Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 18

The attacks on me can stop right now!
I'm concerned that even though the Arbcom have decided "Numerous incidents involving gross incivility on the IRC channel have been brought to the Arbitration Committee's attention. We consider such behaviour absolutely unacceptable". David Gerard an influential admin with access to the Arbcom mailing list is posting here  in an attempt to further discredit me by posting diffs showing my views which led among other things to the Arbcom (and many others)  reaching the decision that something was indeed wrong with #admins.

It is not my fault that some of the occupants of that channel have behaved in a disgraceful fashion - I merely pointed it out. Thus, I am not prepared to suffer these personal attacks from such as David Gerard in what is appearing to be increasingly pathetic attempt to save #admins. I am one editor, who is not even an admin - I am very aware that I have upset an influential and powerful clique, but it is now up to those equally powerful admins (who are not members of this clique) to do something about it. I have proved the problems existing in #admins - now the attacks on me should stop. I don't want to win a popularity contest, but I am entitled to the same protection as any other editor. This case is about the behaviour in #admins not me. It is my opinion that David Gerard is seeking to cloud the issues by making this another "Giano case" - it is not!

David Gerard needs to focus on this this case which concerns only what is to be done about the "unacceptable" #admin channel and those of its occupants who have been "grossly uncivil" and behaved in an "unacceptable" fashion. (those are the arbcom's adjectives not mine). I have had enough of the personal attacks, and I very much hope that some responsible admins or arbitrators will advise him accordingly. Giano 14:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Uh, I was directly requested by Bishonen to provide links right there in the statement. And you seem to be agreeing that (a) you made all those linked statements (b) you think they're entirely justified. If treatment of you is relevant to this case, then your conduct is also relevant to this case - David Gerard 16:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Giano, the diffs don't lie. If anyone is discrediting you, it's yourself, because you're the one who posted all of those unacceptable comments, not he. He's merely linking to them; that's not a personal attack. And as for accusing others of personal attacks: pot, kettle, black. -- Cyde Weys 14:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well trust you to be the one to respond Cyde. Those diffs are irrelevant to this case because they were used to prove the unacceptable behaviour of #admins. It is now #admins on trial here not me! If you want to save your channel you would do well to remember that, because I am not going to be publicly knocked by its inhabitants any longer. Giano 14:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Arguing over what people should and shouldn't put in their statements is unlikely to be very productive at this point; personally, I would much prefer it if everyone would just toss in their two cents and then wait for a case to be actually opened, rather than passing the time by continuing to fight over the issue here.
 * In any case, the exact scope of any proceeding is up to the Committee—not the people commenting. Kirill Lokshin 15:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you Kirill; I shall stop commenting here until (unless?) the case is accepted. In the meanwhile, I would suggest Giano do the same.  -- Cyde Weys  15:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you Cyde - but i don't think I will. I'm completely sick of the double standards here - "the Committee" let me go through hell, before they finally admitted there was a serious problem with #wikipedia-en-admins. A problem of which several of their members were openly aware of for several months if not years, but those same members sat in smug silence watching me trying to prove what they knew to be true. I hope people reading this are aware that David Gerard actually has access to the arbcom's  mailing lists (he is the moderator of the arbcom mailing list. he decides whether, and when, letters from ordinary users will get through to the arbs) Or is that sometghing else #wikipedia-en-admins will claim I am immagining? Giano 15:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not a secret, per http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/arbcom-l - you seem to be assuming that just because you haven't availed yourself of publicly-available information, that it must therefore be being kept secret from you. Note the other four listmods. - David Gerard 16:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody has said it was a secret David, I'm just bringing your involvement with the arbcom to a wider audience - is there a problem with that? Please stop inferring I claimed it was being kept secret from me, the days of #admins being able to claim I am paranoid are long gone, so that is one less personal attack its members can make. Giano 16:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I do want to make a comment that the "list admins" are nothing but human spam filters, in essence; anything dealing with Wikipedia is allowed in, and everything else (spam, etc.) is rejected. We catch what the spam filters don't and make sure that we don't have our inboxes flooded with the ads for pharmaceutical drugs, Nigerian lottery notifications, etc. That's pretty much all we do; any email not designed for phishing or spamming and related to Wikipedia is allowed. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 00:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Appeal removal
My appeal request was removed on the grounds that, at 5-2, it was mathematically impossible to get approval to accept it. I will accept the math on faith, but it seems that, if there is at least significant minority support for reconsidering the penalties, the ArbCom should be willing to tell me a time when it would be willing to listen to another appeal request, assuming that the ArbCom finds none of my behavior objectionable in the meantime. Everyking 04:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It was not dismissed with any prejudice, so you can always relist it if you feel circumstances have improved. It may be better to get in touch with a few of the arbitrators before relisting to get their opinion on the matter - testing the waters, so to speak.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 05:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually did "test the waters" prior to the appeal request and got a favorable response, which is why I made the request. And the only way circumstances could improve is through the passage of time (by further increasing the length of my uncontroversial record), which is why I'm asking the arbitrators if they can specify a certain length of time they would like to pass before I make another request. Frankly, I don't feel your comments pertaining to my case (here and in the request discussion) are informed enough to be useful, and considering the sensitivity of the situation I find it difficult to avoid taking offense at them, rightly or wrongly. Everyking 07:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Problem lies in the fact that really, such a matter is entirely subjective, and does not lend itself to hard-and-fast numbers. Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 07:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say no appeal is appropriate before the ban runs its course. Fred Bauder 14:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So why did you vote to accept the appeal? Everyking 19:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Fred, if you did not feel an appeal is appropriate, then why did you put forth agreement to hear it? I'm assuming good faith that your opinion has changed or something needs clarification ... but that seems off to me.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 19:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I assume that, although Fred voted to accept the appeal, now that the appeal has been rejected, he believes no further appeal would be "appropriate before the ban runs its course." Paul August &#9742; 20:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Some feedback would be appreciated. If the ArbCom is discussing this in private, please say so, because I'm getting the feeling this is being ignored. Everyking 07:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As said above, I don't believe that the rejection of the appeal means that you can't re-appeal at any time. However, even as one who voted to accept the appeal, I would strongly recommend you wait some time to strongly demonstrate why the current restrictions should be lifted, or why the situation has changed since we last looked at it. Thanks. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 02:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what I said: I intend to wait some time, but I'm hoping the ArbCom will give me a ballpark figure about how long a period this should be. There is a key problem, though: did the ArbCom reject the case because not enough time has passed, or is the amount of time irrelevant because, as Raul argued, I have not repented? Only Raul was explicit about this; I don't know whether the other arbitrators fall into the "wait longer" or "thought crime" groups. Everyking 04:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If the arbitrators refuse to give me a ballpark figure or give me any information whatsoever about what will satisfy them, they could at least say that so I don't sit here waiting for a response for days and days. What is the point of not responding? Are they just trying to annoy me? Well, it works, but I would like to think the arbitrators are above that kind of thing and can at least deal with people honestly. Everyking 10:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Everyking I sympathize with your obvious frustration. Can you please be more specific about exactly what response you are waiting for? Do you want every arbiter to respond to your questions? Here is mine. First, I do not know of any ongoing discussions on this matter. Second, I have made no judgments on the merits of your recent appeal or any future appeal. Third, a new appeal in the near future would be inappropriate. If you want a ballpark figure, I would recommend waiting several months. Regards Paul August &#9742; 20:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I was specific; I said I was hoping to be told how long a time should pass before I make another appeal. The other issue is that I am concerned that some arbitrators (Raul specifically, but others may hold his view as well) may not be willing to accept an appeal at any time, regardless of my actions or lack thereof, because they want me to say that the ArbCom's judgments in past cases have been correct, which is something I cannot truthfully do. But according to Raul, if I do not say this it is likely that I will go back to doing whatever the ArbCom did not like before as soon as the restrictions are lifted. My reply to this is that my less controversial behavior is due to prudence and a concern with getting effective results, and there is no reason why that would change if the restrictions were lifted. If the ArbCom is going to reject any future appeal, regardless of how much time passes, simply cause I will not confess make-believe sins, then I would really like to know that now, as opposed to finding it out the hard way upon making another appeal in three or six months. Everyking 23:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that I cannot speak for the rest of the ArbCom, have I answered your question adequately? Paul August &#9742; 23:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Since you say "several months", I guess that means you think that the passage of time without controversial behavior should lead to lifting of the sanctions? Everyking 00:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * (I also hope that I've answered your questions adequately, being one who voted to accept your appeal. Thanks!) Flcelloguy (A note? ) 00:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed new voting schemes
Since it looks like we really want the voting scheme for accepting cases changed, I'm going to list the one's that have been put up for consideration here. If I've missed one, add it in. Keep all comments in a separate section, this one is just for listing the proposed alternative methods. --Barberio 16:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) "Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after receiving four net 'accept' votes (i.e., accept minus reject votes) or has accept votes from a majority of the total number of active, non-recused arbitrators. Otherwise, a case will be opened if it has received more accept than reject votes as of 10 days after filing."
 * 2) "Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after at least six committee members have voted and there is a majority of votes. Requests not accepted after ten days will be removed."
 * 3) "Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after two net accept votes are cast; that is, two more accept than reject votes. Requests not accepted after ten days will be removed."
 * 4) "Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after at least four accept votes are cast, and two net accept votes are cast; that is, two more accept than reject votes. Requests not accepted after ten days will be removed."
 * 5) "Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after four accept votes are cast. Requests not accepted after ten days will be removed."

Discussion of wording of alternatives
Removed "expeditiously." The clerks will always observe a 24 hour waiting period. Additional arbitrators may wish to vote (affect the net total) or there may be private discussion that would result in changed votes. Thatcher131 16:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I wasn't clear. By expeditiously, I didn't mean "instantaneously," I meant "without waiting for ten days." Newyorkbrad 19:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Barbiero, you left out, four "accept" votes and two "net accept" votes, with both being required for case acceptance. This proposal seemed to have some support earlier. It avoids the acceptance of cases by a "bare majority" but allows acceptance in several situations where a case would now be rejected, such as 4-1, 5-2, 5-3, 6-3, 6-4, 7-4, 7-5, etc. Proposal #3 above would have the same result but, because it has no minimum number of total acceptances, it would also allow acceptances with votes of 2-0, 3-0 and 3-1, which I have not seen any support for. In effect, the two-part proposal (4 total accepts and 2 net accepts) separates the "quorum" requirement from the "vote" requirement, which is fairly typical in decision-making systems. 6SJ7 16:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This has been resolved by Barbiero's addition of what is now alternative # 4. (Thank you.)  6SJ7 16:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Comments on alternatives
There are 15 arbitrators on ArbCom, but you will rarely see more than 8 voting... -- Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 16:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * True, but that may or may not last as the new arbitrators get more active. Newyorkbrad 19:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This issue still needs to be resolved
This discussion has petered out again, which remains understandable, since there are far more interesting things to be discussed, both on the arbitration pages and in the actual encyclopedia. Still, I would urge that the Arbitration Committee revisit the issue of the required majority to accept a case and resolve it. As of now, the "four net accept votes" rule remains in effect, even though I suspect that of the alternatives above it would enjoy the least support.

If the matter isn't addressed, the issue will blow up when some hugely controversial case gets a vote of something like 8-5 to accept it, and an arbitrator removes the case from the page with the comment that the case was rejected/declined because it didn't have 4 net support votes, and at that point someone will say he or she didn't know that was the rule, and there will be a long discussion about the matter, except then everyone's comments will be suspect because there will be a feeling that they are driven by views of the underlying case rather than the abstract vote-counting issue. And if the rule is changed then, there will be protests about "changing the rules in the middle of the game," which always become heated and emotional. I know the committee has a more than full plate to deal with, but I still urge that this be addressed now. Newyorkbrad 20:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I second that. Sorting it now makes a lot more sense than waiting until it causes problems. Trebor 21:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thirded. This needs to be looked at now, since there has already been a case that might have been accepted under other methods, and it's rejection appears controversial rejection of a majority opinion. --Barberio 01:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed; I'll bring this up on the mailing list for some more discussion. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 03:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * (Just an update: this is being actively discussed. Thanks!) Flcelloguy (A note? ) 00:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems like most of us favored the status quo, although several (myself included) did prefer other acceptance schemes. (I thought that option number four - the two net votes with a minimum of four accept - was the best choice.) Flcelloguy (A note? ) 01:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad this was discussed, though since it happened on the mailing list off-wiki, I'm curious what was the rationale of those who favored the current provision. There will still be confusion or controversy sometime when a heated dispute is rejected as a case although a majority votes for acceptance. But at least now that will be based on a discussion that actually happened. Newyorkbrad 16:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * So to clarify (not being a WP:DICK, I swear!), nothing has changed, and the average readership still doesn't know why. Correct?  :(  /Blaxthos 00:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Really, it boiled down to "because we like it the way it is now", with a bit of "it works, don't fix it." --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 04:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll point out that the participation rate (in accepting/rejecting a case) seems higher now than a few months back. Are the arbitrators comfortable rejecting cases when the vote is in favor of accepting by 5-2? 6-3? 7-4? 8-7? 8-6? 8-5? How about 9-6? As long as you, as a committee, are aware of these possibilities and have decided that you are ok rejecting in those cases, I think everything is ok. But rather than have this blow up and cause community consternation on some super-contentious RfA a few months down the line, I'd sort of like to hear the ArbCom say, explicitly "We will be rejecting cases with totals such as 9 accept to 6 reject, but that fail to obtain 4 net positive votes." Jd2718 14:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I initiated the discussion on the mailing list to try and get more feedback from other Arbitrators, given that the discussion on this page had seemed to die out. I did, however, point to this conversation and we all considered the comments and opinions on it heavily. I, myself, preferred the two net accept votes with four total accept votes that was first proposed in the thread, because of the very concerns brought up here - close cases where a majority favoring acceptance being rejected, as Jd2718 points out. The other arbitrators, though, seemed to prefer the status quo, arguing that the current system was working and that any changes would lower the threshold, allowing some cases that arguably should not have been accepted to be accepted and heard. I will not, though, pretend to speak for my fellow arbitrators, so I'll let them explain their opinions here. :-) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 15:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I keep thinking about the sort of situation that might result in a 9-6 vote to accept. It just doesn't seem likely. But I'll tell you what: I'll pledge right now that if I find myself on the short side of such a vote, I'll withdraw my "decline" and defer to the will of the majority. 8-5 likewise. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In the Supreme Court of the United States, this is known as a "join three" vote. (Not that we analogize ArbCom to real-world litigation or anything. :) ) Newyorkbrad 15:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

EffK's ban was due to expire yesterday
I meant to follow up on this months ago, but got caught up with real life issues. was banned for one year on 7 February 2006, for disruptive behaviour leading to an arbitration case. His behaviour sprang, in my view, from some rather wild theories about a Vatican conspiracy, and he seemed to feel the need to warn people about it. The main target of his attacks was a Catholic of German nationality.

After he was banned, he continued to post stuff on his talk page that was similar to what had got him banned in the first place. His talk page was protected, but after a few days, I felt sorry for him having the frustration of being unable to communicate at all, and unprotected. (He was never happy to give his e-mail address to Wikipedia, so a protected talk page really meant that he was cut off.) I discussed it with Str1977 and the blocking admin, and neither objected. I warned him that it would be protected again if he continued. He did continue, and I hesitated and asked others, and nobody wanted to do anything. Some admins said if he was just posting on his own talk page, it wasn't doing any harm. I was uncomfortable reprotecting the page myself, because I wasn't completely uninvolved (although I had unprotected), since some of his milder attacks were on me, and his heavier ones were on Str1977, with whom I am very friendly. I warned him several times, but it had no effect.

Str1977 eventually complained to administrators in October. The admin Splash reprotected his page, but also reset the ban, which I think was not just. He did it on the grounds that EffK had been violating his ban by posting on his talk page. It was (and still is) my understanding that it is not forbidden for banned users to post on their talk pages. Certainly, while Skyring's ban was extended multiple times because of his use of ban-evading sockpuppets, it was never extended because of posts on his own talk page. If I was in error, then I think it would be unjust to have EffK penalized for it. I am quite sure that he did not create any sockpuppets to evade his ban; they would have been instantly recognizable. He did use different accounts before his ban, but they were used in succession, not simultaneously. His suspicion of giving Wikipedia his e-mail address apparently led to his accounts becoming inaccessible when he lost his passwords.

Bengalski, who always supported EffK, to the extent of copying the entire contents of EffK's user page (full of attacks on other Wikipedians) to his own user page when an administrator blanked EffK's, posted at this page to protect against the extension. Although I disagreed with Bengalski on various issues, I agreed with him that this was unjust. No arbitrator answered the query, and eventually it was archived here. Bengalsiki would certainly have followed it up, but he left Wikipedia.

I have given a longer version of these events in an e-mail which I sent to the Arbitration Committee mailing list through Mackensen. I am requesting that EffK's ban should be lifted now, as it is now one day past the original expirty date, and if he was in violation of his ban, that was a result of a misunderstanding (for which I, not he, would be to blame). He knew that if he continued to post stuff about Vatican agents taking over Wikipedia his talk page would be protected again. He did not know his ban would be extended.

If he becomes disruptive again, an administrator may see fit to block him, or, indeed, the arbitration committee may decide to take further action. (In any case, there are remedies in the ArbCom case relating to him.) However, that would be an entirely different matter, as it would involve a consequence known before the act, and would therefore not be unjust. Musical Linguist 01:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hallo, I just want to confirm the truthfullness of what Musical Linguist wrote. Str1977 (smile back) 10:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, I want to mention that I went to Splash's talk page to inform him, out of courtesy, that I have requested the Arbitration Committee to agree to cancel his extension of EffK's ban, and found that he had only edited once (on 26 January) since 16 November, so I don't feel it would be so much an issue of wheelwarring if I were to unblock EffK, but I feel that since it was the Arbitration Committee that decided to ban him, I should leave it with them to decide this matter. Musical Linguist 00:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * At this stage, I'm really just making an edit for the sake of preventing the bot from archiving this, unanswered. I'm still hoping for a response. I would like the ArbCom's permission to unblock EffK, on the grounds that the extension of his block was wrong if there's no rule against banned editors editing their talk pages, and unjust if there is such a rule, since, in that case, I am to blame for misleading him. The blocking admin is on a wiki-break. Musical Linguist 01:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue was discussed by the Committee at the time you submitted your original request, and there was no support expressed for lifting the ban. If the issue had been merely the legalistic question of EffK editing his talk page innocuously (and yes, banned users—unlike merely blocked ones—are not welcome to participate in the project in any manner, including through their own talk page), the reaction may have been different; but, given that said talk page postings were a continuation of what got EffK banned in the first place, I see no reason to lift the ban merely so that we can impose a new one. Kirill Lokshin 02:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying that. I am disappointed with the outcome, because I brought the matter to one of the admin noticeboards last March or April, and the general feeling was, poor guy, let him continue to post his theories on his own talk page, as he's not doing any harm. However, I do accept that the talk page postings were a continuation of what got him banned in the first place. I honestly don't think he can help himself, and he would probably get indefinitely banned pretty soon after being unblocked, but at least that would be, in my view, much fairer, as it would be a consequence which he was aware of before choosing to engage in that behaviour.


 * Regarding the point that banned users, unlike blocked users, are not permitted to edit their talk pages, I have no problem accepting that, if it is the case. But generally if there is a policy, it's easy to find it. If Jimbo ruled it, fine, but I'd like to see a diff. If the ArbCom ruled it, fine, but someone should be able to point me to a link. If the community came to such a consensus, again, no problem, but where's the page that shows that? It's odd that so many users and administrators (who were not challenging anything, but who genuinely wanted to know) were unaware of it. It's like some invisible rule: I'm told it exists, but so far, nobody has ever been able to show it to me. Is there any way in which the ArbCom could go back to the EffK RfAr, and make a new finding of fact or principle on this issue, with support, oppose, or abstain votes, so that I'll have something to point to in the future? And could it be explicitly added to the WP:BAN page? It's not that I'm doubting your statement that such a rule exists, but I think it's unreasonable to expect people to follow a rule that isn't found in any of the places one would expect to find it. (Although I do appreciate your point about the difference between someone editing his talk page innocuously and posting odd (and offensive) theories about Vatican agents taking over the world.) Musical Linguist 18:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, WP:BAN does start out by saying:"A Wikipedia ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges on all... of Wikipedia... The standard invitation Wikipedia extends to 'edit this page' does not apply to banned users."Do we need to make it more explicit than that? (I suspect that, when the devs made the change that allows blocked users to edit their own talk pages, it simply didn't occur to anyone that this allowed users under bans to circumvent them, hence the lack of a more obvious note in the policy in regards to that.) Kirill Lokshin 18:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Small point of clarification
The ArbCom has banned me from the AN pages, but there is now a distinct but somewhat similar Community noticeboard. I would like to have the option of posting there, and although a literal interpretation of my ruling would leave me free to post there, past instances when I have assumed a literal intepretation have left me in a world of hurt. So I would like clarification from the ArbCom if it would be acceptable for me to post there, except about admin actions, obviously. I figured this point was minor enough to resolve here and not on the main page, but if I must make a formal request, say so. Everyking 08:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to argue about the merits of such a ban, but I interpret the spirit of the remedy as including the new noticeboard as somewhere where you are prohibited from posting or commenting, even on non-administrative actions. Thanks for asking for clarification. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 15:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, what about the Village pump? Is the new noticeboard more similar to AN or the Village pump? I don't think the arbitrators would object to my posting on the Village pump (although I've been wrong before). Everyking 20:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate Flcelloguy's input, I would like to see what the other arbitrators have to say about this. Obviously I was not involved in crafting the ruling, and since that crafting was done in secret on the ArbCom mailing list I have no way of knowing what exactly the ArbCom was thinking while determining the penalties, but a logical analysis of things from my perspective tells me that the ArbCom was trying to limit my expression of views about admin actions, and this was the reason for the AN page ban. Therefore, it seems that the spirit of the ruling would not restrict me from posting on the community noticeboard, because that page is not essentially focused on admin actions. The similarity is limited to the fact that they are both noticeboards, but the spirit of the ArbCom ruling seemed to be concerned with admin actions, not the nature of noticeboards. Also, the arbitrators did nothing to restrict me from other community-focused pages such as the Village pump at the time of the ruling, indicating they did not intend for me to be barred from participation in community matters in general. Everyking 08:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You know, how many people are there on the ArbCom now? Surely more than one read this talk page? If not, I recommend they post their phone numbers or something. I already know they don't respond to e-mail. Seriously, getting a response is harder than pulling teeth. I've now spent eight days waiting for clarification on this one minor issue. It's just ridiculously frustrating. Everyking 13:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I will point some of the other Arbitrators here on the mailing list so that they're aware of your question. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 16:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Archiving rejected/declined requests
At present, arbitration requests that the ArbCom votes not to accept are simply removed from WP:RfAr with no archiving. When it is desired to obtain information about such a case (for example, when the same or a related dispute continues or recurs, or if the arbitrators have made useful comments in voting on the case), an editor often has to search through the page history of RfAr to locate a version from just before the case was removed from the page. A page listing some rejected cases is contained at Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests, but it is correctly described as "very sparse, incomplete, and unofficial." It often falls behind, despite efforts to keep it up-to-date, and the pages are displayed in the form of the diff in which the case was removed from the page, making the case difficult to read.

I can understand the rationale for not archiving these cases, as they represent disputes that will hopefully be resolved through other means. On the other hand, we archive a lot of pages that are less significant than the arbitration requests page. In addition to the administrators' noticeboards, I noticed yesterday that even routine complaints to the WP:3RR noticeboard are archived and presumably preserved indefinitely. It's hard to believe that archives of RfAr requests wouldn't be more useful than that.

Perhaps when an arbitrator or clerk removes a case that has not been accepted, instead of just deleting it, the thread could be copied to a /Rejected cases page. The three or four most recent declined cases would be kept on that page, and when it gets too bulky, the older cases could be copied to an /Archive page. This would probably have to be done manually (an RfAr has too many subheadings for Essjaybot or Werdnabot to parse it whole and not in pieces), but I don't think it would be time-consuming and I'd be willing to undertake it. Limited editorial discretion could be used to exclude blatantly harassing or frivolous filings (the ones that are removed without even waiting for a formal reject vote), if desired.

I'd welcome arbitrators' and others' comments on this suggestion. Newyorkbrad 16:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think there's merit in archiving. Perhaps only with a pointer to the right place in the history of the RfAr page, rather than with a formal copied over text sort of conventional archive... but finding past rejected cases is hard. Not as hard as finding past things on AN/I, but hard. Whether it's really a thing that gets done enough to make the merit outweigh the cost/effort would be another question, I don't have stats on how often people go looking for this sort of thing. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 16:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be hard to do. Maybe we should use transclusions to make it downright simple? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am in favor of archiving declined requests. For instance, I would have liked to refer to the first Ghirlandajo request that was declined.  --Ideogram 18:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There is considerable merit in doing this, and I strongly support it. Paul August &#9742; 19:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * One of the potential problems is frivolous or even trolling requests and giving them a permanent home that Google can find. Rejected cases should only be archived in diff form, as they are listed currently at Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests. Dmcdevit·t 19:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How is it determined which pages are visible to Google? I thought that talk pages, for instance, are not visible to Google.  --Ideogram 21:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Most pages are visible to Google unless they're explicitly set not to. I don't know about talk pages, but I know that if it was preferred, a line could be added to robots.txt to hide it from Google.  Ral315 (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think talk pages are included; see the robots.txt file - there is no "talk" in the disallow section for en. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 22:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Point being, if RFAR's were transcluded on separate pages, like RFA, they would be preserved and searchable via google. (For example). It would certainly be within reason to make the diff links at Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests "official", and if there is a missing case you want added, you can add it yourself if you can find the diff, or ask a clerk. Thatcher131 15:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

In view of the lack of consensus above, I won't take any action unless the committee wants something changed. I will try to get the existing rejected page up-to-date again this week. Newyorkbrad 02:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Should comments by uninvolved editors be moved off the main page?

 * Comments by uninvolved editors have been moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Notability guidelines Thatcher131 18:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? That was never done before. What suddenly made other people's opinions less worthy of being here on the case? pschemp | talk 20:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * UninvitedCompany moved them to the main talk page here with a note to the effect that this page should only be for statements by parties, and uninvolved parties should comment on the talk page.    Since the case is 3-0 now, there is a good chance it will open, so I moved them to the talk page of the eventual case, which is where uninvolved statements usually go once a case is opened.  You'll need to see Uninvited about the original move. Thatcher131 20:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, I saw that, but that's never been the way cases are run before. What benefit is the change? Personally, I'm a bit offended that my comments were just chucked off to a talk page nobody will read. pschemp | talk 20:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's been common to move such comments to the talk page of an open case for some time now—although, frankly, I'm not convinced that it's beneficial—but I have no idea why this is being done before the case is actually opened. Kirill Lokshin 21:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I also would recommend that comments on pending requests not be moved to talk. When I make such a comment, it is either input for the arbitrators on whether or not I believe the case should be accepted and why, and/or suggestions for the parties on how to proceed (as in my comment on the French orthography case). I don't see how communication with either the parties or the arbitrators will be promoted by shunting the more impartial portion of the input to a talkpage that no one may think to check. Therefore, with the possible exception of when the comments become truly exceptional in length, I would recommend reverting to the former practice of leaving the comments on the main RfAr page while the case is pending as an application. (I would not, however, recommend that anyone be offended by what was obviously intended just as a shortening of the page.) Newyorkbrad 21:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I vote that comments not be moved off. It fragments the discussion. --Ideogram 21:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, but "this isn't a vote." Or at least, we aren't the voters. :) Newyorkbrad 21:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, careless use of terms. :-)  --Ideogram 21:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think there should be a 25-cent (U.S.) fine every time someone says "this isn't a vote," but I guess that is another issue.  (Well maybe not, see below.)  :)   6SJ7 21:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think part of the reason there are numerous comments by "non-parties" is that there is an underlying issue here with one of the parties that goes beyond just the "other party." I am trying to be diplomatic here, because I do not necessarily want to be the one to make a lot of accusations (accurate though they may be) that have not already been made or to make myself a party. I am tempted to do so, but more strongly tempted not to do so. The issue of one person asserting ownership over policy/guideline pages in general goes far beyond just his run-ins with one other editor. (Notice I didn't mention any names.)  6SJ7 21:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a general issue, not specific to the notability case. Uninvited moved comments in 3 cases. Thatcher131 21:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I did not notice that... but then again, my comment really is about the notability case itself, and not so much about the moving of comments to the talk page. If I had put it on the main page, presumably it would have been moved to somewhere on this page anyway, so I saved someone some work.   :)  6SJ7 22:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

In general, while enforcement has been lax, the original intent was to allow a request to be made and a brief response by the other editors involved. Take a look at some older requests to see this. Things have now deteriorated to the point where wholly uninvolved parties are routinely posting their opinions not only on whether or not the case should be accepted, but on the merits of the case itself and any claims and counterclaims that are made. RFAr is not a forum for community feedback on the merits of a case. That ideally belongs in WP:RFC before an RFAr is filed, or on the evidence or talk pages of arbitration cases once they are opened. I would be open to the alternative of having links to comments by uninvolved parties, as a compromise, but would prefer that such comments instead be placed here on the discussion page where those who are interested may review them. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I see no reason to be overly strict here. Outside statements are often quite helpful at this stage (if only because the statements made by the involved parties are sometimes incoherent); while there's no reason to have extensive commentary or threaded discussion there, I don't see any harm in permitting brief remarks by uninvolved (or semi-involved) users. Kirill Lokshin 23:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict, to UC) I understand your point, and ultimately it's for you and the other arbitrators to decide whether uninvolved users' comments are helpful in deciding which cases to accept, so as to justify their being left on the main RfAr page. I can accept that RfAr isn't an open forum for amici curiae submissions at the acceptance stage. On the other hand, within the past week or two, third-party comments have provided information such as: that the parties to a pending request were now engaged in mediation; that there were ongoing threads about a case pending on the noticeboard that would give the arbitrators a flavor of the dispute; that there were prior ArbCom decisions directly on point that could help the parties resolve their dispute if the case weren't accepted; or that a number of administrators believed a situation required ArbCom attention because several different experienced admins had been unable to resolve it. I think the case selection process (and the user-friendliness of the process to the parties) is enhanced by keeping input of this nature where the arbitrators and the parties are sure to see it. Newyorkbrad 23:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly so. NYBrad has given lots of different examples of why uninvolved party comments have direct benefit to ArbCom in some cases, and above, there are several quite experienced editors saying they think that moving the comments is a bad thing, or even that they were somewhat offended that their comments were shunted to the side. So it would seem that there are good reasons for leaving them, and no real good reasons (other than "we've always done it that way, or at least said we did, although as it turns out we actually didn't always") for removing them. So I'd strongly suggest that the movement be reverted and precedent reexamined. ++Lar: t/c 03:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I recently made an outside statement on the Philwelch RfArb. I don't particularly want to add evidence to flesh out what I said there, as I'm happy with the way the case is going (and it would feel like piling on), but equally I don't want parts of what I said to be lost in the noise. Particularly the request I made for clarification from ArbCom on the status and proper use of Requests for Comments (RfC). What is the correct way for outside users to raise points like this? Carcharoth 01:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we have to assume that the arbitrators read the entire contents of a case before voting. That is the declared intent of at least some, and hopefully the intent of all.  Regarding your specific question about Philwelch, some findings of fact have already been proposed on the workshop page.  You may wish to comment there. Thatcher131 03:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have the same question, I think my statement here: has some useful evidence in it for the case, but there isn't anything more to say on it beyond what I said, in my view, unless I'm asked to comment more or something changes drastically. What should be done with it? It seems silly to re-enter it in the evidence section, but it is evidence. ++Lar: t/c 03:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've wondered the same thing and would welcome the arbitrators' comment on it, but in the meantime I suppose you could put in a sentence saying that your opening statement contained your evidence and giving a link. Newyorkbrad 03:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've find the outside comments useful and first class input to the process; I'd just as soon see them remain on the main page if they're at all germane. (They can be moved after a case is accepted, though, as they usually are.) --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 04:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer they be on the main page. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Great. Can someone move the ones on the pending cases back then? pschemp | talk 06:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Except for the French naming case (with NYbrad's lone comment) the other two cases are 4-0 and will open tomorrow (unless there is an objection), at which point the outside comments will end up right where there are now. Not much point in moving them back for 12 hours, don't you think? Thatcher131 06:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

People like Ambroodey and D-Boy are very much involved. Just because they aren't in the list of Pakistani users who are being brought into question doesn't mean their comments should be sidelined, which is what this seperation is doing either deliberately or not deliberately.  — N o b l e e a g l e  [TALK]  [C] 06:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the real problem is deciding who is involved or not. I vaguely remember that somewhere there is a line saying that if you are involved, the arbitrators will look at your actions as well as those of the "other" user(s), and that might rebound on the person opening the case. Would the same apply for those "tangentially-involved", "nearly-but-not-quite-uninvolved", "completely uninvolved" and "uninvolved" (all ways I've seen people describe their level of involvement). Carcharoth 10:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll chime in and say that I also don't think the comments should have been moved off the front page. Quadzilla99 17:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have found the comments by "uninvolved" editors very helpful, and conveniently located on the main page. Paul August &#9742; 18:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Concur with Paul August here. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 04:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Derek Smart case
The Derek Smart case has been on "Motion to close" for almost a month, with no activity except for Charles Matthews voting last week. I don't think leaving is open is hurting anything, although I am curious to see the outcome (and I'm sure others are too) :) Adam 20:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * While we're on the topic, I left this message for Uninvited Company on Monday. Despite him being online, I have yet to receive a reply. I'd be grateful if another arbitrator could answer. – Steel 20:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what's going on in that case either (note that I won't be participating in that case since I'm automatically recused, because the case was accepted prior to our elections, and I haven't looked at it in-depth); from my brief run-through of the case, though, it would seem appropriate to include disruptive IP edits along with single-purpose accounts. I'll give a heads-up on the mailing list, prodding people to action on this case. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 16:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

parole violation, Osli73 currently edit warring

 * 09:23, 19 February 2007 Osli73 (Talk | contribs)
 * 21:38, 18 February 2007 Osli73 (Talk | contribs)

Ilir pz, Hipi Zhdripi, Vezaso, Dardanv, Ferick, Laughing Man, Osli73, and Tonycdp are placed on standard revert parole for one year. Each is limited to one revert per article per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, each is required to discuss any content reversions on the article's talk page. For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, 03:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.146.129.167 (talk • contribs)

Clerk Note: I have deleted an identical message from the main RfAr page with an edit summary indicating that these allegations can be brought to WP:AN/AE if warranted, but am leaving this here because there is a motion pending on RfAr with respect to prior remedies against Osli73. Any arbitrator please revert or delete as appropriate. Newyorkbrad 23:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: An arbitration enforcement request has been posted at Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. —Psychonaut 02:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Decline and reject
Is there a difference between "decline" and "reject" when adding up the votes to decide on whether a case is accepted or not? Just curious. ElinorD (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No; the two are used interchangably. "Reject" was primarily used until more recently, when "decline" has become more common, but there is no difference between the two. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 01:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. "Reject" seems stronger, and I though it might carry more weight. ElinorD (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) "Reject" was used almost universally until the new arbitrators came in at the beginning of the year. I believe "decline" came naturally to a couple of them who had experience at Requests for Checkuser, where "decline" is the term ordinarily used in turning down a request. (On that board, Mackensen introduced the use of "rejected", with a wastebasket icon that Thatcher131 found, for completely frivolous requests; the original proposed wording was "thrown out"). "Declined" is a bit more cordial to good-faith users who made a decent presentation of their case, even though the committee decided not to hear it. But from the clerks' point of view as well, the terms are completely interchangeable. Newyorkbrad 01:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I personally prefer "reject" and have to stop and think to say "decline" instead; I tend to think of it more as "This request is rejected" rather than "We decline to get involved." I think it may stem from my work on the Mediation Committee, where we use "reject." Essjay   ( Talk )  01:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Falun Gong
Wikipedia shouldn't be censored because someone has a political agenda. Unfortunately, some participants have been trying to censor it irrationally, well, as far as anything about Falun Dafa goes.

On an unrelated note, Falun Dafa's use of swastikas as a symbol is kinda spooky. But that's just my POV, and I'll stay out of that issue. &mdash; Rickyrab | Talk 02:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Swastikas have a different connotation in Hindu-Buddhist cultures than in Europe. The word "swastika" means blessing in Sanskrit, if I am right. And we invented it first. Borisblue 13:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In the voluminous Talk:Falun Gong archives, there is quite a bit of discussion that the symbol (which usually stands for the number 10,000 in China, hence 10,000 blessings, etc.) has been used by millions of people for hundreds of years (at least) who have never heard of the Nazis or Falun Gong. --Fire Star 火星 17:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Mistake with regard to "Move of Józef Łukaszewicz" request
For the record, with regard to the arbitration request "Move of Józef Łukaszewicz", while adding my own opinion, declining to hear the matter, I inadvertently removed the opinion of arbiter UninvitedCompany, also declining to hear the matter. The request was subsequently removed as "declined 5-0", before my mistake could be fixed. Paul August &#9742; 21:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Archiving of community ban-related requests
I understand that archiving of denied arbitration requests is a partial and spotty thing. For the next few months it would help the community if requests that relate to community bans were archived for easy reference. Denied requests have a good likelihood of getting cited in community discussions of WP:BAN and WP:DE. Community bans are a developing area and some aspects probably would benefit from refinement. Durova Charge! 20:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * They can certainly be archived if someone wishes to do so; I believe that was one of the arguments for why all rejected requests should be archived and not be available just in the page history. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 03:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Essjay RFAR
At (0/7/0/0), and 12 active arbitrators, there was no way this was going to be accepted, so I removed the section. I would've waited for a clerk, but the fact that there's no benefit to keeping it, and the fact that it's time to move forward, lead me to just be bold and do it. I do hope there aren't any objections. Picaroon 04:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OMG A NON-CLERK REMOVED A REQUEST! We must revert... oh wait, if we can't remove requests, we can't readd them either. I know, let's go find an arbitrator to reinstate it so they can remove it. -Amarkov moo! 05:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Bambenek
According to :
 * Note. User:JzG has just forged that evidence. See the logs for that page. It was deleted by User:Jeffery O. Gustafson (improperly I might add since he was that subject of that RFC and he's known to abuse his powers), then JzG restored the page to turn around and accuse User:Echo16 of blanking and then banned him. I recommed User:JzG's sysop powers immediately be revoked and he be banned for this obvious smear. -- DailyIllini 16:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That is a complete crock, as I think is pretty obvious. I removed it as threaded discussion in my section and citing WP:RBI, but honestly, what possible benefit would there be to me in forging evidence, even if I were able to do so? I left it restored because there was an MfD which voted to keep it, according to the logs. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

iantresman (was "Bad"ministration)
Isn't it inappropriate for user:Raul654 to personally decided whether he is "inappropriately listed" as a party in this case? Isn't it inappropriate for him to vote against a case on which he is listed as a party?
 * I also consider it unfair to rename the case; it clear that I initiated the case, it is not now clear as to its subject matter, and perhaps gives the mistaken impression that I am. --Iantresman 23:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As the Clerk who renamed it, I would consider another short, reasonable name for the case. The one you chose was not appropriate, because it was perjorative, and also because it was not sufficiently descriptive of what your case was about (many cases involve an allegation of bad behavior by one or more administrators). Argue your case in the presentation, not in the name. But as I said, if you want to propose a different, sensible name, let me know. Newyorkbrad 00:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your consideration; how about "Administration issues"?
 * Ironically the last ArbCom case in which I was involved, was also renamed: from "Pseudoscience vs Pseudoskepticism)" (non-pejorative) to just "pseudoscience" (pejorative). --Iantresman 00:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And user:Raul654's appropriateness, described above? --Iantresman 00:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem with "administration issues" is that it could be the description of half the cases on the list! As for your second question, I'm just clerking the page, so I don't have a view on that. Issues of recusal traditionally have been addressed to each individual arbitrator to decide for himself or herself. Newyorkbrad 00:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So arbitrators aren't automatically recused when they are a party to the case? (and, my understanding is that he is, unless the committee votes to excuse him) --Random832 07:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * An arbitrator will of course recuse himself or herself when from the case when the arbitrator is appropriately named as a party&mdash;hopefully even in a borderline case. On the other hand, it is not appropriate to name an arbitrator as a party to a new case just because the filing user is dissatisfied with the arbitrator's statements or rulings in a previous case. Otherwise, it would be too easy for someone dissatisfied with the result of a case to seek to automatically disqualify any or all of the arbitrators. Whether that is what is happening in a given situation is for the arbitrator to determine. You may want to look at the mainspace article on recusal for some discussion of analogous principles in the real world. Newyorkbrad 19:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I support Newyorkbrad's comment. Further, Iantresman listing Raul654 as a party seems totally inappropriate in this situation. IMO, it is this type of poor judgement that keeps Iantresman in the middle of disputes with other users. FloNight 16:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Voting to accept
Just a note to say that despite the discussion Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Archive_17, where the consensus was that the 'four votes net' system was fundamentally flawed and should be replaced, the 'four votes net' system is still in place and there appears to have been no consideration given to changing it. --Barberio 15:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Most recent discussion is here. Thatcher131 15:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * While I agree that the system is still fundamentally flawed, I will say that there was subsequent discussion. If memory serves correctly, no change was made and it was decided (decreed? *grin*) that the ArbCom themselves get to decide what acceptance mechanism is used.  While I don't agree, I accepted their deicision as final (and is now the law).  :-(  I'm glad they at least did some discussion on it, though.  /Blaxthos 15:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It may well be something to be brought up later this year during the nomination process for new/returning arbcom members. --Barberio 15:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The same was said last time elections were on the horizon. ;-)  To be fair, newyorkbrad did follow through on that comment, IIRC.  /Blaxthos 16:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As I commented there, I myself did not prefer the current system, but most other Arbitrators seemed to disagree. I'm always open to changing it (indeed, considering I do not prefer the current way), but hopefully we can get some more opinions from other Arbitrators here. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 21:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Rejected RfM
Arbitration Committee Members, A case has recently come across our desk that I rejected, since it's not a situation that I believe could be properly solved through mediation. I am not referring this case formally to ArbCom, but I do recommend you look into it and see if it has merit of something that is worth being looked into. Thanks, and good evening.
 * On behalf of the Mediation Committee ^ demon [omg plz] 23:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh joy. Thatcher131 02:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I remember V. Z. quite well from the RFCU move-war.  Daniel Bryant  05:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:AMA
Should we talk about WP:AMA arbcom Team? --CyclePat 02:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? (There is relevant discussion here and here. Thatcher131 02:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I confess that I haven't felt the need–convince me. Mackensen (talk) 02:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My understanding of the above comments is that you have an interest to learn more about the Arbcom AMAT (AMA Team). What are the benefits? What are the services provided? Your above questions concerning AMA arbcom team are dully noted. I will forward your request to the team and ask them to prepare a proposal. An exemple question may be: "Should the project page to Request for arbitration include a small reference to guide wikipedians towards AMA Arbcom team?" Furthermore, our answer could talk about the 101's of publicity and market segmentation. In the mean time you may wish to learn more about the AMA Arbcom team by clicking going to the Arbcom AMA team project page. --CyclePat 13:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm here to defend the team. I'd personally like to see a minor cooperation between you and our team; who are we to know who is longing for an advocate or not? Put the link and let people decide... but give'em the chance! If users don't like us, we're useless; if people like our team, it would be common sense to leave a link. --Neigel von Teighen 13:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of brevity, and the fact that we are now rehashing discussions that have already occurred multiple times, I'm going to cut right to the chase - The AMA has not shown itself to be useful at all during arbitration. The arbcom has no desire to add more work for itself, so we will not be doing anything jointly with the AMA. Much as they may fancy themselves to be part of the arbitration process, the AMA has no official status in arbitration. Prove yourselves useful using the process as is, and we may change our minds, but until then, kindly leave us alone. Raul654 16:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the bottom line here is that AMA members are free, as is any member of the community, to offer evidence or comment on the workshop page, but there is no contemplation of official recognition at this time. Thatcher131 23:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

sockpuppets of long term blocked users based on arbitration rulings

 * Discussion moved to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_checkuser

Wouldn't it make more sense to store checkuser data on long-term blocked users? After all logs expire after a month. -- Cat chi? 20:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think there may be privacy implications, although I suspect it's done unofficially anyway.--Domitius 21:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not believe privacy is an issue. The ips and other info will not be published to public. All info will still be for arbitrators' "eyes only" -- Cat chi? 09:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool Cat, do you have a specific incident in mind? Many of the checkusers do keep records, but they may not always have the foresight to keep the right records in the right case. Thatcher131 14:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. I had difficulties on a very old case that resurfaced a wile back ago. Checkuser data wasn't available so a second arbitration case had to be started for the (new) individual. But that specific thing isn't important right now.
 * My concern is future and current disputes. Personal logs of any checkuser can disappear for simple reasons such as virus infections and stuff. A centralized location where all en.wiki checkusers can access (such as a private mailing list or some hidden archive) is what I have in mind. I think it would be beneficial to have such a thing.
 * -- Cat chi? 16:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a CheckUser mailing list already, I believe. This comment should probably be moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkuser, though, since it doesn't deal explicitly with arbitration and we have some non-Arbitrators that serve as CheckUsers. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note? ) 16:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll copy paste there now. -- Cat chi? 16:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Discussion moved to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_checkuser

Community enforceable mediation experimental rollout
Community enforceable mediation has entered a 90 day experimental phase. This can provide a simpler alternative to arbitration for some disputes. Suitable cases would have:
 * Two disputants.
 * No allegations of sockpuppetry.
 * Aspects of user conduct/policy violations overlapping the content dispute.
 * Basically mature and reasonable participants.

Regards, Durova  Charge! 03:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Awards available post-arbitration
For several months I've had a standing offer to any editor who gets sanctioned at arbitration (short of sitebanning) that I'll award The Resilient Barnstar if they start a new article that gets highlighted at Template:Did you know. I've recently created a new set of personal user awards called Wikipedia's triple crown for editors who create a DYK entry plus become major contributors to a good article and to a piece of featured content. A special edition triple crown called the valiant return triple crown is available to editors who satisfy all three requirements after an arbitration sanction or a lifted siteban: if people are willing to come back from the edge, I'm willing to thank them. Durova Charge! 02:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Dissenting opinion/review
How would/should I file a dissenting opinion or a review on the findings/precedents for the Billy Ego-Sandstein case? - RoyBoy 800 23:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not Supreme Court of the United States, however, you can certainly put up comments on talk pages of that arbitration, I guess. WooyiTalk, Editor review 23:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, granted; however, a process should be in place to buffer possibly poor precedents in interpretation of policy. Comments on a talk page is completely insufficient; it could be a starting point, but I'd rather leap frog that step. - RoyBoy 800 00:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What exactly is it about the final decision that bothers you? Mackensen (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

A great deal of subjective short hand was used particularly in the Workshop, such as "inflammatory", "disrepute", with no caveats. Providing justification for anyone who finds anything meeting those criteria, according to their views, to remove it from the User space as they see fit; as they would for an article that is live.

WP:NOT and User_page seems misinterpreted to justify actions I do not currently agree with. Inappropriate content cites don't be a dick; but I'm unclear as to how Billy Ego was a dick in relation to his user space content (a big image doesn't seem nearly enough, I emphasize I am focusing purely on the content of the User page, not the actions of the user). Further Inappropriate content mentions that it is usually applied to the user space... I'm currently very conflicted on that declaration. Defining the criteria of "disrepute" based on "widespread offence" seems arbitrary, useless, without constraints and open to abuse by good faith editors/admins.


 * Pedophiles, remove, that is indeed "widespread".
 * Using anti-semetic/racist language, remove. But happening to be anti-semetic/racist; and/or being affiliated with an offensive group or even a group simply associated by some users with "inflammatory" things seems insufficient in my current estimation.

There seems to be an inference that because Facism was awful historically, we can therefore find mostly any reference to it to be "bad" and escalate it to "disrepute" in a blink of an eye. Wikipedia and the ArbCom lean to the side of caution for good reasons. On the issue of the User space, I'm thinking the wrong side of the fence was sat on, as it relates to, User page content. If my position has any merit after a little back and forth, I may wish to make it formalized in relation to the ArbCom case for future reference.

I concede I have not been the victim of a Facist regime; however I'd be cautious in removing material/advocates for it, as I would for any other political/philosophical viewpoint I disagreed with. I'm confident significant numbers of religious people would find my User page inflammatory; however it expresses my views... ultimately that is what I'm advocating for; not because of freedom of speech etc. which doesn't apply to Wikipedia pages, but for the improved openness, functionality and interactivity of Wikipedia. To consciously encourage editors to let others know who they are, and where they stand. - RoyBoy 800 01:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The Workshop doesn't have any bearing at all. What matters is what's in the Proposed Decision and got voted on. Mackensen (talk) 14:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I focused on it as it was the space I could provide feedback on. So, I'm concerned with User pages and Personal_expression_on_User_Pages being used as principles in this case. - RoyBoy 800 23:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be good to remember that Wikipedia exists to be the free encyclopedia everyone can edit. The Wikimedia Foundation generously allows users to have user space and to decorate this space, because it makes the project a nicer place to work for some people.  As such there is no absolute right to a user page (the Foundation could delete them all at any time, but probably won't) and there is no absolute freedom of speech on your user page.  Just as your employer can ask you to remove decorations from your workspace that offend other workers, or the clients/customers, or interfere with the smooth operation of the business, so can Wikipedia.  We are much more tolerant, but there are still some limits.  If you want absolute freedom, get a blog or join myspace. Thatcher131 05:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As I specifically said: not because of freedom of speech etc. which doesn't apply to Wikipedia pages I'm unsure how applicable it is to my position. I really do like your analogy of the workspace being offensive; however, this isn't an office space, it is a virtual space. Meaning we indeed need to be much more tolerant of what people put on their User spaces; since we are limited to communicating about ourselves through them. Whereas desk decorations are frivolous accessories (I have some on my own desks) which are in plain view, User pages are essential to collaboration on a online project and are not in plain few (you have to click on it and seek it out). So the analogy while apt, is not as precise as I'd like.


 * Disagreement with views expressed on a User page should not become "inflammatory" based on the whim or POV. An example I expressed on the workshop, then reverted when I realized it was closed, is that someone should be completely free to express their antisemitism/racism/sexism/bigotry/ageism/technoism and rationale (in summary form) for it on their User page. However, to do so in a rude or provocative manner is wrong and should be removed. I guess I'm advocating is we should be concerned with the "tone" rather than the "content" of a User page. - RoyBoy 800 02:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Case NathanielPoe and Clarityfiend
This case can be archived, the dispute was resolved via third party opinion, the parties in conflict have come to an agreement. Russeasby 01:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's good news. Just for our follow-up here, could you provide us a link to where this happened or have the initiating party withdraw the request? Thanks, Newyorkbrad 01:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You can see consensus in the Edit Summerys in the last two edits in edit history not friendly, but seems a comprimise was accepted.  The discussion on Talk:The_Black_Swan_%28film%29 under "Opinion from a third party" ( cant seem to link directly to it without a TOC on the page).  Turns out the disputed content was WP:COPYVIO anyways  which ended up making much of the dispute moot and I think effectively saw the end of it. Russeasby 02:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what sort of notes you add to these when you archive them, but it may be worth noting that I filed a checkuser on User:NathanielPoe and User:FrankWilliams here . Since it was rejected by ArbCom (where the checkuser would normally be initiated) I filed it there myself, not sure if it needs inclusion in the notes here at all. Russeasby 02:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Rejected cases don't have any force at all, since they were never acted on. We keep a list, because sometimes the same disputes recur, but there are no negative consequences to having been  listed in a case that was never accepted.  You should pursue your checkuser request separately.  Please keep talking about the article, and remember that solving disputes outside of arbitration is always preferred. Thatcher131 03:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response Thatcher, it verifies what I thought was the right course of action. I was nothing more then a third party here, stumbling upon it while following something else listed here. As is unavoidable some things can be unclear and I mentioned the checkuser mainly because it came across as a grey area in my understanding of policy, better to be safe then appear sneaky. Thank you for the clarification.  Russeasby 04:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Why does the ArbCom refuse to rule on content?
Since ArbCom is the last step of dispute resolution on Wikipedia, someone new to the dispute resolution process would expect that if a contetn dispute fails to be resolved through mediation or RFC, it should go to ArbCom. They will get a rude shock when the ArbCom rejects the case as a content dispute.

Consider a content dispute on a political controversy, involving many editors - some new, some experienced. If all other avenues fail, even if there are few conduct issues, if the participants want the ArbCom to decide the content dispute, the ArbCom should do so. Otherwise, the dispute will go unresolved, leading to more drama and stress for the participants - some experienced editors may leave other the dispute.

Given the issue and the number of editors involved, the dispute is likely to escalate to the point where participants edit war, make personal attacks, etc. and an arbitration case is neccesary to sort out the mess. If the ArbCom only rules on conduct, by imposing penalties on the major participants, but refuses to rule on the content, the dispute will continue with another list of participants.

Focusing on conduct encourages participants in an arbitration case to comment on the contributor, rather than the content. This has led to some disputes between two users making it to ArbCom, despite little content being involved. Consider an edit war between two users, A and B. A's version is better, but A consistently makes personal attacks and resorts to sockpuppetry, while B does not. If the ArbCom ruled on this case, and focused on conduct, A would probably be banned from Wikipedia, or at least the article. With A gone, B would have won the content dispute, and B's inferior version would prevail.

ArbCom decisions should be made in the best interests of the encyclopedia.

--Kaypoh 07:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The way I've always understood it at least is that ArbCom will not rule on content because in doing so, they would be seen by many editors as endorsing "the right version" of an article. Then you'd get into the issue of reversion wars with people saying "That's not the version ArbCom said was ok." And once users see that ArbCom would rule on content, you'd probably see an increase in requests, just to try and lock down "their version" of an article as "the right version." That's just my 0.02USD. ^ demon [omg plz] 14:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Really, it's not our choice. If the community wants us to arbitrate content disputes, they need to establish that as policy (or, of course, powers on high could ordain that we are to do so). But the demon is right about what would happen if we did take on such a role: it would be a mess of lockdown demands, and ArbCom would end up usurping what is properly the role of the community as a whole. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No sane arbitration committee would accept community policy that demanded routine intervention of the committee in deciding matters of content. The inevitable result would be a propensity for digging in heels, and escalating to arbitration level, by all parties who believed that they could count on the committee to provide an equitable solution. --Tony Sidaway 16:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

A request
I am repeating the following request appearing on the project page: "Dangerous-Boy is requested to delete the references to violation of the First Amendment (which does not apply to Wikipedia, a private entity) and notification to the Maryland State Attorney pursuant to WP:LEGAL. Newyorkbrad 23:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)". I shall be posting soon a link to his page too. --Bhadani (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe he did delete the First Amendment reference and added a disclaimer at the end of the relevant paragraph, so that part of my concern at least was addressed. Newyorkbrad 15:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I posted a request to him . I feel happy that he addressed the issue to your satisfaction. Regards. --Bhadani (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

On MONGO–Thomas Basboll
I'm surprised everyone is so full of contempt towards Thomas Basboll. Has no one heard of Assume good faith? The editor is obviously distressed. Making statements like "This has to be one of the silliest RFAs I've seen", "More seriously, a block for WP:POINT may be in order" and "Frankly, I see nothing in this but unnecessary disruption, attempting to game the system and contempt for the ArbCom's already tight schedule" are neither helpful nor collegiate. --Iamunknown 01:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF does not require one to continue assuming good faith when there is evidence to the contrary. Community reaction to Basboll's RFC against MONGO has been decidedly negative, with most responses somewhere between "let it go" and "give MONGO a medal!" So now he's turning to Arbcom. Being "distressed" is understandable but it is no excuse for pursuing what looks more and more like a vendetta; indulging such behavior on grounds of being "helpful and collegiate" ultimately is destructive to the project. Raymond Arritt 01:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Then please provide evidence to the contrary; I have yet to see any statements supported by diffs, only jests including, "If anything, User:Thomas_Basboll should be given forty lashes with a wet noodle for wasting ArbCom's time in such a frivolous manner." --Iamunknown 01:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope it's okay, but since a clerk renamed the case to from "MONGO's unretracted physical threat" to "MONGO–Thomas Basboll", I've taken the liberty of doing the same for this section heading. I think it's far from being generally agreed that there was a "physical threat", and even if there had been, it's better to stick to the general, neutral form of Arbitration case names. I hope this won't cause offence, and maybe indeed I should have left it to a clerk. If I'm reverted, I won't revert back. ElinorD (talk) 07:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nah, no offense taken. Your too kind, Elinor.  :-D  --Iamunknown 07:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the clerks decision and with Elinor's, including her reasoning.--Thomas Basboll 07:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Procedural question
I was under the impression that this is "not a discussion page". I notice that a number of editors have nonetheless posted comments and advice to the Committee. Am I required to answer these? Or should I simply await the decision to accept or decline the case? (Those who have suggested that I be blocked for frivolity can rest assured that all ArbCom needs to do is to decline this request. As I have stated, if ArbCom accepts the RfC as the community's view of my work, then I don't belong here.)--Thomas Basboll 06:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Quick comment: this is my first edit to the ArbCom are of Wikipedia; if my commentary was in error or was inappropriate, a clerk or someone else may feel free to remove it. --Iamunknown 07:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * All of the edits regarding this case were acceptable. The case has now be de-listed as withdrawn by the initiating party. Newyorkbrad 16:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Realistic options when ArbCom rejects a case
I'm only one vote away from having my dispute not being taken up, so I'm wondering what my options, if any, will be if ArbCom goes nay. The fundamental issue is what to do when the lead editors and at least one admin with likeminded political agendas all connected to a certain right wing blog site "take over" a wiki article that's important to them and brook no dissenting discussions by whatever means possible, including misusing and misrepresenting Wikipedia policies to get their way. I dug up proof that one admin lied in his arbitration statement about the extent of his connection to the blog site, and the other 2 primary culprits have avoided altogether making any statements, but all this apparently doesn't seem to matter a whole lot. I'm not really sure what to make of all this (I am so not a wiki person) and where to go afterwards if need be. Any thoughts or info would be most appreciated. -BC aka Callmebc 15:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A content Requests for comment procedure should work here. This would recruit editors from the more general populace.  Another thing that occurs to me is that a "take-over" implies non-neutral editing and a failure to communicate meaningfully about the reasons for their edits.  These are both susceptible to personal RFCs.  If nothing else, this would serve to gather evidence to present to the committee, in the hope of convincing them that there is a case to answer.


 * If for some reason the committee behaved perversely and refused to accept arbitration of a clear problem, raise a motion to require them to hear the case at Village pump. "The Committee will hear or not hear disputes according to the wishes of the community, where there is a consensus." (Arbitration policy). If all else fails and the community is convinced as a whole that a problem must be resolved, appeal to Jimbo Wales. --Tony Sidaway 16:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The starting point for looking at why ArbCom didn't take the case is the arbitrators' comments, which you should take into account. To the extent they suggest continuing to resolve disputes on the talkpage or via the ordinary dispute resolution process, that is the way to do it.
 * Please also carefully consider and evaluate the comments that other editors have made about how your own conduct may have contributed to this dispute, and make any appropriate changes to your own editing style, including avoiding personal attacks on other users. Frankly, had this case been accepted, you might well have wound up as the principal party sanctioned (this situation has occurred twice within the past month). I think you are frankly better off having another chance to address the situation short of ArbCom.
 * I see no basis for the idea of bringing this dispute to the Village Pump or raising it with Jimbo Wales. In the context of the particular dispute raised, I consider those suggestions to be unproductive and unlikely to yield any useful result. Newyorkbrad 16:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that this dispute isn't a case for Village Pump or Jimbo. Such would be the path for an overwhelmingly strong case for arbitration in the face of a perverse and intransigent arbitration committee (which is about as likely as...well, speculation involving religious leaders and bears comes to mind).  Arbcom has only once ever reconvened a closed arbitration case due to community demand (Requests for arbitration/Stevertigo). --Tony Sidaway 18:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Although I'm a veteran of many a Usenet war, as well as occasional incursions into hostile right blog sites, I have made an extra effort to be especially civil when I pop in on Wikipedia. It wasn't until this last visit when things got messy and out of hand -- I can only take so much sniping and bad behavior before reverting to "Usenet mode." But it did turn out that all but one of the lead antagonists were essentially what you Wikipedians call "meat puppets" tied in with a certain blog site with a very active interest in how the wiki article is presented. So for all intents and purposes, my wiki visit was much like one of my right wing blog site incursions. I think the basic problem is the site had become relatively dormant the past year, making it easy for a takeover of sorts by likeminded individuals. My sense, though, is that even if the case doesn't get picked up, there will have been enough burnt fingers to not have the episode repeat itself if I try reposting. Still, I would be tad more comfortable with something slightly more official dealing with matters.
 * I had looked at the RFC stuff, but the topic was pretty murky in the sense that the press "coverage" was awful, hence leaving a curious individual to have to do a lot of homework to make sense of it all. Still, though, an RFC might bring in the right curious people, and tied in with a few things like this    might perhaps sort things out another way.
 * Thanks for the advice and feedback to everyone responding in any case. -BC aka Callmebc 20:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * BC, just be clear, Wikipedia isn't Usenet. When you characterize your Wikipedia visit as being like a "blogsite incursion," I feel that you may be coming here to pick a fight.  You'd do well to get involved in some non-controversial editing to build up your reputation is a contributor.  Feel free to report any problems you see to the appropriate forum: WP:COIN for COI, or WP:RFC for content disputes that can't be resolved on the article talk page.


 * One more thing. Using Arbcom process to create a chilling effect on other editors is a very bad idea. Arbcom is here to resolve disputes; don't try to use it for strategic advantage against perceived adversaries.  Jehochman (talk/contrib) 14:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ummm....I actually phrased it "my wiki visit was much like one of my right wing blog site incursions" in regards to the immediate hostility I met. And so far all of my charges regarding the behavior and motives of certain Wiki people have been born out -- there was never a "dispute" per se, just people trying to enforce a political agenda with no regard to the truth, nevermind any real concern for Wikipedia policies. What exactly are you trying to do here? -- you're spinning things even more oddly than usual. (Not that I expect a straight answer....)

Actually I came back here on a more serious topic: I was tipped off about some sockpuppetry in regards to one of the folks involved in my case and I confirmed it. My feeling, though, is that things are already pretty darn complicated enough without bringing the sockpuppet stuff up here as well. I did alert an admin about it via email, but I'm wondering if I should also do that CheckUser thing or such as well now, or wait until after the arbitration vote before doing anything further. Any thoughts? -BC aka Callmebc 01:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You can file a checkuser request at WP:RFCU, following the instructions there, or you can send an e-mail to the arbitrators' mailing list (e-mail any active arbitrator listed at WP:AC and they will forward it to the list) explaining the reasoning for your request. The latter is generally preferred when the checkuser request is relating to an matter proposed for arbitration, and saves time since several of the arbitrators are also checkusers. Newyorkbrad 01:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the latter sounds the most appropriate. Thanks (and thanks also for the very quick response). -BC aka Callmebc 01:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty then, the arbitrators chose not the accept my case. I'll try some other avenues, but I'm mostly unclear about what to do about the sockpuppet issue -- in addition to the first one I had referred to, I determined that another party was using a sockpuppet more directly applicable to this case. I sent an email as recommended to one of the arbitrators (a non-voting one) about both, but I've received no response as of yet. I want to move on, but I also want to make sure I'm doing the right things. Soo...? -BC aka Callmebc 12:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The Robdurbar arbitration case...
...was dismissed because six arbitrators endorsed the desysopping and felt that no arbitration was needed. However, in the list of desysoppings, they usually link to the arbitration case as evidence that the Arbitration Committee endorses the desysopping. In Robdurbar's case, there is no arbitration case to link to. --Kaypoh 13:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a clerk will create one? If not, how about a permalink (index.php/revision URL) to the attached page? --kingboyk 13:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I was thinking myself that perhaps a case page should be created. It would just be the one page. As a clerk, I normally would create the page (too much time shouldn't be spent on a formality but this wouldn't take more me than 5 minutes), but I hesitate because I was the party who filed the case, albeit as a "pro forma" case, and we don't clerk our own cases! However, if no one objects within the next 24 hours, I will go ahead and do it anyway. Newyorkbrad 13:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What's the point of creating a case page? Anywhere that you would put a link to the closed case you can just put a link to the removal diff.  All you really need to do is put the link on Rob's talk page with a detailed edit summary so that if he returns, any diligent check by a bureaucrat will pick it up (which I have now done). Thatcher131 02:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess I was figuring that it should show up somewhere in the list of decisions. But I guess other emergency desysoppings don't either. I'll reclaim my 5 minutes and create another clerk-bio-stub instead. Newyorkbrad 02:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Robdurbar was not only de-admined, but also banned, does he really deserve a community ban for a bad action that only lasted a short period? Also his account might have been temporarily stolen. What we need to do is to email him and check. WooyiTalk, Editor review 03:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am quite sure that lots of people have e-mailed him, and if they'd received a reply that shed light on the matter, someone would have said something long before now. As for the block/ban, if and when Robdurbar wants it lifted, he can post an unblock request and it can be discussed at that time. Unless and until he asks for an unblock, or shows any interest at all in ever editing again under that name, it is not a good use of the community's time to speculate on what would happen if he did. Newyorkbrad 03:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Arbcom did not ban Robdurbar, only endorsed his desysopping. Find the admin who blocked him and take it up with him, or find another admin to unblock.  Regardless of the current view at Votes for banning, a community ban is when someone is so obnoxious that no admin will unblock his or her account.  I expect that any admin will ask for some minimal explanation, at the very least.  As Brad said, the first step would be for Rob to request unblocking, via his talk page or the unblock e-mail list. Thatcher131 03:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. If his account was stolen, it's safer to keep it banned to keep the stealer from wikipedia. If it's himself that wants to come back, he should request unblock himself. WooyiTalk, Editor review 04:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It turns out he's still editing, as . See Requests for checkuser/Case/Robdurbar. -- ChrisO 07:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that CheckUser already determined that he did not have his account stolen, as, among other things, he still edits from the same university that he claimed to have been attending in his original user page (now deleted). Dmcdevit·t 08:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But that's not a proof. Presumably the checkuser returned information about a shared IP in a block of IP addresses used  by the university.  Someone else in the university might have stolen his account.  One of the edit summaries said "Let's see how long I can get away with this".  This could be interpreted as someone having fun with a stolen account.  It would be interesting to see if the e-mail address was changed in the last couple of months.  If someone really knew how to use a a stolen admin account, the first thing to do would be to change the e-mail address so that the rightful owner would not be notified of any abuse.  --Richard 15:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Enough already. It's been established beyond all reasonable doubt that Robdurbar himself was responsible (not least because of who he targetted), and the account has just been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet anyway. --kingboyk 16:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, he never got banned by the ArbCom, and his previous community ban (when he used the account User:Wonderfool) was rescinded. This is why Grandmasterka posted a community ban proposal. Jesse Viviano 17:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This smells like red tape. I don't think that's needed at all, and it would be perfectly fine for Rob's listing on the 'banned users' page to list to the WP:AN discussion or a permalink of this page.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  07:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Requests for clarification
Would arbitrators mind changing the way how this is handled? I propose a system where arbitrators "accept/decline" to hear requests posted here. In the past some issues were removed because no one commented on them. If arbitrators do not wish to discuss something they can simply "decline" it rather than "ignore". -- Cat chi? 15:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your frustration when a request goes unanswered, but this section should not be made too formal or standardized. Some matters placed in this section are in the nature of party requests to reopen a case, grant an additional remedy, etc., but others are just quick follow-up questions. To open up a whole voting process on every request could be a bit too bureaucratic. Arbitrators hopefully will bear in mind that when a user posts a query, receiving views from one or more arbitrators, even if only a couple of sentences, can be reassuring that the user's concern was reviewed and improve the satisfaction level of the editor's whole RfAr experience. :) Newyorkbrad 16:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a principle that once you have exerted authority over something, you will always have to exert authority over it. (I think I read that in the works of the great management expert Robert A. Heinlein :) but it's probably taught in business schools as well.)  In the Moby Dick case, I was also moving toward a community ban per Tony's suggestion but Dmcdevit beat me to it.  If an arbitrator had stepped in and decided to offer a formal motion to ban, that might be seen as taking away admin discretion in future similar cases.  Ultimately you got the outcome you wanted, and probably faster than if there had been a formal motion.  Short of nagging the arbitrators on their private mailing list, there's nothing the clerks can do with a request that has been up for 10 days without attracting a reply.  Some of my own requests have been ignored as well, so I know it can be disheartening.  But if I was an arbitrator, I would probably also be reluctant to speak up if it looked like the community was moving in the right direction on its own. Thatcher131 16:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The idea is if Arbitrators decide not to review it, they should simply say so rather than not reply at all. Reasons to decline may include "not in the scope of abrcom" to "community should decide". It would save everyone a lot of time and would cut back bureaucracy (7 day wait time) if this was done. If say 7 arbitrators "decline" to do anything then I would know their decision without waiting for a week plus. This shouldn't be viewed as a vote. -- Cat chi? 18:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Except in emergency situations, for 7 arbitrators to vote on a proposal usually takes a week plus anyway. Newyorkbrad 18:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course. I mean it would tell me "arbitrators are aware of the issue but do not wish to comment on it for whatever their reasons" as oppose to "arbitrators are sleeping". Something can be removed before 7 days if enough arbitrators don't want to act on the issue. The number of arbitrators (7) was tossed in at random. It wasn't intended to be a requirement. -- Cat chi? 18:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The idea is the most frustrated people will be coming to arbcom. Anything posted there is typically about weather or not something should be considered as disruption. Truly disruptive users dance around their remedies for instance. It only increases the overall frustration if no one cares to comment at all. A * Decline, --~ even by one or two arbitrators would be enough IMHO (to at least ease the frustration). -- Cat chi? 18:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, this is how arbitrators seem to be handling the current Everyking appeal. There may be a difference in the best way to handle things as between an actual request for "clarification" and a request for actual revocation or modification of a remedy. Newyorkbrad 01:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Since it was initiated on May 7, by May 11 we have an understanding on the views of arbitrators. I find this most productive and am very pleased with it. I hope this will become how new requests may be handled in the future. I have boldly added " ====Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)==== " to current requests. -- Cat chi? 03:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry. 95% of the time this is inappropriate and unnecessary.  We don't need a majority vote to confirm that ChrisGriswold won't be forced to revert his own edits or that baiting editors under sanction is a bad idea. Thatcher131 07:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So? Arbitrators can still decline it also Arbitrators can still IGNORE it. Past rules apply. They are allowed to state the obvious when necessary too. -- Cat chi? 09:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

To arbitrators
I was wondering if arbitrators would wish to have a standard " ====Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/0)==== " for "Requests for clarification" requests. This would allow arbitrators to "decline"/"hear" requests more promptly. This would cut back on bureaucracy as well as resolving other reasons mentioned above. -- Cat chi? 09:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As noted above (my comments and Thatcher's), this would be unhelpful more often than helpful, so should not become routine practice. Also bear in mind that any arbitrator may present a motion to modify or revoke a remedy, or to open a review to consider doing so. Such a motion would require a simple majority vote of the active arbitrators, unlike the "accept/reject hearing this matter" format, which requires 4 net accept votes to open consideration. Newyorkbrad 11:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * On a lot of the requests for clarification, either there's no need for the format, or it makes no sense at all. Sometimes they really are "requests for clarification", in which case any or all of us could provide clarification -- not something that needs voting, just discussion. Other cases, such as Everyking's repeated appeals, can be dealt with by an up-or-down vote. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "Requests for clarification" isn't where appeals should be, anyway. Requests for clarifications should be things that really need that: clarification. I think we need a seperate section for requests for appeals; alternately, they should be allowed to be put in the main section. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I would support that. "RfAr" should only be for new requests. Clarifications and appeals should be a seperate page. -- Cat chi? 13:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There really shouldn't be any votes in the Requests for clarification section. Requests to amend past decisions can be made there, since there really is no other place, but votes to amend past decisions are made in the Motions in prior cases sections.  Appeals by banned users, or appeals made against any other community-imposed remedy, should be listed as case applications like all other cases.  (With all due respect to FIcelloguy, I think he made a mistake by offering a vote on replacing a community-imposed ban with parole here, it should have been listed as a pending case request with an opportunity for other editors involved in the original decision to ban to offer comment.)


 * If I recall correctly, you originally started this thread after no arbitrators answered your request for additional action to be taken against Moby Dick. Creating separate subpages for different classes of requests will not guarantee that arbitrators will answer, nor can sticking the vote banner on a question force the arbitrators to case votes.  Most requests for clarification can be handled by ordinary editors and admins with experience in arbitration matters or with knowledge of the specific case.  It was not necessary for the committee to adopt a formal vote on Moby Dick; Dmcdevit community-banned him long before any formal process would have concluded.  I have generally found that the arbitrators will comment on issues that genuinely require their interpretation.  Adding more structure to the process won't compell them, though. Thatcher131 16:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Appeal rejection
So, my appeal was rejected. It's definitely disappointing that, even after all this time, the ArbCom is not willing to treat me fairly. I have a couple of questions. First, has any other user ever been sanctioned for this length of time for offenses on this level? Are my past actions perceived as worse than the kind of offenses that are normally punished with one-year sanctions, or are they different in some way other than severity? Does the absence of any complaint or accusation of misbehavior in nearly a year constitute any kind of mitigating factor to the ArbCom?

Few of the arbitrators gave any reasons for their rejection of the appeal. This is unfortunate because knowing why they rejected it would give me some guidance about what I can change in order to get the arbitrators to reconsider their decision in the future. Could the reasons for rejection, or any sort of advice in this regard, be given now? Finally, the ArbCom's fondness for the restrictions, regardless of everything that has happened since they were imposed, concerns me in another way because they are due to expire in six more months: do the arbitrators actually intend to let them expire, or is it possible they will be extended yet again? Everyking 06:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered
The case has 6 arbitrators accepting, when can it be open? WooyiTalk to me? 00:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Usually no less than 24 hours after sufficient arbitrators accept. I don't know if there are any real standards for when it goes longer.  GRBerry 00:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There aren't any special standards for waiting longer than 24 hours, except that we probably wouldn't open a case if there were still real uncertainty whether it was going to be accepted or not. Clerks have been assigned and PalestineRemembered and Miskin should both be opened shortly. Newyorkbrad 01:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not like it's a big deal. Arbitrations take weeks anyway to go through, and that's when they aren't backlogged. ArbCom has a lot of cases on their hands right now, it's likely to be taking a good long time anyway. &rArr;    SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  01:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Caseload question
For about 24 hours yesterday and this morning, there were no new RfAr requests pending. (I didn't say anything at the time because I didn't want to tempt fate ... although even though I didn't, we are now back to business as usual.) I don't recall seeing the page with no pending requests since I started paying attention to RfAr, and just was wondering if anyone recalls when this lasdt occurred before. Newyorkbrad 23:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Moving comments from main page revisited
Just in case anyone wonders where all the statements about Miskin's case have disappeared, Phil Sandler deleted it, terming removal of statements to some obscure talk page a "new move" on his part. On my talk page, he threatened me to revert war if I dare to restore my statement. I presume that the "new move" was sanctioned by the arbitrators, but still I consider it my duty to speak out. Sorry, what's the point of listing me as a "party" if I have no right to speak here? Since I was listed as a "commenting party", I take it as an invitation to comment. What else does that mean? I consider the removal of my comments as a slap in the face, aimed to discourage me and others from following the page, which Phil deemed "unreadable". By the way, it'd be great to know who appoints clerks for each particular case. I consider Snowspinner the last person to be neutral, given the nature of the current arbitration. --Ghirla-трёп- 17:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * They weren't deleted, they were moved, near as I can tell. I know I've seen this done before and personally don't have a problem with the practice--nothing is actually lost, and the size of the main page stays manageable. Judging from Paul's revert there's disagreement, though. Mackensen (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) The Miskin case is now in the process of being opened (by Penwhale), so hopefully as applied to this specific case this issue is moot. More generally, there was a longer discussion about whether non-party statements should be kept on the main RfAr page or moved to a talkpage, earlier this year. See here. I believe that most of the participating arbitrators requested that the statements be left on the main RfAr page. Granted, in both Miskin and PalestineRemembered the number of non-party comments was high, but in itself that can be a useful datum for the arbitrators. Newyorkbrad 17:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The statements were moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Miskin and Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered. This has happened and been discussed before, as noted by Brad. Thatcher131 17:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My feeling, as the clerk who did this, was that 30+ statements int he PalestineRemembered case was too many to be useful, and that the statements were at that point an impedement to arbitrator understanding rather than an aid. It's a subjective judgment - I certainly wouldn't support Taylorizing the process and robotically shooting all non-participant statements in all cases. But Miskin and PalestineRemembered were both vastly overlong, and had a lot of "me-too" statements that lacked much in the way of new perspectives. That's unhelpful to everyone. Phil Sandifer 17:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I restored the statements in the "PalestineRemembered" request (and would have in the "Miskin" request had that case not been opened) because I generally find all such statements very useful, I also prefer to have them conveniently located in one place. Paul August &#9742; 20:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I promise to care about that as soon as you're an arbitrator. Until then, so far the only arbitrator to comment has been in favor of it, so I think your preference to be, shall we say, less relevant than his. Phil Sandifer 02:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You may want to start caring fairly shortly. Paul is an arbitrator, he was elected in the end of 2006 elections. ++Lar: t/c 03:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, yes, I was just going to point that out.Proabivouac 03:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No need to remove your remarks, Phil I found them amusing ;-) Paul August &#9742; 04:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I swear I looked at the list before I wrote that, too. :( Phil Sandifer 06:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ghirla: 1) The moves were not explicitly "sanctioned by the arbitrators" but were done by Phil's exercising his initiative as clerk. 2) I don't know what the "commenting party" section means, and I don't remember seeing it before, it may be an inovation of Swatjester, but it was reasonable to assume that a comment by you was being requested. 3) I don't believe that anyone "appoints" a clerk for a case, I think they are self-selected, it looks like Penwhale is clerking the Miskin case. Paul August &#9742; 21:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As new cases come up, we clerks typically discuss assignments on our Clerks Noticeboard. Mostly we try to distribute the workload approximately equally among the three active clerks (Thatcher131, Srikeit, and me) and some other editors who have been kind enough to assist (Penwhale, David.Mestel, and now Picaroon). Beyond that, it's often just a function of who has time available when it's time to open the case. Newyorkbrad 21:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I found Paul's and Brad's comments really helpful, so I don't see any reason in pressing the matter further. What disturbs me is the extent of clerks' powers, as interpreted by Phil. One thing is to refactor overlong or incivil statements according to the guidelines. That's what clerks are for, in my understanding. Quite different thing is to "remove" most statements to some talk page, which smacks of censorship. Who decides whether the page is readable or unreadable? What seems "unreadable" to Phil may be perfectly readable for others. We trust that our arbitrators have necessary skills to wade through a complexly structured page. What's the purpose of RfAr if not to list statements submitted by parties? Furthermore, the "new move" means that a clerk may add or remove parties at his own will, thus altering the scope of each case, which is also better avoided. --Ghirla-трёп- 06:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Just saw this: Yeah, the commenting party thing was my idea, it was so people who had commented on my talk page about it could be noted to the ArbCom, but they really have nothing to do with the case.

As for the movement, why is this being discussed? Miskin's comments were more than 500 words. The template and the RFAR instructions explicitly say "keep it under 500". If you can't follow the rules, don't complain when they're enforced. Why does this seem to be a recurring trend with this arbitration??? &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  19:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

QZ case naming
If this case is accepted, I suggest that it not be named "QZ" or the arbitration pages will show up in Google searches forever. Perhaps "QZ deletion" instead? Kla'quot 20:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter, anyway. At 1-6, it wasn't going to be accepted, so I zapped the whole thing. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Mathematics revisited
I hope this issue can be viewed independently of the case in which it arises, in which I have no involvement. Several months ago, someone raised the issue of whether the criteria for acceptance of a case by the ArbCom (4 "net accepts") was perhaps too rigorous. Various alternatives were suggested, including mine of 2 "net accepts" as long as there are also 4 total "accepts." At that time, there was a post that said the arbitrators had discussed it and decided not to make a change. I raise this again because there is a case on the requests page, that as of yesterday, had 5 votes (please excuse the expression) to accept, 2 to decline and 1 recusal. Counting only those "present and voting", that is 71 percent (rounded) to accept, and yet at that point the case would be rejected because it only had 3 net accepts. That seems like a pretty steep threshhold to me: 71 percent to accept, and still the case would be rejected. That number has now been reduced a bit because one more arbitrator has been added to each side, for a 6-3 split, but that is still 67 percent to accept a case that will (as of now) be rejected for lack of 4 net accepts. The numbers may of course change again, because there are two active arbitrators who have not "voted." But I was just wondering if this situation might give the arbitrators pause about keeping the "4 net accepts" rule when it means that such a strong "vote" in favor of accepting in a case will nevertheless count as a rejection. 6SJ7 19:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Independent of this specific case, I agree as stated in prior discussions that an outcome of a case such as "rejected 6-3" is a very bad and counterintuitive idea. Incidentally, in the context of arbitration, it is perfectly legitimate to use the word "vote." The arbitrators hopefully try to come to a consensus among themselves on how to handle various things, but case acceptances and proposed decisions really are votes. (A further complicating factor is that a precondition for counting "accept" votes is that the arbitrators voting "accept" should be voting to accept the same case.) Newyorkbrad 20:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Heaven help us if they don't accept this case. If arbitrators will not sort out the abuses at DRV, then we are really screwed.--Docg 20:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The "four net accepts" rule is comparatively new (fall of last year). If the arbitrators find that they're not getting enough work, or that they're accepting too many cases and then finding nothing much to do with them, they'll change their acceptance rules again. --Tony Sidaway 20:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I don't think that "finding nothing much to do with them" is going to be an issue on this case. Horologium talk - contrib 21:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My tongue was firmly in my cheek there. --Tony Sidaway 22:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I generally don't use emoticons, but it might have been appropriate here, as I had a big grin on my face. However, I still think that the issues raised here REALLY need to be addressed by the ArbCon, amusement aside. Horologium talk - contrib 22:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to use this as a platform for ranting
Admins are now quite clearly stating that they will never reverse any BLP decisions unless Arbcom orders them to. Since I have no wish to be involved in an Arbcom case, I now have zero recourse against these admins. This is not good. -Amarkov moo! 01:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I suspect I know what you are referring to, but please provide a link or diff for what you are referring to. Newyorkbrad 01:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This, and I remember another which I will go dig up. I'm sure there are others I'm unaware of. -Amarkov moo! 01:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I can't find the diff. But it said something along the lines of "DRV is not the appropriate place for appeals of BLP deletions, all BLP deletions must go through Arbcom". -Amarkov moo! 01:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I discussed this a bit on the mailing list with Fred Bauder. I think this situation is a bit difficult for everyone, but all told, I've found him to really be a pretty reasonable person. We do need a way to deal with BLP problems, and we do need a way to do it while both respecting BLP policy and respecting the rights of the community here. If you got the solution, or even a partial one, everyone would love to hear it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The rights of the community? We've got the right to leave and the right to fork, if you want to be strict about it. I would think our obligation to named living persons far outweighs any we might have to our editors, most of whom are anonymous. That's me, though. Mackensen (talk) 03:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly it does. We can deal with editors leaving a lot more easily than we can deal with people's lives being permanently damaged by our articles on them. That statement, however, is not equivalent to saying that the only way to appeal a BLP decision is Arbcom. -Amarkov moo! 04:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't intending to weigh in on that particular question one way or the other. I think there is legitimate cause for concern that we're paying closer attention to the former than the latter. Mackensen (talk) 04:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

(Outdent) If acting against consensus on AfD or DRV, why not seek the opinions of other sysops on WP:AN or consultation at WP:BLP/N? If other sysops or BLP watchers cannot form a consensus to support against those results, why not use the standard channels that the Foundation has for BLP concerns? I'm not a major process wonk, but there's no reason to short-circuit discussion or ignore existing means of resolving the issue. There's already a solution to respecting BLP and the community's right to consensus, and it already holds BLP and libel concerns above consensus. Vassyana 05:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

wheel war definition
I believe that the ArbCom should examine whether or not repeated "speedy closings" of discussions, especially when other discussions have reached different results, constitute a wheel warreached different results, constitute a wheel war.
 * Hmm... no, that's editwar :P. Wheel war is repeated undiscussed reverting of administrativeactions. Closing a discussion doesn't make use of the sysop tools. -- drini [meta:][commons:] 17:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Technically no, but closing discussions (except uncontroversial ones) is an action reserved to sysops, even if it doesn't use the sysop tools per se, and any decision involving deletion or undeletion involves that particular sysop tool anyway. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Closing a discussion often does involve use of admin tools (for example, closing an XfD as "delete" or a DRV as "restore".) There are reasons non-admins are only allowed to close discussions with certain results-only an admin can perform deletion or undeletion if that's the result. It seems to me disingenuous to claim that because you were "closing a discussion" (that had only been open a few hours, and hadn't reached anything like a definitive result), you weren't wheel warring. (We're not talking about legitimate closures after appropriate lengths here, obviously if a DRV's consensus is to overturn after it runs its course you're not engaging in wheel-warring by closing it as such.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I did not wheel war, as I did not evert any other admin, whereas my actions were reverted on the act without discussion yet I didn't redid it again, as I wasn't going to revert the reversion -- drini [meta:][commons:] 22:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Experienced non-admins close discussions. Admin powers are not required because you can always get an admin to perform the necessary action. --Tony Sidaway 14:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, it is not wheel warring, but it is very bad editing practice for an admin, or a regular editor for that matter. ( H )  14:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Wheel warring is the repeated reversal of actions requiring elevated privileges - block/unblock, delete/undelete, protect/unprotect. Anything else is just garden-variety warring.  The longer someone has been around the project the more likely they are to have the sysop bit, so arguments between long-established editors are just that: arguments between long-established editors.  They don't happen very often, because things like this don't usually end up being process-wonked, mostly people with the Clue bit have are fundamentally on the same wavelength in respect of this kind of thing. Guy (Help!) 15:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Process wonking is trying to get a closure you completely agree with reversed because some process wasn't followed. That is silly. What's actually happening is that people are trying to get closures they don't agree with reversed. That's called "Admins don't get to decide things and then cut off discussion". -Amarkov moo! 15:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration on user's beliefs?
"Quite simply, when certain users think you should have been blocked months ago when you've done nothing wrong or improper, it does not make for a useful editing situation." - jeff.
 * Well, unless those users act upon those beliefs, there's not much to arbiter about that, unless you want an RFAR about the thoughts people hold on their heads. -- drini [meta:][commons:] 16:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Why, exactly, do you think I got blocked? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Because one idiot pressed a block button.--Docg 16:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Because one administrator who used poor judgment in a particular situation pressed a block button. Let's stop calling each other names (although I am sure that one was meant affectionately :) ). Newyorkbrad 16:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Bzzt, wrong. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, then, what's your theory? Newyorkbrad 16:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)Then why were you blocked, then? You seem to know the answer already. Sean William 16:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Because three people were successfully able to convince one other person to block me solely because they believed I was disruptive at one point (incorrect) or that, to quote one person, because I "should have been blocked months ago." Four admins with little in the way of encyclopedic edits to their name in 2007 deciding, with nothing in the way of evidence or self-examination, that I was better off blocked.  You were there, Sean, you know all this already. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you check your e-mail, Brad? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and will respond via e-mail later. Newyorkbrad 16:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Who pressed the button, Jeff? Sean William 16:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Who conspired with him, Sean? Do you know the answer to that?  Because I think you do. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a soul. "Conspiracy" and "consultation" are two completely different concepts. If you've read the logs, which I'm sure you've done by now, you'll realize that the debate wasn't on "how" to do it. It was on "if" to do it. And in the end, it was one person's call to press the button or walk away. Sean William 16:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, really. Very cute. And yes, I've read the logs - it was how.  It was three users describing why, how to phrase the message, and possible repurcussions.  Let's not be coy here - it was not "consultation" in any sense of the word. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Then you'd rather believe it's a conspiracy? Sean William 17:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The evidence seems to suggest it, so I tend to go with that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Jeff, please bring your grievance with specific users into dispute resolution. Don't make things worse by just nursing the grievance. --Tony Sidaway 17:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Tony, politely step away. I have brought this to dispute resolution, it's right there in the case.  This is exactly the venue to approach this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know Doc has brought a case against you over your earlier behavior. I'm suggesting that you take the other issue, the one you're complaining about now, to arbitration, rather than just making rather toxic allegations. --Tony Sidaway 17:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom space is the right venue to address the grievous abuse by IRC admins. It was addressed here in the past, past ArbCom actions curbed IRC-related abuse and, thankfully, significantly reduced the influence of IRC-club over Wikipedia that was at its height mid-last year. As we have seen, those measures helped only partially and ArbCom is the right place to discuss further steps that needs to be taken to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia. --Irpen 17:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Geogre and I have been kicking this around in his userspace but let me raise the question here. If I understand Irpen and Jeff right (and please correct me if I'm wrong), you're advocating that arbcom sanction users for advocating a point of view/action in an off-wiki location. Yes? Mackensen (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * For my own part, if Jeff has a grievance, supported by evidence, about conspiracy to dole out unjustified blocks, the arbitration committee should consider it. I'd like to persuade him to bring the case, which is relatively clear cut, separately from the BLP/DRV stuff which seems to be resolving itself quite nicely now that much of the interpersonal bickering has been lanced by the shock over the recent block, and the close of the Crystal Gail Mangum deletion review has done much to clarify the power of the Biographies of living persons policy.  --Tony Sidaway 17:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What I understand, is that arbcom should sanction users for believing something and speaking their minds. Even if they never act on it. So, instead of deciding on user actions (X does Y, then X gets responsible for Y), users should get punished for their beliefs (Z believes Y, X does Y, Z is to blame). -- drini [meta:][commons:] 17:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Tony, again, nothing is resolving nicely at all. If ArbCom denies the case, the problem persists because nothing is answered.  The Crystal Gail Magnum review had a disruptive closure, and I have half a mind to introduce it in the current situation, since it's got a tangentical relationship. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Mack I think what he is advocating is that off wiki conversations which later result in on wiki acts are subject to sanction. For example if me and a friend of mine have a conversation in England about murdering someone in the state of New Mexico, New Mexico can't do anything.  If my friend actually commits the murder then I'm guilty of conspiracy in the New Mexico murder and New Mexico can indict even though there was no act inside New Mexico that I was involved which that was criminal.
 * I think the same analogy applies here. Jeff is asserting (and to be clear I haven't seen any evidence so I have no knowledge way or the other regarding the truth of the assertion) that on IRC a conspiracy emerged to perform an illicit block.  I think that is fairly typical of IRC related issues on wikipedia.   jbolden1517Talk  17:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm advocating that ArbCom sanction administrators for coordinating inappropriate blocks off-wiki. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you raise a tricky set of issues. It's one thing for ArbCom to find that Zsinj made a bad block, and that he based that block on an off-wiki discussion (by his own admission). That's all stuff that happened here. (Pretend from here on out that I'm using the subjunctive). You're asking arbcom to go in a new direction, without precedent and not grounded in any policy. If there was a conspiracy to block you, the evidence is a log transcript (one that I still haven't received) that contains cross-currents of conversation. Arbitrators will have to decide from that transcript whether there is idle banter, hope-dreams, or a conspiracy. This would constitute a dramatic expansion of the power of the Arbitration Committee by giving it the power to issue rulings based entirely on things said and done off-wiki. That, to my mind, is what you're asking for. (Subjunctive usage ends). If I've misunderstood you then please correct me, but it seems to me that this is where your request leads. Mackensen (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't really true. In the arbcom case in my name, one editor was banned based on information concluding that they had posted attacks against myself and others at other websites.--MONGO 19:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Mackensen, if you're on the ArbCom mailing list, you've received it. That's where I sent it.  I don't think this is nearly as expansive as you make it out to be - if these conversations happened on AN/I, something would have happened already.  If four people, in a back and forth, discussed the pros and cons of blocking someone who'd done nothing to deserve it, crafted a block message together, and then one of them pulled the trigger, there'd be hell to pay.  Because this discussion happened on IRC, it becomes somehow different?  I've gotten the logs from two separate people, one anonymous and one not, and they're both exactly the same, and ArbCom has them.  They were able to punt during the Giano mess, I don't think punting here is realistic. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone looked into tools that keep a history? That way, there's never room for disagreement about who said what. I know, maybe we could use a wiki. Friday (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Friday, we've already got logs of who said what. Sean William 18:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Diffs please. Or do I need to know the secret handshake?  Friday (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd love to see them too, actually. Mackensen (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If Jeff could be persuaded to decouple one issue from another, I think it would help the Committee. I'm not convinced on whether arbcom would accept a case based on his log evidence of a purported conspiracy, but it would be the fair way to try to have his grievances redressed.  But what I actually said, and perhaps Jeff and others didn't pick up on this, was that Jeff should bring his grievance with specific users "into dispute resolution."  While I meant here primarily arbitration, there are other forms of dispute resolution.  Here I would suggest that Jeff approach those who he thinks have conspired, and ask them to enter mediation with a view to resolving this without it turning into a festering sore. --Tony Sidaway 18:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't go into mediation with people who, and I quote, feel I "should have been blocked months ago." That's a gross assertion of bad faith that need not be addressed any further.  ArbCom is the place to deal with gross misconduct like this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Mediation is a personal choice and of course you shouldn't go into mediation with people you don't feel you can trust on some basic level, so I sympathise. On the other hand, it looks like the arbitrators aren't interested in it.  How about dialog on their talk pages, and followed by RFC if this is unfruitful?  There isn't a lot else left in the dispute resolution toolkit, really, if arbitration and mediation are out of the question.  --Tony Sidaway 18:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * RfC is a demonstrated waste of time. Given the pack of lies being trotted out here without examination, I'm not shocked the ArbCom is shaky on this one - one decliner based his declination on a falsehood, a second simply because it was similar to what was presented over last weekend, and the third based on Newyorkbrad's statement, where I've since talked with him and I'm hoping he reconsiders.  On the contrary, it's in their best interests to accept this case, because it's either they'll be stuck with it now, or stuck with it later. The issues aren't going away, as much as you'd love to see it happen. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * One possible avenue I'd forgotten, sorry: take your case directly to Jimmy Wales. Worth considering, given the gravity of your allegations. --Tony Sidaway 20:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If the arbs refuse to take the case against Jeff and the DRV clowns, I will appeal personally to Jimbo.--Docg 20:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd love that, but that works under the assumption that Jimbo actually cares about what goes on here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh lord, please save us from whatever both Doc Glasgow and Badlydrawnjeff agree on... :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure I just saw a horse go by. Friday (talk) 20:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It sure is cold in here all of a sudden. --Tony Sidaway 20:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If this conspiracy is real then the conspirators' plan was about as clueful as that of the proverbial underpants gnomes. A block like that had no chance in hell of sticking, and it was reverted in under half an hour. It was either a (so far non-recurring) error of judgement by one person, or in the conspiracy version, a (so far non-recurring) error of judgement by several people. It plays out about the same either way, and a full-blown arb case over it is ludicrous. Arbcom might remind admins to be more careful about such blocks, and someone could possibly update WP:BLOCK to address this stuff more explicitly, but errors like this will always happen and I don't think going berserk over them will do much good. 75.62.6.237 05:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC) (shortened 02:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

Lawyers
Just a quick one, since when did arbitration turn into a court with the need for lawyers to represent the accused?  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  22:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A skillful advocate makes a big difference in any such situation (Not that we have ever seen one show up) Fred Bauder 21:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It never did. 's "status" as 's advocate is not, in fact, a status at all. There are arbitrators, there are clerks/clerk helpers, there are parties, and then there's everybody else, and Chovain is in the last category. What he calls himself/what role he serves is up to him and him alone. Picaroon (Talk) 22:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It just seems to be turning the whole process a bit bureaucratic that's all.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  22:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * He's welcome to it, but he'll need buy-in from the arbitrators. Mackensen (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Turning it bureaucratic? Yeah, just like grass turns green! (Hey, clerk helpers can have opinions too.) But seriously, I don't think this is actively making the process more bureaucratic, because the role is completely unofficial - in other words, advocates do not exist. I see nothing about advocates having an official role of their own in the arbitration policy, and until there is something there, the recurring (remember the AMA?) role of advocates is not instruction creep to worry about. Picaroon (Talk) 23:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I just don't get why users should have other people representing their case for them, everyone can edit the workshop/evidence pages - if users have particular issues with something that's been said, then they can speak up there - no need for someone to be "officially" campaigning on their behalf. I think it's time for a cup of tea....... :-)  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  23:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, just to clarify, I'm not taking a stab at the arbs or clerks/helpers - you guys do a great job keeping everything in order enough of the sucking up!  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  23:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hang all lawyers. That's a start.--Docg 23:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I sure think Newyorkbrad and Fred Bauder would appreciate that. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hang all lawyers, suspend laptop from the gallows so Fred Bauder and Newyorkbrad can continue their excellent work here? Look ma, I'm compromising! --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think appointing some users a 'Champion' would be wise, even if it's an almost totally informal position with no powers or perks. It's possible to contribute to Wikipedia even if someone's not fluent in English, but arguing an ArbCom case requires professional-level English skills. If someone's not a native English speaker, they're at a significant disadvantage. Anyone considered trying to create a consistent pool of volunteers? Chris Croy 06:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Arbcom is not like court where the eloquence of the lawyers' arguments can sway the jury and people need to hire professionals who are skilled in speaking to the courtroom. Arbcom cases hinge on cold, hard evidence of incivility, edit-warring and disruption. You don't need to be fluent in English to be incivil or disruptive, equally you don't need to be fluent in English to present evidence in an Arbcom case. I don't think you could point to a single Arbcom case where someone was sanctioned due to their poor English ability. --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * One of the stated purposed of the WP:AMA was to act as advocates in arbitration cases. There are some discussions about this in the archives of this talk page somewhere.  Ultimately it made little impact one way or the other. Thatcher131 12:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Advocates are useful in an adversarial system, but arbitration here on Wikipedia is more akin to an inquisitorial system. Useful roles in such a system include helping the arbitrators manage the material before them (clerks), and giving advice about how the system works to people involved with a case (which the AMA never was, but what it probably should have been). --bainer (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Advocates exist in inquisitoral systems too. Lawyers are just people who know about the law (the black letter law - what the law actually is - and legal procedure - how to navigate your way through legal processes).  If lawyers did not exist, we would have to invent them. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Which is not to say that Wikipedia in general, and ArbCom in particular, needs lawyers - at least, not outside the ones who are busy writing articles in the few spare moments between advising their clients. Rules lawyering is bad form in any social context. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Lawyers for the accused date back to the dawn of arbitration, when WP:AMA was created in protest against the committee. It was stunningly ineffective, due in a large part to the fact that it was populated by users who probably should have gone before arbcom themselves. When I stopped actively raising cases at arbcom AMA had never actually successfully defended anyone, as they tended to work entirely by rules-lawyering. I have no idea as to their current status, however. Phil Sandifer 15:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I see nothing wrong with individuals assisting parties to ArbCom cases prepare and present evidence. Some editors have the ability to write clearly and concisely, some...well, not so much.  Some people may well be intimidated by the policy acronyms being thrown about; some may even be intimidated by the concept of diffs.  If a Good Samaritan wants to help out in such cases, there's no harm, and there may be much good.


 * On the other hand, I see such people as facilitators, or advisors, or even (dare I say it?) editors. Should they cross the line into being advocates, representatives, PR flacks, or (ugh) lawyers, then they've missed entirely the purpose of an ArbCom case.  Once they start thinking in terms of attorney-client privilege, narrow letter-of-the-law interpretations, rules of evidence, or even 'innocent until proven guilty', they're no longer useful to the process, and in fact are likely to do much harm.  The problem with the AMA was that they tended more to the latter and did little of the former.  As has already been noted, parties to an ArbCom case should be welcome to seek the assistance of other editors is preparing evidence and presenting their side of the case.  These assistants to the parties should not be (and have no need to be) granted any sort of special status; they are simply interested third parties as free to participate as any other Wikipedian. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Lawyers, hah! I have a better idea. Replace the arbitration committee, for each case, with randomly selected jurors. — freak([ talk]) 17:12, May. 23, 2007 (UTC)
 * The trouble there is, we don't have any type of coercive process to require any people selected as such to serve, nor do I see how one could really be put into place. That way, you might well get people who happen to have some interest in the case selected and agreeing to do so, and everyone else saying "Eh. Don't care." Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup, we're all volunteers, nobody can be compelled to do anything. But what if the Foundation paid jurors to spend time considering a case?  --Interiot 19:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That will be a huge amount of bureaucracy. How about this, let all users who are interested in being jurors form a big group, then whenever a case is brought up a few jurors are selected from that big pool. Anyone agree/disagree? WooyiTalk to me? 20:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Newyorkbrad 20:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ...and the reason is? WooyiTalk to me? 21:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * See, you are becoming lawyerly yourself, with the follow-up questions. 
 * The arbitrators are chosen as editors who have a high degree of community trust to dig through evidence, some of which can be highly confidential, and make important decisions that other editors are expected to respect. The system we have is not perfect, but I do not believe that replacing it with ad hoc groups of self-selected or random editors is a viable alternative. What is your rationale for prefering such a system? Newyorkbrad 21:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The lottery-selected quasi-jury system would counter the "cabal" argument of many editors, I think. WooyiTalk to me? 21:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What about the quality and fairness of the system? Mackensen (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Those are luxuries which the arbitration process lacks even now. Russian roulette would be a step up from Polish roulette. — freak([ talk]) 19:39, May. 24, 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with lottery-chosen jury. The important cases are the tough ones, and in my experience, amateurs, are, frankly, usually not able to understand the issues or do the necessary research for the tough ones. I've participated in one Mediation Cabal case in my time, and got this: Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-12-19_Zoe_and_badlydrawnjeff - start with the discussion section, then read the mediator's proposed decision. While well intentioned, the mediator basically missed the boat, and the parties involved were basically left asking themselves what happened. I have also been involved in one Arbitration Committee case. Compare Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand/Workshop - written by well meaning amateurs - to Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand/Proposed_decision, written by arbitrators. The first is all over the place, the second is a detailed, reasoned, well argued decision - even if you disagree with the conclusion, you have to admire the steps, the decision is built like a dry stone wall. We elect these folks from the best of the best, and they do a very thorough job. They're not easily replaced by a lottery-selected jury. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There are good reasons why we hold advisory elections for Arbcom. Replacing Arbcom with a rotating pool of short-time volunteers with no vetting would be a nightmare (not to mention a horror for the clerks). Thatcher131 21:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And arbitrators are far more than just a jury; they set principles, analyse evidence to draw conclusions, and pass binding remedies. As such, replacing them by a randomly-selected group of users would be unworkable.Trebor 21:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure myself have strong reservation about making changes to the ArbCom system, the jury thing I said was only an alternative to a previous unworkable jury idea. WooyiTalk to me? 21:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

In case no one has said it yet, Wikipedia has no lawyers because Wikipedia has no laws. If you're coming from the assumption that Wikipedia policies are some set of binding, enforceable, immutable rules of conduct, you aren't likely to be very effective; the AMA has never been very effective, if you catch my drift. Wikipedia policies are descriptive of good judgment in general, not prescriptive suicide pacts. Dmcdevit·t 22:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Some wikipedia policies are pretty clearly binding and enforceable rules of conduct, and a few seem pretty close to immutable. Edit in defiance of WP:NPOV and your edits will be reverted, and you will be blocked or banned. Break the WP:3RR, and a block is almost certain to follow. Insert WP:SPAM, and it will be removed, and a block is likely if you persist. Vandalize persistently, and get blocked. Make a Legal threat, fail to withdraw it, and get blocked. Make personal attacks persistently, and a block is likely. Blatantly abuse the admin tools, for example by persistently wheel-warning, or issuing clearly unjustified blocks, or blocking to gain advantage in a content dispute, or editing protected pages during a dispute, etc, and get desysoped. All these are pretty clearly enforceable rules of conduct, although their enforcement is normally done with judgment, not in a robot-like manner. Other policies and guidelines have more room for judgment in their application, and we rarely cut off anyone's head for a first offense (but then many "real" legal systems don't do that either). It is not always clear which policies are inflexible and enforceable -- two documents both marked "policy" may be treated rather differently by the arbcom. And we do tend to look at the spirit of the policy involved as much as the letter of the policy document, in some cases perhaps too much so. But some policy documents get enforced pretty much to the letter, at least after warning. DES (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like a lot of people don't realize (or wish to accept) that the ArbCom process is, in fact, a rudimentary legal system (and I don't think there's any reason to panic about that.) As pointed out above, there are some enforceable rules; there are simple rules of evidence (basically, "show diffs" which is all that is really required under the circumstances); there are numerous "due process" rights (right to be informed of the accusation against you; right to see and confront the witnesses and evidence against you; right to present evidence and arguments in your defense (though not the right to remain silent, since I assume the arbs can and do draw adverse inferences from an "accused" party's decision to say nothing); and (based on my reading of several decisions) general acceptance of the principle that if there was a genuine question about what a rule was, a person should not be sanctioned (at least not severely) for violating it.)  Now, a lot of these are just common sense and fair play, so maybe the problem is that a lot of people have come to believe that "law" and "common sense and fair play" have become mutually exclusive, which unfortunately can be the case sometimes, but it's not supposed to be that way. Oh, and at the end of the process there can be sanctions for breaking the rules. While I seem to have read something about how blocks and bans are not supposed to be "punishment", if you take into account all of the classic purposes of a penal system (retribution, separation of offender from "society" for a period of time when necessary, deterrence of offender and others, and rehabilitation), the bans and blocks handed out by the ArbCom certainly fall in there somewhere. And, as probably will come as no surprise by now, I don't think there is anything wrong with allowing an editor choosing another editor (particular a less experienced editor to choose a more experienced one) to advocate on his/her behalf, and the ArbCom listening to the advocate. (I fear I have probably revealed what my profession is, but so be it.) 6SJ7 21:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Many of those aspects resemble - or at least have parallels in - a formal system of law, but it may be better to think of them as social rules and guidelines that help us get along and write the encyclopedia. Most of the points that bring out about are identifiable as basic principles of natural justice (the "accused"'s right to be informed of a charge against them; the right to be heard; nemo judex; audi alterem; etc) and basic procedural rules to make it all work.  -- ALoan (Talk) 12:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see the distinction. The "social rules and guidelines that help us get along and write the encyclopedia", including the details of how disputes are to be resolved, are based on our collective understanding of how societies in general function and resolve disputes, of which law (and concepts of justice) are a part.  It's all part of the same thing.  6SJ7 18:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Section break
It interesting that when I didn't answer Ryan's original bait with, "An advocate is just like a lawyer," he took another more direct shot at it. Although I spent considerable time taking the question as a good faith attempt to understand what I feel the role of an advocate is, he choose not to debate or discuss it with me, but instead to reject it outright, asking the community why "lawyers" are necessary in this process. Why not link to that, Ryan? Was it not the words you were hoping I would use?

Here's why PR needs a "lawyer", as Ryan insists we call me:
 * I'd like to point to Ryan's first link. When this RfArb started, you may recall that PR had just come out of an absolutely atrocious CSN discussion where those who disagreed with his personal views tried to hang him for something he didn't do.  He made it clear he believed everyone's minds were already made up, and saw little point in taking part in the process.  I explained the process to PR offline, and convinced him that the process could in fact be fair.
 * PR needed some sort of "privileged editor" to be able to survive this process under the block he should never have been given. Even administrators threw in the line, "He can only edit the RfArb.  If he needs to make any other edits, he can ask his advocate to do it for him".  I'd like to point out that I did not take on this role to pass notes between editors.
 * While Ryan did propose the motion to unblock PR, nothing happened. PR wasn't able to argue his case, and everyone else seemed content with the convenience of the status quo.  Without my concerted (and perhaps irritating) attempts to get that block lifted, he wouldn't be editing today.  I think there's a name for it when you take a stand on someone's behalf when they're unable to do so themselves.  The term seems to have slipped my mind though.  Any chance you can help me out, Ryan?

While it's no-one's business what goes on in the off-wiki emails, people need to understand that PR and I will tend to present a common face. It's not because I'm his lackey; it's because we've already discussed and debated the issues, and reached some kind of common ground. We could've done this anyway, but by announcing myself as his advocate is much more transparent.

I think the real issue here is that a lot of people have the shits that this RfArb wasn't a cut and dried case of "ban the evil editor, get on with our lives". The issue here is not PR; it's the way PR has been treated, and continues to be treated. The issue isn't "the lawyer who's sticking up for the guilty guy"; it's that hard-to-swallow facts that are becoming clear.

Ryan: You claim that my presence here is making things more bureaucratic. Can you please explain or quantify that in some way? Or am I behaving too much like a lawyer again?

We could always remove all the processes here that resemble a legal system. Let's do away with evidence completely. We can just always settle dipsutes via CSN discussions, and have the good guy always victorious over the villians. Mark Chovain 15:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Out of process BLP deletions
Keep in mind that we have a former arbitrator who's now wheel warring over a deletion, erroneously citing BLP, following an out of process closure that fails to reflect deletion policy, BLP policy, or consensus. Is ArbCom going to step up to the plate or not? This is all related.--Badlydrawnjeff 01:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It never does, does it? Who's DavidGerard wheel-warring with, incidentally? Mackensen (talk) 02:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "Why this is Jeffopedia, nor am I Out of it." --Tony Sidaway 02:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If by "jeffopedia," you mean "wikipedia," I suppose. --Badlydrawnjeff 02:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You might suppose. --Tony Sidaway 02:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, two things. Tony, stop trolling Jeff. It was funny the first time and we all get the point. Jeff, actually answer the question. Who is DavidGerard wheel-warring with? Mackensen (talk) 02:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, Mack, I give up. I'm trying to apply clue here, but if others have failed I don't suppose I might succeed. --Tony Sidaway 03:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a fairly long list of things here. Granted, he's not the only guilty party. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Jeff, wheel-warring is strictly-defined concept and not a generic term of abuse. I don't expect you to accept any DRV that got closed earlier than you think is right, and which upheld a version of BLP stricter than yours, but wheel-warring? Mackensen (talk) 03:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * See below. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 17:00, 25 May 2007 David Gerard (Talk | contribs) deleted "Crystal Gail Mangum" (Amarkov is playing silly buggers here.)
 * 14:03, 25 May 2007 Phil Sandifer (Talk | contribs) restored "Crystal Gail Mangum" (772 revisions restored: Restoring non-GPA edits.)
 * Three hours after the article was restored, it was deleted. Did something happen between those three hours to make this not a wheel war?  SchmuckyTheCat 03:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you asserting that PhilSandifer and DavidGerard are wheel-warring with each other? I think they'd both be surprised to learn that. Mackensen (talk) 03:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What I see in the interim is Amarkov reverting the redirection--probably what prompted David to zap the edit history. Mackensen (talk) 03:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not asserting anything. I'm not following this in the detail necessary to make sense of it all.  The only context I'm bringing out is the log that was pointed to with a three hour diff of restore and delete.  So what happened between those three hours, or why was it selectively restored? SchmuckyTheCat 03:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Here, let's talk about the article history:


 * 19:33, 25 May 2007 . . Amarkov (Talk | contribs | block) (56 bytes) (yep,)
 * 19:32, 25 May 2007 . . Amarkov (Talk | contribs | block) (14,906 bytes) (attempting to revert back to earlier version to see if protection is broken for some reason)
 * 11:02, 25 May 2007 . . Moreschi (Talk | contribs | block) (Protected Crystal Gail Mangum: Protected redirect, BLP and DRV closure [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
 * 11:01, 25 May 2007 . . Moreschi (Talk | contribs | block) (56 bytes) (Redirect)

This is all well and good, except that further up we have these edits:


 * 19:59, 25 May 2007 . . Amarkov (Talk | contribs | block) (13,859 bytes) (Criminal history and psychological problems - the citation here is broken, and it's not really relevant anyway)
 * 19:58, 25 May 2007 . . Amarkov (Talk | contribs | block) (14,246 bytes) (Criminal history and credibility - some rewording to be more neutral)
 * 19:56, 25 May 2007 . . Amarkov (Talk | contribs | block) (14,223 bytes) (Undid revision 133530796 by Amarkov (talk) - meep, only read one page of that reference)
 * 19:54, 25 May 2007 . . Amarkov (Talk | contribs | block) (13,575 bytes) (Criminal history and credibility - and the reference for the first part of this is broken)
 * 19:52, 25 May 2007 . . Amarkov (Talk | contribs | block) (14,255 bytes) (Criminal history and credibility - these sentences aren't supported by the reference given)

I don't think we need these edits to puzzle out the protection issues–seems clear enough to me that Amarkov is ignoring the DRV result (which was to redirect). That's what's occuring between Phil's restore (which removed personal information, in his judgement) and David's deletion. Mackensen (talk) 03:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that the DRV result was invalid on a number of levels, and cannot be binding (as merge/redirect is an editorial decision, Gerard's action was blatantly improper - he fully deleted an article taht was not supposed to be fully deleted. The DRV decision was to OVERTURN his deletion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The DRV decision was to overturn his deletion and restore a redirect. I notice the redirect is there. If we're free to ignore any DRV result that we don't like we might as well abolish DRV altogether as it has lost all meaning. Your dispute is with Mangojuice, methinks. Mackensen (talk) 03:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have a beef with Mangojuice on this one as well. But the article is still deleted, and David Gerard has gone specifically against that decision.  That's the problem here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, Amarkov went against it, by reverting the redirect and editing the article. He's only one thread up; having him pop down to explain himself might be helpful. David has hewed to the spirit of the decision as much as possible--we have a redirect and the subject is discussed in the main article. Admittedly, we don't 800 deleted edits of a one-sided biography, but perhaps we can't have nice things. Mackensen (talk) 03:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, Amarkov made an editorial decision, which is perfectly legitimate. The redirect, after all, is simply an editorial decision.  Gerard has gone specifically against the DRV closure.  You seem to miss that point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think not. Amarkov's welcome to make an editorial decision, but when a whole host of people at DRV indicate a preference for a redirect, he's basically saying he's right when everybody else is wrong. What you're saying, Jeff, is that we're free to make 'editorial decisions' and ignore what's said by the community at DRV and elsewhere if we know we're right and everybody else is wrong. Gerard has not gone against the DRV closure--but if the DRV closure is illegitimate, why do you even care? Which is it? Mackensen (talk) 03:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * According to the closing admin, redirecting was an editorial decision and the protection was no more than ordinary protection against edit warring. Closing the DRV early arguably was illegitimate, and regardless Gerard did violate it by deleting again. The way, the truth, and the light 03:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I'm sorry, you can't have it both ways. If the DRV was illegitimate then it can't be binding. Ask Jeff, he'll tell you that. Mackensen (talk) 03:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And a whole host of people were not in favor of a redirect, as well. Besides that, we don't have any real idea of the consensus thanks to the disruptive closure, so... --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't bloody reverse the redirect. I simply edited what was there. Are we quite done blasting me for something I didn't do? Sorry for the tone, but I already discussed this once before. -Amarkov moo! 03:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you're right, it was the fellow just above you here. My apologies for the mistake--and sorry no one else above caught it either. That doesn't change the overall situation. Mackensen (talk) 04:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The overall situation is indeed the same. But it's still not clear why the edit history had to be deleted, instead of just protecting the article as was originally intended. -Amarkov moo! 04:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me that what happened here is that my deletion and undeletion broke the protection on the redirect for some reason, at which point the article got revived. Upon seeing that, David, rather than restoring the redirect, nuked the history and restored the redirect. This strikes me as no loss - if the article was problematic for BLP reasons, we oughtn't keep the BLP-violating history around. I removed some of the worst revisions on this front, but there's good reason to remove the rest. Phil Sandifer 14:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that not everyone agreed it was a BLP violation. There was substantial agreement that a redirect should be there instead of an entire article, but not because of BLP reasons. -Amarkov moo! 15:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you think it wasn't a Biographies of living persons issue, take it to dispute resolution. --Tony Sidaway 19:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, no, the proper venue for reviewing if a deletion was valid is DRV. Where most people agreed that this was not a BLP issue. -Amarkov moo! 19:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Now if only most people demonstrated a comprehension of BLP before agreeing that. Phil Sandifer 19:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're going to dismiss people who disagree with you by saying that they don't comprehend the policy, what would be the point of pretending you care what others think about BLP issues? -Amarkov moo! 20:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Since the badlydrawnjeff dispute is over whether jeff has engaged in bad behavior, I'm planning to open a separate RFAr on whether deletion policy is being abused and/or ignored. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Tell me when you have. Viridae Talk 03:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know about that. Most of the comments in the current one include the wider issues, and 3 of the arbitrators have said they will consider them - but 3 have said they wouldn't. Having two requests pending at the same time could just confuse things. The way, the truth, and the light 03:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I want to keep it narrow, though. This one is missing the point by focusing on jeff, and if it addresses the deletion issues it will only do so tangentially.  Even if they get merged down the line, I think it'd be best to have a separate, sharply delineated case. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Trying again and again to get something, that sounds familiar! Kidding, kidding. Anyways, so you've established a slight difference from the badlydrawnjeff case. Now, how would the case you propose be different than the QZ deletion dispute case? Why would the arbitrators accept this case, and not that one? Picaroon (Talk) 03:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it's not limited to a single deletion, and it's not about content. Several administrators have acted with blatant disregard for policy or process in deleting articles, referring to anyone who pointed out that they were deleting articles that didn't match a speedy criteria as engaging in process wonkery, and speaking with contempt for drv and afd, saying dispute resolution is the only recourse.  So here we are. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Night Gyr, do please engage in dispute resolution, whether by RFC or arbitration or something else. I've been asking several parties in this dispute to do this, but you're the first one to have expressed any interest in resolving this. --Tony Sidaway 06:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I do want to resolve this, as I said to Doc. However I do not have the time at th moemnt - because I stoped to answer a comment a couple of hours ago I nearly missed my train. 06:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The first step in dispute resolution is discussion, and it's a very bad sign that you and other parties have essentially ruled out any venue other than rfcs or arbitration as appropriate forums for discussion. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No not at all. If you want to resolve things the first place to go is talk pages.  But here you are banging on about "Several administrators have acted with blatant disregard for policy or process in deleting articles, referring to anyone who pointed out that they were deleting articles that didn't match a speedy criteria as engaging in process wonkery, and speaking with contempt for drv and afd" on the talk page of Requests for arbitration, the kind of activity that isn't really going to resolve anything, and rather simply makes for more antagonism and worse feelings.  The last thing we need at this time.  So please, if you have time to go around undeleting deleted articles, attacking your fellow administrators and whatnot, please spend some of that spare time and energy trying to resolve your differences constructively.  --Tony Sidaway 06:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you noticed all the places I've gone around asking the people doing deletions where policy says what they're claiming it to? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Badlydrawnjeff - scope
Thatcher131 states "the clerks will list as involved parties those editors who deleted, undeleted, or listed or closed AfD and DRV discussions". Now, I filled a RfC with a very limited focus on the continuing behaviour of one user - not on the deletion process itself, nor on a string of past acts. I recognise in filing the case, it is legitimate for any of my own acts to be scrutinised. I also recognise the right of arbcom to broaden this case out if and as they see fit - I have no right to determine the scope. Arbcom must do as it sees fit. But it seems to me that neither the clerks nor other commentators who want to focus on other things have the right to force arbcom's hands. Perhaps arbs, if they are accepting this, should indicate their desired scope.--Docg 18:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope so too. The arbitrators are generally not shy in telling us what to do.  However, there is a distinction to be made between the focus, to use your word, and the parties.  While you have filed a case focusing on Jeff's actions, he may very well want to cite certain other actions (such as AfD and DRV closures) in his defense.  Those admins may be "parties to the dispute" even if they are ultimately not brought into the proposed remedies.  On the other hand, editors who have an opinion on the matter but who have not been actively in conflict over the various AfD and DRV processes are free to comment, but they are certainly not "parties to the dispute." Thatcher131 18:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I think we agree that if arbcom accept this, it would be helpful if they set the terms of reference.--Docg 18:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This will be my only statement on this specific matter, but I'm not sure what the focus on me is for except as a furthering of the general tenor of what I've had to put up with. If disagreeing with administrators is a Wiki-crime, then I'm guilty as charged. If requesting DRVs of out of process deletions (even if they're closed early (see: Brandt wheel war decision)) is a crime, lock me up. If finding RfC to be a farce is an actionable offense, I own up to it. But (I hope) we all realize the true scope of this, and it goes beyond any individual's actions. When I brought this up over the weekend, I was very careful and cognizant in not implicating any specific person over another (although I did miss people along the way). This presentation, in comparison, gives the appearance of wanting to avoid the issues that are causing the dispute in an attempt to finally put a thorn in people's sides to rest. Doc glasgow has generally given me a fair shake, historically, and if that was his intent, I'm very discouraged, but I wouldn't be surprised if I'm misreading it - if I am misreading it, I won't be the only one to do so, and that can easily be rectified. So ArbCom can focus, name, do whatever they want with this case, obviously, but let's be realistic about it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I still want to give you a fair shake. Indeed I've said that as much as many administrators (indeed most of the community) do not share your extreme views on inclusionism or process, they are legitimate views and indeed often a necessary corrective. It isn't even as if I always disagree with you in specific cases, either. However, a fair shake is one thing - shake it too much and you can break it. There comes a time where your stubborn refusal to let things lie is disruptive. There comes a point where playing games with a BLP is unacceptable. There was a debate, the community spoke, a sane admin closed the afd as delete. Even you have admitted the truth of that. The rest of this is because people wanted another go, and another go, and another go - until they got it right. Now, if this was a webcomic or a nursery school on the fringes of notability, I'd shrug, and let you play the process game and until we settled it - or until someone won the war of attrition. But this is a real person, and we're having this argument about them in a public forum. There is a time to say - STOP - BNO - ENOUGH. We don't case if process 45b3a hasn't been followed - we don't care what the arithmetic is - we don't care how many Goggle hits it has - we are an encyclopedia - we let this be. No wars of attrition. The problem is that you don't seem to realise when we have reached that point.--Docg 18:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll only say that I still think you have the timeline wrong. People didn't want "another go, and another go, and another go" - they wanted the one go they were entitled to once the DRV overturned the original closure.  If that one AfD ran all the way through, would we even be talking about this?  Really?  This isn't the "form 45b3a" nonsense du jour, this is simple respect for your fellow editors who ultimately want the same thing - a good, comprehensive encyclopedia. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But you are still at it - demanding that process be followed here (and a selectively chosen process at that since you focus on one particular DRV instead of the valid Afd before it). BLPs are not footballs for process. And particularly not when you are insisting you'll keep coming to DRV until you get the right answer.--Docg 19:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Definitely - I'm still at this because the process (and I'm not selectively choosing, I'm recognizing that the process issues started with the improper closing of AfD 2). And I have not once insisted I'd come to DRV until I get the right answer.  That is a misinterpretation of what I've actually said.  I want a resolution, plain and simple. It's gotten to this point due to the consistent denials allowing such resolution, and not by me, and if it were by me, not by myself acting alone.   --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever jeff's view may be, it is my view that the close by Drini was not a valid close, on several grounds (which i argued in the first DRV discussion) and that the overturn of it by DRV was proper, and in any case well within the reasonable range of judgment that DRV may exercise. Given that, the second Afd was IMO fully proper, and its speedy-close, and all other actions thereafter aimed at preventing a second full AfD discussion by blanking or reverting discussion, or by speedy closing AfD or DRV page, were improper, and that the arbcom should address this, and declare those actions to be improperly taken as violative of the DRV consensus discussion. I do not want endless debate over the article -- If there is a single new AfD, free of gross errors of procedure, and closed after a full discussion by a previously uninvolved editor, i will not so much as take the matter to DRV, and i won't argue about the matter afterwards, either, even if I disagree with the decision in that AfD -- although i may discuss it as a reason for proposing future policy changes. I frankly doubt that jeff eould either, but I can't speak for jeff. DES (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, Matt Crypto's improper revert of a close of an AfD in which he had previously commented and expressed a keep view should also be addressed, IMO. DES (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

New issues
With the issues from last night put into play, the ArbCom case with my name on it is already suffering from focus issues on the arbitration side. It ranges from "everything" to "just me." i'm okay with wherever, but at what point will this scope be defined, and should the blocking case be held completely separately from everything else? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Based on the comments of Fred and Flo, made since the blocking incident, it seems that this case will be about the QZ deletion, and a separate case required for the blocking incident. I would interpret the QZ deletion to include not only your own actions but other actions that contributed to the situation as it stands (i.e. the various AfDs and DRVs).  Pending additional clarification from the arbitrators, of course. Thatcher131 13:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well my confusion is that we have four acceptances at the moment, all wanting to focus on different things. Ultimately, the conduct issues, the BLP issues, the article issues, and the blocking issues are all in the same sphere, and it would probably be easiest to deal with them all at once, but I obviously can't force that.  It seems rather silly, from my point of view, to open a separate case to deal with the blocking issue, but still... --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: I say this without knowing jack about established or traditional internal Arbitration procedures, but if I were in the position of Arbitrator, I'd probably want to take all the scopes at once in order to prevent having the decisions from one case contravene the decisions of the other and having to deal with having the order of implementation of remedies actually matter vis a vis the various parties' experience of Wikipedia from a chronological standpoint. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 14:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree that the Arbitrators need to define the scope of the case that they are accepting. That scope needs to be reasonably public, especially given Matthew Borwn (Morven's) comment about not letting the evidence page turn into a free for all. As I don't think those Arbitratrators wanting to accept the case are agreed on the scope of what they want to accept, I think they may with to have (possibly offline?) a group discussion about scope before the case is fully opened, and then reveal their group decision after it is made. GRBerry 13:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That was the purpose of my comment; even if arbitrators declare the scope beforehand enforcing that scope on the evidence and workshop pages will likely prove impossible. I'm tempted to just go on a wikibreak for two weeks and come back to see what happened (ah, the joys of recusal). Mackensen (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think limiting this to jeff is way too narrow, and seems more like an attempt to give him the bum's rush than to really resolve issues, because the biggest troublemakers and policy violators here were other people and his biggest flaw was overzealousness in pursuing things through the proper channels. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the actions of last night have muddied the waters somewhat. However they have also heightened tensions and made it difficult for some parties, particularly Jeff (with whom I sympathize on this one matter) to back down. I think it might be kinder to Jeff to intervene at this point instead of letting the matter fester. The conduct of administrators in the blocking incident should not be ignored or set to one side, because it has severely damaged already precarious relations between contributors of good faith (and I think it's a bit of a shame that I have to say that by this I mean in particular Badlydrawnjeff, who I believe is sincere if misguided). --Tony Sidaway 14:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd personally prefer a separate case should be brought about the inappropriate block, to keep things simple. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not trying to be difficult, but is it simpler to separate two issues that, while surface-level are different, are in fact very intertwined? I'll go about it as the Arbcom asks me to, but I want to make sure it's the fairest way to go about it.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer it separate too. The inappropriate block issue is not going to get into IRC-related issues again; it doesn't really matter if people make bad decisions on IRC, in their offices, on the bus, or in the loo. Nobody's going to be deadminned for it -- we don't do that for single, reversible, apologized-for lapses in judgement. So you need to think about whether it's worthwhile at all to do anything but grouse a bit. (And it is worth grousing about.) About the other stuff, I'm starting to wonder if we should have an automatic 2-week cooling off period when an arbcom case is filed...a sort of "everyone shut up now and find something else to do, and come back later when you can calmly reflect on it and then see if it's worth putting everyone through the wringer for." None of this is helping build an encyclopedia. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A fair number of cases die out in the evidence phase. An arbitrator looking at a case and seeing not much there after a couple weeks in evidence can always move to dismiss. Thatcher131 16:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * jpg, I have sent the logs to the arbcom-l list. I think you'll see there's a bigger problem at stake, and per the principles in the Giano case, probably shouldn't be ignored.  I'd also suggest relooking at the "meteors and heaven" comment, since I think you took a tongue-in-cheek comment literally. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh, I'm tired of changing votes, and I imagine this is going to be accepted anyway. I still think everyone needs to take a cold shower. Regarding tongue in cheek comments, well, that's the sort of comment that simply adds more heat to a fire, and at least for me, such things get taken at face value, since I don't know you from Adam -- all I know is that you've said you're going to stonewall against community opinion, and I've no cause to give less weight to that statement than any other you might have made. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Jeff, why don't you give AC a chance to digest whatever off-wiki evidence they may have received and then list the blocking case separately tomorrow? Although the one event sprung from the other, it seems to me that keeping the issue of deletion process vs BLP separate from the issue of admin misjudgement in blocking matters will give us two manageable cases instead of one unmanageable mess. Thatcher131 16:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * At the moment, that appears to be the plan. Some straightforward indication of exactly where the scope lies would be helpful is all. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, then the committee could decide to open and fasttrack one case and summarily reject the other. — freak([ talk]) 17:03, May. 23, 2007 (UTC)

Nobody asked me, but I'd like some view from the ArbCom on the proper role of BLP, ethics, OTRS and summary deletion vis a vis consensus and policy. Either in this case, or via some other mechanism, because clearly there is a tension here between those that feel the encyclopedia has a duty to be ethical, and to come down on the side of privacy in marginal cases, and not participate in generalised mockery and sensationalism just because it's being done somewhere on the internet, and those that think that if something is reported in verifiable sources, it's OK to have an article, however biased, unkind or one sided the coverage might be, and regardless of the harm that it might do to the innocent. Sometimes policy has to trump consensus, and sometimes policy has to be informed by doing the right thing, not just freedom of information. (my bias shows there, doesn't it?... The community hasn't yet come to a consensus on this matter. I know how Jimbo and a large group of editors feels though, and I count myself in that group.) ++Lar: t/c 15:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

As this now appears to be veering toward acceptance, a request: 1) When opening the case, can a clerk/arbitrator please clearly define the scope of this case?  2) If the scope of this case goes far beyond my "behavior," a more neutral title may be in order. If that can't be done, no sweat off my back, but that would be proper to title it accurately. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Here, the arbitrators themselves seem to have different opinions on scope, as voiced above and on the main page. Two arbitrators have stated either that the case will consider only jeff's actions, two others have stated that they would prefer to hear a separate case on the block by Zsinj, and one specifically wants to hear a case on how BLP interacts with deletion policy.  I don't think it is within the clerks' authority to forcefully define the scope (e.g. by removing "irrelevant" evidence).  I suggest that the block by Zsinj is not part of this case, and should be brought as a separate case.  It also seems logical that in order for some editors to accuse jeff of disruption regarding disputed deletions of biographies, and for jeff to defend himself against charges of disruption, it will be necessary to present evidence and arguments about the relationship between deletion policy and BLP.  Ultimately, the scope will be determined by the proposed decision offered by the arbitrators—that is, arbitrators may offer principles, findings and remedies relevant to different aspects of the case according to their view of the case, and then all will vote.  What is much more important than defining the scope at the outset is keeping the workshop page civil and on point, and here the clerks may be able to play a role.  The key is to remember that you are all here for the same reason, and for that reason to be reasonably nice and respectful to each other in disagreement. Thatcher131 20:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly, the Arbs and not the clerks should be the ones defining the scope, but, to be frank, I'm not going to waste my time presenting a case that arbitrators are not planning to hear. If the block issue is absolutely not a part of this, I want to know ahead of time.  If the BLP/DRV issues are not a part of this, I want to know ahead of time.  If it's only going to be about me, then give me the opportunity to focus my defense properly (not that it's going to be difficult).  This isn't one clear issue, and it's imperetive that we know what we're dealing with as opposed to just tossing a pile of evidence against the wall and seeing what sticks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I would like to add my two cents on as agreeing with Lar. Georgewilliamherbert 21:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Another query about case scope and a procedural concern
I join with those pleading guilty to some confusion about the nature and scope of the case as of now. I am also concerned that no single aspect of the case has the required 4 net votes for acceptance, because some arbitrators have voted not to consider what other arbitrators define as the primary issue presented. In other words, the case is only being accepted because its contours are vague and unclear. I have seen this scenario in real-world courts and I am afraid it tends to lead to fragmented, messy opinions, which I hope will not be the case here. Newyorkbrad 03:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)