Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 15

Removal of permissions

 * Original announcement

Am I missing something? I can't see any evidence that the account is compromised. If you've received evidence in private that you can't disclose, it'd be good if you could say that in announcements so that people like me don't look at the contribs of the account and scratch their heads. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 16:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you notice the six-year gap in editing? --MZMcBride (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and my concerns with that were somewhat reduced by the fact that he returned to editing the same kinds of articles as he edited before the break. Thus I was confused as to what evidence led ArbCom to make the desysopping. As mentioned below, my point in making this comment was to see if ArbCom could improve the content of these announcements in the future. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 17:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I seem to remember that there was an issue a few years back where it was alleged that old admin accounts were insecure, owing to some technicality?, but a proposal to desysop all inactive admin accounts was rejected. I don't know if anyone has better recollection and can point the current committee to that discussion. Anyhoo, it may be that the individual controlling the accounts is not aware of the advanced flags - since none appear to have been used. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to this by any chance?  Skomorokh   17:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Could be, but I think that that may be also after an initial issue raised. Cheers, anyhoo. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The six year gap, combined with the socking, makes it likely enough that the person who controls the account today is not the person who controlled it when they got the bit. Removing the permission ensures that even passive permissions (like accessing deleted contributions) cannot be misused until the situation has been clarified.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to back up Coren - a checkuser raised issues that this account's current edits were connected with a number of problematic sox. The handful of edits from this account are not themselves problematic. Since we're now starting removing rights from oversighters and checkusers who are inactive after relatively short periods of inactivity (months, not years), and given that there have been more recent security issues, perhaps its time to revisit removing tools from old dormant accounts. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. Dormant accounts with privileges are one of the most obvious attack surfaces for Wikipedia. Anyone who puts in the effort can extract the list of dormant admin accounts, then run a standard password guesser on them.  --John Nagle (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a less controversial solution than desysopping all inactive administrative accounts would be for stewards to run the password guessing software themselves, and desysop only the accounts that they were able to compromise. Chester Markel (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think a developer did that a few years back. Couldn't hurt to do it again. --Rschen7754 19:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

For those still scratching your heads, Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev is of relevance. Thanks to the arbs for acting swiftly on this (though I don't quite grasp the willingness to discuss the background publicly elsewhere on-wiki and not here). Skomorokh  17:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the whole "delicate balance" thing. There's no reason to not discuss the background, but I saw no reason to expound on it here beyond "there was socking".  The SPI you link to does, indeed, give the relevant background.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

My point in making this post is that, in future, it would be nice if ArbCom could either give reasons for the desysopping or explain why those reasons cannot be given. For the former, something like a link to an SPI case or some problematic edits would be nice. For the latter, a public statement that the reason cannot be disclosed would suffice. Giving no reason other than "concerns that the account may be compromised" makes it sound like ArbCom is acting on flaky evidence. I'm sure you're not, but some people may perceive it that way. Anyway, it's just a suggestion regarding the content of the notices published to this board. Feel free to leave it if it doesn't suit you. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 17:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That's an entirely reasonable suggestion, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * +1, it would have been nice to see which SPI (if any) was being referred to in the original announcement rather than having to go here, first. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  17:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Point taken. &mdash; Coren (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Smart move. Maybe we should revisit the idea of automatically de-sysoping account that have been dormant for some long period (years, not months). It's an obvious security hole. If the owner becomes active again and can prove their bona fides they can regain the bit just by asking, in the same way that retired admins can regain the bit now. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If ArbCom were so sure that the account was compromised as to desysop it, shouldn't it be blocked? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Preponderance of evidence vs. certainty, HJ. At this point, we're still hoping the account holder will contact us to clarify matters; removing the bit is a precautionary measure &mdash; we can advise on the rest after seeing how things develop. That said, while the fact that one of the accounts implicated in the socking was a long-abandoned sysop account prompted our intervention, the actual socking investigation can proceed normally.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have revived a proposal after this episode to that effect. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The opposite would also be a red flag situation. If an account remains active for much longer than a century, you can be sure that the original editor is deceased and the account has been handed over to someone else. Count Iblis (talk) 01:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We do have some ninety years to come up with a procedure for such cases. &mdash; Coren (talk) 02:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure ... though the idea of hereditary adminship is rather appealing :)  Roger Davies  talk 06:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ... and some editors already think we're Lords in a fiefdom ... :-P (talk→   BWilkins  ←track ) 14:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if that were the case, we'd need to determine whether administrative rights are transferred by cognatic or agnatic primogeniture. ;-) Kirill [talk] [prof] 15:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why are you excluding matrilineal primogeniture? &mdash; Coren (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And Salic law. Let's not forget Salic law.  Roger Davies  talk 20:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The day we have the "Viscount of Vandal-Whacking", I'm running fast and far :) SirFozzie (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * User:SonOfPedro has already been promised his birth-right. Pedro : Chat  21:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment. The account was not compromised - I returned to Wikipedia after a hiatus. I do have multiple accounts for privacy reasons, but this was done in accordance with policy. I am not mikemikev. Spencer195 (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The checkuser data did not indicate that you were Mikemikev; however, if these accounts were in accordance with policy, they should have been a) declared publicly (which they were not, else the SPI wouldn't have occurred) or b) declared privately to the Arbitration Committee (which presumably they were not or they wouldn't have done what they did). Ergo, they weren't. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 23:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Edits by the are concerning. Rrrr5 edits concerned the promotion of White Supremacy and black inferiority. CU has ✅ it as you! Would you please explain while none of you 5000 previous edits go no where near the topic but your alternate account was being an SPA in the area? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what I did wrong in this case. What is an SPA?  The edits were segregated for privacy reasons.  Spencer195 (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Not making any comment on the specific user conduct here, but that interpretation does not seem consistent with the policy on alternative accounts as currently written. Plenty of loopholes for undisclosed alts there.  Skomorokh   23:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That policy apparently came into effect during the time I was away from Wikipedia. I apologize for not being aware of it.  The policy page as it stood when I left Wikipedia was quite different .  I'll make sure to refamiliarize myself with the policy and follow it in the future.  Spencer195 (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The edits of (created May 3, 2011),  (created April 24, 2011) and  (created April 13, 2011) are not suitable for undisclosed alternative accounts of an administrator. (The checkuser request has now been moved to Sockpuppet investigations/Spencer195.) Spencer195's explanations above are wholly inadequate. Mathsci (talk) 00:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * whats concerning to me is that the account was using a known Mikemikev IP range. I am still not sure this is the real Spencer. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) The first IP that was blocked for reverting Rrrrr5's edits to White supremacy was identified as Mikemikev, That was confusing, but can be explained by the fact that Mikemikev is known to track the edits of Ramdrake, Maunus, etc. Mathsci (talk) 00:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm still not understanding what I did wrong. As I said, Wikipedia and its policy have changed substantially in the 6 years that I was gone.Spencer195 (talk) 00:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Was this edit OK for an administrator?  Mathsci (talk) 00:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What is the policy that I violated? Spencer195 (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Holy smokes. That single edit should be enough to get a normal user blocked indefinitely, much less a (supposed) admin. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm still not quite seeing what I did wrong. Spencer195 (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Come on, Boris. There's no policy against using Wikipedia as a neo-Nazi version of eHarmony. Loosen up. MastCell Talk 03:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * All these responses make it look increasingly unlikely that the same person is operating Spencer195's account now as in 2004-2005. Mathsci (talk) 05:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As I told you nothing you did was wrong but odd behavior like using an Alt-account to Sexually Harrass a female community member under Ghear5849. Also you are avoiding answering our questions directly but insisting you dont know what you did wrong The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that is harassment. I only asked her once.  What questions do you have for me?  Spencer195 (talk) 00:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you agree that your sysop bit is revoked, and that you will need to go through a new RFA if you wish to regain it? Franamax (talk) 04:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If Spencer195 does not voluntarily relinquish the bit, ArbCom should make the desysoping permanent. The edits outline above cast grave doubts: either Spencer195's account is actually compromised, or Spencer195 is no longer capable of holding the community's trust.  The repeated protestations of not understaning the problem are just as troubling as the edits themselves. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't appear to me as if the account has compromised. However, a 6-year absence means that they are not aware of the current rules (as is evidenced by not knowing what an SPA is).


 * Spencer195: Six years is a lot to catch up on. Will you please voluntarily relinquish your admin rights?  After you've caught up on everything you missed, you can re-apply for adminship though the usual means.  Does that sound fair?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

"I don't see how that is harassment. I only asked her once. What questions do you have for me?"—seriously? That warrants an indef. I seriously doubt this Spencer195 is the same as the original. Or anyone who doesn't understand why this comment is unacceptable has serious problems. Do you usually walk up to people and ask, "How old are you? I've been looking for nonreligious conservative women with liberal views on sexual morality. Wanna come back to my place for some fun?" FFS, Wikipedia is not a fucking escort service. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  14:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It does though very clearly demonstrate once again the double standard in operation here. Had that comment been made by a non-administrator it would undoubtedly have resulted in a lengthy block. Malleus Fatuorum 14:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Fetchcomms, just a nitpick: not "nonreligious conservative women", "nonreligious conservative (NS-style) women". Given the context it's not a mystery what "NS" stands for. Yes, please, on the indef for this racist sockfarm. 28bytes (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

As things stand, I'm highly minded to indef the Spencer195 account on the grounds that (on reviewing his previous contribs) it doesn't appear to be the same chap - or if it is, he's grown up into someone who is not a net asset to the project. I agree with everyone's comments regarding the pickup line, and the complete inappropriateness of an admin having white supremacist socks. Anyone have other opinions?Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked
I have now blocked Spencer195. My reasoning is given here, although this thread is more reason for the blocking than the opinion of a single administrator. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 14:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This kind of stuff is why I've been wanting to see admin tools removed after long periods of inactivity. When the account comes back after a break that long, the account is either compromised or policies have changed entirely since they were admins. Either way, block was definitely needed here. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 15:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Look at his admin logs if you have any doubt the account was compromised. He did a total of three blocks as an admin, one of which was to block an IP for "recreating racist antisemitic trash". Would the same guy create neo-Nazi sockpuppets?169.231.60.60 (talk) 15:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, its definitely Mikemikev. The fact he picked an Inactive admin who he thought would be "jew" or a "Jew Sympathizer."    The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 15:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Just so it's clear in case a analogous situation occurs again in the future: that the Committee intervened in one aspect of a situation does not generally preclude the community from proceeding with other aspects of the situation. We have a process in place to swiftly protect the project from possible damage (hence the expedited desysop), but handling the wider matter of whether to block the account or how to proceed with the admin permission requires whole-committee work and is, necessarily, a slower and more involved process.  If the community is able to deal with the matter, then it's almost certainly faster and simpler that it does rather than wait for ArbCom to gear up with a full case.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * On a side note, does anyone know if "I'm an admin" pickup lines work? :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "I'm a prehistoric monster, come join my harem" work better.   bishzilla    ROA R R! !     19:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC).
 * "Follow me on Twitter, I'll arrange for a 'prank'"? / ƒETCH COMMS  /  21:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "My love for you is indefinite" ... I'm going to guess no. --Rschen7754 21:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes! *But it does involve a mirror. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration policy update

 * Original message

When should the discussion close? For something like this a specific time would be good. 10 days? FT2 (Talk 20:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe 14 days, but I'm waiting on confirmation of that. It needs to be long enough to allow anyone who is taking a holiday this week to get back and offer their two penn'orth. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * More time is better than not enough time, IMO. Better to wait a few more days than give the appearance of rushing it through. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 02:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting open for voting

 * Original message Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I would be insanely grateful if a clerk or uninvolved editor could broadcast this far and wide to all appropriate noticeboards (and all users that had commented in two previous incarnations) that this is open for discussion. I need to be away from keyboard for several hours. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed red link, I hope correctly. The actual 'dash' proposal for the Manual of Style is at WT:Manual of Style/dash drafting. This is presumably the thing to be commented on far and wide until July 14. The talk page where opinions are now being collected is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting/discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Everyone should vote at WT:Manual of Style/dash drafting and if they need to discuss, then that takes place at  Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting/discussion. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Motion regarding User:Barong

 * Original announcement

GoRight ban appeal

 * Original announcement

Questions:
 * 1) What has changed since the last appeal?
 * 2) Has GoRight copped to the socking yet?
 * 3) Has GoRight proven by working on another wiki that the problems with his editing are over?
 * 4) GoRight's 'get blocked, promise to do better next time, get blocked again for the same thing, repeat' pattern in the past has been eminently predictable. Why should we believe it now?

I suspect the answers are 1) nothing, 2) no, 3) no, and 4) we shouldn't. But I'm willing to be surprised. → ROUX   ₪  21:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * GoRight has admitted to socking with several accounts in correspondence with the Committee, yes. Obviously sock-free behavior is a considered requirement for an unblock. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Which are the sock accounts? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of GoRight is not exactly encouraging, although no socks have been detected in many months. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * @David: When is the last time he said he socked? NW ( Talk ) 01:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'm (almost) always in favor of giving someone another chance. — Ched : ?  23:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely supportive of this, but if GoRight is to return, I would request that he be topic banned from any US political issue, broadly construed. NW ( Talk ) 01:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, bearing in mind that GoRight spent so much of his time enabling disruptive behaviour in others and major league shit stirring I'd like to see evidence of a sustained period of collaborative work in another wiki before we considered unleashing him here again. I'd also like to see some evidence of understanding what it was that he did to get the community to ban him to ensure that he knows what to avoid as/when/if he is unblocked. Truly I see this as a recipie for trouble but other disruptive users have been unblocked and redeemed but something tells me this won't be one of them. If the BASC are considering an unblock I' like to see supervised editing, a ban on engagement in all controversial areas and an absolute ban from posting at ANI except to respond to reports about him. Spartaz Humbug! 03:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There isn't enough information to form a judgment. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that a record of undisruptive editing elsewhere should be a requirement for GoRight's return, and that if he is allowed to return, it should initially be with a topic ban on all political topics, broadly construed, for at least 3 months. If he is able to edit productively then, the topic ban can be relaxed or removed. I am otherwise opposed to allowing GoRight to return, unless these or similar conditions are imposed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Spartaz and others that there does not appear to be anything which suggest it is suitable for this user to return. It would be an endless quantity of restrictions which are going to fall back on the Community to deal with, and editing the Community will have to supervise because apparently we should all consider turning from English Wikipedia to English Rehab Wikipedia. I'm not sure how many more steps the Community were expected to try before clarifying that there was no other way of dealing with this problem, and in the absence of new evidence which suggests otherwise, there still isn't. Probably the only step the Community managed to avoid was arbitration (though even then, there was a pretty strong case during CC anyway). If it's a "Hey, I've been a sockmaster, but I've stopped for now, so you should let me back (aka otherwise I won't have incentive to stop?)", I'm certainly not convinced at all. But here's some more questions then. What is the purpose of entertaining such an appeal? Out of curiosity, was it BASC who decided to bring it here despite all of the above or was it the entire Committee? Chase isn't even active so he obviously couldn't make this decision as a BASC member (so which arbs are on BASC currently)? Were there any other users who made recommendations to lift the ban (be it a climate change case participant or otherwise)? Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There wasn't a lot of action on-list one way or another, besides a general sentiment (shared by myself) that since it was a community ban, it should at least be open for discussion on the matter. Secondly, reading the last community ban discussion I didn't find the sort of complete and unanimous support for a ban that would most likely preclude another appeal. Ergo, defer in part back to the community. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 13:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the state of that discussion (like many of the other discussions involving this user) indicated just how exhausted the Community has become with expecting to have this issue addressed for once and for all. As far as the Community is concerned, ordinarily, its doors are open for appeal for a lot of things; if people prefer BASC, they're welcome to go there. But if the Community has indicated "go directly to BASC if you want to appeal", we expect BASC to deal with the issue and only bring it back to us if there is a good cause for accepting the appeal. Maybe you aren't aware of all of the context which came from last year; I appreciate that. But you also need to appreciate that if the Community is pissed off, it's because you are saying there is a good chance of the Community having to go through this perpetual cycle of tendentious editing and games again. And incidentally, we don't want to see you being played either. But back to my earlier question(s), you've mentioned that there was a general sentiment that it should be open for discussion - could you indicate which arbs expressed this sentiment or agreed with it vocally on-list? Was this the only discussion you looked at in relation to the ban (I mean, although you checked the Sockpuppet category linked above which is mostly socking post-ban, were there any other discussions you looked at in relation to conduct pre-ban)? Could you also specify which arbs are currently sitting on BASC (as the ArbCom page is not up to date)? Finally, could you specify how many other people (other than GoRight and the current arbs you'd mention in my previous question) have submitted comments on-list in relation to this appeal prior to this announcement)? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have notified all of the participants in the ban proposal (not all of them may be following the normal locations and David appears to have questioned how complete/unanimous the support for the ban was at the time). As an aside, I note that my questions have not been answered. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Notation: There are good questions here and above from Ncmvocalist that still need answering please. -- Crohnie Gal Talk  12:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * At the very minimum a ban from AN/ANI, maybe a ban from all wikipedia space unless it's a discussion directly about him. And a ban from from discussing anywhere the banning/unbanning of other editors. And a ban from Global warming, cold fusion, and probably other topics. He was told to do constructive work on other wikis, but his work in commons stopped after only a few days . I think a non-disruptive record somewhere else should be a requirement before being unbanned here. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. A topic ban was attempted in 2008, and problems continued.  The editor is clever and energetic.  They will find ways to advance their agenda around any topic ban. Jehochman Talk 10:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The first thing to look at is whether or not GoRight has conformed to the terms set out before he could make such an appeal - i.e. 3 months useful work on another Wiki, such as Simple or Commons, or 6 months total absence from en-Wiki with no sockpuppetry whatsoever. If these have not been met, we shouldn't even be considering an appeal. If they have been met, the it may be possible for GoRight to return, perhaps with a topic ban for a period of time to keep him away from any troublesome areas and give him time to show that he can edit collaboratively. Mjroots (talk) 07:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I asked four questions, ArbCom has answered only one. Are answers to the others forthcoming? You guys asked for community input but have been rather short on providing information that would help such input be informed. → ROUX   ₪  08:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See below... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 13:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I reserve comment until the questions asked above by Roux have been answered. We need more data if we are to give input. AGK  [&bull; ] 10:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

←Or, it's just my first rodeo dealing with this, and I wasn't really aware what response would be generated. Interpreting anything from my busy real-world schedule would be a bad idea. aMy apologies. Anyhow, I'll just quote from GoRight's emailed appeal, in part: "Now, in my defense for making a return I would like to point out that in my absence there was the Omnibus Climate Change Arbitration which resulted in many topic bans for many users. I explicitly avoided any attempt to get involved in that proceeding. I did not attempt to stir up trouble even though I would have otherwise been directly involved throughout the entire episode and in spite of the fact that others tried to pull me into it despite my current ban.  I believe that this demonstrates my willingness to put the battleground mentality of the past behind me.
 * It would have been better to link to the sanction discussions (2008) so people could understand why the user was topic banned. Is this the sanction being appealed, or is there another one on top of it?  Jehochman Talk 10:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's the community ban discussion (2010). Prior problems included hounding, WP:NPA, and WP:BLP violations against another editor.  Upon review, I think that this user has been highly troublesome over a long period of time. As I linked above, a topic ban was attempted in 2008, and did not work. Eventually a full ban was placed. We do not need ideological battles being imported to Wikipedia.  This editor has shown through their actions that they will fight by any means possible: wikilawyering, endless appeals, and mud slinging. No thank you.  We don't need your help. Jehochman Talk 10:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning the same way you are, but a shred of AGF remained, thus my questions above. I find it kind of strange that an Arb showed up to answer only one of them. → ROUX   ₪  10:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I find it strange that there was no link to the history of this issue, as well as no rationale stated for the appeal. Why invite people to express opinions without informing them of the facts? Since you asked, and only got a partial answer, my read is that there is nothing good to say about the matter.  GoRights wants another chance to play us the fools, and evidently some are willing to take on that role. Jehochman Talk 11:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

While not voluminous, in my absence I have had occasion to help out on Commons with a number of graphics related projects without incident. You can check my contributions history there to verify this. I believe that this demonstrates that I am capable of working constructively with others.

Finally, my on-wiki interactions on my talk page since being banned have been civil and without incident. The only item of significance is when I decided to unify my wikimedia accounts and needed to be unblocked briefly to do so. I behaved myself at that time and the matter was conducted without incident. I believe that this demonstrates that I can be trusted to keep my word."

Additionally, he has claimed, , and as his; he says the suspected accounts in his SPI archive that targeted WMC are not his, and he says he has not socked in more than 6 months and has no current or active socks. I believe that answers Roux's questions, although the final one is obviously open to interpretation. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 13:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that User:Absit invidia II, one of GoRight’s admitted sockpuppets, did indeed "get involved" by editing a talkpage of the climate change case  Cardamon (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I oppose unblocking in the strongest possible terms. GoRight was frankly and consistently dishonest about his use of sockpuppets. See User talk:Absit invidia II. See his edit summary here - "MastCell is lying with the clear intent to deceive" - when I correctly identified that account as a GoRight sock. Or see User talk:TheNeutralityDoctor, where he states: "I see that many editors around here have a hard time dealing with the fact that I am not actually GoRight." The fact that he now owns up to them, after they've been blocked, his lies have proven ineffective, and he's exhausted his avenues for claiming innocence, suggests a shift in tactics rather than a sincere change of heart. GoRight's claim that he avoided getting involved in WP:ARBCC is similarly false. Cardamon has pointed out his editing (via sockpuppet) to the case pages. GoRight's sockpuppet Absit invidia similarly lobbied Lar on his talk page (e.g. here) during the case, and his input was described even by  as "a bit over-the-top".  While active, GoRight split his time between tendentious, ideologically motivated editing and acting as a self-appointed litigator on behalf of other disruptive accounts. On the constructive side of the ledger, we got zero useful contributions from him. On the disruptive side, we got hundreds of kb of timewasting, process-wonking, and wikilawyering, followed by extensive socking, again all in service of a political agenda. This is exactly what Wikipedia does not need.  Assuming that a decision is made to unblock GoRight, allow me to plead for some mechanism of direct oversight of his editing. He has a nearly endless capacity for superficially civil wikilawyering, which makes him nearly immune to Wikipedia's normal disciplinary processes. Out of basic fairness to the people whose time will be wasted by him, there should be some sort of ready mechanism for reblocking him if he repeats previous patterns of behavior.  But to reiterate: I oppose unblocking in the strongest possible terms. I see no credible indication that anything has changed. His first paragraph of justification consists of the sort of misleading and untrue claims that were a staple of his earlier participation. As for the second, work on Commons projects, while admirable, has no bearing on whether GoRight will be able to subsume his political agenda to edit within policy. His final paragraph is again the standard misleading lies-by-omission; while he has been superficially civil on his talk page since being blocked, his sockpuppets have not exactly been models of decorum. MastCell Talk 18:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to say that Mastcell has stated a view that others should read and strongly consider. I for one read what was said and I too have to say I strongly oppose the return of GoRight.  Well said Mastcell, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  12:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have a simple, perhaps novel, solution. How about unbanning him but only allowing him to edit one article?  Is there a movie, video game or TV show that GoRight has a particular interest in?  Perhaps he'd be a good editor there?  If, after 6 months, he hasn't returned to his old ways, we can expand his editing area to whatever topic space the article was in.  Of course, he should be indefinitely banned from climate change and any political-related article.  What does everyone think of my suggestion?A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm with MastCell too. There's simply no proof that anything has changed. If there's enough of a collective brainfart that GoRight gets unblocked, well, proposal below to make this easier to read. → ROUX   ₪  23:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I sent an e-mail to GoRight asking him what he thought of my suggestion. He responded that he would accept it if this was his only path back. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * GoRight has posted a response that I believe speaks to some of the concerns above in an off-wiki venue: . Also, Roux, given that this is just a request for comments, I really see no reason for a vote. Rest assured arbs actually read this page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wasn't intended as a vote per se, was more trying to distill the wall of text above. → ROUX   ₪  23:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm. While the blog post seems to be making some of the right noises, I cannot help but share the extremely strong reservations many of the other editors here have about any relaxation of GoRight's ban.  It's not entirely clear what he does want to do here if he is unbanned in any way shape or form, and his past actions must necessarily speak very loudly compared to his current words.  The cynic in me can't help but notice that that apologetic blog entry nevertheless carries with it some implicit canvassing:
 * "The committee has decided to ask for community input. The resulting discussion is [at WP:AC/N, WT:AC/N, WP:AN]."
 * Be aware that he is recruiting advocates to these pages from his principally-sympathetic audience. I note that he has not taken any steps to update the lies, taunts, and attacks in his previous blog entries about other editors who correctly identified his now-acknowledged sockpuppets, nor has he named his sockpuppet accounts in his blog.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * TenOfAllTrades: He has responded to (at least some of) your points above. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal 1: no change

 * GoRight remains banned from Wikipedia. One year from the date this proposal is enacted he may reapply for unbanning if and only if the following conditions are met:
 * Zero sockpuppeting for that year
 * Evidence on at least two other projects (Commons and Simple come to mind) showing continued behavioural change. That means contributing at or close to GoRight's normal average contributions to enwiki. It's really easy to be good for a little while; if he can do it for a year elsewhere maybe there's a there there.
 * A full and frank public disclosure onwiki by GoRight of all socks, and an honest assessment of where he went wrong and what he will do to avoid problems in the future

Support

 * I guess I'll be the first to actually "support" something. Given that this proposal adds some wording along the lines of "one strike, no matter how grazing, and we go back to a siteban" (no escalating blocks, those have already been tried and simply do not work for this particular editor), I can wince and nod it. Strong emphasis on "reapply for unbanning" (as opposed to "will be unbanned"), "zero", "continued" (one year minimum), and "honest" (as opposed to "honest-sounding" or "politely-worded") - my support is entirely conditional on all of the above being met. GoRight has been a resource drain for years - on the AN/I crowd, sure, but even moreso on the good-faith editors who already have a hard enough time keeping the various global warming articles scientifically accurate in the face of stubborn WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT from WP:RANDY after WP:RANDY. Even dangling the carrot of unbanning leaves me a bit uneasy, as - absent a rather large jug of Flavor Aid which I really don't feel like swallowing - I have no reason to believe this will lead to anything other than impassioned wiki-lawyering over the meaning of words like "honest", "continued", "reapply", "zero", and "year" (among others); this is about as far in this particular direction as I personally can reach. Allow me to restate, for emphasis: In the event, however likely or unlikely it may be, that GoRight satisfies the conditions and his application for unbanning is successful, there will be no warnings, no bickering over whether his edits were intended to be disruptive, no accusations of a "mainstream scientist conspiracy", no "a pox on both your houses", no invitation for the anti-science fringe to come crawling out of the woodwork in support - the onus will be on GoRight to collaborate the way others wish him to, and if the bridges he's burned in science topics mean he can't even add a comma without being taken to the noticeboards, then it's up to him to stay out of those particular topic areas. Badger Drink (talk) 05:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) I've read over the past few hours everything I can about GoRight's previous blocks and bans. I don't think this editor is capable of making a sincere assessment of where he went wrong, because it appears to me that he is incapable of knowing what "going wrong" means. I get the impression that he defines "wrong" not as "factually inaccurate" or "against community consensus" but as "not what I believe". This sets him up to be contradicted by editors who don't see his beliefs as equal to fact, which again makes him the victim in his own mind and sets off all kinds of defensive responses that end up disrupting the project. I simply don't trust this editor to be able to detach his ego from his opinions, or to fully comprehend the difference between his personal opinion and fact. I guess I have to support this option as the closest to what I would prefer - a truly permanent, irrevocable ban. --NellieBly (talk) 05:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * This won't work. Also you risk that he will return a year later with what looks to be a good C.V. He would then be allowed to edit without restrictions, while still "unreformed". Count Iblis (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm with Count Iblis. Like last time, GoRight is not someone I'm personally against. I've never had a dispute with him myself, and I admit he has also done good things. But I can't trust him and I don't think I ever can. What makes GoRight so dangerous is what Jehochman said earlier, "The editor is clever and energetic." Those same traits that made him a good editor at times also made him very disruptive. I wouldn't put it past GoRight to show wonderful behavior, then came back to Wikipedia and start causing problems again. At this point, to me, he's like the boy who cried wolf, he has had so many chances and has been sincere about changing so many times and each time he goes back to his disruption. --  At am a  頭 17:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Unban with severe restrictions

 * GoRight is unbanned from Wikipedia under the following conditions:
 * Required to have a mentor uninvolved with the situation. (Should be an admin, to deal with blocking issues);
 * Complete topicban from all discussions in all namespaces relating to climate change and politics, broadly construed. This includes his own talkpage; he will be expected to simply ignore or remove any commentary left on his page;
 * Banned from editing WP:AN, WP:ANI, Arbcom, or any other noticeboard/complaint pages except as a respondent. Even in such cases, is limited to responding through his mentor, who may impose limits on length and/or number of comments;
 * Restricted to using only the GoRight account. Leeway granted for occasional and accidental logged-out editing if and only if the edits are reconnected to the named account by GoRight;
 * Restricted to a handful of articles unconnected with previous editing problems. Such articles to be determined by the mentor in consultation with the community;
 * Infractions to be dealt with via escalating blocks: 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, permanent, with no chance for block reduction;
 * Conditions may be appealed to the community one year after enactment, through the guidance of the mentor. Time resets at the conclusion of each block duration;

Support

 * Third choice, the restrictions in this form probably won't work, some modifications are needed, but this is along the general lines of what me must implement. Count Iblis (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * Per what I said above and at the original ban discussion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Severe restrictions have been tried. I have yet to be convinced that GoRight views these restrictions with anything other than excitement at the prospect of getting to play Wiki-Lawyer for another go-round. Badger Drink (talk) 05:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Severe restrictions haven't worked and won't because he's just going to feel victimized again when editors fail to put his personal beliefs first. That's what I meant about his defensiveness causing disruption: the wikilawyering is one of his defense mechanisms. --NellieBly (talk) 05:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose While I generally promote second multiple/many chances, I think the onus should be on GoRight to prove through nontrivial, positive effort elsewhere that they are capable of having a net positive influence on a similar project. In particular, WP:KISS comes to mind — if we were eventually to unban them then *any* violation (including WP:LAWYER) should result in an immediate reversion to an indefinite block. -- samj in out 10:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal 3: Unban with restrictions

 * As in Proposal 2, minus the restriction to a handful of articles

Support

 * Second choice. GoRight must be subjected to quite severe restrictions, but exactly which one must be up to the mentor. Count Iblis (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * While my gut instinct leads me toward the "no restrictions" area, the obviously strong community opinions compel me to place the project over my own personal thoughts. I think the user has value to offer to the project, and I'd like to see some of his contributions incorporated into our efforts.  However, with respect to the community as a whole, I agree that some restrictions should be a first step. — Ched :  ?  21:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * Far too forgiving. This editor has already had too many chances to reform themselves and failed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Per what I said above and at the original ban discussion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Good faith is not a suicide pact. Badger Drink (talk) 05:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This might work if he could choose to reform, but I don't think that's plausible. --NellieBly (talk) 05:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal 4: Unban with mentors imposing restrictions

 * GoRight will be allowed to edit under the following restriction. By default, GoRight is topic banned from editing Wikipedia, except his own user pages. If he wishes to edit an article, he discusses that first with one of his mentors there. GoRight can then edit the article if the mentor agrees. The mentor can impose restrictions on GoRight for that article, like e.g. 0RR or 1RR. Also, the mentor can delegate mentoring as far as editing a particular article is concerned, to another editor. The primary or secondary mentors may be involved in the articles GoRight is editing. After a year of editing under this restriction, GoRight may appeal to get the restriction lifted or modified.

Support

 * This is a practical way to actually "reform" an editor like GoRight. It all has to do with imposing restrictions on a case by case basis. An editor who edits Wikipedia without causing trouble is able to impose such restriction on him/herself. The best way for an editor who is unable to do that to learn to do this, would be to be confronted with his shortcomings promptly. In a mentoring agreement like this, GoRight will receive direct feedback as he edits. If his editing improves, the mentors can allowe him to edit more articles with less restrictions. If after a year, he is de facto editing without much restrictions, that would be proof that the restrictions may no longer be necessary.

While GoRight may be a difficult problem for Wikipedia to deal with, Wikipdia will be better of if we can implement a solution that works. Such solutions can then be used for other editors who would otherwise have to be site banned. It will then be more difficult for the critics of Wikipedia to say that Wikipedia is censored, that not everyone can edit Wikipedia etc. etc. Count Iblis (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: I just received an email from GoRight (forwarded to me by another editor, GoRight didn't have my correct email address), he accepts conditions like this, he says that he is willing to work from his userspace, so I guess he could accept more rigorous restrictions along the lines in this proposal (I have not discussed this with him any furhter, I have yet to reply to his mail). Count Iblis (talk) 19:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * Absolutely not. Mentorship was tried in the past, with neither TruSilver nor 2/0 managing to make even the slightest dent in GoRight's seemingly impenetrable wall of "I'm Right, Everybody Else Is Wrong" - 2/0 was in serious, intense discussion with GoRight for three weeks and managed to accomplish nothing. The only mentor GoRight is going to listen to is one who tells him exactly what he wants to hear, and while I'm sure that's nice for GoRight and lets his ragtag motley crew of supporters and enablers pay lip service to reform while ultimately not compromising at all, it's not going to help the project. Absolutely, wretchedly ridiculous non-condition condition. Badger Drink (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I know, but under that arrangement, the mentorship was advisory, in this case it is restrictive (in a rather absolute sense). I guess that "mentorship" isn't the right word for this proposal... Count Iblis (talk) 19:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wasn't GoRight previously to mentor User:Abd (now also banned indefinitely for similar disruption), or vice versa? In any case this sounds like a great way to divert the positive energy of a constructive editor into a blackhole. -- samj in out 10:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Support

 * As proposer. This is something I'll never understand. We have good, constructive contributors who burn out every day for lack of support, encouragement, and positive feedback. Instead we're willing to expend a huge amount of time and effort thinking up ways to rehabilitate someone who - it could not be clearer - is a poor fit for this particular project. If you want to know why the community is dysfunctional, consider that set of priorities. Seriously: take whatever time you're spending on this thread, and use it to leave a constructive editor a word of encouragement, or a barnstar, or a friendly note, or welcome a newbie and help them figure out Wikipedia. It will be a better use of time, I can guarantee, and better for the project as well. MastCell Talk 18:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * While I'd argue your average editor shouldn't require "support, encouragement, and positive feedback", they also shouldn't have to deal with the time and energy sapping process of dealing with problematic editors. WP:DNFT comes to mind. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">samj <sub style="color:maroon;">in <sup style="color:green;">out 10:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Good point, even now GoRight is wasting our time. --  At am a  頭 19:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering the stipulations I made in my support of "proposal" #1 above (in short, "GoRight remains banned as long as he's a poor fit for the project"), it basically amounts to this. MastCell speaks words of wisdom - though I am not usually a fan of the "this discussion is wasting our time" meme, in this case it does feel suitable. Badger Drink (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * yup this is the correct approach William M. Connolley (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Uncontroversial, and undoubtedly the best way forward. GoRight is, IMO, constitutionally unable to work productively in this environment. That does not make him evil, it just means that every hour he spends here creates many more person-hours of dispute resolution, fixup or whatever. Guy (Help!) 21:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Awestruck agreement—the community should focus more effort on keeping constructive editors who have demonstrated an ability to work collaboratively without undue POV pushing. Endless discussions about the best way to rehab a proven problem editor is a waste of time and energy, with very little likely benefit. Johnuniq (talk) 00:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Best solution. Some editors are time sinks for the community. The editor was not noticeably productive, and has mostly distracted editors from better tasks. Editors who've made a habit of lying and cheating seem to find it very difficult to give up those behaviors and do not belong in a collaborative project built on mutual respect.    Will Beback    talk    00:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * First choice. I definitely agree, our priorities as a community do need to change. So much of our time is spent on drama, ANI, RFAR and the like, as well as working on rehabilitating users with long histories of disruptive behaviour, where we could be spending on the new and experienced users and admins that slip through the cracks, due to either a) Being bitten for creating a poor first article, and them leaving Wikipedia, where all they needed was a friendly message explaining what they did wrong and how to improve it in future. And that takes sufficiently less time than posting on RFAR (call me a hypocrit but this still had to be said). Experienced users leave due to stress or burn out, and admins even more so. I think our time should be put into positive pursuits, and less so discussions like these. Steven Zhang  <sup style="color:#FFCC00;">The clock is ticking....  00:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support this first and I have to say leave GoRight banned. The major problem I am having is the little bit of comments that the arbitrator released from GoRight's email was found to be a lie.  He said he didn't get involved in the ARBCC, a lie.  He called Mastcell a liar when his sock was found out which GoRight denied totally, another lie.  His whole comment here contains untruthfulness.  Maybe something will be said to change my opinion here but I think from what we have been shownn from the arbitrators is that we are going to be played, nope not supporting that in anyway.  I do have a question though, why isn't he using his talk page for messages about this?  As far as I can see, his talk page is still available for use. If I missed something then an administrator should make it possible for GoRight to comment on his talk page, instead of his blog, for easier access and for less soapboxing. I am adding this final thought, GoRight admits to 3 socks but denies the others, how can we believe him with what he has said so far in the partial comment released by the arbitrator?  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  10:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No brainer. Per Will Beback mainly: Wikipedia is not therapy, it is a project to build an encyclopedia. This editor is a net detriment to that aim, so goodnight. Could he be reformed? Anyone can be. But the effort in trying, the disruption in failing, and the low chance of success, and the probable low gain in the unlikely event of success, don't make the rehabilitation project one worth doing.--Scott Mac 12:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Arbcom injudiciously overturning GoRight's ban would simply require the community to immediately re-ban him. Please save us the trouble, as this extremely disruptive editor should not and will not be permitted to return under any conditions, for any longer than necessary to hold a new ban discussion. Chester Markel (talk) 23:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, noting that there is nothing new under the sun. Four years ago User:Tom harrison wrote: "The community has built a system that accommodates people whose net contribution is negative, while alienating some of our best volunteers... What should we do instead? Keep people who help the project, quickly dump those who do not, and protect each other from harassment. We could do that if we only had to deal with opposition by trolls and vandals. We cannot do it against the opposition of established members of the community." Nor, one might add, against the opposition of the Arbitration Committee. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Another good reason to vote out the current arbitrators who are up for reelection in December. Placing this here for discussion was a needless, injudicious waste of the community's time, much like the PC protection motion. GoRight's ban appeal should have been denied outright. Chester Markel (talk) 03:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:Waste of Time is not yet being enforced. Count Iblis (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support While editors shouldn't require massaging to make positive contributions, they also shouldn't have to deal with disruptive editors. I found GoRight's disruptive and tendentious editing to be particularly problematic, ultimately making editing a chore rather than an enjoyable passtime. I'm sure I'm not alone, though your average editor is more likely to avoid confrontation and walk away quietly. What was particularly problematic was that they enabled other problematic editor(s), and vice versa, as well as setting a bad example for others. Ultimately the onus is on them to prove they are capable of making a net positive contribution to the community (for example, by making sustained, nontrivial and positive contributions elsewhere) before being allowed to return. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">samj <sub style="color:maroon;">in <sup style="color:green;">out 11:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Practical, honest, recognizes the reality that GoRight shoul never edit here again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - disruptive user that is a clear net loss to the project. If it was shown that the user has been contributing to another project constructively then I would reconsider allowing the user to contribute but only with a complete editing restriction on all the areas they were previously disruptive. Off2riorob (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In the email posted here, GoRight points to his edits in Commons and says "I believe that this demonstrates that I am capable of working constructively with others.". However, GoRight only made a few edits for a few days, 16-21 September 2009. This is very deceptive, and it shows that GoRight hasn't really changed his style. He has to show real reform before the community considers even a restrictive unbanning. Also, naming a mentor would be a total waste of time for the mentor: wikipedia is not therapy, and I still have to see any real indication that GoRight is trying to reform for real. As for now, I only see him feeding false information to arbitrators in order to get a quick unban. He should go to some sister project and spend his own time in learning to work collaboratively and learning to not feed b*llsh*t to other editors in order to achieve the desired results. And that means actual real collaborative work over a period of time. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Catering to persistent trouble makers seems to be a pointless waste of time.  --B (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. I recommend that the Committee stop wasting its time, and the Community's, on trying to rehabilitate persistently disruptive banned users, and instead address the disputes that are submitted to it (you know, your actual function?) in a timely manner.  Sandstein   05:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Of course. Another good use of the time saved might, perhaps, be editing articles \o/  Chzz  ► 09:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I support these sentiments. Neutralitytalk 06:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Users who are net negative to the project should not be coddled. Binksternet (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. What in the world is the arbcom thinking, even for one second entertaining this idea? Goright is one of the most disruptive editors in the history of Wikipedia. He made thousands of edits, yet not a single good one among them. He encouraged and provided cover for other highly disruptive users - notably Abd. He directly or indirectly caused numerous good editors to burn out. He should never, ever be allowed to edit again. Raul654 (talk) 02:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support GoRight's shenanigans with Abd were extremely disruptive and time-wasting. With actions like those he indelibly blotted his copybook. Mathsci (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * Taken literaly, one has to agree of course. However, what is meant between the lines and clearly expressed in some the comments above, is that we don't need to do an effort to figure out how to deal with problem editors. I think that's the wrong attitude for Wikipedia, because we should take serious that everyone can edit Wikipedia. So, if an editor poses a problem, we should try to see if there is way that editor can contribute. If this really can't be made to work, then we can ban that editor. Otherwise, we shouldn't say that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that everyone can edit". In the case of GoRight, simply confining him to his userspace and allowing him to contribute to Wikipedia from there via a mentor seems to be a rather simple solution. So, it shouldn't be very time consuming to get this implemented. What leads to the waste of time is that we try to use remedies that do not work and then have lengthy discussions when these fail. Count Iblis (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * what is meant between the lines and clearly expressed in some the comments above, is that we don't need to do an effort to figure out how to deal with problem editors. I think that's the wrong attitude for Wikipedia, because we should take serious that everyone can edit Wikipedia - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia project, not a collaborative therapy project for people who are unwilling or unable to contribute productively to an encyclopedia. It's not our job to "fix" people. If someone can't edit here productively, that person needs to be kicked out. And for someone who did as much damage as GoRight did, I can see absolutely no justification for ever letting him come back. There's lots of people on the internet, and there are plenty of them who would be a better investment of the time and energy it would take to "fix" GoRight. Long story short - the status quo is working, and Wikipedia is better off without him. Raul654 (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "Anyone can edit" is a statement of technical functionality, and does not imply that every person on the planet is able or willing to contribute productively to Wikipedia. Stating that "anyone can edit, unless shown to be harming the project, and not amenable to reform" would be more accurate, but would discourage many potentially valuable users. Chester Markel (talk) 23:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Letting GoRight contribute via his userspace would not guarantee non-disruption. Let's consider the various ways he would be able to cause more trouble, just by editing his own talk page:


 * 1) He could add massive copyright violations from offline sources to articles.
 * 2) He could slander living people, with the defamation cited to counterfeit references hosted on his own websites.
 * 3) And lots more...
 * When an editor is this determined to disrupt Wikipedia, he will probably find a way to do it if readmitted under any conditions. Chester Markel (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He could, but only for a few hours at most. The party will be over when the mentor checks his userpage :) . Count Iblis (talk) 00:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The determination of whether a user has introduced a copyright infringement from an uncited, offline source is quite difficult. Similarly, many editors' due diligence in checking online references is limited to determining whether the cited source supports the claim, and whether it is of similar appearance to a credible media organization. A user's personal website can, with a little programming and formatting be set up to look just like the sites operated by real newspapers. These examples, and similar activities which I leave to the imagination, should suffice to show that not all disruption will be immediately visible. Bad content can be copied into articles without the mentor realizing it. Wikipedia's survival is dependent on the good faith of most of its contributors. For that extremely small percentage of users who are here to cause trouble, and have made the fact plainly obvious, the only appropriate response is to eject them from the project. Chester Markel (talk) 02:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with these points, except that we must make sure that this indeed applies to anyone who is booted out. I'd rather have GoRight contributing to Wikipedia to certain articles that are on the watchlist of many and edited by many, so that this issue doesn't arise, than keeping him banned (unless such a set-up fails, of course).


 * Suppose FOX News were to criticize Wikipedia for being biased by pointing out some editors who are banned and then pointing to other editors who aren't banned, who seem to have caused problems too, but who edit with different POVs. Then there should always be a simple convincing argument available to Jimbo, explaining why such editors are banned making it manifestly clear that this has nothing to do with us being biased here. If he has to appeal to community consensus today not being in favor of him returning, then that's simply going to confirm the bias promoted by FoX News about Wikipedia (because they would say that community consensus here = liberal bias). Count Iblis (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No. This editor lied about his socks, ok maybe that could be excused with an apology but he lied in his statement to the arbitrators in the partial released email above.  Nope, not exceptable.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  17:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. GoRight is banned for disruption, sockery, and lying, not a political disagreement. While Fox News can spin that however they want, the purview of their role in project governance is vanishingly small. Chester Markel (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I also agree that ArbCom can take this into account and then decide not to unban him. However, it should not be the case that the community vetoes his return based on vague perceptions about how he will behave, based on his past behavior alone. Of course, there are concerns stemming from his past behavior that GoRight has to address; if he is not truthful now, that is a relevant issue. Count Iblis (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * He's not been truthful. Did you see the difs for showing that he did go to the ARBCC plus to Lar's talk page about the same case even though he says he stayed away?  Did you see where he told Mastcell he was a liar about a sock that he now admits is his?  There is more that was found not to be true.  This is not past lies, these are lies from now, him asking the arbitrators to unban him.  He has the nerve to lie like nobody is going to notice?  What kind of respect does that show him having of this project or the editors here?  No, he needs to stayed banned and prove himself on another sister project.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  22:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I would prefer that we decide that this unban request has at least some merit (which it probably does), the Committee unban him accordingly (and with appropriate restrictions), and we get on with our own business. I don't know what all the fuss is about, really. If the unban request is credible, then the worst that can happen if we accept it is that he messes up, and we re-block and re-ban him. Basically, this isn't a rehab project, and if it becomes one then we have made a bad decision and should at that point move to reverse it. AGK  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 20:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So you're making a personal commitment to be the admin-on-call every time he causes disruption? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, AGK is just being honest. The worst that can happen to him is that GoRight causes disruption and someone eventually re-bans him. Of course, the worst that can happen to content editors who have to actually deal with GoRight is that he wastes another hundred hours or so of their time. Historically, the time and effort of constructive editors who stand to be directly affected has been discounted and undervalued in these sorts of discussions, a trend which AGK's comment exemplifies. My proposal was intended to highlight exactly this concern - a lack of empathy for the editors who shoulder the burden of these projects, whatever one chooses to call them. MastCell Talk 04:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * MastCell: I didn't think about it from that angle. I guess there is always the danger that he turns up at an article that I'm editing, and starts misbehaving. Perhaps the best way forward would be to write a provision into the unban agreement that would make it easy to have him re-banned; something like a vote supported by 50 editors results in GoRight being re-banned? Short Brigade: Don't be obtuse. AGK  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 14:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 50 people have to waste their time to invoke a new ban!? I think that's a poor risk to take. Jehochman Talk 04:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. This proposal is disingenuous-- it's phrased to appear as though it's uncontroversial, but it's actually a proposal for a permaban with no opportunity for reform. At least have the courage to be upfront regarding the proposal-- it's severe, drastic, and represents a failure on the part of Wikipedia. Do you really want to change the Main Page to read "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit (except GoRight)"? I'd hat this proposal if I wasn't so sure that I'd be accused of vandalism or sockpuppetry for doing so. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He is still free to go to some sister project and show that he can work collaboratively. A few edits in Commons over a few days is not enough by any standard. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that he be unbanned now. I'm suggesting that this proposal is facially OT and subtly extreme, in that it appears to preclude the possibility that he can ever be unbanned at all. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * it appears to preclude the possibility that he can ever be unbanned at all - yea, that's pretty much the idea of a permanent ban. Raul654 (talk) 02:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Draconian solutions have been shown repeatedly not to work, and this sort of "put a pie in his face" sort of proposal does Wikipedia no favour at all. The final decisions should not be based on any of the arguments that :he never did anything good for Wikipedia so show him the door" sort of position from folks who have had content disputes with him is silly.  The fact is that Wikipedia is better off with people inside the room than with folks who feel, rightly or wrongly, shut out on the basis of personal positions on content disputes.   I suggest that the ArbCom members calmly and without regard to some of the intemperate comments on this page discuss the issues at the real heart of all this. Cheers.  I know that the "consensus" is to hang Goright by the neck, but sometimes "a majority of one" is what is called for. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Is a "majority of one" ever called for when you find yourself backed by consensus? If so, please let me know, for future reference. :P MastCell Talk 22:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm squared - does the word "sometimes" get elided on your CRT? Collect (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Support

 * This proposal may sound strange but please indulge me for a moment of explanation. First, if we do not unban GoRight it is virtually certain that he will continue sockpuppeting. It's easier to keep tabs on him if he's using his main account. Second, the unban should be unconditional because any conditions will be gamed, disputed, and wikilawyered to death. This is only in part because he will want to have the conditions removed. More to the point he sees wikilawyering as an end in itself, an amusing diversion. The third point is related to this: if we limit his editing solely to article space we will remove the opportunities for wikilawyering in project space, taunting in talk space, and so on. His edits in article space would then have to stand on their merits and sourcing, not simply be a means to promote squabbling (as his article space edits have mostly been in the past). For this to work the limitation would have to be absolute, with no exceptions whatsoever -- not even his own Talk page would be excepted. So, odd as it may sound, this proposal is offered as a pragmatic route to minimize disruption to the project. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Until the community finds a good way to deal with socking, the best way to handle situations like this is to unban but keep them on a short leash. checkuser frequently for socking and editing on proxies or tor, and give a timeout if they are. permanent bans are counterproductive because they encourage socking with no repercussions. -Atmoz (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So we don't do a permanent ban, then. GoRight's block/ban could be converted to two years, but reset after any incidents of socking. This expresses a strong community disapproval of sockery, while giving him a light at the end of the tunnel if he can behave himself. This should probably be done for many community bans, with the exception of certain extreme situations. What we should not do, ever, is allow a banned user to sock us into submission, since it rewards disruption and encourages similar misconduct by other banned users. Unbanning GoRight because he's created a sufficiently serious sockpuppet problem sends the wrong message. Chester Markel (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's also point out that if a user is banned, but he continues to edit, then the moment a sockpuppet is discovered and blocked, any disruptive edits and comments can be reverted mercilessly. We don't have to argue with him about why his edits damaged articles, or why his talk page contributions aren't helpful. The reversion process shouldn't be applied mechanically, since we don't want to restore vandalism, BLP violations, obvious errors, or similar problems simply because a banned user happened to correct them. But the bottom line is that any edits made against the ban that are judged to be problematic by any good faith editor go straight to the garbage can. But if GoRight is unbanned, then
 * We can't block his accounts to slow him down.
 * We can't protect articles just to keep him out.
 * We can't revert any disruptive edits in disregard of WP:EW.
 * We can't use range blocks to stop him from creating more socks.
 * We have to politely discuss every single dispute with him.
 * Based on the comments in this discussion, many editors are sick and tired of dealing with GoRight as a user in good standing. We like him much better banned, since his editing can be impeded by every feasible means, and any garbage can be properly disposed of. Chester Markel (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I do think that you could allow for a maximum of, say, 150 words talk page text per article space edit. A constraint on the number of article space edits per day should perhaps also be imposed in that case. Count Iblis (talk) 01:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * We do not negotiate with trolls trying to sock us into submission. Allowing GoRight to do this would encourage more bad behavior. While we could "limit" his editing however we want, conceding our factual inability to ban him would render such restrictions impotent. Chester Markel (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A novel rationale, but unfortunately it boils down to "blocking you doesn't work, so we'll unblock you with restrictions, and if you break your restrictions we'll... block you?" Unblocked, I have no credible reason to imagine that he'll do anything but return to the same global warming articles with daily bad edits which will then be wikilawyered to death - if not by him, then by his proxy supporters/enablers. Will still result in a massive timesink, even if GoRight's name isn't at the end of all the combative posts. Badger Drink (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sometimes you have to use the talk page to explain why an edit was made. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Rewarding trollish behaviour is a tremendously bad idea. Not to mention the probability that socking would continue unabated with the GoRight account serving as the good hand to the socks' bad hand makes this not worth it. Resolute 00:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Some background information
Just a note about the process here, as a couple of the commenters above seemed to be unsure why the committee has raised this issue on-wiki at all.

As indicated in the original announcement, GoRight has appealed his community ban to the Arbitration Committee, he has the right to do so under the banning policy. In fact, requesting ArbCom review is really his only avenue to request an unban at this time, since he can't ask the community because he's not allowed to edit.

In a recent case, the Committee unanimously accepted this principle:


 * The Wikipedia community, acting through a fair discussion leading to consensus achieved on the administrators' noticeboard or another appropriate venue, may impose a sanction on an editor who has engaged in problematic behavior. A sanctioned editor may request an appeal to the Arbitration Committee. While the Arbitration Committee is authorized to overturn or reduce a community sanction, such action is relatively rare, and would be based on good cause such as a finding that (1) some aspect of the community discussion was procedurally unfair, (2) the sanction imposed appears to be significantly excessive or overbroad, (3) circumstances have changed significantly since the community sanction was imposed, or (4) non-public information that should not be addressed on-wiki, such as personal information or checkuser data, is relevant to the decision.

As you can imagine, we receive a lot of unblock/unban requests that are rejected without much ado, and once in awhile we receive an unblock request (not necessarily an unban request) that deserves to be accepted. In this case, it wasn't a blatantly meritless request because of the time that has elapsed, and yet because this was a community ban that followed a long history of problems, it certainly wasn't a clear case to grant the appeal, either. Therefore, some arbitrators thought it would be useful to provide an opportunity for community input on the request before we address it. This is something we've often been asked to do in connection with complex unblock/unban requests.

I am not meaning to cut anyone off from commenting in whatever way they feel is most productive, but I'm not sure that a vote among five or more alternative proposals is really the best way to structure this discussion and provide input at this stage.

I haven't reviewed this appeal in any detail yet, but I thought this background might be useful in explaining why we're having this discussion. My thanks to everyone who has commented so far. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "I'm not sure that a vote among five or more alternative proposals is really the best way to structure this discussion" - with all due respect, Brad - and while I hope I don't come across as a kiss-ass, I also hope it's clear that there is a lot of respect due - I think you're processing the "vote" a bit too literally. For my tastes, it offers a much more clear-cut way for members of the community - such as myself - to express where they stand without getting sucked into a long-winded, multi-threaded discussion using software that doesn't automatically make it obvious just who is replying to who. ArbCom solicited the community's position. I, as a member of that community, expressed my position through my statements in the more-organized, better-delineated section. Let's all try to focus on the substance, the "what", of the various messages, rather than the style or the "how" - this is a problem that far too often stifles discussion on Wikipedia. Badger Drink (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * To be clear, my concern is that members of the community may be spending extra time on this request unnecessarily. If (hypothetically), the committee's decision is to leave the ban in place, then there's no need for discussion about what the terms of an unban would be, etc. Anyway, I was just offering my two cents, and everyone commenting should proceed as they think best. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to point out (again) that badger Drink summarises my intent quite accurately. My only purpose was to focus discussion, given the wall of text that already existed. → ROUX   ₪  21:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If others think this format is a more useful way to focus the discussion, I bow to the consensus. Regards (and signing off for the holiday weekend), Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If I may ask a question of the ArbCom; on what grounds has GoRight requested relief from his current situation? I am going to be honest - I do not care to support nor oppose any of the proposals made or that may be made, but I think that providing a little more information as to the reason why GoRight wishes to be allowed to return to editing may effect the judgement of some respondents; if there is an article or subject that they have expressed a desire to work on, it may be that some editors will be inclined to allow a limited return to that area only (or not, if they see potential issues arising). It may be that GoRight thinks they have served sufficient time, and will endeavour to contribute more "responsibly" in future, in which case editors may feel differently. Like I said, I am not going to be moved either way personally but perhaps a bit more clarification may help this process. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "[...] served sufficient time, and will endeavour to contribute more 'responsibly' in future" is pretty much it: when an editor spends no less than six months complying with their ban, the committee will always consider the appeal.  In this particular case, GoRight's community ban was at the end of a particularly acrimonious series of incidents and we felt it was important to see what support or objections members of the community would have to a possible return before we made a decision. All that said (and this is probably something we should have been more explicit about in the original announcement) this editor did express understanding of what they did wrong, state that they will endeavor to keep their behavior within community norms in the future, and agrees to follow eventual restrictions going forward (editing from exactly one account being one).  We would not have heard the appeal at all unless those conditions had been credibly met in the first place.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is an editor who has long shown no hesitation to lie like a trooper, and yet you consider that Arbcom's "conditions have been credibly met"? I have a nice bridge over the East River you might be interested in. (And you guys really need to read MastCell's proposal above, and take it to heart.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why the arbitrators, whoever did the checking, didn't find that there were lies in at least the two paragraphs released above? He said he stayed out of the ARBCC but he socked and commented, a sock he admits is his.  He also went to Lar's to talk about it the ARBCC. Difs for these are above.  He adamantly denied socks, going so far as to call Mastcell a liar, and now he calmly admits it's one of his socks.  Why were so many lies not seen?  Why isn't GoRight using his own talk page instead of his blog?  Someone can bring his posts over plus it keeps everything recorded on the project.  I just don't understand how or why we should allow an editor to return who is not truthful when asking for a return.  Sorry, I am sad to feel this way but I do and I would appreciate some answers too.  Thanks, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  16:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with MastCell's statement above, but would note that the chaotic nature of the above thread appears to have been a misunderstanding on the part of those commenting here, along with the way the discussion was restructured by roux. All the arbitrators were asking for (as Newyorkbrad said) was a short statement from anyone who felt the need to comment, to inform the decision the arbitrators need to take (i.e. to send a formal reply to GoRight). I agree that links to the previous ban discussions should have been provided. On the specific case here, IMO, appeals have been heard from (and even accepted) from editors at least as controversial or disruptive as GoRight. The difference here appears to be the larger number of editors with an interest in commenting and opposing any appeal. i.e. Be disruptive in a heavily trafficked area and you will be ostracized far more than elsewhere. My view is that the only way back for such editors is a long period of productive work and high-quality content production elsewhere as a precursor to an appeal strictly limited to working on a very small set of articles completely unrelated to areas worked in previously. There has to be a visible benefit to weigh against the potential for future disruption.  On a more general note, it might be simplest for the Committee when receiving such appeals and posting a notice here to limit the question to the following: "Community-banned editor ABC [links to ban discussions] is appealing their ban - is there a need to open a community discussion regarding this appeal, or can this be referred to the ban-appeal subcommittee?" People can then post "open community discussion" or "refer to BASC", as needed, and things can then progress from there. The point being that such community discussions need some degree of structuring by uninvolved editors to avoid the initial set-up being less than optimal, or skewed, or hijacked for other reasons, or added to randomly later by others. Carcharoth (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I would have had no problems allowing him back if he didn't lie to the committee but he did. That's totally unacceptable behavior, don't you agree?  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  17:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: I for one very much appreciate the comments that are coming forward from the community, not just on this matter specifically, but on the more general issue of banned users.  As a rule of thumb, I think the Arbitration Committee has tended to check in with the community when an unblock/unban request relates to a community-initiated sanction, if for no other reason than to verify that the community's opinion isn't changed.  I am interpreting the commentary and responses to this specific request as "no, the community has not changed its collective mind", which is just fine by me personally.  In particular, I note Mastcell's Proposal #5 and the number of editors supporting it, which may guide us in the future when similar requests come to our attention.  Risker (talk) 03:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The proposal by MastCell is defective, because it wrongly suggests that the unban proposal is a 'rehab project'. It is actually a proposal to allow GoRight to return to normal editing, with the understanding that if he again becomes a problematic influence (and this does become a 'rehab project'), he will be re-banned. I do wonder who understands that among the people who supported the proposal. AGK  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 20:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I know I've said this before but I guess it needs to be said again. An arbitrator above released two paragraphs of an email from GoRight. After that release above you will see that GoRight lied to the arbitrators and well to all of us.  Now I for one can't forget that he lied while trying to get unbanned.  How do you ignore such behavior?  I don't mean to sound unforgiving or rude but seriously, this is something that should definitely prevent and prove he doesn't have any respect for the project or the editors that volunteer here.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  22:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * How you handle other editors lying or deceiving or being economical with the truth or telling white lies is part and parcel of editing on Wikipedia. You would hope that other editors would hold themselves to the highest possible standards, but that doesn't usually happen. There are those currently editing (probably even some admins) who to varying degrees 'lied' to others or abused the community's trust in some way (including socking) and were admonished/blocked/sanctioned/desysopped and so on, but were subsequently forgiven/allowed back, and are now editing productively (hopefully). i.e. Some editors do manage to come back from astonishingly poor past records and reform. So while AGK is right that this isn't a 'rehab' project, it is important that the principle of unbanning is available to banned users, even if it is declined in specific cases. As others have said, that is important because otherwise those socking will just carry on regardless. At the end of the day, banning is a social construct and is about community trust. It is trivially easy to contribute in a non-disruptive fashion to Wikipedia in an obscure corner (avoiding controversial pages and avoiding talk pages and avoiding project-space pages and so on), but if you do that you don't get any of the 'attention' (of other editors) that many disruptive editors seek. What it is generally more difficult to do is edit in the areas where disruption occurred and where people will 'notice' you. In my view, most banned users seeking to be unbanned are either: (a) trying to get their foot back in the door and resume disruption on the pages where they were active, because their socks are being detected too easily; or (b) they want to prove to the community that they can reform and conform to the standards expected. Judging which is these two applies in specific cases is not always easy. It is rarely about wanting to edit, and usually more about wanting to be let back into the "community". Carcharoth (talk) 00:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This is very useful to us, as the Committee, I'd say. 90% of the ban appeals (topic or site) the Committee handles are pretty cut and dried. Either they're an easy yes (very few, agreed, but those who've done good work elsewhere, and show they understand where they went wrong and understand they'll be on a short leash), or an easy no (continuing to blame others, make excuses, and think that time heals all wounds without doing the work necessary). I'd say another nine percent are those where it could go either way, but the Committee comes to a decision. That still leaves the one percent. That's why this is useful. Not only do we get to look at the comments from a greater number of editors than just those on the Committee who worked the appeal, but we also get a sense of "the community" as a whole as to what it takes to allow problematic users back into difficult topic areas, or coming back to the site as a whole(using the Community term very loosely, I don't know if even 0.01% of the active editors on WP contribute to these discussions, but they are still helpful). I think the guidance we have gotten here will be useful and probably result in a more jaundiced eye being applied to long term problematic users appealing. SirFozzie (talk) 05:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I would like to thank the arbitrators who are now active and even those who took the time to comment here who are inactive. Thank you very much, it's nice to know when editors are read. -- Crohnie Gal Talk  14:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Point of order
ArbCom should not substitute their judgement for the community's, except for very specific circumstances (e.g. small discussion with few editors participating, or secret evidence that can't be discussed in the open). If an editor wants to be unbanned, they can email a request, and the matter can be referred to a community discussion, as has happened here (though circuitously and in a bad venue). For the sake of the editor wishing to be unbanned, their request ought to be posted at WP:AN with links to the ban discussion. Lay the facts on the table.

We should offer editors a path back to good standing, because this discourages socking. As a suggestion to GoRight, please make a list of articles you'd like to improve. Specifics will help you. Perhaps the community would authorize probationary editing of just those articles, and then evaluate the results. There would have to be an understanding that the account could be reblocked at the first sign of disruption. Yes, what Mastcell says is correct: we do not want to invest a lot of effort in this; but we could invest a little effort because that will be cheaper than hunting sock puppets. Jehochman Talk 15:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but GoRight needs to explain himself on his talk page. He needs to explain what went wrong and what he's going to do to change that but more important is he needs to explain why he lied to the arbitrators.  Did he lie just to get unblocked thinking no one would notice or is there another reason?  I would love to agree to him re-entering the community but he has to first explain himself truthfully.  Just my opinion but I think others agree with me at this point.  If his talk page is protected, which I didn't see, please unprotect it so he can talk to us through he talk page.  I'd be more than happy to bring over what he says, as I'm sure others would too. Thanks in advance, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  15:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I think Jehochman makes a valid point. GoRight has a history of socking.  I understand people not wanting to waste time on GoRight, but we don't want him to return to socking either.  That will waste people's time, too.  We have to provide some path back.  Again, I would suggest a limited set of non-controversial, non-political articles to begin with.  We could even make it a requirement that he takes one of these articles to WP:FA status before expanding his limited set of articles. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we should set a precedent where, if a banned user creates enough sockpuppets, we decide it's less trouble to just let them back in. You can see the sort of perverse incentive that creates. Yeah, it's a pain to deal with socks, but it's actually a much bigger waste of time for the sockpuppeteer. It actually takes a large investment of time and effort to sock on a large scale, and in return you get basically zero lasting impact on our content. If GoRight keeps socking, I'll be annoyed, but mostly, eventually, sorry for him. None of us has an infinite amount of time on this many-splendored Earth, and devoting large parts of one's stay to (ultimately fruitless) sockpuppeteering on Wikipedia inspires a profound sense of pity. I think GoRight has already figured this out - that's why he's stopped bothering with the socks, and switched to Plan B. He might start socking again if this is turned down, but I think he's already perceived that it's not a productive long-term use of his time. MastCell Talk 23:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * MastCell's excellent comment speaks for itself and needs no support, but it may be necessary to emphasize that the suggestion of unbanning someone because they are causing too much disruption while banned is extremely unhelpful: rewarding bad behavior is a self-defeating strategy. Problem editors will find new ways to exploit any weakness. The only effective defenses are WP:RBI and WP:DENY (re DENY, the sooner this pointless discussion is closed the better). Johnuniq (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, if we have willing volunteers to deal with possible sock puppetry, that's fine. He didn't edit any of the articles I'm currently working on, so this doesn't really affect me.  Have a good one, everyone.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Final reminder: Arbitration policy update and ratification

 * Original announcement

An exception requested
I know there's an "injunction" (great word) about not changing titles from dashes to hyphens and so on, but presumably there would be no objections to an uncontroversial case like Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1‎‎, which needs a dash rather than a hyphen to make it consistent with Part 2 and with the soundtrack articles? --Kotniski (talk) 11:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * An issue closely related to this request was discussed yesterday at WP:AE. AGK  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 11:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems the move has now been made and there are no objections (including at the AE thread), so perhaps common sense has prevailed for once.--Kotniski (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter too much, as this now looks resolved, but this wasn't really the right place to ask the question, but if something like this arises again, you might want to work out where to ask this sort of question. I would suggest the clarifications page. Carcharoth (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well... I kind of thought this was the clarifications page. (At the top it says: "What this page is for: This page is for discussion of formal announcements by the Committee, including clarification of the specifics of notices.) What clarifications page do you have in mind?--Kotniski (talk) 14:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:A/R/CL. – xeno talk  14:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys

 * Original announcement

Arbitration motion regarding Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2

 * Original announcement

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket closed

 * Original announcement


 * I realize there were some conduct issues, but I rather liked Racepacket. I hope this ban does not interfere with his ability to help prepare for Wikimania 2012. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  18:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration motion related to Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2

 * Original announcement

Requests_for_arbitration/Ireland_article_names
I see no evidence anything has changed here, is there a way of extending the prohibition on page moves discussions? Gnevin (talk) 23:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would suggest asking at the page for amendment requests. Carcharoth (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gnevin (talk) 10:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration motion related to Arbitration/Requests/Case Nabla

 * Original announcement

A poor show by the majority of Arbs I think. Nabla has done little but 1)complain about people who objected to his behaviour, 2) complain about his behaviour being brought to the attention of his peers, 3) complain about an ArbCom case being opened, 4) personally attack those who object to his behaviour, and 5) started using his tools again even while the case was under discussion. All of which suggest to me that he just doesn't get it. That so many Arbs find his behaviour consistent with having the trust required for Adminhood is disturbing. DuncanHill (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with DuncanHill above. This is virtually saying that admins have carte blanche to disrupt Wikipedia whenever they feel like some benign point needs to be made. Administrators are expected by the community to be held to high standards, hence the large amount of scrutiny they are held to while at RFA as well as during their tenure as administrators. This also is giving even more credence to remove the sysop bit from inactive administrators who have not been around for long periods of time, as evidenced by several recent instances. In closing, I am rather disappointed in the result. –MuZemike 19:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You will both have to explain the posted motion leads you to the respective conclusions that the committee finds Nabla's logged-out "behaviour consistent with having the trust required for Adminhood" and that we feel "that admins have carte blanche to disrupt Wikipedia whenever they feel like some benign point needs to be made". The motion is clearly critical of the behaviour and confirms that such behaviour may lead to summary desysopping. For my part, I wasn't in opposition to a desysop, but after weighing the disruption caused by Nabla's actions against his past (and potential future) good work as an administrator, I wasn't willing to support one either. – xeno  talk  20:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Because words are cheap when consequenses are absent.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Xeno, do you believe his behaviour and response to the complaints are indicative of the level of trustworthiness required to be an admin? Or, put another way, if he was up for RfA right now, would you support or oppose? DuncanHill (talk) 02:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In coming to a decision to abstain from the desysop motion, I evaluated Nabla's years of service from 2004 to 2009 both as an editor and an administrator, where he was largely productive and uncontroversial. I do not condone his recent logged-out behaviour, but I believe that it represents a temporary lapse of judgment and is counterbalanced by his past good work. In my opinion, the posted motion provides a sufficient and proportionate level of corrective guidance and warning (both specifically, to Nabla, and generally, to other semi-retired administrators) against similar behaviour. – xeno talk  12:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you believe he has the trust of the community, and do you care.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As others have spoken on below, the "community" (ie, people who showed up at one discussion) consensus was no where as near as strong as people are making it out to be, and it was brought to the committee to use their judgement, which they did. In this case, it wasn't a rubber stamp action, and I'm sorry you disagree with the action the Committee took. SirFozzie (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer the question. It's not a difficult one.  Do you believe he has the trust of the community?--Cube lurker (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

(unident) No, I answered your question. I just did not answer it the way you wanted me to. I did not think one informal, non-RFC, non-binding discussion, by a limited amount of people (some of whom disagreed with the demand to remove the tools), even in a high-volume place such as ANI speaks for "The trust of the community". SirFozzie (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe that he is the same person that was trusted by the community to act as an administrator from the period beginning 2005 through 2009. In that period he had thousands of contributions and over 1000 logged administrator actions and I have not been presented with evidence that there was anything problematic about his service as an administrator during that time. I believe that he realizes his logged-out behaviour fell below the standard expected of administrators, and I believe that he will not repeat the behaviour. I believe that he his contributions in the last few days show that he is once again committed to providing valuable volunteer service to the project. Before answering the question "Do [I] believe he has the trust of the community", I would need to see a proper consensus discussion divorced from the immediate reactions that were provided at the administrators' noticeboard - one where all parties have an opportunity to elucidate their positions and concerns, and where I can be reasonably satisfied that the participants have made a good faith effort to review Nabla's past contributions as an administrator and editor in addition to the more recent logged-out behaviour. – xeno talk  15:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would need to see a proper consensus discussion divorced from the immediate reactions that were provided at the administrators' noticeboard. Then you should have refered it to an RFC/U or a reconfirmation RFA to determine the communities level of trust. That is if you were concerned about the communities trust and not just perpetuating admin for life.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a single arb would support and they know it. <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">Eagles  <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">24/7  (C)  02:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Irregardless of this episode, I'd abstain. There's not enough recent history. Duncan, I'm not snapping at you, just the situation in general, but I really wish the community would decide what they want from ArbCom. I've seen the ArbCom simultaneously castigated for being a hanging judge and for being too lenient. For being too structured and too unstructured. For jumping to conclusions and taking too much time. Yes, I know, that comes with the big pointy ArbHats we all wear. Now, I voted to de-admin myself. None of us are applauding this, however, none of us are saying "You did an ok thing". If he does it again, he would be de-adminned faster then you can type up the phrase "She sells sea shells by the sea shore". However, a majority of the committee decided it didn't deserve the maximum penalty. That's why 18 of us are elected, really, for different viewpoints. SirFozzie (talk) 02:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The community has lost all trust in Nabla as an administrator, which is immediate grounds for desysopping. I feel that this decision was stooping down to Nabla because Nabla decided to turn his/her vandalism spree into a point. While coming to VPR to bring up a talking point was a good faith gesture, I'm not sure the initial motives which led him/her to vandalize were in good faith. Overall, I'm okay with this motion at the time being, but as soon as Nabla makes a mistake, there will be disruption within the community. <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">Eagles  <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">24/7  (C)  20:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this was the right call. The disruption was minor and had a positive goal.  The editor shouldn't have any doubt that future issues will result in a desysop.  We've had admins do a lot worse (deleting massive numbers of articles out of process springs to mind) that are still around.  Let's see if we don't end up with a useful and active admin out of this before we decide if this was a good or bad call. Hobit (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The disruption was willful, blatant, and committed by IP socking by an administrator. This is not the sort of thing that should be responded to with "now, now, don't do that again!" in an environment where one of the few things most of the community agrees on is that it is overly difficult to remove the bits from admins who do such things as, you know, vandalizing. I'm sympathetic to arbcom's attempt to give equal treatment to other cases here, on the basis of "once is a warning, twice is a desysop," but I would suggest that that standard is best applied to cases where the user is not aware that their behavior is problematic. Willful vandalism, even if it's not-that-bad vandalism, is not the sort of thing that an administrator needs to be reminded of prior to disciplinary action. "One and done" ought to be the penalty for an administrator overstepping as obvious, blatant, and easily-agreed-on bright line as "Oh hey, maybe don't vandalize Wikipedia?" A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This was entirely the wrong decision. Nabla demonstrated contempt for the community standards he was elected to uphold by deliberately violating said standards. He has lost the trust of the community. By either metric he should at least have been desysopped with no prejudice towards a future RfA at any time. Given both, the fact that an absentee and vandalising admin retained those admin privileges while tons of editors whose only crime is not contributing enough is ridiculous in the extreme. The worst decision from ArbCom in quite some time; not only does it affirm the long-held suspicion that admins are essentially immune from desysopping unless actually found in bed with a live boy or a dead girl, it sets precedent for any admin to vandalise as long as they are pretending to make a point. ArbCom's overriding of long-established community attitudes towards WP:PONT violations and vandalism is both bizarre and yet more evidence that the will of the community is largely irrelevant. Interested users may wish to draw comparisons with, for example, the Wisconsin Supreme Court overriding the will of the people of that state. It's disgusting when it happens in any venue. → ROUX   ₪  21:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree that this was a poor decision, especially considering how many people in the original discussion were calling for a desysop. Kcowolf (talk) 00:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Awful decision. Nabla has shown only contempt for those who raised an issue with his behaviour. That ArbCom is letting him keep the buttons is indicative of the wrong direction it is moving in and its ever-decreasing credibility. ArbCom now ignores community consensus. StrPby (talk) 00:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * SP, I have to disagree with you on a couple points here. 1.) an AC case isn't about establishing consensus, it's about the final step in dispute resolution (conduct, not content). 2.) When there actually was a discussion going on at AN or AN/I (forget which) it appeared to be pretty stalemated, and hence the RfAr.   In almost every single case the Arbs must decide on, there's always going to be one side or the other that doesn't "agree" with the outcome.  To be honest? .. there's a lot of people that feel the sanctions handed down at AC are often entirely too severe (and I admit I've felt that way at times).  They're in a lose/lose situation every time someone posts a request for case.  Frankly, I'm amazed anyone would actually want to sign up for this.  It's easy to continue to hold contempt for someone you've never met, and simply are able to go back and re-read what he/she did.  IF however you look at it like a friend or family member made the mistake, perhaps it's easier to forgive and extend a second chance to.  That's just my two cents worth.  — Ched :  ?  01:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If my friend behaved as Nabla did when he chose to vandalise instead of using talk pages or the village pump or any number of other fora to ask for help, I'd tell him he was still my friend but shouldn't be an admin. If he then went on to attack those who objected to his behaviour, he wouldn't still be my friend. DuncanHill (talk) 02:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Awful decision and Motion declaring Lack of Confidence in the ArbCom I cannot fathom how the ArbCom can possibly think that an admin can disrupt the wiki in such a fundamental way and keep their status as administrator. I submit a motion declaring a lack of confidence in the ArbCom. Basket of Puppies 10:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom seems to be taking some grief for this one. So let me go on the record as a (nonadmin) user who thinks this was a good decision by ArbCom. Nabla's behaviour was suboptimal, and this has been recognized by the ArbCom motion. A number of people above are calling this things like "disrupt in a fundamental way" (sorry to pick on you, BoP - your comment is closest above) which while clearly heart-felt and well-intentioned, I think indicates a loss of proportion. Nabla's level of disruption is several orders of magnitude less severe than a lot of the unfortunate sophisticated PoV pushing, gaming, and incivility that is present on this site. A second argument is being presented, namely that the community had shown a lack of trust in Nabla. However, there is a reason why our consensus processes generally require several days of discussion - it helps eliminate herd behaviour. While the initial reaction to DuncanHill's raising of the issue was negative against Nabla, it became quickly polluted with red herrings about account being compromised (apparently not the case), desysopping of inactive admins (an item under discussion but not yet a norm). Later contributions on VP, AN(I), the Arb page, and Nabla's talk page indicated growing discomfort with a forced desysop. So I don't think we were tending to community consensus for anything. Except maybe that we need more a reasonable community desysop process. Martinp (talk) 11:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem, I think, is that those who took this here were not asking ArbCom to make a decision, but rather, to uphold the decision the community made. I did not read the request page, so I may be making a faulty assumption, but in my mind, the only thing ArbCom should have been ruling on was whether the ANI and VP discussions were enough to constitute proof that the community has lost trust in Nabla.  If the answer was yes, ArbCom should have supported the community's decision and desysopped.  If the answer was no, ArbCom should have gone back to to the community stating wider input was required, probably in the form of an RFCU.  Resolute 14:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "I submit this request to the Committee to ask whether they will consider a summary desysopping or if they wish the community to go through the request for comments process first" – xeno talk  14:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems that an RfC on both Nabla and the ArbCom seems appropriate at this point. Anyone want to take that step and make it happen? Basket of Puppies 21:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think our time would be better spent doing just about anything else. If Nabla does something else objectionable, then that would be a possible course of action, but as best I can tell he is currently editing productively and using his tools conservatively and not bothering anybody. I asked him to voluntarily relinquish his bit, he declined, ArbCom made its ruling, let's all just move on. 28bytes (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Many of the editors commenting in this discussion posted when the request for arbitration was pending, but others did not. You may not be aware of the extensive discussion among the arbitrators, and explanations of votes, that accompanied the decision. If not, please feel free to take a look at it. You will find that all the points made above were carefully considered by the arbitrators, even if you don't agree with the outcome of the request.

As 28bytes points out, Nabla appears to be editing productively and in the spirit of the decision, which was as balanced as I could write it. No further action concerning him would be warranted at this time, and in particular, an RfC would be unlikely to yield any further useful input beyond the extensive ANI discussion and RfAr discussion that has already been had. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Brad, have you just pre-emptively and as an Arb torpedoed an RfC? Or are you, as an Arb, saying we should stop discussing ArbCom's decision? DuncanHill (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * To the first question, I don't claim the right to torpedo anything, but an admin-conduct RfC is designed to obtain input on an administrator's behavior. I can't imagine (can you?) there is anything left to be said about Nabla's behavior that hasn't already been said many times over. To the second question, of course not: we have this whole page here for the very purpose of discussing ArbCom's decisions, which is here to be used and which I and I think my colleagues take very seriously; the question of how long and how contentiously to post-mortem any given decision must be left to the good judgment of the participants here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Brad, I am curious as to why you think it's a good idea to have Wikipedia represented by someone who so clearly flaunted the rules. Why it is good sense to have someone with an official flag when they have done something that would cause a regular editor to be blocked. The division between admin and editor should be nothinh but a few extra buttons. With this incredibly poor decision ArbCom has elevated admins above policy. Thus, an RfC on both the admin in question and ArbCom seems prudent and it is clear that ArbCom is making some very poor decisions. Basket of Puppies  22:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Admins don't represent Wikipedia (though I admit the public often make this mistake). But one of the things anyone who edits Wikipedia has to be able to do is accept it when decisions don't go the way you wanted them to. Discuss it, yes. Object to it, fine. But railing against the decision and proposing to launch two RfCs to voice your displeasure over this is an over-reaction. FWIW, I support ArbCom in the decision they made here, and disagree strongly with the idea that ArbCom is there to rubber stamp decisions on people trussed up and brought to their door. What should have happened in the first place was an RfC (to gather reasoned and considered community consensus, as opposed to the rapid-fire consensus that evolves at a noticeboard), rather than coming straight to ArbCom, but the option was made to come here first and ArbCom (to its credit) took a decision rather than palming it off to an RfC (which they could easily have done). See what Xeno said above at 15:12, 28 June 2011 - I agree absolutely with what he said there. Carcharoth (talk) 22:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Carch - you're saying that there should have been an RfC and that ArbCom were right not to send it to RfC. That's hypocritical. DuncanHill (talk) 23:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that there should have been an RfC before an RFAR. The difference between (i) ANI -> Declined RFAR -> RFC -> RFAR and (ii) ANI -> RFC -> RFAR is subtle, but there is a difference. Setting up an objective RFC (rather than one that is nothing more than a continuation of ANI) is difficult at the best of times. Setting up an objective RfC after a declined RFAR is even more difficult. Sometimes it is better to short-circuit the process, and that is what ArbCom did here. At the end of the day, there are admins out there who would benefit from an RFC and subsequent RFAR (if they did not reign themselves in) far more than the admin that caused such outrage here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Note that RFARB was filed by someone who was shocked "somewhat surprised" at the idea that the offense could lead to desysop and it was filed to cut short further community discussion. And for the trifecta a sitting arbitration clerk.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Shocked? Don't give me that nonsense. Somewhat surprised is what I had written, and even that was an overstatement as to how I actually felt. At the time I had written that, there was already dissent from Kirill's motion (by Xeno) yet there was no alternative motion even being considered. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 15:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've replaced "shocked" with your words "somewhat surprised". I stand by my overall point.  This RFARB that Carcharoth says was the incorrect process as opposed to an RFC was started not by the 'desysop now' crowd, but by an arbcom clerk who "short-circuited" the process with the assumption that it would lead to a slap on the wrist.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a good point, and I think a classic of gaming the system. DuncanHill (talk) 09:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Carcharoth, while you're right that admins don't represent Wikipedia (that should be the regular editors, who do much of the work here), it is also true that many regular editors look up to admins to take certain actions when needed. To that end, admins are expected to have higher standards than regular editors. To decline such a request on "procedural grouds" sends the same message as outright declining a desysop. –MuZemike 07:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom can't win here. If they had voted to desysop there'd be the same discussion about the moral bankruptcy and corruption of arbcom here. Just with a different group of editors leading the charge. 146.151.64.90 (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And if they'd remanded it to an RFC/U or reconfirmation RFA?--Cube lurker (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * They'd probably get blamed for not doing enough/anything. Drop the stick, all of you. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list and Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys

 * Original announcement

Shell Kinney resigns

 * Original announcement

Obvious question is obvious; Any relation to matters discussed immediately above? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Nabla case? Not in the least. But is that really what you meant to ask? Jclemens (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, my mistake. I meant the other matter on the other Arb talkpage, of course. I am confident that the answer will be "no", but someone needs to ask whether the leaking of the email list has anything to do with Shell's departure. It might as well be someone who holds her in high regard and had the honour of working with her just a day or so ago . LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * While I won't speak for Shell Kinney, I think it's reasonable to assume that the situation has caused considerable stress for everyone on the committee, and likely prompted every one of us to seriously question whether the paycheque is worth the hassle. I shudder to think of the impact it will have on the candidacies come year-end.
 * Her departure should not, however, be taken as an indication that she was at all responsible for the genesis of the unfortunate situation. – xeno talk  21:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reassurance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * FWIW, Xeno, Shell was one of the three of us who was up for reelection at the end of this year's season anyways, such that her resigning now doesn't change the number of seats to be elected--it is identical, for purposes of the next election, with her simply choosing not to stand for reelection. Jclemens (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about the number of seats that will be open - more in terms of the quality and caliber of candidates who will step forward (i.e. in light of the fairly sharp comments directed at arbitrators both individually and generally in the recent/ongoing WT:AC discussions - coupled with the speculation about what personal liability may be incurred by arbitrators in various jurisdictions - who, in their right mind, will step forward, now that the curtain has been pulled back and the nitty-gritty details of the role have been revealed?). – xeno talk  02:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Xeno, it would be a really good idea for you all to insist on a legal opinion about your potential liability exposure. My wife is treasurer of a charity much smaller than WMF, and her charity buys insurance to cover their potential liability exposures.  WMF should have coverage already, and you should confirm that ArbCom is "under the umbrella".  If not for ArbCom dealing with all the most serious behavioral issues on Wikipedia, WMF would have to deal with them, or else Wikipedia might have to shut down.  The essence of my complaints is that it's well past time for professional-grade IT and risk management. Friendly suggestions in the past didn't get the job done, so now you're subject to increasing pressure.  Don't blame the critics; blame yourselves and WMF for procrastinating until there was a crisis. Steps that are being taken now should have been done years ago. Jehochman Talk 02:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Jehochman is right. Not just for your sakes, but also because it doesn't actually reflect well on the project to do otherwise. -- J N  466  03:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Jayen here. This should be resolved before another major debacle. ArbCom has gotten lucky that the mailing list leak didn't lead to a much worse situation. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a real shame, also noted that Shell has retired. Very sorry to see her go. Steven Zhang <sup style="color:#FFCC00;">The clock is ticking....  20:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm going to get the usual abuse for saying it (water off a ducks back now), but it is pretty poor form to resign such a position without any sort of explanation. DuncanHill (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm of two minds on this, so I'll speak 'em both:
 * 1) We have people actively calling for all of us to resign in another discussion. So... why should the community be surprised when one or more arbs follow through on the suggestion.  Regardless of whether or not Shell took those comments to heart, their mere presence should be taken as an indication of the type and nature of pressure being placed on Arbs at the moment.
 * 2) You're entirely right. We'll dock her final paycheck accordingly. Jclemens (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to have to respond to this, too, except to say that everyone on this project is a volunteer. Nobody needs to publicly state why they have decided not to continue to participate. And sometimes silence says more than any words possibly could. Shell has every reason to hold her head high as she steps away. She was subjected to very challenging harassment early in her editorship and stuck it through; she's been a stalwart on both the unblock-en-L mailing list and as an OTRS agent; and she has performed her duties as an arbitrator with admirable aplomb, especially her work as the Ban Appeals Subcommittee coordinator. She has also served very well as an administrator at Commons. Her absence will have an important impact on many areas of multiple projects. Risker (talk) 21:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Too bad, she was happy to join Coren in abusing me as being "paranoid." As far as I can see: Good riddance. Regarding: "I shudder to think of the impact it will have on the candidacies come year-end." You might be surprised - it may well bring a breath of fresh air. Giacomo Returned 21:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I endorse the "Good riddance" sentiment. She was too quick to assume bad faith when her own judgement was questioned. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 05:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, DH is correct, and Jc's attempt to duck the issue isn't helpful William M. Connolley (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What, Xeno's answer wasn't enough? Need all of us individually come here and say this was her decision, not prompted or encouraged by anyone else on the committee or the committee as a whole? Fine, consider it said. Jclemens (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if you could read what was written, instead of automatically reading everything as an attack on arbcomm. The request is for SK to provide an explanation. Not for you, or Xeno, to speak on SK's behalf William M. Connolley (talk) 10:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you don't desire a further response from me, then accusing me of bad faith ("Jc's attempt to duck the issue") is a generally ineffective way of forestalling such response. No attempt was made to duck the issue, everything you wrote was read appropriately and in context, and DH, whom you termed "correct", didn't even ask for an explanation, merely lament that one was not forthcoming. Jclemens (talk) 14:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * My sincerest apologies for not notifying each and every editor directly of my intention to cease volunteering for a charity in my free time. I did try you see, but after Wikipedia's email server broke down in tears at the number of messages that it would have to send, I just couldn't bring myself to torture it further.  Meanwhile, if you did have a question about my retirement, my contact information has always been quite prominently available on my talk page and most surprisingly, communication actually addressed to me might just get an actual response. Shell   babelfish 12:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No-one has said you should be "notifying each and every editor directly", and it is ridiculous of suggest otherwise. DuncanHill (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) Shell Kinney, you know that's not fair. In December, you told the community that you were prepared to fulfill the responsibilities of an Arbitrator.  (You had served for one for a year at that point, and were broadly familiar with the attendant duties of the role&mdash;more so than most of the other candidates.)  More than 500 members of the community took the time to evaluate your statements and performance, and to cast votes on your candidacy.  While the role of Arb is voluntary (like all roles on Wikipedia), you consciously and deliberately asked for the required trust of the community and responsibilities of the position.  You told us that you could do the job, and that you wanted it.  For better or for worse, other volunteers were not seated as Arbs (some may even have chosen not to run) because you stood up and volunteered yourself.  While your post was voluntary, your decision to continue in it (or not) has effects on the project's other participants; your decision to resign affects other editors besides yourself.
 * The sudden departure of an editor from a high level position of trust – without warning or comment – is bound to provoke curiosity and concern. The community lost the services of an individual in whom they had placed their trust; it is not surprising that they might seek a brief explanation.  (Heck, your fellow Arbs – bless their pointy little heads – should have damn well known that a nothing-to-see-here wasn't appropriate, satisfactory, or sufficient, and encouraged you to come up with a brief statement to the community.  There was no rush make an announcement.)  Were there personal reasons (no details expected or required, please) or a change in your life circumstances?  Issues with other committee members, the Foundation, the project as a whole?  Are there problems that we should address to avoid burning out Arbs in the future?  The community doesn't know (and shouldn't try to guess) what's happening in your thoughts; all we can see is an unexpected and irrevocable departure.  Giano's usual nasty, unpleasant, unwelcome, and ungentlemanly attitude aside, there also exist reasonable members of the community who would appreciate a comment on and from your perspective.  While such comment is not compulsory in any sense, I would ask you to consider whether or not you feel some residual obligation to the community that offered you their trust. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * To all those demanding an explanation—this is one of those rare occasions when it's appropriate to mention WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. <font color="#7026DF">╟─TreasuryTag► UK EYES ONLY ─╢ 21:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't demand an explanation, I said the lack of one was poor form. I don't know if your culture has that concept though. DuncanHill (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC) Sorry, I thought for a moment you were American, but I now realise you are from Wimbledon, so you ought to know about form. DuncanHill (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What's poor form about it, specifically? RxS (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It leaves everyone dangling in the wind, and does rather let down anyone who had trusted her to fulfill her duties. DuncanHill (talk) 21:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You dangle if you want to. The gentleman's not for dangling. Geometry guy 21:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking rather more of this from WR: "Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) wrote: I agree that his post was unacceptable. Perhaps what we should be doing is asking him to resign. Recall the 80,000 words of drama we avoided in Raul654's case when he agreed to resign quietly" Is this a repeat resignation or something entirely different? The Arbcom is discredited - how much more are we to be required to unquestioningly swallow? Giacomo Returned 21:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC) Further... I'll miss Shell. She was a pillar of this community and a fantastic lady, in my book. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that arbcom was "discredited" by the leaks. Most of the items that could be considered negative were things that anyone with more sense than God gave a gerbil pretty much suspected anyway. More constructive would be to ask what we can learn from this. Perhaps the first lesson is that arbcom should get out of the business of handling sensitive personal information. There's no way to keep it secure; it exposes them to liability; and it can't help to know that if any serious legal difficulties arose WMF would kick them to the curb with great alacrity. So at the first hint of anything sensitive the arbs should sent the matter straight to WMF. Let the WMF staffers earn their $200,000/year salaries (or whatever the figure is). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, can't let that one go unchallenged. Neither I, nor any of my colleagues, makes anything near $200K per year.  My salary is a good deal less than that, I assure you.  With the cost of living in SF, I certainly am not getting rich.  Every one of us chooses to make less money than we could in the private sector because we believe in the projects and the work.   I know what I'm worth on the free market, but I like being a part of this project.  I want to be here.
 * I was thinking specifically of Sue Gardner, whose salary is listed at well over $200,000. Is she not one of your "colleagues"? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Those are mere facts, completely irrelevant. Malleus Fatuorum 03:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of valid criticisms of the Wikimedia Foundation, particularly with regard to staffing as the sheer number of people working for Wikimedia grows and grows, but to suggest that the Executive Director is overpaid for that role in that area is a bit silly. The larger point about ArbCom getting out of the personal information business is spot-on, however. I'd just hate to see it drowned out in irrelevancies. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 04:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely correct. I have struck this part of my comment as it has given an opening to deflect attention from the main issue. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hilary Clinton only gets $186,600 but I'm sure her responsibilities are nowhere near as great. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This is no doubt a stressful time for all of the arbs. Give her some space. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, she knew when to jump on a bandwagon, she knows what she's doing . Oh and while we are all here, time is running out, is this RLevseReturned or not . Giacomo Returned 21:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh shut up, Giano. --Conti|✉ 22:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is hard to comprehend isn't it? Giacomo Returned 22:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all your work, Shell Kinney, and good luck in the future. Amalthea  21:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ditto. I hope she will return.   Will Beback    talk    22:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it would be helpful if a resigning arbitrator left a statement summarizing their experiences as an arbitrator and making recommendations as what they think should be changed or improved, but I don't think it should be an expectation that they do so. Even if we disagree with the decisions and actions of any arbitrators, we should still thank them for their service, service which I understand is usually very time-consuming, and, judging from the leaked emails, requires some interaction with some extremely unsavory individuals. Cla68 (talk) 23:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This result was inevitable in the circumstances, yet it may have been avoided if, from the outset, things were done properly (and effectively), more care was taken, and relevant warnings were heeded. I think that much is clear, even though I am not directly pointing my finger at any particular individual, body, entity, or situation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * @Ncmvocalist - why do you think was it inevitable? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * History has a habit of repeating itself. In one form or another, for one stated reason or others, this result emerges in these sorts of circumstances; this is because (1) per what I said at 07:36, active steps were not taken to avoid letting such circumstances arise, and/or (2) the alternative result would be worse. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Shell - Thanks for doing a thankless job, and all the best in whatever else you're up to outside of Wikipedia (and in Wikipedia, should you choose to return to editing). Guettarda (talk) 14:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's disappointing for the community when someone, who has been elected to a position of trust, runs away with no explanation at all. It's disappointing, but it's allowed. I think the only useful reaction is to be more careful when electing arbitrators. In the next elections, I think we should press the candidates into making a promise not to vanish without a warning and without leaving a clear explanation for the community. If a candidate cannot make this promise, his place is not in the ArbCom. Nanobear (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a relatively thankless volunteer position. While it might be helpful to the community to have a short explanation, it may not be easy for the person leaving. This isn't the US presidency, its a volunteer job. May be it would be a good thing to think about the person leaving and not so much about ourselves. Anyway Wikipedia can be so toxic sometimes why not be kind here and  not add to the poison. And if this is a real issue in the future, arbs taking on positions can guarantee they will post an explanation should they have to leave the position early. I admit this is an emotional response to this situation(olive (talk) 17:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC))
 * I have a theory about the reason for Shell’s resignation, but I’m not sure if I should mention it. On one hand, I empathize with all the people who think the community deserves some explanation for why she left, but on the other hand if Shell and the other arbitrators want the reason to stay private, maybe we should respect that.  Would the arbitrators prefer that we not try to guess what the reason was? --Captain Occam (talk) 19:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see Shell's comments on her talk page. I believe that will answer your questions. Risker (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, that’s a different reason from what I’d theorized. In any case, I’m glad she’s explained it now. --Captain Occam (talk) 09:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping

 * Original announcement


 * Is this really the type of dispute that ArbCom was set up to decide upon? From reading the RfAR main page it is fairly clear that the answer is "Yes", and that it is the drama filled, attritional warfare, "constitutionally challenging" cases that should be the exception. That they are not is a subject for another place, perhaps. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I do think it is a good example of Arbcom acting as the final dispute resolution body, and I do hope the parties can go on to work together productively. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Changes in advanced permissions

 * Original announcement


 * Effective today, David Fuchs is commencing a term on the Audit Subcommittee. – xeno talk  14:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Appreciate both notifications, but it might be a good idea to append the above to the announcement for posterity.  Skomorokh   14:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm... As far as I can tell, we haven't typically regularly made announcements about lateral changes to arbitrator members in the subcommittees. Do you think we should? – xeno talk  14:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not suggesting announcement inflation by making separate note of each, but if you're announcing a permissions change already, why not? It would be nice to be able to get a chronological history of a given subcommittee by using ctrl+F through the ACN archives.  Skomorokh   14:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair point. There is WP:AUSC/H, I don't know if BASC has a similar history page. – xeno talk  14:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wha...! Wait!? There has been a putsch in the ArbCom? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nah, we just rearranged the deck chairs. Mine is third from the left. Risker (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Motion regarding Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria

 * Original Announcement

FloNight resuming oversighter role

 * Original announcement

Manual of Style updated

 * Original announcement


 * Apologies if this has been addressed elsewhere, but does this mean that moratorium on moving pages to/from a hyphen/dash has ended? Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 11:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, The Signpost has reported that the moratorium is no longer in effect, so I'll just go with that ... unless anyone else says otherwise ... Jenks24 (talk) 06:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding User:Δ

 * Original announcement


 * Well, he's in complete denial, as always. There are still issues though. While comments like this will not fall into 'enforcement edits' broadly construed, they are still wholly problematic. We do not reach for the most destructive and blind course of action when enforcing any policy here simply because it 'educates' people on how to do it right next time. In other fields this is classed as what it is - WP:POINT making disruption. I still intend to file an arbitration request regarding his general failings which continue outside NFCC work. In his state of denial, the formal reminders of his civility restriction and other terms were being ignored by Delta even while the motions were tabled, and he continues to ignore it now, through behaviours that are all long standing and unmodified. Admins clearly cannot or will not handle this, and the general atmosphere of rank incivility toward anyone critical of Delta irrespective and irregardless of the facts continues inspite of these findings, albeit carefully rephrased at times to avoid the possibility of action. MickMacNee (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well he's correct in both instances. And now here is a whine of my own: there is no such word as 'irregardless' John lilburne (talk) 15:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record: yes there is, it's in Wiktionary. It's just discouraged and considered incorrect by many. Robofish (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I was under the impression ArbCom was supposed to enforce policy, not help people violate it. Clearly I was wrong. --cc 08:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * In the case of the motion to topic ban Delta
 * Moved from WT:Arbitration

Here the community, in the shape mainly of admins (I forget exactly who) had castigated the combatants for forum shopping. In addition a number of admins (and others) had worked to centralise the discussion. The Arbcom motion, and some of the arbitrator votes, undermined this by giving weight to the number of pages on which the discussions had appeared. Moreover, having jumped the gun they did not avail themselves of the opportunity to support cooperative solutions parts of the community were trying to develop, by taking the procedural opportunity to propose a solution, rather than a sanction, put together by User:Worm That Turned and offered by me, instead expending their energies in other directions. I would ask Arbcom to seriously consider finding a way forward rather than the current situation where they are simply supporting one side in a dispute, based on two factors, firstly the fact that a previous Arbcom case of some years ago went against Delta, and secondly the determination of his opponents to spread the dispute as widely as possible. Rich Farmbrough, 22:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC).


 * Shall we just delete WP:NFCC then? This motion has completely undermined it (so much for "policy with legal considerations"). I'm far from Δ's biggest fan, but 9 times out of 10, the only people who complained were the people who don't understand the policy or have no interest in complying with it. There are problems with the way he conducts his enforcement and with his responses when challenged, but there were ways of dealing with that without banning him from enforcing the policy at all (cf. baby and bathwater). If we replaced "NFCC" with "BLP", and Δ with a controversial BLP enforcer (of whom there are a few), there'd be a massive outcry. But because Δ is unpopular and enforcing a controversial policy, it seem it doesn't matter. What a shame. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Just how many more years do you think we should spend trying to teach Delta how to work with other human beings? Delta is unpopular mainly because of his extremely long history of bitey, unco-operative, arrogant, and unlistening behaviour in NFCC issues. When he concentrates on making rather clever new gizmos that help other editors he gets popular again. I'll allow that he has been encouraged to be bitey, unco-opertive, arrogant and unlistening by a number of admins over the years, and to that extent it's not surprising that he retains a belief in the acceptability of such behaviour. DuncanHill (talk) 17:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * HJMitchell, will you get with the program, have you forgotten that you and me are supposedly wiki-BFFs? You're supposed to think the way I think, remember? For the record, I think even with Delta fouling up just 10% of the time, he would still be causing more drama and losing us more editors and content, than anyone else could manage, or even all other editors combined. And as I've said elsewhere, the aggressive BLP enforcers wised up to their failings long ago and engaged with those in the community who disagreed with their methods, but still wanted to address their issues, so that community supported methods could be developed, to deal with all the people who simply didn't understand or didn't want to follow the policy. That's why things like unreferenced BLPs are now no longer a problem, and the BLP policy is taken as seriously now as it ever was, and none of those people are whining any more about being harassed or victimised for simply 'standing up for policy'. NFCC enforcement by contrast, is still as backlogged, marginalised and unpopular as it ever was. Delta has at best, always been a temporary sticking plaster in that regard, clearing out thousands of violations at at time with no care or attention with all the attendant drama, and then just waiting for it to build up again and rinse repeat, if necessary waiting out intervening bans from the activity. If we really wanted to do it his way, namely remove violations and hand off the responsibiltiy, some of that, 10c at least, could be done by a bot very easily. We all saw what that led to the last time. And nobody in their right mind has ever seriously proposed a BLP enforcement bot, even though the unreferenced issue is as enforceable by a bot as 10c violations are, and BLP is as serious as NFCC, if not more so. If you recall, ScottMac (another supposed Wiki-BFF of mine) has seen countless proposals to ban him from BLP enforcement, there's been plenty of outcries about his actions, but he at least makes sure that the BLP policy can be read in such a way as to support his end goal, if not all of his methods. Delta never really does that and always argues that both his goal and his exact methods are always 100% supported by all policies. Thus, unlike Scott, he hasn't a prayer of arbcom ever coming down on his side 100% when his activities are disputed. And I certainly don't ever foresee a time when any of Delta's work is proactively 'commended' by Motion after a particular new shitstorm, as Scott's has been before. It's a shame that he never has and never will understand why that is, and is happy and content to claim that this is always because he is a victim or under appreciated, or the very best one, that arbcom are NFCC deniers. The idea that NFCC is less respected than BLP, certianly when using Delta's treatment as an example, never has and never will stand up to actual comparisons usng actual facts. MickMacNee (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Mick, Ive made several requests for proof of your statements and Ive gotten none. So please stop lying about my error rate. As of this post I have 24204 edits to the mainspace can you produce enough diffs to even justify a 0.08% error rate with my NFCC 10c removals? (and I mean cases where 10c was met 100% correctly, and not cases where it failed 10c and where fixable)? I know you cannot, so please stop spouting lies about me having a 10+% error rate. ΔT The only constant 22:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is unseemly and inappropriate on all sides. Please knock it off. Delta - Please stop using the word lying and accusing Mick of bad faith. Mick - Please stop poking at Delta. Both of you - You've got an arbcom case underway with both of you as parties, and arbcom expects all parties to be on and remain on their best behavior during case disposition. HJM - Since the topic ban, the rate of NFCC actions with regards to articles I work on has roughly doubled, and zero incidents have resulted in hard feelings, bad words, or any question as to the good faith efforts of anyone involved. NFCC enforcement has not been negatively affected that I can see, and the hostility which previously plagued the topic seems to have gone way down. Your mileage may vary - but the challenge to NFCC workers, to keep up the work and do so in a constructive manner, seems to have been taken up. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry if you dont like the fact that I call a WP:SPADE a spade. When a user claims a value 12,500% higher than the actual value (and does so after having the issue pointed out) is plain lying in order to make false claims. If someone stated that 374,500 people died due to the 9/11 attacks you would call them out on it. (the number is 2,996). You cannot make claims without being able to back them up. Ive repeatedly asked for proof of this error rate and none has been provided. If MMN continues to make false numbers up, I will continue to call him out on the lies and false statements. ΔT The only constant 03:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If either of you continues to abuse and insult the other, the offender will be blocked, as inconvenient as that might be for other ongoing activity.
 * Put the stick down, back away from the horse, and go do something else. (That applies equally for Mick, going the other direction).
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I wasn't even aware of a discussion taking place until now. I'm happy to let it lie as long as I can correct a couple of basic errors 'for the record', should anyone be reading this later. For one, if he had read my post properly, I was merely reflecting on HJMitchell's claim of a 10% error rate (or ratter, in 10% of the cases, complaints against him are valid), I was not claiming myself he had a 10% error rate. For two, I am not the person that he has "repeatedly asked for proof of this error rate" - I think he is thinking of Wikidemon, or one of his other critics. As far as I'm concerned, to even indulge in a numerical analysis of his actual error rate misses the point of his failings entirely. As far as being caught lying goes, if he's ever requested proof of anything I've ever said, and not received it, then I'd like examples of such. As for the statement "You cannot make claims without being able to back them up", I couldn't agree more, this is part of WP:NPA even. So I would like to repeat my request that he retract his claims that I have "harassed, stalked or bullied" him, or provide the proof he thinks would back up these attacks. I can freely state he has harrassed and stalked me, because I have the diffs to prove it, and have presented them in the arbcom case request I filed. MickMacNee (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been trying to ignore this, as the motion is over and as long as delta stays out of NFCC the horse is dead and his error rate irrelevant. However, I was none too keen on being the object of that kind of vituperation.  I'm not a critic as such, just conveying my observations and interpretations.  If we truly care about the encyclopedia as an institution we can have our differences without poisoning things so much for other editors.  - Wikidemon (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a shame to see the same (or even different) arguments here. My post [which was moved here] was about what I see as a mis-step by the Arbitration Committee. I was hoping that a positive enabling response from ArbCom would be forthcoming to offset the effect of the motion, which is to essentially stifle the community process. Rich Farmbrough, 09:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC).


 * Rich, I don't quite understand what you're trying to say here. Arbcom seems to have taken this up, as a motion, after the community was unable to reach resolution on the issue following months of sprawling, disjointed discussion. That's my impression of what happened, at least. Does your perspective differ? I'm also unclear of what, exactly, you're asking from the committee in your latest post above. — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 22:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There was a tentative proposal, which, had parties agreed to it and carried it out, would have resolved the problem with what people like to call a "win-win" situation. Viz: NFCC work being done, queries and complaints handled civilly, no drama.  These are the overt aims of the community: I leave aside whether, as has been suggested there were other aims of a more dramatic nature, we need not concern ourselves with those, if so. The pre-emptive nature of the Arbcom motion effectively closes that line of progress.  That is fairly clear.  What can Arbcom do to rectify this? Well many things, for example invite alternative solutions from the community, they could have made the alternative proposal I suggested, and presumably still can, they could come up with some new idea of their own. Rich Farmbrough, 21:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC).


 * My thoughts excactly. Delta's proposal was sound and had significant support from the community including those who in the past have spoken against Delta (and that would include myself) to not consider it any further. Stifling the discussion was counterproductive. Agathoclea (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, "NFCC work" is continuing apace (if not increasing). Beta/Delta was already under a restriction from an earlier date as well. I'd also like to point out that there's a mighty big "if" in your reply there ("had parties agreed to it and carried it out"), for which there didn't and does not appear to be any hint that there was significant agreement. I agree that it could have been good, and if the proposal were made months ago it may have prevented all of this. As it was, proposals made at gunpoint have little appeal, and I for one hardly blame the committee for failing to take it up. — <span style="font-family: Courier New, monospace ;font-style:italic">V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 08:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I was referring to this proposal made on Delta's talk page, and this proposal made on the motion page:

Suggested alternate motion for an arbitrator to propose

 * Delta is indefinitely (but not perpetually) injuncted to disengage from discussions about specific instances of NFC enforcement. To this end:
 * He is to add a link to WP:NFCR (Non-free content review) to each enforcement edit he makes, directing queries to be made there.
 * In the event that one (or more) of his enforcement edits are undone, he will avoid re-making that edit.
 * In the event that one (or more) of his enforcement edits are undone, he may post a factual statement of that fact on WP:NFC.

Reason for offering this proposal

 * 1) It allows Delta to continue with the good work.
 * 2) It avoids the Delta being involved in edit wars over NFC.
 * 3) It avoids Delta being involved in heated disputes (indeed in any disputes) over NFC.
 * 4) It allows editors who dispute or support Delta's actions a fora to discuss them.
 * 5) It does not make value judgements on a complex and protracted discussion, and the events leading up to it.

I would prefer this to be an agreement between the community and Delta than an injunction form Arbcom. I will not comment on the reasons that this has come to Arbcom in various guises, nor on the events of the past few days, except to say that they are, in the vernacular "not a pretty sight". I hope that the above or something similar can be used as a platform for moving forward positively.

Rich Farmbrough, 00:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC).


 * Seems to cover the bases to me. Rich Farmbrough, 01:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC).

Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee closed

 * Original announcement


 * I know I'm going to sound like a broken record, but how does it take nearly two months to come up with a decision that differs only semantically from the status quo? What was the point of having the case? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   15:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What status quo? MMN wasn't indeffed until 5 days before the formal closure of the case. T. Canens (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The point of the case was that MMN finally got it, as evidenced by his editing immediatedly prior to his final block. We, the community, have had enough of this editor and he has now gone. He may return iff he can prove that he can work with others. Now, let's all get back to improving the Wiki! Mjroots (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Those cases typically take much less time to go through; part of the reason for the delay is that everyone was distracted by a stupid and pointless sideshow. &mdash; Coren (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to jump on my hobby horse for a moment, this case seems to illustrate my view that Wikipedia really struggles to deal with editors who make constructive contributions yet frequently behave in an obnoxious manner. This kind of conduct shouldn't have needed to have been dealt with by ArbCom as it's clearly unacceptable. Companies quickly sack staff members who can't or won't work with others, and seek to do so in ways that minimise the drama (and their legal exposure), and we really should encourage the same principle. Nick-D (talk) 09:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC) (I should note that I haven't followed this case closely, so please don't flame me too much if I've misunderstood things!)
 * MickMackNee has been consistently abrasive ever since I first encountered him. Yes we should have dealt with this a long time ago. Guy (Help!) 10:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely that this should not have needed ArbCom, but you can all thank and (a few months earlier)  for delaying the resolution of this problem and escalating it to ArbCom. These two administrators undid the indefinite blocks I applied to MickMacNee on two occasions when he was engaging in his chronic antisocial behavior, and they did so without any discussion and contrary to a consensus (or at least majority) opinion in ongoing community discussions about the blocks. This case illustrates that as long as our wheel-warring policy provides a second-mover advantage (any administrator may undo a block without discussion, but no administrator may reinstate it), established contributors with a number of friends who are also habitually disruptive are very difficult to get rid of. Few administrators are inclined to take action against such people to begin with, because they have no interest in being reviled as an abusive admin in the inevitably ensuing dramafest, and the few who are ready to face scathing attacks on themselves lose interest in doing it soon as they realize (as I did in this case) that sooner or later an admin friend of the disruptive editor will unblock him on some pretext and we're back to square one. Community ban discussions are seldom helpful, because they tend to devolve into shouting matches between friends and enemies of the editor at issue, and relatively few uninvolved editors or admins wish to wade into such cesspits, leading to frequent no consensus outcomes. So the buck stops with the Committee, which is itself too reluctant to take such cases, and takes forever to resolve even the simplest ones.  I have on several occasions suggested changing the blocking policy to address this problem: contested unblocks ought to be made only when supported by community consensus, or at least after thorough community discussion. This would still allow the (rare) genuinely abusive or mistaken blocks to be quickly lifted, but would greatly facilitate dealing with chronic offenders such as MickMacNee. Unfortunately, so far this approach has not found consensus.   Sandstein   11:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And it's exactly that black and white "Sandstein vs. the world" arrogance that means you can't see why your blocks were overturned. There was an arbitration case in progress, so there was no need for you to take it upon yourself to indef MMN, and you obviously still held a childish grudge against him because your last attempt to indef him also failed. So it was you who prolonged this case when you made an out-of-process block that, even assuming all the good faith in the world, is one of the worst I've ever seen. If you want people to get consensus before overturning your actions, get consensus before making blocks that are questionable at best. Otherwise, grow up and stop throwing a hissy fit every time someone reverts you. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   11:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In looking back at this in response to Sandstein's remarks, I can't help pointing out something I've found in the ANI discussion about Sandstein's June 2011 indef-block of Mick. A clerk announced in that thread that: the Arbitration Committee ... has just announced its intention to also scrutinise Sandstein's conduct during the current case. (And Sandstein had just, in response to that block, been re-added as a case party in response to an arbitrator request.) Funny... Arbcom felt no need to say anything about this contested and reversed mid-case indef-block with issues of involvement raised at ANI, despite a declared intention to consider it... but absolutely had to say something about my "case-is-over-isn't-it?" 24 hr block which was widely agreed to be necessary. Funny old world, eh. (Even funnier when you take into account that Sandstein evidently still thinks his block not only should have been made but should have stood, whilst I rapidly agreed that I should have left my block to someone else and wouldn't do it again.) PS And another thing: there wasn't even a proposed finding relating to the admin actions around that block; but Hammersoft's comment which precipitated the incident got a proposed finding, even though he'd withdrawn it and apologised and no evidence was given of a wider pattern of behaviour. Rd232 talk 12:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * HJ Mitchell, many of my admin actions have been reverted, at DRV and elsewhere, with no objection from me - but not normally without discussion, let alone against consensus. I have acknowledged elsewhere that in retrospect my block was probably not the best idea because of the complication it added to the case (but your criticism of this is questionable, given that you yourself subsequently also blocked MickMacNee during the case, and unlike me you did so while you were both parties to the case). This does not change, however, that your undoing of the block forced the case to continue, and that you thereby knowingly aided and abetted MickMacNee's then actively ongoing antisocial behavior, by signalling to him that his conduct was just fine. If you do not recognize this, even after MickMacNee was now unanimously banned for the same conduct that you thought did not merit an indefinite preventative block, you should resign your admin tools so as to prevent further damage by proxy by other disruptive editors you may intend to protect. Your assumptions about my motives reflect poorly on you as well, and I wonder how one can qualify a normal response-to-disruption block as "out of process". Rd232, I assume that the reason why ArbCom did not examine my block and HJ Mitchell's unblock is that we both withdrew our evidence relating to that aspect of the case, because we agreed that ArbCom was unlikely to come up with a useful resolution of this disagreement.  Sandstein   13:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice wikilawyering, there. I was only added as a party to this case because I unblocked Mick, which you went on to imply was because he and I were supposedly good friends conspiring to get one up on Sandstein, so suggesting that my action came even close to being as abusive is ludicrous. And what message do you think a block would give him, when it comes from an admin who doesn't even attempt to hide his petty grudge? Been there, done that. I've no doubt that the majority of the community has confidence in me to fulfil my role. But I'd be happy to do it again if you want to submit yourself to recall—you're exactly the kind of admin for whom we need mandatory admin recall, and why admins in general get a bad name. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   14:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * HJ Mitchell, you're welcome to make personal attacks against me if they make you feel better about your situation. But I feel compelled to point out to you that your assertions that I have some sort of grudge against MickMacNee do not become any more credible by your repeating them. I am not in the habit of accumulating grudges against every vandal I block once or twice. For my part, I now intend to take David Fuchs's advice below. I would welcome - and I mean this in earnest - to have an opportunity to try to come to terms with you privately at some later time, because apart from this incident, you do your job well as far as I know, and I very much regret that we have entered into this strong disagreement with each other over a random disruptive user who is not worth all this attention, let alone a conflict between two veteran contributors.  Sandstein   15:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Gents, this really isn't supposed to be a venue for rehashing personal disputes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if Arbcom had addressed the issues in question instead of treating them as mere "personal disputes" to be ignored, you wouldn't be seeing them "rehashed" here. Rd232 talk 14:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but it wouldn't have done much to ease the acrimony between Sandstein and I. Still, I'm happy for the case to be re-opened to examine mine and his conduct. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   14:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ArbCom can of course do whatever it wants, but even if one considers our respective conduct in the worst possible light, it's not grounds to desysop either of us. I for my part would prefer not to have another two months drama at the end of which somebody is "admonished" or "advised" about something or other, which (as you say) will do nothing to ease the acrimony. That's why I offered to withdraw my evidence in the first place. As I said above, I would prefer to try to resolve this interpersonal conflict bilaterally and in a less confrontative manner. When I withdrew my evidence, you said you would contact me later about this; I'm ready to talk to you in any forum you prefer.  Sandstein   15:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Arbcom is there to address the issues that they see as being important for the functioning of the project, not to settle every ego-related dispute. Rd232 it might be best if you reread what is said about you in the case and leave it at that. Not everyone will like an arbcom result, but it is generally best to suck it up and move on.--Scott Mac 14:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I brought up my issues by way of contrast (I won't repeat the contrasts, they're in my 12.45 5 Aug comment above). In response to my finding, I've already requested desysopping (in lieu of a reconfirmation RFA since I'm retired); what else do you want from me? My concern here was to point out what was not done, not to complain about what was. Rd232 talk 14:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Does anyone at all think there is anything to be gained by continuing this thread in this venue? Anyone going to convince another party? Really? In which case this should be collapsed and we all move on. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Thryduulf (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The conversation was over, why collapse it? It's hardly worth even archiving it. Bad enough that Arbcom isn't likely to learn any lessons from the case, or even to engage with this discussion; there's really no need to sweep these concerns under the carpet as well. Rd232 talk 22:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, there is still discussion about ways forward with possible reforms at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee/Proposed decision. Perhaps more useful than trying to collapse a conversation that's run out of steam anyway would be to answer the question: what's the best place to discuss such possible reforms? Rd232 talk 22:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said over there, WT:ARBCOM is one venue for general thoughts about committee logistics and case handling. This noticeboard is more for specific post-case concerns related to each case and its verdict, not really for the post-case grousing seen above (though that is quite common). And on the archiving point, there is a bot that archives this page (once everyone has run out of things to say). Carcharoth (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's interesting to me that after many cases, one sees a lot of talk about about "What ArbCOm did wrong," "What ArbCom should have done," and "What ArbCom should learn from this case", and a fair amount of conversation from Arbitrators (especially after a major case) about what they would do differently, but one rarely sees editors – either from the general population or those involved in the case – talk about what they did wrong or what they should learn from the case. Almost everyone, apparently, was misunderstood, mistreated and badly handled by ArbCom and were totally innocent of anything they were accused of doing. Few (in general) admit their own reponsibility for the circumstances that required an Arbitration case to be opened, and there's very little evidence of soul-searching or examination of one's own behavior after it closes. It seems clear that ArbCom almost always gets it wrong, and every one else involved is as pure as the driven snow, at least judging by the evidence presented in these post mortem discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Motion regarding Gilabrand's AE Block for WP:ARBPIA

 * Original announcement


 * Seems to be a missing word in the announcement: «[...] will (be?) viewed dimly» - Nabla (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 02:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you - Nabla (talk) 10:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitrator abstention votes

 * Original announcement


 * This could be a good thing. I would like to see more of individual arbitrators' rationales and thoughts on a vote, and hopefully a "comments" section will encourage that. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   15:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed; comments of this nature would sometimes be made in the "Abstain" column - and this meant that proposed decision items might pass with a plurality of non-abstained arbitrators that was significantly lower than an absolute majority of active arbitrators (and thus not necessarily represent the consensus of the committee). – xeno talk  15:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Finalizing the changeover to the oversight requests email address

 * Original announcement

Mailing list delays

 * Original announcement

cf. . – xeno talk  15:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Who gave the arbitrators permission to take a holiday? Outrageous! ;) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We didn't take a holiday, the mail server did. At any rate, it now appears to be back functioning normally. Jclemens (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think he's more talking about NYB's bracketed statement, and I agree - these vacations were not approved by an absolute majority of the committee and any arbitrators currently vacationing (or even enjoying themselves on a long weekend) should be recalled from wherever they are and put back to work on the mailing list backlog. – xeno talk  18:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee community member changes

 * Original announcement


 * Was he is no longer active on this project really necessary? Obviously, he's not active at the minute, but that phrase seems to assume that he won't resume activity—he might just be taking a long wikibreak or something (unless ArbCom know more). Anyway, we need AUSC members to be active, so I wish him all the best, and I'm sure AGK will do an excellent job. Whisky drinker  &#124;  HJ's sock  23:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The intent was to make it clear that inactivity was only basis for the change. We all hope to see Bahamut return to activity. – xeno talk  23:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I was just suggesting it could have been phrased a little more sensitively (to the effect of there's nothing wrong with inactivity, we just need functionaries who are active). Whisky drinker  &#124;  HJ's sock  23:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We haven't actually been able to get in contact with him, so don't know why he's not currently active (which might have been a better phrase - I do see what you're getting at). Hopefully he's fine, busy doing something else, and will pop back at some point. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "no longer" -> "not currently". Thanks for pointing that out. – xeno talk  00:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I enjoyed serving with Bahamut, and found hid perspective a fascinating one in subcommittee business. I'm sorry we haven't heard from him lately. Courcelles 03:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * He's busy learning to be a civilian, as he says; his last contribution here was on the same day as the last posting on his blog. He did indicate there that he might be away for a while. --jpgordon:==( o ) 04:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

oversight-l closed for business

 * Original announcement

Your message to Oversight-l has been rejected as this mailing list has been closed.

Please see the following page for updated instructions on requesting oversight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_oversight


 * I was debating it in my head earlier - whether the decline message should include the new email address in the reject notice - but I eventually came down very slightly on the side of directing them to WP:RFO as it does now (for a number of reasons - but mostly because it may assist in ensuring that people are submitting the right kind of requests, and it should also help stem the flow of spam to the new address). – xeno  talk  01:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The wiki page also is (a) easier to update and maintain, and (b) can go into detail about alternate means of communication. I think it's fine.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 03:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs closed

 * Original announcement

Arbitration motion regarding Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

 * Original announcement

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466 closed

 * Original announcement

A step in the wrong direction, as I explain here. We're moving away from the "tolerance" (in the sense of accepting that people can have different views, make occassional mistakes etc.) that made Wikipedia succeed where other websites failed. We should not demand anything more than that people are able to collaborate constructively with each other and take measures only if they can't. Count Iblis (talk) 18:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Count Iblis, that is misdirection and hyperbole. Part of "Collaborating constructively" is following Policies and Guidelines.(aka the "Rules") The Arbitration Committee found in the evidence and Cirt admitted as having engaged in committing policy violations. We are only being intolerant of an individual's behavior in violating policy. There are plenty of people who edit the Scientology topic area with Strong Negative POVs on the Church that don't engage in systematic policy violations. Cirt and every one else in WP:ARBSCI were instructed to avoid the behaviors that Cirt has now been sanctioned for. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We're being intolerant of people failing to follow the basic principles of Wikipedia? And this is a problem? Hang on, I have roughly 15,000 vandals to unblock. Ironholds (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As one can tell by the voting, it was a tough decision with alot of 'grey' in it...ummm.....not sure more discussion in this venue on that will be productive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the merits of the decision on the two central parties, it's more than a little disappointing that other parties who energetically fanned the flames are getting off without even a mention. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Reading between the lines here, would these other parties by any chance be those you have disagreed with in the past on other matters? Either way, you should have presented evidence or workshops proposals (I searched for your username there and was unable to find it). When a case names two central parties, you need to present evidence against others if you want the scope expanded. Failing to do that, and then complaining about it afterwards doesn't really work. Carcharoth (talk) 03:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, in fairness, when the Committee voted to separate the original request for arbitration into two cases, it was announced that this case was going to focus only on Cirt and Jayen466, and that allegations against other users should be brought up in the "Manipulation of BLPs" case. (No fault to Carcharoth for not remembering that; it was a somewhat unusual way to bifurcate the request.) As the drafter in the latter case, I found lots of disagreeable rhetoric, but insufficient basis to sanction anyone based on the evidence we were presented. However, we made some other observations there about ongoing feuds and quarrels; q.v. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks NYB for providing a constructive reply without leaping to assumptions. Not having been very active over the past couple of months I had not noticed that the other part of the case was entitled "Manipulation of BLPs." It is good to know that the matter was at least taken into consideration. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, SBHB, you are right, I shouldn't have jumped to conclusions there. I'm still shell-shocked at the mess here and how gibberish like Astronomical X-ray sources has survived on Wikipedia for over a year. I'd delete it now, but there is tons of that out there. Anyway, that's off-topic for here, and I have notified someone else who should be dealing with it shortly. Carcharoth (talk) 04:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That situation reminds me of Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot, but unfortunately, multiplied many-fold. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In case of the Sadi Carnot affair, there was also a lack of expertise among the regular editors. I only became involved in editing thermodynamics articles a year after he left, and what I saw was that many of the core thermodynamics articles were fundamentally flawed and they were completely rewritten. So, in this respect the problem there was actually far worse. The current problems don't affect the main astronomy articles, it's caused by the Wiki projects failing to watch every page, not by a lack of expertise. Count Iblis (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Referring to the edit Count Iblis pointed to, I'm not entirely sure who comes to Wikipedia looking for a proof like that (and not even sourced to anything). Hopefully at least one other Wikipedia editor familiar with that topic at the level you are writing at there (rather a high level) checked what you did there. But that is even more off-topic for this page. Though I hadn't read your user page in a long time. Good to see some things never change. Carcharoth (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually started to put in proposals in the workshop and backed off, for a variety of reasons. But I find the final decision and closure disappointing.
 * There's been a lack of symmetry in this incident and the case which Arbcom ultimately did not reflect. Cirt is much more introspective and responsive to criticism, and more willing to admit fault.  This should be a good thing in editors and admins, and should have been taken into account.  Exactly the opposite ultimately happened.
 * Jayen, conversely, still seemed to disagree with criticism directed at him, through the end, as far as I can see.
 * Ultimately, this was a failure of the editors involved (to uphold best standards), the community (to push them apart earlier), but ultimately now as well Arbcom (to understand and find the actual neutral point; to respond preventively rather than punitively).
 * This seems to be a rather glaring and blatant failure of the system to work as designed. A rather perverse outcome given stated intention of the process and standing policy - failure to AGF and failure to give credit for responsiveness to criticism.
 * I'll accept some lumps for ultimately sitting it out until now, but I am disappointed.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I outdented your comments, as I think they were responding to the decision, rather than the off-topic sub-thread above. My views on this case are that the committee made a tough decision and got it largely right. One thing I think should be criticised is the view that walking away from an article is necessarily the right thing to do. Sometimes doing that prolongs a dispute as the editor walking away doesn't actually learn anything from the experience and carries on in the same way at another article. When there is a dispute over the editing of content, it is best to actually resolve that (by bringing in other editors and including the original editors) rather than artificially forcing the parties apart whether voluntarily or by an interaction ban. Walking away works best when it is purely an interpersonal dispute or over some meta-aspect of Wikipedia. Article disputes, on the other hand, should be resolved and not dealt with by editors walking away when they meet with resistance. Carcharoth (talk) 02:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Article disputes where a party refuses to admit or cannot understand that they've done something wrong are very different from one where the party listens to criticism and accepts much of it, even if there were significant unbalanced aspects to the criticism. Again, preventive versus punitive.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Preventative Vs Punitive is a false dichotomy in this situation as that is from the blocking policy. Our own policy on Administrators says in the first sentence it is position of trust. Here are two things our Admin policy states that are relevant:
 * "The community generally holds administrators to a higher standard of editorial and interpersonal conduct"
 * "Sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status"
 * The Arbitration Committee found in the evidence and Cirt admitted as having engaged in committing policy violations. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * (responding to GWH) Have a look at the final comment Cirt made just before the case closed. He said there the following: "'I try to take community feedback onboard, and I often willingly step away from areas I'd been previously engaged in, and specifically back off from articles and allow others in the community to examine them (my watchlist now only has 10 articles on it). When I received feedback from the community, I didn't get involved in edit wars or otherwise try to impose my interpretation on others.'" That, to me, is a fundamental misunderstanding of how to respond to content disputes. Willingly stepping away is not the same thing as taking feedback on board. Backing off from articles is not the same as understanding and acknowledging the concerns raised (or contesting them). Saying that you allow others to examine articles you have edited misunderstands WP:OWN (others can always examine such articles, it doesn't need an editor to 'allow' such an examination). Removing articles from a watchlist (possibly due to disputes or wanting to avoid potential disputes) may seem the right thing to do to some, but it is also walking away and failing to learn and develop as an editor through constructive interaction with other editors. The last sentence may be an example of Cirt changing his editing behaviour in response to feedback (it's not clear what time period Cirt is referring to here), but avoiding edit wars and avoiding pushing your own interpretation of things, is pretty minimal reform that should be a given anyway. All-in-all, as last-minute pleas go, that one didn't really cut the mustard. Carcharoth (talk) 22:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * (in response largely to GWH's comments, but not directed at anyone in particular) Adminship is a position of trust. My personal opinion (which I realise is not one shared by all) is that that trust goes beyond just the use of the admin tools, and admins should be editors in good standing. Therefore, if an admin consistently or egregiously behaves in a way that is incompatible with that level of trust—even if they don't misuse the admin tools—then they can't (again in my opinion) expect to remain administrators. So if ArbCom believes an editor needs such stringent restrictions as have been imposed on Cirt, then (much as it pains me to say it, because I have always respected Cirt as an admin) it's clear that his conduct has been incompatible with that level of trust. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

2011 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Call for applications

 * Original announcement

Is six days really long enough for people to get applications in? Some may not even see the notice until a few days after it has been posted, leaving them only a few days to decide on whether to apply and to fill in the application form. Can people express interest if they see the notice late, and ask for more time to get their application in? I suppose at least the period includes a weekend, but a pre-announcement a month or so before the actual application dates are announced might give people time to think about this idea. Of course, if the application form and questionnaire is shorter than it was, this might not be too much of a problem. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm... application is actually slightly longer, I think =) The dates are provisional and subject to change - so if someone wants to put in a late-breaking application, we can extend it somewhat. We do want to try and get this out of the way before the ACE RFC and subsequent elections, though. Will try and give more advance notice next round.
 * By the way, if anyone thinks a watchlist notice is indicated here, please do go propose it. (It did not find consensus the last time) – xeno talk  22:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Question - Please excuse me if this has been answered somewhere as I've been unable to find it. I believe a community support level of 70% was hoped for last time, but only one candidate achieved that level. Is a percentage level being used this time or has the percentage idea been obsoleted? Any specific details of the process (community side of the process that is) would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (T•C• V ) 06:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi: The process you refer to has been deprecated for a while now: See Arbitration_Committee/CheckUser and Oversight for the process that's been used through the rest of 2010, and now through 2011. SirFozzie (talk) 08:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. - Hydroxonium (T•C• V ) 02:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Out of interest, why have ArbCom decided to go with appointments rather than elections? I won't be standing for a variety of reasons, but the AUSC appointments kind of put me off this process—I got the distinct impression ArbCom had chosen who they wanted to appoint (even though I think they made the right decision) and wasn't going to let a handful of comments from the community change that. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   12:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Because when we ran elections, we did not get enough people to fill vitally needed roles. Plus it was determined that since everyone votes straight support/oppose, very little was learned about the candidates. So, we decided to go with this method to make sure the needed spots are filled, but that the community still has a chance to participate and let us know if there's any problems (see the archives for the May 10 issues that led to the Committee going with this new method) SirFozzie (talk) 12:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wasn't part of the issue SecurePoll? —<font color="228B22">Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 13:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, a number of people expressed concerns about using SecurePoll. I went back and found what I had missed before. This is sort of an overview of the events.
 * Discussion of the May 2010 election results
 * RfC to determine what to do next
 * ArbCom announce the RfC was inconclusive and so were going to a community input/appointment process
 * Discussion of ArbCom's statement
 * Essentially, there was a lot of discussion but no clear solution. So ArbCom tried to do what the community was most comfortable with, which was the community vote (as input to ArbCom) followed by the ArbCom appointment process. - Hydroxonium (T•C• V ) 05:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

My observations (both on- and off-wiki), when the Committee decided to move from holding Checkuser and Oversight elections back to an appointment process with community participation, included that the Community was at risk of suffering from election fatigue. Obviously there is value to elections in choosing people to fill certain positions. On the other hand, every election diverts a significant amount of time from our other wiki-activities as hundreds of editors evaluate the candidates and so forth. At present, there is the annual election for nine or so Arbitration Committee members (a process that goes on for several weeks), there is the election for three community members of AUSC, and at the Meta level there is the annual Board election as well as the annual Steward election (or this year two elections). To add to that two annual elections for Checkusers and Oversighters was reaching diminishing returns in terms of community interest level, participation, and time allocation, as evidenced by the fact that when we announced that the (second-last I think it was) round of selections would be appointive rather than elective, most (albeit not all) people seemed pretty comfortable with that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that appointments by ARBCOM based on community comments are better than elections, because ARBCOM may be sent some information about some candidates, which shouldn't be exposed publicly. If the winners in an election are automaticly the ones to get appointed, then there will be a clear indication that "something" was wrong with the user. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Appeal to BASC: Iantresman

 * Original announcement

Appeal to BASC: Nelsondenis248

 * Original announcement

The decision has been removed by the user from his talk page. It is here.

Subsequent to his indefinite block, Nelsondenis248 caused a significant amount of disruption by creating numerous sockpuppets, which edited various articles adding references to himself and edit warring, and wikilawyered at length in the three SPIs. His socks uploaded improper photos of himself, and again wikilawyered at great length in the image deletion discussion, causing further disruption. I hope that Arbcom was aware of his post-block misconduct. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

2011 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Invitation to comment on candidates

 * Original announcement

Question. There's currently a disruptive banned user, Vote (X) for Change, disrupting this process. What's usually done during this situation to prevent further disruption?  Elockid (Alternate)  ( Talk ) 20:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, this probably worked. :-) I'll go take a look. Risker (talk) 20:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Risker.  Elockid (Alternate)  ( Talk ) 21:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It would be appreciated (and indeed courteous) if users who have elected to pose additional questions to the candidates would subsequently comment on the candidate(s) publicly or privately concerning their handling of the question. – xeno talk  13:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands closed

 * Original announcement

2011 CheckUser and Oversight appointments & personnel changes

 * Original announcement

Just wanted to confirm I missed voting due to a holiday and not picking up fast enough when I came back, but I endorse all the successful candidates and approve of the outcome. --Slack Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

 * Original announcement

Already violating it: William M. Connolley and List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming 86.** IP (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Or not: . Unless anyone indicates authoritatively otherwise, I shall assume that represents consensus William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus there that affects the ruling of your arbitration. "prohibited from editing relating to any living person associated with this topic".  - stay away from content about living people and talkpage discussion about living people related to climate change or you will find yourself more restricted than before. Its not very diffucult to understand is it? You will find yourself reported back to arbitration if you continue to edit the redline of your restriction. Off2riorob (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I said "authoritatively" William M. Connolley (talk) 22:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have as much authority and ability to report you as anyone else. If you disrupt the climate change editing environment as you have previously and violate your editing restrictions I will request an indefinite restriction be placed on you next time. Off2riorob (talk) 22:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Omnibus motion amending past cases

 * Original announcement

The current link to September 11 implies that the discretionary sanctions apply to all articles realted to 11 September rahter than the intended meaning of all articles pertaining to the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001. Probably worth fixing that link. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   15:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If only Talk:September 11 hadn't met with such opposition. I don't think the arbs are the only editors or readers who expect September 11 to redirect to September 11 attacks. Oh well. Jenks24 (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Appeal to BASC: Mìthrandir

 * Original announcement

Appeal to BASC: ChristiaandeWet

 * Original announcement

Arbitration Committee/WMF Liaison

 * Original announcement


 * A much-needed role! AGK  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 16:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "As part of the role of the Liaison, Newyorkbrad and another member of the Committee, Coren, attended at the WMF offices on 4 November 2011 to meet with a number of staff in varying roles in order to discuss multiple issues." &larr; This could use a rewrite. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, one might possibly consider that remark to be more or less somewhat vague. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As you may or may not have noticed, the announcement might have mentioned that it's not entirely impossible that at some point in the future a more detailed report would be given. It might not be especially unreasonable, depending on a number of ill-specified circumstances, that one might understand from that assertion that the lack of resounding specificity in the original announcement might be thus explained.  Or not.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 03:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant that (paraphrased) "Newyorkbrad and Coren attended at the WMF offices on 4 November 2011 to meet with a number of staff..." doesn't parse correctly in my head. Maybe it's a Canadian English thing? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe "attend at" is an older or more formal usage, now somewhat archaic in American English, but more current in British (and I gather Canadian) usage, particularly when referring to turning up at a place as opposed to at an event ("the witness was ordered to attend at the Central Criminal Court"). More substantively, I do anticipate that further information about the meetings will follow. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, NYB; I genuinely had no idea what MZMcBride was on about there. Yes, "attended at" is a commonplace phrase in Canada, particularly in more formal writing. Risker (talk) 07:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Question - NYB is the liaison on the ArbCom side. Are you allowed to tell us who the liaison is on the WMF side? Thanks. - Hydroxonium (T•C• [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=1&amp;username=Hydroxonium V] ) 07:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh yes. It is User:Philippe (WMF).  Risker (talk) 07:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * - Hydroxonium (T•C• [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=1&amp;username=Hydroxonium V] ) 09:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: the WMF has two (and a backup). As noted by Risker, I am one, and Geoff Brigham is the other. Backing us up is Maggie Dennis, the community liaison.  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 07:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I would be very interested to hear what was discussed at the meeting. Any ETA on when that information will be posted? --Elonka 04:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, Brad has been inordinately (real-life) busy during the week after our meetings, so he didn't get a chance to report himself so we don't really have any "official" summary yet. The brief summary version is we talked about future handling of cases of harassment, child protection, and other really Bad Pepople (summary: they are now more proactive in seeking legal remedies and enforcing office bans but don't have the resources to do the initial work themselves and will continue to rely on the committee's help), information security, data retention, and new better infrastructure for privacy (summary: there are details left to work out but we've got good plans for soon and the foundation will give us the support we need), the details of the relationship between the arbcoms and the foundation (what they do, what we do, what happens if someone is sued). Other "smaller" things we talked about is handling of threats of harm, explained what the committees do to some of the staff less familiar with them, and a great deal of valuable "networking".  Some of the details we cannot discuss yet because the actual decisions haven't yet been made, and some we'll not be able to discuss because it goes into too much detail regarding the WMF legal strategy (though I expect that Geoff himself may well wish to share some of it).  This is all immensely superficial by necessity, but I expect that the committee's full report might be ready in a week or two.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting, thanks. I look forward to the full report! --Elonka 17:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Coren's summary of the issues we discussed is completely accurate and substantially the same as what I would have written had I got to it first. I anticipate some follow-up on the various issues, from both the Committee side and the Office side, within the next couple of weeks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Appeal to BASC: Lee Nysted

 * Original announcement


 * There seem to be quite a few of these of late. Is it because BASC is receiving an above-average number of appeals or just that I haven't been paying much attention, or something else? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think you are noticing the effect of a backlog being successfully beaten into submission (combined with, I think, a slightly higher than usual proportion of accepted appeals that is simple happenstance). &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Intersting; thanks. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   12:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I remember asking about statistics a while back, and got told they are on the way...can we get a status on that by chance? and just a question, how big of a backlog is there? (not like unblock-en-l has seen bigger in it's days) -- DQ  (t)   (e)  11:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I promised I would try and work on them and honestly haven't gotten around to it. If you keep pestering me, I might, but realistically it's probably going to be at the beginning of the new year. If there's demand for the stats I'd certainly like to oblige. As to the backlog, it varies greatly: usually it lags a bit until a few dedicated arbs get on top of things. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 18:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is an absolute rush, but by the new year I would prefer just for transparency reasons. And I can wait till the stats come out for specific backlog times as long as it's not killer. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  09:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hopefully it will be much sooner... depends on how much work I made for myself by not labeling things originally. I hope that we get back to a regular posting schedule soon. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 01:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)