through tons of text just to be negative. These effects were worse, in my view, than the current ease of opposing and lack of feedback to candidates, especially unsuccessful candidates. Tony  (talk)  13:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think that if you don't feel comfortable stating your oppose with reason in public, then you shouldn't be opposing. ( X! ·  talk )  · @607  · 13:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hardly anyone voted at all
Forgive me if I've missed this above, but there seems to be little discussion about the tiny proportion of active editors who actually voted. I didn't vote, and am a highly active editor. Maybe worthwhile trying to find out why so many of us didn't bother? DuncanHill (talk) 11:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that there was a low turnout. I saw the numbers compared to the open elections and the open ones were lower.  Aiken   &#9835;   13:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Not as low as it used to be" is hardly a ringing endorsement. DuncanHill (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Disentangling the issues
Colleagues, am I right in thinking that the discussion above, and on the RfC page, involves a number of distinct sets of issues?
 * (1) Whether the community should vote at all in CU/OS selection.
 * (2) If so, whether the private, automated SecurePoll system should be used, and if so:
 * (a) whether there should be a threshold and whether it should be less than the current 70%, and/or whether there should be a predetermined number of vacancies.
 * (b) Whether there's a way of delivering feedback from voters to (unsuccessful) candidates.
 * (3) Whether ArbCom should resolve the current election retrospectively.

Is this a balanced summary?

As I've said already, I strongly favour private voting, plus either (i) a lower threshold, or (ii) no threshold and an ArbCom-predetermined number of vacancies, where X number of candidates with the highest % support get the gig and the rationing of vacancies would create the competitive environment.

Comment boxes. It would be ideal if voters were provided with comment boxes on the voting page to provide, at their option, anonymous feedback to one or more of the candidates, distributed to the candidates after the election. I can imagine advice in the lead such as:
 * "Against each candidate's row is a box in which you may, if you wish, write a brief comment on that candidate's suitability for the position. After the election, the election monitors will make available all comments on a candidate to that candidate only."

This may be close to what FT2 had in mind in filing the bugzilla request yesterday; however, I think the request needs to be kept as simple as possible, and that the assigned developer, Tim Starling, is unlikely to act without consensus here or a motion from ArbCom. I'd like to know Tim's opinion of how technically complicated it would be: these guys have to prioritise the significant demands on their time.

What do people think? Tony  (talk)  14:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Another issue that is relevant is whether or not ArbCom should resolve the current election by retrospectively changing the rules to 'support' more appointments. As Coren has said, this would be sleazy.  I would add unwise and unprincipled, and also that such an action would be a great exhibit for those who believe ArbCom acts far too often as if it were GovCom.  EdChem (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: I do recognise that the need for more appointments leaves ArbCom members in a very difficult situation, but that doesn't change the facts that changing electoral rules *after* an election is wrong as a matter of principle, nor that the last set of tinkering was not exactly uniformly and warmly received. EdChem (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * [Added as Point No. 3 above. Tony   (talk)  14:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC) ]
 * I think that your suggestion about the comment boxes would be an excellent idea. Perhaps even making comments mandatory for oppose votes would be possible? <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 14:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a brilliant idea, and it would make me a lot more comfortable with the SecurePoll system. Juliancolton (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No offense, but - no, it isn't. Requiring "mandatory" comments means that you either allow or specifically prohibit a comment that looks like "<tt>qwasdlksdf;hlwh;relk;s;f</tt>" (or "<tt>Because!</tt>"). If you allow such comments, you might as well not require them. If you disallow such comments - or even if you draw the line somewhere else - a voter's right to oppose is dependent on some third party granting that right to them based on their evaluation of the commenter's political sophistication - that's not a democratic vote, but a capture of the process by those empowered to disenfranchise particular votes. Any suggestion for improvement that doesn't consider the actual consequences is worse than useless. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about mandatory? Tony   (talk)  02:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * NuclearWarfare did, just above. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia certainly has a tradition of not being a democracy. RfA does something very similar, although it publicizes everything and therefore allows for herd voting. We are supposed to be choosing people for the technical role of a) detecting sockpuppetry or b) hiding revisions for privacy reasons. Neither of those are, or perhaps should be is a better word, "political" like the Arbitration Committee is. Therefore, requiring oppose votes to be supported by something (as judged by bureaucrats/Audit Subcommittee/the general community after the election?) doesn't seem terribly onerous. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 00:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom, just announce how many positions are open before the election, then choose the top vote-getting candidates, regardless of the actual percentage of support. End of problem. Cla68 (talk) 05:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement

 * Announcement


 * Thanks to the members and clerks of the committee for their efforts. Reading thousands of words of pleadings, following hundreds of diffs, and making sense of competing claims is not a rewarding activity and we should all be grateful that some editors are willing to take on this job.
 * This was a fairly large case, though not as large as some in the past. It highlights some issues with the construction of large cases. Because each party is expected to present a full case on their own, the amount of evidence can expand geometrically as additional parties are added. Take a hypothetical example in which there are two "sides" in a case, each with six editors. If each of those six editors compiles a set of evidence against each of the "opposing" six editors, and if the other side does the same, then there are 72 sets of evidence to review. If there were seven editors on each side there would would be 98 sets of evidence. If editors all wish to rebut evidence presented against them with more evidence, those numbers could double.
 * A related problem is the theoretical constraint of 1000 words and 100 diffs per party. This case had, by final count, 13 parties. If one party presented evidence regarding each of the other parties, he could devote only 83 words and 8 diffs to each. Clearly, it's impossible to present a meaningful case against an editor in 83 words, so the parties in this case made extensive use of supplementary pages that were not covered by the 1000-word limit. The main evidence page, including contributions from non-parties, was over 18,000 words long, and included 663 diffs. In addition, there were 31 supplementary pages. Those pages had another 37,500 words and more than 740 diffs. The entire evidence portion of the case was over 55,000 words long, and had more than 1400 links. That's not including the workshop (86,000 words and 410 links) or the talk pages. Obviously, there was considerable duplication that would not be apparent until the material was read and the diffs followed.
 * This is far more material than any one ArbCom member can or should be expected to plow through. Without rehashing RfAR disputes, some parties expressed concerns that some of the evidence was not reviewed fully. It would be amazing if it'd all been read with equal care. Aside from the problems of arriving at the best decision, this process represents a considerable time sink. Duplication wastes the time of editors preparing it and ArbCom members trying to follow it.
 * I suggest that the ArbCom consider creating some procedures for large cases to minimize the overall size of the cases and the duplication in evidence. Simply enforcing existing limits would not allow full evidence to be presented, and is not the answer. Some possible solutions include creating a common narrative which all parties can edit, designating (without prejudice) some parties as being part of a common group and asking them to present combined evidence, empowering clerks or creating advocates who can work with editors to help them present evidence and reduce duplication, better defining the scope of the case at the outset, and asking questions of the parties pro-actively so that key issues are addressed and less time spent on peripheral issues.
 * Dispute resolution is a necessary part of this project's functioning. However it shouldn't be a punishment for the parties involved, especially the volunteer ArbCom members. Let's keep brainstorming ways for streamlining these large cases so that they don't take disproportionate time and effort away from the actual editing we're all here to do.   Will Beback    talk    00:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This case was not that horrendous in volume terms and, if the arbitrator stays on top of the evidence, reviewing it as it's posted, it's easy to keep up. Four or five arbitrators did this. Quite separately, I also did two major reviews: the first in early March and the second in mid/late April, in both instances printing out most of the material. As a general note, arbitrators do not support the directions outlined by the drafter unless they agree with them. Any arbitrator is free to independently review the evidence and post their own drafts in the Proposed Decision section.
 * While I understand your disappointment after the amount of time you invested in this case, the fact remains that the most of the conduct complained of fell well short of sanctionable activity for the first time round. There was a problem with evidence too: although many allegations were made, the diffs supporting them either failed to make the case or showed behaviour that fell broadly within the wide spectrum of acceptable. For these reasons, this was never going to a groundbreaking case, especially, for example, on conflicts of interest, where the guideline is at best woolly and is primarily used to discourage editors from posting puff pieces, or stuff they'd prefer to forget about, about themselves.  Roger Davies  talk 06:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope this is where I should post: the "Discuss this" link goes somewhere with a "Discuss this" link that leads back here. I'm confused.
 * It is fair to no one to allow the parties to indulge in "group filibusters", even if not strategic.
 * Where there are many parties, I think the parties should be warned at the start to avoid duplicating points that have already made, and to cross-refer if they want to support what another party has said.
 * Clerks should be empowered to ask parties to reduce the size of their evidentiary text where it rambles or duplicates.
 * A thousand words and a hundred diffs seems to invite bloated evidence. I'd go for half of that for all cases, but if not, by declaration of the Committee where there are many parties. If someone can't put their point, defend themselves, in 500w and 50 representative diffs, it's their problem. Tony   (talk)  08:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the confusion: when I posted the link on this page I forgot to change the text to "Announcement" which I have just corrected. This is indeed the correct place to discuss the announcement. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 14:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * @Tony. 1) I'm not sure what you mean by "group filibusters" in this context. 2) A mere warning is insufficient. Again, picture a dozen editors - that means that all 12 should be continually reading (and re-reading) each others' evidence to adjust it. I think a better strategy would be to actually ask parties to coordinate. Assign them portions of the case, for example. 3) Clerks can and do enforce on main limits, but they apparently do not deal with submissions that are pointless, rambling, redundant, or other content issues. It might help if they did, though again it would require them to read and re-read a lot of material. 4) 500 words/50 diffs is perhaps plenty when a simple case involves only two parties. But this case was had many parties and many allegations. The main offense, in my opinion, was tag team editing by roughly eight editors. Plus there were individual offenses. How could anyone effectively lay out evidence of communal tag team issues and the individual issues of eight editors in 500 words? If you have an example of where someone has done that before I'd like to see it.   Will Beback    talk    18:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In a large case, I think that the limits are largely unworkable. The dozens of sub-pages of additional evidence that various participants linked to, and the explosion of comments in the Workshop made the word and link limits meaningless. There is some appeal in the ideal of requiring that the Workshop be used to reach agreement on Evidence statements that comply with the limits: Suppose in this case there were sub-workshops: "Awful stuff Fladrif did", "Will was mean to me", "Examples of MUM Employees Tag-Team Editing" etc.... which were used to distill down the evidence on each of those points, and all the others, to within the limits. That might work.


 * Then, we have the problem of responses. ArbCom's clerks currently are interpreting its rules as limiting both statements and responses collectively as subject to the same 1000 word/ 100 diff limit. That is not what the rules literally say. The rule says:

"Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible".


 * A number of editors (including me) kept their "main evidence" well within the limits per that rule as written, but were told that because the main evidence plus the responses collectively counted against the limit, that they were over. When there are a dozen parties and a score of issues, limiting responses to other evidence in that manner is completely unworkable. If the actual words on the page are followed - limiting main evidence to 1000 words/100 diffs, and then requiring responses to other evidence to be "as short as possible", and then disallowing linking to page after page of supplemental evidence, these cases might be cut down to a managable size, notwithstanding that it may seem counter-intuitive at first. Fladrif (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidence in arbitration cases is often bloated, and leans closer to rhetoric than to matters of fact. Any allegation which requires umpteen diffs to prove is unlikely to be compelling, especially when each of the individual diffs is inconclusive. (This, I gather, is often the great stumbling block in real life fraud cases.) I prefer evidence to succinctly describe the sanctionable conduct, supported by a few clear-cut diffs. Rebuttals/responses are rarely necessary unless it's to say something along the lines of "Yes, I was uncivil but I did apologise[diff] and refactor the comment,[diff] very soon afterwards, which editor XX has not mentioned".  Roger Davies  talk 07:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Roger, if rebuttals are not worthwhile then the Arbcom could save everyone a lot of time by saying so. However I'd imagine that users who end up sanctioned would feel they'd been treated unfairly if they were not permitted to respond to accusations. Perhaps it would be possible for the drafting ArbCom to say which charges have enough evidence to merit a response, and which are being discarded as unproven. Right now, since parties have no idea what the ArbCom thinks of a case, they don't know where to focus their attention. For example, I was involved in an ArbCom case several years ago in which someone who wasn't a party made an accusation against me. I didn't think it was a serious matter and was unrelated to the main case so I didn't make a significant response, yet I ended up admonished over it. For good or bad, issues can arise during arbitration which weren't part of the original complaint and parties should have some idea of what the ArbCom is focusing on. That's where a more pro-active approach would really help. As for the issues of length and "compelling diffs" - I've commented on that below.   Will Beback    talk    22:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

←I couldn't agree more with Roger Davies' two posts above—he has expressed it much better than I could. My postscript is that we are dealing with the culture of bloat that was always going to pervade wikis. It pervades text in real life, but there are several reasons that proceedings such as ArbCom cases are yet more vulnerable to it. I believe a multiple strategy is required to turn around bloat in ArbCom proceedings. The pay-off would be significant, for arbs, clerks, and the parties.

In one hotly contested RfC last year—related to an ArbCom case—both sides agreed on a 500-word (display-mode) limit in putting their cases to the community. I was impressed with the professionalism and discipline this brought to both sides.

My RL job involves a lot of text reduction down to word limits. Let me say that in almost all cases, the text improves with the shortening. The clients see the light immediately; we've been engaging in word-length compliance for years. Tony  (talk)  15:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If the ArbCom only wishes to accept simple cases then the word limit makes sense. If it only wants to deal with obvious disruption then a limit on diffs is logical. But as I said, in this matter I was presenting a case of relatively subtle collusion, which is not easy to prove. For example, if editors working as a team each make a small edit in a certain direction, the end result can be significant but the edits are not individually compelling. How can we present evidence like this better? I invite Tony to review the both the main evidence I submitted and the separate subpages I prepared on named editors, and suggest how that information could have been compressed into 1000 words and 100 diffs.   Will Beback    talk    22:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Roger and Tony, your comments are to say, boiled down to their essentials, that ArbCom is only willing and able to deal with obvious, notorious, easily-understood and documented clear-cut and indisputable issues. The subtle, complicated, and complex questions that actually require careful analysis and weighing of evidence is beyond its ken. Fine. But, then the question remains what function ArbCom actually performs, because if it is unwilling and unable to deal with anything more complicated than something that an individual admin could sanction with blocking on his or her own, then it might as well dissolve and put its members' energies to more productive uses. I have served as an admin on sites at least as contentious as Wikipedia, and have a keen appreciation for what is actually necessary to keep a site like this under control. Your perspective, if it truly reflects ArbCom's attitute, falls far short of what is actually necessary and appropriate to discharge your function as an ArbCom member. I am disappointed and discouraged. Fladrif (talk) 01:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

←Response to Will: I did have a quick look through the case. All responses but yours are under 500 words, thank heavens. Some could have been shorter—when I see this kind of opener, I feel ArbCom must be edging towards using it as an example in the instructions for parties:
 * For example, instead of 51 words: "To be honest, I would normally not get involved in this sort of thing but an invite has been sent to me and I am deeply concerned about what has/is happening with this article. I will not repeat what has already been said above by [username], etc but simply support it....", write 10: "I was invited to comment, and I support [username]'s statement....".

The parties need stronger encouragement to keep their text short and focused.

Your own statement was 894 words and could have been reduced to 850 fairly easily, but I concede that further reductions would have been hard; this is unusual. In my ideal world, you'd have applied to the clerks to go over the 500-word limit; the clerks would have perused it in a neutral fashion and might have said, OK, on this occasion we'll give a dispensation, since it's pretty much on-topic, unique and succinct. IMO, the clerks are there partly to protect the arbs from bloat by the parties, and placing an impediment in the way of bloat (i.e., having to apply to exceed the limit) would be an effective discipline.

I know none of the arbs agrees with me on a slightly different matter, but I'll say it again. The Findings of fact and the Remedies are everything we'd expect. But the 17 Principles at the start are 1325 words and contain considerable repetition. The composite vote was 141 to zero. Given that a vote against any of them in this instance was highly unlikely, there could have been just four subheaded paras—on neutrality, sourcing, editorial interactions, off-wiki activity—plus a closing reminder about recidivism. Just 600–700 words, with one endorsement by the arbs at the bottom. It would be much more authoritative. Tony  (talk)  05:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Tony, regarding the text you reviewed, it appears that you may have been looking at the original RfAR rather than the actual evidence page. The issue that we're discussing here is the limits on evidence. The RfAR itself can be fairly short since it only has to show there's enough of a problem that the ArbCom should take the case. The main evidence I submitted is at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Evidence, and there are links to additional pages of evidence. I agree with your other issue, that there are a remarkable number of separate headings, especially for a case in which the only finding of disruption, aside from one editor's incivility, was the assumption of bad faith.    Will Beback    talk    06:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a turkey: I've looked at the right page now, which if anything reinforces my suspicion that whatever the word limit, each party will aim to go right up to it. Aargh—it's over the top. The result is overkill for arbs and a time sink for clerks and the parties. If anything, it encourages a tit-for-tat strategy (big = more convincing). And there are too many value-judgements—not in yours, but in many of the other sections: that is just a turn-off for arbs.
 * May I propose the following instructions?


 * And I've just looked at the existing instructions, which countenance the exceeding of the limit! ("posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point")—I'd kill that clause. I'd replace this: "Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen."
 * with this:
 * "Evidence that is not focused and easy to understand may be trimmed or simply removed by the Clerks."
 * I'd give the Clerks greater scope to post a warning on a party's talk page asking for the party to do the trimming and focusing. A boilerplate would be easy to construct.
 * Just one more thing: I find the large subheadings disruptive. They were banned in FAC nomination pages a few years ago. I'd be inclined to ban anything above Level 4 subheadings within statements. It's less stressful for the readers, and there has been no consensus against jumping the hierarchy (i.e., from 2 to 4), where it has come up at styleguides. Tony   (talk)  08:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Tony, with all due respect it looks like you've only submitted evidence in one case before. It looks like you went well over the 1000-word limit and you were only addressing straightforward incivility by three editors. Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Evidence. Before you condemn those of us who felt we needed more space, or prevent anyone from using even the current limits, I'd still like to see how you can suggest that a collusion case can be made against eight editors, plus individual charges against most of them, in 750 words and 50 diffs, or even 1000 words and 100 diffs. I wrote about 1000 on the main page and a total of about 3500 words on the main TM editors on separate pages, about 430 each. That's not counting a couple of other explanatory pages. Please show me how I could have presented the case in 1/6 as many words.   Will Beback    talk    08:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding another element of Tony1's proposal: That's one of the suggestions I also made above for simplifying complex cases. However it probably would not have been possible in this case. Both sides accused the other editors of collusion. If editors created joint statements it would have served to confirm the allegation. However as a general concept I think this would apply well to many other cases. While parties are now required to edit only their own sections, creating a common narrative could help merge redundant material and put issues into better context.  Will Beback   talk    05:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Where possible, parties whose views are similar are encouraged to present joint statements to save space (the limits are the same, though). This is often looked on favourably, particularly in large cases. Where possible, dispose of a matter by referring briefly to another party's statement if you largely agree with them.

Question
Although I'm not a party to this case, I wonder if I'm affected by it. Both Fairfield and MVC are on my watchlist — not because of their TM connection, but because I watch all of Iowa's community articles. Do I need to edit these articles in any way differently from the way I've edited there in the past? Nyttend (talk) 01:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're not a party and edit within guidelines, you should be able to continue as you've been doing. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 01:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Most of the remedies, such as they are, apply to anyone who edits articles related to the topic. Specifically, they apply to anyone who "repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia" and "editors who have failed to conduct themselves in an appropriate manner" on articles related to Transcendental Meditation. Any admin may unilaterally warn and sanction you. Since the standards are not clear, I would advise anyone who doesn't want to get topic banned or blocked to avoid this topic until the threat of imminent banning is lifted. That said, if your edits are minor and you don't disagree with other editors then you're probably safe.    Will Beback    talk    01:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I said, if his editing has been causing problems and he stays that way, he won't have anything to worry about. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 01:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume there's a "not" missing from there. It appears we agree that all the remedies except for #1 and #6 apply to any editors who edit related articles, not just to the parties to the case. That'd include new, renamed, or unregistered editors, for example.   Will Beback    talk    02:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone whom edits these articles from the perspective of keeping Iowa-related articles high quality probably doesn't have anything to worry about. It is generally those editors with a dog in the fight, so to speak, that run afoul of discretionary sanctions. Just edit within our policies and guidelines, and there won't be any problems. The Wordsmith Communicate 02:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Key word: "probably".   Will Beback    talk    02:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well yes, discretionary sanctions can sometimes be abused. Enforcement actions can be overturned by consensus, though, and the sanctions generally do a pretty good job of clearing up disruption. The Wordsmith Communicate 02:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There was no ArbCom finding about any disruption, beyond the incivility of one editor. Why they imposed discretionary sanctions in the absence of disruption hasn't been explained.   Will Beback    talk    03:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not entirely accurate, Will. There's a finding here, drafted by Newyorkbrad.  Roger Davies  talk 06:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I assume you're referring to this sentence: The principal common characteristic [of the two sides] is a tendency to assume bad faith of the other side and to cast doubt on the integrity of others' motives, which has in turn given rise to wide-ranging related complaints. 
 * There were allegations of sock puppetry (by a logged-out editor), of edit warring, of POV pushing, and of tag team editing, of ownership. However the ArbCom chose not to sanction anyone for any of those. Instead, there was a single general finding that editors were assuming bad faith of each other. The remedy for that? Discretionary sanctions, a "remedy" which seem to have exacerbated the tensions rather than relieve them. Discretionary sanctions don't get enforced automatically. Editors have to build a case against whoever they believe is likely target, then convince a sympathetic admin to issue a warning, and after a demonstrable repeat of the same behavior, ask again for a sanction. So it converts editors into prosecutors or worse, gladiators, with everyone trying to score points in order to get enough accumulated to justify a sanction. Imposing it as a remedy in this case is like trying to break up a fist fight by handing out knives. If the only problem with this topic was that editors were assuming bad faith then an admonishment to assume good faith would have been a more logical remedy, or perhaps a suggestion for mediation.   Will Beback    talk    08:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In response to a request for uninvolved admins on WP:AN (trying to fulfill one of the remedies) one admin called this topic a "lion's den" and said it was unlikely that any new admins would get involved. I'm getting a bit tired of the lion's den myself.   Will Beback    talk    09:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input; while I've been undoing or otherwise partially reverting the occasional edit, it's because of obvious quality issues, such as this edit that removed overlinking. Enough changes have been going on at the Fairfield article that I've mostly ignored it except for obvious issues. Nyttend (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Motion regarding Eastern European mailing list

 * Announcement

Arbitration motion regarding Pseudoscience

 * Original announcement

Arbitration Motion regarding Eastern European mailing list

 * Original announcement

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf

 * Original announcement

Hi. My first attempt at enforcement was "Closed as not actionable" in this edit. I disagree with the logic in both of the posts in section "Result concerning JBsupreme" (and the consequent summary closure), as the motion itself unambiguously specifies "The six months starts from the day this motion passes." I would like clarification, as well as further examination of the Edit Summaries used by JBsupreme since the day the motion passed. Thank you. — Jeff G. ツ 05:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The motion passed on 2 July 2010; the last edit that JBSupreme made was 1 July 2010. Therefore, the enforcement request was closed correctly - it is not actionable as the restriction was not in force at the time of the alleged violation. Note also, what constitutes a violation will be something that is at the discretion of enforcing administrators. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No, "The motion passes" 15:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC), and the last vote needed for passage was made 15:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC).   — Jeff G. ツ 17:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That was the date the case was closed. "Case modified by motion on 19:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)", which is at the top of the page, and at the bottom, " The six months starts from the day this motion passes. Passed 7-0 at 19:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)". Dougweller (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed; the logic is based on long-standing practice in relation to arbitration motions, let alone community enforcement. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Where is that documented? Would the Committee consider replacing "the day this motion passes" with something like "the day this motion is announced by a clerk"?  Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ 04:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf
I mentioned this on the administrators' noticeboard a while back, when it was just Miami33139. Now more of the players from the arbitration case have turned up. I've been contacted off-wiki by Tothwolf, stating that xe has been advised by others not to participate in these deletion discussions. I imagine that it would be exceedingly tempting to do so, especially as this is almost direct fallout from some of the prior AFD discussions mentioned in the case (e.g. ). So is this Miami33139 and Theserialcomma not being wise enough to let this alone? Given that this is just shy of six months on from being at MFD, and (per the standard schedule) the closure of the current MFD discussions will come just days before Tothwolf's restrictions expire, timing which even working from the best assumptions clearly isn't simple coincidence, do you think that six month restrictions have worked and are working to address the problem? Are they being gamed? Uncle G (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Speed of light

 * Original announcement

Could you find a less intelligible way to convey that piece of information. I'm sure if I went away and read all the documents I could eventually make sense of it. You must try harder if you want that job in the legislature drafting office :)--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It was complicated because the motion (and possibly the original remedy) expired before the announcement was made. Look at the timings of the case, the request for amendment, the motion, and the announcement, and you will see what I mean. Carcharoth (talk) 20:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're not kidding. I still haven't worked out if Brews Ohare can actually edit this article or not. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * He can; his topic ban expired towards the end of June. The effect of the recent amendment was to have the restrictions on Count Iblis, David Tombe, Likebox, and Hell in a Bucket against advocating for Brews lifted at the same time.  Brews and David are both still under a restriction authorizing uninvolved admins to block them after warnings if they "repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum", and David is still topic banned. Steve Smith (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. Hopefully it will work out for Brews.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The motion was this. It refers to expiration of topic ban and restrictions upon posting on physics pages and talk namepages. However, it remains that any uninvolved editor on their own discretion can decide that I have “repeatedly or seriously failed to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum”, and following a warning can “impose sanctions”. No limitations upon the nature or duration of these sanctions is provided, no appeals process is identified, and just what constitutes "normal editorial process", "serious failure to adhere to the purpose of WP", and "standards of decorum" is up to the acting editor's solitary judgment. This situation prevails until 20 October, 2010. Brews ohare (talk) 05:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Likebox
User:Likebox is still blocked. He vented his anger after the advocacy restriction, which was a violation of that restriction and it was pointy behavior as well. Now, Likebox has left the project so he won't ask for himself to be unblocked. Instead, he has used his ban as an argument why Wikipedia sucks. I think he now contributes to Citizendium.

However, we do believe in Wikipedia, so if we are right and Likebox is wrong, he will eventually be back here. Likebox will see that the wiki articles on theoretical physics to which he made major contributions, such as on the Ising model, are far more visible than the Citizendium articles he is wasting his time on now.

So, if he comes back here (perhaps in a few years form now), it will likely be to improve some articles here, not to continue venting his anger. However, if he were to see that he is still blocked for something that is by then ancient history, he would have to raise that old issue before he can proceed. But knowing Likebox a bit (he's a bit hot headed), that won't be a good thing at all. It would likely trigger precisely that kind of behavior that we don't like to see here.

So, I'm of the opinion that it is better to unblock Likebox now, without having discussions with him about this issue. Count Iblis (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, that is not an opinion I share. At this point it isn't just what happened on their way out, it's how they went out. If they are willing to improve their behavior, and back off certain comments they made, sure, we can look to unblocking him. But the first move has to be his. SirFozzie (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The matter is simply one of psychology. I'd say Likebox left infuriated, and if he is required to come hat in hand and plead for acceptance, he won't. SirFozzie thinks that's just fine, so be it. However, Likebox is a gifted individual and WP would be better off with his contributions. If he were encouraged to return by the simple act of dropping the block, WP would benefit. It isn't necessary that all involved feel that this ending suits them to a Tee. Everybody can take a deep breath and let the future evolve as it may, bygones are bygones. Brews ohare (talk) 05:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to agree that his outburst was not as seemly as it could've been but now that the sanctions are done it would not really prevent damage to not let him come back? This was a pretty upsetting decision for all involved, the block had provisions on effect as to the length of the block. . Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Let him back. Simply venting one's frustration in a verbal outburst is not a good reason for indefinitely blocking a useful editor. --Michael C. Price talk 21:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Considering it was more than just an outburst (the comments were made over several weeks), and that he indicated that he did not wish to "color inside the lines", so to speak, no. SirFozzie (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * His outburst was saying Brews Ohare name. It was a pointy disruption bbut it was on e in anger. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * A week later: "I will only contribute to a fork, or to this project in the unlikely case that they have something analogous to the French revolution, including a goodly terror". Again, he needs to tell us that situation has changed. Otherwise it is status quo. SirFozzie (talk) 22:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

SirFozzie: Clearly Likebox ranted. CLearly he annoyed you and some others. So what? If he is pardoned, and if he returns, it soon will be easy to tell whether anythong has changed. There is no need to make matters difficult; it really is only pique. Brews ohare (talk) 23:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Matters arent difficult, they're just status quo. We're not big into symbolic gestures. If Likebox wants to return to editing, he can ask. Until then, it's all hypothetical. SirFozzie (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not logical, and contrary to natural justice and common sense, for someone to still be blocked over violation of a restriction that has now lapsed. --Michael C. Price talk 20:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether there may or may not be sufficient grounds for lifting the block on Likebox at this point, the Committee is not going to consider the matter without some indication that Likebox himself wants it to be considered. We do not, as a general rule, conduct proceedings—appeals or otherwise—in absentia. Kirill [talk] [prof] 21:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Blocks have been imposed in absentia, haven't they? If so wouldn't the same would apply to unblocking?  We gagged and then blocked Likebox; I hardly think justice should be denied just because he (understandibly) refuses to stand before us. --Michael C. Price talk 21:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Blocks are a matter for administrator discretion; the Committee follows specific rules and procedures. Likebox is perfectly free to contact BASC or the entire Committee at any time if he would like to be unblocked; but we are not going to consider an appeal if one isn't actually made, both because granting such a request would be pointless and because rejecting it—which remains, of course, a potential outcome—would be unnecessarily callous. Kirill [talk] [prof] 22:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't believe it would be pointless to grant such a request; just because someone isn't prepared to ask doesn't mean they don't want, as has been indicated by others above.--Michael C. Price talk 23:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's another way of viewing things: Arbcom was v.frustrated listening to Likebox, Iblis et al advocating for Brews and Tombe. I can understand that; Brews et al were pretty much self-appointed martyrs and (IMO) deserved a spell in the cooler. So Arbcom placed a gagging order on Likebox et al. But Arbcom should appreciate that gagging orders also cause frustration. Since Arbcom were frustrated they should have some empathy with - and sympathy for - Likebox's frustration and outburst. The indefinite block was not appropriate - it should have had an expiry date, timed to coincide with the expiry of the restrictions on Brews and Tombe.--Michael C. Price talk 03:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, ArbCom was concerned that the constant disruption and other such nonsense was detrimental to the project - we have to listen to much, much more advocating and venting on a daily basis. However, we do have quite a bit of empathy for folks who make mistakes so a simple note from Likebox indicating that the comments were just blowing off steam or frustration and he'd like to return would probably solve the issue.  Absent that, you're all trying to guess what Likebox meant and what he wants now - I'm know not yet psychic and I'm doubting anyone else here is, so it's probably best to let people speak for themselves. Shell   babelfish 05:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Likebox has indicated, as others have surmised, that he does not wish to speak for himself. --Michael C. Price talk 03:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have a diff for that? Regardless, I guess he'll just have to wait until he does want to discuss it. Shell   babelfish 05:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Private email.
 * This is a systemic problem; indefinitely blocked editors often don't appeal and are lost forever. There should be a mechanism by which heavy-handed indefinite blocks can be time expired, without the blocker having to appeal. --Michael C. Price talk 06:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? Blocks are preventative not punitive. And not every editor is a net benefit to the project. Absent a commitment from the blocked editor about future good behaviour, there's no telling what they'll get up to. As for heavy-handed. have you actually looked at the block log? The repeated lost opportunities to desist and move on?  Roger Davies  talk 07:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Rbj is also still blocked years after the incidents he was involved in. When I talked to him about a year or so ago, he was also in no mood to argue on his own behalf here. The nature of the topics Likebox edits are of a type that you won't expect trouble there, in the sense that you would fear that Likebox would damage those articles. We're not talking about some Global Warming sceptic who will overnight rewrite the Global Warming article. The worst thing that could happen is that he would edit in, say, the Black hole article a section on some esoteric theoretical subject that makes the article less suited for FA status, but which does not amount to nonsense being edited in the article.


 * We also have to consider that on the physics articles we don't have as much social interactions between editors as on the politics pages. We'll perhaps soon see Ottava Rima return to Wikipedia because he misses his old friends here. He will promise not to make trouble so that he can be let back in. But the areas he is active in are much more prone to trouble (and the social interactions can also contribute to trouble). So, the current rules favor certain types of editors and subject areas; we have to consider if that's a good thing. Count Iblis (talk) 01:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The restriction placed on Likebox said: |"Likebox ...(is) indefinitely restricted from advocacy for or commenting on Brews ohare, broadly construed. Should any of these editors violate this restriction, they may be blocked for up to 24 hours by any uninvolved administrator. After three blocks, the maximum block length shall rise to one week." How did a "maximum block length (of) one week" turn into an indefinite block??? What's the point of Arbcom making a ruling like this when it can be arbitarily superseded by whoever feels a bit grumpy that day? --Michael C. Price talk 02:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It was requested by Likebox, actually.. Likebox indicated that he was going to keep doing this to prove a point, AniMate warned him that it could lead to an indefblock, and he replied "Please try to do it before expiry--- because it is annoying to have to troll every 24 hours.Likebox (talk) 03:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)". It's still right there on Likebox's talk page if you'd care to read it. SirFozzie (talk) 02:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * We all know Likebox needed a spell in the cooler. That doesn't justify an indefinite ban. --Michael C. Price talk 06:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)