Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 23

Audit Subcommittee vacancies: last call for applications

 * Announcement

Audit Subcommittee vacancies: Call for applications (2013)

 * Original announcement

Something is wrong with our governance. ArbCom is going to appoint the people who are responsible to oversee the use of Checkuser and Oversight tools, including usage by arbitrators. This makes no sense whatsoever. It seems like the users of Checkuser and Oversight tools need to be a different set of people from the members of ArbCom. Separation of powers allows each side to check what the other is doing. When we have ArbCom appointing overseers, we can safely assume that those chosen will have no interest in curtailing any abuse by those doing the appointing. Jehochman Talk 18:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * But it's always been thus; the corruption at the heart of Wikipedia's governance effectively stems from how the user rights are bundled, simple as that. Malleus Fatuorum 18:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, there is no reason you couldn't have a totally independent review body with the current bundling. Though it would still be in the position of reviewing its own member's use of the tools. (Even if they only use them to audit, you want to make sure they follow that rule) Monty 845  18:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Remind me. How many members of this subcommittee are non-admins? Malleus Fatuorum 18:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There was one non-admin on AUSC in 2011. I would love to see more applications from non-admins. Risker (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That would mean giving people who had never been through any form of election access to private data. I thought the Foundation was opposed to that, and my recollection is that the community was also opposed to it. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * A prospective Admin who has been on Wikipedia 5 minutes and has 392 gossipy little friends troop out of IRC to vote for him is hardly a reliable 'election process' proving trustworthiness - as we have learnt all too often.  Giano   19:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Those individuals would never get past vetting, let alone community consultation. Risker (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a community consultation period for the community to express concerns about the individual candidate; remember, not everyone who sends in an application gets as far as the community consultation. The community might well identify that they do not feel a non-administrator is qualified for the role. You may wish to check with Philippe (WMF) to verify the WMF's position on non-administrator functionaries; however, there are non-admin oversighters and checkusers on other projects. Risker (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Other projects without an ArbCom elect their CUs and Oversighters following the Meta process that sets minimum number of votes and percentage of support. For small projects these requirements are significantly more demanding than their RFA process. A non-admin CU on one of these projects would have demonstrated greater community support than an admin. QuiteUnusual (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There has been concern for several years that the ArbCom is seeking to do too much, and it keeps leading to problems. Most of the dispute-resolution that goes on on Wikipedia can be handled by editors, admins, bureaucrats, stewards, checkusers and oversighters. We need the ArbCom to settle disputes that editors bring to the committee because other efforts have failed; it's meant to be a "court" of last resort. Because the committee is handling too much, other groups that would normally deal with things by themselves are being undermined, and don't try so hard to settle issues on their own. And the disputes that the committee was elected to handle take ages to get resolved because it's almost always busy with other things. For example, the committee should never really be involved in a sockpuppet issue, unless for some reason everyone else has tried but failed to resolve it.


 * So a request to the committee: please allow our various dispute-resolution processes to be handled by others, and wait until people bring a case before you get involved. It would also help a lot if you would make most of your decisions in public. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Amen, sister. Jehochman Talk 19:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. The bulk of the things Arbcom is doing seem to be outside its jurisdiction, at least as it was established. By now, we may have reached the point where the only recourse left is to dissolve the Committee and rebuild the entire governance system. The Wordsmith Talk to me 19:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This is within the jurisdiction of the Committee, though, and has always been. Under the global checkuser policy, this is Arbcom's responsibility (it's not even a "remit", it's a responsibility devolved from the WMF Board), until the community as a whole can come up with a process to manage appointments. So far the community has been unsuccessful in coming anywhere near consensus on the issue. Risker (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Or they could just focus on what they are supposed to do--hear cases--and say "no" to all the rest. Just pitch the extraneous stuff back at Jimmy and WMF.  I am sure they can figure out how to handle all that craziness.  We don't need any more resignations; much better for the remaining arbitrators to learn from recent mistakes and refocus. Jehochman Talk 19:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree with Risker, here (I'm not the biggest fan of ArbCom, but I try to be a pragmatist rather than an idealist). With AUSC in particular, it's important to have competent, reliable, available people, and decision-making processes that rely on numbers of people (be it an election or a consensus-based process) don't always produce such a result. It is within ArbCom's gift to supervise the use of checkuser and oversight without any community input, so appointing community members to the AUSC is already a move towards greater transparency and separation of powers more than they are obliged to make. Addressing some of the other comments on this page, personally, I will believe many things of ArbCom, but that they are corrupt evil-doers who mean Wikipedia harm and who will appoint their cronies to hide their own abuses is not one of them. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  18:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yup. Related reading: User:AGK/Purpose of ArbCom and User talk:AGK/Purpose of ArbCom. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Why are we appointing AUSC members for only two month terms? Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We aren't. If you look closer, you will see that the term ends in June 2014. The Wordsmith Talk to me 19:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh. Sorry...just tired.... Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was expecting someone to ask why we had established a 14-month term this time. We have set the term to expire in June 2014 so that next year's committee has sufficient time to have a CheckUser/Oversighter appointment cycle before the AUSC election if it is needed; AUSC members can usually be persuaded to hold steady a bit longer, but significant shortages in CU and OS need to be addressed in a timely way or they can have a domino effect. Risker (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm curious to see what AUSC ends up looking like this year, with active functionaries being dissuaded by Arbcom motion from volunteering. Hopefully a wonderful group of "background" editors steps up to do the job. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Statement from the Foundation's legal team
 * After receiving a note about this from SlimVirgin on my user talk page, I took the question to our legal team, and have communicated this outcome to Risker (for the committee). In summary, the Foundation wishes to reaffirm its previous statements regarding access to deleted revisions, which required an RFA or RFA-identical process. While we certainly think the goal of involving non-admins in the oversight functions is laudable, and we support expanding the role of non-admins, this is one area in which we are forced to constrain that activity. We think that we have been consistent, for some time, in saying that we require an RFA or RFA-identical process for access to deleted revisions.


 * With that said, I personally erred in not noticing this earlier and in not putting an earlier stop to it. I wish I could explain how that happened, but I'm simply at a loss to understand how I missed such a clear connection between the statements that we (and I, personally) have made around this and the practice that I knew was going on. I want to thank SlimVirgin for pointing it out to me, because it's an opportunity for us to correct that mistake. I apologize to the committee and the community for not doing that earlier, and want to express my apologies to any non-admins who may have applied for this permission this time or in the past, when the Foundation really should have stepped in to prevent that. I hope that they will use their energies for another opportunity to help the project, and that they will understand and accept my apology.  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I hope you'll understand that many non-administrators will find your statement to be completely unacceptable. Malleus Fatuorum 22:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I hope you understand that the legal team of the WMF can say and do whatever the fuck it wants and we have to follow it, in terms of the deletion policy. I don't necessarily agree with it either to the fullest, as it is a strain on editors who need to see deleted material, but hey, it's legal considerations involved so the WMF legal team controls it. Either deal with it or don't make that kind of comment here. gwickwire  talk editing 23:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You may follow whatever you like, but I'm sick to death of seeing this kind of pseudo-legal bollocks simply designed to reify administrators. Any proper legal opinion would address the issue of under-age administrators. And an "RfA-like process" could easily be implemented just for this one user right, but pretty much every significant user right is assigned only to administrators. Malleus Fatuorum 23:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Designed to turn abstract admins into material things? I think you must mean deify? Although most of us are already in fact gods. Divine Bishonen talk, 00:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC).
 * I can't read that without thinking of the Divine Miss M... (chuckle) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't help but think that all this fuss over the normally completely ho-hum yearly round of AUSC appointments has nothing whatsoever to do with the performance of AUSC and is only a side effect of all the other arb-related drama of late. Does anyone actually have a real problem with the activities of the current subcommittee? Does anyone even know who is on it? (I know I could look it up but off the top of my head I have no idea) Does anyone honestly believe that making a big deal about this before we even know who the candidates will be is a worthwhile endeavor? I mean, yes, Slim virgin uncovered a rather alarming inconsistency, and now the WMF has issued a clarification of their position and a formal apology. That's a problem? Why? Because we didn't notice that we were doing something inconsistent with foundation policy? Granted, they didn't either, but the community, not the foundation, determine who is an AUSC member. We made a mistake. It happens. It will surely happen again. Such is life. This hardly seems like the most pressing arbcom related issue... Beeblebrox (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not the most pressing, but one of many. And let me remind you that we do now know who the candidates will be, or at least that they will all be administrators, investigating administrators, reporting to administrators, and chosen by administrators. Doesn't sound very healthy to me. Malleus Fatuorum 03:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually it's arbcom and selected admins supervising arbcom appointed functionaries. Yes, they are all admins and will all apparently have to be in the forseeable future. I think it sad that some users cling to the belief that admins are a homogenous hive mind with no ability to criticize one another. When an admin gets blocked, who do you think does the blocking? Here's a clue, it ain't the blocking fairy. Not that I would expect any less from you Mal, right up to the completely superfluous insult in your edit sumarry. Maybe this is why even people who like you have tired of being around you and discussing things with you. Your constant need to insult those you disagree with is off putting and creates a poisonous atmosphere in any discussion you participate in. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You need to start thinking clearly Beeblebrox. It's actually those like you who are pissing people off here. I on the other hand am one of the most helpful editors that Wikipedia has ever had. You also need to think very carefully about whether your comments above might be considered to be a "personal attack", for which of course you would not be blocked anyway as you're an administrator. Malleus Fatuorum 04:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay folks, everyone please stand down. I don't know how the Arbitration Committee could have made it clearer to the community that it supported non-administrators in the AUSC/CU/OS roles: we appointed a non-administrator to the AUSC in 2011; we spearheaded community discussion that led to the ability of checkusers and oversighters to see deleted content specifically so that non-admins could carry out the tasks, and when we realised there was one gap left in the oversighter toolkit we looked into the technical feasibility of adding that in too. We felt that the vetting/community consultation process, as well as the responsibility to appoint to these roles, would be sufficient to permit appointment; however, it appears this is not the case. As we are already in the middle of this appointment process, we will not be changing the method of selection at this time, as it is unfair to the candidates who have stepped forward with the expectation that we would proceed as posted, and the community consultation will of course still take place. We might want to look at alternative processes for the future. Risker (talk) 04:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * But clearly your hands are now tied, as the ability to view deleted content is restricted to administrators, even if they're 12-year-old kids. (And don't give me any of Newyorkbrad's guff about "maturity", please.) Malleus Fatuorum 04:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh please, Malleus; I've never knowingly supported an RFA of someone that young. Please stop abusing people for trying to respond sensibly to your comments. Maybe you ought to go to bed and return when you are refreshed; you've been editing for almost 13 hours.  Our hands may be tied for this round, but there are other options that can be reviewed with the community as a whole in the future.  Risker (talk) 05:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad has. And please stop with your personal remarks. Are all admins now required to be abusive? Since when were my sleeping habits any concern of yours anyway? Do you seriously believe that I'm going to come back tomorrow/later today and say "Oh, I realise I've made a mistake, obviously it's OK that only administrators are allowed to see 'deleted' content, even if they're only just out of nappies (diapers to you)". If you do, then you really need to think again. Malleus Fatuorum 05:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at Philippe's statement, it is clear than adminship is not an absolute requirement as the WMF would be equally comfortable with the candidate passing "an RFA-identical process". Various possibilities present themselvs. One way forward would be to hold "an RFA-identical process", perhaps on an ArbCom sub-page, for non-admin candidates, on the specific narrow issue of whether the community trusts them with access to deleted revisions. Another would be direct elections with a bar set at 75%-80% though this didn't work too well last time round. I have long and strongly supported non-admin participation and welcome suggestions about ways forward for the future.  Roger Davies  talk 05:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Would the combination of ArbCom vetting of candidates and a public comments period not count as RfA-like? Just saying...  S ven M anguard   Wha?  05:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look as if the the WMF thinks so ;) Biut perhaps Philippe could clarify this as well,  Roger Davies  talk 05:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * But there aren't even any RfA criteria, much less any for someone applying for the user right to see deleted content. What would the voters be voting on, except for the usual "I like him", "I don't like him"? Malleus Fatuorum 05:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Your comment removed my comment. I'm going to assume that that was accidental, but please be more careful.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  05:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not responsible for the way the Wikimedia software mishandles edit conflicts, so please don't assume that I am. Malleus Fatuorum 05:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've assumed that RFA-identical criteria means: (1) a week-long public discussion and (2) highish level of consensus. (I've also asked Philippe on his talk page to clarify this a bit so we'll have to see what he says.) If it's acceptable to the WMF, the !voters would be asked to !vote specifically on trusting the candidate, and comments which don't speak to it (eg "User isn't civil enough to be a functionary", "User's talk page is too confused/colourful/original for a functionary" or whatever) would be discounted. By reducing the scope to a narrow aspect of the candidate's activity, stuff that isn't relevant can be filtered out.  Roger Davies  talk 05:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, Roger, I think that would be acceptable. Sven, note that we don't say "RFA-like", we say "RFA-identical", meaning that it should, in form and substance, be as close to an RFA as possible.  So yes, I think Roger's comments above are on mark.  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 05:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the prompt reply, Philippe. The thing I proposed is not too difficult to set up though it needs a bit of fine tuning. There may even be time to get this in place for the current round. I hope so,  Roger Davies  talk 06:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So what would the criteria be, other than the "I like him, I don't like him", as they are at RfA? Malleus Fatuorum 06:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Stuff speaking directly to trust and the ability to hold things in confidence, I guess. Actually delivering on/keeping promises might be a relevant one too. Have they a block log for ignoring pertinant policy? Have they a history of pushing the envelope? Do they do things that they say they will? It needs a bit of thinking about but it would certainly be much narrower than the free-ranging search for imperfections that typifies RFA at its worst.  Roger Davies  talk 06:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So basically the same old "I like him, I don't like him" bollocks. How would you be able to judge what the candidate had been told in trust, and had "held in confidence"? My own experience of ArbCom leaks tells me a quite different story. Malleus Fatuorum 06:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Come up with a better set of criteria then.  Roger Davies  talk 06:59, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't, as it's a Gordian knot that nobody seems to have the courage to take a sword to. Malleus Fatuorum 07:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, the nature of an RFA-identical process would be very different to RFA-type free-for-all if it is moderated and kept on track. I'm happy to do this.  Roger Davies  talk 07:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't see it working, as it'll be perceived as an unbundling effort, but I'll be interested to see what you come up with. Malleus Fatuorum 07:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The various RFCs that bundled the tools so that non-admins could participate attracted great support. So we'll have o see,  Roger Davies  talk 08:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd think it would go over much better if it were moderated by the 'crats, as apposed to one or more Arbs. On ArbCom's best day, you're not the most popular/trusted group, and ArbCom hasn't had a best day in a while. People complain about 'crat supervoting, sure, but they complain less often and less loudly.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  07:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I did say "moderate" and not "close". It would be better to get a 'crat to close.  Roger Davies  talk 08:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, while I have no interest in applying (I fail to understand how anyone would want to apply now to work that closely with ArbCom) I'd be interested in hearing what the WMF things about someone who's an admin on other projects being given access to enWP deleted contribs? Does trust transfer?  S ven M anguard  Wha?  07:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If they happened to be a steward, they already have the right to see deleted material everywhere. But I doubt that non-enwiki stewards want to get involved here. --Rschen7754 08:12, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Almost positive that trust doesn't transfer. I can think of at least 1 person that would not be trusted with advanced tools here (at the moment, anyway) who has those tools on another project. - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 08:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I don't think we would necessarily trust an admin on a project with only 5 active admins and 60 active editors (as 90% of the 700+ WMF projects are nowadays). --Rschen7754 08:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Best way to pass RfA as it currently works is to stay away from any controversies, and avoid or back off from serious confrontations. So I am unsure if its suitable process for vetting people to position that needs to investigate possible abuse of tools by someone in strong standing as average CU/OS would be.--Staberinde (talk) 09:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

With all the hubbub regarding en.ArbCom's activities and the only ex-officio member not putting a stop to activities that are rightly the providence of the foundation, I would like to suggest that a member of the foundation management team be added as a second ex-officio member to all methods of communication regarding ArbCom so that activities that exceed the remit of ArbCom may be stopped earlier and without causing as much disruption when ArbCom has to retract a position they previously championed. Hasteur (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Noting here that there are three foundation staff members listed at WP:FUNCT as subscribed to the functionaries mailing list (the full listing is at that page). Who do you mean by "the only ex-officio member"? The closest thing to what you are describing that we have on the arbitration committee mailing list is Jimmy Wales, who did describe his role as 'court of final appeal after ArbCom' as he saw it in an e-mail to us back in January. You could ask him for fuller details on what he said there (it is broadly similar to what he has said on-wiki in the past). In other words, he has the ability to review what we have been saying, and step in, but whether he reads discussions closely at the time (I suspect not), and whether he will step in or not if asked, probably depends on the specific situation. My view is that the arbitration committee has long needed someone elected specifically to function purely in a secretarial/organisational/moderator role (and not able to vote in anything), while ignoring everything else. The idea has been suggested before. Possibly the reason this has not been taken up is because it could be too influential a role, and anyone in such a role could get sidelined by the committee if they organised/moderated themselves (the current position). This could be addressed by having the position rotated during a calendar year. The role of co-ordinating arbitrator does exist, but I think co-ordinating while also voting and reviewing cases asks too much. Carcharoth (talk) 06:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Come up with a better set of criteria then - hmm, well, see that's sort of the problem. As far as I understand it there's been like a ... *million" discussions on this very issue over on the talk page of RfA and they all came up with nothing.

Basically, what is being proposed here, as a "solution" (to a very real problem) is that we take a procedure which everyone *knows* is broken, which *has been* broken for a very long time and which has *created* and *contributed* to the dysfunction that is the governance of Wikipedia and apply it to this new problem because... well, because we can't think of anything better.

In other words, if the Request for Adminship is way way way messed up, which I think pretty much everyone from Jimbo on down agrees it is, why exactly do you think it would be a good procedure to implement in this case? SNAFU+SNAFU=Profit! or something? Volunteer Marek 07:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that RFA is a good procedure either and I believe that the previous one - a combination of ArbCom vetting and community consultation - has worked reasonably well so far. It also gave non-admins access. I'm still strongly committed to seeing non-admins in important roles and if the only way to achieve it is by following the WMF requirement for an RFA-identical process, then so be it.  Roger Davies  talk 12:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to using RfA to assess a person's trustworthiness to view deleted content, Requests for adminship/Carrite was an example of that. A number of people objected to that process on the grounds that we don't grant that permission on its own, and others on the grounds that only wanting the permission for a limited period is somehow illegitimate. But, if you leave aside those objections to the propriety of that request, RfA seems to have been an adequate venue for assessing the trustworthiness of a candidate for this (view deleted) right. Most of those that commented on the candidate's merits (rather than on just the propriety of the process) seemed to clearly understand the limited nature of the permission being sought, and !voted accordingly. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email)  10:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I had already warned arbs a couple of times that opening up functionary positions to non-admins would likely be unwelcome by the foundation, due to their position on deleted material. But this was discarded and they didn't seek clarification before appointing a non-admin, which was an exceptionally rash decision even by ArbCom standards. Whether one likes it or not, the foundation confirmed that it requires RFA or a RFA-like process. This implies a review by the community with public comments and opinions (!votes), and assessment of consensus, and therefore the current process is not adequate and obviously arbcom must submit to the foundation position, even if the community had allowed them to proceed as such in the 2011 RFC. I've linked this declaration from the prior RFCs on this. Cenarium (talk) 01:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Non-admin functionaries
The WMF's recent declarations requiring an RfA or RfA-identical process for AUSC membership makes me wonder if the WMF is prohibiting non-admin arbitrators. Arbitrators are elected through a process that is not RfA-identical, so the WMF may also choose to further marginalise non-admins by preventing their serving on ArbCom. EdChem (talk) 10:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like it to me, which is a great pity.  Roger Davies  talk 12:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We can cure this easily by having an RFC to decide that anybody elected to ArbCom or AUSC is granted admin access. These votes then would be alternative paths to adminship. Jehochman Talk 11:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That will only work if the WMF agrees to it. A further clarification would be good.  Roger Davies  talk 12:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe a person wishing to become an Arbitrator must identify to the Foundation and be ceremonially appointed by Jimbo following the 50%+ election. I wonder if the "Jimbo step" or the "Foundation step" are enough to transform a 50%+ election into a 70%+ RFA-identical? You'll forgive me if I haven't followed all these pages enough to see if Philippe has made a statement directly to the contrary.  MBisanz  talk 12:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My reading of this is that 50%+anointing wouldn't cut the mustard.  Roger Davies  talk 12:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think 50% saying you are ready to deal with Wikipedia's worst conflicts > 75% saying you are reasonably clueful. There are a lot of editors I'd support at RFA who I wouldn't support as ArbCom candidates.  The percents for ArbCom are lower because the passing grade is much higher. Jehochman Talk 13:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you entirely but it's not me who wields the veto.  Roger Davies  talk 13:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Can we ask? We set the 75% standard ourselves through community discussion.  Logically, we have the ability to modify our own decisions through another community discussion. It would be really nice to get rid of this long running inconsistency of "What to do if a non-admin gets advanced ops?" Jehochman Talk 13:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've already asked. The WMF may not object to people receiving the admin bit on election to ArbCom but would probably baulk at Oversight. The tension here may well be in the [:m:Oversight|WMF policy on Oversight], which specifies the requirements in the [:m:Oversight#Access|Access section] but I'd really appreciate some clarity on this from Philippe or Geoff.  Roger Davies  talk 14:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My reading is that in principle we could have dedicated elections of non-admin AUSC members, and the winner(s) get elected if they get say over 75% votes but they do not get admin flag. Having said this, I believe this is an overcomplication in most cases. Although if there is a strong non-admin candidate who does not want to go for RFA - why not?--Ymblanter (talk) 14:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * But administrators and oversighters are prone to hiding things, so how effective could such a non-admin AUSC member be? Malleus Fatuorum 14:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As effective as the others. They would have the same viewing/reviewing toolkit. See this "Make userrights self-sufficient" RFC for details: they were implemented with Bugzillas. The principle that non-admins can receive the toolkits was established at this RFC.  Roger Davies  talk 14:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * How is your statement consistent with the WMF's position on viewing deleted content? Malleus Fatuorum 14:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the roundabout clarification. I hadn't realised (which I now assume is the case) that you were suggesting it would be pointless to appoint a non-admin member if said non-admins didn't have access to the data.  Roger Davies  talk 16:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You assume correctly. Malleus Fatuorum 16:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We'd be in chocolate teapot territory,  Roger Davies  talk 16:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We would. Fundamentally, I think this whole area of "trust" needs to be re-examined. What exactly are administrators trusted to do, and why does an RfA that hardly anyone looks at translate into trust to do things that didn't even exist when they were elected? Am I not trusted just because I'm not an administrator, because that's the implication. Does anyone seriously think I'm going to go on a rampage vandalising articles or creating hoax articles just because I can? The WMF's position on this viewing of "deleted" content is so full of holes you could drive a bus through it. For instance, I wonder how many of those BLP subjects who breathe a sigh of relief when some rubbish or other is removed actually know that it's not removed at all, but is still available for 12-year-old admins to read and relay to their friends in the playground? Malleus Fatuorum 16:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't suppose they'd be terribly impressed either by admins who've fought a battle with a few bottles of shiraz - and lost - but I suspect that's a far more common problem. Anyhow, I agree that the whole notion of trust needs reviewing, though that'd probably have to be done at WMF level.  Roger Davies  talk 17:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Which of course means that it won't be done at all. Malleus Fatuorum 17:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree completely with Malleus. It has long been argued that the WMF requires the RFA process or something like it for legal reasons because it gives people the ability to delete, undelete content and block editors and its basically absurd. If admins were required to be 18 or if admins were required to divulge their real life identities to the WMF prior to getting the tools, then the legal argument would have some merit. But since its doubtful that a legal case would hold up in court because User:GoGoBoy or whatever was voted to be "trustworthy" by a group of equally anonymous peers isn't very solid. Its equally slippery if said editor was under 18 and thereby a minor. Not even getting into the whole international la arguments. 138.162.0.43 (talk) 19:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The WMF position on giving access to deleted revisions is clear - users need to go through an RFA-type process to demonstrate community trust in the user having that access. If we conclude that such access is needed to be on the committee, then non-admin members are impossible, unless we try and create a loophole. That loophole could be: any non-admin members elected can subsequently go for an RFA-process that is predicated on passive use of the tools only whilst they are on the committee. So they would have access to deleted revisions, but be expected not to do any blocks, page protections etc - and to relinquish the tools or run a "normal" RFA on leaving the committee. Not entirely satisfactory, but if the WMF is OK with that, it squares the circle. Oh, and if the arb fails their "read-only admin" RFA, we'd have to decide whether they resign, or do their best without the tools. Rd232 talk 20:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The WMF's position is both clear and ridiculous, about time they woke up Malleus Fatuorum 20:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems highly unlikely that they're going to change their mind to make it easier to access deleted revisions. Any plausible change is really around tightening requirements, most obviously requiring identification to the WMF for adminship, together with a minimum age of 18. So we may as well think about how to allow non-admins to serve effectively as arbs (which we seem to agree means access to deleted revisions), and this sort of "read-only" tool access seems like the answer. What's your alternative? (Make identification a substitute for RFA for arbs wanting read-only access is one option I suppose, if both WMF and community are OK with that.) Rd232 talk 22:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't help but wonder how it is that the WMF doesn't find it strange that anonymous administrators voted into office by anonymous editors are in some way inherently trustworthy, so I'd certainly be in favour of identification. Malleus Fatuorum 23:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe it is utterly unacceptable that non-admins should be unable to stand as candidates in ArbCom elections. Tony   (talk)  11:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I think a lot of us agree with that Tony. I think there are a lot of problems on both sides of the argument for allowing non Admins to be on Arbcom. Here are a few I can think of off hand but this isn't by any means all inclusive:
 * 1) Non admins would be limited in what they could do.
 * 2) They would lack credibility when presiding over cases against admins. I can see a lot of "you aren't even an admin so what do you know" arguments.
 * 3) Most users, right or wrong, view the RFA process and the tools as a badge of trust. Those who don't have the tools aren't viewed as trustworthy as those with the tools. I don't agree with this but right or wrong that is the case.
 * 4) Many users do not wish to go through the RFA process. Some have tried and failed, some won't pass for various reasons (not to say they would pass a vote into Arbcom either)
 * 5) The WMF will likely not allow a non admin to be on the Arbcom. I find it troubling and annoying that the WMF chooses to intervene into areas like this but completely fails to lead in almost every other area that needs it. There are many areas, not the least of which is the RFA process itself, where the community has repeatedly failed and the WMF should/could step in but chooses not too. IMO if they want to start enforcing this rule then they also need to step up and help the community fix the problems that are causing the site to have a reducing amount of admins but an increase in admin work.
 * 6) If we are going to have things like Arbcom that require people to be admins to run, then we need to eliminate the arguments that often appear in RFA's about hat collecting. If we are requiring the tools as a stepping stone to other billets in the community it is no longer a hat collection, its a requirement and should be treated as such.
 * 7) The community showed in the Carrite RFA that they do not want or agree with a limited duration RFA or use of the tools. This pretty much invalidates the ability of giving someone the tools on a temporary basis as mentioned above by RD232. 108.48.100.244 (talk) 13:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Isn't this all a bit speculative anyway? Has a non-admin ever been elected onto ArbCom? I could be mistaken, but as far as I'm aware, all arbitrators so far have been admins at the time they were elected. Plenty of non-admins have run for ArbCom, but the fact that none of them have succeeded strongly suggests that the general community (or at least a significant part of it) considers adminship an effective prerequisite for arbitratorship, and is not willing to vote someone onto ArbCom who hasn't passed an RFA. The community and the WMF seem to be of the same opinion on this one. Robofish (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, which I agree it does seem to be, then we should change the Arbcom requirements to reflect that. We should also eliminate arguments on RFA's of things like Hat collecting and possibly mark it as deprecated. If the requirement is going to be that one must be an admin to run, as I mentioned above, then its no longer hat collecting or boasting. This established that the community has a defacto hierarchy and that an admin has a certain status or rank as you will. I believe this has always been argued against but if the rules are going to be that you must be an admin to run for something then that in itself also establishes the pecking order. 108.48.100.244 (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Most of the few non-admins who have run for ArbCom in recent years were either running on what I would characterise as anti-establishment/anti-admin platforms or would not pass RfA because there was something clearly wrong with them (inexperience, recent blocks, etc). I wouldn't read much into the fact that none of them managed to get elected. Hut 8.5 17:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Hm, I'm not yet sold to the concrete inferences of the foundation's statement drawn here. Given that RfA processes vary across the projects and the legal position - I assume we are justified to assume - holds across all communities the WMF serves, I would suggest reading "identical" as being concerned with the substance of the RfA-process and not the letter of particular (en.wp-)proceeding. Thus, it strikes me that "identitcal" is aiming at a method that ensures suffcient support & trust from the respectively affected editing community (and other key factors) in an open process instead of appointments, etc. Ann ArbCom election process - one might argue - would qualify as not just being "identical" to the substance of a RfA procedure but is going beyond it (100+x%, if you like to put it that way) in ensuring the substancial & full community vetting needed to manage the underlying issue. Therefore, it would be fine to have non-administrative candidates for ArbCom ifself due to the full vetting process of ArbCom-elections but no such candidates for non-ArbCom seats on the audit subcommittee, etc. (in its current form), regards --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It is said to limit certain risks to allow only a finite number of trusted editors to access deleted revisions. But as Jan suggests, any community-wide standard for demonstrating trust should work. Being elected to ArbCom should suffice to grant the rights needed to fulfil that position, whether or not the candidate was previously an admin.  The accepted process for choosing admins should suffice, even as those standards change with time.  And the community might create a new process for granting the deletedtext right, if RFA seems too complex or rarified for that purpose.  – SJ +  06:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

WMF insists that going through an "RFA-identical process" is necessary for access to deleted revisions. I'm sure nobody believes that RFA 5 years ago is in any way equivalent to today's RFA, yet there are hundreds who were granted the status back when it only required a few people to vote for them. For example - and meaning no disrespect to this person - Kirill Lokshin became an admin here in 2005; that process is incomparable to present-day RFA. I know, that specific user has been through other processes including arb elections - but it's just an example of the changing RFA process. Lots of admins passed a very long time ago, when RFA was completely different. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point: they handed out adminships like toilet paper in those days; then it suddenly tightened up and became a traumatic experience that most worthy candidates don't want to go through. So we have many non-admins with strong admin profiles in terms of experience, knowledge, social skills, and the trustability thing; and some admins who one is glad don't exercise the tools much. This boundary is just a misleading convenience WRT the requirements for standing in ArbCom elections. And it matters nought that hardly any non-admin has ever been elected—that's not the issue. Tony   (talk)  03:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I welcome a response from Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation. I'll ask for one on his talk. 88.104.27.2 (talk) 03:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Kirill actually had massive support if you consider how it worked in 2003, for example Requests for adminship/Pratyeka.--Staberinde (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * How it worked 10 years ago has nothing to do with how it works now. Pity the WMF is as blind to that fact as it is to so many others. Malleus Fatuorum 20:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm naive, but I think the purpose of most mandates from WMLegal is to simply divert legal liability from the Foundation to the Community in the case that something becomes legally actionable. I'm not a lawyer, but I assume the current RFA process, flawed as it is, somehow keeps the Foundation off the hook (or protects them as well as possible under the law) in the case that something goes horribly wrong. Ditch &#8733;  02:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Something has already gone horribly wrong; non-administrators are excluded from being functionaries, hence we have the unacceptable situation of administrators investigating themselves. Malleus Fatuorum 13:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Malleus, forgive me for butting in, but I often see you making this argument and I don't precisely understand it. Is there overwhelming evidence that administrators are too lenient with one another? Honestly, from my vantage point, the administrators are generally more than happy to eat their own when there's blood in the water. It doesn't seem like administrators have any real desire to "protect" the institution of the administration, as such; why this concern over the AUSC? Respectfully, Archaeo (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Is there overwhelming evidence that administrators are too lenient with one another?" Yes, there is, and lots of it. But even if there weren't, you can surely not be happy with a system that has administrators policing themselves? Malleus Fatuorum 17:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Someone tell me if I'm wrong, but the OS tool does not even work for OSing or viewing of OSed/deleted material technically without the administrator userright, i.e. a functionary with OS but without adminship would be able to view the log, view the log actions, and view summaries of the actions, but not material itself. If this is the case, they would (in the case of an extremely experienced CU, or someone who otherwise is extremely qualified) be a great addition to the AUSC, even if they'd have to contact an admin/other AUSCer for access to deleted revisions they'd need access to them for. gwickwire talk editing 04:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I think that is mistaken. A non-admin OSer can view any deleted revision (the deletedtext right is in the OS group), the functionality they would lack is something called delete-suppress, which is used when an entire page needs to be removed, not just parts of the history. For AUSC business, a non-admin would not be disadvantaged at all, like an "active" non-admin oversighter would be. And to those calling this a rather silly development, I'd have to agree wholeheartedly. A non admin auditor -- or even arbitrator -- would be a refreshing change of perspective. Courcelles 06:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * +1 to this being a refreshing potential change. – SJ +  06:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Works for me, last time I remember looking (can't tell you when that was..) I don't remember deletedtext and/or viewdeleted being OS, nor delete, hence it needing 'sysop' to work properly. It could've changed or I may have missed it last time. Thanks for clarifying that. I still would support having a non-admin CU on the committee for the purposes of POV etc. gwickwire  talk editing 20:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I notice that Arbs are granted the CU and OS bits temporarily (although that is kind of fuzzy on when it expires) I don't see why a non-admin Arb couldn't be given the Admin bit while they are an Arb, with the understanding that they must run RfA after their term expires if they want to keep it. If anything, the OS bit is more controversial and potentially troublesome than the admin bit, and we already grant it.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 13:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Re admins who got their SysOp years ago, when the process bore absolutely no resemblance to that of today;

The example above, of Pratyeka - hah, yeah, you're absolutely right. I just looked into that user, and read this arbcom request. How utterly absurd that admins who got their bit through a nod can blatantly disregard the current policies, and arb refuses to even investigate it.

When I asked Philippe to clarify about this, he chose to respond on his talk page - I will paste that here;


 * We considered the issue that you raise. However, we believe that the fact that those admins retain their bits is a definite sign that the community continues to trust them (including the modified community of today - versus their original community that voted them in) and therefore, that is sufficient.  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that's absolutely absurd.

The Foundation is insisting that people pass RFA to see deleted revisions, yet is perfectly aware - and apparently content - that there are hundreds of people who got SysOp with nothing remotely resembling RFA.

This community does not trust them at all; but we can't do anything to change it, because the only people who can police admins are admins. 88.104.27.58 (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't think Philippe Beaudette is the sharpest tool in the box, so it's really no surprise to see this kind of nonsense from him. Who is this "community" that places such trust in administrators anyway? It certainly doesn't include me, for one. Malleus Fatuorum 17:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I hate to be flippant, but I personally could never trust anyone who has a hair style and vapid smile like that. However, before you all scream and shriek, is the system of trust he is recommending any more reliable? On Wikipedia, we all make judgements on people we have never met. Is a man/woman who has been here steadfastly writing articles for five years under a pseudonym, less to be trusted than a man who has been here six months and assures you that his real name is Randy Rustybum or a similar person who has somehow encouraged a posse of friend on IRC that he is fit to be an admin?   Giano   21:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I assume the question is rhetorical, because the answer is very obviously "Yes". Malleus Fatuorum 21:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * That comes back to the role of 'admin', like most things do. In theory, they're "cleaners", doing what the consensus requires them to do. I trust my cleaner to clean my home, and hope she won't go through my private letters or steal things; if she does, there's a fair chance she'd be caught out for it anyway. But I wouldn't trust my cleaner to advise me on a medical issue; I'd consult someone who was actually knowledgeable about that area.
 * Basic problem at Wikipedia is, the "cleaners" are assumed to also function as rocket scientists, brain surgeons, psychologists, lawyers, etc.
 * Power corrupts. 88.104.27.58 (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe we need to make WP:Admins are a BIG DEAL per WMF decree a blue link? EdChem (talk) 09:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

When I started this section, I asked:
 * The WMF's recent declarations requiring an RfA or RfA-identical process for AUSC membership makes me wonder if the WMF is prohibiting non-admin arbitrators. Arbitrators are elected through a process that is not RfA-identical, so the WMF may also choose to further marginalise non-admins by preventing their serving on ArbCom.

The question was passed on the WMF, but I don't see a definitive response. Have we got a definite answer that non-admin arbitrators are prohibited by the WMF? Can we now officially declare that adminship as no big deal is officially dead by WMF-decree? EdChem (talk) 09:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchuminWeb closed

 * Announcement


 * Would it be possible to reword the announcement to make it clearer? By including a description of what would happen if SW voluntarily gave up his bit, I think it is needlessly muddied.  You never actually come out and directly say that you've just now desysopped him. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Seriously, could something simple be made any more convoluted? NE Ent 17:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Last December committee said, "Hey, it's uncool to be trash talking a retired editor, so we're gonna put this on hold for three months to see if the guy comes back and wants to talk. We'll wait three months and if he doesn't show he loses the admin bit." The time has passed so the bit is gone. NE Ent 17:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Very clear, you need to run for Arbcom :) Mark Arsten (talk) 00:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The message is clear so he wouldn't get elected! Kumioko (talk) 02:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a shame. I don't know what the right answer here is, but image deletions are something where it's very easy to get burnt out and we have a horrific lack of admins who are (1) willing to process them and (2) understand our image rules.  (Obviously, I'm not taking issue with the ruling or anything ... just thinking out loud that something needs to be done to expand the pool of admins who work in this area.) --B (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I occasionally pop my head in that way, but I don't tend to stay long because of the atmosphere. What needs to happen (imho) is for (a) the rules regarding images (particularly non-free images) to be simplified and (b) reorganised into objective rules (e.g. is the image used on any articles?) and subjective rules (does it significantly enhance understanding of the article), making as many objective as possible; then (c) these explained as simply as possible; then most importantly (d) these rules need to be consistently applied and be seen to be consistently applied. Too often the impression is given that the closing admin supervotes or ignores discussion because the images are deleted and the discussion closed by a bot with no explanation (even if the discussion was irrelevant to policy it helps nobody when this is not explained). Combined with the apparently pathological resistance to making people aware of discussions about images, the impression given is that admins working in this area are out to delete as many images as they can. Part of this might just be cultural differences from my usual haunt of RfD where the governing philosophy is that redirects are kept unless they're harmful, but image deletion often feels hostile to the non-expert and so interaction with admins in the area is not going to be pleasant. Thryduulf (talk) 03:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I like your point d especially. There are a lot of cases that come up over and over again (e.g. alternate CD covers for music album articles) and the result seems to be more a factor of whoever shows up than anything consistent. --B (talk) 03:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you look, by the way, at the most prolific closers of IFDs (off the top of my head), SchuminWeb is desysopped, Fastily is retired, Skier Dude is disappeared, and Explicit is disappeared. If you go back in recent years, those four handled the lion's share of them. (Apologies if I'm leaving anyone else out - I know Diannaa has closed some and has done a great job at PUI ... and I've seen DeltaQuad close some recently ... not trying to make an exhaustive list - my point is that we're missing some of the people who did a whole lot of work.) --B (talk) 04:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The core problem is permitting "fair use". It's an incredibly vague area of the law, open to massive interpretations. Many countries have no such thing as "fair use". It is likely that one day, all such images will be deleted; until then, it's an absolutely monumental waste of editor time dealing with it. Per WP:VEGAN, 'fair use' makes no sense. It directly contradicts the pillar, "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute." 88.104.27.58 (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, when did we last review that policy? I wouldn't want to reopen the debate if we've discussed it in the last year. But perhaps now would be a good time to reconsider. As with BLPprod we could grandfather in all existing fair use files and just have a policy that from x date we no longer accept new files here - all new files should be uploaded to Commons and will have to comply with their policies.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  11:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd support such proposal with the following exception: Covers of studio albums, singles, films, video games and books are allowed. — ΛΧΣ  21  18:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Why those? This isn't a fan site.  Suppose that there was another photo as iconic as the Kent State shootings photo or The Falling Man or Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima.  Those are actual encyclopedia topics, whereas having an article (and thus an album cover) about every internet-only album released by garage band that ever made the local news has nothing to do with an encyclopedia - that's more suited for a fan site.  I'd rather we remove what amounts to an exemption to WP:NFCC and say no album covers, etc, in infoboxen - you can only use an album cover, etc, if you have actual encyclopedia content about the album cover.  The only qualm I have about this is corporate logos where it seems silly to have a disparity between logos that someone thinks is copyrightable vs ones that someone thinks is not copyrightable.  We ought to be treating all trademarked logos like fair use images and copyright only comes into play if you're taking a photo of a stack of diet coke cases (allowed) vs a stack of cereal boxes (not allowed). --B (talk) 23:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd actually invert Hahc21's proposal. The bulk of our copyrighted material is covers and screenshots with the image being used under the umbrella of "identification". If we got rid of all of those, we'd have a fair chance of being able to analyze which of the remainder were actually justified.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (clears throat) I don't think this is the right place to discuss overturning the existing consensus on non-free file policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I have floated a trial balloon at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content per Tryptofish's suggestion. Anyone who would like to can join me there. --B (talk) 01:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee appointments (2013): Invitation to comment on candidates

 * Original announcement


 * Is this a !vote, or simply questions that the arbitration committee uses to evaluate candidates? In other words, who makes the actual decisions on who is or is not on the sub-committee? — Ched :  ?  10:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The community can comment, but the Committee makes the final decision. The way I see it, there is a requirement on Meta that all candidates for CU/OS must have 70% or more of the community's support, or must be selected by the Arbitration Committee, in order for stewards to grant the CU/OS rights. As past CU/OS candidates have found it difficult to get 70% support and positions had gone unfilled in the past, the process was shifted to the Arbitration Committee, and I assume that it would be similar for AUSC elections. I suppose elections could be held and then the winners could then be "selected" by the Arbitration Committee, but that seems like an end-run around the policies on Meta and the stewards might not like that. --Rschen7754 11:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ahhhh ... Thank you for the clarification. Much appreciated. — Ched :  ?  11:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for information
Can arbs or clerks please assist in filling in User:Werieth/sandbox with the related terms for those arbs who are currently sitting? Ive already pulled everything from Arbitration_Committee/History but I am just missing the current members. Werieth (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That information can be found using Arbitration Committee/History and ArbitrationCommitteeChartRecent. NW ( Talk ) 18:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with NW; I'm also not seeing much of a point in doing the list alphabetically, but each to his own, I guess. Perhaps a sortable list/chart would be of value, though.  Risker (talk) 03:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology closed

 * Original announcement

Extremely poor closure. Evidence that one of the parties was engaged in years-long pushing of fringe theories was completely ignored by the committee. Sceptre (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You mean the didn't believe you. Articles_for_deletion/Gynandromorphophilia_(3rd_nomination) and so forth. 79.119.87.157 (talk) 01:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Best result that ArbCom could come up with. I am often critical of ArbCom but I can't see that they could've done much else here. Black Kite (talk) 23:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Promotions to full clerk (April 2013)

 * Original announcement

GoodDay banned

 * Original announcement

Reading through LOBU with the mark-blocked script, the only example I can find of a banned user who isn't currently blocked is, who was banned in March '03. (LOBU says "Believed to be the earliest user on record to be banned", however Isis is listed as being banned in February.) As for the early-on blocking stuff, I quote WP:DESYS on Isis: The ban was issued by Jimbo Wales and implemented manually by developers, since at that time there was no user interface available either for blocking logged-in users or for removing adminship. I.e. blocks back then weren't blocks as we now know them. Either way, I see all this as something of a moot point. No one's saying that it isn't currently common practice to block banned users. My point is simply that when a user has been judged to be a substantial burden on the project's resources but hasn't been judged to be a threat to the project in any more severe sense, why should we deny them the right to revert "lol teh faggotz" edits when they happen to stumble upon them while reading the 'pedia? — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  22:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I confess I don't follow ArbCom routinely, but shouldn't banned editors actually be blocked before these bans are enacted/announced across the world? Just seems odd that GoodDay isn't blocked. AuburnPilot (talk) 00:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No. Ban is the decision, blocking is an enforcement mechanism. If GoodDay doesn't edit for the year there's no need for a block. NE Ent 01:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would be more likely to chalk it up to the reporting clerk being a non-admin than to a strict interpretation of policy.  MBisanz  talk 01:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You must be joking, NE Ent. Please point me to a single instance of ArbCom banning an editor and not placing a block. I assure you, I'm quite familiar with the difference between the two. As I said, I don't follow the activities here too frequently, but I can't imagine bans have ever been enacted on the honor system. AuburnPilot (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's more the "you're going to get a block real quick if you violate the ban system." Topic and interaction bans are enforced that way routinely. Word in policy about block is may not will. Given that the editor has been blocked after sort of asking for it [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGoodDay&diff=551552225&oldid=551549583] it's a moot point, I'd say. NE Ent 01:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * IMHO, it'd be interesting to see what would happen if we didn't indefblock banned users (assuming the ban isn't for death threats, outing, offenses so serious that they have to be kept confidential, or stuff like that). As a gesture of good faith – "sorry that we have to ban you, we hope that some day you can show an ability to contribute constructively, and in that spirit, your account is not technically blocked, though you're prohibited from editing anything other than your talk page". Obviously they'd be blocked if they chose to violate the ban nonetheless. Kinda like how we don't block dead Wikipedians' accounts as a sign of respect, unless they get compromised. After all, it's a sad day whenever someone has to be banned, no matter how good a reason. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  05:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, not blocking users who were banned by ArbCom was standard practice a long time ago. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 10:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Must be a very long time, I can't remember that far back.... Spartaz Humbug! 16:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Pink& - blocking a banned user removes their option to voluntarily not edit during the period of their ban, which is a powerful sign of willingness to change. I think that blocking should only be used in the case of ban violations. — Scott • talk 08:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * An interesting question, of course, is if the BLP/vandalism-revert ban exception would apply to non-blocked sitebanned users. Personally I don't think there'd be a harm in allowing it in narrowly construed circumstances, but I'm probably out on enough of a limb as it is here. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  ( Je vous invite à me parler )  10:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems fairer to just block people - giving banned editors the option to edit and thereby worsen their chances of ever being unbanned doesn't seem fair to them, especially as there's scope for well-intentioned breaches. Moreover, given that bans are only ever applied to people who have well and truly exhausted the community's patience or norms and typically where previous interventions haven't been successful in changing their behaviour, not much good is likely to come of not stopping banned editors in their tracks. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The other question is, who's going to monitor all these banned users to see if they're editing? Certainly not ArbCom, they already have too much to do. --Rschen7754 05:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If a banned editor makes an edit that's so innocuous no one notices a banned editor is editing, how does that hurt Wikipedia? Answering the question, the way folks hold grudges around here it would just be a matter of time before some one ratted them out. NE Ent 11:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * My question is: If a banned editor is trustworthy enough to not be blocked, why on earth was he banned in the first place? At most, a topic ban from the problem areas would be applicable. Also, if I saw a blocked and site-banned editor revert some unambiguous vandalism or libel while logged out, I would completely ignore it. While it would technically be block evasion, that's not what block evasion was meant to cover. Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And if a site-banned not blocked editor reverted unambiguous vandalism or libel while logged in, that would be different how? NE Ent 12:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I couldn't care less if one did. See above, though, for why I think that editors trustworthy enough to abide by a site ban without a block shouldn't have been banned in the first place. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Because the fundamental, perennial hope -- the reason we try to positively engage with editors who haven't quite "gotten it" is that today will be the day that they do. If a site ban is the wake up call that finally clicks, giving the editor an opportunity to show that by not blocking them would allows us to see that evidence during a future appeal. NE Ent 12:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec)This is an incredibly silly discussion. Lets see an example of a banned user not being blocked before we start arguing about the whys and wherefores... Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 12:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We should not discuss whether it makes sense to not block a site banned editor until we find an example of a not blocked site banned editor? KOH has stated it was common practice in the past -- personally I'm willing to believe them, and it certainly is consistent with the policy as written. NE Ent 12:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't ever recall it happening that way and I have been around almost as long as KoH. The point is that this is entirely theoretical and totally nugatory until you demonstrate an actual example. Spartaz Humbug! 12:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * NE Ent 12:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There's something weird going on there, and I wonder if our logs aren't entirely reliable for very old cases like that. In the case of Isis, Ed Poor indicated in a mailing list post that he had blocked Isis (and five other accounts) at Jimbo's request in February 2003: .  However, there's no record in the block logs for Isis (or any of the other accounts) of a block placed at the time; indeed, there are no admin actions shown for Ed Poor in 2003.  Actually, looking a little more closely, querying the entire Wikipedia block log for blocks placed in 2003 returns nothing: .  Indeed, the block log doesn't show any blocks placed before 31 December 2004.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Isis wasn't a vandal so your tag is actually incorrect and quite inappropriate. She was blocked for legal threats. Go look at List of banned users and tell me how many are unblocked? There was a database failure in the past that lost a lot of logs and information so on-wiki information from the very early days is actually quite unreliable. Spartaz Humbug! 15:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * vandal-s is used at List of banned users, which is where I found Isis's name. If it's inappropriate, fix it. Since information from early Wikipedia is unreliable, your request to find specific examples is unreasonable NE Ent 15:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All bar one or two on that list are blocked. You are the one making the argument so the onus is on you. I can't help feeling you are wielding the stick now. Spartaz Humbug! 16:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No rights here, only privileges. A banned user should not be reverting vandalism (or at least should just do it as a puppet) -- they should be showing respect for the community by honoring the ban until such time as they and we are ready to discuss an unban. Unfortunately because of the reflexive blocking -- not supported by current policy as written -- there can be no wiki Socrates. If we truly believed the not punitive meme we wouldn't feel compelled to block until an editor violated the ban. NE Ent 23:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

This might be a discussion worth having on Wikipedia talk:Banning policy since the conversation has turned aay from GoodDay and onto the banning policy more generally. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In the past arbcom site banned editors (e.g. )  have been blocked by AC clerks who are also sysops, so it's unclear to me whether it's an "arbcom thing" or "community thing." NE Ent 01:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * NE Ent is correct. Once banned, normally arbcom clerks that are sysops routinely do the blocking. For example (Timotheus Canens),  (Seddon),  (Amorymeltzer),  (Amorymeltzer),  (Guerillero), etc. Mathsci (talk) 09:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The only instance I know of sommeone being banned but not blocked was TimidGuy; to his credit, he complely honoured/respected the sanction, which was lifted on appeal some six months later. Roger Davies talk 11:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee report of activity for March 2012 through April 2013

 * Discuss this Please follow the link - this is not discussion page for this announcement.

Shouldn't the "discuss link" wikilink jump to here per usual practice??? NE Ent 23:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * From my memory (though it was before I was a clerk) and understanding specifics regarding the subcommittees are discussed on their talk pages rather than the Committee's. But I've added the link and a comment to direct people away from here if they come looking. Thanks NE Ent. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The previous announcement was also about AUSC and linked here, so I'm not seeing the pattern described. NE Ent 01:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The previous announcement was related to the appointment, whereas this announcement is about the activities of the SubCommittee. The later is usually handled on the SubCommittee's talk page. — ΛΧΣ  21  04:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

...we're really talking about where comments are placed? Perhaps this time would be better spent writing articles. --Rschen7754 04:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

AUSC appointments 2013

 * Original announcement


 * Apparently running on a platform of "accountability" gets candidates rejected despite support from the community for more accountability and trust.--v/r - TP 03:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I am going to assume good faith, TParis, and presume that what you meant to say "Apparently other people had more support than I did, and I'll write Arbcom tomorrow to ask what the key criticisms of my candidacy were, just as they invited me to do when they advised me that my candidacy did not succeed." Risker (talk) 03:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's very easy to categorize me as a sore loser and it's a very convenient excuse, but I have a very hard time seeing the (public) support that Richwales had versus myself. Perhaps the support/oppose ratio was greater in private discussions then and, if so, I have very strong objections to that matter by itself.--v/r - TP 05:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * TParis, this wasn't about running on a platform of "accountability", there were other concerns which lead you to be a more controversial candidate amongst the committee. As these concerns are of a personal nature, I'd rather not discuss them here - however, if you were to send me an email, I'll explain them as best I can. Worm TT( talk ) 07:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned on Tparis's talk page its not completely surprising but it is contemptible that Arbcom would elevate one of their clerks who failed to get voted into Arbcom by the community to AUSC. I didn't "support" either but I would havemuch rather Tparis got it. In hindsight I should have supported his instead of opposed. Kumioko (talk) 02:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think these appointments show that the phrase 'Community term' is deceptive. Community feedback was that TParis should be appointed in favour of Richwales. Given there was no meaningful disciplinary actions last term (not even a naming of a functionary), I charge that AUSC is failing in its function of provide any public accountability or legitimacy to the CUOS team. --Surturz (talk) 09:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Feedback was also given in private, which means that the feedback that you saw in public was only a fraction of that which was provided. Therefore your conclusions have been drawn on only part of the data set. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Only one email submission was verifiably submitted, and regarded neither of the candidates we are discussing. CheckUsers block accounts based on secret evidence, and are audited in secret, disciplined in secret, by a body of editors appointed in secret deliberations, based on secret submissions. Where is the accountability to the community? How is it even justifiable to call AUSC appointees "community representatives"? Make them truly elected positions, or rename them, I say. AUSC's role seems to be sweep CUOS failures under the carpet, not bring them to light and make the CUOS team truly accountable. I count five adverse findings in the recent AUSC activity report, yet none of those five functionaries are named. Why not? The Privacy Policy is not there to protect functionaries from accountability. --Surturz (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You've just quite clearly shown you have no idea what you're talking about. The privacy policy governs "access to and release of personally identifiable information" obtained from database records and the checkuser tool. The usernames of the functionaries are not included in this category as they are neither personally identifying nor obtained through checkuser. This means your statement that the privacy policy is not protecting the usernames of the functionaries is as correct as saying that the privacy policy is not currently participating in maneuvers with the Bolivian Navy in the South Pacific; it's quite patently true, but it's also totally irrelevant to the matter at hand. Additionally, if you'd actually asked a few people, rather than assuming what you wanted to assume, you'd know that plenty of private emails were sent with comments on the candidates. So, it is clear I am wasting my time talking to you. Feel free to use your ability to have the final word to accuse me of being part of the cabal, or something. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right, I've struck the bit about privacy policy (though, in my defence:). I would appreciate your view on the rest of my questions though. --Surturz (talk) 12:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If the committee is in a position to reveal the number of emails they received giving comments about candidates (either individually or in total) that might defuse some criticism (at least I hope). I'm explicitly not asking for the contents of the emails nor the names of senders (those I hope are covered by the "in confidence" nature of the submission option) but simply something like "N emails were received containing comments about user:X's candidacy" or "The committee received N emails regarding candidates for the audit subcommittee". If neither of these are possible, it would be good to know whether this is for policy, privacy or technical reasons. Thryduulf (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Better yet, eschew AUSC and go straight to the ombudsman. --Surturz (talk) 03:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I was not selected because 4 voting Arbs opposed my candidancy. One particular Arb has kindly explained why they specifically (I'll be polite and not give clues as to who said what) opposed me and said that I can be combative at times.  I feel this is a fair rationale and I thanked the Arb for being open with me.  The other three have not contacted me.  One Arb, not one of the three, did contact me and let me know that a person sent a private email alleging I am a sexist/misogynist.  After the vote, I was presented with the three items that supported this claim by that Arb and all were taken out of context.  One of the diffs in particular was brought to my attention earlier by another user about how it could be construed as sexist if taken out of context and I apologized for it then, before these nominations even happened (before I even considered applying), because I sincerely did not intend to give off that image then nor now. In any case, I am left to believe that these three Arbs felt that way about me.  I sent an email to the list and explained each piece of evidence, criticized them for not contacting me before the vote about the evidence against me, I explained to them that their opinion of me is very personal and hurtful, and then I forgave them because they were ill-informed.  I explained to them what kind of impact that the traits they applied to me would have on the futures of my two little girls were they real.  I'm not going to let some jerk out there have control of me and cause me to get upset and disillusioned by all of this.  I don't blame the Arbs for making a decision with the information they had available to them.  Had the traits been actual traits of mine, then their decision would've been a good one.  I only fault them for not asking me and for that I forgive them.  I don't know Richwales, but I assume he's a good guy.  I'm sure he,  Guerillero, and MBisanz will do a good job especially if Guerillero and Richwales pay attention and learn from Mbisanz.  For my part, I've got some ideas for improvements to Arbcom that even address some of the questions in this thread that I will be proposing soon.  Thank you for ya'all's concern.--v/r - TP 20:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Good luck and for what its worth I think nearly any idea to change Arbcom would be worth pursuing. There is so much wrong with it a starting point to change becomes hard to recognize and looks more like a resemblance to a bad Abbott and Costello routine than a starting point towards change!. Kumioko (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * In response to comments regarding TParis not being appointed: Some aspects of his initial application struck me as being completely off point for the position he was applying for (one particular sentence parsed out to "I plan to humiliate you and make you bend to my will and *then* we will have a good relationship") that I personally offered TParis an opportunity to reword his response to that particular question. His response was to make a further joke and clearly not understand why I found his statements so concerning; I even had some one-on-one discussion with him to see if we could wind up on the same page.  At the end of that private conversation, I offered to recuse from further discussion of his candidacy; when the time came to vote on whether or not to send him forward for community consultation, I did decide to recuse, didn't participate in the discussion and didn't even read it.  I did the same when it was time to vote for acceptance; the only thing I did, when it was time to review and make final decisions, was submit the vote tally to the mailing list so that arbitrators could review and finalize their votes.  It was only after the decision had been published that I went back and looked at the comments.  So, TParis...the person you might have thought most likely to have opposed you didn't even vote. I do think you got an incomplete message as to the reasons for opposition, and I asked the opposing arbitrators to communicate to you their reasons for opposing; I know at least one did (and his response was different than the summary you'd originally been given), and perhaps more did on a personal basis that was not sent to the mailing list.  Risker (talk) 01:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it is worth noting that the source sentence Risker paraphrased to: "I plan to humiliate you and make you bend to my will and *then* we will have a good relationship" actually read:"My question would be: Are Arbcom members on board for open and honest discussion that will include some (a lot of) criticism if it will better the relationship between the committee and the community?"I invited Risker to strike the paraphrase and replace with the verbatim quote, but Risker refused. --Surturz (talk) 04:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Surturz is correct that I will not replace my interpretation of the statement with the sentence in question. We have had a rather long discussion on my talk page about the language of abuse, and how pervasive it has become on Wikipedia. Even at the least interpretive, that sentence parses to "Lots of criticism = better relationship?" That sounds like an awfully abusive relationship, and it doesn't say anything about collaboration, working together, teamwork, consensus or similar core Wikipedia values. Or maybe the pillars aren't quite what they used to be. Frankly, I can't help wondering if TParis' comment isn't simply a reflection of the community in which he is currently working, as opposed to the one we're supposed to be modeling. Risker (talk) 04:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I don't think for a second that TParis is abusive. I trust that he is a good father and husband.  I also believe that he would strongly oppose ANY abuse he noticed on Wikipedia.  Now having said that, after reading through what Risker has said here and elsewhere - I do understand how the comment could be taken that way.  Had it not been explained, I would still be scratching my head - but now I do understand that concern. I also think that since the election is now finalized, it's rather unimportant to go back to rehash or edit the election page. — Ched :  ?  04:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) As I already stated on Riskers talk page I think the interpretation is a major stretch of the statement TParis made and my, (perhaps bad faith) impression is that its simply the justification being used because TParis was vocal in his desire to change some things in Arbcom. So Guerillero was selected because he wouldn't rock the boat. We can't have any boat rocking in Arbcom, that would unfurl the natural order of things here on Wiki. Before long we would have Cats and dogs living together! And as I stated elswhere I think I was the only one who opposed TParis's submission and I think these arguments of his intentions are absurd. Kumioko (talk) 04:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I did go back to outright oppose one of the candidates who was selected with diffs to support my oppose - but it was too late to post. In short - I suspect that you'll be seeing more than enough "boat rocking" to suit everyone's needs in the near future. — Ched :  ?  05:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Some might disagree, but I really wish you had taken to email and sent them in, as they would have been read and evaluated, despite the "official" comment period. As I think I wore out my welcome saying during this process, I pretty much do not consider AUSC to be of any use, and argued to either abolish it, or go back to the former method of the committee vetting candidates and then having an election.  It isn't that we don't need some group to oversee CU and OS tools, we do, but for CU we have the ombudsmen, and OS actions can be much better and quickly discussed by the OS team en banc in a forum (the oversight-l list, and such informal reviews are somewhat common) where all the arbs are subscribed; remembering that AUSC's "power", for lack of a better word, simply extends to making the recommendation to Arbcom that someone's flag be removed, the AUSC does not, and never has, had the ability to remove any flag themselves.  (And, yes, I know I'm about 15 miles off-topic.) Courcelles 06:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This may surprise you Courcelles but I agree with you 100%. I think there is a far greater need to have a committee reviewing the admin actions than the Checkusers actions. There are far more admins doing screwy stuff than CU or OS are and I agree that AUSC is pretty much a brag billet. It looks decent on the Wikiresume but it really doesn't do much. Kumioko (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I think Risker's comment shows that ArbCom has picked the community reps based on how they want the community to be, rather than on how the community actually is. Risker's thesis seems to be that TParis would represent the community too well! I posit that what Arbcom wanted was a complaisant and apologist AUSC and based on my recent interaction on a CU talkpage that seems to be exactly what they got. Like I said before, forget AUSC if you have a problem with the CUOS team - go straight to the Ombudsman. --Surturz (talk) 05:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, its pretty clear by the choice of candidates that some Vote stacking and Gerry Mandering occurred to keep things within Arbcom Status quo. Not surprisingly they would not want to be thrust into the scandal of change. Suggestions of changes could undermine their authority and usurp the power that has been bestowed upon them. Of course no one would want to change something if it were doing the right thing right? So if people want to change how Arbcom does things, then that means they aren't above reproach and that could open up the flood gates to retrials and appeals. Kumioko (talk) 05:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh for crying out loud. I recused, and did not vote in any way on any aspect of his candidacy. I explain myself, and now you're using the language of abuse to accuse me of creating a thesis that I most certainly did not put forward. You are now accusing the committee of making a decision based on ONE arbitrator's personal opinion that was so strongly held she recused from discussing and voting on the candidate. That you cannot see you are doing the very same thing that I criticised him for....well, now you know why arbitrators don't bother to explain themselves. When we do, we're accused of worse than we're accused of when we don't. Risker (talk) 05:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I wasn't really referring to you specifically but clearly your opinions had an affect on the outcome wouldn't you agree. It does seem that you are feeling the same frustration that we as editors feel about the decisions Arbcom makes. It also emphasizes that as editors we aren't allowed to voice our frustrations with the system. Kumioko (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, Risker affected the outcome, but she did so in exactly the same way and to exactly the same extent that anyone else who expressed an opinion and didn't vote did. Thryduulf (talk) 16:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * (Apologies for returning to this at a late juncture, but I was not around for the week or so after this thread started). What Thryduulf says above is not entirely true, as some arbitrators may assign more weight in their deliberations to what functionaries and fellow arbitrators, even recused ones, have said before recusing. For my part, in my deliberations I placed most weight on what the candidates said in their statements or replies to questions, and gave little or no weight to what others said in private unless the candidate was given an opportunity to respond to those points (in some cases they were given that chance via e-mail correspondence, in other cases they weren't). My views are that when certain sorts of concerns are raised, those need to be raised directly with the candidate before voting proceeds. I said this at the time, and should have pressed for that to be done. I also said that TParis deserved an apology for how this was handled. Though this hasn't been forthcoming, I apologise on my part for not insisting that the concerns be raised with him before voting took place. Carcharoth (talk) 10:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Folks I sincerely appreciate those who are arguing on my behalf. It's humbling.  But there are more pressing matters facing Arbcom and there is no chance of them backing up and voting again.  They know where they erred, or in my (our) opinion they erred, and that's about all we're going to get out of this.  So let's let Risker, et al, move on to more important things.--v/r - TP 22:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

BASC statistics: Q1 2013
Original Announcement

Cla68 is still blocked
I'm wondering when Cla68's block will be commuted to a length of time shorter than "indefinite." Supposedly the Committee has been discussing this by email but we hanven't seen anything for more than two weeks. Chutznik (talk) 00:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. An update, please. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   13:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There's not too much to tell at the moment, we're waiting on Cla68, who has said that he will come back with some comprehensive answers to some of our questions. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 13:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's funny. I could have sworn NYBrad said on the second of April that a decision would be made "soon". If you are being completely honest, that means that, after an entire month, your "decision" is to ask Charles some more questions. I wonder, at what stage do you imagine that you will need to order more rugs for all your carpet sweeping? Anyone want to take bets on Charles not even being aware of the questions? Oh, wait! Perhaps he should "email Arbcom" to find out more. We all know how that works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.119.18.186 (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think all the arbs are reading from the same songbook. Kevin (talk) 00:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it wasn't for lack of trying on our part. The last message we had from Cla68 was that he was not available for a period and would get back to us. The ball is in his court; we've done our bit. Risker (talk) 01:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I should mention that he's said elsewhere:
 * They have asked me to accept that what I did was outing, if I will promise not to do it again, how will I respond if anything I post in the future is oversighted, and how I feel about SilkTork being the one to unblock me since he opposed re-sysopping Kevin. I haven't responded because I've been busy with other things. AGK and Carcharoth also have emailed me some observations of theirs that I haven't fully responded to yet.
 * Those seem like reasonable questions to ask in the interests of avoiding anything like this happening again. Prioryman (talk) 06:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * To be clearer about what happened: at the time of NYB's comment, we had a draft unblock proposal. The proposal got tentative support and were emailed to Cla68 a few days afterwards. Cla68's response to it caused some vote changes such that the proposal no longer have majority support, and also caused several arbitrators to decide to ask him additional questions; we haven't got any answers to those questions yet. T. Canens (talk) 14:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * He shouldn't have to "accept" that it was outing as there are quite a few people who don't "accept" that, and even more who feel that it is not so indisputable that refusal to "accept" it as outing is a problem. If you otherwise get reasonable assurances that he won't do anything like it again then that should be all that matters.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 17:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The policy about outing is pretty easy to understand.--MONGO 18:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's the ArbCom he has to convince, not "quite a few people". If you're up before the judge, appealing to the "wisdom of crowds" won't get you very far. Prioryman (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * While "quite a few people" may not accept that it was outing, there are many people (albeit generally less vocal) who agree with that characterisation of cla68's actions. Even if his initial comments were not outing (which by the outing policy they were), when another user acting in good faith considers them to be and removes them as such the correct course of action is emphatically not to repeat the comments. It is absolutely right that the arbitration committee are seeking to be convinced that cla68 understands what he did wrong, why it was wrong and why it must not happen again before he regains his editing privileges. Thryduulf (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * He shouldn't have repeated it after it was oversighted from a practical standpoint, but if they are demanding that nothing short of stating that he outed someone will get him unblocked then I don't believe that is reasonable or consistent with the proclaimed purpose of Wikipedia. Some people may adhere to a "literalist" interpretation of the WP:OUTING policy but WP:IAR exists because we should apply common sense and not let rigid adherence to the written rule override what should be our primary concern of producing quality content. The policy is about harassment and nothing Cla68 did constituted harassment. Cla68 should not be barred from contributing quality content because of some oversight in the letter of the policy that seemingly allows someone to publicly link their real name and Wikipedia username everywhere but Wikipedia, while still being protected from identification.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 21:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Come on guys you don't actually think Arbcom is going to do the right thing do you? Surely you have been here long enough to know that Arbcom does what best supports their agenda. Not what is best for the project or the community. You also surely know that they aren't going to admit fault. Of course its someone else's error, they can't be held accountable. There Arbcom where would you take the complaint? The WMF? Their even worse. Kumioko (talk) 00:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been around long enough to know that while the arbcom is not perfect (no group of humans can be), the only agenda they have is doing what they think is in the best interests of the project to create a free-content encyclopaedia. Their decisions can be appealed to Jimbo (except when they are hearing an appeal of his actions). No one user is bigger than the project, no matter what their contributions are or how long they have been making them and everybody is subject to the same rules as everybody else. Just because you have made a lot of edits does not give you the right to pick and choose which bits of policy you want to adhere to and which you don't. @TDA If somebody has chosen not to reveal their real life identity on Wikipedia then posting it here is outing, regardless of whether they have revealed their identity elsewhere, because there may be very good reasons why they have chosen not to identify on Wikipedia. Wikipedia editors have the right to do so pseudonymously if they choose, you do not have a right to make that choice for another user and (attempting) to do so is harassment. IAR is about ignoring a rule if it stops you improving the encyclopaedia. Please explain in what way outing another editor improves the encyclopaedia? Thryduulf (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh come on Thryduulf, you know as well as any of us that Jimbo would never and has never overturned a ruling of Arbcom. In fact Jimmy is trying to reduce his powers and presence on Wiki, not solidify it be overturning rulings. So to say one can appeal to him is just a joke. The Arbcom historically makes decisions that are negative to both sides of the argument, presumably to enforce that going to them is a bad thing and they ought work it out rather than go before the jury. Kumioko (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not true at all: ArbCom are slaves to their reptoid masters and operate as part of the huge conspiracy against Wikipedia. I thought everyone knew that? Nick-D (talk) 02:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Lol, that explains it alright. Kumioko (talk) 02:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a disgraceful suggestion and nothing could be further from the truth.  Reptoid Drone  talk 03:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thryduulf, the argument you present is completely misguided and isn't consistent with the actual meaning of the terms you are using. You trivialize harassment by suggesting it has occurred with the mere act of noting one's real name in connection with a pseudonym when the person using it has regularly shared publicly the real name in connection with the username. Outing implies that the information was not already out and is not an issue sensitive to a given community. Consider the term's more common use. A person who has publicly come out to say he or she is gay can not somehow then claim to be outed as gay if some people who don't know about it are later directed to those public statements.

Only in the written word of Wikipedia policy would what occurred be considered "outing" and I say that is only due to a lapse by the editors who wrote it. I should also note that, while everyone has a right to use a pseudonym, no one has a right to a protected pseudonym. Fundamentally, it is on the individual acting pseudonymously to insure that no simple legal means can be used to discern one's identity. If finding one's identity requires intrusions, legal or otherwise, into an individual's personal privacy or necessitates intensive research then it constitutes outing. Directing people to what someone has stated publicly multiple times on other major sites does not.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand, which is very odd because it's very simple:
 * The policy says that connecting someone's pseudonymous identity to their real identity on Wikipedia when they have not done so is outing.
 * cla68 connected someone's pseudonymous identity to their real identity on Wikipedia when they had not done so.
 * Therefore cla68 outed someone.
 * It doesn't matter whether you agree with the policy or not, whether you think it is stupid or not, why it currently is what it is, or anything else. The policy is what it is. If you want to change the policy then you can propose that, and if your proposal gains consensus then the policy will be changed. Until such time as it is changed, the current wording is what applies.
 * As for why it is currently written like it is, I repeat that people might have good reasons for not wanting their real identity published on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter what those reasons are, whether you agree with them or not, without you even understand them or not, that's entirely irrelevant. All that matters is that you do not have the right to make the decision for somebody else.
 * As a Wikipedia editor you have three choices for how to behave:
 * Work within the rules as they currently stand
 * Work within the rules as they currently stand while discussing the rules and proposing changes to them.
 * Leave Wikipedia
 * I really cannot fathom why any of this is not obvious to you? Thryduulf (talk) 09:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You forgot one. Get promoted to Admin and you can do whatever you want. Kumioko (talk) 11:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * except reverse an Oversighter's block QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So it would seem. Kumioko (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is an explicit allowance for ignoring the policy when it conflicts with our actual purpose of producing quality content. In this case, indefinitely blocking a devoted content-creator because he apparently violated the letter of a policy that presents a novel definition of a common term that conflicts with common sense and puts it forward as part of a trivialized understanding of a term usually reserved for serious misconduct is a pretty good time to invoke that explicit allowance. The Arbs should only demand that he make a reasonable commitment to not do it again, not demand that he accept an absurd definition of "outing" inserted by some gaggle of editors when all he did was point to public sites where someone has publicly stated their real name in connection with their username.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 19:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, Cla68 agreeing to "make a reasonable commitment not to do it again" is by definition asking him to accept the definition. They go hand in hand. Resolute 22:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I was just going to say that myself! Cla68 can hardly agree "not to do it again" if he doesn't accept that he did "it" in the first place or that there was anything wrong with what he did. My advice to him would simply be to swallow his pride, say what he has to in order to get himself unblocked and get back to editing (but stay well away from anything to do with editors' off-wiki identities in future). Prioryman (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * They do not go hand in hand. He can easily make a reasonable commitment to not state or link to information that includes someone's identifying information unless said information is explicitly provided by said editor on-wiki. Similarly, he can agree to not repeat information after it has been oversighted. It is perfectly possible for him to make reasonable commitments not to repeat those acts, without accepting the way those acts are characterized.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 22:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * My own experience of ArbCom (with regard to appealing arbitration sanctions) is that they tend to look for evidence that you understand why you were blocked / sanctioned in the first place, and not simply for a promise not to act in a particular way in the future. It's perhaps a bit like a court granting some leniency for pleading guilty instead of insisting throughout that you've done nothing wrong. Prioryman (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * One can give more than a simple promise not to repeat an action yet not agree with how an action is characterized. People can legitimately differ on why a certain action should not have occurred.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 23:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * At the very least the ArbCom should restore Cla68 talk page access. Then all communications could continue publicly. Aren't arbitrators tired of their secret proceedings and plying games of self-importance? Don't they understand that by blocking content contributors to satisfy trolls they damage the project? 76.126.142.59 (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * One thing I do find rather curious about this business is that Cla68's supporters seem to be far more concerned about the matter than Cla68 himself. As he's already said, he hasn't taken things forward because he's "been busy with other things". This discussion is fairly pointless. In the end, no amount of complaining or discussing is going to resolve this when it's basically a matter for Cla68 and the ArbCom. Let's leave them to get on with it, shall we? Prioryman (talk) 08:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * On wikipediocracy, there do not appear to be similar problems of Cla68 being too busy to comment. Today he complained there that the "Mathsci/FPaS" thing is what is stopping him from returning to editing here. As far as I'm concerned, Cla68's conduct hit rock bottom in October 2012. In his first failed RfAr on 22 October, the day he was banned from interacting with me, he wrote, "Mathsci states repeatedly that the stress from the Race and Intelligence topic area has caused him heart trouble and other kinds of hardship." When he wrote that, Cla68 was aware that I had had a bypass operation on 8 October. He was blocked by FPaS in early December for making similar comments. He shows no recognition that there was a problem with what he wrote. The Russavia incident is somewhat different, but it shows a similar lack of self-awareness. Mathsci (talk) 10:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Adding some thoughts here:
 * (i) This sort of protracted back-and-forth by e-mail is very inefficient. It also disadvantages the appellant, as they don't hear the thoughts of arbitrators who should (in my view) communicate their thoughts (by e-mail) and not keep the appellant in the dark. Public discussion and voting is much better, but the worry here is presumably that either Cla68 or various onlookers, or the very presence of a public discussion, would exacerbate the issues. Remember how some people said that there should have been no block or desysop or motion because that drew attention to something that should have been dealt with quietly? The same arguments apply here as a protracted public discussion on this could reignite the issues that started this (and I wish those commenting here would recognise that).
 * (ii) If Cla68 wants to be unblocked for a public discussion and vote by ArbCom on his unblock request, I would (despite what I said above) support that if a formal vote was held, but it won't happen unless a majority of arbitrators agree to it (or unless someone makes a formal RFAR request, but please don't do that without asking Cla68). I would hope that those wanting to comment on such a public request would give Cla68 the space and time to respond, and that Cla68 (once unblocked to participate in that) would speak up for himself rather than letting others speak for him. It could end up being a full case if Cla68 insists on being allowed a full and public hearing. The end result could be a ban for several months for this and prior conduct, rather than an unblock.
 * (iii) I generally support unblocks with reasonable conditions for those who just want to get on with content production and have a good track record in that respect. As far as I'm concerned, I've supported such an unblock with reasonable conditions here, and it is now up to Cla68 to either reject that unblock (effectively a choice to make a stand on principle rather than returning to his content work), or to accept it. He also needs to present himself to other arbitrators in such a way that they will support his unblocking. I'm familiar with Cla68's editing and am comfortable supporting an unblock. Other arbitrators will be less familiar with his editing and will need more persuasion. It's not my role (or those of other arbitrators that support an unblock) to persuade those other arbitrators to change or soften their stance - the onus for that falls squarely on Cla68.
 * (iv) I've been handling the main communications on this. I last wrote to Cla68 on 9 April 2013. The reply arrived on 11 April and we've heard nothing since. I will now be writing to him with an update on this, asking if he has anything further to add, and pointing him to this thread (he is clearly aware of it, but I will mention it anyway). Carcharoth (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding (i), might it be an idea to have some kind of private invitation-only discussion forum where you and the other arbitrators can have a closed discussion with appellants without the peanut gallery getting a look-in? Prioryman (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be an improvement on the current situation. There are many cases where that is not needed (the simple appeals that are generally declined by one or two arbitrators looking at something, and the other arbitrators either not looking or silently agreeing). But situations like this (where privacy-related issues are discussed), yes, it would help. It would in particular help some appellants realise that being argumentative with a panel of 13 arbitrators, only some of whom may actually be listening to you, isn't actually very helpful. If you can imagine a scene where 5 out of 13 arbs respond and the appellant argues at length with all of them, you can imagine how that looks (to be clear, I'm not describing what is happening here, but that could easily happen). It works best when one arbitrator takes the lead in the discussion, and the others just weigh in occasionally. Carcharoth (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * So, if I understood you right, you are saying that usually 11 active arbitrators silently agreeing with the decisions made by one or two arbitrators without even listening to an appellant? This practice is more than dishonest, but I am not surprised. The arbcom is simply a very sick joke. 76.126.142.59 (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Not what Carcharoth said -- operative conjunction is or, not and. NE Ent 01:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Disagree with your interpritation. I would like to ask Carcharoth himself to clarify his statements. 76.126.142.59 (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 76.126 is a sock of a banned user. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  15:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Which banned user? Is there an SPI case? If they are a sock of a benned user, why is the IP not blocked? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "76.126 is a sock of a banned user" what a deep thought! It reminds me how another wikipediot blocked 1,000 IPs in Utah because he decided they all were socks of a single banned user. 76.126.142.59 (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2013‎

Bad Behavior by Guerillero
I believe I was confused with the IP editor above. Guerillero blocked me for a few hours, then reversed it without apology or acknowlegement. I looked back through his contributions for an explanation of this outrageous behavior. I believe he intended to block the IP above. I have never interacted with him before, but based on this poor judgement I strongly recommend he not be appointed to AUSC, and his participation as a Clerk be reviewed. 71.236.188.255 (talk) 01:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * He may not have apologised because he forgot to do so, or because he thought you would not notice (and therefore that no harm was done). In any event, I'm not sure a mis-click means he should never again be trusted with a community position on this project. For what it's worth, I'm sorry that you were blocked. AGK  [•] 15:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I was displeased by the treatment as I felt it was representative of the systemic lack of kindness toward non-registered editors. However, you are correct that it may have been an innocent mistake, so I retract my comments.  Take care, 71.236.188.255 (talk) 05:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, who are you anyway? <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 15:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It is abundantly clear that this IP is a returning user of some kind, but when I previously touched on this point with them their response was not particularly illuminating. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * @NW: I am not sure what you are asking - I do not wish to disclose my name, if that is what you want to know. I am just an editor like you (but without the fancy permissions :) @Beeblebrox: I am not sure what you are after, I don't have any issue with you, but you have been following me a bit it seems. 71.236.188.255 (talk) 05:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This IP is obviously not your first identity as a WP user. When a user, registered or no, dives right in to commenting on arbitration proceedings they have no connection to and engages in advocacy on behalf long term blocked users, and shows all the signs of being here in response to offsite canvassing, yeah, that is going to cause you to be subject to some scrutiny. In other words, nobody is fooled by your "innocent new user" charade. We may not know who you were before, but you obviously have been around before this incarnation so you can drop the act. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no "act" here. I have been around WP on and off for a while, that is why I was upset when I thought I was treated poorly in this instance.  I don't wish to register, and I realize this may be confusing given that IP addresses don't stay the same forever, but calling editing under IP addresses an "act" is a bit much.  In any event, Guerillero apologized and I therefore retracted my earlier comments - nothing more to do here.  Take care, 71.236.188.255 (talk) 05:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment It looks to me like Guerillero explained the error and apologised on his own talk page, and notified 71.236.188.255 who blanked the notification. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You are correct. After he explained that I realized it may have been an innocent error and came here to retract my comments (see above). 71.236.188.255 (talk) 05:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Good grief
Word around the campfire (yeah, that one) is that he's not being unblocked because he doesn't want to bow down you "your authority". Well, I get it... he can be on the ornery side sometimes, just like you folks can be on the officious side sometimes ;-).

A simple suggestion: just impose a simple bright-line rule that he won't link to external pages that link Wikipedian pseudonyms to their real identities if that link isn't clearly spelled out on the person's user page. Don't ask him to agree to it, just unblock him and impose the rule. Navel-gazing about whether or not he should "respect your authority" (on his part, and on yours) is just silly, and feeding needless drama. Unless, of course, drama is the objective, in which case just keep doing what you're doing. -- SB_Johnny &#124; talk✌ 00:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The thread was dead for eight days. That's not Wiki drama. NE Ent 01:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Unless I'm missing something, the continued participation of all people who choose to contribute to Wikipedia is ultimately subject to the rulings of Arb Com (though of course only a vanishingly small percentage of editors will ever have any contact with the Committee). If Cla doesn't want to accept ArbCom's jurisdiction over his participation here that's OK, but it also means that he can't contribute given that this is, rightly, a universal rule. I'd like to see Cla back and working on articles as he's an outstanding editor, but unblocking him and then reblocking when he violates a condition he didn't agree to (which I fear would be certain to occur given that he appears unhappy with a largish chunk of Wikipedia's governance) is hardly a low drama option. Nick-D (talk) 01:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This is perhaps too subtle a distinction given the history of the present case, but there is no requirement to accept ArbCom's jurisdiction in order to contribute to Wikipedia. There is a requirement to obey ArbCom's rulings, just as there is a requirement to follow policies and guidelines, but we do not care why someone complies, only that they do comply. I can, if I choose, completely reject ArbCom's authority and jurisdiction, but as long as I comply (perhaps because I would find the consequences of doing otherwise to be unpleasant) I can participate here. I can even express the opinion (in a venue where doing so is not disruptive) that neither policy nor ArbCom has any authority. It is a subtle distinction, but we do not punish thoughtcrime.


 * Cla68 needs to convince ArbCom that he understands what he did wrong (as opposed to agreeing that what he did was wrong) and can identify his future actions as violations (by ArbCom's definition, not his) before he commits them, and he needs to convince ArbCom that he will not do it again whether or not he agrees with the policy or the definition. If he later gets reblocked, it will be for specific actions, not for his opinions. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * That's a good point Guy; I was being overly broad and the distinction you draw is correct. Nick-D (talk) 05:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Good points by SB Johnny and Guy Macon. FWIW, the last time we (ArbCom) received correspondence on this was on 30 April. As I said above, I'm handling correspondence on this, and I replied on 2 May. Nothing heard since, so a follow-up e-mail sent today (11 May). It is possible that this could have been handled better, but it doesn't help when days go by with no response from the appellant. In the normal course of ArbCom business, such appeals where no responses are received after days of silence are routinely archived and/or declined. This is being handled differently in that it is, so far, being kept open, but that can only be done for so long before it too is archived. Carcharoth (talk) 09:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * May I suggest that ArbCom unblock the account unilaterally with a note to avoid discussing real life identities of editors who prefer to be anonymous (a simple courtesy), lest the block could be reinstated.  This block no longer (if ever) benefits Wikipedia at all, and looks a lot like a punishment for irreverence, rather than a necessity to prevent disruption.  Jehochman Talk 16:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't do that if it were my decision to make. Cla68 needs to show that he understands what is expected of him and will comply even if he disagrees. This is a standard requirement for removing an indefinite block, and I see no reason to make an exception in this case. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Cla isn't being unblocked because of his participation in Wikipediocracy plain and simple. The situation happened so long ago no one in this discussion even remembers what it was that got him blocked. Cla was a positive contributor who suffered the fate of making a bad decision and that gave the folks here the excuse to block him. They say it was outing but the user as commonly known. Its like saying that Jimbo wales is Jimbo Wales. Its not nor was it ever a secret. But they needed a reason to block him due to his association wiht the site that should not be named and that's what they did. Wikicorruption at its finest. Kumioko (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * According to my reading of User talk:Cla68, everyone remembers what got Cla68 blocked just fine. He violated Wikipedia's outing policy. If you don't like that policy, you are free to make your case for changing it at the appropriate venue. As for your claim that Cla68 isn't being unblocked because of his participation in Wikipediocracy, there is zero evidence of that. I am going to drop this now as being unproductive. Feel free to get in the last word; I won't reply. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Well stomping off in a huff is your right just as is my right to see through the crap that Arbcom is shoveling! I think this case is a prime example of one where the only ones who still care are the ones who are trying to get him or keep him banned. Everyone else long since moved on to more important things....like building an encyclopedia! So instead of simply lifting this punitive rather than preventative block and allowing a high output editor to get back to contributing to helping us build the cesspool...I mean, err, encyclopedia...they keep him blocked. Kumioko (talk) 02:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC has begun
Dear all, the binding RfC on the lead of the Jerusalem article mandated by this motion has now begun at Requests for comment/Jerusalem. I will leave it up to the Arbitrators and Clerks as to whether this should also be mentioned at the Arbitration Noticeboard proper. Best regards — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 11:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement suspended

 * Original announcement

Successful block appeal by Cla68

 * Original announcement


 * To explain the delay, discussion between Cla68 and the committee was basically at deadlock for some weeks. If Cla and the arbitrators had been able to agree earlier on what Cla would need to do in order for us to be able to allow him to return to editing, this would probably have been over quite a lot sooner. As it stands, we have settled on a set of conditions that would prevent Cla from outing an editor in the future while insisting he was allowed by site policy to do so. The responsibility to comply with these conditions while contributing to Wikipedia now lies with Cla – as I hope he realises. AGK  [•] 09:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good summary, AGK. Both sides have dithered, with long periods passing without a response. <span style='text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;'>Worm TT( talk ) 09:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:DITHER? Is that like Entmoot? Slow, deliberate, thoughtful action? Can't have that on Wikipedia! NE Ent 10:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Another conspiracy theory ruined, public explanation (and votes) of privacy discussed ... and with blog, mailing list or forum ya'll didn't even link to the website. NE Ent 10:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I see my repeated request for an interaction ban on Cla68 with me was totally ignored. Way to go. Why was this obvious restriction totally ignored by yourselves? Russavia (talk) 13:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you don't want to interact, don't interact. NE Ent 15:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a warning in there about harassment of other users. If Cla contacts you, make it clear you don't want to talk to them, if they are foolish enough to persist they'll be blocked again. Hopefully it won't be an issue at all and we can put this whole mess behind us. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Just a small clarification: I opposed this motion because I considered (and still do) this restriction too byzantine and was supporting a much simpler one. Salvio Let's talk about it! 21:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And what "simpler" proposal were you supporting Salvio? Russavia (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * One that would have prevented him from engaging in any conduct that could be reasonably construed as posting non-public bits of info about any other editor. This restriction, as I said, is both easy to game and too broad/byzantine (Cla is prohibited from doing a certain thing, but there is an exception and, then, an exception to the exception...). Salvio Let's talk about it! 23:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

What an utterly ridiculous set of restrictions. Surely complying with WP:OUTING is enough? If it isn't then go fix that policy. Kevin (talk) 22:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm slightly confused. Suppose Cla68 is writing an article about President Obama.  If I am reading #2 right, he would be forbidden to add a link to http://www.barackobama.com/ to the article because it's a blog? --B (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the way I read it. And yet you or I are allowed to add that link. So the link is acceptable, but only when posted by some people. Arguing that an edit is no good because of who wrote it seems decidedly ad hominem to me. The whole decision reeks. Kevin (talk) 22:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yet that sort of thing is extremely common and is the basis for topic bans and related things which are used all the time. Plenty of editors are banned from doing something that others editors may do for the simple reason that they've lost the trust of the community or arbcom to do those things. In many cases that means stuff which is harmless is not someting they are allowed to do because a balance needs to be found between a clear cut and resonable ban which will still allow them to do decent work on wikipedia, and something overtly weak which they may technically not violate but still repeat similar problematic behaviour as they've shown before or otherwise lead to endless discussions. The alternative is not allowing them to edit at all or hoping they stop the behaviour and follow policy as they did not before. I'm not saying the right decision was made on that balance here, I'm not familiar enough with the case to comment on that aspect. Nil Einne (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If there is going to be any interaction bans handed out, I would prefer it be with Beeblebrox. Based on what happened, and his comments in the aftermath, plus things he has done or said in the past which have come out lately, I just don't trust his judgement as an admin.  I don't think he ever answered my question as to what checklist, guideline, or formal process he follows when he responds to outing reports.  What due diligence are admins in his position supposed to carry out?  Could someone point me to the formal, written procedures that they follow?  To be fair to Beeblebrox, if there aren't any, then perhaps you can't blame them for doing the best they can under the circumstances. Cla68 (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I'm sure this line of inquiry isn't going to go anywhere, so I will let it go. Cla68 (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The restriction may be silly, but at least it allows Cla68 to improve content. I think it would be great if people would not get too picky about what restriction was or was not imposed (I am looking at you Russavia).-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 23:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this is a good point. Far too often we see users spend weeks or months whining about whatever sanctions they've received, when if they'd just sucked it up originally they could've had them lifted after a reasonable interval. For everyone's sake, I hope that Cla stays true to his words and indeed does let this go, and that the various users who've been advocating on both sides of this dispute do so as well. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  <sup style="color:#000;">( Je vous invite à me parler )  23:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Motion regarding Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and politics

 * Original anouncement

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History closed

 * Original anouncement


 * Personally I rather liked this, but having seen a previous discussion I do understand the path of least resistance. — Ched : ?  05:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Changes to the Audit Subcommittee (AUSC)

 * Original announcement

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement resumed

 * Original announcement

Is there a summary anywhere of what the moderated discussion achieved (if anything), failed to achieve, and why? I'm thinking in terms of something so that someone who hasn't been following this case to see how that lead to the proposed decision, and also for anyone thinking of setting up something similar for a future dispute. I'm not thinking major detail, just a couple of paragraphs at most. Thryduulf (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Pinging User:SilkTork to ask if he would be happy to write up such a summary. I think it'd be a good idea. AGK  [•] 10:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion did not achieve what I hoped it would (both in terms of improving the article, and in bringing the editors together to work collaboratively). Some improvements were made to the article, but due to several factors, and there will be differing views on which factors were most important, progress was slow, and there was a prolonged focus on user conduct by the participants which inhibited collaborative work and consensus building. Factors to take into account are the history of dynamics on the topic: personalising of issues, grandstanding, drawing up battle lines, etc; the contentious and polarising nature of the topic (seems a lot of people who want to edit the topic have views on the Tea Party, and these tend to be at one end or the other rather than in the middle); the combative nature of those editing the topic (many have block records for edit warring either on this topic or others); the stress of an ArbCom case hanging over the discussion (this was raised by one of the participants before the discussion started); that I wasn't able to focus on the discussion as constantly as the participants wished; that I was at times too lenient; that I was at times too harsh; that I was overall inconsistent; that I did not set up clear ground rules from the start; that there was overall uncertainty; that from early on there was among the participants a lack of focus on improving the article, but an overwhelming readiness to argue minor points, and to divert the discussion back onto minor points. The discussion page is there for people to study if they wish, though I am unsure what can be learned from it. It appears to me to merely continue the past few years of similar discussions which have taken place on the article talkpage.
 * I think that if there is something to be learned it is that on Wikipedia the article is the priority, and if editors have worked on an article for a long time with no improvement, they should willingly step aside. And if they don't do so willingly, then we should impose that upon them. While we do want to take care of our editors and to show that they are important, care for the editor should not take priority over care for the articles.
 * My main caution throughout this case has been the uncertainly if it is the users who are at fault, or the topic itself - or a combination of the topic, the state of the article, and the battleground editing and battleground discussion that takes place around the article. I am concerned that we may simply ban one bunch of editors only to find the next bunch having the same problems - and this concern is highlighted by some editors joining the discussion who had not been named in the case, and who had not previously edited the article, and who entered into the same problematic behaviours. However, after having given all the editors involved a chance to edit the article under controlled conditions, and the editors not taking full advantage of that, there is no real option left but to try banning the lot of them, and seeing what happens.
 * With the current set of editors asked to step aside, and with DS on the topic (especially without a Committee member lurking over the article so AE admins can feel they can get involved) things may well improve.  SilkTork  <sup style="color:#347C2C;">✔Tea time  22:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that is useful and informative. Thryduulf (talk) 23:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Result of Requests for comment/Jerusalem

 * Original announcement

Thank you very much, but I think the decision goes a little too far. It should be sufficient to say, "There was an RFC, and this is the result, and it could be considered disruptive for anybody to dispute this consensus without any basis. However, if circumstances change, a new consensus may be formed." It seems strange to say "this decision is binding for 3 years". Maybe something will happen in the future that changes things dramatically! We cannot know and ArbCom has no power to dictate content. It is up to the community to decide content matters. ArbCom may facilitate a discussion and RFC if the community proves incapable of doing so itself due to intense controvery, as was the case here. If the community comes together and forms a new consensus, the content could be changed within 3 years. Jehochman Talk 18:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Jonathan, you know as well as I that circumstances would have to change pretty dramatically in the next three years to affect this new lead sentence (Perhaps if the Netherlands conquered Jerusalem). The whole reason we implemented this motion was that the traditional process of editors being able to ascertain the community's consensus had broken down entirely. If it turns out that in the next three years, the Arab-Israeli conflict completely works itself out and there is peace among all humanity in a manner that allows a new consensus to actually form, then we can reexamine the matter then. For now, let's try to stick to hypotheticals that have more of a chance of occurring than that, like when BASC should unblock User:JarlaxleArtemis. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 19:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * One never knows what might happen. The place could be leveled by nuclear warfare. Jehochman Talk 20:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If the facts change in such a significant way then there will obviously be a reason to change it and all sides will agree that it needs changing, and the lead will be changed to the minimum extent possible to accommodate the new facts. Absent a significant change in the factual accuracy of the present wording then it stays as is for three years. All arbcom remedies are subject to WP:COMMONSENSE. Thryduulf (talk) 21:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

2013 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Call for applications

 * Original announcement
 * "Trusted users who frequent IRC are also encouraged to apply for either permission". Given the current goings-on regarding "trusted users" at RFAR, that sentence might have been better removed. Black Kite (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As much as people like to hate on IRC (and with partial good reasons), it is a valid form of communication for some discussion that would really have to happen offwiki anyway: crosswiki countervandalism and spam happens in #wikimedia-checkuser. Additionally, whether it is a good thing or not, WP:ACC relies on IRC and is chronically short checkusers. I get your point, but that's largely a separate issue. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 18:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I dont think anyone disagrees its a valid place to have communication and discussion in certain areas. Certainly some parts of the wiki-bureaucracy would be difficult to do without it. Just that standards on wikipedia should be *also* be upheld on IRC where IRC is being used as an extension of the wiki-bureaucracy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As much of a problem as conduct might be in the social channels (-en, -en-admins) at times, I don't think that has ever been a problem in the channels that I was referring to (wikipedia-en-acc, wikimedia-checkuser, wikimedia-stewards). <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 12:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * One-third of #wikimedia-stewards is a bot reading off the steward activity log to make sure the stewards are accountable (i.e. they don't desysop everybody on every Wikimedia site), another third is people asking for spambots to be dealt with and other requests to stewards, and the rest is commentary about random Wikimedia wikis (the English Wikipedia is rarely mentioned, as there are plenty of other places to talk about it). You have to keep in mind that the English Wikipedia is just one of over 700 Wikimedia sites, and wikimedia-checkuser and wikimedia-stewards are intended to serve all 700+. --Rschen7754 00:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it that time of the year again?— cyberpower <sup style="color:red;font-family:arnprior">Chat<sub style="margin-left:-4.4ex;color:red;font-family:arnprior">Offline 10:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We are, in fact, doing it later this year than usual (no real reason why, just turned out that way). <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 12:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a conspiracy to keep out people who like to travel in August :) --regentspark (comment) 15:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Could the statistics for OS be updated at Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/Statistics? --Rschen7754 06:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I will ask about it to my fellow auditors about getting this done. --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  16:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "must be ... an administrator on the English Wikipedia": I'm aware of the reasons this is now required, but didn't the WMF's statement leave the door open for an "RFA-identical process"? I recall that several arbitrators opined that they'd like to once again make it possible for non-sysops to be functionaries (Echo ping @Risker & Roger), so why not do that now? The way I see it, all you'd have to do is make the community's consent for non-admin candidates be binding, as opposed to just consultative; ArbCom would still be able to veto the community, and it wouldn't change how things work for admin candidates at all. I can think of several non-admin users who'd have a chance at passing. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  <sup style="color:#000;">( Je vous invite à me parler )  09:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Although I did suggest a variant of that a couple of months ago, I have since been convinced that it isn't close enough to an RfA-identical process for the WMF. The consultations simply don't get sufficient comment for that to work, for one. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 12:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We've had talks at Wikidata on similar matters (hi Pink!) but in my opinion, a non-admin functionary would not be able to perform all their duties; for example, a CU who could not block would be horribly crippled, and an oversighter who could not revision delete would have to leave requests for other oversighters who could do the same. I suppose the toolsets could be adjusted, but that would require approval from the community. It works if they're just an auditor on AUSC, but not so well for a regular functionary. --Rschen7754 07:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a bit of a Catch-22 here, though, R. We could handle the bundling matter through an RFC, except the RFC would have no chance of passing as long as ArbCom is requiring sysopship to be a functionary. ArbCom, on the other hand, might be hesitant to take action to reïnstate the possibility when there are still concerns about its feasability. I think that if arbitrators share your qualms about performance of duties, they could easily pass a motion along the lines of "We're willing to set up an 'RFA-identical' process for non-admins who want to be functionaries, but first the community needs to resolve the following issues..." — PinkAmpers  &#38;  <sup style="color:#000;">( Je vous invite à me parler )  14:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, there are tons of ways you could fix that. Imposing a minimum number of voters and a required percentage on par with that for adminship could make it more RFA-like, and you could draw more comment by listing non-admin functionary candidates in User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  <sup style="color:#000;">( Je vous invite à me parler )  14:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

IRC
Participants should be required to state their views and use on IRC. It seems that all AUSC members are often on IRC, advancing the project by e.g. telling Riley how to use bots how to create massive amounts of new articles. Kiefer .Wolfowitz  13:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What? Can you clarify that?— cyberpower <sup style="color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Chat<sub style="margin-left:-4.4ex;color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Online 13:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Your sentence makes no sense. That aside, half of the AUSC is on irc rarely or very rarely. Of the half that does use IRC on a regular basis, two of us have no experience in using bots. The one person who is both uses irc and has a background in bots, MBisanz, is a crat and a bag member. Such a discussion would fall under his other hat(s) and not his membership in the AUSC. Please stop making making accusations like this with no evidence. --In actu (Guerillero) &#124; My Talk  17:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I just saw the link on your talk page, Kiefer. If you read the less than 30 lines of log you would clearly see that Riley says that he isn't trying to create new pages (Line 17) and I advise him that it isn't a good idea to make too many mass changes too fast because people in the past have been banned for following such a course of action (Line 26). The amount of spin that you have put on this out of context snip-it of a conversation puts both Fox News and MSNBC to shame. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  04:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The point is that you and the other AUSC members hang out on IRC. It might be healthy to to recruit from the community rather than exclusively from men who spend their free hours on IRC. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  07:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Syrian civil war articles

 * Original announcement


 * Are you intending that the "Arbitration motion..." section be the place where we have the discussion, or do you want us to have it separately? Or were you intending nothing either way?  Nyttend (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Discuss this" means you can discuss the motion here, but if you want general sanctions to continue on the Syrian civil war pages after mid-August, that should be discussed at WP:AN. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 19:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Wasn't clear. I was asking if the "discussion should be opened on the Administrators' Noticeboard" were supposed to be at the same section or somewhere else on the same noticeboard, or if it didn't really matter as long as it was at WP:AN.  Nyttend (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Doesn't really matter, but a new section will probably be easiest. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 20:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. My recommendation is to start a new section on WP:AN, which could begin by describing the background (similar to what was said in the request for clarification or amendment), including a link to the ArbCom action, and then explaining why continuing the sanctions might be helpful. And if/when someone does start such a discussion, please feel free to post a link to it here so those interested will see it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry to interrupt, but who is entitled to start a new section at WP:AN on the issue?Greyshark09 (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Any user who is able to summarize the situation and articulate a good reason for sanctions being necessary. You should feel free to go ahead with it. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 21:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to be sure - which WP:AN board are we talking about? this ?
 * Yes. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 21:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: the required discussion is initiated at Administrators' Noticeboard.Greyshark09 (talk) 06:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and politics closed

 * Original announcement

Deskana returning as an Oversighter

 * Original announcement

2013 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Invitation to comment on candidates

 * Original announcement

Arbitration motion regarding MarshalN20

 * '''Original announcement

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds closed

 * Original announcement

I wanted to thank the committee for a swift yet well reasoned decision in this case. I remain of the opinion that dragging cases out for multiple months is seldom necessary and never helpful and am glad to see this one wrapped up in a reasonable time frame. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I wonder if the relatively low number of arbs (due to recusing and inactivity) made the case pass more quickly? Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe, although most cases have been closed pretty fast as of late, with the exception of the tea party movement one, due to its high complexity. — ΛΧΣ  21  00:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In other words, the Tea Party is the new Scientology... Mark Arsten (talk) 01:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

As a banned editor, why is Kiefer.Wolfowitz being allowed to use his talk page to further comment on his case and to promulgate his views? He has no need of talk-page access, as no admin can unblock him on the basis of a normal unblock request, and his only option for reinstatement is to go through BASC or ArbCom, both of which can be reached via e-mail. I would like to request that his talk page access be shut down, and the two comments he posted after being banned be deleted. Perhaps the talk page should be fully protected as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could ask the ArbCom member who is happily conversing with Kiefer on that page? Black Kite (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * If I'm allowed a little joke here, this was a case of MAD behavior. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, addressing this on the individual user level is just playing Whac-A-Mole. It should be decided that users who cannot be unblocked through a talk page unblock request can post to their talk pages or that they can not, and this decision should be applied consistently. While making that decision, it would be a good thing to also clarify whether normal blocked editors can make edits to their talk pages other than unblock requests -- the same reasoning applies. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not quite. To me there is a qualitative difference between a site ban and an indef block.  The former is only applied to the most egregious cases, and only after community discussion or an arbitration -- and, generally, limits are placed on when reinstatement can be requested.  An indef block, on the other hand, can end at any time, and it seems to me that many of them end relatively quickly.  Also, an ArbCom-banned editor can only be reinstated through BASC or the Committee, so the talk page has no function as a place to post unblock requests. I'm inclined to say that an indef blocked editor should have access to their talk page until they abuse the privilege, whereas site banned users should have access removed at the time of their banning. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Noting that I have no preference on this -- I don't care if they are or are not allowed, I just think that whatever gets decided should be applied consistently -- I am not sure that I agree with your reasoning.


 * You say that an indef blocked editor should be allowed to use his talk page for purposes other than requesting an unblock, but a banned editor shouldn't be allowed to use his talk page for purposes other than requesting an unban. Clearly you didn't decide that based upon one being allowed to request an unblock and the other not being allowed to request an unban -- why would that alone drive a decision about posting material that isn't an unban/unblock request?


 * So clearly you made the decision based upon, as you put it, being an egregious case. The question is, is that true? Is it true that site bans are only applied to the most egregious cases? I don't think they are. Site bans are applied to the most egregious cases that make it to Arbcom, but Arbcom deals with the most difficult to decide cases, not the most egregious cases.


 * There are cases that don't make it to Arbcom because an admin took immediate action. Imagine an autoconfirmed user who suddenly and rapidly outs a few celebrities, posts some child pornography, violates some copyrights, posts legal and death threats, spams, and anything else I didn't think of. That would be far more egregious that any recent Arbcom case, but it would result in an instant indef and rollback/revdel of all edits. We wouldn't need a site ban because nobody is going to unblock that account, ever. Notice how many Arbcom cases involve one admin blocking and another unblocking? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We appear to have somewhat different understandings of what is "egregious". I would contend that the hypothetical case you cite is not really all that egregious, it's just a whole bunch of standard vandalism.  The indef block would come quickly (probably even before all the activities you posit would even have a chance to occur), and talk page access would be routinely denied for this editor who has nothing to contribute. All of that is just normal stuff.  No, the really egregious cases which get editors banned are long-term disruption, which tend to get handled by the community after numerous admins have issued numerous blocks, and those cases which go to ArbCom, which frequently involve trusted and otherwise valued users, such as admins or normally productive editors like KW, who have, for one reason or another, gone off the rails. These cases are egregious because they involve a betrayal of the community by someone who's been an accepted member of the group. It is these people who ought to be disallowed from any participation on the project, until they are able to make the case that they deserve another chance -- and that means no talk page access should be provided to them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah. I see your point. Makes sense to me. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:BAN addresses the issue but doesn't create a bright-line rule: "Indefinitely site-banned editors may be restricted from editing their user talk page or using e-mail." That's pretty weasely. By using the word "may" it's almost not saying anything. Even a blocked user's talk page may be revoked. Still, the sentence implies that it's more common, and a little chart below says that talk page access for a site-banned editor is "usually not allowed". If I were making the decision, I'd revoke talk page access. I see no constructive need for it.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As Newyorkbrad was recused on this case, it's quite possible he wasn't aware it had been closed and hence that further discussion should be halted. As to continued talk page access for Kiefer at the time of the block: it is the usual site practice that blocks are issued at the lowest level required to effect the desired outcome, and that has, to date, included blocks related to Arbcom bans. Such blocks can be extended if necessary to include email blocks and talk page blocks, should the banned user continue to "litigate" the closed case or otherwise behave inappropriately. In the case of a user talk page, I would personally be inclined to protect the talk page for a set period first (which has the added benefit of preventing other users from baiting the banned editor, another issue that we see fairly often).  Risker (talk) 02:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * IMO its really quite easy to fix. Just take the page off your watchlist's (I did) and let him rant. Problem solved. If someone chooses to reply, its their time. Aside from that he's blocked so he can't post anywhere else. Kumioko (talk) 02:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with both you and Beyond My Ken. Ideally, ignoring KW is the best thing to do. But there is a strong point to be made about allowing someone who was site banned largely because of their interactions with one individual to post links to an external attack site about the same individual. I would argue that is pretty much continuing to "litigate" a closed case. Resolute 03:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be handled by the standard practice of revoking talk page access if a blocked editor abuses it. No need for any special rules in that case. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and my impression is that this is exactly what Beyond My Ken was asking - at least at first. The discussion seems to have moved into a different direction since.. Resolute 13:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That is clearly not what Beyond My Ken was asking for, he was asking for KW's talk page access to be removed as a matter of procedure. Eric   Corbett  13:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I interpreted his first complaint as being a request to deny talk page access due to abuse. Namely, KW continuing to push his grudge against Ironholds by adding links to an attack site.  The discussion subsequently became one of locking down access as a matter of procedure. Resolute 13:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Resolute is correct. In this specific case, I believe that KW has already abused his talk page access and should have it removed, and I then responded to Guy Macon's question about general procedure with my thoughts on that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's true but that's also the way I feel about using the terms "broadly construed" that's usage seems to be standard practice these days. By making the wording so loose and open to interpretation it keeps from having to make a major decision and unfortunaetly allows it to be abused (on both sides). It also makes it really easy for folks to argue about it. As with many other things, our desire to keep the rules loose and flexible have also made it so its easy to argue about. Kumioko (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, but I am of two minds on the issue of "loose" language. In some instances, it provides administrators with reasonable discretion to handle situations differently depending on the circumstances. I realize that may lead to what some editors describe as inconsistent results, but as long as the results are within an acceptable range, I don't necessarily see that as per se bad - and it's often fairer. However, in other cases, like this one, I don't see the need for discretion. I would prefer a rule that site-banned editors' talk pages are restricted. Of course, if someone can justify the need for discretion, I'm certainly open to arguments that haven't occurred to me.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I generally believe we need to be concise and rather specific when we define things like this pertaining to legal or policy matters. we have more than 1400 administrators eahc with their own minds, some from differing cultures and beliefs and legal systems. To define something as broadly construed is not reasonable, it is an invitation for abuse (accidental or intentional). The "may" issue you bring up is the same way. If the person is banned, then they are banned and shouldn't be able to edit. With that said, indefinately banned in Wikipedia doesn't mean forever (in fact in general I believe 1 year is probably reasonable under most instances) so they still need to have a venue to appeal. If we shut off their talk page and revoke their email they have no way to request to come back. What we end up with then is someone who waits a couple months and creates a new Username. As long as they don't continue to be disruptive and change their editing patterns we'll never know and in fact our rules essentially influence that outcome. Kumioko (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, they do. Appeals to ArbCom bans go to the Ban Appeals Sub-Committee, afaik, and are discussed via mailing list - disabling the ability to email specific users does not prevent the banned user from contacting ArbCom. Ironholds (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I generally agree with that unfortunately its an all or nothing thing. Its a limitation with the software I would be glad to see changed so the user can only contact Arbcom and not be able to Email anyone else. With that said, as I said above, if the user is only talking on their talk page and isn't really doing anything but vocalizing their irritation, then its really not that significant of a problem. I do admit though that in a perfect world a banned editor should not be able to do this. Kumioko (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Why? Arbcom's email addresses are publicly accessible. You don't need access to EmailUser to email it. Ironholds (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, otherwise who do we know its them? Do we require some proof of ID? I would doubt that since its not required to identify as an editor I would doubt we would do that. Additionally, I would assume that some type of verification would be required to ensure its not someone else. I doun't think that would be an issue in this case but in some Arbcom decisions it could be. So it seems reasonable to me to allow the user to contact Atbcom so that their identity can be verified. Otherwise, generally and with some exceptions, they would need to be that user to be able to login. With all that said I'm really not trying to advocate that KW keep his access. I'm just saying that to me, the easiest way to make the problem stop is to remove the talk page from your watchlist and stop responding. If someone wants to respond and entertain discussions, then that's up to them. Kumioko (talk) 19:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I suspect that, at least in this case, the user has emailed ArbCom before, but your point is well taken. Ironholds (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * For verifying identity there are at least two options for a user who has had their email access revoked and is unable to verify themselves without directly accessing their wp account -
 * Arbcom could email the appellant through their talk page (AIUI only the sending of email is blocked) and include a phrase for them to include in an email direct to the (sub-)committee
 * If that failed, then an arbitrator could restore email access for an agreed finite period of time to allow the sending of a single verification email. Thryduulf (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting take on inconsistent results. After thinking about it a while, I rather like the idea of intelligently deciding how and when to apply something like this. What I don't want to see is it applied inconsistently just because someone happened to notice one case and not another. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Blocking due to discussing
Ok, so based upon this case, I added:


 * Discussing allegations that an editor may be violating the policy on the protection of children

to MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown.

But I'm concerned about the wording. (The wording was taking the header to principle #3 and adding the word "discussing" at the head of the sentence.)

I note that concerns over the specific wording have also been discussed here.

Any help and/or clarification here would be welcome. - jc37 19:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is a good idea. All child protection related blocks should be done by or referred to ArbCom. Additionally, this scenario is so rare that it does not need it's own specific entry in the block list. Please remove it. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And this encourages people to use this blocking reason, thus advertizing the issue to a broader audience... not such a good idea. --Rschen7754 20:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd have to agree. I've self reverted. Thanks : ) - jc37 20:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration motions regarding Cambalachero, MarshalN20 and Lecen

 * Original announcement

Closing statement for RFC on Visual Editor
It is requested that the Arbitration committee review and close this RFC and to draft a response to the WMF of the consensus from the community. Normally I would not submit this here, but since it pertains to a decision made by the WMF and is being rebutted by the community, it would be better coming from the Arbcom. We aren't in need of a policy determination nor an explanation of policy here. Just someone to draft a response to the WMF, with the results of the RFC showing the consensus of the community. I also realize that the Arbcom does not have jurisdiction to overrule WMF decisions so I want to clarify that the community has voted and the result isn't coming "from" the Arbcom, but through the Arbcom on behalf of the community. Kumioko (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ArbCom also doesn't have jurisdiction to draft RfC closes. Is this a user conduct dispute? Ironholds (talk) 03:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really, but generally the community doesn't protest decisions by the WMF to this degree either. There is always some complaint but not the massive rebellion that this caused. Frankly I didn't expect them to do it but, as I noted above, as the defacto legal body it seems the appropriate way. We as a community can dictate how most things are done in house, but generally this doesn't extend to the WMF. So it seems like a good idea for the community to go through the Arbcom since they represent both the WMF and the community. Kumioko (talk) 03:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Arbcom doesn't really represent the WMF. Why not just get any random admin to close it? If the answer is "nobody wants to" that's a different problem from "and it needs to be shouted from the rooftops, and ArbCom are good at that". In any case, I suspect they won't take the job on; interfacing between the WMF and the community on software decisions is pretty much as far from their remit as it's possible to get. Ironholds (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to that and actually it doesn't require an admin to close an RFC. If you want the brutal honestly though, in the end I think its really irrelevant, because I don't think the WMF is going to listen. They have shown over the last couple months that they really don't care what the community has to say on the matter. Wikipedia is the WMF's high profile advertisement and test tube for their Wikia software. They like to call it a non profit but in the end, the thing that generates revenue for Wikia and Jimbo is the Worlds familiarity with the Wikipedia and her sister projects. So I don't think anything short of a support of forking the English Wikipedia is going to get them to fix the mess they created. Kumioko (talk) 03:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the arbitration committee talkpage, not a platform for you to complain about the VisualEditor. those exist. On the question of whether ArbCom will close it, they will or they won't and nothing either of us do will influence the decision. As to your complaints, take them to the feedback page - and I'd advise you to try to avoid implicitly accusing people of legal malfeasance if you want to be taken seriously. Ironholds (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't really care frankly if I am taken seriously anymore. I am not the one forcing broken half finished software on a volunteer community so it can be tested and added to a for profit software platform. That's the WMF, I am just the A-hole that called them out on it. That makes me the bad guy because I care enough about the project to speak up and say something. Anyway, as expected the Arbcom has no interest in doing this and it doesn't look like anyone at AN is going to either. So once again its likely the community has proven they cannot stand together and find a consensus on anything. Kumioko (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Please don't escalate here, both of you. The most appropriate place for asking for uninvolved eyes to close an RFC is the administrator noticeboard. There is no reasonable prospect of the Arbitration Committee as an entity closing the discussion, although uninvolved individual arbitrator(s) may participate in the close. Risker (talk) 07:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries, someone already did but unsurprisingly its not drawing much interest. Kumioko (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, I looked at Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, and I don't see it listed there. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't submit it. It was submitted here. Kumioko (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I quite understand Kumioko's frustration with this situation. However, as an arbitrator, I would decline any request for the committee to close or rule on this RFC. The community's administrators are more than capable of leading this one. AGK  [•] 16:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to change the way the yearly Arbitration Committee Election RFC is conducted
I have initiated an RFC on a proposal to change the way the yearly Arbitration Committee Election RFC is conducted. The RFC is located at WP:VPP, comments would be welcome. <font color="Green">Monty <font color="#A3BFBF">845  22:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

2013 CheckUser and Oversight appointments & personnel changes

 * Original announcement


 * A few supplementary comments from me: Thank you very much to everybody who contributed to, or showed an interest in, these appointments. Our decision is so much easier when the community thoroughly vets the candidates, as it did this year; and of course a large candidate pool is always great. Risker and I have posted the permissions requests at Meta. We did so because we happened to be online at the first moment the announcement went live, and the committee generally tries to complete this process as quickly as possible. However, the real legwork was done this year by NuclearWarfare, the supervising arbitrator, to whom we're all very grateful. AGK  [•] 00:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Someone might want to leave a note on Elen's talkpage addressing her de-CU/OS. Logging on only to find expected buttons suddenly missing is the stuff of wiki-nightmares. — PinkAmpers  &#38;  <sup style="color:#000;">( Je vous invite à me parler )  17:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * We had sent her an email giving her notice of the de-CU/OS (multiple actually), but I have left her a talk page notice now as well. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 18:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have wiki-nightmares, but if I did I imagine they would involve being trapped in an elevator with a selection of WP's most active editors. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Other users on the stats page appear to qualify for removal based on the policy, are there any particular reasons why the committee chose to dispense with the policy and remove only Elen of the Roads? <font color = "darkmagenta">Snowolf <font color = "darkmagenta">How can I help? 21:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I actually wondered that too! Kumioko (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keeping in mind that sitting arbs do not have to meet the activity requirements and members of WP:AUSC are actually granted the tools on a "read only" basis, who else besides Jimbo would be considered completely inactive? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am fully familiar with those exempt from the inactivity policy, but there is a checkuser with absolutely no activity for at least 6 months, and an oversighter with less than the required activity in the last tracked period (May-July 2013). <font color = "darkmagenta">Snowolf <font color = "darkmagenta">How can I help? 22:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Elen's case was unique because she was both inactive with CU & OS and was making no edits whatsoever. This made her inactivity more pressing. AGK  [•] 22:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How is 6 months of complete inactivity as CU not "pressing"? You are supposed to apply policy, not handle things on a whim... <font color = "darkmagenta">Snowolf <font color = "darkmagenta">How can I help? 22:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I really don't think it's fair or appropriate to decide to remove one functionary for inactivity and exempt others from it, especially when the Committee has been derelict in its duties in this area for months and months, despite repeated and detailed communications on my part regarding this matter. The committee has chosen to not act on this matter for months and months, and worse of all, when it acted it chose to act on only one specific case and blatantly disregard others, without providing a rational for the exemptions of individuals from project-wide policies. This is a sham. <font color = "darkmagenta">Snowolf <font color = "darkmagenta">How can I help? 22:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Snowolf, despite what the written policy on activity says, there is for whatever reason a much longer functional grace period. The ones whom you pointed out in times past I believe have returned to active functionary-ing. For the ones who have not: I have just gone through the activity logs again and started an internal discussion with/about everyone who is not meeting the activity criteria. Thank you for your continued prodding and I hope you continue to do so in the future. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 02:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that is not the case. There is one checkuser with no logged actions for the past six months, including the month that ended yesterday. See the relevant AUSC stats. <font color = "darkmagenta">Snowolf <font color = "darkmagenta">How can I help? 19:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Snowolf, I did not say the others' inactivity was "not pressing". I said Elen's inactivity was "more pressing". AGK  [•] 12:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * How is it more pressing when there's a CU that's done one check since November, but somehow that is less pressing than Elen's 0 checks since March. Two weights and two measures. Shameful. <font color = "darkmagenta">Snowolf <font color = "darkmagenta">How can I help? 19:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What is so "pressing" about doing such a removal today as opposed to a month from now? What bad thing is being avoided? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

(unindent) I guess what baffles me (and possibly Snowolf) is why the Committee set such decisive and specific conditions for the removal of tools due to inactivity, went to the effort of amending and reaffirming them in March, then never actually enforced them. Elen may have no edits, but that wasn't actually included in the inactivity criteria, so now it's not that the Committee isn't enforcing the inactivity criteria, it's that they're enforcing it selectively. I am left quite confused by the situation. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not the most active and hands-on arbitrator in this area by a long shot (in fact, I have very little to do with it), but I believe we have been making contact with the checkusers and oversighters who have been inactive recently. We typically inquire of our functionary colleagues in this situation whether everything off-wiki is all right, whether they anticipate returning to activity shortly, and so on, before going forward with an inactivity-based removal of permissions.
 * As for Elen of the Roads, as I've just written on her talkpage, I miss her participation (in whatever capacities) and hope she will be returning to editing soon. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to hear you're making contact, because some of the checkusers that are inactive haven't done any checks in nine months, which is rather astounding given that the minimum period set in the inactivity policy is three months. I am a bit confused that it's taken six months for this to happen though, since I pointed this out in March. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 21:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have likewise pointed this out twice before, mid-April and in July, both times privately in emails to the Committee. <font color = "darkmagenta">Snowolf <font color = "darkmagenta">How can I help? 22:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

No answer to my "What is so 'pressing' about doing such a removal today as opposed to a month from now? What bad thing is being avoided?" What a shock. I assert that there is nothing 'pressing' about doing such a removal today as opposed to a month from now. I also notice that Arbitration Committee/Procedures says


 * "Holders who do not comply with the activity and expectation requirements – or who mark their accounts "semi-retired", "retired", or "inactive", or who announce their effective retirement by other means – may have their permissions removed by the Arbitration Committee. Prior to removal of access, two attempts will be made to contact the holder using the email address they provided to the Committee." (emphasis added)

So now I have another question to add to my Frequently Unanswered Questions (FUQ) list: Whe are some editors pretending that it says "must" or "will" instead of "may"?

Again, what specifically is the harm being done here? What bad thing has happened or is predicted to happen? (...Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing - people are just pointing out that there is more than one editor who is failing the activity requirement for their advanced permissions, yet only one is having it removed. I think they're quite entitled to ask why that might be. Black Kite (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You are certainly entitled to ask, but "no particular reason" is a perfectly acceptable answer. I keep asking, but nobody is telling me what harm comes from being inconsistent about this. Why should anyone care? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Because I'm curious what's led the Committee to enforce the inactivity policy so selectively. I'm trying to satisfy my curiosity, that's all. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 09:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Because primates (at least humans and capuchin monkeys), have an innate sense of fairness and being treated differently pissing them off. . That harms Wikipedia. (Well, at least the human part, probably doesn't hurt to piss off capuchin monkeys.)  NE Ent 10:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * One of the challenges when looking at removal of advanced permissions is when a user holds both CheckUser and Oversight, but is only meeting the activity standards on one of the two. (It is part of the reason that the Committee will often decide to offer only one permission: the user meets the trust expectations, but there is benefit in seeing how they manage the rather minimal productivity expectations.) If someone with both advanced permissions still retains the trust of the committee, it is a bit odd to remove only one tool. I'm not sure that we've ever actually done it, to be honest. Usually when someone becomes inactive (for example, Elen of the Roads), they're inactive for any or all tools they hold. We do, in every case before removing permissions, discuss extensively with the user; sometimes that discussion can take a while. Of course, if the user doesn't respond to several overtures, the decision is much easier.  Risker (talk) 03:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe Elen has notified the ArbCom of a WP:CLEANSTART? (cue conspiracy theme) --Surturz (talk) 06:10, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how that is a challenge. It is not odd to remove one tool for inactivity, and removal for inactivity has nothing to do with the trust of the committee. If you don't use X, you get removed from X. If you don't use Y, you get remove from Y. I fail to see what's so hard about this. <font color = "darkmagenta">Snowolf <font color = "darkmagenta">How can I help? 06:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Or update the procedure so that it actually specifies that activity with one tool is sufficient to keep both. That's why I'm so baffled by this. The Committee went to all the trouble of amending the policy, then ignored it afterwards. If amending it is that important, then isn't enforcing it? --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 07:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement closed

 * '''Original announcement


 * Well, you've caused Collect to quit Wikipedia completely... <font color="Navy">Luke <font color="FireBrick">no <font color="Green">94 (tell Luke off here) 18:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's see how long that drama ploy lasts. Binksternet (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The amount of fuss that someone makes about quitting is inversely proportional to the likelihood that they'll actually quit. Collect isn't going anywhere. And if he does, he does. I reached a point last year where I was so concerned and upset by an ArbCom decision - and by the Arbitrator who spearheaded it - that I quit editing. I didn't start again until after the election, when the Committee's makeup changed in a way that made me comfortable returning. The bottom line is that if we don't like the terms of engagement here, we can try to change them or we can leave until/unless we're satisfied with them again. MastCell Talk 20:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You're not wrong. As for Collect, there is discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 142 on this decision. Given that a request to Jimbo is the next avenue of appeal, I thought it worth mentioning here. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 20:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think the topic bans or the findings that justified them should be taken personally. In other controversial topic areas where a large number of editors were involved, such as WP:ARBCC, there was a similar strategy to get a new set of faces involved. The diffs in arbcom findings very often do not bear close scrutiny although the overall summaries are usually correct. The findings about Arthur Rubin and Collect in particular were marginal.  Both of them edit a wide series of articles and I hope that they continue to do so. Mathsci (talk) 07:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions review
Since March 2013, various individual members of the Arbitration Committee have been reviewing the existing Discretionary sanctions process, with a view to (i) simplifying its operation and (ii) updating its procedures to reflect various clarification and amendment requests. An updated draft of the procedure is available for scrutiny and discussion here. Roger Davies talk 07:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Discuss this.

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes closed

 * Original announcement
 * So basically the Arbcom has no opinion over the matter of whether a WikiProject can show ownership over articles and enforce that they cannot contain Infoboxes. Like say WikiProject Novels for example to name just one. Perhaps, amongst the admonishments and hand slaps we could have decreed that no project can dictate that infoboxes are required or not allowed? That might have been useful I think! Instead of doling out rather...excuse the term, arbitrary, punishments to individuals while skillfully and completely dodging the larger issue altogether. Kumioko (talk) 00:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 *  Them From  Space  18:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That is, and always has been, far less an issue of ownership and more one of consensus. A very small group of editors trying to push their viewpoint against a group of editors who happen to be part of a wikiproject on articles within its scope will usually result in a no-consensus situation at best. That would default to status quo ante, and in most relevant cases here, usually no infobox. Given no global consensus/policy regarding mandatory use of infoboxes exists, it has always been incumbent on Andy to generate a local consensus in support of his viewpoint. Arguing "ownership" is really just an admission that he often failed to do so. Resolute 01:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * With respect, I have seen multiple occassions where an editor is developing an article and someone from a project, who shouldn't be able to dictate such things, swoops in and states Infoboxes aren't allowed on X articles. Where X is a project that doesn't want them. It should be, at the very least, allowed for an author who is developing the article. Rather than what sometimes happens and they stop editing or give up on the article. That should never happen. And for what is worth Infoboxes are a useful way of summarizing key items in the article. We shouldn't be forcing out readers to read the entire article to find out when they were born or died. But all that is beside the point. This case is about the Arbcom's complete failure to solve this problem. Because here we are within an hour debating a problem that should have been solved by the Arbcom. Kumioko (talk) 01:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You're just arguing that the article's "developer" should have ownership rights. That isn't any different than what you are saying project members shouldn't be able to do.  Also, your suggestion that Arbcom failed because you are pillorying them (again) is rather absurd.  The question of whether infoboxes should be made mandatory is a content decision, and not one they can resolve. And FWIW, I think arbcom did take a very large bite out of this problem. Resolute 01:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No what I'm saying is that neither owns the article but the developer of the article should be allowed to use an infobox if they want. Let remember infoboxes are allowed and no project should be able to state they cannot be used. If someone is developing the article and wants to use an infobox then the projects should not, be able to force them not too. But I doubt we are going to agree here on either the Arbcom or the Infobox issue. Suffice to say I don't agree with you on either. And to be honest I'm getting tired of getting beat up because I keep expecting the Arbcom to actually fix the problem rather than throw it back to the community again who obviously cannot and will not come to a consensus on the issue. Kumioko (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, yes, that is exactly what you are saying. That the developer of the article should be able to veto a local consensus.  And spare me the victim card.  You play it well, but I'm not buying it.  Resolute 04:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So you've banned Pigsonthewing from discussing the removal of infoboxes, but you've not banned him from removing them? What a bizarre and unhelpful conclusion: either he should be permitted to discuss and remove, or he should be prohibited from discussing and removing, or he should be permitted to discuss but not remove.  Nyttend (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Excellent point, I concur with that as well. Kumioko (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously an oversight, but an irrelevant one given Andy is extremely unlikely to actually remove an infobox... it would disrupt his metadata agenda. Resolute 01:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can't imagine him ever removing an infobox. --Folantin (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That is because he would send them to TfD instead. Agathoclea (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Resolute, you speak as if it's a bad thing to seek unified metadata and to make ourselves more Semantic Web-compatible. Andy would do well to remove duplicate infoboxes when others nominate them for deletion, and those who fight such an action would be liable to being blocked for disrupting our metadata schemata.  Nyttend (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A bad thing? Not necessarily. But our readers and editors should always take precedence over other people's machines. The problem is created when people get that order backwards. Resolute 03:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What if readers and editors are at odds? Agathoclea (talk) 07:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

So, I gather ARBCOM decided to side with the anti-Infobox crowd? This doesn't speak well of parity. Being "admonished" carries no penalties while being blocked from acting in certain ways is very restrictive. It's really too, too bad for all that this is the decision that was settled upon. I don't think it really settles anything and just serves to punish two Editors. It was admittedly a complicated case but, ARBCOM, I think you could have done better than this. Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 13:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Amendment to Requests for arbitration/Locke Cole

 * Original announcement

Arbitration motion regarding Mathsci

 * Original announcement

As someone who has observed the whole Race and Intelligence debacle for some time, this is a truly awful decision. In most cases, problematic behaviour is bidirectional, I would observe that this is not the case here. Indeed, in most cases a two way interaction ban is appropriate, not so in this case. We have seen zero evidence of Mathsci abusing the original one way interaction ban, the condition that he had to ask permission to raise the issue of violation of the interaction ban was a bizarre one to impose in any case and to impose what is a punitive sanction that bans him from seeking protection from editors who've abused him is incomprehensible. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

New Trainee Clerk

 * Original announcement


 * Is making the tea the first job? It usually is for new trainees ;-). Welcome, enjoy - QuiteUnusual (talk) 16:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC).
 * When I saw the post I was wondering if it was AGK, since he seems to be doing clerk work now [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NE_Ent&diff=prev&oldid=573282218] NE Ent 03:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

IJS
"Original announcement" I'm tellin ya now .. ya all best put your thinkin caps on. I am sick and tired of the bullshit ... and I am gonna speak my mind. As a collective group you folks have screwed up ten way to Sunday. If you want to just block me .. fine ... it's always the easy way out. —  <font style="color:#000080;">Ched <font style="color:#FF0000;">ZILLA  01:10, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Amendment to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology

 * Original announcement

I'm confused by the wording: you allow him to appeal, so you vacate the sanction? Did you simply mean "decided to accept an appeal"? Nyttend (talk) 03:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a temporary condition, to allow him to appeal without being blocked for appealing. Binksternet (talk) 05:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Since when do we block people for appealing in the first place? As long as the user isn't block-evading, don't we either listen to the appeal or say "you're not allowed to appeal this decision"?  Nyttend (talk) 05:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The motion should probably have read "grant", instead of "allow", but the gist of it is that the restriction imposed by Sandstein is no longer in force. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

RFC: Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013
The yearly Arbitration Committee Election request for comments is now open. There remain some unresolved issues from last year to discuss, and editors have also expressed a desire to propose changes. All editors are invited to participate. The way the RFC is to be conducted has been modified from previous years by a recent RFC, the changes are summarized at the top of the RFC, reviewing them may be helpful. <font color="Green">Monty <font color="#A3BFBF">845  00:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Resignation of NuclearWarfare

 * Original announcement


 * No, I'm afraid this is completely unacceptable. Request denied.  Just scale back instead. 1/2*NW > 0*NW. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * :(( This is saddening -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  18:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I would agree with Floquenbeam, and tell NW to just scale back, if I were as I should be the ultimate authority on everything. But I'm not. Unfortunately, I think we all know that there would be just as many objections were NW to "scale back" on the basis that he wasn't doing enough. I think we should all be grateful that he has been willing to take on this task in the first place, which most of us probably wouldn't want. I think he has done a good job, and hope that, if circumstances in his life in the real world change, he might consider seeking the position again, if he's willing to put himself through all the frustrations and problems which being an arbitrator entail. Otherwise, I would personally like to thank NW for having taken on the role in the first place and doing an apparently very reasonable job at a very difficult task. John Carter (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * NW's well-judged actions as an arbitrator lived up to the expectations of voters in ACE2012. It was a bonus having an arbitrator with so much content editing experience. It is regrettable that other pressures have intervened. Thanks for all your good work, NW. Mathsci (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Regrettable. Thanks for your service. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * < sad ROARR > Little Nukular be missed. <font face="comic sans ms">  bishzilla    ROA R R! !     20:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC).
 * This is very sad news. Whatever it is, thanks for all you've done, and I hope all is well.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear that. I hope everything's OK.  Good luck to you and all your future endeavors.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your thoughtful and reasoned contributions to ArbCom will be missed. Thanks for serving in Wikipedia's most thankless job. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your efforts...Modernist (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your service, you have been one of the most rational and even handed arbitrators. I hope that whatever has prompted this is a positive and happy change in your personal circumstances. Thryduulf (talk) 23:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your service, I hope you can continue to improve Wikipedia though through other ways. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have come to hold NuclearWarfare in very high regard as an arbitrator, and am dismayed to see that he has resigned. Nevertheless, it is his choice, and I completely respect his decision. If he ever decides to run again, he'll have my complete and unreserved support. Kurtis (talk) 23:58, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @NW: I hold you in high regard, and am sorry that you will no longer be able to serve in those capacities. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the work at Arb and at clerkship before that. Best, --  Ohc  ¡digame!¿que pasa? 06:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am saddened by this turn of events concerning an editor whom I have always respected greatly. Take care NW and thank you for your service. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις  06:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear this. NuclearWarfare's actions and comments have always struck me as concise, effective and facts-oriented, which are very important qualities in an arbitrator. I join the above in thanking you for your service. <font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;"> Sandstein  07:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Best wishes. Just look at the extreme diversity of people here, many of whom never agree on anything, who are all saddened by this. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm saddened, like everyone else here, but I should note that it's nice to see someone hold onto their adminship when resigning their higher bits. Too often, arbs, 'crats, and functionaries overwork themselves so much that by the time they realize they need to stop, they're so fed up that they vanish for good. So while it's definitely a bummer to see a good arb step down, I'd say it's preferable to the all-too-common alternative of losing a good admin and editor as well. Only a month ago did the same thing with his 'cratship, and it seems to have served him well. —  PinkAmpers  &#38;  <sup style="color:#000;">( Je vous invite à me parler )  16:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I and some others have said it before and I'm going to say it here again. We need more Arbs and each case should be conducted by only a few Arbs. There is no problem with having 50 Arbs in total and 4 or 5 hearing and voting on each case. Count Iblis (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sad to see you resign but if it must happen, I wish you well. Thanks for your service! You've seen the best and worst of Wikipedia, I'm sure. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 19:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the time you spent. Look forwards to seeing you around editing more. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for all your work, NW. An arbitrator's job is never easy, and yet you did it very well. — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 10:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Dissapointed to see this; you have been consitently thoughtful and impressive. Ceoil (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry to see you go. All the best for what comes next... <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 23:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Really sorry to hear this NW, and thanks for your service to date. I hope we'll still see you around regardless. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sad to miss you, who looked at facts, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear the news.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  02:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm late, but I'm sorry to see you leave, as you already know. Short-lived but nonetheless amazing arb. — ΛΧΣ  21  03:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Amendment to Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence

 * Original announcement

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute closed

 * Original announcement


 * Y'all have banned me from topics that aren't even on my radar. No harm there. It's just that y'all totally missed my core complaints, which were about various users (including two admins) abusing Wikipedia and using invalid sourcing. Your unwillingness to strip authority from the two admins, who actually caused this problem in the first place, does not speak well of your process. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Could I get some clarification on the extent of Baseball Bugs topic ban. Is it to include the entire Reference desk where Bugs is a frequent contributor and the occasional transgender/leaking of information topic comes up? Or does it apply only to the sections where the question is related to his topic ban? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 08:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It would typically prohibit him only from participating in sections relating to transgender issues or people. AGK  [•] 09:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Those topics seldom arise on the ref desks, and if they do at some point in the future, I can easily let someone else answer. FYI, I am supportive of transgender rights. The claims that I'm prejudiced against, I find offensive in the extreme. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I suspect that most of the editors involved in that discussion are supportive of transgender rights, so it must have been really insulting to them to be told they were engaging in "hatespeak" and "discrimination" for having a diverse opinion on the move proposal. One thing I've noticed with activists in WP is that all they care about is getting an article "on message."  Anyone who stands in the way of that is the enemy, even if the other person generally supports the cause being espoused. Cla68 (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't I know it. 5 years ago, I found myself defending the Sarah Palin article against a boatload of POV-pushers. I don't even like Palin. But I thought Wikipedia should be better than what it too often is. I still think so, despite this recent fiasco. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @Baseball Bugs: By any sensible reading the diffs in the findings provide no evidence at all that you were being discriminatory or engaging in "hatespeak". Bizarre. QuiteUnusual (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think your link  should be Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute -- Diannaa (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ NE Ent 16:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Kudos to Salvio for all the time and effort he put into this case. It was not his draft to write but he picked up the ball admirably.  Them From  Space  17:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Does remedy #7 (indefinite-duration restrictions on David Gerard's use of the admin tools) represent a new strategy for the Committee? I vaguely recall something similar being suggested last year or the year before, but rejected on the grounds that the community/committee (I can't remember which) believed that people could be only a) full admins or b) not admins at all. I have to say that I'm not comfortable with this remedy: it sets David up to gaming-type complaints, and if his judgement is so faulty that an indefinite duration ban on him using the tools on a topic is needed then he probably should no longer have access to the tools unless he first passes a RFA. Nick-D (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There have been topic-banned admins before. The concept that has been rejected is restricting access to individual tools, i.e. "admins that can't delete articles" or "admins that can't block people". All this restriction really is is a statement that Gerard is considered involved with a particular topic area.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for setting me straight here. Nick-D (talk) 02:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you to the committee for your time, effort, and patience in this case. DPRoberts534 (talk) 03:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 'David's actions violated the administrator policy sections on accountability, wheel war and involved administrators.' - yet he's somehow still an admin. What does it take to get desysopped these days? Blocking Jimbo Wales? Robofish (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You might consider that the Committee does not agree with your evaluation of David's actions -- and in any case, we've seen some desysopings by the committee in the recent past: Ironholds is the most recent, with SchuminWeb before that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Robofish's comment is a direct quote from the decision. He does pose an interesting question. Hot Stop talk-contribs 13:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Error in finding
I have to agree that the Committee has unfairly vilified Baseball Bugs by stating that he's a bigot without providing suitable diffs as evidence. You cannot call somebody a bigot without having a solid basis. This statement should be re-drafted, or better diffs should be found:


 * 22) During the course of the dispute, frequently accused other participants in the dispute of malice,  ; engaged in discriminatory speech based on his personal view of the article subject's actions    ; and needlessly personalised the dispute .  (emphasis added)

It could be changed to:


 * 22) During the course of the dispute, frequently accused other participants in the dispute of malice,  ; engaged in soapboxing based on his personal view of the article subject's actions    ; and needlessly personalised the dispute.

My draft justifies the result without overstating the editor's wrongdoing. Please consider making that repair for the sake of preserving the Committee's authority. Why do you need to call it "descriminatory speech" when the less disputable term "soapboxing" gets the job done equally well? Thank you. Jehochman Talk 13:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * On the proposed decision page, several arbitrators opined that the term "discriminatory speech" in this context was suboptimal, and the relevant principle was reworded to use different words. The term did survive as an artifact in some of the findings. I would not read too much into that fact, and certainly not a determination that Baseball Bugs is a bigot. I am not sure whether Baseball Bugs would want further attention drawn to this matter, but (speaking only for myself and not for the Committee) if he were to make or support a request for amendment, I would not object to modifying the wording. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:22, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As one who calls himself a "liberal American patriot", I'll admit to some degree of soapboxing as to the subject's public actions (especially the actions of the subject's attorney). I deny being bigoted against the nature of subject's private/personal issues. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think somebody was copying and pasting the wording from one finding to the next and did not realize that there were differences, and the voting arbitrators probably did not scrutinize every word and every diff. This is the type of clerical error that ought to be corrected without a lot of fuss. Jehochman Talk 15:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's see if any other arbitrators have a view. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm good with this change being made whichever way is deemed procedurally necessary. Courcelles 19:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

In light of this precedent, I would think it best for ArbCom to refrain from using legal terms such as "discriminatory" with respect to user behavior in their decisions. In this case, the users may not be as readily identifiable, but they still potentially are, so it's important to minimize reputational and legal risks. And let's stay at our place, that is refer to behavior in light of wikipedia policies, not domestic law. Cenarium (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * We should treat all editors as if they were identifiable people because every editor has the right to identify themselves, and there is also a chance that any editor could be outed, even though it is against policy. We can call a spade a spade, but we need to have solid evidence to do so.  The finding in question is clearly in error and should be fixed. Jehochman Talk 12:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Newyorkbrad and Courcelles that this wording can and should be changed (note that Courcelles proposed the finding). However, three arbitrators (even the drafter of that proposed finding) can't go in and make a change like that. If more arbitrators opine here, then maybe. Otherwise the best course of action is (as Newyorkbrad suggests) for Baseball Bugs (or possibly Jehochman) to request an amendment. Procedurally, it would be best to strike the previous finding and replace it, rather than amend it (a subtle difference). Carcharoth (talk) 12:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Can we get a quorum of arbitrators to post a note here confirming Carcharoth's suggestion to strike and replace the finding? Jehochman Talk 13:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I support the change and would rather we did it de plano instead of having to go through the waste of time of an amendment request... Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be preferable. I make it four so far. I think six is needed. In addition, all arbitrators who voted on the proposed decision should be notified about this, so they can veto this change if they object. Carcharoth (talk) 14:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Is this not the sort of thing that Motions were intended to handle? Thryduulf (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What we are holding is basically a motion that doesn't come attached to an enormous trail of bureaucracy. AGK  [•] 19:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I am fine with the change proposed. AGK  [•] 19:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I support the proposed change, and I previously argued that Baseball Bugs was not engaged in discriminatory speech, so I’m glad that that may be removed. But, the finding still would accuse him of attributing “malice” to other editors.  That’s a very serious accusation by ArbCom, and incorrect.  In ordinary speech, malice means the intention or desire to do evil; ill will. What Bugs actually said is that certain other editors were advocacy zealots, twisting facts, with bias, and engaging in malfeasance.  All very confrontational, but Bugs did not, as far as I know, accuse anyone of desiring to do evil or of bearing ill will.  As we all know, your typical POV-pusher and rule-breaker often has the best of intentions to improve an article and spread the TRUTH, and I don’t think Bugs attributed “malice” to anyone.  Change it to “malfeasance”, if you like, but picking the word "malice" is simply false.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Motion postedhere. Risker (talk) 01:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)