Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 17

Arbitration/Requests/Case/TimidGuy ban appeal closed

 * Original announcement

Will has been desysopped AND banned for at least 6 months. Holy moley! 140.247.141.165 (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * And, badabing, the COI RfC is up! ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

- You  really  can  01:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well before you cantar victoria (sing victory), I'm curious about who will be enforcing WP:MEDRS in TM. In my experience, very few editors, and even fewer admins, respect MEDRS or even know how to determine a MEDRS-compliant source.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec with Sandy) All users should follow NPOV or they can and should expect similar sanctions - I wouldn't get too giddy about that. Girondins execution.jpg. Volunteer Marek 01:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes - its clearly not a perfect wiki - but users that have been violating policy for so long are now gone and have no authority - before they all supported each other, WMC supported Will BeBack - Durova supported Cirt - Cirt supported Will BeBack and so on - these users were entrenched controlling whole sectors of the project - they are all gone now - good riddance to that biased cabal - long live NPOV - You  really  can  01:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sandy, I for one will try to do my best on that. I'm not going to go constantly patrolling the area; there are better ways to spend my evenings. But if ever want me to take a look at a particular page or editor, drop me a line. I fear though that there is no point in trying to enforce neutrality and high sourcing standards unless there is some sort of assurance that ArbCom will back administrators' judgment calls. NW ( Talk ) 01:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a relief, NW, since you do understand MEDRS. It's dismal what goes on out there in terms of how advocates can push POV by using lay media sources and primary studies to add information that is dangerous to children's health.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Has there been a recent effort to promote it to policy? I think MEDRS is along the same spectrum as BLP, in that deviations can cause real harm to living people, and would welcome its upgrade. At the very least, the scrutiny of such a proposal should help by getting more eyes on it and raising its profile. Jclemens (talk) 03:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, steam is gathering for that proposal. See my response to 28 on Iri's talk page.  It won't be as easy as proposed (merely upgrading the current page to policy), some tweaking will be needed to the page as written to get it into shape to be interpreted as policy, and I'm waiting to hear from Colin, who has always been the voice of reason on MEDRS.  You could watchlist WP:MEDRS to see how that discussion proceeds.  Separately, I'm trying to figure out why so few editors seem to be even aware of MEDRS.  We frequently see GAs and DYKs promoted that aren't compliant, I've been patrolling new medical articles lately and see that even at Article for Creation they don't seem aware, and I've recently had a problem on two articles about issues where children's health is very seriously impacted by misinformation leading to overuse of antibiotics and dangerous procedures like IVIG, so something needs to be done to increase awareness of our medical sourcing guideline.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Craziness continues. We don't need new editor attrition, just set Arbcom loose. Rich Farmbrough, 01:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC).


 * Is anything holding them back besides the hodgepodge of somewhat contradictory policies? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ArbCom is a small group of volunteers in a very big Wikipedia, not the Council of Elrond. Given a community supporting both WikiProject Cooperation and WP:PAIDWATCH I'd say, yea, that's probably holding them back. Nobody Ent 02:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see how either project is particularly relevant to anything the committee has said. Harassment of any editor is wrong, and assertions that they have a COI don't make harassment right.  The community is divided on how paid editing should be handled, but I have yet to see anyone suggest that OUTING be amended to exempt allegedly paid editors from its protections. Jclemens (talk) 02:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply was to previous comment -- providing example of hodgepodge -- not in reference to this particular. case Nobody Ent —Preceding undated comment added 03:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC).
 * The idea that OUTING applies to communicating good-faith suspicions and evidence about a real-life COI privately to arbcom is pretty depressing. Part of arbcom's purpose is to deal with such info in private and users should always be able to send it.  The other parts I'll reserve for further analysis, but our main goal should always be to maintain our articles' credibility for our readers.  In-article source citations are only one aspect of credibility.  Prevention of excessive COI influence is another important aspect, sometimes even more important than good sourcing.  This decision overall looks like a bad outcome from a external credibility perspective, no matter how well it's supported by internal policy.  67.117.145.9 (talk) 04:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Your first sentence applies to absolutely no part of the case. While Will Beback did, by his own admission, communicate information on an editor that he perceived to be evidence of a conflict of interest to two other Wikipedia administrators, no finding was proposed about that conduct. Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * FOFs 5.1 and 6.2 seem to say that Will Beback is found to have harassed someone by submitting private evidence about them to Jimbo and Arbcom. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 04:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * FoF 5.1 establishes the communication timeline. Principle 13 states that we will not discuss OUTING diffs in public evidence.  FoF 6.2 relates to the evidence of OUTING, which per principle 13 will not be highlighted in the case. At no point was the matter in FoF 5.1 considered to be OUTING, although Will Beback's communication with Jimbo was called out in FoF 6.3, battleground conduct, as one of many venues in which Will Beback has sought sanctions against TimidGuy. Jclemens (talk) 05:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're saying 5.1 wasn't part of the conduct finding against WB, then that clarification is helpful, thanks. 6.2 seems to say that WB is found to have outed or harassed someone in two places: a)  in private evidence, and b) in public material.  I'm fine with there being no diffs for the "public" part.  I'm concerned by the apparent finding that submitting private evidence is outing.  If 6.2 actually meant something different than that, that helps too--different wording might have been clearer.  The overall effect of this decision (in conjunction with some past ones) still seems to me to be bad for the project, but that's too complicated to go into here. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You are right; the wording of the note at the end of FoF 6.2 should be clearer.
 * Submitting evidence in private to arbcom and functionaries is what everyone expects/hopes the community will do. However the submitter needs to accept that Arbcom is going to take its time to consider the evidence, and they may decide the private evidence is complete hogwash.  Arbcom doesn't penalise people for merely privately submitting hogwash to functionaries/arbcom/etc.  Arbcom does get a bit peeved when the hogwash is shopped around in search of an admin/functionary who will act on the evidence without spotting that it is merely well researched and polished hogwash designed to get past their bullshit detectors.  Anyway, ... The parathesised part at the end of FoF 6.2 is there instead of providing diffs.  It means that Arbcom has public evidence (diffs) and private evidence (not Will's emails to Jimmy/Arbcom), but we're not going to put diffs at the end of this FoF, as that would cause more eyes to see the diffs and further harassment is likely to occur.  The evidence for this FoF was distributed to all parties via email so that the parties could provide feedback to the arbitrators, hopefully giving arbitrators a better understanding of the situations that caused the diffs.  This also means that, now that the case is closed, Will and Jimbo and TimidGuy are the three people who are able to give an opinion regarding the evidence that underpins this FoF, provided that they dont out anyone in their public comments. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WHS. Rather than saying "(Private evidence and public material)" it would have been clearer as "(Diffs provided and discussed off-wiki)". Apologies for any confusion. I'll change the annotation to the FOF.   Roger Davies  talk 15:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Kudos to ArbCom for having the cojones to reverse a bad ban by Jimbo. That took some guts, though I see you didn't go as far as a formal admonishment, heh. --Elonka 03:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, all other issues aside, this aspect of the case is also a watershed in Wikipedia's history. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Me three. I had wondered if they'd actually do it. It definitely goes into my thinking about ArbCom. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 05:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt that some discussion with Jimbo took place at some stage. It would be silly to criticize him in a decision if the discussion was satisfactory; no doubt it was.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Eh. Volunteer Marek 04:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I decided in reaction, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. It's not full justice. But it is some justice. And it's a measure, for better or worse, that we seriously should praise that outcome over the alternative of no justice. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 05:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The majority did a remarkably good job this time. The dissenters less so, though perhaps they are justified by private evidence I have not seen.  I will confess to finding the stance that Will was improving his conduct questionable in view of his very recent actions towards JoJo and PumpkinSky.  And the fact that Will does not seem to get that this sort of thing is wrong ... given his lengthy track record I certainly hope that ArbCom will allow public comment when and if any ban appeal request is made.  This should not be handled completely privately.  Will's victims are real people.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Clear as mud
I'm well aware that I'm dumber than the average bear, but the implications of this case are about as clear as mud to me. That may be because I didn't follow the case at all (only read it for the first time a few days ago), or because of not being privy to the private correspondence. I would appreciate it if arbs familiar with multiple old cases I was involved in would clarify some things, because these findings make me afraid to send anything to anyone ever again in e-mail, and I wonder if that was intended?
 * 1) I submitted private evidence on the Zeraeph case.  That evidence showed how Zeraeph herself had put out information that connected her Wikipedia name to her real-life identity, and led to evidence of her off-Wiki attempts to disrupt Wikipedia and harass, well, me.  Are we still allowed to submit such evidence to arbs in private?  What are the limitations on what we can submit, and without divulging private stuff, can someone clearly explain what WillBeback did wrong?
 * 2) In the Mattisse socking, I also submitted private evidence to arbs.  Same questions.
 * 3) In a recent case, I queried an arb via e-mail about findings in a case that were not reflected on our editing restrictions page, and I emailed another arb questions about that same case.  Neither have responded.  How am I to interpret the lack of response?  Per this case, and some other ... ummmm ... heckling that I incurred when the Rlevse/PumpkinSky situation came up, I'm beginning to wonder if we are now disallowed from even asking these kinds of questions privately.  Clarification would be nice, privately if warranted.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ One down, two to go, sortof. Still don't get it, but whatever. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No no no, it was only because WBB submitted evidence publicly which should have been submitted privately (unless I am completely misreading something myself...). Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to be more clear: this referred to on-wiki claims along the lines that such-and-such editor had intimate knowledge of the accommodation and meals of such-and-such guru years ago, which were made without diffs, so it wasn't clear whether that info had been previously released on Wikipedia or had been "accidentally discovered" elsewhere? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Wait, now I'm confused. What exactly was the public part of Will's evidence? The fact that Will emailed two administrators in addition to ArbCom/Jimmy? Or something that he posted on-wiki? NW ( Talk ) 19:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

(od) In a nutshell, WBB went wrong by dwelling on-wiki on real life identities/affiliations. He used real life information to repeatedly harass people on-wiki; to repeatedly engage in personal attacks and/or battleground conduct; and, very likely, to further his position in content disputes. This is all in the public evidence. The FOFs don't rely on any private evidence and, with the exception of one FOF, include diffs. As far as I'm aware, the Committee has never sanctioned anyone for sending material to it in confidence via email and is unlikely to ever do so in the future. There was considerable disquiet on the case pages about WBB circulating material about real life identities by email to non-functionaries. Whatever the ethical position, this is not prohibited by policy so there was no finding about it. Roger Davies talk 20:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Roger; that provides better context for understanding the findings. So, if I am understanding you correctly, we need to read the findings as follows:
 * In Principle 7, it's the "repeatedly" that created the problem?
 * In Principle 13, "credible" is in the eyes of the beholder, but are the key issues the "unnecessary spread" and "public reposting"?
 * In FoF 3.2, is the problem that because TimidGuy had already disclosed his COI, WillBeback hounded him on the basis of personal info that TimidGuy had disclosed, taking it further to investigate his identity rather than focusing on his edits? If that's the situation, then I think I get it now-- that makes FOF 6.1 and 6.2 more understandable.
 * If my understanding is now correct, I think that answers my remaining questions 1 and 2 above. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's about right ;)  Roger Davies  talk 22:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * In addition, the ArbCom thinks that the information WBB sent to Jimbo, which resulted in the origianl bannig of Timid, is "unsupported" and "inaccurate" per wording. The most damning part is that WBB "misled Jimbo into a ban not supported by the totality of the evidence" (i.e. perjury, per wording of an arbitrator, in proposed decision page). SYSS Mouse (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a part I don't understand, because if WBB sent inaccurate info, it was up to Jimbo to figure that out. We all can make mistakes.  I hope we're not all banned if we do so privately and then someone higher up the food chain acts on it.  That was exactly part of my concern.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Then the question becomes whether WBB sent such info wilfully. Apparently the Arbcom thinks so. SYSS Mouse (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, while we are not likely to get full satisfaction, I think ArbCom is making it clear if felt there was intent to deceive, not just a jump to an incorrect conclusion. I think Will genuinely believes his position, so it amounts to structuring the communication to get Jimbo to jump to a conclusion that the evidence could not dispassionately be read to support.  It's like a prosecutor trying to get the jury to do through emotion and tricks what the evidence won't support.  The prosecutor still believes in the guilt, but he's still flagged for running out of bounds.  Having mixed too many metaphors, I shall leave it at that.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Will Beback's Userpage
It's good to see Arbcom continuing to dismantle the old system, but while you're at it, maybe treat the guy nicely as you shoo him out the door? That "indefblocked by arbcom" template is, well, nasty. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk 00:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The new threads at WT:BAN may be of interest. 28bytes (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

User pages
In one recent case where an editor was banned, an ArbCom clerk protected the editor's page at the version prior to the ban (e.g. no "banned" template). In another case, an ArbCom clerk replaced the editor's page with the "banned" template, which is being edit-warred over as I type this. Is the choice as to what to do with user pages left to individual clerks, or are clerks privately instructed by ArbCom on a case-by-case basis what to do with them? 28bytes (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I received no instructions, privately or publicly, to place the notice, though I did so in accordance with a policy that states "may be replaced". --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. The "may be replaced" language opens up some questions: namely, at whose discretion? Is it something the case clerks have jurisdiction over (which is fine with me, if that's the case), or the discretion of the community? Depending on the answer to that I may want to propose a clarification to the language on WT:BAN, to avoid future confusion and edit wars. 28bytes (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You could justifiably argue that I placed the notice in my capacity as an arbitration clerk closing the case, and/or as an administrator enforcing an arbitration committee decision. Either way, edit warring over it is fairly unwise. I agree that clarification at WT:BAN would be the best way forward. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Or you could say that since ArbCom didn't require it, you are just acting as yourself. I see no remedy blanking WBB's user page.  I would say that the present arrangement, with the ban notice but also displaying Will's considerable achievements, is appropriate.  Let it be.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) I'd agree with Wehwalt here. I see no real harm in having the ban notice along with his past achievements. He's banned, but that's no reason to try and shame him. Being banned is shame enough. Steven   Zhang  DR goes to Wikimania!  19:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've asked AGK on his talk page to clarify whether his re-blanking it was an "official" action. It's hard to tell from where I sit whether it's just a "regular" edit war or an arbitration remedy being reverted. 28bytes (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * @Wehwalt: I am not quite sure if the 'let it be' is directed at me personally; all I have done is replace Will Beback's userpage per policy. I have not been involved, nor do I intend getting involved, in the reinstatement or removal of the previous content: this is precisely what I meant by "edit warring over it is fairly unwise", to which I nearly added "pointless". --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * @AD: Wehwalt can correct me if I'm mistaken but I believe the "let it be" was meant generally. I'd like to add that I have no problem with your initial blanking; it was reasonable and certainly within policy. I'm primarily interested in better understanding the process and procedures. 28bytes (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The reversion was my own view as an editor. To be clear, the issue at the source of my reversion is not whether the userpage should be preserved underneath the banned notice. My objection is to the import of a gallery of barnstars onto Will's userpage; his previous userpage had no barnstars. The issue of whether we should be creating shrines for banned users is entirely separate from the retention of the most recent userpage (with which I actually have no objection). At no point did I look to shame or embarrass Will Beback. AGK  [•] 20:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The "shrine" may have been an overreaction, his previous user page had a link to his barnstars, it didn't/doesn't seem right to wash all that away with a wave of a "blanking" wand. If the previous user page was restored with a ban notice at the top, I would be ok with that too (and then protect the page). -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 20:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * @AGK: Thanks, I appreciate the clarification. 28bytes (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * comment (with no reflection on any current actions). While I think that the AC dealt with the situation well, I did want to comment on those tags.  I've always thought that all those tags (banned, sock, blocked, etc) seemed rather ... ummmm ... grade school-ish, rather than "professional".  Like little stickers place on someone's forehead "Little Johnny was bad today".  I often wondered why a simple statement placed at the top of the users page wasn't more often used.  Something along the lines of:
 * This user is not currently active in the project (link) .. and the link being directed to an SPI case, AC decision, community consensus discussion .. whatever. I wonder if I'm the only one that has had that thought.  — Ched :  ?  19:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me. I find the rush to salt the ground where a banned or blocked editor once worked distressing.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not a big fan of the giant Stop x nuvola.svg on those notices, to be honest. The X implies I am not allowed to do something. It would be better to change it to Imbox notice.png, since it really is just informational to other editors. The banned editors know they're banned, they don't need a red X to tell them. 28bytes (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to 28bytes for notifying me of this discussion, but just to be clear, there is not currently an edit war going on at that page. I placed some info, it was removed, and I reverted. That's all. Although certainly escalation is possible if someone wanted to keep erasing my posts without justification. From the policy, "An 'edit war' occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions". That has not happened. Also, obviously, I agree with Wehwalt on this issue. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 19:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Such an interpretation of "may be banned" seems unduly narrow to me. All community- and ArbCom-banned users since, basically, Wikipedia's inception have had their userpages replaced with a 'banned' template, and it's only very recently that there has been an odd tendency to contest the issue. Policy documents practice, and it seems to me that the policy is simply outdated. However, more broadly, reverting over this type of thing is a complete waste of time, and achieves very little. To resolve the ambiguity, 28bytes' suggestion of pursuing a clarification at WT:BAN would be effective. AGK  [•] 19:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, I did not touch the ban notification, I did not alter it, nor did I move it from its prominent location at the top of the page. I merely added more info beneath it, after searching and not finding, any policy that would prevent me from doing so. I think the above discussion about whether or not a ban notification should or should not be used might be a bit of a red herring. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 19:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at WT:BAN. 28bytes (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * At the most the old userpage could be retained. I highly dislike the shrine that has been put up by other users on 's userpage. I especially dislike the "But before being crushed under the Wikipedia wheel of "justice"..." that was added by . To my knowledge, Will never said that quote and it looks like words are being put into his mouth. (For a similar case look at where the plain black card was kept) -- Guerillero  &#124;  My Talk  20:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It was placed on his page after he was banned, and was not intended to sound like it was him, I have no problem adding an attribution to myself, or if somehow still found offensive, striking that line entirely. I went to revert back to the old user page (as suggested here, AGK's talk page, and other places), but have found the page to be protected now (ironically). -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 20:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would let those who wish to honor WBB on his user page to do so. Within reasonable limits, what is the harm in it?  And I don't find "well, we've always done it this way" a sufficient answer, like Maelefique.  If it makes them feel better, so what?  Let them feel better.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Arbcom is folks trying to do their job properly. Have the first line of text of the user page insult that by calling their work  "...before being crushed under the Wikipedia wheel of "justice" "  complete with quote marks around "justice" does not seem very appropriate, nor helpful to Will should he seek to return after 6 months. North8000 (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Would someone please remove the "crushed" line, at least? Nobody Ent 22:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  23:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Removing the mocking comment was proper. The editor who added it should be admonished per policy. My76Strat (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Let it go. It wasn't intended to mock, and it is a relatively harmless expression of feeling.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Nobody Ent 00:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Something to keep in mind is if an editor's account might link in any way to their real name, and I believe Will Beback's original account may have used his real name, then it may not be a good idea to place anything pejorative on the person's user page as it could cause them trouble in real life. I guess it could be argued that if this was the case, Will Beback would have emailed ArbCom and expressed this concern, but it could also be that this hasn't occurred to him.  Cla68 (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a very odd argument. I'm not sure we would honour such a request unless there was a compelling, real-life reason. If you edit Wikipedia under your own name, you acknowledge and accept that there are certain risks to doing so. If you edit under your real-name in so disruptive a way as to be banned, and you had no problem with the preceding disruptive behaviour reflecting badly on your real-name, then you could not reasonably take issue with a banned template. AGK  [•] 12:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it's not odd at all. Wikipedians might well be able to understand the significance, or lack thereof, of the banned template. Outsiders however, who may well find the user's page at the top of a Google search, may have no such understanding. The consequences in real life could well be severe, and out of all proportion to whatever led to being banned. Kevin (talk) 06:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If we're going to keep these sorts of templates, then perhaps  should be added to them in order to decrease the possibility of real-life consequences. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, pages with the template on them are already not indexed by Google. Perhaps we should use a smaller, less intrusive template (i.e. a template that resembles the protection templates that display a lock), although it might be better if the template were to be done away with altogether. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with those who prefer no template at all. The user's sanction is posted on his talk page, and the block is applied. That is all that is required. Applying a scarlet letter is unnecessary in almost every case; it certainly does not need to be done on the userpage. Risker (talk) 07:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee appointments (2012)

 * Original announcement


 * In this round, we've closely mirrored last year's appointments by appointing three candidates and one alternate. – xeno talk 17:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think last year sadly proved that real life sometimes throws "unforeseeable circumstances" in front of us, so appointing a back-up member seems very sensible. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Congratulations to the new members! I wish you the best of luck in executing the duties of your office (and maybe some fellow functionaries in the process).  MBisanz  talk 20:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, we got rid of capital punishment for functionaries last year. We WERE able to retain corporal punishment however.. (this is humor. We don't really flog functionaries.. well.. often) SirFozzie (talk) 03:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So, where do I leave the bribe? I can't have my oversight being oversighted by a wheel that is not properly greased... Beeblebrox (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey Matt, weren't you an alternate already at least once? Seems like they should just make you a regular member... Nathan  T 23:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * MBisanz was appointed a Steward during the appointments process. I don't think it will come as a surprise that we decided he, of the four best-qualified candidates, was the best choice to sit in reserve. AGK  [•] 17:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

 * Original accouncement


 * Thanks for the clarification, this should help avoid further misunderstandings about this. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Motion: To rename Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley

 * Original announcement


 * Unlike Digwuren, this one can be renamed accordingly ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 09:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Done  Mlpearc  ( powwow ) 16:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Motion: To rename Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Digwuren

 * Original announcement


 * No need; just like Roe v. Wade doesn't need renaming in US legal history - we understand it as it's been used so much ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 09:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to confess, when I first started editing, I spent months trying to work out what "DIGWUREN" was an acronym for :) It never occured to me that it was a username. As for the rest, the recent trend has been away from using usernames anyway. Where the case creates a broad sweep affected by discretionary sanctions, like WP:ARBPIA I think a name reflecting the scope is more helpful.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ditto.  Roger Davies  talk 12:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

How about we ask Digwuren whether it bothers him or not? This might all be academic if he doesn't care, and if he does care then we can try to do something about it. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 12:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this not done ?  Mlpearc  ( powwow ) 17:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oops, I thought we were talking hypotheticals. :-) --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation closed

 * Original announcement

I hope that the resolution "parties are encouraged to establish consensus on the talk page first, and then make the changes" will not be interpreted in the future as "ArbCom unilaterally revoked the policy on editing policies and guidelines". Bold editing has always been permitted (although it's IMO not usually the best choice for most kinds of changes). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I will be the first to say, and I think my colleagues will agree, that there was not much we could do to resolve the underlying policy dispute (at least without resort to draconian remedies). Although we tinkered at the edges, with a couple of conduct rulings and some principles about the nuances of policy, no substantive remedy emerged; I therefore hope that some uninvolved contributors will weigh in on this dispute in future, so that the disputants are not quite so insulated. AGK  [•] 01:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Bold editing really ought not to apply to policy pages. "Policy" that does not reflect demonstrated consensus is not policy at all. Looie496 (talk) 02:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Right. Boldness in policy should be really limited to changing minor wording bits that don't affect meaning, or tidying things up to reflect an updated consensus elsewhere, or the like. As Wikipedia policies mature, BOLD changes to their substance will almost invariably be reverted, which tends to make me think that BRD is declining in usefulness as a policy editing tool. Jclemens (talk) 03:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist and Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

 * Original announcement

Desysopping of User:Centrx

 * Original announcement

Noting for the record that User:Centrx has also been blocked. Thanks Arbcom. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I presume that this is because the account appears to be compromised? - it might be better to just state this as part of notifications. Anyway, good work removing the permissions so quickly. Nick-D (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems like Centrx started a thread a few days ago on Talk:Main Page, got no response, implemented his changes, was reverted, and then... calmly discussed the issue on his talk page and elsewhere? We call this BRD. Some of the editing is a bit bizarre, but honestly no more bizarre than what we usually see here on a Saturday night.

LEVEL I! CODE BLUE! GOGOGO! --MZMcBride (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * No, MZ. I would have thought it apparent that our decision was not based wholly on what Centrx said or did on-site. AGK  [•] 23:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * While MZ's criticism of arbcom is as random as ever, the reason for arbcom's decision is not apparent at all. Sure, if you follow the noticeboards you get an idea what might have happened, but it would be nice if arbcom would provide an explanation or two in their announcements. :) An outsider reading this will have no clue what just happened. --Conti|✉ 09:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * On all other nights, Geni indefinitely blocking an administrator for a single edit (that had previous discussion) would be seen as completely reckless and inappropriate. Why on this night does everyone seem to suggest it was the most appropriate course of action?
 * Maybe there are a mountain of secret edits and actions that I'm missing, but having looked at Special:Contributions/Centrx a few times and then having examined the behavior of everyone else around him, it seems like a complete overreaction at nearly every level. The fact that the Arbitration Committee has instituted removal of admin rights based on the say-so of three of its members is rather frightening when you look at a case like this. Under the guise of claiming an account is compromised, any administrator can have their rights summarily stripped at any time for any reason. --MZMcBride (talk) 12:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, lets unpick that statement slightly. Centrx suggested making a completely bizarre edit to the Main Page, got no response, made the bizarre edit to the mainpage, blanked his talkpage, burbled rubbish on Talk:Main Page on ANI, on his talkpage, and in emails, and created another account to talk to himself after he was blocked. What the hell else are we supposed to do at this point? No-one knows if he's gone rogue, if he's on a bender, if his brother/roomie/dog has 'borrowed' his account, or if he's having a psychotic break. Someone with some medical knowledge even contacted the WMF emergency email because they said he sounded like he had a head injury. Locking the account and waiting for an explanation was the only reasonable thing to do.  Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Lots of compromised accounts start talk page discussions first and then wait a few days. It throws off the suspicion, see. And then there were completely irrational posts by Centrx such as this one. If you look into this situation, the questions Centrx was asking are much more logical and rational than the actions by other users.
 * The "emergency procedures" were and are stupid and silly. It isn't as though there's some kind of statue of limitation on them being a bad idea. There were a bad idea when implemented; they're still a bad idea now. Leave judging compromised accounts and "emergencies" to the stewards. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * McBride, I suspect if it were compromised then someone could have really gone to town, but the edits seem somewhat aimless really. Which compromised accounts have done the above that you've been aware of? Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So the account wasn't compromised? It can surely be unblocked now, then? And there are no "emergency procedures" to invoke, right? Centrx's block log and the surrounding discussion doesn't seem to match what you're saying, Casliber. Something is off here. --MZMcBride (talk) 12:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would anyone want to unblock it before Centrx reappears and offers an explanation for the bizarre behaviour outlined above. This is a project to create an encyclopaedia, not a social club, so we kind of owe it to everyone else to at least try to establish whether this was a one off or something that might reoccur. The project actually has two sets of emergency procedures. In a real 'he's given his password to /4chan/' style emergency, any admin can block and any bureaucrat or steward can flip the bit. This wasn't that bad, so this was a Level I desysop, required 3 Arbitrators to certify to a steward. It is temporary, so if it turns out he had a bang on the head or a reaction to prescription drugs or something, then it can all be undone. If, as Secret says below, it turns out to be something different, then that'll have to be dealt with. But we can't really do anything until he gets back in contact and says something other than word salad. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Knowing from desysopped experience, it is possible that it is a cry for help, like what I did after I wasn't properly in the right mind, but I would never edited or deleted the main page. But looking at his edits it seems like it's more of a compromised account. If anyone had an head injury or a stroke they wouldn't be online. I knew Centrx for years in wiki and IRC and his attitude is more blunt if anything and sometimes discouraged from the Wiki process. I would see him do the main page edit, but not the aftermath as it's not his personality. It's bizarre to say the least. Secret account 01:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We welcome input from those who know Centrx too, as I'd never come across him before. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah. If you know anyone who knows him in RL, ask them to get in contact if they know anything. I keep hoping this whole think is down to his kid brother coming to stay for a few days and hacking his computer, but as of the moment, I have no idea. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I find this thread to be dismaying. Not because it contains criticism of the Arbitration Committee&mdash;gosh knows there is enough of that around, and often enough the criticism is justified, or at least reasonable. On the other hand, the assumption of good faith that we talk about so much in the case of new editors and editors who become involved in disputes, could usefully be applied at times to the volunteers who serve on the Committee as well.

Those who followed this situation, or took the time to retrace what happened, would have seen that after Centrx made some odd edits, an arbitrator (AGK) posted on his page asking him to get in touch with the Committee and stating that we were not going to implement an emergency desysopping until we heard from him. Then some time goes by, and a message is posted with such a desysopping. It would be reasonable, and quite correct, to infer that in the interim, he had responded to our e-mail, and the response raised rather than lowered the arbitrators' level of concern.

There are times when it is not desirable to dwell on the specifics of certain types of situations on-wiki, and this was one of those times. I regret that in this thread, more detail has now been posted on-wiki than might have been desirable or appropriate if our action and our judgment in this case had not been impugned as "rather frightening" and "a complete overreaction" and based on a procedure that is "stupid and silly." On this noticeboard as on every other, outlandish and exaggerated rhetoric should be avoided, most especially in this type of incident.

In the event that this is not a compromised-account situation, I share my colleagues' concerns expressed here and elsewhere for Centrx's well-being and I urge anyone who knows him offline to please get in touch with us via e-mail. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

So an account with admin tools starts behaving erratically and is unresponsive for whatever reason (compromised, actual owner is doing that etc.) The obvious decision is to at least temporarily take the tools away. Can be restored if/when the situation changes / gets explained. I can hardly imagine questioning that obvious and reversible decision much less calling it nasty things. North8000 (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm ... commenting as an observer of some of the problems of wikipolitics, Newyorkbrad, I'd say the point was not so much that the Arbitration Committee members weren't acting in good faith, but more at the problems of groupthink. That is, it's completely possible for a small group of people to act in good faith, but to all make the same mistake, because one person misreads a situation and then the subsequent group members are influenced by that mistake and their trust in the first person. I should hasten to add that my quick reading is against that having happened in this case. But it's not per se an unreasonable thought, if someone reads the events differently. I suspect it comes down to the difference between something like "The account was acting irrationally from previous behavior" versus "The account was not acting as irrationally as the most irrational editor (or even administrator) in good standing". These statements can both be true. But I'd say the former justifies a temporary desysop even if the latter is accurate. My sympathies to the reasonable members of the Arbitration Committee here. Sadly, though, there have historically been enough ill-considered actions by powerful Wikipedia administrators that a certain skepticism is rational (but once more, not necessarily correct on these specific facts). -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 05:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Brad, in regards to "There are times when it is not desirable to dwell on the specifics of certain types of situations on-wiki", I think that it would be helpful to post something more than a cryptic "Pursuant to WP:AC/P#Removal of permissions "Level I procedures"" when an action like this is taken, especially as posting "as the account may be compromised" or similar basically amounts to the same thing but is in plain language (which in turn probably would contribute towards reducing the amount of attention unusual events like this receive). I was able to figure out what had happened from looking at the discussions 'Centrx' had been involved with prior to the block without too much difficulty, and as I noted, I think that it showed that ArbCom handled this well. Nick-D (talk) 08:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Nick here, I read the notice and for someone who may not have the time to look into why a user was desysoped, I think it's fair to ask for more than a 'per x procedural policy' which has x number of reasons that this could have happened. If it's private evidence, then say "per private evidence". It's a basic level of transparency that I think is reasonable to be asking for. I'm look at the above only because I only have time to do so, and my summary of what I'm finding is that the desysop was done on suspicious editing, relating to a possible compromise. Has technical evidence been considered? (not that i'm asking for comment on what it is) I'm just saying that it's calling to me as "this is interesting, a desysop 'per procedure' with no real reason at all, except what's in the backend". It's not that I don't trust said members who went for the desysop, but I think we don't need to beat around the bush to get an answer on the simple reason. I'm not even sure I've got it right with the roundabout statements above about considering x situation. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  13:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point. I suppose there's always an assumption that everyone knows everything, and because this was all over ANI, everyone saw it. Also, it's the sort of thing that might turn out to be something really personal, so there's a natural desire not to stir up idle gossip, particularly as none of us know anything. I did do a check - AGK did as well I think. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Elen, might come as a shock to you, but I don't stalk AN or ANI (though I do look at AN every once in a while to see whats up), and the last time I looked at either page was quite a while back. Though I do understand the comment on personal, again, a few words, even if the jist is 'we need to keep it on the DL', then i'm fine with that. -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  03:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Seth, the committee's size is a balancing attempt between preventing groupthink--which I would say it does at its current size--and having too many voices as to be unworkable. The committee does often ask other functionaries (identified to the foundation) for their opinion on private evidence when we know them to have specific familiarity with a question of evidence before us privately. Jclemens (talk) 03:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Good to hear that. There's sort of a logical paradox, in the same way that outsiders never see the successful cover-ups (figure of speech, not an accusation), they also don't see the mistakes avoided by best-practices. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Which part of these procedures fit this situation? From what has been posted, the account was not demonstrably compromised. The account also only made one edit to the Main Page following a brief period of discussion on Talk:Main Page. I'm lost. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Read the preceding threads and quit trying to split hairs. We are trying to ascertain what is going on. can you understand/see that there may be a requirement for some discreetness here? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you all blocked him and locked him out of his talk page after removing his rights. You'll forgive me for not trusting your word, particularly when you all are specifically stating one thing on-wiki and then acting in a contrary way. I don't believe the account was compromised in any normal sense of the word. Could you manipulate the word to fit? Yes, of course.
 * ArbCom was never granted carte blanche to remove admins whose behavior they simply didn't like. From my subsequent reading on the matter, four stewards evaluated the situation and found no reason to remove his rights. Maybe his e-mails were so scandalous that you all felt it had to be done, but I'm not sure under what authority (pseudo-self request?). As much as it'll annoy Newyorkbrad for me to say so again, I believe these emergency procedures are complete nonsense, but you all could at least have the decency to follow them as written. Or rewrite them, which I'll probably end up doing in the coming days. Unless of course you think that bit of text truly applies, which was my original question. Based on your reply, I think I have the answer ("splitting hairs"? really?). --MZMcBride (talk) 03:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ArbCom hardly needs me (!) to defend it, but I think the worst one could reasonably say is that this could give an appearance of a situation where pre-emptive defensive action was taken before actual danger was unquestionably established. I don't think "simply didn't like" is an accurate characterization, as that makes it sound political or some sort of grudge (e.g., I believe I'll never be treated fairly in wiki-justice because too many people "simply don't like" me, by which I would mean a political or grudge sense - but that doesn't seem to be applicable to Centrx here). You do have a formal policy point, in that it would be good to have something about "diminished capacity", comparable to the way various authorities can be "relieved of duty" if they seem to be acting with impaired judgment (drunk/stoned/overstressed etc.). But this case doesn't seem to have any aspect of excuse or pretext to it (unless the politics is much more convoluted than I know - always a possibility, but not apparent in what I see). -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 13:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I would say this could reasonably fit under "compromised". While the IP address might be the same, I'd grant reasonable doubt that the person behind the account right now is the administrator. Checkuser is just one piece of evidence - e.g. it wouldn't detect a roommate or friend or relative using the same machine. I suppose the formal issue is the wikilegal standard to be used in evaluation - is it "reasonable suspicion", "preponderance of the evidence", or "beyond a shadow of a doubt"? Maybe there needs to be an "incapacity" clause added. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You'll have to forgive me, but your comment reads as though you didn't look at Special:Contributions/Centrx. If you had, I can't imagine how you'd be theorizing the way you are. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You're forgiven, but I did look earlier. Look at the 500 contribution view. Scroll down. See the pattern of contributions in 2011, lots of little tasks on differing pages? When the account comes back in April 2012, it doesn't do one other task, but is immediately interested in the main page . That strongly indicates to me that something is amiss. Not all account compromises are of the l33t d00d type. The editor certainly doesn't behave like the person using the account in 2011 - do you disagree? Again, this is not the same as if the editor behaves better than the existing worst but unblocked editor (damning with faint praise indeed!) -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 05:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Contacting ArbCom
A fellow Wikipedian, one of our administrators, advised me through email to contact the committee about seeing to it that the circumstances surrounding my case do not happen again. He suggested things I can do to combat it, which would need to involve ArbCom. I felt that it's best I ask the question here first instead of wasting my or the committee's time. Is this something that is in line with the committee's functions? Flyer22 (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I suppose. Flyer22 (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggested that you post your question to WT:AC, not that you post the same message to this Noticeboard. No editor requires permission to ask a question. Please just ask it :-). AGK  [•] 21:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I misread. But I'd already posted the question there. Should I have been more elaborate? I'll ask there. Flyer22 (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466

 * Original announcement

Moved by clerk Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 05:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC). Just an FYI. Have already asked Admins if this can be handled via the Arbitration Board, and got an "unfortunately, no" answer; nothing can be done. Nevertheless an item of CONCERN, in case the edit block is reconsidered. Cirt is banned on Wikipedia for political articles, but is circumventing the block (consensus seems, that yes, this is a loophole that isn't closed) by posting POV political material on the Wikimedia sister sites, namely, the Commons, Wiki....., and edit warring to keep it up. Of concern, as this material then shows up on Wikipedia, but not in a form that can be edited, the editing to NPOV has to occur semi-offsite. I know WP admins have no jurisdiction over these linked sites, and the WP ban does not carry over, but activity to circumvent should nevertheless INFORM Admins as to the commitment to change. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Ban appeal by User:Altenmann
has asked by email to be permitted to resume editing. Possible terms for the suspension of the ban would be: Enforcement: (i) Should the editor breach the topic ban restriction, he may be blocked by any administrator, initially for up to two months, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. (ii) Should the editor breach the account restriction, the ban may be fully restored at the discretion of any Checkuser. Appeals of blocks may be made to the blocking administrator, and thereafter to Arbitration Enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee. The community's comments supporting or opposing this editor's return to editing would be appreciated.
 * Topic banned from editing any page of Wikipedia relating to phobias, broadly construed;
 * Restricted to one account, namely User:Altenmann;
 * May re-apply for adminship at Requests for Adminship after one year has elapsed but must fully disclose their previous blocks, socks and desysop histories.

Altenmann has emailed a statement which follows this announcement. Altenmann has said he would be willing to provide further clarification to anyone who wishes to email him. His account is email enabled.

For the Ban Appeal Subcommittee,  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  12:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * NB: I've reopened Altenman's talk page, if people would like to pose questions, they should feel free. Courcelles 18:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Absent a significant uptake in this discussion, I think we will archive this discussion and refer the appeal back to BASC after seven days (so on 6 April 2012). Thank you to everyone who has given their view so far. AGK  [•] 12:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you mean 6 May, 2012.  Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 13:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, my mistake! AGK  [•] 14:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

First of all I would like to apologize for the disruption of wikipedia and for personal distress of editors I caused by my actions.
 * Statement by Altenmann

For quite some time I was aware of my progressing mental disorder which prevented me from correct judgement of my actions and from controlling my impulses. Eventually I convinced myself that I have to undergo a medical treatment. I even declared on April 4 2010 that I am retiring from wikipedia, and ironically during my rounding up of some "unfinished business" my abuse was exposed by a person whom I was actually trying to help (in a weird way, by playing with sockpuppets, I in fact succeded in convincing Estonian editors that the best way to fight accusations related to WWII history is to clamly request from accusers solid references, rather than engage in heated discussions in talk pages). This is one example of "rationalizations" that were spinning in my brain at the time.

As you may guess, my condition brought me even worse grievances in real life, so I submitted myself for a rather long treatment, and I believe that I am in control of myself now.

I have always had a good understanding of all wikipedia policies, guidelies and traditions, and I believe that now I am capable of judging correctly myself against these, as well as guide my actions in accordance with them.

One of my worse problems was to hold myself back from lashing out against perceived against myself or wikipedia. It is difficult for a sane person to understand how it possible to see clearly the disastrous consequence, yet to do something. I will spare you my sob stories and only say that talks with a shrink have really taught me how to deal with human communication issues. (I mean not just I was healed, but I have had an aple example of how to talk to a difficult or stressed person.) There is sometimes plenty of stress and impatience in wikipedia talk pages, and I believe I will no longer contribute to this.

Wikipedia is not an ideal world, however my observation was that it evolves towards a better society, and I would like to have a chance to contribute to its progress. If my editing rights will be restored, I would like to keep the account Altenmann, even though I am aware that my past history of awful reputation may serve me poorly. However I intend to edit in a way that I will never run into conflicts in which someone will be tempted to point fingers into my past. And I think this will be an extra safeguard against a chance of relapse in my behavior.

I would also like to add to the original appeal that in my understanding the most serious crime was not disregard of wikipedia policies and rules; my actions, regardless any rationalizations on my side and justifications that they were "for the benefit of the community", essentially violated the rights of other wikipedians as *individuals*, rather than members of community, collective, borg, or anything else friends or foes might call it. In my opinion, the most important social aspect of wikipedia is that all individuals are essentially equal regardless their expertise or hierarchy status. Of course, in practice this idea may be questioned, violated and undermined, and I am ashamed for failing to see and observe this basic principle.

Comments by the community
It is, as always, difficult when it comes to mental health issues and both the protection of the project weighed against protection and productivity of the individual. We cannot prove the level of illness, nor should we even ask for such proof - we must WP:AGF. We must also WP:AGF when it comes to determining if the editor is fully prepared to rejoin the community.
 * Comment by Bwilkins

The first two limitations are obvious at this point. The third almost is redundant - the odds of the editor passing an RFA are slim to none, even given AGF. The odds of an RFA potentially triggering issues that could lead to relapses are extremely high.

What I think the community needs is a good editor. What the community needs is a calm, rational editor - Only time will tell.

Re-blocks are cheap. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 13:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm a firm believer that everyone deserves a second chance. I'm glad that this editor has returned to the project after such a serious incident with a desire to contribute, and I welcome it.
 * Comment by Basalisk

However, I think it is important to bare in mind exactly what happened to initiate all this - Altenmann's was the most serious form of abuse possible on this project. For this reason I think the third point, though probably moot due to the unlikelihood of any future successful RfA, should be revised: I do not think it appropriate for Altenmann to ever run for adminship again. Basa lisk inspect damage ⁄berate  14:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by Fred Bauder

I think the ban should be lifted. Banning is for people who don't or can't change, not those who examine their behavior with professional help and do change. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments by Od Mishehu

I think that a second chance is something we should give willingly - once there is reason to believe that the user understands the error in his/her actions and is working to fix them. The user obviously shouldn't jump back to adminship - (s)he can prove that (s)he can be a well-behaved, calm user first and then we can see about adminship. I don't think a hard minimum time is desired here - although I doubt that the user could become an admin within a year of this. (I, personally, probably wouldn't support him even after a year, but I don't make the ultimate decision here) עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments by EdJohnston

Agree with lifting the ban. I have reviewed the Arbcom motion that led to the April 2010 sanctions against Altenmann. Also reviewed the contributions of two of his socks, User:Timurite and User:Dzied Bulbash. I notice some editing in Eastern Europe by all three of these accounts. At present I wouldn't see any need of an EE topic ban, and I favor letting Altenmann return to editing, with the three restrictions proposed at the top by Arbcom. If the unblock is granted, one assumes that Altenmann is not under any special protection of Arbcom and may be sanctioned if he gets in trouble like anyone else. In particular, any abuse of multiple accounts whatever should lead a renewal of the indef block. Altenmann's chances of regaining adminship seem sufficiently remote that leaving that possibility open to him is not a big issue either way. I suggest that Altenmann be allowed to edit his talk page so he can reply to questions during this review. EdJohnston (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments by Cyberpower678

Support lifting the ban This user has been a well established editor for years and an admin too. I am willing to accept his mental health statement and grant him a second chance. I am believer of second chances. I am even willing to support his adminship if he is well behaved in the next month or so. Even I went on a Wikibreak (initially was indefinite) because I realize that my judgement and my mental condition was off.— cyberpower Chat Temporarily Online 15:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments by WereSpielChequers

Agree with lifting the ban and also with the conditions (though the twelve month restriction from running an RFA is probably academic). Bans should be preventative, continuing this one at this time would only prevent the return of a useful editor. Welcome back.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  15:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments by Nanobear

The ban should be lifted. Altenmann was a valuable, intelligent contributor and a reliable, sensible admin. Then, something caused him to create socks and conduct strange edit wars in phobia-related articles. Everyone deserves a second chance, especially if one's behaviour has been negatively affected by mental health issues. If he now feels better and admits his mistakes, there's every reason to believe Altenmann would resume being the great editor he once was, and would no longer display the strange, disruptive behaviour that led to his ban. Nanobear (talk) 15:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by Tomtomn00

The ban should be removed from their account. They need another chance. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 15:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comments by Boing! said Zebedee
 * I see no reason to not AGF regarding Altenmann's mental health issues, and though Wikipedia is not therapy, allowing back a prolific content contributor should hopefully benefit both the encyclopedia and Altenmann, so I support readmission to the project.
 * Do not support a ban on specific topics, as it was general socking and abuse of admin rights that was the problem, across several topic areas. If the behavioral problems are solved, the specific topic areas should be moot.
 * Support a one-account restriction, and commend Altenmann for wanting to openly stick with this one.
 * 1-year RfA restriction is moot, because there is no chance of one succeeding before then (if ever), but support requirement for disclosure should there ever be another application.
 * Suggest provisional unblock to allow Altenmann to take part in this discussion, with prohibition on editing anywhere else.
 * Recommendation to Altenmann - put your own health and well-being first, because that's way more important than a few Wikipedia articles.

I'd like to at least get an explanation of this alleged hoax (see this) before any unban. Yes, the edit was almost seven years ago, but they were well after Altenmann (then known as Mikkalai) became an admin. T. Canens (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comments by TC
 * Tim, I don't think Altenmann made this up. See  That should show part of the bibliography of the Routledge History of the Holocaust By Jonathan C. Friedman, which lists Proester as a source. Unfortunately, I can't see the page it sources (p379) but it is possible that someone outside the UK may be able to.  It looks like Altenmann is not your hoaxer.... Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:09, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is p42 in another book edited by Ian Hancock -the author of the piece in the History of the Holacaust. This book's called "we are the Romani people", and cites Proester to support the assertion that Cliftonian removed from the articles about the murder of Gypsy children.
 * This one is from Confronting the Holocaust by G. Jan Colijn, published by University Press of America, and it cites both Proester and Novitch as sources for the information. We are being hoaxed alright, but definitely not by Altenmann. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I didn't really look into the details of the edits - encountered it by chance during a recent read of List of hoaxes on Wikipedia a couple days ago. T. Canens (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the hoaxer would appear to be the person who said that the source doesn't exist. Someone has been had here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Striking that comment, as I have no idea who, if anyone, might be the hoaxer. All we can say is that academics have cited that source to justify the content Altenmann added to the article. If other academics are now saying that the source does not exist, that's not something we can blame him for.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The information is available in a number of sources, including books published before Wikipedia was founded. See The Roads of the Roma, published in 1998. If this incident is a hoax, it is a long standing one that nobody has challenged until now. It's a shame that the Fighters Against Fascism museum no longer exists, but Emil Proester is a writer on the holocaust, so everything else fits.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  14:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Cliftonian's source apparently said that the information was not in Miriam Novitch's pamphlet, Le génocide des Tziganes sous le régime nazi - but it appears that it is. Whether the document turns out to be a hoax is rather beyond Wikipedia to ajudicate on (we'll have to wait for the WP:RS) - the initial report made it appear that Altenmann had falsified the reference, but this is definitely not the case. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Fred Bauder's comment sways me — I came in expecting to oppose, but Altenmann's explanation and Fred's point about professional help, taken together, convince me that rehabilitation is possible. I have two questions: (1) I don't remember encountering Altenmann before the ban was implemented, so I'm confused: why the proposed topic ban on phobias? (2) If Altenmann requests it, could we permit a second account for password security purposes? The userpage could be tagged with Public user and fully protected; that would prevent anyone from thinking that the two accounts were different people. Of course, this all depends on whether Altenmann would like an account for this purpose. Nyttend (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment by Nyttend

I, too, support a lifting of the ban. Although of course we are not here to engage in legal matters, it seems to me that this is a perfect example of an opportunity for us to live up to the principles of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mental illness is an illness, not a crime, and I would not want to be part of any community that failed to welcome recovery. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment by Tryptofish

Please lift the ban. This has the ring of truth, and I for one would like him to have another chance. For what it's worth I followed his account name changes and various troubles -- because he was someone I admired greatly in my own earliest days of editing (ca. 2004). He's been an incredibly prolific contributor, and likely to be a fine one again. I suspected something like this as the only possible explanation for what happened, and wish him health and healing. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment by Antandrus

Remove ban, Per Fred Bauder and others. Pumpkin Sky  talk  22:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment by PumpkinSky

Amongst all of the not-really-apologies and not-really-I-might-sort-of-change statements we see from people trying to come back, I have never seen such a gut-wrenchingly straightforward "I was wrong, I am sorry, I must change, and I think I have changed" statement from anyone. And this is only for being able to be an editor; future adminship looks unlikely. Risk level is very low. Support removing ban on a trial basis. North8000 (talk) 22:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment by North8000
 * "Trial basis" = Subject to the terms delineated at the top or something similar. North8000 (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Per North and Fred, I think that it is ok to give someone a second chance.-- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  23:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment by Guerillero

An admin who was desysopped for violating terms of previous ArbCom sanctions, votestacking in AFDs and then closing the AFDs in which he had vote stacked with his socks. Has anyone actually asked him what areas he plans to work in if he's allowed back? Sure, go ahead and unban him. I can use the LULZ. Night Ranger (talk) 03:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment by Night Ranger
 * I take it you're lucky enough never to have suffered a severe mental illness. Good for you. You might consider showing some understanding for someone who has. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am really surprised that he had mental problems. He always seemed to me as one of the smartest people in the project. Asking for help with "communist propagandist" editor User:Jacob Peters, only to revert articles to preferred versions by socks of Jacob Peters using his own socks (note edit summary)... Pretending to be a neutral editor who creates compromise versions , only to revert himself using one of his socks, Timurite, to a version he really wants ... At the very least, I would like to hear any reasonable explanation why did he create several alternative accounts in 2006-2008. My very best wishes (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it's a myth that intelligent people don't suffer from mental health problems. It affects far more people than you probably think Good source of further info. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that highly intelligent people are more, not less, likely to suffer from mental illness. KillerChihuahua ?!? 15:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Plus one to what Elen and KC said. I'd like to think that I'm highly intelligent, if I may say so myself. Perhaps more importantly, I'd also like to think that I'm a constructive, rather than disruptive, editor. And I'm also someone who has been diagnosed with a mental illness. In fact, I wasn't just speaking in theory when I mentioned the Americans with Disabilities Act above. I was discriminated against by a former employer (a large US university no less!) and won a large lawsuit on that basis. There is nothing shameful about having an illness, and I hope that the stigma of mental illness will go the way of other antiquated misperceptions. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Last time when I talked with psychiatrist, she said that editing in wikipedia is something she can not approve because this is a highly stressful occupation even for a healthy person.My very best wishes (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a frightening thought. I guess we have to close the project down now. Actually, I suspect that it depends upon the person. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Elen, he knows right from wrong. Alleged mental illness does not excuse his behavior, which was of the very worst kind. And why do we accept this claim of mental illness at face value from soneone who lied to and deceived the community repeatedly? I do not buy it. It would take a lot for me to accept that Mikkalai/Altenmann/etc. should be allowed back to edit (and I'd still like to know what areas he plans to work in if he's unbanned). Allowing even the remote possibility of running for adminship again strikes me as the height of absurdity. This isn't about me and my understanding of mental illness, it's about Mikkalai's trustworthiness. Night Ranger (talk) 04:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand the fact that bans and blocks are as easily placed as they are removed. If it's evident that Altenmann lied in our faces and started destroying Wikipedia again, we can always indeff him at the push of the button and never have to believe him again.— cyberpower  Chat Online 18:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. The sockpuppetry by this administrator (a simultaneous use of several accounts for edit warring and inappropriate deletion of articles) went unnoticed for four years, from 2006 to 2010. And it was a pure chance that it was discovered. I edited in this area during this time, looked at all these accounts, had some suspicions, but was unable to find a shred of evidence. Socks by User:Giovanni33 (see his arbitration case) were much more easy to detect. So, no, this is not easy, possibly because he is a professional in this area, according to his statement. My very best wishes (talk) 04:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say that if Altenmann is such an expert on sockpuppetry and was determined to resume sockpuppetry then he wouldn't have bothered to go through with this request for reconsideration of his ban. <b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#000000;">(talk) 04:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure he would. People do stuff like that all the time, it's a matter of pride. Some people go absolutely silly buggers at the fact they're blocked. Besides, his socking wasn't so much the common type with people playing games for laughs, or kids messing around to impress their friends, his kind required that he already have an established account for the socks to support. That's WAY worse than the dumb trolling most other socks do. And letting him back basically opens that whole can o worms all over again. Night Ranger (talk) 05:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You raise a good point that bothers me, and it goes along with Ched's comment below. For someone who claims that mental illness was such a strong factor in his actions, I get the impression that Altenmann's actions were carefully planned, to such a degree that I doubt that he would have successfully claimed an insanity defense if his actions were crimes and his case had been heard by a jury. I agree that he may still be a risk to the community. However I think that the increased risk to the community from unbanning this single account is low. I do want to see the conditions met that I proposed in my principle comment, and it looks like other editors propose similar conditions about disclosing all other socks. <b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#000000;">(talk) 21:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply to everyone in Night Ranger's comment: I see these as valid concerns but I still stand by the fact that if it is determined that at the slightest that he is using socks, it's as easy to block him as it is to push a button on a keyboard. Perhaps a Checkuser BotOp could consider making a check bot on Altenmann to prevent him from using socks.  Or some Checkuser could volunteer to check Altenmann every once in a while to make sure he isn't abusing accounts.— cyberpower  <sup style="color:olive; font-family:arnprior;">Chat <sub style="margin-left:-3.7ex; color:olive; font-family:arnprior;">Online 23:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd also support Cyberpower678's proposal about regular CU monitoring of Altenmann as a condition of his return. <b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#000000;">(talk) 00:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Normally I am very much in favor of allowing someone another chance - and in that respect, I will not outwardly oppose this. To be honest though, there's something here that makes me feel a bit uncomfortable. I'm not sure I can articulate it, but I suspect it goes towards what I consider a breech of trust in respect to administrative actions. It looks like this will pass quite easily, so I do wish the editor well and hope to see a successful and productive return. Hopefully I'll never have just cause to say "I knew it" (link). — Ched : ?  14:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment by Ched

Support second chance, with best wishes and hopes all goes well. KillerChihuahua ?!? 15:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment by KillerChihuahua


 * Comment by Vecrumba

I'm reminded of people I've known that when they've had too much to drink and have lost their inhibitions are either excessively happy, don't change at all, or get rude and nasty. And so, I don't know which Altenmann we experienced, the unrestrained Altenmann or the impaired Altenman. However, given that editors with no indications of mental illness who have attacked other editors in real life have been given second chances, I find myself in the position of advocating that we cannot be seen to discriminate against those whose behavior may genuinely have been adversely affected by illness. There are enough double standards on WP already. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by Pine

Generally I do not spend my time on Arbcom pages but I find myself wanting to comment because I find it commendable that this user is willing to stick with an account which has a bad looking block log instead of creating socks to enable his return. I support giving him the benefit of the doubt and letting him return as an editor. I am not sure that the topic ban is necessary but it may be in this user's best interest to stay out of pages where he previously had the most trouble. I would support his return with or without the topic ban, but I would create the additional condition that any other previous socks must be disclosed as a condition of letting him return. I support the condition that any further sockpuppeting will result in an immediate indef block, and would add the condition that failure to disclose any prior socks will also result in an indef block. I hope that he would agree to these conditions. <b style="color:#01796F;">Pine</b><sup style="color:#000000;">(talk) 08:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by My very best wishes

Oppose to his return. He had his second chance already. During his first arbitration case (deletion of phobia-related articles) he promised not to edit controversial subjects in his on-wiki statement, but he did just that using his alternative accounts. That was one of the reasons why he needed these accounts, but this is not all, because at least one of his accounts, Mukadderat was created much earlier, in 2006. Obviously, he did not do it just to deal with Estonian editors. None of these accounts was created on impulse, as he tells in his statement. All of them were carefully planned and very difficult to detect as I tried to explain above. ( I think that the system of his accounts was actually a collective account used (along with his administrative privileges) by several people ).
 * As a side note, I do not see any reason to make an editing restriction on the phobia-related articles. The immediate reason of the ban was his improper closure of Lenin's Hanging Order. He said that he created alternative accounts to teach Estonian editors a lesson. Main problem was actually edit-warring using multiple accounts in Russia/Soviet Union related articles, . If anything, this should be 1RR restriction on Eastern Europe-related articles. My very best wishes (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I accept Altenmann's assurance that ze has sought professional help and gotten over hir issues. I also echo Nyttend's concern about one alternate account for password security; perhaps this should be a standard condition of 'stick to one account' sanctions. ~ Crazytales  (talk)  15:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment by Crazytales


 * Comment by Peridon

The adminship issue can be dealt with if and when it arises. For now, I support giving another chance. This doesn't look like someone who set out to vandalise the encyclopaedia. Of course allow a properly listed alternate account if required (may not be: I manage without one). Peridon (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment by Jorgath

I don't believe I've ever interacted with Altenmann, but I understand fully where they're coming from. I would happily welcome them back under the proposed conditions (although per above, the topic ban might need to be Eastern Europe rather than phobias). I'm not sure I'd support Altenmann in a RFA even once that 1-year ban is up, but I'm not sure that I wouldn't, either. I also would like to hold Altenmann up as an example to any other editor who needs to cool off from Wikipedia - both as an example of how things can go wrong if you let them go on too long, and how things can go right even after you hit bottom. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 21:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I was the editor who initiated the checkuser which led to Altenmann's block.
 * Comment by Sander Säde

I fully support lifting the block and allowing him to resume editing. However, I think we should have some safeguards in place, both for Altenmann's and Wikipedia's sake - and I'm not sure in which form these should be. Topic bans from Eastern Europe and/or phobias, mentoring or something else - and also, like it was suggested, a checkuser to make sure there are no more alternate accounts.
 * -- Sander Säde 07:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you to every editor who gave a view here about the appeal. These comments are very helpful. We will consider the community's opinion and make a decision by the end of the week. Urgent, last-minute views may still be sent to our mailing list for consideration. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK  [•] 14:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Altenmann has been unbanned, but is subject to those conditions specified on his talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK  [•] 23:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request
On Template:Casenav please change "Decision posted" in second line section to "Proposed decision" to be consistent with T:AC Nobody Ent 12:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Review closed
Original announcement

So arbcom passed a remedy admonishing Mathsci for battlefield conduct without actually passing a finding of fact saying that he engaged in battlefield conduct. Heh. T. Canens (talk) 03:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Shit. Mea culpa, I thought I had voted on all the Mathsci findings of facts, but I seemingly missed the crucial one. I'm actually stumped at what the pricedural process is now... Courcelles 05:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably to vote on the FoF on the PD page now as the correction of a "slip". Then the FoF can be enacted and the Final Decision updated. I think that's the least bureaucratic route,  Roger Davies  talk 05:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am relieved that Roger Davies and other arbitrators have addressed and will further address the problem of proxy-editing. Mathsci (talk) 07:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC) duplicated and unnecessary comments refactored from here - apologies to Roger Davies and other arbitrators
 * Duplicatory. Please keep discussion centralised here.  Roger Davies  talk 08:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have replied there. Mathsci (talk) 09:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Quick question
Hello, just a quick question. It appears Risker gave the net fourth vote on closing the Rich Farmbrough case a bit of 24 hours ago. Could an arbitrator clarify whether it will be closed within the next, say, 12 hours? I'm asking so I know whether to list the RF case as closed for my Signpost article. Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 12:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably not, as it's a weekday and the clerks may not be immediately available to do it.  Roger Davies  talk 13:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * All right. Thanks! -- Lord Roem (talk) 13:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I might try to get to it today or tonight. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  17:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Policy on voting
How far back can arbiters change their vote? Do they need approval from the committee to make such a change? Where in the rules is the right to change ones vote after the close ensconced? Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 10:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to the above incident, there was no change of vote. Courcelles voted on the remedy along with a comment which showed his intent, and his understanding of the issue, but had forgotten to sign off the finding. The guideline for the Clerks is "If there are any ambiguities concerning which proposals have been adopted, the Clerk should identify them so the Arbitrators have an opportunity to clarify them before the decision is finalized and announced". Slips happen, and now that the matter has been identified appropriate action has been taken.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  11:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, so how far back can arbiters go back and realize they voted wrongly? I have a very specific vote in mind where an arbiter very specifically complained about how they would have voted differently in a circumstance, so I want to know if that complaint was before or after the deadline. Hipocrite (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know which case you have in mind but there's a very big difference between changing your mind and promptly correcting an error or omission. There isn't arbitration-specific policy on this but the ""Not" policy says "A procedural error made in a proposal or request is not grounds for rejecting that proposal or request".  Roger Davies  talk 12:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * How does the committee determine that something is "changing your mind and promptly correcting an error or omission," vs "changing your vote?" What is there to protect users from someone going back 3 years to change their vote on something? Can ex-arbs change their votes in closed cases? How about disgraced ex-arbs? Hipocrite (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It's OK to change one's mind about something - indeed, it can be a sign of reflection. I am quite comfortable with the notion that an arbiter makes a vote for an action and then changes it during a case. Indeed, I did it myself in the just closed Race & Intelligence case when more information was presented. When the case is closed then a vote itself cannot be changed, but the arbiter may later change their mind about making the vote, and is entitled to say so. For reasons of stability of the project, Committee decisions are binding, but that does not mean they are always right, nor that everyone in the Committee agrees with them, nor that a Committee member will not have regrets about voting for a particular remedy. A request for amendment can be made if a remedy appears to be inappropriate, though there is an expectation that - depending on the amendment request - a reasonable time is given to allow the effects of the remedy to be felt.   SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  14:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It appears to me that one can change their mind on something right up until the point a decision is made, and then you can't. Perhaps you disagree - as in this case, where you obviously disagree, in that you believe someone can change their vote after a decision was made, undoing the decision and reforming it in a different way. How long before a decision requires a "request for amendment," as opposed to just canvassing arbs that you think might change their vote after decision are made? Hipocrite (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not an arb, but I would compare this to the practice of judges correcting an opinion after issuing it but prior to publication with issuing an order amending the prior opinion. Either way works, but the correcting prior to publication works only so long as it hasn't been published. Translating that to the wiki-world, I would say that after the point the decision has been archived from WP:AC/N, it should require an amendment to change as it has been "published to the archive," while the notice page itself is a bit like a slip opinion.  MBisanz  talk 17:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It's OK for an arbiter to change their view, opinion, allegiance or religion, and they can express regret for decisions they have made, but they can't unilaterally go back to a closed case and change a vote. Outcomes of a closed case can only be changed by amendment when there is an open and accountable discussion voted on by the whole Committee. If there is an instance of an arbiter going back to a 3 year old closed case and changing their vote that would need to be pointed out as that would be an error.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  23:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It might be a good idea for the Committee to update its Rules & Procedures to clearly explain when an Arb may return to cast additional votes after a case has been closed. MastCell Talk 21:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I think when a case has been closed with "ambiguities concerning which proposals have been adopted", or a similar administrative error, then it would be appropriate to notify the Committee as soon as possible so the matter can be dealt with. Ideally a case should be checked thoroughly before closing, but mistakes do occur - such is life. I think that common sense tidying up of clear errors need not be inscribed, though the tidying up should be discussed and noted so everything is kept in the open.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  17:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Review

 * Original announcement


 * Thsnks to the arbitration committee, and particularly Roger Davies, for dealing with this so speedily. Mathsci (talk) 06:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

You know what we should do...
So if the problems with arbitration are the lack of professionalism built into the process itself, the paucity of suitable candidates to reduce the workload on the committee, and the failure of our intermediate processes to resolve disputes before they become intractable and hit ArbCom like an asteroidal extinction event... Then what we should do is raise some money, managed on behalf of the community by the WMF, to hire and pay dispute resolution professionals. We can get arbitrators and mediators both, pay them to develop a better process, and then keep them on either to advise or actually perform the process going forward. <strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan <strong style="color:#0033CC"> T 15:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nathan, that's by some margin the best suggestion I've ever seen from you, and one of the best from anybody on this site. Of course it doesn't have the slightest chance of ever being implemented, but that's something else, in fact it's the leading characteristic of all the best proposals for Wikipedia reform. Bishonen &#124; talk 16:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC).
 * +1 -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  05:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Changes evidence limits in arbitration cases

 * Original announcement


 * Looks sensible. Nick-D (talk) 08:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * While it is a step in the right direction, I think that parties against whom evidence/allegations are being made should have an opportunity to present evidence in response. This would be separate to the other evidence they would have wished to present - perhaps against other parties. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. I would say that anyone who is potentially facing a sanction has the right to a full and proper defence. Therefore I propose a modification that arbcom notify any editor whom they are considering taking sanctions against of that fact, and waive all submission length limits. Egg   Centri  c  15:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This, it seems to me, is a strong justification for making everyone who participates in a case a party to it as few participants are uninvolved and (if you unconditionally believe everything posted on the case talk pages) even fewer turn up with clean hands ;)  Roger Davies  talk 11:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There is little point in naming a party to a case unless AC find they did something wrong or they didn't do anything wrong which requires sanction. If they are not involved, or there is insufficient evidence to support a finding of fact or remedy, then I see little benefit to mentioning them as party except to encourage others to misuse the case. How often have party names been amended at the close of a case nowadays? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Clean hands is a principle in equity, as I understand it. If someone came to arbcom for some form of equitable relief a clean hands argument could be used to throw the case out.  However clean hands would be a principle informing decisions in true arbitration case, and irrelevant except perhaps in mitigation, in a criminal case.  This is the sort of reason that having this squishy "Arbcomn is a sort of arbitation/court/policeman" and not being sure whether we follow our procedures or just act like chums trying to resolve a difference is a disaster waiting to happen - or more stictly that has happened, possibly several times. Rich Farmbrough, 20:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC).


 * There's a real disparity here which has an obvious unfair effect. In one arbitration case last year, I think it was, an editor faced perhaps a dozen people, each of which used their 500 words - say, 6,000 words or so of accusations against him. He had 500 words with which to respond. That simply isn't equitable and it doesn't permit a proper defence. Changing the word limit on individual submissions will have no effect on this problem. Perhaps there should be a rule to facilitate an equitable defence, for instance if ten editors contribute 500 words each against an accused editor, that editor should have an equal aggregate word length - in this case 5,000 words - in which to respond. Prioryman (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps wording could be added to the effect of, "If a party needs more than 1,000 words to present their case, he/she should request an exception and provide a clear justification for why the exception should be granted." or something like that. Cla68 (talk) 23:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In instances where it's one editor vs about a dozen by the time a dispute reaches ArbCom, it's safe to say that that editor is probably not going to be able to explain away the concerns raised about their conduct no matter how many words they're allocated. That said, Cla68's suggestion is a good idea (and from what I've seen this is how ArbCom typically operates in these instances at the moment). Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Context matters, so editors should be able to explain that context sufficiently instead of limited by unnecessary bureaucracy. That they, by default (unless requesting an exception), need to choose between presenting evidence against another editor and explaining that context does not sit well for good practice. Sometimes they are linked, but it is impossible to encapsulate that in the default option of 500 words. I also don't agree with the so-called "well if it's reached ArbCom, it's safe to say that editor is screwed" - we might as well remove their ability to present anything at all with that thinking. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not impossible at all. If you trawl back through cases over the years, you'll see that a great many people manage to present complicated evidence concisely and economically. Something, incidentally, that is exceedingly difficult to deal with (both for arbitrators and parties) is the editor who posts long evidence, and then spends the ten days copy-editing it with dozens of changes.  Roger Davies  talk 11:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have watched ArbCom cases from (what is likely to be) earlier than when you made your first visible contribution on your account, and I find that the very rare occasions where that happens is where an editor has had to unreasonably dedicate many hours of his/her life devoted to such - often, the sort of time most Wikipedians are unable or unwilling to spend on Wikipedia. Long evidence can be difficult to trawl through, but this area of Wikipedia by its nature focuses on individual conduct rather than content alone, so extra work is needed from all sides too. Evidence being copyedited over a long period of time is indeed another issue, but if editors are given specific time limits by which to submit phases of evidence, that would assist editors in avoiding that temptation. For example: (a) editors have x days to present their evidence - they should work on a subpage, and can copyedit as much as they wish during that x days. After that time, the evidence is moved from the subpage to the main evidence page and will not be changed (except for clear typos, or where withdrawing entire sections). This way, editors who are presenting evidence can copyedit to their heart's content for x period of time without being worried that if they are away on the last 2 days, that the evidence will not turn up - it would, as it was what was left on the evidence page. (b) Editors affected or named in that posted evidence then has x days to post evidence on the response subpages to that specific evidence (separate word limit) or to provide any context they wish to. They can once again copyedit their responding evidence in this time, and on the fall of the x period, it will be posted to the main evidence page. (c) After that, arbs will look at the evidence page while the participants finalise their workshop submissions and narrow any points of agreement (and arbs will have a period of time to finish reviewing evidence, workshop, propose and comment in workshop, then PD as always). (d) In cases where an editor is genuinely unavailable, that is where the exceptions would occur - and extra time would be given to those users to post evidence, but by the same token, to named users in the evidence to respond. This is not necessarily ideal either, but I think it would at least be an improvement and somewhat fairer - at least compared to how many participants apparently feel they have been ambushed by the setup so far. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Is that satire, Ncmvocalist? You realise you're being almost as wordy, detailed, and elaborate as notorious statement-tweaker himself, who I'd wager was in Roger's mind when he wrote that? Bishonen &#124; talk 13:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC).


 * Oppose This motion by ArbCom is rejected by the community. Basket of Puppies  05:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That doesn't actually appear to be the case. Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

In many arbitration cases, whether an editor is a "named party" or not has been a bone of tendentiousness. The committee has usually provided little guidance on who is and isn't a named party until the proposed decision is posted. How will this new evidence procedure account for the perennial "Who is a party?" question? Skinwalker (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This proposal does seem to be a reasonable idea and I generally support it although I do agree wuith some of the comments above that the accused should have an avenue to request additional words to defend themselves particularly in cases where there are a lot of people responding. I'm also not quite sure I like the idea of a clerk rewording it. A clerk could intentionally or unintentionally change the meaning of the statements substantially with only minor wording changes. Kumioko (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely horrible decision! Ten people might be able to levy 500 words of accusations against a user but that user can only refute with a maximum of 500 words? What was Arb Comm thinking? 12.39.247.249 (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Even with 1000 words, it's still severely hamstringing the defense. Case example, . Ok, fine, all you haters can ignore this. But, have a look at the reality; look at evidence page from that case. 18 people submitted evidence for that case, including two IPs (ArbCom permits IPs to contribute without any concerns of sockpuppetry).  respond to just one of his accusers, and used up 357 words doing it (see for yourself). That left him 143 words to reply to every other accusation on that page. Even with 1000 words,  would not have been able to properly respond. It's as if at a trial the defense is given five minutes to mount their defense. Oh wait, we've increased that to ten minutes! Woohoo! --Hammersoft (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * All he had to do was ask to submit longer evidence. The applicable procedure said: Evidence submissions are expected to be succinct and to the point. By default, they are limited to about 500 words and about 50 difference links and must be posted on the applicable case pages. The submission of evidence via sub-pages in userspace is prohibited. Editors wishing to submit over-length evidence must request the approval of the drafting arbitrator(s) prior to posting it. Unapproved over-length evidence and inappropriate material/links may be removed or redacted by the clerks..  Roger Davies  talk 06:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, many people miss the point of the evidence limit. Parties should focus on presenting their own evidence, much of which is likely to act as a 'response' to the evidence of others anyway. Remember, the evidence is supposed to be directed toward the arbitrators and the rest of the community, not to those with whom one is already in dispute. The evidence page is not the place to continue the very same arguments that brought the matter to arbitration in the first place.  Particularly now that arbitrators are taking a much more active role in requesting specific evidence (either by asking for specific information, or by asking questions of parties and others), the need for (and benefit from) rebuttal is much lower than the parties tend to think it is.  Risker (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In the case I noted above, there was evidence provided by more than one party that was, on multiple points, factually wrong. Not just opinion - factually wrong. If there is no opportunity for a person who is accused of various things to rebut the evidence presented against him, then you might as well lock up every person brought to ArbCom. Or maybe that's the point? --Hammersoft (talk) 22:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know what ArbCom does as they conspire smoke filled IRC chat rooms, but when I've reviewed WP:WQA requests over the years I've certainly never believed anything an editor posts -- diffs are truth. Nobody Ent 01:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What Nobody Ent said...mostly. Most of us don't stop at just the diffs, we'll read the entire discussions associated with the diffs. (At least I do, and I know some others do as well.) Risker (talk) 02:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

It bemuses me that even the most trivial ArbCom decision seems to draw people to argue about it. Even the Supreme Court limits oral arguments to a set time, but litigants can always put more detail in writing. Same here - anyone can link to additional material backing their arguments if they wish. Write 50,000 words in your sandbox if you feel you must. But the arbitrators are giving a clear indication of how much they want to see on the central page, and being under a little pressure to summarise your arguments to the important points must be a good thing, surely. Dean B (talk) 02:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I fully understand the need to limit the amount of material that an arbitrator needs to read. That isn't the point. The point is when a person stands accused of something in an arb case, and every body and their family's family's family gets to post evidence against them, and they get (now) 1000 words. It's an issue of fairness. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the default length for their evidence is 1000 words. If a party wants to go over that, they need only ask. For instance, in a recent case one of the parties filed statements of 3600 words and evidence of 1200 words.  Roger Davies  talk 06:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That was not made clear in my case. I received automated notification form Hersfold's bot that my evidence was over long.  Hersfold advised me that additional rebuttal could be made on the Workshop page, which I naturally assumed Arbitrators would read. It appears not.  Maybe I was a fool taking advice from the person who wanted me de-sysopped, maybe he wasn't aware as Roger is that some Arbs don't read the workshop page.  But regardless the more I look at it the more it stinks. Rich Farmbrough, 20:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC).


 * @Roger; would you please indicate where there is notification to anyone that they may do as you suggest, requesting to go over? What I see from the first paragraph of the default evidence page makes it pretty clear that exceeding 500 words will have unsavory outcomes. If it's not encoded anywhere, can you point to where Rich was informed he had this privilege to ask? --Hammersoft (talk) 23:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

One thing I fail to understand here is where this idea came from that the evidence page is the place to rebut evidence presented by others? (it is not, it is to present evidence supporting your interpretation of things.) Quite apart from the fact that the evidence page is not organised for rebuttals, it is clearly unworkable in cases where there are multiple parties presenting on multiple issues (evidence is presented in no particular order and it is confusing to read a rebuttal that appears higher up the page than the section it is rebutting). The place to discuss and rebut evidence provided by others is on the evidence talk page or on the workshop page. The key is to not overdo it. Discuss it briefly somewhere, hopefully with a clear conclusion being drawn, and then request that a clerk place a (hat)note on the original evidence submission pointing to the discussion. Should be simple. What is still needed is more guidance from arbs and clerks to help parties to a case produce a case that is concise and readable. This is not only for the arbs that arrive at voting with not much background knowledge of the case, but also for those reading about the case weeks, months or years later. The aim should be to produce a concise document of record that flows naturally from the request stage, to the evidence and workshop stages, to the proposed decision and final decision pages. It is better to have less evidence that has been discussed and all parties agree to some extent what it shows, rather than lots of evidence poorly discussed and which no-one agrees on. Be hands on (especially as regards case scope), keep things tight and under control, and end up with something that can be understood by reading through in a relatively short period of time. It takes time and work to do this, but if the time is not invested then you end up with a sprawling mess of a case, so investing the time is worthwhile. Carcharoth (talk) 08:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I still like my idea from a few years ago of using a "case master" system: a non-voting arbitrator apoointed to ride herd on each case. That could include determining parties and initial scope, and pertinently to this discussion, keeping tabs on and directing length and relevance of evidence, beyond the purely mechanical function of the clerks checking length. Not everyone needs (or quite frankly in some cases, deserves) 500 words, and I don't see how the arbitrators are served by having the same evidence duplicated in 5 sections. Conversely, if a non-party can present one cogent series of evidence which follows a coherent theme, that should be given the space it deserves. Some accusations of bias are sure to follow, but that is why one of the well-paid Arbs would be performing the task. If the outcome will be better focus in cases (and presumably clearer case decisions), we will have to sacrifice one arb per case. ;) Franamax (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that would help. It addresses one of the problems I have pointed out, that parties (and non parties) are shouting into a void, and hence hkeep shouting louder in hope of being heard.. There might be other or even better ways to do it. Rich Farmbrough, 22:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

Merging of clarification and amendment processes
Was there community discussion on this? Who decides ArbComn preocedure? Rich Farmbrough, 01:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC).


 * Arbitration/Policy. The committee modifies its own internal practices as it deems fit or per suggestions from the community.  Feel free to read up on the rest of the policy, Rich, as it seems you're asking a number of questions that could be more readily answered by a read-through of the relevant pages.  Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this is one of those policies that sounded fine when it was written but I think this is a questionable policy at best. This gives far too much room for manipulation and abuse and even a well meaning change could have significant affects. What if Arbcom decided to change the rules and say there is no amendment process or any number of other things. It just gives too much room for abuse. I don't have a problem with Arbcom proposing something be changed but it needs to be vetted through the community before its implemented. Kumioko (talk) 02:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I wholly agree. I had not read these policies, or not for a long time. (We have too many of them now.) Rich Farmbrough, 02:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC).


 * I am. I have always ignored ArbCom as basically a sound organisation, then as a possibly not quite so sound one as various leaks, the WordBomb debacle, and other scandals have come to light. Moreover I know that the people who set the systems up were eminently sensible.  However the more I see the more I become disquieted - and being a subject to the process I have seen quite a lot.  I'm beginning to wonder if ArbCom is more harm than good. Rich Farmbrough, 02:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC).


 * This policy did undergo community discussions and vote last year, including the ability to make changes to internal processes. Lord Roem (talk) 02:25, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed and I notice that even then several had comments about their concerns similar to what I describe above. It should also be noted that apparently every Arcom member at the time voted for it. Kumioko (talk) 02:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ...plus like another 120 people....
 * Yes, Kumioko, I agree that there are times when significant changes would go to community discussion. In the hypothetical world where arbs wanted to remove all attempts to amend cases, that would be significant enough in my mind to require consultation. But...you're raising the issue here...a purely stylistic change that simply reduces the amount of excess pages we have to deal with. Lord Roem (talk) 02:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, part of the reason for this change was that we recognized we were making things unnecessarily complex; several times in the last few months there have been questions from community members whether something should be a clarification or amendment, for example. It's better to make the pages more user-friendly. Risker (talk) 03:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I do agree that merging these 2 seems logical but I do still have my doubts about the appropriateness of Arbcom being able to change things whenever the mood strikes them. Kumioko (talk) 04:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would you say that in such a derisory way? Users expressed concerns, their concerns were responded to. This is generally thought of as a good thing, not something to use as evidence of capricious actions.  Risker (talk) 04:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This time last year I would not have batted an eye. Over the last several months I have noticed some very strange and disturbing decisions and activity emanating from the directions of Arbcom that make me think that the future is going to be even more dubious. Aside from that WP is a democracy not an aristocracy so having a few make their own decisions at the level of Arbcom is troubling. No matter how good the intentions the possibility for abuse is great. Kumioko (talk) 04:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, Wikipedia is explicitly not a democracy and never has been. More to the point, I'm having very great difficulty seeing the potential in abuse from merging two pages and consolidating functions.  Roger Davies  talk 04:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Roger, the potential for abuse is in the system that decides for the merger. But what is the problem in asking the community before ArbCom takes such decisions on their own processes?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 04:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait, you're seeing abuse potential in the committee amending its procedures within the scope agreed upon by the community last year, using the authority to do so the community validated last year? Sounds like you have a problem with the committee listening and responding to community input.  Or did you mean something else? Jclemens (talk) 04:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am trying really, really hard to not invoke Godwin's law here. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? Try for me: I'd like to hear it. You said there was a potential for abuse. Articulate it so we can fix it before it ever happens. Jclemens (talk) 07:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, lets see if someone else sees the analogy. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a discussion should be opened in order to change the relevant part of the arbitration policy at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Policy. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I trust you have read the amendment process as ratified by the community. Now, I'm not saying you can't propose alternate wording, but step one is getting it adopted by the Committee even before you get to the community. It took 30 months to get the last round of changes through, and that was after several false starts in the previous several years. Risker (talk) 06:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No, if the community wants things changed, then the community has the first and the last word in that. What you are suggesting is that we first have to ask you whether you want it changed, and then it maybe can be changed.  And if you don't want it to be changed, it should not go to the community?  That is the wrong way around.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Read the policy, Beetstra. This is the one that the community overwhelmingly ratified (with 87% support). It is explicit. And it requires a minimum of 100 supports to change it. I think something people forget (occasionally including arbitrators) is that the vast majority of the community has negligible interest in the Arbitration Committee. In the case of something as bikesheddy as whether clarifications and amendments are on one page or two, I think you're going to have a hard time making the case that this issue justifies drawing the attention of the entire community. Risker (talk) 07:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec with Risker) The community has the power to change plenty of things on its own, like the process for elections, the requisite approval thresholds, and the number of arbitrators seated, such as were decided in Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011, with active participation by current arbitrators. Just because the matters covered in WP:ARBPOL require the consent of the committee and the community to change doesn't mean the community has no say in things not covered by the policy. Jclemens (talk) 07:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, I am not invoking Godwin's law here. However, I suggest that ArbCom initiates a discussion to amend those two clauses, and asks the community to have them changed in the policy, per policy.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Good luck getting 8 arbitrators to support such a change absent a compelling reason to do so. I'd be happy to be convinced, but I'm nowhere close to there yet. Jclemens (talk) 08:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That statement actually proofs my point .. doesn't it? --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, there are pretty good reasons for making it so difficult to change that policy, unlike many others on the project. Everyone on the Committee has been thoroughly vetted by the community and elected under the criteria that the community have established. We've all been elected to work under a specific, community approved policy on which there is wide agreement. The committee cannot work effectively if the policy under which it is elected is subject to frequent modification without thorough discussion, the agreement of those who have specifically been elected by the community to work under the existing policy, and a wide-ranging community agreement. I am pretty sure that everyone who has participated in an Arbcom case that has ended with what that individual considers to be a suboptimal result would like to change the policy, the way that people are elected, the people who did get elected, the way we write, what we write, and how we make decisions individually and collectively. The requirement that changes to the policy require such elaborate processes is there to protect the community from having to deal with the dissatisfaction that comes at the end of just about every case. Remember, the community approved this policy, and of all the objections or concerns that were raised in the ratification process, this wasn't mentioned. Risker (talk) 09:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh? No, Risker.  That is not what I suggest, it is actually utterly wrong what you think that I suggest.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You started off here proposing that the policy be changed so that Arbcom can no longer make changes to its working procedures without the agreement of the community. When the process for changing the policy was pointed out, you told us that the community had the right to make all these decisions without the agreement of Arbcom. I've explained to you *why* that is not the case. What part am I wrong about?  Risker (talk) 09:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I see I reacted more to your edit summary ("dissatisfied editors would be trying to change the policy after every case" than to your text here. What I say is, that the community needs to have the power to change your policy, even if the majority of the ArbCom disagrees with it.  It is not at the whim of one editor, or even 3 or 4.  But Jclemens' remark 'Good luck getting 8 arbitrators to support such a change absent a compelling reason to do so' suggests that even if we would have a 100% agreement under editors to change something, that that could be veto-ed by the ArbCom - similar goes for 'Proposed amendments may be submitted for ratification only after being approved by a majority vote of the Committee, or having been requested by a petition signed by at least one hundred editors in good standing' - good luck finding 8 arbitrators .. good luck finding 100 editors 'in good standing' (whatever that may mean).  And that is exactly the point that I tried to make.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Beestra, you've yet to articulate a reason. You've hinted that you're trying to not compare someone to the Third Reich (at least, I presume that's what your Godwin's Law comment was about), but you've said absolutely nothing about what the real problem actually might be.  In those circumstances, where you have not even put forward an actual case that a change could avoid some future problem, you will not get consensus for a change: not because the committee or the community are stonewalling a good and necessary change, but because the need for your change is known only to you.  The committee can, will, and does change things when a better way is presented... like, oh, combining amendments and clarifications because there really wasn't that good of a reason to keep them separate. Jclemens (talk) 10:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that Kumioko and Rich did that already pretty well. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I will confess to being dubious that the community can bind itself on an internal matter in such a way that a later community vote can't affect it. It smacks of the provision in Obamacare that it shall never be in order to repeal it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Beetstra, that is a feature, not a bug. I'm pretty sure that much of our core editing community would like to have the same feature incorporated into our "pillar" policies, too:  requiring a huge majority to make changes prevents personalization of policies. Let's get down to brass tacks, though.  If any drive-by editor can change the policy, what's the point of having the policy in the first place? Risker (talk) 16:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My misunderstanding - I though I was hearing a chirping sound ... it must have been the crickets outside.  But, again, I am certainly not referring to a 'drive-by editor', that is also not how consensus works on Wikipedia.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm really not sure what to make of various comments Definitely Not Introducing Allusions To The Nazi Party. Assuming that the Allusions Definitely Not Being Made are to the rise of an authoritarian regime rather than any of the many other undesirable aspects of the Third Reich, it's very surprising that they seem to be concerned about the entrenchment of a policy which enshrines clauses like an explicit right of appeal, and that there must be elections every year and that the committee has no involvement in their organisation.  Let's keep a tight grip on reality here. <b style="color:forestgreen">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange">melon</b> 16:51, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Happy Melon I don't believe those policies you mention are the ones people have a problem with. What bothers me and several others is how they can change their policy whenever they feel like it, that they grant sensitive permissions to each other outside the normal guidelines, that there is no review of their conduct or activities outside of subcomittees they themselves have tight control over, that they are a quasi legal body with very little legal background, etc. The more I study the process, organization and behaviors of the Arbcom the more I am convinced that changes are needed. Kumioko (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow. Talk about factually inaccurate information and assumptions of bad faith. No policies were changed and the Arbitration Committee has to go through exactly the same process to change the arbitration policy as anyone else does. Permissions are granted entirely within normal guidelines, and the fact that arbitrators will have access to these permissions has been made clear at just about every election since 2005; in fact, for a very long time, *only* arbitrators had access to checkuser and oversight permissions. And arbitrators are the only users on this project whose terms are limited, and who must seek re-election by the community. Plus they get to have their integrity impugned on a regular basis without recourse. Forgive me if I don't find this to be as much of a privilege as you do.  Risker (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * For a long time being an administrator was no big deal, there was no other rights besides admin like file mover or rollbacker and Godzilla used to be a little bitty lizard. I'm not trying to impune anyones honor or assume bad faith and this isn't directed at the individuals of the committee but the processes they employ. Many of the points you bring up are good ones and in fact I would favor admins having a term limit of some kind if the RFA process (which I also think is broken and needs refinement) wasn't such a nightmare. That doesn't mean the points I brought up are factually innacurate. They are accurate and have been discussed in multiple discussions over the past few weeks. Kumioko (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But they *are* inaccurate. Saying that something happens outside of the normal guideline implies that the Committee is doing something sneaky and underhanded. The fact is that advanced permissions are NOT given outside of the normal guidelines; what you want to say is that you don't like the guidelines, but have no suggestions to make that will ensure that arbitrators are able to do what they're supposed to do, while also ensuring that other eligible and willing community members will carry the bulk of the workload. Today, one of my colleagues started an RFC about changing the Ban Appeals Subcommittee processes and actively involving community members, over at Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Expansion of Ban Appeals Subcommittee. BASC is the process by which the committee meets its obligations to be the final review of blocks and bans; if you want to affect the decision about this procedure, please discuss it there. This is a proposal for a significant change, as opposed to the merging of two pages with no destruction of content. This change can only work if there is sufficient interest and participation by community members, though.  Risker (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks I'll definately take a look at that RFC. So to say my comments are innacurate lets look at them. So your saying that the Checkuser and Overseer right aren't given to Arbitrators once they have joined the committee if they don't already have it? Presumably the same would be done if a non admin was voted into the committee. Your saying that Abcom does not have the power to change their policies and procedures without community input? That they do normally solicite community input is good but Arbcom policy doesn't require it. AM I wrong in the statement that there is no review mechanism above Arbcom? If so what is it outside the Audit and Basc subcommittes that are run by Arbcom? Am I incorrect in the statement that they are a quasi legal body within the community? Or that there are only a couple members with legal or other arbitration related experience? If I am wrong in these please let me know. Perhaps I am wrong but I think it more likely that I am right and shining a light on something that the majority of the community simply doesn't know about and Arbcom would prefer they didn't. Kumioko (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You've substantially misquoted yourself here, as you would need to do to avoid claims of inaccuracy. You originally claimed that "they can change their policy whenever they feel like it", when in fact all they have changed, or can change, is their own internal organisation and division-of-labour; you subsequently re-added the word "procedures", your last claim about changing policy is still wrong.  You originally claimed that "they grant sensitive permissions to each other outside the normal guidelines", when in fact it is entirely within the overarching policies on CheckUser and Oversight from meta; you've had to weaken that down all the way to 'they get CU/OS' in order to make it correct, and of course that is both obvious and entirely benign.
 * Your claim that "there is no review of their conduct or activities outside of subcomittees they themselves have tight control over" is more true; the purpose of the subcommittees is not to act as an appellate court at all and in fact the only appeal mechanism is Appeal to Jimbo. This is hardly an earth-shattering revelation given that it's been the case for half a decade, but I agree it's something people can have a view on; of course any determination that there must be an appeal body must properly consider why it would be ok to have a (presumably carefully-vetted and elected) body of community members as the end of the road when it's not ok to have a carefully-vetted and elected body of community members as the end of the road.  <b style="color:forestgreen">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange">melon</b> 20:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You say that I weakened my statement but that simply isn't true. Checkuser and oversight are basically the highest level of trusted access the community has and those accesses are granted by Arbcom, generally once they have been granted through a voting process in the community in their respective venues. Additionally, if a non admin was voted to the Arbcom one could assume that individual would also be granted admin rights, as well Checkuser and Oversight. I still don't agree that every member of Arbcom needs these accesses just to do their job. To address another part of your statement that Jimbo can override a decision by the Arbcom. Its much more common for Arbcom to over rule a decision of Jimbo than for him to Over rule them. In fact I have never heard of him actually over ruling an Arbcom decision and its unlikely to happen unless they decided to do something that jeapordized the foundation or Wikipedia as an entity. So to say that he is an appellate review of Arbcom's decisions is a pretty far stretch from reality and indicates that you know less about the process than I do. Kumioko (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You're wrong about Checkuser and Oversight permissions. Initially, only arbitrators had access to these tools on this project. Other projects developed different traditions, but then again, other projects didn't have access to these tools until long after English Wikipedia did. There is no reason to grant admin permissions to non-administrator arbitrators. Checkuser and Oversight permissions contain all of the tools required to make the permission work properly, as has already been explained earlier. As to "access", remember that one of the key features of listing all arbitrators on the Checkuser and Oversight pages is that whether or not they do the checks or suppressions themselves, they may have that information revealed to them as part of a legitimate arbcom activity (assessing an unblock request, determining sanctions, etc); it is considerably more transparent to community members that this information may be used by arbcom members if they are listed as having access to these tools. The key purpose of this committee is to be the last stop on the dispute resolution line. Adding another layer essentially negates the purpose of the committee, and would simply be another arbcom under another name. That's why the community gets to select the arbitrators. This ongoing lack of faith in arbitrators and in the committee is directly related to the difficulty in attracting excellent candidates to the committee.  I can personally think of at least a dozen editors who would be very good at this, but every last one of them has taken one look at what happens on pages like this and said they have no interest in the aggressive belittling that is endemic amongst those who just plain don't like one or more decisions the committee makes. Put yourself in our shoes, and tell me if you'd be willing to do this job - especially if there was another body that could overrule anything you did. Risker (talk) 21:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Although some of your arguments have merit Risker and I understand the position you are taking and I believe why I do not agree completely with the arguement that no one would want it. The fact is nothing in WP that is more of a battle ground than the RFA process and people still submit for Admin rights, though I admit its less and less all the time for the same reasons. The real reason that most editors don't wish to participate in Arbcom IMO is its simply not what they are here for. Most are here to edit and create articles or participate in whatever topic they find interesting. Not be involved in endless debate. Lets be honest that it takes a certain desire and mindset to due the job and not all of us, myself included has it nor do I think for an instant that I would get enough votes to become one. That does not mean that I want to give up the keys to the kingdom to a select few and let them do whatever they want so that I won't have to worry about it because I don't have the stomach for a discussion. The submission below by Kirill is to me a perfectly reasonably way of addressing one of my main concerns which is Arbcom changing policies and procedures without some kind of notifications process to the community. That still allows Arbcom to make changes they think is needed and still allows the community some idea of whats going on behind the curtain. Kumioko (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * But you've hit the nail on the head: some editors are still willing to dive into the battleground, but fewer and fewer as time goes on; I probably can think of as many people who have been put off adminship for the same reasons, as Risker can think of would-be arbitrators. Any criticism does have to be constructive: it's absolutely fine to feel, and articulate, that the "keys to the kingdom" are in the wrong hands, but you do have to have a sensible view on how to make them the right hands.  Is the reason that Jimbo has never upheld an appeal from ArbCom because he is not a viable appeal route, or because the requests-for-amendment process is robust enough that an appeal route is not needed?  Asserting that an appeal route is needed purely out of principle is pointless bureaucracy, especially if we hold to the belief that ArbCom is not a court.  In reality the 'court' of public opinion has proved more than capable of keeping ArbCom in line, WP:ACPD, for example. <b style="color:forestgreen">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange">melon</b> 23:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't see in Jimbo's head but he has stated numerous times that he prefers to let the community decide on things and would only change the outcome if he feels he needs to if it affects the foundation or the business side of things. So he really isn't an appeal process nor should that be advocated. Not only would he probably not revert a decision by Arbcom he frankly has better things to do. Kumioko (talk) 00:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Kumioko, to address your specific concern about procedural changes being made without giving the community an opportunity to comment, I've proposed a motion (Arbitration/Requests/Motions) that would require adequate public notice before any procedural change. Kirill [talk] 21:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Kirill, that's very fair and reasonable. Kumioko (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough closed
Original announcement
 * This has been a very bad decision. Undue weight was given to Brad being a bit stubborn, uncommunicative, and a bit uncooperative, and short shrift was given to the opinions of the many people who thanked him, gave awards to him, feel themselves and the project indebted to him, and the quite serious disruption to important projects and harm to the entire project that results from this action.  Several of the "charges" against Rich seem to be very petty indeed.  The words used to support "abusiveness" on his part were the kind of thing more mature Wikipedians would laugh off and take on the chin for the sake of the project.  How many of us have suffered much clearer cases of "abuse" but didn't feel the need to push a formal process to have the person banned, effect on the project be damned, just because you have been insulted?  And this man was very useful!  This was no ordinary editor.  His bots do the work of thousands of manhours in very short time and move the whole increasingly unweildy project forward by keeping an eye on thousands of things, catching serious errors that had stood for a very long time, making a mockery of the project.  For more details, check out his user and talk pages, look at the praise for and accompishments of this good Wikipedian.  For the other "offensives", they these ten administrators point to nothing that can be shown to have harmed the project, it was all depicted as a sort of defense of principles, only, and a look at the long list of accomplishments, praise, and Wikilove was not given due weight!  There was even a kerfuffle about him changing tiny bits of whitespace, my lord, who cares?  Let it go, for crissake, or better said for the sake of the project.  Please run the process again, this time taking into consideration a thourough investigation into his accomplishments and the serious disruption to the project that results from this rash, uninformed, disruptive, and punitive decision. Chrisrus (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you meant Rich above where you said Brad. Kumioko (talk) 23:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Let it go, for crissake, or better said for the sake of the project." <redacted unverified assertions about a living person>  Wikipedia has a high tolerance for individual idiosyncrasies, which tends to evaporate when people try and use administrative and bot operator privileges to enforce theirs on the entire project. It is unfortunate that prior dispute resolution failed to communicate this message to Rich. Jclemens (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe the benefits from his bots and abilities are important to consider when banning such important bots as helpful pixie bot and femto bot and others that we all rely on when deciding what to do about such things as whitespace adjusting. Let the committee consider both when coming to their decision this time. This is not just a case about unauthorized whitespace adjusting, it's also about lots of very important and good things that are done as well.  It was not right to make such a decision without weighting the pros and cons properly.  Chrisrus (talk) 05:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a dangerous notion, that the transgressions of an editor can be mitigated or even absolved purely on the basis that they have a certain weight of good contributions. This mindset would allow the doctor that saves a hundred lives to murder his wife, or the soldier who protects his country by serving overseas to steal from people's homes. It sets double standards for editors that are entirely unreasonable - Rich is allowed to break the rules, but someone else isn't, and the decision isn't in any way related to what they actually did wrong, but how many brownie points they've earned? That's an untenable position for one to hold if it is one's goal to maintain the fairest possible environment. There should be no special treatment. It shouldn't matter if Jimbo himself broke the rules. If the rules were broken, an appropriate and consistent response should be given.


 * As for Rich's bots, nothing his bots do can't be done by bots written by someone else. He isn't indispensable - nobody is indispensable - and that's a good thing. Others will step in to fill the void. I looked at the BAG page last week and already saw a proposal or two for bot tasks to replace HPB. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  06:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We're not here to have the fairest possible environment. We're here to build an encyclopedia. I don't have enough understanding of the issue one way or the other to weigh up the damage he was causing over the good he was doing, but my instinct is that the former was outweighed by the latter. I am not confident in the decision anyway. Egg   Centri  c  22:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We're here for everyone to build an encyclopedia. That doesn't happen when the environment in which you're doing so isn't conducive to teamwork. Fairness is an essential component of meaningful collaboration, because its absence breeds contempt and an 'every man for himself' mentality. This is basic leadership knowledge, really. – NULL  ‹talk› ‹edits›  23:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (e/c_ I thought the idea was leave the damn whitespace and similar non-rendering cosmetic issues alone. And those bots did a mix of useful and useless stuff, and of the useful stuff, nothing jumped out at me as being especially important that couldn't be done by someone else without much fuss (and anything important and hard to replicate shouldn't have been approved without published source code).  I commented for a while in the workshop (then disengaged because of RL stuff etc.) and supported somewhat different remedies, but I think we will get along ok without those bots.  More importantly this decision makes me feel like arbcom's eyes are starting to open about automation misuse, compared to some earlier decisions that didn't do enough.  Wikipedia is not a programmers' playground. A quibble: I don't think the reminder to Elen should have equated Rich with his bots.  Blocking a bot that's causing problems shouldn't be considered a big deal in general, unless there's wheel warring or similar involved.   I can accept that in this particular situation it would have been better for someone else to do the block.  So the remedy's rationale was mostly ok but I think it should have been framed as "Elen advised" rather than "reminded" (since reminding implies there is a pre-existing notion that someone didn't remember).  66.127.55.46 (talk) 06:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I take your point - Elen didn't forget, so much as think of the bot purely as a chunk of malfunctioning code, rather than an extension of Rich (who I wouldn't have actually blocked, regarding myself as WP:INVOLVED). It was a mistake in that it's obvious when you think of it that the bot could be seen as Rich-by-extension, so it was always going to be contentious. I certainly shan't do it again, should I find myself in that situation. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Understandable, but that comment cuts both ways. The main reason (from my reading) that Rich was desysopped was because he unblocked his own bots – who's to say he wasn't working under the same misapprehension (i.e. that bots are not users-by-extension, just bits of code)? Jenks24 (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Now again, I thought the problem was more editing through protection, and various things to do with deletion/recreation, other than one?? cited instance where he unblocked the bot without taking any notice of the problem...? Again, don't want to impinge on what was in the decision makers heads. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't see editing through protection mentioned at all in the final decision (and rightly so, see workshop discussion). I also see no mention of deletion/recreation. It's interesting that you say there was only one instance where unblocking his bot was improper, as that was also my understanding – the FoF states that he did it "on many occasions", though fails to cite specific instances. Makes the case for desysopping him look rather flimsy. Jenks24 (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure why I'm de-sysopped. Didn't like the cut of my jib I suppose. Rich Farmbrough, 01:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC).

Prohibited
I don't see "prohibited" on Wikipedia very often, so I'd like a clarification. Is this just another way of saying "banned", or is there some significance to this usage? Nyttend (talk) 05:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Prohibited is the same as banned.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  21:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * As in the prohibited asylum of senscape 190.51.171.56 (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Have a bad feeling about this...
I hope that I'm proven wrong, but I don't think the automation restriction will work well. I think the suggestions on the talk page of the proposed decision (by CBM, IIRC) would have been better for all involved. Anyway, I have the first of what will probably be many questions about this automation restriction: I notice Rich has (without requesting it) been given the rollbacker userright; would using that be considered a breach? What about Twinkle? Huggle? Semi-automated scripts? Jenks24 (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed it's not a perfect solution, but it is the one we cobbled put together in an attempt to deal with the situation. The essence is that the community had expressed concern about Rich's use of automation and trusted tools, and those concerns had not been adequately addressed by Rich; as such the Committee have taken away Rich's access to the admin tools and prohibited him from using any other form of automation. This, by implication, would include the Rollbacker, Twinkle, Huggle and AWB tools. Rich is advised to edit manually and in a manner that could not be mistaken for automated. If in doubt if he is permitted to use an aid he would be advised to avoid using it, and if he feels he needs or would like to use it, to seek clarification if he can use it.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  22:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you cobbled it together does this suggest this is temporary, and you are going to come up with a better solution given time? Egg   Centri  c  22:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My bad. I didn't mean to suggest hasty or temporary - I had misunderstood the phrase "cobbled together" to mean put together out of the available material rather than the "ideal" material. I think the solution is understandable and workable and not too complicated. That doesn't mean that it is faultless, or there won't be an attempt to subvert it, but it is what we have, and will work with the right attitude.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  10:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, cheers  Egg   Centri  c  12:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course the work done by NewYorkBrad, and the control panel and bug logging system was thrown away. Reverting to prohibition of what is not understood is a standard trope, first exemplified in this case by R2D2's "This Gordian Knot needs cutting" remark way back.  Simplistic solutions, worse wrong simplistic solutions, rarely work. Rich Farmbrough, 00:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC).


 * Well, I'm disappointed with your answer, but at least it's clear. Thanks.
 * On a side note, if the decision was just "cobbled together", what was the rush? I know each year incoming arbs pledge to get through cases more quickly, but surely if the solution was imperfect, a few more days could have been spent discussing and trying to improve it? Jenks24 (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * rollback a form of automation? suddenly I've got a bad feeling about this... Rd232 talk 22:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe SilkTork meant cobbled as in crudely constructed instead of quickly constructed. Arbcom has never found a good definition of automation to deal with editors who do quick/mass edits that are controversial. See Betacommand and Lightbot for two multi-year examples of trying different restrictions that ultimately failed.  MBisanz  talk 22:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Understood, but surely the point still remains that if it is crudely constructed, wouldn't it be in everyone's best interests (including ArbCom's) if some time had been spent refining it? Jenks24 (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You may find Administrators' noticeboard/Δ instructive. That set of pages documents a small part of the efforts of dozens of editors over 3 years to refine the definition of automated editing as applied to that user. They failed, as did Arbcom in at least three cases on that user. Time won't refine this matter, only rather crude and blunt restrictions.  MBisanz  talk 22:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't wish to contradict my colleague here, and of course I wasn't in on the decision, but I thought the discussion had concluded that because Twinkle and Huggle can't be 'hacked' but have to be used out of the box, and Twinkle certainly forces the user to confirm the edit, they would be OK. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The discussion on the talkpage was that Twinkle, Huggle and Rollback would be included in the restriction. The alternative proposal (that was being drawn up but wasn't implemented) did specify their inclusion: "No automation on the main account. This includes semi-auto editing, AWB, Twinkle, custom javascript, everything." . I'm seeing "any automation whatsoever" along with "any edits that reasonably appear to be automated shall be assumed to be so" as a bright line that is easy to monitor.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  10:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Since WP lets anyone nobody Me! use Twinkle it should be fine per common sense. Pushed to its illogical extreme "no automation" would preclude using brower spelling auto-correct. Nobody Ent 22:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Automated spell correctors can make mistakes so they need to be checked. I have a spell checker which underlines what it thinks are spelling mistakes, but allows me to make the decision. We have different spellings for British and American articles, and sometimes we use quotes that may have archaic or incorrect spelling. So, yes, it would make sense for Rich to turn off any automated spelling changes and allow his browser to instead indicate what it thinks are spelling errors.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  10:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue of rollback, specifically, may be something Arbcom wants to nail down, because among the non-admin rights restored to him after the close of the case is - you guessed it! - rollback. If it is the case that arbcom feels that rollback is subsumed under "automation Rich is banned from using", it may be better for an arb or clerk to remove that right, rather than leave him with it and see drama happen when someday he accidentally or absentmindedly clicks the button. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with SilkTork, for the purposes of restrictions like this one, rollback is automation, and, as such is prohibited from those restricted from using all automation. If this becomes contentious, though, it would be better to discuss this as a formal clarification request than here... Courcelles 14:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  16:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a very liberal interpretation of the meaning of the word "automation". Malleus Fatuorum 11:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And that was a very polite way of putting it, Malleus, thanks. I happen to agree: automation is about affecting multiple articles in rapid succession, and it's not really possible to do that with rollback absent MEATBOT like behaviour, or some other automation scripted to invoke rollback in such a manner.  While I appreciate Guerillero's promptness, I fear that the discussion had not reached a point where his action was yet needed. Jclemens (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it also looks like indecent haste to further humiliate a fellow editor who's become unpopular in certain quarters. As I said further down on this page, one of the most disturbing aspects of ArbCom decisions is that they're entirely predictable, based as the evident preconceptions of those voting. Malleus Fatuorum 16:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If anything, I think that what this illustrates (and I'm speaking to the below conversation as well) is that requests for clarification are best handled on Arbcom's "Requests for clarification" page. We have a discussion here and a premature request for amendment, when in fact all that is needed is a formal requests for clarification. It was not my impression that "votes" were conducted or binding interpretations were to be made on this page, when we have others designated for that purpose, but if my colleagues disagree, we may need to alter the structure of this page to facilitate that, which would end its usefulness as free-form discussion. Jclemens (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, apologies to all involved. I'm still pretty unfamiliar with the whole ArbCom process (this is the first case that I have followed at all), so I didn't know there was an official process for requesting clarification. I just saw that Rich had been given a userright which he may might unconsciously use and thought it best to get some quick clarification before someone claimed he was violating the restriction. Should I (or someone who knows what they are doing) open a formal request? Jenks24 (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Obviously I have been an opponent of these restrictions from the start so what I am about to say is goign to come as no great surprise but here goes. Contrary to what is said above and in the Arbcom ruling it wasn't the whole community that had a problem with Rich's edits. It was certain members and somem powerful admins and arbs. There were a lot of us that think that the Arbcom decision is extreme, was poorly constructed, poorly written and will be even more poorly implemented. The purpose is and always was to stop Rich from editing Wikipedia. They tried to ban him but the vote didn't go their way so they did the next best thing and worded the ruling in such a vague way that nearly anyone with half a brain could argue that almost anything he does is a violation of it. This ruling is a recipe for disaster not only for Rich but for other editors in the future and for Wikipedia in general. They blocked his bots and revoked his ability to use automation. Fine. This ruling should NOT also restrict his ability of using tools that are available in the GAdgets menu of preferences or in at least some of the available rolls such as File mover, Rollbacker or the like. I agree I may be alone in this but thats how I feel. At this point I completely question even having a need for an Arbitration committee in Wikipedia and if someone where to ask me I would say we should shut the group down and write it off as a failure. Kumioko (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm an ordinary editor. I could not disagree more with the above summary. Arbcom are elected and did what they were elected to do. If you don't like it do something at the next Arbcom elections. Stop soap boxing. Leaky  Caldron  15:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I intend too but I also should be clear that I think that we need to do a better job of screening next time. It is becoming clearer that selecting the most popular Wikipedian to be an Arb is not the best path to follow for the future. Kumioko (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's become very obvious with this case and others that there ought to be no place for ArcCom as it's currently constituted. This case is by no means the first time we've seen these post hoc amendments to the terms of some sanction or other, but it needs to be the last. Malleus Fatuorum 11:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * hm, maybe using browser or computer also counts as automation Bulwersator (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

@SilkTork: "So, yes, it would make sense for Rich to turn off any automated spelling changes and allow his browser to instead indicate what it thinks are spelling errors." - So whether or not he does that, all that is needed is waiting for Rich to make a spelling mistake that could have been an automatic update from another common spelling mistake, and that shows enough reasonable appearance of automation. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * We have difficulties with outlining exactly what sort of edits someone using "automation" is allowed to do. There were problems with restrictions on Betacommand. There is a lack of clarity regarding if Rollback is something that Rich should be allowed to use. There were problems with Rich using edit summaries that were not clear, and in using tools that made edits without a full consideration of what is being done. The Rollback tool doesn't just undo one edit, it "rolls back" a whole series of edits done by the same contributor, using a standard edit summary. It is worth reading through the guidance in Rollback to get a feel for the sort of concerns there are regarding its use. Is it automation? It appears to some, me included, that it is. Would it be wise for Rich to use it, or to use an automated spell checker? He can edit without these tools. He can manually undo someone's edits, or manually correct spelling. It takes a little longer, but then there would be that extra degree of consideration which manual editing appears to encourage, and which some people seem to feel Rich does not always display when editing through automation. The point about the restriction on automation is that Rich is not prohibited from making the same edits manually, he is simply prohibited from editing via a tool which automatically makes edits, be it Rollback or an automated spell check, as they can make errors if not checked carefully. He is being encouraged to take more care, to slow down, and to use specific edit summaries. Yes, if there are people who will watch him carefully for any sign of using automation, then he would be advised to avoid as much as possible any appearance of using automation. Such is the nature of the situation. I note that the Rollback function has been taken away and then restored. I'm not sure that we yet have clarity regarding if that tool is restricted, so I would advise Rich to avoid using it until there is some consensus. Given the circumstances there should be no penalty imposed on Rich if he does use it, but as he doesn't actually need it, it would make sense to wait until the matter is resolved.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  19:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 'We (the ArbCom) have difficulties' - full stop. But well.  I expected this answer of you, SilkTork, you are expecting him to edit carefully.  So, if Rich is using a spell-checker appropriately, in other words, he is using automation, he will make no spelling mistakes, and in the next 500 edits he makes, he will absolutely NO spelling mistakes.  Oh wait, he was not allowed to use automation.  But if he makes NO spelling mistakes, it is very, very reasonable to say that it appears that he is carefully automatically checking his edits for spelling mistakes.  But if he makes the same spelling mistake twice, he will be blamed for the same.
 * So he is violating your utterly stupidly worded restriction, one, which when it was put up for amendment, one of your colleagues was suggesting that we should have asked for clarification (now, that is nice, ask for clarification on a restriction only a few days after it is applied, if that is not proof that it is wrongly worded), and where your other colleagues are now trying to overturn yet other colleagues of you because it is misinterpreted. And that was already told to all of you before the case closed, that wording needed to be adapted!  And you know what, it is because you don't care to see what is going on, you only care about one thing.  And I know no-one in ArbCom is going to concede this, but it is utterly clear: ArbCom's ONLY goal is to get Rich banned (which yet another colleague of you made blatantly clear while discussing the Proposed Decision).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 04:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If ArbCom had wanted to ban Rich, they'd have done so. The post-case problems arise precisely because a number of people (including me) argued against a ban as the only way to enforce a ban on automation, and ArbCom listened (I think). So the problems are to some extent the price of not-banning; I hope we can all muddle our way through this difficult territory, to avoid having to ban. Attacking ArbCom does not help that objective. Rd232 talk 16:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually RD they did try but couldn't garner enough support by the members of Arbcom so it got voted down. That doesn't mean that they didn't try though and ended up banning him from automation. Which is still a form of ban with such loose wording on the restriction that they left the door wide open to ban him later. Kumioko (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Follow the bouncing ArbCom decision
So, not only do we have the follow the bouncing arb count on Rich's case, now we have a follow the bouncing ArbCom decision. Above, we have two arbitrators...out of ten (or was that 9? or 11?) deciding that the rollbacker right is "automation", and Rich's rollbacker rights are stripped. Neither arb member indicated they were speaking on behalf of the entire arbcom that sat the case, just unilaterally posting their opinions. Nevertheless, the case is retroactively modified to strip his rollbacker rights. I wonder, how much of this arbcom decision is going to be retroactively changed? What traps are awaiting Rich to stumble into unawares that he is doing something wrong because there's no actual decision saying it's wrong? What if he'd used rollbacker already? Since the case was retroactively changed (though, of course this "decision" is not posted on the case...very professional), would Rich now be banned from the site because he had used rollback? Thankfully, he didn't. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Decisions such as this one are clearly designed to ease the path for future blocks and bans, so it's likely that Rich's days are numbered. His only real hope is that that doesn't happen before the next ArbCom elections. Malleus Fatuorum 11:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ArbCom elections are not going to change the system. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The ones last year and the year before certainly didn't, so I remain sceptical that this year will somehow be strikingly different. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You may be right. But what's obvious is that arbitrators largely vote in accordance with their own preconceptions, often with very little regard to the actual evidence presented, or its quality. So different people could at least change that. Malleus Fatuorum 13:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The damage is done, and it will perpetuate at least until the next ArbCom elections (unless the community starts disallowing more damage). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems that this case, as with several others of the last few months have shown us several things. These include but are not limited too: That not everyone in the community believe that Arbcoms decisions are above reproach, that the Arbcom process needs some significant redesign and rethinking and that we need a process by which even an Arbcom decision can be overturned. Every society needs a system of checks and balances, Wikisociety is no exception. Kumioko (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hammersoft, the revocation of Rich's rollback rights on the basis of only two arbitrators' say-so was a mistake which I am trying to have corrected. AGK  [•] 18:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem isn't that it was done, the problem is that it was done because the case was poorly worded and allowed it to happen. Here we are only a couple days out from the determination and the case and already there are disagreements about whats covered and whats not. Someone even filed an amendment to make the definition more precise and enforcible. Its only a matter of time before more is questioned.Kumioko (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * AGK, I appreciate the effort. I sincerely do. But, whether rollback is restored or not, Kumioko is correct. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * AGK, thank you for that, you know that you could just restore it (but I am sure that you first have to discuss this secretly somewhere off wiki - oh the transparency of ArbCom!). But rollback is just a symptom, we will have this discussion for anything, up to typo's (whether making typos shows lack of care, but also lack of automation; or whether not making typos shows the use of automation) or the html-interpreting browser, or the WikiMedia software auto-features (templates to name only one) - did you know that Rich since implementation of his restriction already used automation a couple of times?  Not just appearance, they are.  That restriction needs to be wiped of the planet, and, if you are so inclined, maybe we could re-discuss other options.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 04:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Why can't ArbCom just hurry up and be perfect already? It's high time that they started handing down decisions with which everyone is satisfied and which never need any kind of amendments. Seriously, stuff happens and it's not worth getting worked up over. Nick-D (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If a decision has been made after decision makers quibble for several weeks (in the past, some of the quibbling has been over very petty things of no consequence), one must be rather naiive to assume people will blink without expressing their frustration over more significant problems with a decision; one would have thought that the purpose of this process was to resolve existing issues rather than create new ones. Anyone can handle praise; the challenge is handling (and learning from) criticism. Perhaps there is too often an unfortunate situation where nothing happens unless people get 'worked up over' it. By no means is that necessarily ideal or the case here, but it's certainly the impression I gathered from reading the above comments. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nick-D, 'be perfect already'. I can live with not being perfect (it is however what the community expected of Rich, it is what the community expects of Rich, and ArbCom has restricted and desysopped Rich for not being perfect), but trying to describe what ArbCom has done here as not being perfect must be about the understatement of the year.  It is probably just that because it is ArbCom, it must be the right thing.  It is something to get worked up over, the buck has to stop somewhere.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I made this point, with a tongue in cheek query about needing "professional arbitrators and mediators with expert qualification in every subject covered by Wikipedia". Unfortunately one of the Arbs (I forget who) took this as a serious comment. Rich Farmbrough, 19:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC).


 * Ooops facepalming got me de-sysopped I forgot. Rich Farmbrough, 19:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC).

Decorum and civility, please
I welcome free exchange of ideas, to include criticism of Arbcom decisions, and this is certainly the page to do it. However, the recent posts by some editors upset with the recent Rich Farmbrough decision are stretching the limits of civility and decorum, and I'd like to take the opportunity to highlight a few philosophies of mine, which may or may not be shared by other committee members, and discuss a few facts.
 * AGF applies to ArbCom, or at least it should. You are absolutely welcome to disagree with any decision ArbCom makes.  But when editors begin posting conspiracy theories, such as that ArbCom is out to "get" a particular editor, it is clear that such comments have strayed from the path of AGF.  ArbCom is neither a monolith nor a secret society.  We were all elected in a pool, which means that many of us voted against each other in the last election.  Yet, for all that, the one thing that we all have in common is that we're trying to do the best job we can for Wikipedia. If you think that the committee as a whole has any other agenda, you really need to take a deep breath and reflect on that thought.
 * Consider the endgame: If your intent is to get ArbCom to consider your objections, which do you think has a better choice of actually changing our minds: a reasoned objection that ArbCom's efforts, no matter how well intentioned, are the wrong answer for Wikipedia or a pronouncement that we're out to get someone? Really, if you're trying to get us all tossed out in the next election in six months' time, posting wild conspiracy theories about our motivations is not likely to support that goal.  If anything, it might instead garner incumbent arbitrators some "see what they have to put up with?" sympathy.
 * We're not lawyers. We're down to one lawyer on the committee, among the arbs who have  identified themselves to the committee as a whole, and he was inactive unexpectedly during this case.  That means we word things in ways that seemed reasonable to us, but will often be less than perfect.  Requests for clarification are made for this.
 * We know we're fallible. As volunteers with finite amounts of time, the members of the committee are expected to read case material, deal with off-wiki issues, read and respond to Wikipedia email, and more.  I probably average 15-20 hours per week working on Wikipedia issues, the vast majority of it ArbCom business, and I could easily spend again that much time without having time to investigate everything as thoroughly as I would like.  I suspect that other committee members may spend more.  Even given that allocation of time, not every talk page of every case will be read, let alone read daily, by every arbitrator.  Moreover, arbitrators are often asked to adjudicate matters in areas we have little personal knowledge--and this was complicated in this case because two of the most knowledgeable arbitrators in the area were recused and one more was inactive.  It would be naive to think that losing our most knowledgeable 20% in the topic area didn't affect the quality of the case.
 * We fix stuff brought to our attention. Hammersoft saw an issue with a pending finding of fact and brought the matter to my attention, and the upshot of our discussion was that the overreaching finding of fact was quashed and rewritten during the course of the case, as it should have been. Had he simply made a comment, buried in a talk page somewhere, the issue might have gone unresolved.
 * Don't expect us to reverse ourselves immediately, it's just not going to happen unless you have some new, compelling evidence that wasn't available during the case. We do our best to take in all the evidence, highlight the important bits in a proposed decision, and have adequate deliberation and public voting.  In some cases, impasses may last for weeks when the committee is genuinely at odds about the best way to proceed, but that is relatively rare.  If you've followed any contentious case, you'll find that various arbitrators reversed themselves on any number of issues.  Even though some--or even most, in exceptional cases--of the committee may not be happy with the decision, cases have a beginning, a middle, and an ending.
 * There is a route of appeal, and that would be to Jimbo. If the committee has gotten something so horribly wrong that it doesn't make any sense at all, and are unable to see that or unwilling to fix it, we should be overturned, and probably take a long, hard look at what led to such an outcome in the first place.
 * At any rate, thanks to those of you who've disagreed with us civilly. All of you who think you can do better are welcome to run for ArbCom next time around.  That's not an idle invitation: the committee needs passionate, knowledgeable, experienced editors who are willing to try and make this relatively outrageous volunteer time commitment work.  Agreeing with past ArbCom approaches to things isn't required, and the sort of non-incumbent candidates who tend to do the best in the past few elections were those who make grand promises of sweeping changes while blissfully uninformed about what the job actually entails. Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Jclemens, thank you for this. The point is, that the collective of your decisions brings more and more of us to the edge (and have pushed some over it).  One of our collegue editors can confirm how excessively angry I am at the way ArbCom has handled this case (I had to let of steam somewhere - the administrator in question is hardly active in meta-discussions because of what is going on in them).  I am sorry, it is not my goal to have other editors elected at ArbCom, I want ArbCom to seriously rethink what they are doing and what they have done.  You are behaving monolithic, you are giving an appearance of circling the wagons, you are strongly suggesting that you are handling things in secret.  Just a quick example: why did the initial proposed decision not contain ANYTHING about your collegue Arbitrator Elen: that gives the impression that you as a monolith were trying to keep that out, circling your wagons in defense of yourself, and discussing that in secret - or is that an initial proposed decision by one single Arbitrator?  Another one: One of your colleague Arbitrators says somewhere that they see no other options than desysop and that restriction - but there are no on-wiki discussions of that, so other options were discussed and dismissed in secret?
 * Yes, it probably was an oversight to not note Elen's involvement initially--you'll note that I was the one who took that feedback and got something done about it--and without offering any excuses, I think it highlights that this case has dealt a couple of times with the difference in blocking/unblocking bots vs. blocking/unblocking people. I think the community would be better served by clarifying how the expectations differ, because in this case it really felt to me like we were.... discovering (read: making stuff up as we went along) those interactions.  The last thing I want to do is make policy by fiat, and I am glad that ArbCom decisions are not binding precedents.  In this case, I think we've got a one-off decision, and I would really like to see the underlying policy clarified by the community before this ever comes up again. On the other point, while a few arbitrators comment on workshop proposals--and I try to be one of them, especially when I'm (co-)drafting--most of the rest simply read and vote or comment as they see it.  While we can and do deliberate on a mailing list, it's my impression that we spend far more time hashing out the findings of fact.  Indeed, while I've seen various sanctions proposed, I've never seen an off-wiki agreement on a sanction outside the very clearly delineated emergency processes. Jclemens (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * An oversight, OK. But that type of oversights is not reflecting well on the process of Arbitration.  Anything else that you ArbCom may have overlooked, and which could have changed the outcome of this case?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Going to Jimbo might work, but maybe it is better that the ArbCom seriously reflects on what they are doing, and what they have done, and in which way that damages Wikipedia. Because I, for one, think that this decision has damaged Wikipedia more than all the non consensual edits by Rich Farmbrough multiplied by a factor of 100.  This decision has not only taken the dream out of Rich Farmbrough (diff), it has taken the dream out of many of us.  Give us back our dream.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You want a dream back? Wikipedia isn't a playground.  As it's grown, the ability to work with pseudo-anarchy has suffered.  For my part, I'm trying very, very hard to balance the ideals of egalitarian initiative with the reality that spelling everything out and advanced approval is a comfortable stasis into which good ideas can fall and die.  If you want to take a lesson from Betacommand 3 and this case, it is that playing fast and loose with rapid changes to lots of articles is not a good idea.  The other thing folks overlook in these cases is that most initial sanctions or reprimands make their point and editors stop the objectionable behavior--and I speak as someone first elected to the committee six months after an RFC/U.  The thing every editor sanctioned by ArbCom has in common is that they've had opportunities to take appropriate feedback before, and failed to do so.  This is the mildest de-sysop'ing I've seen, and even moved me to rescind my customary support for the most severe sanctions offered, but was inevitable because of how inextricably tied automation is to administration.  So, to the extent your dream doesn't involve changing trivial things all over Wikipedia without getting BAG approval first, I'm not sure what I can or need to do in order to preserve it. It's my sincere hope that Rich is not banned, to answer another objection above, but does indeed now understand how he is expected to handle such situations once he gets his rights to use automation restored in the future. Jclemens (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that everyone can edit - but this decision, and many others in the past have changed how our regulars will edit Wikipedia. The precedent that these decisions set, again, are damaging to the process of editing.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The larger the scope of an edit, the greater level of care that must be observed, and the greater level of consensus must be obtained. As the site has grown in both number of articles and importance, this has become inevitable.  Expect any other editors who behave in the same manner to be met with similar sanctions.  If that's incompatible with your dream... I'm sorry.  But in a tug of war between mass-editing and individual craftsmanship, I will side with the latter.  Rich has made many, many edits... but contributed, on average, far less per edit than many of the IP addresses or niche editors who make a few, high-quality edits.  If ArbCom must become a traffic cop in order to keep the craftsman editors productive, then so be it. Jclemens (talk) 05:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is my dream. 'If ArbCom must become a traffic cop in order to keep the craftsman editors productive, then so be it.' - and there you hit the nail on the head.  ArbCom now has become a traffic cop (and that is not within ArbCom's merits, ArbCom is the final step in dispute resolution; ArbCom is NOT a traffic cop, if that was the case, the community would have appointed them as such) - but due to ArbCom decisions and the precedents you set, your 'craftsman editors' are seriously hampered in their productivity.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just as a note, because I am afraid that you are referring to my anger and perceived incivility: ArbCom did utterly ignore the remarks addressed at me by one of the parties in the Rich Farmbrough case during the case, which not only I found incivil but also others, and which were washed away as me having a lack of humour (which I deem an uncivil remark, and a lack of decorum, by itself). However, the 'incivility' of Rich Farmbrough was not washed away as a lack of a sense of humour.  Where was ArbCom (or the community) when people were incivil at &Delta; - no, they only see the incivility by &Delta; (note there that one of the Arbitrators recused himself in that case because of crossing the swords with &Delta;).  Can you see why I think that we are losing our dream - where is ArbCom there when it comes to asking for decorum and civility?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * For my part, I am not familiar with the incivil comments you're talking about. So, if I'm ignoring it, I have done so out of ignorance.  Post or email what you're talking about, and I'll give you a more specific answer. Jclemens (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Some random quotes by several editors and by Elen: "Dirk just made that one up I think, out of sheer desperation." - "just like we ignore the incivility by Elen" - "You know, I don't think I've ever met anyone who actually inhabited a parallel universe before." - "for all your rant about how it isn't above" - "You are not going to get any further by ranting and personally attacking everyone around you." - "It's not just his offwiki comms that are a problem - to be honest it's every time he opens his mouth to say anything but suggestions for technical activity." - "you are an anal retentive with OCD on the autism spectrum" - "Do you want your rattle back yet?" - "I am smart enough to learn from this experience that humour doesn't work with Dirk, or I would guess with you, so I won't try it again." - And it has been documented on the workshop: "and further interactions unbecoming of an administrator", or "How about Elen accusing RF of being "an anal retentive with OCD on the autism spectrum" [15 and asking Rich "Do you want your rattle back yet?" [16]? Maybe it's ok to insult and belittle because it's Rich? How about accusing someone other than Rich of ranting [17], and of living in a parallel universe [18]? How about accusing another editor of six years experience with 21,000 edits of "either not capable of editing, or you are a troll" [19]? How about telling yet another editor "Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out." [20]?"]. But no word on Elen's continued incivility, which I think is very, very unbecoming of an administrator, let alone of an Arbitrator.  You say that ArbCom fixes the problems (and in fact, you did fix the problem with the complete omission of Elen in the PD), but ignore so many others.  So all I can see is that ArbCom is not able to perform their work at the level that should be expected of them (it is maybe not their fault, vide infra), and I have to expect that the decisions are really for the best of Wikipedia (again, vide infra).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "It would be naive to think that losing our most knowledgeable 20% in the topic area didn't affect the quality of the case." - WHAT!?!? --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That is, Xeno, Hersfold, and Elen of the Roads were absent or recused. They did not participate in any deliberations, or offer suggestions on our wording.  We have two bureaucrats, both familiar with BAG and its processes, on the committee--Xeno and Hersfold.  You think we could have done a better job if we had the most knowledgeable of our body back and appropriately able to consider the merits of the case in a neutral manner?  I do. Jclemens (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that admission, Jclemens. My 'WHAT!?!?' was directly related to that, as I expected that was exactly what you meant.  ArbCom admids here that they were going to do a crappy job because they did not have the knowledge in house to solve it properly - so the solution you choose it to the best of your knowledge, not necessarily what is the best for Wikipedia.  And that is exactly what I mean - you are the 'judges', and you allow all evidence, you don't have the knowledge to break it down, you (have to) take the word of accusers at face value.
 * Do I have to presume that missing Elen's incivility in this case and around it (but finding Rich' mild incivility) is also due to the lack of experience of the remaining members? Or maybe it is due to a lack of time?  But ArbCom does come to the decisions they make.  And I know, you all have the best intentions, you above talk about WP:AGF towards the members of ArbCom - but do I have to WP:AGF to their decisions if they, and you admit that here yourself, are continuously incapable to come to an educated decision, and even if you intend that it is for the best of Wikipedia, due to lack of knowledge and lack of time you may very well come to decisions that are not for the best of Wikipedia - and again, I believe that the decisions that ArbCom makes are sometimes significantly MORE damaging (by orders of magnitude) than the cumulative damage by Rich.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "We fix stuff brought to our attention." - No, you did not: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough/Proposed decision - that is exactly the thing that we tried to get to the Arbitrators attention and why the above thread is here, and there is a request for amendment less than a week after the case --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * vide supra. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Although I didn't follow this case (or others of this year) during my inactivity, I think that a number of the above philosophies are sound. But on the same token, I think of these responses on reading some parts of the above:
 * I think has been some level of improvement in requests for clarification in recent months/years, but it would not be accurate if I were to say that the requests for clarification "process" (for the lack of a better word) still does not have a reputation for (at least, sometimes) taking excessively long and creating more confusion/issues. I note that a lawyer was on the Committee both in those days, and at present.
 * The so-called route of appeal; there has been at least one case some years ago which ArbCom got horribly wrong according to the Community - not only did that ArbCom fail to vacate it, Jimbo failed to do anything about it. I am not for mentioning the name as it would destroy the point of the decision being vacated. It was only after significant pressure from the Community that a later ArbCom vacated it, and even then, they were quibbling about that later. What evidence (I mean something more than some individual unban requests) is there to suggest that something has changed about that route?
 * Maybe there is a concern being raised indirectly that some things are not fixed even after being brought to ArbCom's attention? Maybe ArbCom had the best of intentions to improve the project when it was/is giving the impression that it was 'out' to get a particular editor? Someone else would need to substantiate either/both, if so.
 * Frankly, as impossible as it sounds, I wonder what would Jimbo do if editors accepted that they will not be able to spend sufficient time as volunteer members of ArbCom (leading to no arbitrators being elected). Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ncmvocalist, I think it fair to say ArbCom has evolved with Wikipedia. If you're thinking of the same decision I am, then I would agree.  On the downside, with the increased number of banned users, there is an increasing workload at hearing and tracking appeals which isn't reflected in the public work of the committee. I fear that the occasional ban appeal that should be granted will be overlooked among the piles of those which should not be. To your last point, while fewer and fewer editors have been running for ArbCom, the numbers have not dropped below the number of open seats, nor has any election failed to seat the number of expected candidates with the 50% approval cutoff.  I think it's a problem of growth much like our editor and administrator retention: multifactorial, and one without any clear solution. Jclemens (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)And regarding assuming good faith, AGF is not a suicide pact, or an eternal wellspring - this last half a year (if not longer) has been filled with ArbCom decisions and actions where I have to stretch WP:AGF to the maximum (including re-banning editors because they were banned before, decisions without any significant evidence, ex-Arbs closing and renaming discussions about Arbitration (discussions that started when they were still an Arbitrator), not willing to provide significant evidence of a decision, arbitrators who do exactly the same as what they blame others for, and decisions which are, knowingly, vague and problematic). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * @Ncmvocalist: what impression does the remark "Given that neither Remedies 3 & 4 are going to pass, I think another alternative, perhaps of 6 or 12 months, should be proposed. PhilKnight (talk) 05:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)" by PhilKnight give you? To me, it sounds like they insist in finding agreement to ban Rich Farmbrough, they just can't get to agreement how.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To be fair, Silktork, Casliber, and David Fuchs seem to have been opposed to site-banning altogether. I probably should add Jclemens to that list, given that he agreed that a ban is too premature (and seems to have indicated if he was supporting a ban, it would be remedy 3), but that's just my impression. With Risker sitting on the fence, the call for site bans was coming from Kirill, Roger, and Philknight. I think Philknight thought he could get support from AGK and Courcelles (based on their comments in remedy 4) if another ban proposal was put up - if that happened, the site ban remedy would be passing. As to whether this would purely reflect on Philknight, (Kirill, and Roger), or on AGK & Courcelles too (if they had switched) is anyone's guess, but I guess we will never know - seeing the proposal was not formally made. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Excellent post. I've met several members of ArbCom in person, and came away impressed by how seriously they take the job, their good humour in the face of having to deal with difficult people and the depth of their knowledge about Wikipedia's processes and norms. The fact that they volunteer significant amounts of their time to try to solve the worst problems on Wikipedia is obviously highly admirable. I don't always agree with ArbCom's decisions, but it's very safe to assume that they're always made in good faith. Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ncmvocalist: I agree - but that they showed the consideration to ban him says something in itself - and as you say, it is an impression, I guess we will never know.
 * Nick-D, but I am also convinced that Rich Farmbrough is editing in good faith, and Rich Farmbrough and see where that got him. Doing things in good faith and taking that seriously does not mean that they are correct.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Dirk, with all respect, I'd suggest that you step away from the computer and go for a walk. Posting the same thing over and over here isn't helping anyone and actually greatly undermines your case. Nick-D (talk) 08:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This request is ironically amusing coming from an editor 1) who characterized my good faith amendment request as a strawman - a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. -- which is back door way of accusing someone of making falsehoods, and 2) appears to think a questionable rollback right removal is not a real problem and seems more concerned with the "please fix it" request being posted in the incorrect forum  that the fact something needs fixing. ArbCom periodically  blows off the community by running past their decision "deadlines" without having a clerk take, what -- a minute? -- to update the date when it becomes apparent an extension will be required. Civility begets civility, and, as elected leaders in the community, ArbCom should be leaders -- and good leaders lead by example. Nobody Ent 10:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you'll look at the edit times, you may notice that I responded to the request for amendment before I joined the discussion here. That's because I responded first to the request for amendment before I was made aware of this discussion or the rollback issue.  The initial wording of the amendment request, to which I responded, said nothing about rollback or it being anything more than a theoretical.  So, to the position of strawmannishness (I love the extensibility of English sometimes): are you asserting that you, in good faith, believed that someone would ban Rich for his use of DNS?  I think not, given that you called it "An absurd-for-explanatory-purposes example".  So, my feedback for you: when you file a request, please do so with links to the real discussion (if any), articulate real or reasonably foreseeable problems, and do not take offense when "An absurd-for-explanatory-purposes example" is called a strawman in the context of the first two bits of advice.
 * Yes, I agree that deadlines should be not set, met, or amended appropriately. I favor the first approach, but I haven't gotten around to convincing the rest of the committee and gotten a change made yet.  I've been too busy (irony acknowledged) meeting deadlines to get the wording on deadlines changed. Jclemens (talk) 17:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I am certain that some or all of the comments above were directed at me and that's perfectly fine and certainly valid. I have been very vocal in my views of Arbcom lately and I certainly expected someone to say something about my very direct and non tactful statements. Prior to February I would have taken the time to craft my statements to by much more tactful and much less direct but quite frankly since seeing how the community feels about me and my activities I no longer hope nor desire being an Admin or Arb. At one time perhaps but that time is gone. I would certainly not be elected if I ran anyway, eventhough I easily have the knowledge to perform the tasks required of most Admin related tasks and possess several of the skills needed to be an Arb.
 * By way of a completely non-scientific poll of community sentiment – because it's simply my personal reaction! – I've been following this discussion, and my own reaction to it has been to feel sympathy for the Committee members. And, like so many other things I've seen in the past, it makes me wonder whether the Committee is simply being expected to do too much, whether the current responsibilities should not instead be distributed over some additional groups of persons. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

With that said, the most recent decision about Rich was neither wise nor fair and just about as vague as a decision can be, as such it can be interpreted in an almost infinite number of ways. I think that it was largely biased and the end was predetermined on the instant the case was filed largely wasting several weeks of editors time. Being a lawyer is certainly helpful but hardly required. What is required is for someone to think carefully and strategically about how to phrase the cases not only for the case itself but for its effects on future cases. This case sets several bad precedent for the future and Arbcom lost a lot of respect and credibility in not only its decision but in the way it was crafted. Additionally the Rich case was only the most recent in a string of what I would consider questionable calls on the cases of the Arbs bringing the questions I identified over the last few weeks.

I would also argue that although Jimbo has the authority to override a decision, he is extremely unlikely to do so. Kumioko (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC) I appreciate Jclemen's efforts here to shed some light where there was considerable darkness. I do not in any respect wish to demean that effort. I do see within his statements some rather upsetting realities: I think if there is anything we can take away from the RF case, it is that what we have crafted for ourselves in the form of the Arbitration Committee (not the people, the form) is failing. I don't have the answers. I doubt any of us really do. But, the beginning of wisdom is recognition. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Jclemens, you might remember that AGF advice the next time you cast aspersions regarding "the real motivations behind those who opposed my reelection" and similar comments. Just a suggestion. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think a review of the advocacy posts made in that election, especially in comparison with my initial election in 2010, will support the objective reasonableness of that and similar statements. Out of curiosity, do you feel threatened that I'm not one to give vested contributors a pass for their long service to the encyclopedia, but rather expect them to live up to a higher standard based on their familiarity with the encyclopedia and its policies? Jclemens (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody would feel threatened by that if you adopted those same principles yourself, instead of applying them only to others. Malleus Fatuorum 16:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You know, Malleus, when you're not using profanity, I find your wit so much more enjoyable. But so as to not distract the discussion here, you are welcome--nay, invited--to hold me to account on my talk page for any instance where I've held double standards.  See a problem? Say something.  I will ask that you focus on things more recent than the past three months, or older things only if you've spotted something no one else has taken me to task for before.  So: speak, I am listening. Jclemens (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this three-month moratorium something you intend to enforce in ArbCom cases as well? Or is it just a get out jail card for you? Malleus Fatuorum 17:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No moratorium, just a desire to focus on things as they happen, such that corrections can be made appropriately, rather than digging through past mistakes which have either already been recognized or are too old to effectively correct. My primary request is that you say something as soon as you see a future problem, to prevent things from ever getting to that point. Jclemens (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Then to repeat my question, why is the same approach not adopted with ArbCom cases? It seems to me that you're very keen to come down hard on defendants for alleged transgressions that in some cases happened years ago, and certainly more than three months ago. Malleus Fatuorum 18:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So, Malleus, I am responsible for everything I do, and 1/15th of what ArbCom does. Maybe a bit more than that, because I have yet to be inactive on an entire case, but the point stands: I invite your review of my decisions, be they personal conduct, or my identifiable contributions to an ArbCom action.  I don't have the right to make that offer on behalf of the committee as a whole, nor on behalf of another arbitrator, so thus it is limited in scope to that which I can legitimately promise: to read your critiques of my actions.  Now, there are two problems in timing in ArbCom cases: decision lag and recidivism.  Decision lag is unavoidable, (or at least, despite multiple candidates promising to speed up arbitration... it doesn't consistently happen) but that's a matter of weeks or months in the deliberation process between the prompting events and the closing of the case.  The other one is our "recidivism" clause, which (appropriately, in my opinion) deals more severely with editors who've had similar or related conduct lapses in the past.  Past conduct is not punished per se, but plays into the consequences for the current case.  In essence, in e.g. the American criminal justice system, a defendant is sentenced based on their past; ArbCom sanctions, for good or ill, work the same way.  I'm not trying to be pedantic here, but that's the system as it exists, and I suspect you already know all this. A voluntary self-offer of review necessarily is a different process than a quasi-judicial conduct inquest. Jclemens (talk) 01:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But your analogy is fundamentally flawed, as ArbCom acts as both judge and jury. In a real criminal justice system the jury decides on guilt or innocence without any knowledge of the defendants past convictions, although the judge will obviously take them into consideration when deciding on a sentence. With ArbCom everyone pretty much knows up front what the outcome the outcome is likely to be; you, for instance, will almost always vote for a block or ban of some sort, based on your preconceptions of the case. Malleus Fatuorum 13:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I will almost always vote for a block or ban of some sort because it is my perception that the committee as a whole, without casting aspersions on any of my colleagues' motivations, is too reluctant to act in the best interests of the encyclopedia by removing editors who drive off other volunteers or have otherwise demonstrated a track record as net negative producers. Arbitrators who want to be reelected cannot afford to make too many enemies; I am not here for a popularity contest, but to do what is best for the long-term health of the project, and if that means I'm unpopular, so be it.  You will note, however, that I didn't end up voting to ban Rich at all, nor you until the one ban remedy I "moral[ly] support[ed]" (5.2) had already garnered a majority in opposition to it.  As I mentioned above, I'm quite pleased that you're still here, and engaging in a pointed yet civil manner. As a pessimist, I'm always either right or pleasantly surprised (with apologies to George F. Will). Of course, you will also notice that we've drifted far off topic, but my original offer still stands: When I screw up, come to my talk page or email me to let me know what you think I did wrong and how I should have instead handled it. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "I will almost always vote for a block or ban of some sort because it is my perception that the committee as a whole .. is too reluctant to act in the best interests of the encyclopedia by removing editors who drive off other volunteers or have otherwise demonstrated a track record as net negative producers" - and as I have stated a couple of times - it is now the community (and through them, ArbCom) who is not acting anymore in the best interest of the encyclopedia, driving off other volunteers, resulting in a track record that is a net negative on the overall production. Maybe it is time to vote for a 'block' or 'ban' on the system of Arbitration, or a 'block' or 'ban' on certain community principles - in stead of banning or blocking editors.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The sorts of comments like the ones Jclemens made above are precisely the problem many of us have been talking about. That the Arbcom predetermines the outcome before hearing the facts because they feel that once the case has been started there must be a problem. This is not the first time someone on the committee has said something like this in the last couple weeks and I find it extremely troubling and unprofessional. This is not the reason why these cases are brought here. Kumioko (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This is also bizarre. Deciding at first sight that there is a situation that needs looking at does not mean an or any outcome is predetermined. The two things are unconnected.  Roger Davies  talk 13:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree with that statement Roger the problem is, in too many cases in recent memory, Arbcom's decision was clear immediately or within a short time after the case was opened. These cases drag on for weeks but generally the end result can be derived by the outcome of the first 48-72 hours giving the impression that Arbcom had preconcieved notions about what to do with it. In some cases thats fine and could even be desired but in this case and in a couple other recent ones in the last few months, were a lot of discussion and concerns were raised, judgement should be held and all the facts and details considered. Kumioko (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How can that be? And how was it clear? Arbitrators don't usually participate until most of the evidence is in, which is at least a couple of weeks down the line.  Roger Davies  talk 14:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well for one the fact that the case was brought up by a couple folks from the committee, second 99% of the comments on the talk page seem to have been largely ignored, the vagueness of the wording of the case. The fact that the Arbitrators were absent doesn't help the case either. The list goes on. Why would the Arbs need to be here if they already decided in their head what they were going to do, wether individually or as a group? I don't even argue that there was some validity to the case or that Rich did some things wrong. What I have a major problem with is how the case was handled, how it was written and the fact that the majority of the complaints were based on minor edits. Minor edits are not worthy of an automation ban, especially when many of those edits would have had to be done if the article goes through a process of GA or higher. I certainly don't see the point in banning the one that does the minor edit over the one that reverts it. If a minor edit is such a crime here than reverting it should be doubly so. There are just so many problems with this case, how it was handled (even before it got here to Arbcom), the results of the case, etc. The ongoing discussions about it should be a sign of that. This case isn't the first one I have disagreed with its just the first one I took the time to comment on and partially because there have been several I just let pass and later regretted not speaking up. Kumioko (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that I believe that most arbitration cases would appropriately end with one party or the other being banned does not mean that I've decided in advance which party that should be. In the TimidGuy case, for instance, my first inclination was that TimidGuy would remain banned regardless of the initial evidence of improprieties that caused us to open the case.  It turned out in the end that one editor was far less guilty than an initial glance over the evidence would have suggested, while another was far more culpable.  The committee's job is to deal only with intractable conduct problems that the community cannot resolve through its consensus processes.  The arbitration committee will only ban editors who 1) have friends who appreciate their positive side, and 2) have made appropriately encyclopedic contributions; anyone who had neither friends nor contributions would never make it to the arbitration committee: they would be banned by the community without ever needing an arbitration case to achieve that result. Any time the committee ends a case with "both of you go to your corners and don't do that again", we've failed: either we've failed to identify a more culpable party and remove them from the situation, or we've failed by prematurely opening a case when a community admonishment would have sufficed.  Our job is to identify and implement (or cause to be implemented, for things that require community to make a decision that is outside the committee's remit) essentially permanent solutions to previously intractable problems. Jclemens (talk) 03:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Again I don't agree. Just because a case is brought to Arbcom does not mean that an editor should be banned to end it. That's one of the reasons people are so leary to come in front of Arbcom, cause someone is going to be banned in the end. There were plenty of solutions offered in this case that would have avoided that but even that isn't the biggest problem with this case. The problems with this case are as much procedural with the way the case was handled, the vagueness of some of the punishments and how the committee interpreted the data they were given. The fact that 2 arbs started the case push the limits impropriety and fairness. The fact that it became a case at all because some editors don't like doing minor edits is another stretch and its arguable that it would have been accepted at all if it hadn't been created by 2 members of the committee. There are just too many peculiarities of this case, along with the string of questionable calls over the past few months, to not bring the question, what in the world is going on in Arbitration. Frankly I continue to be bothered by the notion that you are presenting that a case is being impartially judged when its being made clear that members of the committee have preconceived notions. Members of the committee should not be, in my opinion, "believe[ing] that most arbitration cases would appropriately end with one party or the other being banned". To have such a mindset already dooms the case, the end result and the credibility of the committee and its precisely these comments that many of us are having problems with above and beyond the decision to ban Rich from automation. Kumioko (talk) 04:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Jclemens is not saying that. What he is saying is that problem editors sometimes escape sanction at WP:AN etc because they are protected there by friends and supporters. ArbCom is often unpopular with the friends because it cannot be swayed in the same way as a noticeboard.  Roger Davies  talk 04:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * He may not have meant that but it sure seemed that way how he wrote it. And frankly I'm not sure that isn't what he meant. That aside it still doesn't change the way I feel about how the case, and several others in the past few months were handled. Whether Arbcom wants to hear it is irrelevant but the community is starting to waiver on how it feels about Arbcom and its decisions. Now its up to Arbcom to accept that and strive to fix it or simply brush it aside and continue on course. The decision is really up to you all whether you want to treat this as an attack or an opportunity to identify and work through some problem areas. Even if those problems areas are simply ones of perception and misunderstanding by the community. Arbcom is not above reproach and eventhough it may be painful to admit it at times they are not infallible. Now there seems to be a perception here that I am an idiot and I can't see the forrest for the trees but I have been around a very long time, I have a huge edit count and have editing on a wide range of areas so I do know a fair amount about how the various processes work in WP. The process of Arbitration is, from everything I have seen, read, heard and felt, one of the processes that could use the most work (the RFA process is a close second). Kumioko (talk) 05:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No one in their right mind would claim that ArbCom is perfect. But, given the difficulty of most cases; the difficulty of addressing entrenched and diametrically opposed views; and - this last cannot be stressed enough - the extreme difficulty of the working environment, I don't think ArbCom really does such a bad job.  Roger Davies  talk 06:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Roger, people got restricted, desysopped and banned for less; you suggest here that the Arbitration Committee has reason to restrict the Arbitration Committee from doing Arbitration. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The fact that you felt compelled to respond with a loaded question only reinforces the point. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is it loaded? There is no "controversial or unjustified assumption" involved.  It's entirely logical--if not expected--for vested contributors to oppose someone who has a track record for not according vested contributors any special consideration for violating norms of civility and conduct.  You have the choice of answering it, or not. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Signiore Clemens, I opposed your re-election bid. I can assure you I had one and only one motivation: I considered your track record on the committee unsatisfactory. Your track record this year has done nothing to convince me otherwise. Of course, you and your supporters are likely to see things differently, but that doesn't mean that you have any justification for casting aspersions on those who see things differently. Heimstern:Away (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And how, pray tell, did you oppose my re-election? Did you post half-truths about my actions?  Take things I'd said out of context and attempt to use them to paint me in the worst possible light?  Simply disagreeing with me or finding my track record wanting and voting against me--as many Wikipedians did--is not what I was talking about.  That's part of the democratic process.  I fully expected to be opposed on the basis of my track record; what I did not expect was to be opposed on the basis of positions I did not hold, things I did not say, and truly loaded questions, unlike that I posed above. By necessity, this job involves holding people to account who have friends who remain Wikipedians in good standing.  I had previously underestimated how partisan some of those could be. Jclemens (talk) 05:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There's just one lawyer on the committee. That's not to say the committee has to be staffed with lawyers. But, from what I've been able to discern the committee, outside of one, lacks any professional experience or training with matters of arbitration or the like in the real world. I saw one post elsewhere stating the committee is vetted for such talents, but in reality this isn't the case. Given what the committee is tasked with doing, the lack of experience in this realm has rather predictable results.
 * We as a community have done an exceptionally poor job of making it clear what the real burden is for a potential committee member. If we elect people that are unable to perform to the levels required, we're electing a committee that is hamstrung. We need to be much more transparent about the burdens incumbent on the position. Yes, it is voluntary. But, once elected the burden is real.
 * Arbitrators can and do ignore talk pages of cases they are active on. Yes, I brought an issue to Jclemen's attention via his talk page. Is that how it really should be handled? I take from this that if we really want arbitrators to pay attention to something we effectively have to spam their talk pages, rather than keep things cohesively organized on the talk pages of the case. That's troubling.
 * We burden the committee with subjects they are not competent to discuss. This is not surprising; pick any judge, anywhere, and that judge will have subject areas for which they have limited knowledge. Yet, court systems manage this scenario. This speaks to a systemic problem which undermines the committee's ability to adjudicate cases.
 * It might be worth looking at Jclemens' "a desire to focus on things as they happen". It's sad to waste the only people who have any authority around here - arbitrators - on the unproductive activity of sitting in retrospective judgement and thinking up suitable punishments for people for their past misdeeds. You gotta deal with this stuff as and when. And not by deliberating about it among yourselves, but by let's say just one of you, talking to the people concerned and making them see sense, so they can all be empowered to carry on doing their good things and stop doing the worst of their bad things. That leaves the others of you free to deal with some of the rest of the trouble that's sure to be brewing somewhere out there. Sure, if someone just will not conform, then at least a few of you need to get together to confirm that they have to be compelled to leave, but that oughtn't to be the first step in what you do. Victor Yus (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's my take on things:

Before I start, these are not anyone's fault. They are due, as far as I can see, to the fact that several generations of Arbitrators have come and gone, and the original carefully thought out system has been patched, ignored and misunderstood.


 * 1) There are massive process problems.  Let me be clear, many or most of those I have seen would not have affected the outcome in my case.
 * 2) Arbs should not be able to bring cases.
 * 3) The committee should compel DR steps
 * 4) The process is not made clear in simple steps as it unfolds.
 * 5) There is no arbitrator feedback through the process. Parties are shouting into the void and hence end up shouting louder.
 * 6) A drafting arbitrator is a bad idea, if (as we have been assured in this case), there is no discussion off wiki.
 * 7) The time-scales are loose, except when it doesn't suit the committee.
 * 8) There is no clarity between arbitration and prosecution.
 * 9) In a case which is clearly a prosecution, there needs to be a right to reply for the defendant.
 * 10) A messy process where the stages encourage repetition, each stage works with different rules and does not contribute productively to the result.
 * 11) There are execution problems.  These are a random smattering I have picked up
 * 12) The clerks didn't know the time-scales for opening a case
 * 13) The parties egregiously broke the rules for submitting evidence and yet it was allowed.
 * 14) Arbitrators, according to Sir Fozzie do not read the workshop
 * 15) Arbitrators, according to Roger Davies come with a conclusion in mind
 * 16) Mail was sent to the wrong mailing list
 * 17) An Arbitrator made ultra-vires rulings during the case
 * 18) An Arbitrator said he wouldn't be voting, and yet voted
 * 19) The drafting arb voted for "remedies" that relied upon earlier parts of the proposed decision that had not yet been agreed upon
 * 20) The drafting arb included remedies more severe than any party asked for, giving the impression of bias.
 * 21) The raison d'etre of the case was disposed of before the case started.  Having an adverse conclusion therefore seems perverse.
 * 22) The request for interim injunctions just drifted off, and were never closed either way.
 * 23) Closing off talk page access.

There is more, of course - any of the above execution problems would be grounds for a requesting a retrial. Even detail, like Jclemens saying "we have one only one lawyer" and another arb saying "Some of us have legal training" leaves the poor editor confused. And we are assured there is no off-wiki discussion, yet I am assured that my request for extension was considered off-wiki. I do not propose that ArbCom should have press packs and spin doctors, but fact checking and scrupulous adherence to the truth would really help.

Given the above, it is not surprising that some editors feel that ArbCom is a stitch-up and conspiracy, and far more believe it is at least a massive mess, and have uncharitable thoughts about the process and people involved. Thus does really need to be addressed, and I would strongly suggest that it be done with expert advice from professional arbitrators and facilitators, and moreover bearing in mind throughout both these key points:


 * How the arbitration process fits into the general dispute resolution process.
 * How to build the process to favour the best outcome for the encyclopaedia rather than delivering "justice" or worse "retribution"

The second point is particularly well illustrated by the Beta process which avoided any proposed solution which addressed the problematic behaviour in favour of binary solutions.

Rich Farmbrough, 19:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC).


 * Rich Farmbrough your resilience, with this matter in hindsight, is inspiring. I am glad you are still willing to serve this community after the beautiful people have spoken of your value. The entire community would prosper under a less comely class. I agree with your comments here; they remind me of my own comment titled "Article 35". While I proposed article 35 I did leave 34 for development. You effectively enunciated the other 34, and what we both have is a derelict mechanism that also serves as our mitigation of last resort. We deserve better, and I'm intent on seeing it; but not this time, or the last.My76Strat (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Rich, there is no disconnect between saying some of us have legal training and only one of us is a lawyer. I, for example, have legal training but am not a lawyer.  My legal training isn't particularly relevant to serving on the committee, in that most of it has to do with giving testimony as an expert witness and chain of custody matters as they relate to computer forensic investigations. To the rest of your points, I think you have highlighted some real issues and made some reasonable suggestions, but I haven't the time to give you a point-by-point reply, and I think it appropriate for other Arbs to speak on their own behalf, rather than this just being the Jclemens show.  Jclemens (talk) 01:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, for various reasons I think the quasi-legal/courtroom system that ArbCom uses to process cases probably does you (the Committee) more harm than good. You guys really should consider scrapping it en toto.  If you would like some ideas on alternative group decision-making processes, I have, and I'm sure many other interested observers do also, a number of alternatives to offer. Cla68 (talk) 07:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * had ideas along the same lines. His experience came from working with US prisons. Mathsci (talk) 09:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know the whole story with that user but after looking through their comments on the talk page and some of the users contribs that looks like a very very poor ban decision. Aside from that I agree with you. This seems like the perfect time to revisit Arbcom's scope, mission and methods. Kumioko (talk) 11:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Absolutely. Court cases, lawyers, etc. - no place for them on a volunteer enterprise. You want guys with the ability to see what's going on right now and where it's heading, and with sufficient people skills to change that. Victor Yus (talk) 11:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyone care to propose an alternate system? I'm seeing a lot of "it shouldn't be like a courtroom," but no suggestion for what model to base it on. I can't think of a better one. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 11:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to scrap the entire process but I do think it needs to be reviewed and redesigned a bit. But I think there are a lot of good ideas sprinkled throughout these discissions. For example, does Arbcom need to do all the things its currently assigned or can some be done by someone else allowing them to focus more on necessary tasks, does Arbcom have enough manpower to do those tasks or do we need to increase the number, does the process need to be done the way its done or is there a better way (like should things go through mediation before arbitration)? These are some of the things I think we need to look at and review. With that said, changes are notoriously difficult and slow to occur on WP and this process would be doubly so since it would likely need some buyoff on the foundation itself since some of the roles of the committee have support and cooperation of the foundation. I think thats one of the reasons why we haven't seen much voice from the members themselves. They largely know that we are shouting at the storm and wasting our time so there is no reason to comment and fan the flames when theres no way we can change anything anyway. Kumioko (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a very paranoid view. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Its only paranoid if you don't have proof of the conspiracy. There is plenty of evidence that things need to change and the current status quo won't do. Kumioko (talk) 13:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Big picture
Remedy: Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from using any automation whatsoever on Wikipedia. For the purposes of this remedy, any edits that reasonably appear to be automated shall be assumed to be so.

Case arbitrator one: In the context of the case, automation is clearly intended to be that allowing an editor to modify multiple articles or other pages in rapid succession.

Case arbitrator two, in reply to: Pushed to its illogical extreme "no automation" would preclude using brower spelling auto-correct. ...So, yes, it would make sense for Rich to turn off any automated spelling changes and allow his browser to instead indicate what it thinks are spelling errors.

So I'm told I fucked up by filing an amendment instead of a clarification yesterday (although today they've been merged!) and didn't provide enough diffs in the initial post and am therefore not entitled to good faith, but rather my request is a strawman -- which means intentional misstatement. I don't care anymore -- I didn't write the bots, make the edits, freak out about the edits, participate in the case, accuse ArbCom of conspiracy....  I'm just suggesting that when arbitrators' interpretations of a unanimously passed remedy vary so widely there might just be a problem. If this suggestion is invalid because I didn't properly fill out fill WP-7893 in triplicate then the not bureaucracy pillar has apparently been repealed, and Wikipedia just isn't going to be fun anymore -- in any event I'll just be on my way. Nobody Ent 00:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC) s
 * I think substantial evidence was shown proving the proposed amendment was not a strawman. I do think it out of line for it to be referred as such, and I agree instead some assumption of good faith should have been made. I don't think the proposals were merged. They're still there. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Hammersoft, but that's not correct. The reason I called the initial proposal a strawman was that... it was a strawman.  It neither linked to nor recapped any actual discussion, but instead posited an admittedly absurd scenario, with no indication that it was anything other than a theoretical question.  Is there a better word than "strawman" to describe such a request?  Idle speculation? Thought experiment, perhaps?  Regardless, I will not rescind my characterization of the initial request as inadequate and not sufficiently formed for the committee's consideration... because... it wasn't. Further amplifications to the request have placed my accurate assessment out of context, and had they been present initially, I would not have made such a statement... because it would not have accurately described the situation presented. Jclemens (talk) 01:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I could go back and look at the timing of every diff. It doesn't matter. I don't see the need for a sitting arbitrator to speak of another editor's efforts in such a manner as this. It was out of line on the face of it. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there was a lot of evidence brought up on both sides of the argument but one of the problems I had was that Arbcom not only heavily favored the arguments by the prosecution, they also set some very broad precedents that a re going to have affects outside this case. They basically left the door open to ban Rich at the slightest whims...I go on listing things for the next 30 minutes but that wouldn't change anything until we change the process. Kumioko (talk) 11:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There simply is a presumption of guilt when s.o. goes into Arbitration. Evidence, whether true or false, admissible or inadmissible, significant or minor, all is used as a presumption of guilt (and if there is not enough, then double jeopardy is applied, and/or we just first vote to ban and then scrape together some minor things to justify what we do).  You can rebut whatever you want (if one gets the change to do that in 500 words ..), you're going down.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There is neither a presumption of guilt nor a presumption of innocence. In any event, ArbCom is not a court; it's a dispute resolution body on a website. Roger Davies  talk 11:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I think that is what we are disputing here, Roger. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * On a website large enough to be a small country, with a population in the tens of thousands and a thriving meritocratic economy.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 12:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, And dealing with the bitterest, most complicated, longest running disputes, usually about the grey areas and usually with highly partisan, highly vocal supporters. By the time, things get to ArbCom, often the only route forward is to prise the parties apart with a crowbar.  Roger Davies  talk 12:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Testing whether witches would float was also for a long time seen as the only route forward to test for witchcraft .. I think that like the float testing, this 'route forward' that is preached by ArbCom is actually giving way more damage than what it is supposed to solve. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I see what you're getting at ... and I do agree with you that decisions are made significantly more complicated by the frequent need to factor in the reactions of the parties' enablers/opponents, who will exploit it for their own purposes.  Roger Davies  talk 13:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That could very easily be dealt with though, by a shift in ArbCom's deliberations away from an adversarial model towards an inquisitorial one. For instance, the endemic spleen-venting that passes for so much of what is risibly called evidence could be curtailed if only those invited by ArbCom to present their case were actually allowed to do so. Malleus Fatuorum 13:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with that almost entirely, including your remarks about evidence.  Roger Davies  talk 14:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that very often when something makes it to arbitration, generally its the last stop for resolving disputes. I do not believe that is the case here though and I also feel that even if it was, it is not the only problem with this case. As has been mentioned before, several of the factors of the case are contentious such as the vagueness of the Automation usage; the evidence mentioned in support of Rich was largely ignored in favor of a couple of editors with a vested interest in the case, etc. the list goes on. I also admit that many of the arguments in the case were from one extreme or the other. One side fervently opposing almost any edits that could be sontrued as minor and the other favors doing most (but not all) of these minor edits and some even prefer a bot does it over a human. What we are left with is a situatin where the botop and the bots where blocked and or banned from editing and the tasks the bots previously performed will now likely go undone representing a net loss for the pedia. I personally have a lot or respect for many of the individuals on the committee but I think the process itself needs some work. I think that a lot of things went wrong with this case and several before it and need to be addressed for cases going forward. I also agree with Malleus and think that this case and others would have been significantly better if the Arbs had helped to guide the discussions rather than ignore them. As someone else put it in an earlier discussion when contributors are shouting back and forth into the void it tends to make things worse and that the Arbs were conspicuously absent from the discussions and appeared to largely ignore them throughout did not help. Kumioko (talk) 13:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "decisions are made significantly more complicated by the frequent need to factor in the reactions of the parties' enablers/opponents, who will exploit it for their own purposes." - do you realise that ArbCom can be exploited itself by opponents? Is your decision a reflection of the community wishes .. or is it a reflection of the wishes of 'opponents'.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I really do wish you wouldn't ask me questions that invite me to confirm the absolutely obvious ;) I don't think this case gave anybody entirely what they wanted (including the arbitrators). In this respect, it is like almost all highly divisive cases.  Roger Davies  talk 14:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Roger, it gets worse and worse. So ArbCom decisions are more like: "we give the opponents a bit, and we give the defenders a bit".  Fair trial, anyone?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No. I didn't say that, or indeed anything like it, and your interpretation is bizarre. Are you really saying that cases should involve no degree of compromise with anyone?  Roger Davies  talk 13:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, pretty much yeah. IF a defendant is innocent then you don't desysop him because the opponent is asking for that.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course not, but equally it means not caving in to those that shout longest and loudest. In the meantime, if I remember correctly, your test for "innocence" (whatever that means in a dispute resolution context) was that someone needed to proved guilty on irrefutable evidence and beyond reasonable doubt.  Roger Davies  talk 14:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Roger Davies "I don't think this case gave anybody entirely what they wanted " I can't see that Hersfold failed to to get anything he asked his fellow arbs for? Rich Farmbrough, 19:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC).

Not a court?
On many occasions I have seen people state that ArbCom is not a court. This is even noted in WP:RFAR/G. I think of this along the lines of the oft quoted "adminship is no big deal". The reality is adminship IS a big deal, not matter that Jimbo, years ago, asserted it isn't. The reality with ArbCom is that it effectively operates as the supreme court of Wikipedia. We described requests as "cases". We collect "evidence". There is a panel of jurors (ArbCom members). The final decisions can not be appealed (functionally accurate statement). There are many other parallels.

The problem in not recognizing the reality is in the outcome; cases handling is done in a very unprofessional manner. There are few procedural rules. There is no determination of the admissibility of evidence. Arbitrators who are recused can comment on a case, even submit evidence when they are not a named party to the case. Mountains of evidence can be submitted against a party, and that party (by one of the few procedural rules) has only 500 words to rebut all of it. Clerks can create policy and effectively amend decisions by fiat. There is no cross examination of evidence. Etc. Etc. Etc.

I think it would be a very good thing for the community to look at its dispute resolution process in whole and take lessons from judicial management. Further, the final step in the process needs to be restructured to be more professional. Structuring the system like a court would, I think, solve a great many problems. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hammersoft, don't panic! These memes are well documented at User:MZMcBride/Memes. --MZMcBride (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * And that makes a factual error too. Judge Judy has judicial elements but that doesn't make her the supreme court.  Roger Davies  talk 14:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Interestingly enough, Judge Judy is acting on her show not as a judge, but as... an arbitrator. Made me chuckle a bit. 174.233.134.195 (talk) 02:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * To add to that I also think that it would help if there was some input from the Jury of the peers so to speak with the arbs acted as Judges rather than Judge, Jury and executioner. A couple of ideas I have:
 * Perhaps we could establish a sort of Jury pool with Wikipedians who would be willing to do such a thing, similar to a WikiProject, where the arbs can draw from.
 * It would probably need to be a voluntary basis rather than draftees and be limited in number and scope as well as powers (they wouldn't have access to all the Arb stuff) but I think it would help to eleviate some of the all powerful and out of control mentalities that some of us editors have about what Arbcom has become.
 * Should be experienced editors, which could be judged a number of ways but should probably be partially based on edit count, community standing, bot experience, etc.
 * Should be a mix of Admins and non admins
 * This is just a start and more would be needed if this is ever accepted but it would allow community input on cases in a better fashion and allow the Arbs a little more time to do other tasks. Kumioko (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, the judge, jury and executioner soundbyte.  Roger Davies  talk 14:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Is calling it a soundbyte meant in some way to divert attention from the fact that ArbCom collects the evidence, makes a decision of guilt or innocence based on that evidence, and then passes sentence? Malleus Fatuorum 14:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Judge, jury and executioner" refers to clandestine vigilante actions. The closest analogy to that on Wikipedia would be individual adminstrator actions? The same person/body making a determination and deciding the remedy is what happens in the vast bulk of court cases. It's only really the United States that has juries for nearly everything. Most cases, including low level criminal matters, are usually heard by a magistrate/judge alone. With ArbCom, it's a panel made up of up to fifteen very different individuals, elected by the community.  Roger Davies  talk 14:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I suspect in this context that "more professional" means "more decisons I agree with". However, there are various procedural changes we could make that would make ArbCom much more akin to a court. The first would be to prohibit just anyone standing up and making a speech. A second would be effective restraint of the public galleries, in particular with regard to attacking the judges. A fifth would be a consistant tarif of penalties, to get away from the idea in some quarters that good work totally absolves from culpability. Roger Davies talk 14:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Or perhaps even get away from the other side of that coin, expressed by Jclemens above, that good work demands harsher penalties. Malleus Fatuorum 14:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Roger, I don't appreciate the elevation of my comment with your first sentence. I am seeing a rather larger number of procedural and functional issues with ArbCom, and I do believe that as a body it operates in a very unprofessional manner. I noted above several ways in which it did. To dismiss this as an agenda of mine to have decisions more in line with what I prefer is wrong. Please don't do that again. ArbCom is not above critique. ArbCom works for the community, not the other way around. Everyone should feel empowered to discuss the processes by which we handle disputes without being accused of hidden agendas. Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite clear what the problem here is. If you agree with all of ArbCom's decisions, it seems to me extremely unlikely (self-evident?) you'd be calling for reform. Just out of curiosity, which cases do you think the committee has handled well?  Roger Davies  talk 15:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem here is your dismissal of my complaint as having a hidden agenda of wanting decisions more in line with my preferences. A little good faith would go a long way here. I'm not out to get anyone, get decisions changed, bring condescension on the committee, etc. I am seeking to find a better way to handle disputes that reach the level where bringing parties feel it necessary for ArbCom to review. Within that context, my personal opinion about any particular individual case is abstractly irrelevant. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * In fairness Roger your right I do completely disagree with the results of Rich's case but more than that I disagree with the process and way it was handled. Had the process been handled better and the case better written and determined there would be much less room for argument. As it stands though the whole process and the determination that resulted has so many holes it looks like swiss cheese. Kumioko (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I try to be very hands on with my own cases (and they nearly always over-run, for which I get flak). It may not seem like it but it is surprisingly difficult to get consensus in an arbitration decision, simply because arbitrators have so many different approaches and backgrounds. If there is a great deal of drama, which is what happened here, there is also a very natural human tendency to get the thing out of the way as quickly as possible. It is also possible to write very tight FoFs but, even so, these are usually open to individual interpretation and therefore disagreement. If the case were full of smoking guns, the community would have dealt with it a long time ago.  Roger Davies  talk 15:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Eh? This was very undramatic. There were the usual inaccuracies trotted out, and it seems swallowed whole by the deputy drafting Arb. But that's not drama, that's just business as usual. Or do you mean de-sysopping before the case was closed?  That's just come to light.  Maybe Gurillio wasn't as uninvolved as he should have been, seems to have consistently erred in ways that made things worse for me, possibly because I gave User:badmachine another chance.  Rich Farmbrough, 20:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC).

To me, the fact that there are questions as to whether ArbCom is able to adequately carry out the various roles, including some aspects of prosecution, some aspects of fact-finding judge or jury, and some aspects of judge issuing the sentence, indicates that we simply expect too many roles of the Committee. Taking that observation along with the rather obvious one that they tend to be overworked, we really need to look at dividing their current responsibilities over more than one group of persons. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Readily concur. If 15-20 hours a week isn't enough for an arbitrator to conduct their duties, we have overburdened this volunteer position. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The workload definitely seems excessive, which argues in favor of delegating some of it. On the other hand, we're short of competent people to whom we can delegate these tasks. We're barely able (and arguably unable) to scrape together enough plausible ArbCom candidates to fill the current Committee, so I'm not sure where we'll find staffing for additional committees. I suppose that if the workload were more reasonable, then more qualified candidates might be willing to step forward, but that seems like an optimistic assumption. MastCell Talk 17:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (@MastCell, so I'll top-post, please forgive me.) Well, it's all your fault, MastCell. And Heimstern's. And Floquenbeam's. You guys were all begged to run for arbcom in the last election. You would have given the voters some truly, uh, plausible alternatives. I'm not saying there weren't any highly qualified candidates, just that there weren't enough. But would you? Nah. You joined Category:Burnt-out Wikipedians instead! That is not the same thing as ArbCom, you know! At least, not entirely. I expect there's overlap. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, touché. Except that I really am burnt-out, and I'd be one of those Arbs who alternates long disappearances with bizarre re-appearances. And since I actually edit controversial content, I'd have to recuse on everything except road-naming disputes. And I'm unelectable. It is Heimstern's and Floquenbeam's fault, though. MastCell Talk 18:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm so burnt-out I had to lock my freaking account even to stop my self from burning out more, and am using Li'l Away to talk to you now! Surely that qualifies me for burnt-out! Heimstern:Away (talk) 01:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * [Bishzilla breathes gently on the burnout-boasting little users to burn them out some more. Tolerantly :] Little users burnt-out like matchsticks going pfft! 'Zilla burnout mighty natural disaster like Yellowstone fires of 1988 or Eruption of Mount Vesuvius in AD 79! <i style="font-family:comic sans ms; color:cyan;"> bishzilla </i>  ROA R R! !   09:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC).
 * I guess that just leaves me to run the place, then. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But it's chicken and egg though isn't it. Who in their right mind would be readily offering to spend 3 hours of their day, every day of the week, every week of the year, to devote to ArbCom business? The real surprise is that so many do, but it's no surprise that so many go AWOL for extended periods. ArBCom must devolve some of its authority, or it will undoubtedly grind to a halt for lack of those willing and able to staff it. Malleus Fatuorum 17:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Arbcom should have 2 non-Admin, non-Crat members. Voted for by the community. Leaky  Caldron  17:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * One part of delegating is to continue to work towards the Wikimedia Foundation taking back more responsibilities. Another is to do it, within the Wiki-En community, by role. I'd like to see the Arbitration Committee specialize in... arbitration! That is, reviewing the cases that are brought to it at the requests for arbitration page, and requests made later (like ban review) growing out of those cases. Just reviewing evidence placed before it. Not investigation, which should be the responsibility, in part, of the community, and in part, of Checkusers not on the Committee. And ArbCom needs to stop being the omnibus recipient of all confidential e-mails, only those e-mails that are directly related to what has been or what will be an on-Wiki arbitration case. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, LC. We're elected by the community. If the community wants to place a non-administrator on the Committee, they have nothing stopping them. If you'll forgive the charged term, the only quota we have is "Those endorsed by a majority of the voting members". While individual voters may decide that not being an administrator is a disqualifying factor in voting for the position, there's nothing in place. If no non-administrators have been elected to the position, ipso facto no non-administrators have the support of the community for such a position. I'm not sure if WP:ACE2012 is blue-linked yet, but if it's anything like last year, there will be a RfC to determine the size of the committee, etcetera. I would suggest that putting forth a request to appoint one or more positions based on the highest placing non-administrator in the voting, there would be a good place, although I sincerely doubt that any such proposal would pass. SirFozzie (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @ Leaky - The issue is that there are few to no people who are not admins who can get the community backing (60% or more of the vote in the 2011 election) to find themselves with a seat on the committee. In recent years the closest a non-admin got to that was GiacomoReturned in 2010 with 40% of the vote. I have nothing against a non admin on the committee but there needs to be an electable candidate. After all, non-admins make up a bulk of the electorate. There are only about 1500 admins. If we assume that every person with rollback or the reviewer right has enough edits for suffrage that is somewhere between 4500 and 5500 editors. That's not counting the editors who choose not to have any user rights. The idea that admins have carte blanche powers at the polls is a myth. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  21:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not unusual in corporate governance terms for allocated places to be set aside for interested parties not normally in an electable position. If there is a view that Arbcom does not always fulfil the requirements of the community (even if it is a minority view) making representation more representative might be a way of ensuring well,....better representation. Leaky  Caldron  21:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * While that is true, the community has stated that they feel that no one can serve on arbcom who has under 50% of the raw vote -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  21:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would be uncomfortable with mandating non-administrators on the Committee, just as much as I would be mandating that non-administrators be disqualified from serving. If there was a qualified candidate who could fufill the criteria and also get enough support to qualify for election, I'd love to see one. But usually, those who wish to serve as Arbs realize that before you can run, you have to learn to walk (adminsitrative tools, DR, etcetera) SirFozzie (talk) 22:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that's just bollocks, plain and simple. And pretentious bollocks at that. Malleus Fatuorum 22:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That mythical community is often mistaken, or misunderstood. I am firmly of the belief that had Giano bent a little and agreed to identify himself to the foundation then he might well have been elected. And had he still been around I would have been willing to stand with him as a non-admin candidate at the next election. Malleus Fatuorum 22:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Any chance you'll be willing to stand for election without him? I would love to see a non-admin on the committee. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's something I'm seriously considering; it's about time us little guys had a voice. Malleus Fatuorum 22:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @SF. Your comfort feeling simply betrays a lack of creative thinking and a "rules" based philosophy based on a formal structure of recognition through promotion. Since many of the concerns Arbcom deal with relate to Admin behaviour I would suggest that having a non-admin. representation would be an ideal counter-balance. Leaky  Caldron  22:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I seriously doubt that you're right, and I see no reason to separate out the highest-ranking administrators from non-administrators in your thinking, other than the obvious prejudice it displays. But time will tell. Malleus Fatuorum 22:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * MF: How would a non-administrator gain access to the Committee, other then the ACE? I don't think you're suggesting that the Committee APPOINT non-administrators, nor do I think a lottery like system would work (although there's a joke in there that considering all the stones that are thrown at us in fufilling our job requirements, that it's more like On the book/play version of the Lottery, rather then what comes to mind, so if you're mandating one or more non-administrators be appointed to the Committee, how you get there? Obviously, I was saying if no non-administrator qualified for the role under normal voting totals, would we then proceed to appoint the highest placing non-administrator, EVEN IF they didn't have the support of a majority of the voting members of the community? SirFozzie (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We may have a crossed wire here; I was talking about a non-administrator being elected to ArbCom under the normal voting rules, not appointed as some kind of lap dog. Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I have to agree with SF that its extremely unlikely that a non admin would get elected to the committee. Thats somewhat part of the problem. The voting process on WP is largely a popularity contest and doesn't truly reflect ones abilities. I work in the IT field and I work with several guys who are very good at their jobs but complete Aholes for personality. They would never be elected to anything resembling the requirement of popularity, IE they would never be admins or anything else here. There are a number of people in WP that I feel would be good on the committee or as admins but wouldn't win because 5 years ago they did something that knowone remembers until they try and run. Kumioko (talk) 23:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Time will tell. Malleus Fatuorum 00:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * One of the problems is that the pool of "top candidates" is quite small - the commitee is still made up of many people who were in it three years ago. From a radical governance perspective, especially an online one where cabals form way too easily, that isn't so good. I think Arbcom should introduce term limits - say two terms (and then with two years before you can stand again). This will increase the pool of viable candidates dramatically. --Errant (chat!) 00:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But what it won't address is the problem of lack of candidates. Personally I'm all for term limits; there's far too much dead weight masquerading under the guise of, well, that's for another day. Malleus Fatuorum 00:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it would. One reason, for example, I don't have any interest in standing is because most of the existing members will be re-elected. So the "new blood" seats are reduced to only a handful. With greater expectancy to be elected then I suspect the candidacies will improve. This, at least, has been my experience of governance reform. --Errant (chat!) 00:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My own impression is quite the opposite of that. I think that very few of the present incumbents stand any chance at all of being re-elected. But as I said earlier, time will tell. Malleus Fatuorum 01:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Two suggestions
Backseat watching this discussion, I think I see two possible suggestions that will help "tune" Arbcom decisions better to the concerns of the community:

First, on each case's Workshop page, have it such that no non-ArbCom can add any proposed principles/FOF/remedies/enforcement to this until ArbCom has posted an initial set of principles and FOF. I know ArbCom will borrow from the suggested ones in their final decision, but the idea of having ArbCom post first means that the community can judge if ArbCom is actually looking at the right factors of the case and the like based on statements and evidence. After that point, they can add their own proposed elements, helping to fine turn or course-correct ArbCom. ArbCom still would post final recommended proposed elements - which may include their original take - after which they can then go on to make the final decision. Also, in some cases, a user-supplied proposed element can influence ArbCom if ArbCom hasn't let their direction on the case known, which could negatively impact the findings.

Secondly, avoiding trying to rush the process in a timely manner. Current practice seems to want to tie up each case within a month. I'd rather see a few extra weeks, or even an extra month or two, taken for a complicated case instead of trying to wrap it up cleanly. I do agree we need limits on the periods when users can contribute to the statements, evidence, and workshop pages to avoid having long-winded and tiring arguments. But particularly once at the workshop stage, this all should be flexible. Maybe a two week period for workshop development, after which it is closed to all but ArbCom, and if they feel that their final proposed decisions need discussion, reopen the workshop for a week or so.

My takeaway from the discussion above and my own experiences at ArbCom is that it tends to be a one-way flow of information. Not to try to extend the court analogy further, a good judge or set of judges is going to give feedback, direct or subtle, to those they are hearing, to provide arguments in specific areas. This does happen at ArbCom sometimes when an ArbCom member asks for more specific information, but I think it can run deeper. This may complicate the process, but I'd rather see decisions that ArbCom and to the best possible extent the majority of the community that are fair assessments of the situation instead of decisions made in haste because there's another case on the docket. If this means that ArbCom has to implement a case queue with only a fixed number of slots (and ergo unable to even consider new cases until a spot opens), so be it. --M ASEM (t) 14:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Masem, you're going to think I'm hounding you or something, but it's just coincidence that we seem to be on the same discussion pages lately. Unless you're in every discussion on Wikipedia, that is... ;) These are good suggestions, but as several people mentioned above, you would all do well to try to drop all of this "court", "case", "evidence", "deliberations", "verdict", "punishment", mentality. The process needs to be about talking, finding common ground and arriving at good solutions. And you don't need the whole committee involved in each matter - people just need to be aware that there is a collegial body in the background that's going to come down on them hard if they won't cooperate with the process. Victor Yus (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is a lot of editors think Arbcom will come down hard if the end up here at all regardless of the charges. Their is a growing concern that if someone is brought before Arbcom the end result Will be some sort of banning, desysopping or punishment of some kind just by virtue of the fact it got here. As has been mentioned multiple times, the Arbs feel that once a case has made it here all other avenues have bene exhuasted and thats not always the case. So once it comes here, by virtue of the Arbs feelings about why the case is here, the end result will be something punitive just for coming and using Arbs time. Kumioko (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Er, I don't think any of these suggestions have a "court" mentality. The only court aspect I bring up is the way that good trials (such as those at the SCOTUS-level) being used by the judges to draw out and direct both sides into getting the answers they need while taking in all that information; that, to some extent, is something I don't see happen much at ArbCom and it would be a good practice to add. Anything else to make ArbCom like a courtroom would be harmful. --M ASEM  (t) 16:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But you are using terms like "case", "evidence", "findings", and seem to see everything as being directed towards a "final decision" made by ArbCom, as a whole, acting like a panel of judges. The whole paradigm could be so different if a mediative approach were adopted. For one thing it would be more efficient - why have 15 great minds contemplating one issue, when if they divided their resources they could be contemplating 15 different issues. Not just contemplating them either, but proactively addressing them. Victor Yus (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Although I agree that this is not a court and we need not have all lawyers in the Arbcom I do think Arbcom is a sort of legislative body and decrees from them have longlasting and far reaching effects. Its sort of like the old Admin is no big deal comment. It may have been no big deal at one time but now it clearly is and is taken very seriously by the community. Arbcom in many ways is the same way. Due to the decisions in the past there has developed a stygma of coming out. Several individuals have been cut off at the knees so to speak by the Arbcom and that has been seen and heard far and wide. Rich is only the latest example of what happens when you are brought before the committee. With the committees mentality of Arbitration being the last hope for resolution the end is usually predetermined by that same mentality. Like a court though, we need it to be a more even and fair process (not that our legal system is either mind you). Kumioko (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said earlier, I think anyone who's been around for a while could quite accurately predict what the outcome of any given ArbCom case is likely to be based on the known attitudes of the arbitrators involved. It's hardly an impartial process. Malleus Fatuorum 17:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * They are terms of art that the ArbCom process has adopted. They can be tied to a more formalized court system but they are also good, clear words that explain the process. We can't avoid talking about ArbCom cases without evoking these terms; we just need to recognize that this is not a formal legal process. --M ASEM (t) 17:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you use terms to describe something that are, as a set, taken from another context it is entirely reasonable for people to react to their use as if they are from that context. If it quacks like a duck... --Hammersoft (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose we could make up nonsense words to stand in for those...
 * Seriously, though, those are the terms best suited to what ArbCom has to deal with. "Case" may imply a court to you, but it implies a medical patient's issue to me. "Findings" mean just that, what the ArbCom found to be the facts. "Evidence" I'll give you, that's pretty much a legal term. I'm not sure what you could replace it with, though. Certainly not "facts" or anything so absolute. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 11:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This may surprise people, but I'm entirely with Victor Yus here. Arbcom is supposed to be the last step in dispute resolution. Instead it just creates a venue for people to slag each other off some more (I hope that expression doesn't mean something different in US English). In the very few cases I've drafted, I have tried to come up with more creative solutions, and Arbcom would like more creative solutions. That's why the workshop goes up before the PD - Masem's suggestion is backwards of that practice, although I see where it's coming from. I would like to have the time to be much more interactive. To start with the filing parties and say "OK, tell me what the problem is as you see it", then go to the subjects and say "OK, what's your perspective", and then ask some uninvolved editors "OK, how do you guys see it" - rather than the free for all that we get.  And I'd like - rather than the rigid pd format - to be able to broker outcomes. Perhaps that might be seen as plea bargaining (something the UK legal system rejects), but maybe sometimes a better outcome can be found. And I agree with smaller teams - I suggested that when I stood, but there's no support for it among the Committee, who view the involvement of all as a check and balance against the kind of behaviour that Malleus is alleging. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * More interactivity is what I'm trying to suggest; as I've mentioned the cases that I have watched as an uninvolved 3rd party, the Arbcom only speak up at, at most, four points; their agreement to take the case, asking any questions during the evidence phase, commenting and providing proposed findings/etc., and voting on final decision. There's nothing molding the discussion, allowing endless strings of evidence to be added, etc.
 * I do like the idea of restricting uninvolved input until the main parties have had their say during the evidence phase, as well as limiting how much they can contributed during the case request phase (a brief statement affirming, denying, or clarifying the reason for the case should be sufficient at this point). But we still need ArbCom during the case to be more responsive and prevent alot of extra text being added that has little to do with the final desired result - and these are things that the clerks can't do without becoming involved. (Case in point, during the last Betacommand case, I asked for clarity to what degree the NFCC issues mentioned during the case request were with the other aspects of the case, but got no response back, leaving me unsure if that was to be considered or not).  --M ASEM  (t) 14:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I too asked for some clarity, specifically what the scope of the case was. I never got a response. As it turned it, it was to cover his entire editing history (whopping huge case of double jeopardy). I was prepared to do a lot for the case, but was hamstrung by ArbCom's lack of response. But, as others have said above and it applies to that case, the outcome was per-determined anyway. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What else was there left to try? Would Rich have accepted editing restrictions given that yourself and Beetstra persisted to the last that he had never done anything wrong? It strikes me that the outcome was 'pre-determined' only in that there were two definitions of acceptable behaviour in play, only one of them was going to be used in the final outcome, and the Betacommand case strongly suggested that it wasn't yours. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that comparing Rich's case to Betacommand is lazy and innapropriate. For one the patterns of editing where different, the (and I use this term loosley) misconduct by the parties was different and even the reasons for going to Arbcom where different other than the link of bot use. Coparing the 2 is really apples and oranges, their both fruit and thats about it. I do agree that Rich made some mistakes and should have taken greater care with some of his tasks but in the end most of the arguments boil down to certain members of the community being overly petty about minor edits to articles. Kumioko (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That exactly. Given Hammer's comment below, perhaps I was thinking of you rather than him. The idea that acceptable behaviour is to hack on with a buggy bot/script, making non-consensus edits that you are already under editing restrictions in respect of. That was what Beta did that eventually got him banned, that was what Rich did that eventually got him banned. Rich is more polite, but it was the same thing that finally got both of them. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You are completely wrong. Beta was banned for CIVIL  issues which were avoidable. I was sanctioned for unfathomable reasons, since the proposed decision has as much coherence as a laser made with egg white and a tungsten lamp.  "Buggy bots" is a chimera of your imagination. Rich Farmbrough, 20:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC).


 * And I think that ascribing non-existent behaviors to me is inappropriate. I have criticized quite a number of ArbCom's actions in the RF case. That does not equate to thinking Rich did no wrong. In fact, I rarely said anything about his behavior. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears then that I may be mixing some of your edits up with Kumioko's (as above). Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Elen, can you show me then where I say that Rich "never [did] anything wrong"? I friggin' voted in FAVOUR of an edit restriction (that did not get implemented, but that seems besides the point) on Rich Farmbrough.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 16:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, saying that of others is of course in line with "... it's every time he opens his mouth to say anything but suggestions for technical activity.". --Dirk Beetstra T  C 16:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)