Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 20

Splitting off motions in prior cases to subpage
I think one way to remedy the lack of attention the Requests for arbitration section gets would be to split it off to a subpage, say Requests for arbitration/Post-case motions. Now, before you say that doesn't make sense, listen. By splitting it off to a separate subpage, it would be a separate item from the main requests page on arbitrators' watchlists. If this happened, they'd be more likely to notice pending motions; at the moment, they get drowned out by new cases and request for clarification edits. Furthermore, the talk page for this proposed subpage could solve the ever-present question of how to request motions in prior cases. It could be transcluded as per normal where the section currently rests. Any thoughts? Picaroon (t) 01:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That seems like a good idea. I'd prefer Requests for arbitration/Motions, however, to account for the possibility that we would start using pre-case or instead-of-case motions on a regular basis. Kirill 01:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought of another benefit, which would be keeping the edit history for these motions easy to locate (or at least easy to locate compared to in the history of this page). In regards to other sorts of motions, I agree. Future cases in the manner of Requests for arbitration/Koavf could also be conducted on such a page. Picaroon (t) 01:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What about a requests for clarification subpage as well? For a similar reason to the motions, I see them being missed due to the request for new cases part of the page. When there's a lost of clarification requests, the page gets quite large and hard to navigate. Ryan Postl et hw ai te  01:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. Right now, Requests for Arbitration basically means "Requests for arbitration, motions, and clarifications in cases." Splitting it into pages would help keep the discussions separate. ^demon[omg plz] 01:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, this is a good idea. Anynobody 02:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I created the motions subpage, see Requests for arbitration/Motions. Picaroon (t) 02:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If I understand this correctly, the proper way for me to make my request - now under "requests for clarification" as Regarding Robert Prechter remedy, would be to place all the material under that heading on the new talk page Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Motions. If that's correct, I'll ask somebody who knows for sure to move that material to the new page (It might be considered presumptuous for me to do it myself)  Smallbones 16:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope; requests for clarification are still on the main page (for the time being). Motions are proposals made by the Arbitrators, not questions presented to them. Kirill 17:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Smallbones' request is posted in an appropriate location. I am sure that arbitrators will comment on it soon. Newyorkbrad 18:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Smallbones has edited Elliott wave principle, an article related to Robert Prechter. This is a clear violation of the remedy from the arbitration case.
 * Rgfolsom 19:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Geoeg request
Geoeg, the subject of a recent request, has himself removed it claiming authorisation by Foundation counsel Mikegodwin. I've asked Mike Godwin to comment on this action which seems highly unusual. Sam Blacketer 14:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for following up on this. The talkpage thread that Geoeg cites as providing authorization for removal of the arbitration request, does not appear to me to do so. No user other than an arbitrator, an arbitration clerk, or the party filing a request (before it has been accepted) should be removing a non-vandalistic case from the casepage except perhaps under truly extraordinary circumstances. Newyorkbrad 17:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me know what the outcome is... I just boldly reverted a change to the COI archive because I was not at all comfortable with some editor removing archived discussions per a phantom email. If Mike authorized this I will revert myself.--Isotope23 talk 17:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I see that Geoeg has now been blocked indefinitely. Unless the block is appealed and modified, the request for arbitration (which was in the process of being declined anyway as the community was dealing with the issue) appears to be moot. Therefore, while removing the case from the page appears to have been improper, I will not bother restoring it just so that it can finish being voted down and be removed again. Newyorkbrad 16:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Elections and Open Cases
Random question, since there are bound to be cases that are opened before the new Arbcom members are appointed which won't be closed by the time the new members are appointed (and the outgoing ones leave), do the new members have votes on those cases? Do votes by outgoing members still count?  Sasha Call   08:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The way this was handled last year was that for cases on which the outgoing arbitrators had voted, the votes remained in place. Also, the outgoing arbitrators had the option of participating in pending cases opened while they were still on the committee (typically, they did this if they had already invested time working on the case). The newly installed arbitrators were initially listed as inactive on cases opened before their appointments took effect, out of concern that they shouldn't be expected to carefully analyze a dozen pending cases all at once, but also had the option of becoming active and voting on any case they wished. The Clerks (led by Thatcher131 at that point) kept track of who was who for each case (I think that may be when posting the lists on the proposed decision talkpages got started). I think this system worked all right and assume it would be used again this year. Newyorkbrad 12:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  Sasha  Call   07:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to confirm, this is indeed the way that we've always taken on new Arbitrators, ever since Mark P. ("Raul") was a newbie.
 * James F. (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Question for arbitrators...
I was just wondering what the rules were for recusal/acceptance of a case. For instance, in this accept comment, Paul August writes, "Accept. Mongo's behaviour has been problematic." Now, I haven't been around too many arbitration cases, but to me, this seems like Paul August has already made up his mind about the facts of the case. And isn't saying "Mongo's behaviour has been problematic." poisoning the well? Isn't the arbitration committee supposed to be a fair, unbiased group that looks at things even handedly? Does not Paul August saying "Mongo's behaviour has been problematic." mean that he's already made up his mind on Mongo? I could be way off-base here, but I just thought I'd ask. Mahalo nui loa. --Ali&#39;i (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well considering I presented hard evidence that it was problematic, in addition to the previous arbcom cases where it was found to be problematic he may have taken it from there. If they DON'T think there is a problem they won't accept the case. Viridae Talk 13:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course his behavior has been problematic. ArbCom's job in this case, were it to be accepted, would be to determine what, if anything, to do about the problematic behavior. "Unbiased" doesn't mean "totally ignorant of an issue until it comes before ArbCom". --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Thanks. --Ali&#39;i (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And, all named parties (and there might be more names added) will also be examined. Sadly though, I agree...when an arbitrator (now two in fact) make their opinion on the matter known beforehand, we all get to sit back and enjoy a nice little Greek Tragedy...which can only be rectified if indeed the arbitrators also act to stop what will be demonstrated without question to be problematic behavior of other named parties.--MONGO (talk) 07:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh, it doesn't have to be....the six arbiters who are active this fall seem to not agree on everything (except the totally obvious). And I agree, it would be helpful to have a full examination of all parties.  (I'd be surprized if we see it, but one can hope).  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

MONGO 2 case
Even... HE... wants... it... opened. There is NO reasonable excuse for refusing to arbitrate a case that everyone agrees needs to go to arbitration. -Amarkov moo! 17:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Not to mention all the people at the RFC who insisted this should go to arbcom. I'm not goign to go count, but it seemed almost two dozen different people expressed the opinion this was Arbcom material.(Admittedly, most of those people felt I was the problem, not MONGO-- but we all agreed there was a problem that needed fixing). :)


 * Sooner or later, this IS going to arbcom. If Mongo hasn't quit after two years, he's probably not going to quit anytime soon. (and of course, if he did quit, so much the better).   The arbiters can dodge the issue now if they want, but it's just going to keep coming up over and over and over and over until MONGO stops of his own accord or until he is stopped. --Alecmconroy (talk) 02:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Or if everyone else stops. Or, to be fair, everyone throws down their clubs and steps away from the horse carcass. Remember, ArbCom goes both ways. —Kurykh  04:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If there was only one issue in dispute, that might reasonable work. But looking over the parties, you'll see the only thing that connects us in MONGO's incivility.  Some of us have been attacked because of the BADSITES thing, but some of us were attacked in completely different contexts.  Some were attacked just for weighing in here at the case that MONGO has a problem.  Still others, I have no idea how they came into conflict with MONGO-- the complaints against krimpet, for example, I don't even understand what's being alleged.


 * If it were just a particular policy dispute, there might be an alternative. But MONGO disputes run the gamut-- he resorts to personal attacks whether he's discussing NPA or 9/11 or people from Brunei.  And he's been doing it for two years.  Based on his past, it would be logical to guess that settling any ONE particular policy dispute wouldn't actually settle MONGO's behavior problem--   the problems would persist, and would just flare up in again later in a different venue.  --Alecmconroy (talk) 04:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I know how MONGO's like; I interacted with him before. I note that you seem to be painting MONGO as always in the wrong. Whether that view is correct or not, I don't care. I do, however, have something to say. Look at some of the people he has interacted with. They're not saints either. —Kurykh  04:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sure MONGO is right quite often-- but he's wrong now, and unless we're willing to step up to the plate and fix it, he'll keep being wrong, keep disrupting the project, keep taking time away from more valuable projects, and keep driving off good editors.


 * If the people MONGO's dealt with aren't saints, the we have to rein their behavior in ALSO, not condone MONGO's incivility. You have to deal with both.  That goes for me too-- I've tried very very very hard not to ever be a bad-faith editor, but if I've  unknowingly failed, the solution is to deal with me, not to let the problems fester.  There's this general impression that as long as MONGO is only rude to someone marginalized in some way, that it's okay.  And that's so incredibly dangerous.


 * Take the Brunei comment where he looked up where an IP was from, and then commented about how people from Brunei are anti-american.  To my eyes, that's racist bigotry that should have been dealt with instantly.   How is a comment like that not an instant permaban?  Somebody who would say something like that-- it's only a matter of time before Arbcom has to deal with them.   My guess, anyway. --Alecmconroy (talk) 04:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * When was that incident? But actually, never mind, because this isn't the place to discuss evidence. —Kurykh  04:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The drama dance has been proceeding for almost 3 years, and neither the arbitration committee nor anyone else has done anything about it. So based on what you know, why don't they want to do anything about it now?  Mongo will never be blocked, so the best you can hope for is a stern warning and to avoid censure.  Quit while you're ahead.  You can revert him for a while, but you can't break the rules forever, and eventually you'll be blocked. 207.112.59.210 (talk) 20:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Matthew Brown's warning in the MONGO 2 case
Like Barberio, I'm a bit taken aback by Matthew Brown's warning. Since all parties seem to want the arbitration to proceed, and Matthew has now promised that it indeed will (against everyone involved) if the drama doesn't stop, then isn't this simply encouraging everyone to turn up the drama? I think it would be a good idea for Matthew to explain what he means.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 12:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you two might be reading too much into it-- I didn't take it as a statement from Morven that the case was filed in bad faith, I took it just as a sign that he hopes the underlying problematic behavior will stop-- but neutrally phrased of course.


 * If he did mean to include everyone who pointed out MONGO's incivility, he might want to rephrase it more clearly, but I as it stands, I certainly didn't take it as any kind of "threat" meant to discourage people from against bringing future complaints should the personal attack and edit warring continue. --Alecmconroy (talk) 13:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think his word drama sums it up...shall you cease and desist in creating more drama than truly exists, or do you want to risk that block?--MONGO (talk) 13:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd ask the same of you of course. If you don't make personal attacks or edit war against consensus, and I don't do anything similarly evil to you, we won't have any more problems. --Alecmconroy (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure..so long as you don't call me a liar, stop typing as if you are screaming, cease trying to demand that editors that don't treat you like royalty get banned, not badger me repeatedly about delinking to ED and other evil things such as that, we'll do just fine, Alecmconroy.--MONGO (talk) 13:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I apolgoize if I have inadvertantly typed like I was screaming, and similarly, I apologize if you think I was calling you evil in the sense of "morally depraved" or immoral or anything like that-- i wasn't. -- I was just using "evil" as a generic catchall for "anything that ought not be done."
 * Nor do I think I've ever called for a ban. I have, at times, predict that will be the eventual outcome if things keep up, but I dont' think there's anyone who should be banned as of this second.   I do think there are a few well-deserved blocks that have gone unmeted, but nobody deserves a ban until that's been tried.  If I ever slipped up and said otherwise, I apologize-- I do still get block and ban switched around from time to time.  Usually I catch myself or someone else catches me, but if you think I believe you should be immediately be banned, you're incorrect.


 * I truly am sorry MONGO, and I'm really not "out to get you" in any way at all. You're just over the line on a couple issues, and it's my job to help the project rein you in-- but I really don't think of you as a bad person.   As long as you get so much positive feedback from your fanclub ("Mongo"ites? "Mongo"ies?  hehe), it's only natural you'd continue to think that this behavior is how you can best serve the project.


 * So, as I've said many times. Never think our on-wiki disputes extend to a real life animosity.  At the end of the day, we're just two geeks who like to write encyclopedia, and if I knew you, you'd be welcome at my Thanksgiving table any day. (although I have to say, my thanksgiving table is far more interesting on Thanksgiving itself, but you really would be welcome any day :) ).


 * Have a happy thanksgiving Mongo. (and you too, Guy, if you're listening).  We have different styles and different directions we want the project to go, but in the grand scheme of things, we're far far far far FAR more alike than we are different. --Alecmconroy (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, certainly best wishes to you too. However, I'm thinking that you are way overzealous in your pursuits and I really do have difficulty seeing that your use of the dispute resolution process isn't a partial cover for trying to gain an advantage in a content dispute...seems some can't make even the smallest infraction without you jumping on their case...and that troubles me since you seem to be more concerned about these oftentimes minor infractions than being able to link to websites that provide far worse (in fact oftentimes horrendus) attacks on our contributors.--MONGO (talk) 14:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I hear ya.  I do realize my stance may seem somewhat perplexing, I really do.  I guess the simplest thing I can say is that CONTENT and CONDUCT are totally different spheres.  Just because we have to cover attackers, that doesn't me we have to engage in personal attacks, ya know? --Alecmconroy (talk) 14:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

My take on Mr. Brown's comment is that if anyone involved in this situation engages in anymore disruptive behavior, and we all know how that is defined, that it should be reported by posting or email to the Arb board and they'll take action without a case having to be opened. Cla68 (talk) 13:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that just immediately result in an (if the action was a block) unblocking RFARB?--Thomas Basboll (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Er... So this will leaving the Anti-MONGO crowd just waiting to pounce on the Pro-MONGO crowd as soon as they screw up in some way so they can tattle tale to Matthew, and the Pro-MONGO crowd just waiting to pounce on the Anti-MONGO crowd as soon as they screw up in some way so they can tattle tale to Matthew. Probably leading to people on both sides taunting the other into action. This is meant to reduce the drama how again? --Barberio (talk) 13:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See why ED loves to hate MONGO? Because they know it'll cause drama, which is what they're really after. (well, that and the "lulz".) &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 18:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is my concern as well. In fact, the "we all know how [disruptive behaviour] is defined" is the problem. I thought I knew how civility was defined until I saw how much support MONGO has for his way of doing things, and how hard it is to do anything about it.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 13:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:CIVIL is policy...surely arbcom supports that all editors remain civil. That has been a traditional posting in many arbcom cases. I have no doubt they would find, based on evidence presented, that I, and probably others, have been incivil. They may also find that single purpose accounts who are routinely promoting fringe theories and underminning the encyclopedic integrity of articles and misusing the dispute resolution process to gain an advantage in a content dispute, should also be penalized.--MONGO (talk) 14:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:SPA is not policy, however. In its current form it is vaguely at odds with WP:FAITH and WP:BITE. It was very different when I read it a few months ago. Ah well, times really are changing, and you may yet have your encyclopedia as you want it. It will then have become an ordinary website.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should rename this case "Alecmconroy vs. MONGO". This is what it is REALLY about, isn't it? two people who are opponents of each other. &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 18:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's more that "Alecmconroy & MONGO vs the Project". The 'Other' guy being a jerk is no defense for being a jerk. Especially if it's only your opinion that the other guy is a jerk. The major problem here has been that this behavior has been overtly tolerated for those 'with standing in the project'. The idea that administrators can get away with being abusive jerks because they have 'standing' is crippling the project.
 * The idea that this can be handled by the current RFC process is simply untrue. RFCs have been taking out on many abusive bullying admins, but because they are non-binding they have little effect on their behavior. And for the most part, the RFCs on a certain group of admins simply results in a crowd of people resorting to a 'They deserved it' and 'People with standing in the project get leeway'. As it stands, the civility and 'no personal attacks' policies apply only to those who agree it applies to them.
 * Sadly, the people who agree that those policies apply to them and their actions are not the ones who cause problems by bullying others. There are too many people who think they have 'legitimate' excuses for incivility and personal attacks against those who 'deserve it'. Continuing to allow this situation is going to generate more project destroying drama, and I think those wanting to punt this case show a grave misunderstanding of human nature. --Barberio (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Why are arbcoms rejecting the Mongo 2 case?

 * 1) We have one editor calling another editor evil (above),
 * 2) We have 26 wikipedians making statments in this arbcom, 19 in support of this arbcom, including many of the main parites, and only 2 against the arbcom (see below) yet 4 arbcom members thus far have rejected this case,
 * 3) We have an arbcom who states that one editor will most likely get sanctions along with other opposing unnamed editors if this case  goes forward. This arbcom acknowledges there is sanctionable wrongdoing. Then the same arbcom rejects the case.
 * 4) This case has more editors making statments then any of the other 7 current ongoing arbitration cases (see below). Travb (talk) 08:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Travb, it's okay-- The Arb can punt when they think that's what's best for the project.  The Arbs aren't justices compelled to take cases, they're not Solomons meant to mete out justice--   they're shepherds who try to take only those cases that will be long-term benefit the project.  For some conflicts, the best thing for the project may simply be to punt and wait for more evidence to come it.


 * I for one take the punt as a total vindication. If _I_ were the problem here, if I had been guilty of any wrongdoing as the Mongoies in the RFC try to imply, Arbcom would undoubtedly have taken the case, as chastising me wouldn't have been dramatic at all.   However, you can't sanction MONGO without upsetting his very active faction of supporters, and I don't blame the Arb for not wanting to take a case that would lead such widespread schisms if there's any chance whatsoever they don't have to.


 * It's okay. It's not my job to solve Wikipedia-- I just had to do my part.  Maybe this RFAr will have been enough to stop the problem behavior by itself, and the problems will end.  OR maybe not--  The next time MONGO bites into somebody, it will be all that much harder for harder for anyone to try to blame it on the victims.  Eventually, the behavior will stop, or the call for sanctions against MONGO will become so deafening, it cannot be ignored.   Either way, it'll work out fine for the project.


 * And now it's my turn to get to punt the behavior problem, a punt I greatly welcome, because even for only a few weeks, it's a cross and a half to bear. :) --Alecmconroy (talk) 19:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My take, actually, is that the Arbitrators rejecting it aren't seeing the forest from a certain tree. It's a lot of verbiage to read, and it is very easy to skim it and cast this as another dispute about the NPA policy.  Nobody wants ArbCom in the NPA dispute.  It might be useful to ask those who rejected it to not view it from the POV of a dispute over NPA verbiage, but as a call from editors who've run into MONGO across the entirety of the project.  (For instance: Thomas Basbol has never edited NPA.)
 * The real problem is the continued disruption to civil editing, in many forums, by MONGO, and the lack of anyone willing to do anything about it because of the special rules for MONGO. ArbCom has taken plenty of unique restrictions on editor behavior here that would be useful here. Even a simple statement that MONGO should be treated like everybody else is a step forward. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * Well, I don't see it so much as they don't "get" that it's a behavior problem-- I have more confidence in them. More likely, they know it's not "about" BADSITES per se, but the project has two very divisive issues right now.  BADSITES is one, and the MONOGite alliance is another issue.   Trying to deal with both issues in one case just might not be what's best for the project.  Even though to you and I, the case is only about the latter issue, it does take place under the shadow of BADSITES, and so a good case can be made for sitting this one out.


 * BADSITES is never going to be policy, that ship has sailed a long time ago. The MONGOites are going to either stop causing trouble, or else there will be more, better opportunities to address that problem in the future. --Alecmconroy (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think if arbcom doesn't take the case, you can consider yourself lucky you got to dodge the bullet from a potential banning. It fascinates me that you keep screaming about incivilities or being labelled, but you fail to see the hypocrisy by calling some people MONGOites. I think if you continue, you'll find yourself not editing here anymore. It's your call.--MONGO (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * MONGOites was just the best term I could come up with to describe the loyal group of editors who are proud to defend you against accusations. The term isn't in any way derogatory, it just gets inconvenient to refer to that group by such an unwieldy and lengthy phrase as "the loyal group of editors who are proud to defend MONGO against accusations".  I know that a lot of people like to use the term  "the cabal" to refer to a roughly similar group of users, but I myself will never seriously use that phrase, because it implies some level of deceit or nefariousness, and I detect no such bad faith.  The fact of the matter is, you do have something of a leadership role, and there's a well defined group of people who have a considerable amount of loyalty to you and can be counted on to show up to defend your behavior-- recognizing that fact is not an insult at all.  --Alecmconroy (talk) 08:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I hate to put words into Morven's mouth, but to me, this case looks like a good example of a class of cases that, as a long-time clerk, I might refer to as Matthew 7:3 cases. I suspect that the division in the votes to hear the case reflects a division on the Arbitrators' mailing list between Arbitrators who feel that MONGO's casual incivility needs to be dealt with, and Arbitrators who feel that MONGO would be less uncivil if other editors would stop poking him with pointy sticks. In other words, the Committee is as divided as the community, which is hardly a surprise, since they were elected by the community to reflect the values of the community. Assuming such a division exists, then a long drawn out case would likely result in a "hung jury" and the passage of a bunch of unenforceable platitudes, like similar past cases. Consider Matthew's statement of rejection to be an example of enough rope. Either the situation will calm down, or it will escalate in such a way as to make it clear who needs to be hung out to dry. Thatcher131 01:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course MONGO would be less uncivil of others didn't provoke him. Most people are civil when they're not provoked. What makes for good collaborative working is being civil even when you are provoked. Even if someone "deserves" to be told off, an effective communicator will refrain from doing so, because they want to keep the possibility of communication open, and they want to maintain an unimpeachable moral high ground. Misunderstanding this fact badly enough causes significant disruption, due to a careless "call a spade a spade" mentality. That mentality is essentially dispute resolution for those who wish to prolong disputes. The simple fact is that you can't stop people from provoking MONGO. You might be able to convince MONGO to react in a less escalatory way to provocation. Wouldn't that be a win-win situation? It's not like everybody who takes issue with MONGO's (or Guy's) incivility is a troll. I don't remotely think that this arbitration is limited to MONGO's behavior; in fact, he's not close to the worst recently. People on all sides of the dispute need a wake-up call: Stop attacking contributors; talk about content. Putting up with anything less is a woefully unprofessional and disappointing policy for our encyclopedia to take. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It isn't incivil to tell people that if they are participants in websites that attack our contributors and then argue in favor of being able to link to such websites, that they have a conflict of interest. Supporters of editors who have later been banned for harassment and disruption, especially admins who do so, are also editors the committee should examine. Unfortunately, until we deal with editors who are trying to hound others off the project just because they haven't been treated like they own the place, we'll continue to see ongoing dramatics and wild accusations.--MONGO (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right, MONGO, it isn't necessarily uncivil to tell people that they have a conflict of interest. It can be uncivil or not, depending on how you do it. If you do it ham-fistedly enough, you can raise the temperature and perpetuate the drama. It's easy to say that we'll continue to see ongoing dramatics when your behavior is often a significant cause of the drama. Stop feeding trolls already. Please stop. When you say "supporters of editors who have later been banned for harassment and disruption, especially admins," am I safe in assuming that you mean me? I wish you'd file an RfC on me MONGO; that would be so welcome. If you've got a problem with me, stand up and say it. I'm listening. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure he was referring to you. From what I've seen, you seem to be one of the more reasonable and objective people involved in this dispute. - Crockspot (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm frustrated, which probably affects my judgment. I think I'll spend the rest of the day offline. I apologize if I've offended anyone here. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It isn't incivil to tell people that if they are participants in organizations that are full of communists that are attacking the American way of life and then argue in favor of not blacklisting those organizations, that they have a conflict of interest. Supporters of people who have later been blacklisted for being communists or fellow-travelers, especially government officials who do so, are also people the HUAC should examine.  Unfortunately, until we root out all the communists who are taking over our country like they own the place, we'll continue to see ongoing dramatics, even if we blacklist all the playwrights. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If WR and ED were involved in important work that represented a significant social and political movement worldwide, I might actually buy the implication that you are a martyr. - Crockspot (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I got the impression he was more pointing out the fallacies in MONGO's argument than taking on any particular mantle. I thought he did it effectively, too, and that MONGO was going in a pretty absurd direction. He's so committed to raising the temperature, ED ought to give him a medal. Oh wait, they already have. I'm really getting offline now. Anyone in Seattle reading, and wanna grab a drink? I'll be at Pizza Mart on the Ave. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Reducing case load and 'drama'
There seem to be very significant problems with the current ArbCom set up, which results from inactive members, case load, and fear of being used for 'Drama'.

Theoretically, the Mediation step in the dispute resolution process should screen out a lot of cases. But it only screens out those cases which can be solved by getting the parties involved to agree on a solution. This leaves the bulk of disputes unresolved and taken on to an ArbCom request. Many of which are refused. This has turned the dispute resolution system into steam cooker with the heat turned up too high.

So I'm going to recommend an extra 'layer' between Mediation and ArbCom.

It's work on a adhoc 'tribunal' system. Basically, someone wishing for a tribunal simple has to convince three uninvolved editors to take on the case. All three tribunal members then look at the issue, and take arguments and evidence from those involved. Then after consideration the three uninvolved editors issue a finding, and a recommendation to the community on any actions that should be taken.

Only if the tribunal can not agree on what should be done, or someone involved in the case wishes to appeal it, would the issue progress to the arbcom.

Implementation could be a simple page for posting requests, with subpage for presenting evidence and arguments. Editors wishing to act as tribunal members should just pick a case and agree to take it on. It could be streamlined by limiting discussion to evidence and presented arguments only, and deleting any outside comments or threaded discussions that might be placed on the pages. If the tribunal members feel that further action is needed after they make a finding, they can then post to the relevant notice board to recommend action. Naturally, gaming of this system in any way should be considered disruptive behavior, and risk community sanctions.

I believe this idea would reduce the drama in the current dispute resolution process, and reduce case load for the ArbCom. --Barberio (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This sounds a little bit like the Community Enforceable Mediation system that Durova was overseeing for awhile, although that only applied when the parties to the dispute consented. Is that still active? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * A step in between alternative would be to have arbcom divide itself into panels of 3 to hear cases much like a United States court of appeals so that more net cases could be heard, with the entire arbcom hearing cases only if there is a dissent in the panel or other arbcom members wish to review. I have a concern that giving arbitrary editors tribunal powers whose decision would be enforcable by administrators could be open to gaming. For example, a group of 5 editors could rig a "tribunal" case for a fake dispute in which the "tribunal" makes a decision all 5 editors want which then becomes policy and administrators become obligated to enforce, whether actually consistent with policy or not and whether the rest of the community would agree or not. I believe any tribunal whose members are not vetted by the general community would need to have its jurisdiction and the types of decisions that could be enforced very carefully limited. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: To address the issue of out-of-line decisions becoming enforcable, Community enforceable mediation added the requirement of community approval before any decision becomes enforcable, and also added limits to remedies: remedies can be imposed only on the parties, and no third parties or articles can be affected as the result of any decision). Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The big comlaint I hear with arbcom is that it takes too long. Partly this is due to the complexity of the cases. A possible solution could be solved with more arbitrators and and once the committee takes a case with a net vote of four, the comm members focusing on a few cases each. Just a thought. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 16:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Prototype for the process written up at User:Barberio/Wikipedia:Tribunal. --Barberio (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem of ArbCom delays had become ghastly for several months this spring and summer, but the situation has improved somewhat in the past few weeks (cases have been moving from open to decided much faster than they had been, although Ferrylodge is now overdue). I will take an interested look at Barbiero's proposal, but in general I don't see why the current system cannot work satisfactorily. Kirill Lokshin, who has been drafting the decisions in most recent cases, has also had the clerks prodding parties to get their evidence in more quickly, which should also help keep things moving more quickly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem, as we are seeing, is that Arbcom either can not or will not accept all cases that currently have to go through arbitration. The slowness of the process is part of the cause, but not a huge problem in and of itself. -Amarkov moo! 22:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * To which cases are you referring? What makes you think that the Committee declines to hear cases because they are too busy, rather than due to other reasons? Thatcher131 01:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The acceptance system as currently implemented requires a super-majority to accept a case. Choice of this system certainly suggest that acceptance of cases is limited to reduce case load. --Barberio (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The acceptance system has been discussed several previous times. Check the archives of this talk page. Thatcher131 02:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested
Is the subpage actually useful? I highly doubt many administrators scan through there, familiarizing themselves which decisions that need enforcing; it is redundant to the purpose served by WP:AN, where all case summaries are posted, and WP:RFARC, where all cases and their remedies are listed. Also, I'm unsure if /Admin enforcement requested is even complete in its listing of cases which require enforcement. So, I'd like to suggest we retire it (not delete, as it is of historical interest), unless a good use is thought of. Opinions? Picaroon (t) 22:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's fairly useless, yes; but I do think that a canonical listing, in some form, of users currently under an editing restriction would be a good thing. Kirill 23:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Requests for arbitration/Completed requests will serve the purpose of listing all users sanctioned in cases, giving that it lists remedies and the users these remedies apply to - pretty much the same info /Admin enforcement requested provides. Users placed under editing restrictions by administrators after the close of the case aren't listed at either of these two pages, and although all users sanctioned after a particular case can be found at the logs of blocks and bans (or whatever we call it now), there is no one list of all such users. Would it be worth it to try and group those users altogether? Either way, this doesn't figure into the issue of retiring /Admin enforcement requested. Picaroon (t) 00:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I find it more than just interesting in the historical sense – it's a record of how the ArbCom members, and later the ArbCom clerks, summarized the case when presenting it to the community, and something that should be retained for archiving future cases. The Completed requests subpage is much more dry and boring. For instance, I found it interesting how FloNight used to clerk for the ArbCom; now she is a member of it. And how Johnleemk and Tony Sidway seemed to take turns in clerking cases. Also how the cases used to be summarized back in early 2005 compared to now. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-11-19/News_and_notes
I'm really sad to here about the age restriction imposed on Arbcom nominations. Please explain further why it is such a problem to show private information to a minor and why we can't change the privacy policy instead of turning into a bunch of ageists. - Mgm|(talk) 16:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The Committee lacks the authority to change the privacy policy; you'll want to take things up with the Foundation if you want any changes made. Kirill 16:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me rephrase that: I want to know what they were smoking when the Board decided on the privacy policy. I'm glad to see that administrators seeing deleted edits doesn't fall under this ridiculous policy, but it doesn't make any sense when you compare the two situations. Why do they treat deleted edits differently than Arbcom information? - Mgm|(talk) 16:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, ask the Board, then. We're not privy to its reasoning.
 * (The Committee handles very private information, incidentally.) Kirill 16:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Anything more private than the name and contact details often shared on the help desk? Without sharing any details, could you give examples of the sort of info you're referring to? - Mgm|(talk) 17:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In one case information is provided voluntarily, and in the other case information is retrieved without a persons consent with strict restrictions on how it can be used. That is a significant difference, I think. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 17:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We've done without restrictions on arbcom since it was formed, so it seems odd to start now especially when that privacy was in place during the last elections. I did ask Jdforrester (spelling?) and I hope he'll comment here soon. - Mgm|(talk) 17:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The Foundation significantly tightened the Privacy and Checkuser policies after the Essjay incident. Persons with checkuser access must be of legal age where they live and must provide their real identity to the Foundation. Thatcher131 18:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. That we have to an extent failed to follow appropriate rules until now is a very poor basis for claiming not to need them. I am convinced that the newer rules are much better, although I certainly think that several minors who play active roles in the community here are would make very good Arbitrators (Cbrown, Sean W., and Messedrocker in particular), and I am saddened that they will not be able to join the Committee for a short while.
 * As an aside, although I posted the information, it was not my decision alone, but by the Committee as a whole. Would people stop thinking that I'm some despot making up the rules as I go? :-)
 * James F. (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The Essjay incident could simply be avoided by confirming his identity. Why make the additional requirement for someone to be of legal age? Minors can share their identity with the foundation with parental consent and if they are trustworthy enough to be voted into the position there's no real difference for the person whose details get shared. I'd be equally pissed if whether the info is known by a 60-year old librarian or a 14-year old student. (last bit of message added after edit conflict) - Mgm|(talk) 22:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As this was a decision by the Foundation, not the committee, it would be more appropriate to bring that up with the Foundation. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The privacy policy was the board's decision; applying it to arbitration committee members was the committee's own decision, based on James F's earlier comment, so I think they are the ones to raise the issue with. Picaroon (t) 22:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Our local ArbCom made the rather sensible (in my mind) decision not to have a two-tiered system, with a separate mailing list for issues involving checkuser (and other private) information and minor Arbitrators automatically recused from all cases involving checkuser evidence (at a minimum). Thatcher131 00:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My thinking is that a minor is incompetent in the eyes of the court. So there is not the same level of accountability for a minor. Without this accountability, it is not in the best interest of the user, Community, the Committee, or the Foundation for a minor to have access to the non-public information. This in no way reflect on the merits of individual minors who of course may be Super Competent and Extraordinary People. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 22:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about under the Florida law that the Foundation works under, but Michigan law states that any contract made with a minor is legally unenforceable, and thus minors can't be held accountable for breaching contracts, including privacy violations. Rdfox 76 (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Those last two responses are the best explanations so far, but they still don't explain why the contract can't be co-signed by a minor's parent or guardian to avoid the problem of accountability as mentioned by Rdfox 76. As far as I can tell parents are already legally responsible for their children in other cases. - Mgm|(talk) 23:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've emailed the foundation and referred them to this thread. - Mgm|(talk) 23:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

There are two longer threads on this topic on the 2007 ArbCom elections page and we probably ought to keep the discussion in one place for continuity. For what it is worth, I do not believe that a minimum age restriction on arbitrators is required by the current wording of the Foundation resolution or for any other identified reason. The Board resolution adopted earlier this year imposing a minimum age requirement on checkusers and oversighters is understandable, but it still represents a derogation from our community norm of recognizing equal rights and opportunities for every editor, and its application should not be expanded any further. A narrower construction of the resolution is readily available that distinguishes between providing that a younger editor who is legally a minor should not unilaterally decide to run a checkuser, and having a younger editor (who has been elected with the overwhelming trust of the community) as one member of a 15-member committee or a 40-member mailing list. However, the decision appears to be a fait accompli at least for this year, as very few editors have questioned it since it was announced, the two candidates who were forced to drop out of the election appear to have accepted the ruling (with better grace than I might have had if I were they), and voting in the election starts less than a week from now. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Burntsauce "appeal"
Perhaps we could remove this request as unconfirmed and as possible trolling until and unless we can verify that the message is actually from Burntsauce. Something seems off about this, and it's out of process. Although the message comes from an established user. Burntsauce, for all his disruption, was (and claimed to be) very familiar with Wikipedia policies. This so-called appeal, addressed to an uninvolved user rather than ArbCom, has quite a few unnecessary flaws. The timing is suspect. We cannot be sure that the editor who posted it isn't trolling, or being trolled by Burntsauce, or being trolled by someone who is not Burntsauce. I see little chances of this succeeding even if it is for real. Everything about the original case and the underlying conduct behind it involved weirdness, e.g. one administrator supporting sockpuppets and another operating sockpuppets to try to disrupt Burntsauce's arbcom case. Two or three ArbCom cases have already arisen out of Burntsauce's disruptive behavior. There is no harm in waiting, and asking Burntsauce that if the message is his he can email a confirmation to ArbCom from an email known to be his. There is a harm in continuing this if it turns out to be a hoax. When the wider community discovers this there is certain to be a lot of consternation, and possibly disruption to other ArbCom cases. Wikidemo (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd leave it up and let the arbiters decide if/how they want to handle this. A clear rejection or acceptance by the committee would probably be better than just making it disappear.--Isotope23 talk 18:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Burntsauce has posted essentially the same message on his talk page, so I think we can take it as authentic. Thatcher131 19:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, thatcher. Yes, I wouldn't dare delete a request from the arbitration page - that's for the Committee or its clerk.  But I do hope they deal with authenticity and propriety of the request for reconsideration quickly rather than risk this becoming yet the latest flare-up here.Wikidemo (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting that you or any other editor would unilaterally remove it Wikidemo. I meant that it would probably be preferable for the arbiters to actually reject or accept it, even if only to reject it as an out-of-process request, rather than a clerk or arbiter simply removing it as out-of-process.--Isotope23 talk 20:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The clerks are quite within their authority to remove requests by banned users as the instructions and banning policy both clearly say that banned users must appeal directly to Arbcom by email. However we (Brad a clerk and me a former clerk) both seem willing to leave this up for the time being.  If it becomes a troll magnet I doubt it will survive. Thatcher131 20:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a question of your authority to do so... I agree that any clerk would be absolutely within the bounds of process to remove it as a proxy request on behalf of a banned editor. I'm just stating my personal opinion that, in this particular case, I think it would be preferable to have the finality of a decision by the committee on this matter.  Sorry if that wasn't clear.  That said, I also agree with you that if it became a troll or drama magnet, that would change the situation completely.--Isotope23 talk 21:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding the authenticity, anyone who wants a copy of the email (including full headers) need only ask via the e-mail link in my signature. <font face="Trebuchet MS">Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 00:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and feel free to CheckUser me if you feel it necessary, as long as you don't publicly release the IP addresses I edit from. <font face="Trebuchet MS">Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 00:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Nah. Even the email headers don't necessarily prove the request really came from Burntsauce unless one already knew what his address was.  The post on the talk page is the best confirmation. Thatcher131 00:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

(Moved from main page) Application of the Civility and No personal attacks policies
Oh, Lord, not this. I'm uninvolved, but I really believe that it would be good for Barberio to read the article at WP:CIVIL. It has no particular force in it. It says that people should be civil toward one another. Civility, like obscenity, depends upon the viewer's standards. Since each person can interpret any statement as civil or uncivil, we have to employ community standards, and this effectively removes blocking from the hands of any single administrator. I cannot block a person for not being civil because, first, the policy doesn't have blocking as an option, and secondly because, as a solitary individual I am making a private interpretation of that person's statements. I need to appeal to a wider community to find that comments have gone from merely indecorous to actually disrupting the civil function of the republic of words here. Similarly, "personal attacks" has no sanctions in it. The policy does not say, "Block 'em." It says that certain "extreme" examples "may" result in a block. Both of these "policies" are admonitory rather than penal. Both recommend that people be nice and civil. This is because the blocking offense is disruption. If a person is disrupting the editing atmosphere, he or she may be blocked, but "disruption" requires demonstrated effects, not the umbrage taken by a particular user. Some long time users may point to their duration and contributions when accused of being uncivil, but this is not because one overcomes the other: it is because the long time of editing shows that they have experience with community editing, and the person complaining is probably representing only him or herself (i.e. that they do not represent a community's point of view and are idiosyncratic). More disruption comes into effect from people chasing each other about with the "Civility" stick than from any one person being mean, in my opinion. Geogre (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 *  Discussion moved from main page, please keep that section for asking clarification from the arbcom.
 * I'm sorry George, but I suggest you re-read these policies yourself. Specifically note that Civility is a core principle, that defines incivility as harm to the project. Admins are entitled to make blocks to prevent damage to the project. And the No Personal Attacks policy does explicitly note that blocks, or even community bans, may result from "a confrontational style marked by personal attacks".
 * "Pointing to their duration and contributions" is not a good demonstration that someone is currently being a productive community editor, or ever has been. You make the false assumption that experience equates to competence. Someone can spend five years doing something the wrong way. And frankly, in a project that's only seven years old, this isn't a wealth of 'experience' we're talking about. --Barberio (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Why was this moved from the main page? Editors who are not on the Arbitration Committe can post there, and have in the past posted there (for examples of such comments, look at the requests for clarification below the NPA and CIVIL thread). I suggest it be moved back. --Iamunknown 22:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I felt it was inviting a lengthy threaded "yes it is" "no it isn't" discussion if outside commenter's started in on this. If the arbcom or clerks disagree, they can restore it. --Barberio (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The Request for clarification section is mainly intended for requests involving prior closed cases. General questions such as "Why won't the Arbitrators hear a case involving X" are better handled on the talk page. Thatcher131 01:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In which case, Barberio's request was missplaced, Geogre's answer was threaded properly, and the long time user told the newer one that it isn't so simple as all that (and got lectured for an answer, as well as moved). Hallelujah!  Utgard Loki 19:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As mentioned, the above was moved because it was inviting threaded discussion from others, rather than asking for clarification from the committee. I begin to suspect that I should retreat back into wikisilence. Incidentally, my first contribution to wikipedia was more than three years ago, and I have been involved with the restructuring of policies and guidelines, as well as helping a major wikiproject get under way. I dislike having to present my credentials, however, I yet again find that a combative and aggressive tone is seen as the normal practice, and attempts to belittle others substitute for logical argument. I hope for change, but sadly this project is sinking more and more under the weight of the obnoxious. --Barberio 21:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not mean to invite threaded discussion, but, as yours was an outside view looking to apply a policy in a sweeping fashion away from a particular arbitration matter, I offered an outside view that suggested that the policies as written are clear enough. If you were involved in writing many policies and have been here for three years, then you know full well that "civility" is a goal, but the NPA policy intentionally has no consequences to it, that "civility" is impossible to determine, and that trying to do something like leverage a specific ruling one place onto a campaign for the reformation of manners (of anyone) is unacceptable, both from the point of view of arbitration and from the point of logic.  Geogre 00:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It was not an 'outside view looking to apply a policy in a sweeping fashion', it was a question about arbcom precedents, directed to the arbcom and not the community at large.
 * And yes I 'know' that the NPA is 'intentionally' toothless. But this is solely because of the rise of editors and admin who don't want NPA to be enforced except when it's directed towards them, and prefer 'Civility' as a weak guideline so they can punish and berate those who 'deserve it'.
 * Also, if you want to accuse me of 'unacceptable' behavior, please don't circle around the point in a passive aggressive manner with that 'doing something like...' insinuation. Come right out and say you think I've done something wrong. --Barberio 01:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what is in your mind. Your actions appear to me to be those of a person trying to find a weapon.  You seem not to realize how inherently ridiculous this is.  You seem to want a policy (or, better yet, an acronym) to use to silence people who annoy you.  To avoid anything passive, let me say that such is seeking out a weapon for combat.  It is looking for some way of getting control or getting the other person in trouble.  This is what's wrong with "Civility" as an invoked policy, rather than civility as a practice.  Civil editors do not need to shout, "Personal attack! Personal attack! Now I block you!"  "Rise of admins who prefer civility" is rather baseless.  I've been here opposing "NPA" since it was first proposed, and quite a few others have been, too, and we have prevailed to the extent that some observing that began to invoke "civility" rather than NPA.  I wish they had taken on board the actual lessons we hoped for, that sticks and stones don't exist on the web, and the names here are unlikely to hurt you.  When they do hurt, when they are that far out, the account is already in violation of a score of policies.  When a person is solely a trash-talking account, someone who does nothing but that sort of thing, then that account is doing something quite bad, violating many policies, and we don't need to obfuscate the issue by saying, "You have to be blocked for nothing you have done, but for being impolite."  Citing "NPA" and "Civility" is most often improper, and trying to get ArbCom to widen a ruling to make that easier is an uncivil act, because there is little room for it to be motivated by anything but a desire to have the biggest stick.  Geogre 12:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration cases during the ArbCom elections
Just a few thoughts here. Both of the ArbCom cases or requests I've been following (the Durova one and the request regarding Adam Cuerdon's blocks of MatthewHoffman) have involved, or came to involve, current candidates for the ArbCom elections. What is the feeling generally about this? Should this be taken into account, or should things proceed as normal? I note Adam made a plea for things to be postponed until January, citing exams and some other reasons, but he could equally have mentioned the elections. Durova was a candidate but withdrew, and Giano was (and still is) a candidate. Some people have noted that this can cause appearances of impropriety, and I'm actually sympathetic towards that view, despite being so concerned about the MatthewHoffman case that I considered opening an RfC, but that was pre-empted by Charles (Matthews) going straight to the RFARB stage. There was also a set of enforcements discussed in the Durova case that proposed postponing a proposed block of Giano (which didn't pass) until after the elections. Has this sort of thing (several candidates ending up as named parties in ArbCom cases) happened much before? What, if anything, should be considered and done in such cases? Carcharoth 01:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge it has never happened before. One solution would be to automatically suspend arbitrations involving candidates, but I think that's open to objection on several fronts. Mackensen (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's not difficult to come up with ways to game any such system like that. Bad-faith additions of arbcom candidates as parties in order to suspend a case. Or troublesome editors on the verge of an arbitration case, or involved in an RFARB that was about to open, putting themselves forward as a candidate in order to suspend the case. Obvious gaming would be less of a problem than the borderline cases. My feeling is that the arbitration cases should proceed as normal, with people in both places (the arbcom pages and the election pages) keeping an eye out for overspill either way. The arbcom pages definitely shouldn't turn into election pages. Discussion of the arbitration case at the election pages would be legitimate, but could get disruptive. One point to make to arbitrators as they vote to accept or reject, is that they might want to consider the motivations of the people filing a case if the filing seems to have been timed to coincide with the election. Anyway, maybe something to keep an eye on over the next month? Carcharoth 01:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Tied to this, of course, is the question of whether arbitrators should vote in these elections. If we had a secret ballot this wouldn't be an issue, but a public vote makes anyone's vote a political issue. I don't think it's a good system but it's not my call. If an arb voted for or against a candidate, then should they recuse? I'll probably vote, but I'm standing down and refraining from active participation in the next round of cases, as I doubt they'll finish before the elections do. For a continuing arb that's an issue, though, and the precedent is mixed. Mackensen (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Cases have been closing much more quickly over the past few weeks. It's obviously up to you, but there's now no reason to believe that a case that opens on December 1 won't finish by December 31, and in any event the rule is that an incumbent arbitrator is allowed to finish out any cases that opened before he or she left office. Newyorkbrad 04:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Some people have pages explaining their votes and endorsing particular candidates, and link this from their votes. It can be interesting seeing how other people vote. Last year I left voting until the end, wanting to see what others said and not having made up my mind yet, let alone read all the statements and questions, and possibly wanting to concentrate my votes where they have the most effect. Some people take the opposite strategy and vote immediately voting opens, presumably hoping to sway the votes of others. This is, in my mind, another drawback of the open ballot, but seeing short and civil comments by others is an advantage, as opposed to, say, the Wikimedia Foundation Board elections. Anyone concerned about having a political effect with their vote can vote in the closing hours of the election on the last day (sitting arbitrators from the other tranches, for instance, could quietly chose not to vote against someone who looks like being elected to serve on the committee). Carcharoth 11:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I will not be voting in the elections, but there is no rule on this; it has been hitherto left to the individual arbitrators. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Outsider view: Geogre:
 * You know, it really should be somewhat irrelevant. I hate to be Plato and talk of the perfect voter, especially since there is such a massive problem with ArbCom elections now (don't worry... you'll see it in a day or two) that doing anything about this will be unlikely to help, but if the presence of arbitration or the naming of parties to an arbitration has any relevance to the election, then there is an automatic incentive to name every disliked candidate to every open case.  In my view, Giano should never have been named as any part of Durovagate.  This is not because there was no issue that the arbitrators wanted to address with Giano's actions -- apparently several arbitrators were quite worked up -- but because it was an unrelated matter.  A separate arbitration focusing solely upon the issues that were related to Giano's actions might have been possible, but he got tacked on.  It would have been as easy to tack on Guy, or Mercury, or SlimVirgin, or whoever had a "history" that any of the arbitrators had even a word of praise to offer.  The unscrupulous could then use these agglutinations to affect ongoing elections.
 * Also, people "in" arbcom cases are often there as the people about to be vindicated and thanked and hugged by ArbCom. Being a party shows that you're interested in issues and involved in disputes -- either as disputant or resolution.
 * (Oh, and for the problem? You'll see.  If anyone has forgotten the last elections and what happened, I have no intention of reminding them.  I predict we'll see a repeat, but I hope we will not.)  Geogre 13:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators opening cases
Quoting Thatcher131 from somewhere up above: "Early this year there was a discussion on one of the noticeboards in which a few of the Arbitrators asked whether they should initiate cases or wait for cases to be brought to them; the majority of responses were that the Committee should not open cases on its own." (does anyone have a link to that discussion?) I'm putting this in its own section because this reminded me of something I had intended to bring up. Earlier today, Charles Matthews, one of the arbitrators, filed a case. Am I right in saying that an arbitrator filing a case is normally quite a rare event? Thatcher's comment had been in response to some mention that the ArbCom had been frustrated that no-one had filed a case regarding the Durova incident. Is it time to have this discussion again? Carcharoth 01:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My impression is that Charles Matthews is acting as a user in this matter. This is unusual, but I wonder the odds of any one person from a group of 15-20 people filing a case over a period of one year. Probably pretty low. If ArbCom were bringing the case, as has happened with Jimbo-referred cases, we'd go right to evidence without the formality. Mackensen (talk) 01:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to me it should be editors initiating ArbCom cases and not the committee itself. But of course, if an arbitrator strongly feels a case needs to come to the Committee, he/she should be able to initiate, assuming, of course, that he/she is willing to recuse as an arbitrator for that case. (Jimbo is, of course, a special case in that he can more or less tell ArbCom to take a case, as Macksensen suggests). That seems to me to how things are now, and I don't see that we need a change. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is an obvious dispute between Adam Cuerden and Charles Matthews concerning a poor response to an inquiry about a block. I believe this case is properly filed, Carcharoth. Charles does not lose his opportunity to file cases just because he serves on Arbcom. - Jehochman  Talk 03:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. That was an example. I really brought this up because Thatcher's comment above reminded me of the debate over whether ArbCom should be more proactive in opening cases. In this case, Charles, as one of the parties, can obviously file a case. I'm thinking more of cases where arbitrators, looking in from the sidelines, think "this needs sorting out, let's get a case going". This seems to be what happened in the Durova case, given the comment by Risker in the same thread: "Mackensen has referred to their frustration of not having the case brought to them sooner. Ultimately, it was a former member of the Committee, who perhaps had a better understanding of the committee's difficult situation, who filed for consideration of the case. It was a tough call all around." And I still can't find that previous discussion, though I remember it taking place. Was it at a village pump, at the administrators' noticeboard, on this talk page? Carcharoth 10:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have some significant dissent here. Charles Matthews may be acting as an user, but he isn't one, so long as he is on the mailing list and retains standing as a member of ArbCom.  I do not believe that ArbCom can be the police.  ArbCom must never become Batman, standing on the rooftops, looking down at the teaming city, seeking out malefactors.  They are intended as an arbitration board.  I normally support the idea that an arb is just some dude when not wearing his hat, but this is a case of judge bringing a case to his own circuit.  Surely there was/are other persons who wish resolution of the issue Charles is involved in?  Surely an "uninvolved admin" can be involved?  Geogre 13:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Obvious amendment: There are steps prior to RfAR, as ArbCom is quick to point out. If an arbitrator is in a dispute, all of those should be employed.  When those fail, will not the other individuals wish to move to RfAR?  I do not like the idea that there is any shorter path for an arb than a newbie.  Geogre 13:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As a practical matter, Charles could have contacted any friendly user about filing the case as a "stalking horse" and no one would have been the wiser; the fact is that Charles is involved in a dispute and was open and transparent about the process; surely a good thing over all. Whether Charles has taken a short cut is a matter for the Arbitrators to judge.  The dispute was discussed on the noticeboard, and Adam was clear in his opinion that he did nothing wrong and that Charles was bullying him, despite the presence in the discussion of other admins who agreed that the indefinite block was excessive.  Arbcom is the venue of choice for disputes involving administrative judgement; was anything further to be gained by making them run through an RFC first? Thatcher131 14:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Obvious amendment: When a single Arbitrator is involved in a dispute I believe the only appropriate course is for the Arbitrator to file a case and recuse from it.  The question referred to above is whether ArbCom should open a case about a situation that concerns them but does not involve the Arbitrators as individuals (such as the Durova case or wheel-warring). Thatcher131 14:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Given the brohouha about the arbcom mailing list, such recusal would obviously extend to not commenting on threads on arb-l. But in some cases, even being able to read the discussions of the other arbitrators could put said arbitrator who has recused in a difficult position. What if they were actually named as a party against which sanctions were proposed? Surely they would want to defend themselves? Would they step down for the duration of the case (that would encourage frivolous cases being brought against arbitrators), or should there be some sort of immunity. Three years of immunity is a pretty big incentive to run for ArbCom! Carcharoth 14:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict, so to Thatcher.) We are in broad agreement, and I surely support Charles being transparent.  I still believe that it requires another user.  This is not because of impropriety, but because the involvement of another user acts as a tacit endorsement of the seriousness and intractability of the situation.  It protects the project from too impassioned a move.  It makes someone silently count to ten, as it were.  The short circuiting to arbitration is probably moot in this particular case, but it's important in general and on principle.
 * However on the second issue -- ArbCom swooping down from the rooftops -- I think status quo, for all its creaking joints, has an enormous advantage of being the thing we know, the thing we know with flaws and strengths. ArbCom, I think, cannot be policing, even of issues that are administrative behavior.  While it might be that an AC worked solely in the most blatant cases, it would license trivial or controversial enforcements.  I can be seen being accused of bullying on my talk page right now.  I was no doubt being intimidating, but I'm unrepentant.  If any of the current arbs made uncomfortable by my arguments here were of a mind, would they be flying down to arrest me?  As slow as the status quo is, I believe in festina lente.  Geogre 14:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Neatly tying various threads on this page together, I get the sense that at least a couple of times a former arbitrator who is on the mailing list has filed an RfAr because (among other reasons) he had the sense that the arbitrators were ready for a case on a topic. Compare Dmcdevit's opening statement in the Durova case, or David Gerard's filing the Henrygb case (where the alternative was the announcement of a conclusion reached on the mailing list, without a case). Newyorkbrad 14:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Newyorkbrad, if you were representing a client and one of the parties to the dispute was receiving all the arbitrators internal correspondence and your client was not, what would you do? - Jehochman  Talk 15:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Brad, if that's the case, then it really is improper and brings us right back to the critical issues: transparency and being arbitrated for what one is doing, rather than what one is rumored to have done. Without access to evidence and without facing one's accusers, we overturn the basis of due process going back to the 13th century.  This is not merely Western, either.  I understand that folks can simmer for a while, but I maintain it still: the moment things brooded upon are occasions for present action is the moment people have to really chase phantoms.  Geogre 15:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, fair enough, but these in a way were special cases. For example, the Henrygb case was virtually ex parte: Henrygb (an admin who had been caught socking and multiple-!voting) had announced that he was boycotting the proceedings, and the choice was either someone from the list opening a case or else the committee desysopping him after discussion off-wiki and then just announcing it, a la Runcorn or Everyking. Perhaps in this context, some transparency and on-wiki discussion is better than none. This certainly isn't the best practice when there are alternatives. Newyorkbrad 16:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm. Hard cases make bad law.  As a notional cluocracy, it may be unnecessary to slavishly follow process. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not! It is not a "cluocracy," notionally, nominally, or practically.  It took the place of an "expert driven" effort.  It has trounced expert-driven projects.  Has it done this because it had experts in running the project hidden away with unknown names, or has it done this by actually being democratic, in the good and bad sense of the term?  I may work for The People, but I will not work for people.  Geogre 03:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Application of the Civility and No personal attacks policies
Can the Arbitration committee please clarify their position on the application of these policies. There seems to be notable general feeling that past rulings by the committee have set precedent that 'Standing', ie history of contributions and administrative work, can be used as mitigation for incivil behavior and personal attacks against other editors. Specifically, I ask if 'Standing' can be used as defense even if past history indicates the editor will continue to make personal attacks and other disruptive incivility, something that policy indicates should result in preventative block. --Barberio (talk) 23:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "Standing" should obviously have no effect on findings of fact. Our custom is to allow standing to affect any remedy. If "remedy" is taken literally - the AC actually does try to fix up situations - it should be clear why that is. The process is not punitive, but has regard to the work going on daily on the site. Analogy with criminal proceedings can mislead. If you are asking whether the AC should apply remedies it knows in advance are likely to fail, the answer is "no"; though of course we are allowed to take a more optimistic view than self-appointed prosecutors. And mixing in policy is an odd thing here; certain kinds of disruption are within the remit of any admin, quite independent of what the AC says. But it is true that an AC case ought to be considered to have 'dealt with' past history, given in evidence. After all, blocking productive editors is a loss to the project. Generally it is not that helpful if ancient incidents are brought up against people. Charles Matthews (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply, however I'm not sure you clarified the point I was asking about. I find your statement that "certain kinds of disruption are within the remit of any admin" very confusing.
 * You also seem to contradict the policy by saying past history of personal attacks should not be considered. To quote WP:NPA : "Recurring attacks are proportionally more likely to be considered 'disruption'. Blocking for personal attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment. A block may be warranted if it seems likely that the user will continue using personal attacks." This seems to me clear indication that someone with an obvious past history of personal attacks, who makes no effort or only token efforts to reform, and continues to make personal attacks may be blocked as a preventative measure regardless of their 'standing'.
 * I'm not entirely sure if you are saying that an editor who habitually makes personal attacks, and thus could be preventively blocked, can be a productive editor. It would seem to me that such an editor is being counter-productive. --Barberio (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The statement about admins is consistent with what you quoted from policy, no? "Recurring" needs sensible interpretation; once a week, yes, if you go back six months, no. Admins do have some discretion here; blocks for disruption are always in some measure judgement calls. You asked how the AC sees it, and I am of course speaking for myself here. But the AC tends to work from principles, not detailed policy wording (which is always very much subject to mission creep). "Preventive" blocking; I think we'd not be happy to see indefinite blocks, but "cooling off" blocks are within admin discretion, assuming they are proportionate to the situation. On your last point, it seems clear that some productive editors do also indulge in personal attacks. There is no "entitlement"; what actually happens is that the AC is only happy to take cases on this alone (loudmouth stuff) when there is something fairly definite to point to. One final point is that civility paroles are a standard remedy, which the AC will use in cases (and if we don't, it is some indication). Charles Matthews (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This raises the question of someone who after being warned about Personal Attacks, 'cleans up their act' for six months, but then reverts back to making personal attacks with signs they will continue. By your standard, we should not consider their history as it's 'the far past'. It is notable that application of 'civility parole' could lead to cases of this type arising where the editor returns to bad behavior some time after the period of parole is over.
 * This is explicitly not the standard that is applied to other cases of disruptive behavior such as edit waring. In those cases past history has been considered when an editor reverts to that behavior and appears ready to continue doing so. I'm confused as to why you feel this should not be applied to NPA and civility?
 * I'm afraid I must strongly disagree with you on your point that 'productive editors' may engage in personal attacks. By definition, productive editors are those who make contributions to the project. Making personal attacks significantly and strongly detracts from the project. Editors who are making personal attacks are not productive members of the project, and shouldn't be treated as if they are. A plumber who unclogs my toilet, repairs my shower, fixes my sink, then smashes all my windows; was not being productive. --Barberio (talk) 11:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) That's anyway not what I said. I said there is no entitlement to be incivil, whatever an editor's contribution. And you were asking about the AC's collective view, which I have tried to explain. Personally I'm a hawk on incivility - I always vote for civility parole remedies, as you could see from my voting record. I would answer your point by saying simply that the AC's real expertise is in the field of editor behaviour. We are expected to take everything into account, case-by-case. Your hypothetical plumber would be a vandalism case, not an incivility case. We are expected to place decisions in some sort of framework. That's what the principles are for. There are some relevant principles, but not what you are saying. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you be willing to restate, or link to, those principles you feel express the opinion of the ArbCom on this issue? --Barberio (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Charles, I just read what you wrote above about "cooling off" blocks. My thought was that this had generally been regarded as an unhelpful thing to do. Blocks tend to generate heat, not coolness, especially when the person being issued a "cooling off" block is already quite angry. I believe I've seen users blocked for being irritible come back enraged after the block expires. IronDuke  21:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Mailing List Confidential?
Are items sent to the arbcom mailing list confidential? It appears the list is compromised. Spatalker 15:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh? The email investigating user:!! was sent to multiple people.  Eventually Giano got a copy, and someone also forwarded it to Arbcom-L.  Giano posted his copy on wiki.  There have been no leaks as far as I know of material sent only to Arbcom-L. Thatcher131 15:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not accurate. wr/index.php?showtopic=14172 Spatalker 16:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand what is going on here. There are three lists:
 * Arbcom-L private and confidential for Arbcom business, confidential by Wikipedia and Arbcom policy
 * WPcyberstalking for discussion of cyberstalking of editors and how to deal with it. Subscription by invitation and private by convention of the participants
 * WPinvestigations for discussion of sockpuppet investigations. Subscription by invitation and private by consent of the parties.
 * If someone who is subscribed to the Cyberstalking or Investigations list forwarded messages or a membership list outside of the list, that is the business of the participants in the list. Nothing that originated on Arbcom-L or was sent to Arbcom-L has leaked from Arbcom-L unless the original sender also sent it somewhere else or if it was non-confidential information that was intentionally cc'd.  (For example, when I was the only clerk and I proposed the appointment of some additional candidates, I was cc'd on some of the messages in which Arbcom discussed the proposed appointments.)  To the best of my knowledge nothing that was meant to be confidential has ever leaked. Thatcher131 17:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Had the Arbcom as a body seen that evidence before I posted it ANI - yes or no? Giano 17:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Giano, on wiki-en-l this morning, Kirill Lokshin posted that the Arbcom mailing list received a copy of the blocking post a few hours before you posted it on-wiki, and that it was sent to them by a person "not involved in the dispute." I don't know how to link to that, but perhaps you know how to look that up. Risker 17:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * bearing in mind the debate here above ref: "kiss my ass" were they able to understand the gravity of the situation? Giano 17:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The conversation did not go in that direction, to be honest. My own take is that there has been some pretty strong resistance on the part of the community to an activist Arbcom that selects its own cases and develops its own evidence, and the currently sitting Arbcom felt constrained to pursue this case without somebody giving it some form of mandate. Mackensen has referred to their frustration of not having the case brought to them sooner. Ultimately, it was a former member of the Committee, who perhaps had a better understanding of the committee's difficult situation, who filed for consideration of the case. It was a tough call all around. Risker 17:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I can well understand anyone's reluctance to become involved in a case. Giano 17:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Early this year there was a discussion on one of the noticeboards in which a few of the Arbitrators asked whether they should initiate cases or wait for cases to be brought to them; the majority of responses were that the Committee should not open cases on its own. Hence for several days Arbcom could only watch in frustration, until someone offically filed a request to hear the case. Thatcher131 17:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Kirill Lokshin has said they first received the e-mail after the block and four hours before Giano posted it.
 * Just to clarify, I don't think the e-mail was ever sent to the investigations list. And the version Durova sent to the cyberstalking list is not the same as the version that was leaked. The version that was leaked is the one Durova sent out to people after the block. So I don't believe this leak originated with anyone on the cyberstalking list.
 * I also want to clarify that no arbitrator responded to Durova's thread when she posted the e-mail to cyberstalking. So there's no suggestion any arbitrator saw it before the block.
 * The timeline is:
 * Nov 3, Durova sends the e-mail to the cyberstalking list. There is no proposal to block !! and no further e-mails in the thread after Nov 3.
 * Nov 3-18, Durova said after the block that there had been other private e-mails and chats about !! during this period. Recipients unknown.
 * Nov 18, Durova blocks !!
 * Nov 18 or thereabouts, after the block, Durova sends a version of her e-mail to at least two other editors, but not the version she sent to cyberstalking.
 * Nov 18 22, someone sends the e-mail to the ArbCom.
 * Four hours after it's received by ArbCom, according to Kirill Lokshin, Giano posts it. The version posted is not the original version that was sent to cyberstalking.


 * I'm posting this in response to the suggestion above that it may have been someone from the cyberstalking list who leaked this. Given the different versions, I'm fairly sure no one did. I also think the gap between the Nov 3 posting and the Nov 18 block suggests no involvement on the part of the cyberstalking list. Indeed, had any of us looked at the links, we'd have spotted that !! was known by Giano, so none of this would have happened if Durova had told us she was going to block. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 17:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not quite right. This would be more correct:
 * Nov 22, someone sends the e-mail to the ArbCom.
 * There's a four-day gap between the time when this first started and the time any useful information came to us. Kirill 17:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, looking at this again, I'm not sure I have the timestamps right. If I'm reading this correcly, Giano first posted the email on AN/I at 11:59 AM EST on Nov 22, while the Committee received a copy at 2:17 PM EST on Nov 22—two hours after it was already posted.  But I'm not entirely certain whether the second timestamp is EST or UTC; if it is the latter, then we received it two hours before it was posted.
 * In either case, the Committee obviously had no chance to respond in any fashion before Giano posted on AN/I. Kirill 18:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * At least 3 members of the Arbcom had had the mail for days if not weeks. What were they waiting for - me to die of old age? Giano 18:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You'll have to ask them that. The Committee, as a body, was not aware of the circumstances here until about the same time as you were. Kirill 18:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Assuming they realized that the message in question was one they received 3 weeks earlier on the cyberstalking list, and assuming they saved it. Thatcher131 18:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And again, no arbitrators responded to Durova's thread on cyberstalking, so there's no indication any of them even saw it at the time. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 18:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What a pity none of these three Wikipedian celebrities feel able to descend from Olympus and speak to us common people themselves, or are you and Thatcher their appointed spokesperson? Giano 18:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know who you're referring to, but if you mean people on the cyberstalking list it's because there is nothing to say. The e-mail was received, there were few responses, no block proposal, no reason even to read the links. Bear in mind that Durova was trying to show a group of experienced editors how to spot sockpuppets. But we all know how to do that already, plus it's often a high-traffic list. So the e-mail wasn't read carefully, if at all. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 18:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "wasn't read carefully, if at all" .. Now that has more implications that I care to expound on. Lsi john 18:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Where did Giano get the document from? The timeline makes a leak from the Arbcom-l most likley, no? Given the clear statements being made against off-wiki conspiring, why is only one type of conspiring problematic? Has a definitave list of members of Arbcom-l ever been published? Spatalker 18:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a list of the subscribers at Arbitration Committee. Sam Blacketer 18:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. That list is quite long. I suggest the current Committee should spend some time revetting this list, given the 4 hour lapse between information arriving on this list and the same information being widely distributed, vs. the 19 day lapse between initial publication of the information and it's eventual distribution. Spatalker 18:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it a really good idea to go searching for whoever sent Durova's post to Giano? I'm not sure a leak inquiry would find the culprit, but if it did, then I don't see any reason to start restricting them. Sam Blacketer 19:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The archives of Arbcom-l have checkuser data in them. Release of checkuser data to third parties is a bad thing. If someone is forwarding documents from Arbcom-l to not-arbcom-l, they should not be authorized to view checkuser data. Spatalker 19:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In all honesty, I find these insinuations that the Committee leaked material to Giano—out of a nigh-suicidal urge to bring the wrath of the project down on ourselves, presumably?—preposterous and insulting, particularly coming from someone hiding behind a throwaway account. Kirill 19:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The entire comittee would not need to agree to leak it. One ex-arbitor would be more than enough. Do you vouch for each and every member of your list personally, or are they responsible for their own conduct? Dosen't it seem possible that message emminated from the arbcom list, given the timing? At the very least, please cease discussing checkuser data on the arbcom mailing list untill it's security can be reviewed. Spatalker 19:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Kirill. I think the idea that Giano has access to confidental information due to a leak in the Arbitration Committee mailing list is insane. --Deskana (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think we'll ever know who leaked it. Durova sent it to several people after the block between Nov 18 and 22. They in turn may have sent it to others before it reached Giano. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 19:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was me, of course. Who else? I did ask Durova to send me a copy in the hours after the block, but she did not. If she had, I would have considered myself bound by the confidentiality I offered her when I tried to initiate an off-wiki discussion about the block. But she didn't. Someone else sent the text of the e-mail (not the whole thing) to me in the aftermath of the block. See further at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Proposed decision. -- !! ?? 21:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * So if !! cares to tell us who it was that sent him the email, and so forth, we would presumably eventually find the source of the leak. I doubt that information will be forthcoming, though, as there are asses that need to be covered here. Someone, somewhere abused the trust afforded in them, so I'm not holding my breath for that person to step forward. If there is anything to be learned from this, its perhaps that Wikipedians in general are not very good at keeping private correspondence to themselves. Rockpock  e  t  08:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me add what I know about this:


 * Tuesday Nov 20 14:21 UTC I asked Durova for a copy of her report.
 * Tuesday Nov 20 19:42 UTC Durova sent me a copy of her report.
 * Tuesday Nov 20 20:23 UTC I asked Durova if she had sent her report to Arbcom-L.
 * Wednesday Nov 21 01:51 UTC Durova answers that no she hadn't.
 * Thursday Nov 22 18:41 UTC I asked Durova for permission to forward to the Arbcom-L, her latest email to me which contained a copy of her report.
 * Thursday Nov 22 18:58 UTC Durova gives her permission
 * Thursday Nov 22 19:17 UTC I forwarded a copy of her email to me, to Arbcom-L.

So according to my records, my recollection, and Durova's statement above, the first time I recieved the report was on Tuesday Nov 20 19:42 UTC and the first time the AC mailing list recieved the report was on Thursday Nov 22 19:17 UTC.

Paul August &#9742; 22:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: since !! has now said that that he was the person who passed the information to Giano, I can now add a bit more. From a comment !! made to me, I believe that he had access to the "report" prior to Durova sending me a copy. From this I conclude that unless someone other than !! passed this along to Giano, Arbcom-L could not have been the source of the leak. Paul August &#9742; 22:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of who leaked the email, the cleanup of ArbCom-l is long overdue
No one is suggesting that the email was leaked by a member of current ArbCom. The list, however, includes a whole lot of people in addition to the ArbCom members. This just makes no sense. There is no reason why anyone but the ArbCom members should have access to the lists. Arbitrators Emeritus (what a term coined by Kelly!) should not be on confidential lists. They are just editors not bound by the implicit arbitrators code of conduct. For instance, they may write and post "statements" to cases and take part in them. Does anyone else see a problem when someone who can listen to the private deliberations of judges can also to take part in the court proceedings?

It took a huge effort to have Kelly ejected from the list overcoming her resistance after she resigned "under cloud" and it was long since obvious that she has no community trust to have access to confidential information. Right now, for instance, subscribers include David Gerard. Was community vetted ever on whether this person is trusted with Confidential info? Mind you, Essjay was on the list too without being even voted on being trusted. Perhaps this incident is a good opportunity to remind to take a long overdue action on formulating a set of rules on who can and who cannot be on the list. --Irpen 19:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Reality check time.


 * Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 15:27:08 -0500
 * From: "Kelly Martin" <kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com>
 * To: arbcom-l-owner@wikimedia.org
 * Subject: unsubscribe
 * Delivered-To: kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com
 * Please unsubscribe me from the arbcom list. I don't remember my password.
 * Kelly
 * Kelly
 * Kelly


 * Note the date. Compare to the date that the resignation of my adminship became effective, according to the log at meta.  This discussion may or may not have merit, but it certainly will not have merit if it is driven astray by flatly false claims about the state of reality.  Kelly Martin 21:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Good points. Former members of ArbCom and others aren't bound by ArbCom rules. Maybe the list could be limited to only ArbCom members who stand a chance of being able to participate in the decision? John Carter 19:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Curious that you ask if David Gerard has ever been vetted for handling confidential information. You are not aware, presumably, that he holds Checkuser and Oversight powers, and in fact was Wikipedia's first checkuser (and for a long time its only one).  I would suggest, Irpen, that you're being a little over-ambitious, and although I know little of your history I think I detect a certain animus against the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 19:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that David Gerard is on OTRS and Communications Committee. He has access to far more dangerous things than Arbcom private information. I think he's well proven his trust. &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT  Jester    Son of the Defender  20:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No animus at all, Tony! Not against the committee at least but against certain individuals with the history of backroom deals. As far as DG goes, I am well aware of his CU and Oversight powers. But you, perhaps, misread what I wrote. I never said that he has no powers. I said that community was never vetted on giving him those powers. All ArbCom members have those powers too and their election voting page is the proof of the community support for them to have powers and access to sensitive info. There is no such indication for David Gerard, there was none for Essjay. And if we are talking about people getting the sensitive access without vetting for the community trust, here is another recent example.


 * I am not against ArbCom, Tony. Although I emphatically disagreed with some of its members, I treat their position with respect. They all have gained their positions with a wide community approval and I respect the community approval regardless on whether I agree with the community on those individuals. But I am talking about cases when no community approval was expressed (or sought.) --Irpen 20:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Tony, it's definitely true that someone leaked information about posts I had sent to the ArbCom to Kelly Martin and Cyde. Cyde actually told me himself on one occasion that he knew what I had written to ArbCom. I've raised this issue elsewhere too, and wouldn't have raised it myself in public, because it unfairly smears all the members of the ArbCom who can be trusted with confidential material. But now that someone else has mentioned it, I have to say that I myself would not send anything sensitive to the ArbCom mailing list. That's a great pity, because we need a group of trusted, senior editors we can confide in. The knock-on effect of not having such a group is that Jimbo gets asked to deal with a lot of issues on his own, which isn't fair to him. The bottom line is that the ArbCom does need to get its own house in order. No one expects them to be paragons of virtue, but leaking material to someone who is likely to stick it on her blog &mdash; and who has allowed what she thinks is the real name of someone else on the ArbCom mailing list to be published on her blog, without that person's consent &mdash; is the height of folly. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 20:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

In total agreement with Slim. We need to restrict access to the sensitive info only to members of the community who are trusted by this community. I am not aware of any better way to gauge this trust than the ArbCom election itself. Those who have never went through it cannot claim to have been trusted. Same applies to "arbitrators emeritus". Trust cannot be eternal. Someone who have been trusted 5 years ago or so (when the vote for that person took place) cannot be guaranteed to have this trust forever. By restricting the ArbCom list to the current members, we would make a huge step to make the privacy of the ArbCom list truly meaningful. This should not be misconstrued as an attack on all the former ArbCom members. I checked their list and I have a huge respect to many of them. But we need clearly spelled out rules and they should be followed. Wikipedia privacy policy needs to be upheld to the highest standards. --Irpen 20:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This sounds all sensible, Irpen, until I look at what you're actually saying. You're claiming that David Gerard has never been vetted by the community, yet he won the sixth highest number of votes in the December 2004 arbitration committee elections, in a field of 34 candidates.  Moreover, the arbitration committee itself decides who is to be a member of the arbitration committee list.  If you personally don't trust it and think someone has leaked information, send your evidence, including any mail headers you may have, to the committee.  And he comes from a period when checkuser was not widely distributed. He was the only checkuser for a long time.  Moreover he is a regular spokesperson for Wikipedia in the UK and Ireland, and even further afield.  Trying to kick fellows like that off the commmittee mailing list really isn't sensible. --Tony Sidaway 20:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think it makes sense to focus on individuals here. And what you say about sending emails and headers, Tony, is pointless. That information is obtained confidentially and so obviously it can't be used as evidence. I could forward my email from Cyde but you know as well as I do that the ArbCom wouldn't take it seriously. After all, what can they do with it? It doesn't tell them who the leaker is.


 * So moving away from particular individuals or examples, what we do know is that someone from the ArbCom is forwarding material to some irresponsible people, who are in turn alluding to it publicly, and spreading it around in e-mails. The question is, what can be done about this, in general terms? SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 20:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Tony, there is no reason to believe that someone trusted four years ago retains the trust today. This is why we have term limits. I brought up DG merely by example although, I admit, I was not aware of this ancient (by WP standards) history of 2004 vote. His name in the list caught my eye specifically because I have reasons to consider this specific person untrustworthy due to the incidents that took place onwiki in the open and that may be just me. We can discuss it, Tony, at your (or mine) talk page. Moreover, I tried to get answers to those questions and deafening silence was unsettling. I would me more than happy to receive the answers at any point of time and would happily see the plausible explanation if offered (I cannot come up with any.)

The issue at hand, however, is more important. The rules that regulate the access to sensitive information need to be clearly spelled out and enforced. Those rules should be sensible and meet a wide community consensus. --Irpen 21:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I find your suggestion that David Gerard, OTRS, Checkuser, Oversight, Communications Committee, is in any way regarded as untrustworthy by the community quite extraordinary. You're going to have to try harder than this, Irpen.  If you have any evidence against him, submit it to the arbitration committee and stop making baseless allegations. --Tony Sidaway 21:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * And if someone did have evidence that a former arbitrator is untrustworthy? I don't see how submitting information like that to the arbitraton committee would help if the former arbitrators are subscribers to the arbcom mailing list. --Pixelface (talk) 02:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And I think you owe both Kelly Martin and David Gerard a good, honest apology, Irpen. Please don't bandy about these loose accusations if you expect your arguments to be taken seriously.  --Tony Sidaway 21:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Could we instead just focus on the problem? There is a perception (right or wrong) that the ArbCom mailing list can't be trusted. The effect of this is that arbitrators are not being kept in the loop, and that Jimbo is having to deal with certain issues himself. I think everyone can agree that this is a bad state of affairs. So the question is: what can we do about it? Are there any suggestions? SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 21:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to think that we could focus on a problem, but really what I'm seeing is two editors making pretty serious allegations, which they explicitly refuse to support, against members of the arbitration committee mailing list. If you can't be bothered to forward your evidence to the right place, then I can't be bothered to care.  Sorry. --Tony Sidaway 21:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I suspect that you would find that there is not a consensus that the ArbCom-l list cannot be trusted; in fact, I suspect you will find that the number of people who hold that opinion may be counted without resorting to the removal of footwear. Please, take your paranoia and be gone from here with it; it has become tedious and annoying.  Kelly Martin 21:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's likely to continue being tedious and annoying, so try to get used to it. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 21:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think what he was trying to imply was that there are individuals on that list who are not members of ArbCom. Also, at this point, saying that all the members of that mailing list can be completely trusted is kind of like saying that you knew the barn door was locked several hours after all the livestock ran off. I don't myself think that any particular individuals were necessarily specifically mentioned to call those individuals into question, but maybe just to provide examples. However, it does seem clear that at least one person on that mailing list can't be trusted as much as they evidently were. I'd like to apologize to anyone who thought they were individually being singled out for criticism, by me or others, and hope that the discussion can continue about whether the mailing list could be adjusted to maybe ensure greater accountability among those who receive it. And my apologies if my phrasing of any of the above was inappropriate. Diplomatese ain't my strong point. John Carter 21:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What can be done to ensure accountability, or at least improve it? SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 21:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly and truly baffled that restricting ArbCom mailing list access to standing ArbCom members is controversial or offensive in the least. Vassyana 22:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, I can't see any real objections to that idea myself. Doing so might make it easier to find anyone who does leak information, and would probably make it more likely that, if one of the ArbCom does leak, someone would be willing to name them on the basis of their failure to live up to their obligations. It won't necessarily prevent similar events in the future, but with any luck it might make them less likely. John Carter 22:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Trying to see this from Jimbo's perspective, I think he likes the idea of having a group of trusted editors he can turn to for advice and feedback. He also likes having some continuity between the old ArbCom and the new, so that more experienced people can advise the more recent ones. The problem with the situation is, in part, that the list is getting ever-larger, and so leaks become more likely. Also, once someone is on the list, they're on it for life, as it were, unless something really egregious is shown against them. And it only takes one to destroy the trust people have in the list.


 * What I'd like to see instead, if Jimbo wants a group of people to turn to for advice, is that he set up such a group -- chosen by him, not elected -- of people who can be trusted absolutely not to forward information to people who will post it on blogs, hand it to attack sites etc. It's never possible to trust someone 100 percent in every regard. But there are lots of experienced editors on this website that I know would never hand confidential information to someone who might publish it, or forward it to someone who might harm the subject of it. Jimbo should choose a group of people that he feels he can say that of, and leave the ArbCom to discuss cases that are brought before it. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 22:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. The vagaries of elections can be unpredictable, and longstanding familiarity with an individual volunteer (which everyone here is) is probably a better predictor of character. And, considering that the list isn't necessarily directly tied to "official" wikipedia, those individuals could be just "drafted" onto the list. It might help to give those individuals some sort of quasi-official status, though, somehow, to prevent future aspersions of elitism. John Carter 22:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The current situation leaves Jimbo in a position where he has to choose arbitrators from an elected list, which may consist of people he has absolutely no knowledge of. All he can see is they're willing to give their real names (and we have no way of checking that), and that the community seems not to mind them. None of that tells you whether someone can be trusted. You need quite a substantial amount of interaction with someone before you get to know their quirks, and start to get instincts about "I can trust them regarding this type of thing, but not regarding that type of thing." When it comes to deciding who should handle very sensitive information, it's that level of prior interaction that is needed, and which the current system can't deliver. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 22:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What you've said there actually reads like an argument against giving the current AC confidential information. I thought you were arguing for the community-selected group - David Gerard 23:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I'm saying it's clear someone on the ArbCom or its mailing list has leaked information to someone who couldn't be trusted with it. I'm also saying I think this is inevitable where you have a situation of people being elected who may have interacted with Jimbo only sporadically or not at all, and that it's therefore likely to get worse, not better. So I was suggesting separating the advice role of the ArbCom, which Jimbo likes, from its main role of dispute resolution. Elect a small group of people to do dispute resolution, and Jimbo can appoint a larger group of people he actually knows to act as a confidential sounding board, if he feels he needs one. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 23:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That is the worst idea I have ever heard mooted on Wikipedia. Giano 23:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Slim, Jimbo is a big boy. He can have as many mailing lists as he wants, on and off Wikipedia, to receive advice and banter with various people. I don't think there is a single person in the project who believes the only people he talks with or listens to are members of the Arbcom mailing list; and if he is relying only on the people he "knows" then he's missing out on an awful lot.  The mailing list under discussion is primarily for the use of the Arbcom members, it reportedly has an akashic record, and frankly if they want to kick someone who is a non-serving Arb off the list, they can. If you or anyone else have a concern about privacy violations, please advise the Ombudsman.  Risker 20:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason is for institutional memory and advice. Presumably Jimbo and the AC will continue to maintain the list as is useful to him and them - David Gerard 23:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It sounds to me like what might be being proposed here is potentially making ArbCom at least somewhat "officially" tied to Wikimedia. That might not be a bad idea. Would there be any way to make the ArbCom a bit more "officially" tied to the Foundation? John Carter 23:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Institutional memory is a good thing, but when people won't send the ArbCom confidential material because they don't trust it to remain confidential, then obviously there's a problem that needs to be solved. No point in ignoring it, and David, this is not a matter for the ArbCom itself. It's a matter for the entire community if the body they're electing representatives to has a problem as fundamental as that. Sometimes people are required to interact with the ArbCom. Therefore, we have a right to know that it's fundamentally trustworthy. It's in the ArbCom's interests to sort it out too, because it means you're not being told things that it might be quite useful for you to know. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 23:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Where in hades did this come from, Sarah? The former members are on the list for the purposes of institutional memory, and providing some non-binding advice to the incumbents. I can safely say, as one arbitrator emeritus on that list, that the former arbitrators there have, on numerous occasions, talked current arbitrators over the years out of making some pretty bad decisions - put another way, without that private advice there, I think public perception of the arbitration committee would be a whole lot lower. The email that Giano posted had, by my guess based on the information posted above, probably been through the inboxes of about fifty different people by the time it got to him. Anyone could have leaked that email, and frankly, I could care less who it was. There is simply no evidence to suggest that anyone has leaked anything from arbcom-l at all, much less to attack sites or blogs. Sarah, I've regularly agreed with you in the past, but you seem to be really jumping at straws lately. This allegation that arbcom-l is leaking has been dreamed up out of nowhere, and has zero substance behind it. Rebecca 11:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Rebecca, I know this is a long thread, but Sarah stated above that an email she sent to Arbcom-L was leaked to Kelly Martin and Cyde. You should probably ask her privately if you want to know the details. Thatcher131 13:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Rebecca, first of all, I'm not implying I think the ArbCom leaked the e-mail to Giano. Secondly, Kelly Martin has just confirmed by e-mail that someone has, indeed, kept her informed of ArbCom business from time to time. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 17:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I also seem to remember something about e-mails being leaked to SV, no? Still, I see no reason to assume that the leaks are former arbitrators. Phil Sandifer 14:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Institutional memory is a good thing, but it doesn't require all former members to be on the list. The ArbComm already has three tranches.  So one possibility is just having the current members on the list - they provide institutional memory.  This (or any alternative) could be supplemented with an former-arbcomm list that the current arbcomm can ask questions of should a case from before their time.  There are early resignations and inactivity, so another possibility is having the current and prior year's members on the list.  Another could be a rule that anyone who loses or resigns any bits in controversial circumstances also is removed from the list - at least some of those we have specific reason to doubt the community trusts them would be removed that way.  Another alternative is to automatically prune anyone who is a party to an accepted case, and restore after the case only if no sanctions are proposed against them on the proposed decision pages.  There are lots of ways to keep institutional memory available while pruning out members who have lost the community's trust, provided the committee chooses to use them.  The choice of whether and which is the committees.  GRBerry 02:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * One other point. There are two related issues here, each of which deserves consideration.  The first if that there are people on the list who are not actually trustworthy, then things sent to the list will leak.  It is stated above by SlimVirgin that this has happened.  Even if everybody on the list is actually trustworthy, the second issue still exists.  The second is that if there are people on the list who a significant portion of the community does not trust then material that could be important won't be sent to the list in the first place.  Regardless of jayjg's trustworthiness, can we really say that his presence on the list won't tend to prevent pro-arabic editors from sending material about the perrenial middle eastern disputes to the list?  If we are honest with ourselves, we know that a lot of them think he is a problematic editor.  That example was obvious from glancing at the list, and those disputes are likely to last beyond the tenure of the members we are electing next month; but any other issue where an Arbitrator or former Arbitrator has/had to recuse has the potential to be similar.  GRBerry 02:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * An important clarification: not all leaks are bad. Leaks are neutral.  What is done with a leak is another matter, but leaks are both inevitable and ethically neutral.  They occur because the leaker believes either that the project or he himself will gain by the leak.  If the former, it can be good or bad.  If the latter, it's almost surely bad in the case of someone who is an arbitrator.  Remember: Dick Cheney insists that everything that has been on his desk is secret.  This is problematic, because he is asserting the right to determine all laws and all rights.  When courts eventually get around to considering the matter, they will undoubtedly disagree.  A project like Wikipedia would disagree from its very founding principles.  Therefore, if someone leaks a "secret," like "the US has invaded Cambodia" or "the President sent missiles to Iran in exchange for money to circumvent a law forbidding funding the Contras" or "it is a secret that Congressional pages are complaining about being hit on by Mark Folley," then the betrayal of the "secrecy" is valid, because the matter could not be properly secret.  It is not untrustworthiness, but trustworthiness that a soldier refuses an illegal order and that a person outs material that should not be secret.  Where Wikipedia falls down is that it has no idea except agreement on what should and should not be "classified."
 * If an arb says, on the list, "I've got the flu, so I'm not really feeling up to this case" and another arb quotes that, it's obviously not something we care about. If one says, "This document, showing that the Foundation is about to accept advertising, is a matter for all Wikipedians to know, and I don't think it should be secret," then we're closer to legitimate.  If one says, "Oh, user:Bobo is using Verizon Wireless for editing, and Checkuser says it resolves to Bahamas," then we're in deep doo-doo.
 * We can't treat all information as "properly secret" and all whistle blowing as bad unless we have standards for what should be held confidential first. Geogre 16:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Amusing anecdote: a close friend of mine graduated tops in his class at one of the US military academies. He was sent to MIT, then to a nuke school.  He told me that they got a classification notice saying that everything they did in that class was Classified.  Since the beginning of the class was "review," he said he could neither confirm nor deny Ohm's Law.  Once you do "everything here is classified, and if you breathe a word, we'll prosecute," you're setting up for absurdity, if not atrocity.  Geogre 16:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of who leaked the email, the cleanup of ArbCom-l is long overdue (section break)

 * 1) The very only thing I will say about this subject is that I have believed and stated publicly that "former arbitrators" should not be on the mailing list. This is simply because the usefulness of the list is in discussions of the current cases, and those who do not sit on current cases need not be there, and so long as "former" arbs are on the list, confidence in it is shaken.  Since a few former arbs have lost the trust of the community, the mailing list's privacy gets harder to respect when they retain discussion on current decisions.
 * 2) This said, I know that many, if not all, of the "former arbs" on the mailing list have been quite useful and helpful. However, they can still be sought.  It is still possible, if the mailing list were purged, for a subscribed member to send a digest to a former arbitrator, seek an opinion, and post it to the list.  Subscribed members seek clarification and information from outsiders under their own names and accounts, as they should, but if the list has a seal of privacy about it, then that seal cannot be respected with former arbitrators having full access.
 * 3) Finally, this mailing list is a point, but it is not as important a point as the "reform" sought in general. When discussions of changing arbitration committee procedures can be stymied by extraneous votes from "former" and "respected" arbitrators, the ArbCom will not be able to adapt and respond to the needs shown by a crisis.  It also will not be able to maladapt and show its worst face.  The presence of all who came before on the decision making process makes change all but impossible, and this is good and bad.  I think it is generally bad.
 * 4) For those shining a light on this issue and those worried about privacy, the arb-l list has always leaked like a Swiss cheese canoe. It will continue to do so.  Myself, I take this as a sign of good.  I take this as testimony to the arbitrators having enough humility to look for input (and yet they're cosseted by position and "secrecy" so that they have to pretend otherwise), enough pettiness to seek to play to the audience (and yet get the smug and dirty pleasure of saying that all is private), enough outrage to protest an abuse by leaking (and yet being tied down so that they cannot confirm or deny the abuse's existence).  "Former arbs" should not be on the mailing list, in my own opinion, as regular recipients, although getting a digest would possibly be fine (dang... I try not to offer practical advice), but arbitrators would be well advised to try to reform their reform process.  I say this only as a friend.  Geogre 12:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * But leaks to someone likely to use it to harm people, or post it on her blog, are completely unacceptable. That can't be classified as "seeking input." SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 17:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * FWIW, the ex-arbs really don't have a vote (per your point 3). We can most strongly advise (as in "I feel I must point out to you that you are approaching the edge of this cliff at this speed and will land this hard in this many pieces, so you probably don't want to do that. Really really"), but ultimately the current arbitrators are always in the hot seat. If Jimbo and the current arbs want things to work a particular way, they get them that way.


 * I might also note (as a somewhat interested observer) that this entire present call for reform appears to be chasing phantoms. I note a severe lack of actual verifiable backing for the claimed need - David Gerard 15:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you think this is the appropriate place to provide "actual verifiable backing"? --Pixelface (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said above, Kelly Martin just confirmed it, albeit only in general terms. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 17:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, at the risk of repitition of myself, I wonder if it might be possible to change the existing nature of the ArbCom from it's current structure as being primarily elected by editors to a semi-official "function" of the foundation itself. I'm not myself aware as to how active ArbComs are in other Wikimedia entities, but it might make most sense to create a single ArbCom for the entire foundation, with its members perhaps nominated by editors of the various entities but actually selected by the Bureaucrats, Jimbo, or some other party or parties, to perhaps function across all wikimedia entities. And, in any event, while I personally have no objections whatsoever to having individuals sent copies of e-mails from the ArbCom list by other editors on the list, the fact that such already happens could be seen as being yet another indicator that they don't need to necessarily receive all of them as part of the regular mailing list, and that it might even make most sense, if this is even remotely possible, to encrypt the ArbCom mailing list in such a way as only a few can decode it, those being the sitting members, although any member of the committee could ask a clerk to send a copy to someone else, at the risk of that request being recorded somewhere. I don't know if such encryption is really a viable option, though. John Carter 17:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If you don't learn the history, then I predict that no matter how valuable your ideas, you won't be on the path to convincing any of the people who could change this of the value of them - David Gerard 19:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Who are the people who could change this? SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 19:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That'll be the first time you believed something because Kelly said it, then - David Gerard 19:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm wondering why you're denying it, given how obvious it is from her blog, and given she has now confirmed it herself. Why are you so prickly about the idea that someone is telling her what's being discussed? SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 19:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * David Gerard, you are helping neither yourself nor your cause when you smugly say, "Where's the evidence?" When you then insult a newer user by saying that he hasn't learned the history and so won't be listened to, you ironically beg people like me to point out the history of this issue.  Remember the fun you had with the brouhaha over IRC?  "Where is the proof there was bad talk?  I demand you show it!  If you show it, I will block you, because it's private!  If you do not show it, there is none!  I say there is none, and I demand that you be blocked for saying there is!"  Even a pre-teen could see the childishness of this double standard.  You're inviting a wider discussion when you fall back to that tired and logically vacuous position.
 * The mailing list has no privacy. It may have trust, but not privacy.  It has leaked for good, and it has leaked for bad.  Slim is right on the mark, but she is hardly the only one to be "gossiped" about with sensitive material.  Material from the list (presumably) or CU has magically gone into blogs, attack sites, and coalitions of attacks on-Wikipedia.  I blame the "secrecy," myself, and this bad cess of "tee hee, this is super sekret" when there is no actual trustworthiness to the content, the recipients, or a limitation to it.  Of course I also have no hesitation in expressing personal distrust of several people with access to that list, but I'm just some dude.  Geogre 14:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "If you show it, I will block you, because it's private! If you do not show it, there is none!" - if you're going to put that in quotes, you could perhaps produce a waffer-thin diff with said meaning, or withdraw it thanks. My statement about learning history is that the present discussion strikes me as unlikely to convince either Jimbo or the AC that they are wrong (see comments in next section from current arbs), though of course I could be wrong about this - David Gerard 15:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * However, if I offer a diff, am I not disrupting by bringing back an old argument and re-introducing a time when you really showed yourself ill? The quotation was, of course, of the argument.  I can explain direct and indirect discourse, if you're unclear on what they are.  Also, you probably intended "withdraw it.  Thanks."  The ploy, though, of demanding quotations of "private" material to disprove an implicated party's statement that there are none, and then a prosecution on the issue of showing "private" material, is obvious.  It is beneath any adult to take it seriously.  Please take that into consideration when you demand proofs.  HTH HAND.  Geogre 15:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Dammit, you used to be more clueful than this - David Gerard 23:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a little footnote
The list of members of the list has been published for all to see on the page describing the Committee for six months now. I just updated it yesterday. If there are individuals in whom Slim (or anyone else) has doubts of the probity, please contact me (or whomever) and we will consider your request. James F. (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you ever passed information about me to Kelly Martin, James? SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 19:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not believe that I have ever passed privileged information about you to anyone. In short, "no", of course not.
 * James F. (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You qualified your answer with "privileged," so let me rephrase. Have you ever gossiped about me to Kelly Martin, and do you think you may have done so in a way that alluded to information sent to the ArbCom? SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 20:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * For the purposes of clarity, it might help to indicate what particular reason you might have to ask such questions, so that anybody else who isn't familiar with the subject will have at least a clue why you ask such questions. John Carter 20:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please forgive me for answering the question I thought you had asked, given the context. :-)
 * I have not "gossiped" about you, either, though as that is a prejudicial term in this line of enquiry, and evaluation against it is subjective, our judgement on that may differ. Certainly, I have discussed you (along with countless other members of the community) with fellow members, both former and current, of the Arbitration Committee in the course of my duties there, both in cases and in the larger stewardship of issues. The general flavour of these discussions have been the expression of frustration that you and I do not work together more productively; if this is, to your eyes, "gossip", then I am sorry if you have felt in any way slighted, betrayed, or under-mined. I have certainly not leaked information about you, nor given any further information relating to you which is otherwise inappropriate; it would be fundamentally wrong of me so to do.
 * Sadly, given that you've been insinuating that this is not the case for over a year now - that, indeed, I have violated the trust placed in me, and have since lied about it several times, both to you and others - I doubt that you will ever believe me. As well as creating "political" difficulties for me, this is something I regret on a personal level. However, after many attempts to discuss this, I don't see much point in yet again re-igniting the stale embers. After all, discussion is a two-way process requiring good faith.
 * James F. (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that qualifies as a response to the question I asked above. Thank you. John Carter 21:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I wonder which sitting arbitrator Kelly was referring to then, in her e-mail. I can't think of any other arbitrator who would give her information. The problem with passing gossip to gossips, James, is that gossips gossip. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 00:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no need for anyone who is not a reigning Arb to be on that list! Giano 21:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't necessarily disagree, as I have stated above. The down side is so far as I can tell ArbCom itself doesn't necessarily decide who's on the list. That could be somewhat problematic. John Carter 21:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I find former Arbitrators' input to be highly useful, particularly in the field of the very privileged information to which some object to them having access. For example, David and Dominic are very active in the area of CheckUser; Jay, Rebecca, and Sean keep us grounded in the editing community, from which some of us (me in particular!) are somewhat disconnected.
 * Also, we don't "reign", but "serve". But that's very minor. :-)
 * James F. (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't think what made me think of reigning! The list does leak, we all know that and it has to stop. Let's not have an inquisition just work out ways of tightening it from now on, restoring confidence and moving on. Giano 22:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But we can't be sure whether the leaks don't come from sitting members of the ArbCom itself, and that is a bit of a problem. Would there be any objections to just limiting the general list to only active ArbCom members, with them having the option to request a clerk to forward certain notices to select non-members? That might be one of the few reasonable compromises available here. John Carter 22:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * By "active", do you mean "current"? Or "active"?  If it's the latter, it's a non-starter; we're not going to remove people from the list because they want to take a few weeks vacation; but even the former isn't really going to fly.  Having former members of the Committee on the list is extremely useful for the current members; we're not likely to cut off our nose to spite our face here. Kirill 22:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no reason why former members cannot be consulted, in confidence, in specific instances when they have a specialist knowledge of a particular subject. However these instances should be logged and recorded. A former Arb upon expiry of office shoule once again become an ordinary editor. The position is not pensionable. Giano 22:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Another reason why former arbs should not be on the list is that former arbitrators may take part in cases, launch them, be defendants, comment, etc. Their being able to do that knowing what goes on inside the chambers puts them into a whole different league of users with respect to cases they choose (or are forced to) to take part as involved parties. No way case participants are allowed to go in and out of jury room in RL and there are good reasons for that. --Irpen 22:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You are aware that sitting Arbitrators may also be parties to cases, yes? Kirill 22:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Kirill, just a curiosity.. are those members then removed from the list for the duration of their involvement as a 'party'? Or are they left on the list with access to more than the average editor? Lsi john 22:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for Kirill of course, but my recollection is that access to the list is retained, but information concerning the specific case is communicated to uninvolved arbiters (who are not a party to the case) through means other than the list (I assumed email). R. Baley 23:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * They are left on the list with the understanding that they will not take part in discussions related to that case, if any. Removing them would unacceptably impede our other work (the case to which an Arbitrator is a party is typically one of many that we're dealing with at any point); and, in any case, Arbitrators are trusted to act with the proper discretion and decorum in such matters. Kirill 23:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Lsi john 01:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Current", sorry. And by having the mailings made available at request to any other editors, potentially including trusted editors who were never part of ArbCom, and having such requests "logged", it might help address some of the concerns about knowing where any future leaks might come from, within ArbCom or otherwise, and there seems to be some real concern that the leaks might be come from non-current members of ArbCom. Having never been on the group myself, I don't know how difficult it would be to edit the ArbCom notices, but I would think that if any current ArbCom member had a standing request that party X receive notice, then that person would still receive notices, but at least there might be a bit more of a belief that the individuals receiving the mailings are actively trusted, and I think that the automatic reception of the current mailing list by some parties might be one of the concerns here. John Carter 22:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I feel obliged to point out that, even reduced to current arbitrators only, the arbcom list would consist of 15 people. If we rather conservatively assume that there is a 10% chance that any given arbitrator will, at some point during the year, mention something that is happening on the list to one of their friends (remembering that we do not discourage Wikipedians from becoming friends) then there is, even with just the current arbitrators, an 80% chance that there will be a leak. And that 10% is pretty conservative. I would, in practice, guess that the certainty of arbcom list leaks is around 100% assuming that there is actually a mailing list of arbitrators. Phil Sandifer 00:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * We're not discussing arbitrators talking to their friends, so long as they know their friends won't pass it further; we don't expect people to be paragons of virtue. We're talking about an arbitrator passing information to someone who has tried to out a fellow arbitrator on her blog, among other things, and who has published information from the ArbCom before. To continue to keep that person informed is incredibly irresponsible. If one or more members of the ArbCom mailing list are so friendly with Kelly that they're unable to act responsibly, that's fine. No one is saying don't have friends. But please resign if you're not willing to stop passing confidential material to her. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 01:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin, if anyone is to resign at this point, it should probably be you. Your aggressive mudslinging is serving no benefit to this encyclopedia and its community other than tearing it to shreds. -- krimpet ⟲  06:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If you can sense how frustrating it is to suspect that people are having conversations about you behind your back and behind closed doors, imagine how !! must feel. He still doesn't know who said what about him, who was told what, who agreed with what, and whether the sleuths will continue.  Let him among us who hasn't engaged in such clandestine discussions cast the first stone.  --Alecmconroy 06:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Alecmcconroy, in Sarah's defence, neither does anyone else. The only person who seems to know who these mysterious "five sleuths" (or anyone else who actually supported this block) are is Durova, and since she's refusing to tell anyone who they actually are, I'm steadily coming to the conclusion that she made them up, and blamed the mailing lists to confuse matters. Rebecca 06:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Definitely a possibility. I should clarify, I don't mean to accuse SV, I was just pointing out that however mad SV is, !! must feel that times a billion. --Alecmconroy 06:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I would also note that only person publicly accused of leaking information is James. I find that accusation to be without merit, and as a foundation for this discussion rather silly, given that James was and remains a sitting arbitrator! If this is some effort to take the fallout from someone else's list going to pieces and blow it back towards ArbCom, I'm unimpressed. Mackensen (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Mackensen, that really isn't worthy of you. This is a discussion about how some members of the community (perhaps foolishly, but there you go) have no trust in the ArbCom, because someone from the committee has passed, or continues to pass, information to Kelly Martin and Cyde. Now, if I were on the committee, I'd want to do something about it, rather than post dismissive replies to the people raising the concern. At the very least, I'd want to make clear to my colleagues that it must never happen again. Do you at least agree that, if it has been happening, it must stop? SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 01:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, if I believed that there was a "leak" from arbcom-l of any substance, and that leak contained information of a privileged nature, and said leak had a negative impact, I would be concerned. I would move to do something about it. I would not start by publicly questioning the integrity of respected users without any evidence, and by rehashing old allegations that have never been sustained. I can't help but be suspicious of the timing, either, and you must grant that your timing in raising this matter is unfortunate. Mackensen (talk) 01:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Can I ask whether you've taken any of these steps in response to the material Kelly has already published on her blog? And I did not raise the issue, Mackensen &mdash; someone else did, and I responded, so the timing is immaterial. I fail to see the connection anyway. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 01:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Steps? Should I circulate an email, inquiring if any is leaking negative information about one third party to another third party? Based on hearsay, some of it over a year old, and all of it unproven? Someone is leaking confidential material--what if it's an arbitrator? Then we've ejected other trustworthy minds out of paranoia! I won't go down that road. Mackensen (talk) 01:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Slim, get over yourself. I don't see how I'm relevant in this at all.  In case you haven't noticed, I haven't really actively done anything on-wiki in over a month.  You making up nonsense about me, on the other hand, might persuade to get involved again.  --<font color="#ff66ff">Cyde Weys  16:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Note to all participants. This thread is full of personal attacks and of allegations of privacy breaches directed against specific individuals. There's obviously a lot of bad blood here, but really this is shameful. All the allegations here are unsubstantiated and probably unsubstantiatable (is that a word?). Parties accused here cannot possibly clear their names, and insinuations without details are unacceptable. Whatever the truth, (and IANAL) this thread is bordering on the legally actionable. I strongly advise all parties to take the discussion away from a public forum, unless they can publicly substantiate their accusations. This is frankly contemptible.--Docg 01:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Doc, in response to an e-mail I received from Kelly Martin this morning, I asked James a straightforward question, and he was unable to give a straightforward answer. It is something that needs to be discussed. Someone has been leaking confidential information to a woman who has been publishing serious personal attacks on Wikipedians; and it's a complete mystery to me why she's allowed to continue editing after that behavior. We ban people for a lot less all the time.


 * It really doesn't matter who the leaker is; that person clearly doesn't have the courage to step forward. What is clear is that reform of some kind is needed, because the community has very little faith in the arbitration committee because of this kind of thing. Reform is in everyone's interests. This is a situation where the interests of the community and the majority of the arbitrators identical. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 01:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sure I have no idea. But you can't substantiate any of that, and those you are accusing can't refute it. By all means ask JamesF - but do it privately. Or report the matter to the Foundation. This is not the way to go. You cannot hide behind a pseudonym and make actionable accusations about identifiable people - that's what our BLP policy is all about. Now take this elsewhere - or I will delete this page per WP:BLP.--Docg 01:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem as if James' answer above lacks anything in straightforwardness. He has explicitly said that he has not shared privileged (i.e. confidential) information obtained from the arbcom list with her or anyone else not on the list.  What more are you asking for? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Matthew! You don't think it lacks straightforwardness?  It had qualifications and equivocations.  Now me, I believe Kelly Martin about as much as I believe Dick Cheney, but I don't think there is anything 100 miles of BLP going on here.  Within the context of the general discussion, "The list leaks, so what?" we have SlimVirgin offering a gigantic "so what."
 * I have no hopes at all that my view will gain traction -- that members of arbs-l will adopt limitations of their own privacy to their discussions, and I have little hopes that my general point -- that Wikipedians work a policy where we acknowledge that matters used for Wikipedia actions affecting other users abrogate their seals of privacy. However, we have leaks for good and ill.  The good, I think, is like the leak of the Durovagate portfolio (and I really think many arbs would agree that the leak of the information was not a problem, even if they think that Giano's posting of it was a policy violation) or the leaks previously of irc logs showing personal attacks and plans to "kill" users.  The leaks for undoubted ill would be ones like this.
 * If leaks can't be stopped (and no government has ever eliminated them... even the dictatorships), then reasons for leaks and consequences for leaks and methods for handling inappropriately classified material have to be in place. One step in that direction is finding out who leaks for ill.  If Kelly is telling the truth, then that's some serious stuff.  Geogre 14:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

PS. I've posted a reflection on this calling for the shredding of the archive and restructuring of the lists. It is on wikien1 and a copy here--Docg 12:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Jerem43 deleted Akhilleus' comments?
I think Jerem43 made a mistake when correcting something in a recent revision and deleted a statement by Akhilleus... Can someone look at the edit history and see if I'm right about this? I put a note at his talk page, but the text is still missing. futurebird 23:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, futurebird--I restored my comment, I'm sure Jerem43 just made a mistake. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay. That was confusing. futurebird 23:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am seriously sorry about that. I didn't realize that I had made the error. - Jeremy (Jerem43 23:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC))


 * No problem, it's an easy mistake to make, and an easy mistake to fix. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom warnings and reminders
Sometimes, ArbCom will close a case with a remedy, where an editor is warned/reminded not to do something but is not punished. What if the editor ignores the warning/reminder? Is there a process to tell ArbCom that the editor ignored the warning/reminder and should be punished? --Kaypoh (talk) 08:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Bringing a new case, typically. Non-binding remedies are just that: non-binding. Kirill 12:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Flow
Could this page be arranged the same way than some others, where every case is on its subpage which is shown here? Would help with the watchlist, I had difficulties when I was watching this and comments get coming so that nothing in the edit summary indicated which case it was about. Then it's possible to watch only the conversation which you are commenting, and see also new added cases. Calejenden 16:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Cases that are accepted and opened have their own subpages. Requests that have not yet been accepted do not have subpages.  There has been discussion about this in the past (see the archives of this page); such a system has bad points as well as good points.  You might ask again after the new Arbitrators take office in January. Thatcher131 16:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I see, thank you, I saw some earlier comments. Calejenden 16:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee remedy on Community Bans
Regarding the recent Arbitration Committee remedy, I have started a discussion of community bans at Village pump (policy). Please discuss there. Mahalo. --Ali&#39;i 17:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A new rule?
In light of the recent extraordinary proceedings in certain cases, I'd like to do two things. 1) Urge the committee to at least consider taking a breath before moving to voting and closing and 2) to institute this as a notion that requires explicit suspension. That is to say, I'd like to suggest the following addition to arbitration policy (please no-one refer me to the backwater down the hall):
 * Unless the committee passes a motion to the contrary, no remedies will be formally proposed for a period of 7 days from the case opening.

The committee then has the ability to pass a specific motion in cases of emergency that they will proceed to business right now. But really, the silly situation at work in the Hoffman case, where one could literally have slept through the evidence phase, and the unseemly scramble of the proceedings of the Durova case have got to stop. Since I sense somethings simmering in the committee, I'd like to invite them to give themselves a 'due restraint' protocol. Nothing is lost in most cases, and given the usual lead time of arbitration, this would only make a difference in relatively few cases - which is precisely my intention. Splash - tk 22:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * NB: Talking about 'decisions' rather than 'remedies' would be better and more precise. Splash - tk 01:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We're being criticized for dealing with cases too quickly now? I sense that our flying porcine friends will soon be opening a ski resort in Malebolge. ;-)
 * For what it's worth, I've generally tried to allow at least a week for parties to present evidence; if I recall correctly, that's what I asked the clerks to specify in the case opening notifications. Obviously, other members of the Committee may desire a shorter lead time. Kirill 22:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A week seems reasonable to me. Paul August &#9742; 23:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Reasonable. The way AC sped through the Durova RfAr was a disgrace. Will (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this is a reasonable suggestion. As a Clerk, I had to notify an editor today that he is mentioned in a proposed decision written yesterday in a case that opened yesterday, and that if he wants to make an additional statement or submit any evidence, he had best do it quickly. To be sure, even if one arbitrator writes up a proposed decision, nothing will happen unless several other arbitrators agree with it, so the others can slow down the pace by "abstaining for now pending further opportunity for the parties to be heard" or by withholding their votes until more time has elapsed. Note also that in some cases, parties agree that they are ready for the case to proceed. But Kirill recently asked the Clerks to amend the evidence page template to request that the parties submit their evidence within one week of the case opening, and the counterpart might well be that there be a presumption that drafting a decision should wait that long except in emergencies. Newyorkbrad 23:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "There is usually a grace period of one week between the opening of the case and the beginning of deliberations by the Committee" has been part of the Arbitration policy for at least 2 years. I think it is unfortunate that several recent cases have moved to proposed decision before that time.  Editors who file cases should be prepared to present evidence in a timely fashion; however a week does not seem like too long a time to allow due consideration. Thatcher131 00:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is there, though affirming it more clearly would, imo, serve as a useful brake for when things just get that bit too quick - which is prone to happening on the most electric disputes, which are often those that split open deeper fissures than can be quickly stitched together. On those occasions when this would risk prolonging a dispute, the ability to pass an 'activating motion' is always there. Splash - tk 01:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I've just arrived here from Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Proposed decision. I agree with the above that moving to the proposed decision phase too quickly is bad, but also sympathise with those wanting to see cases moving through more quickly. When the Hoffman case opened, it was at that point that I started preparing my evidence. Another editor told me he had been preparing evidence in draft form already for a few days. Could that be encouraged more? Oh, and can anyone remember whether a proposal to suspend a case has ever happened before? Especially one that says "If no motion is offered, the case will close without a decision."? Carcharoth (talk) 11:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hm, many questions. (a) I'm not sure encouraging people to gather evidence against each other when acceptance of the case is up in the air is a terribly good idea (although many do).  Better I think to ask the Arbitrators to stick to the 7-day minimum period after the case opens to allow evidence presentations before moving to a decision. (2) A small number of past cases have been put on hold pending mediation or some such, with variable results. (III) The "close without decision" clause (which has already been rejected) was my attempt to not leave things hanging up in the air indefinitely.  If the Arbitrators were to decide that Adam had made a satisfactory response to an RFC, would there be a reason to pass some common sense principles and some findings of fact that were obsoleted by the RfC?  Anyway, that was my thinking. Thatcher131 17:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Zscout370 desysoped
I see that User:Zscout370 has been desysoped by the arbcom. In cases like this I suggest that a note of explanation be placed at WP:AN, not only as a courtesy to the community but to help prevent others from repeating mistakes that led to this action. Thank you. --Duk 20:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, over one restoration, an admin gets desysopped. I'm in a little shock here, what's happening guys? Couldn't this have waited for a case to be filed rather than an emergency desysop? <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  20:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * His sysop bit has been returned. The reason given "i misinterpreted the situation". 1 != 2  20:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's one big misinterpretation.... <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  21:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That is hard to determine without knowing what information was being interpreted. 1 != 2  21:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If I'm reading timestamps correctly, Zscout was deadminned for something around five or six hours. He tells me that he has received no explanation from anyone on or representing the arbitration committee, in public or in private. Not even the simple courtesy of mentioning his access has been revoked, much less explaining why. Clearly the committee went to a lot of bother to get the stewards into play, why didn't any one of the involved persons think to spend even 30 seconds to inform the former admin? I would say I "insist" on some extremely basic courtesy for an esteemed editor with years of dedicated service to Wikimedia projects, but that would imply I have the power to do so; I would say I "humbly beg" for the same, but that implies I am willing to be humble and patient. I will instead say that I find this lack of apparent care both alarming and offensive. Am I missing something, or did you just spit on somebody? – <font color="#1E90FF">Luna Santin (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently he has it back already. but I think he should have been informed, definitely, and what was the emergency. —  Rlevse  •  Talk  • 21:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's to do with an OTRS action, and a bad call (reversion of a [{WP:BLP]] deletion). All square now, I think.

I first learned that this action had been taken on "Wikipedia Review." That is not the place where I would like to think administrators would need to consult for incident reports. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

OH YES, finding this out on WR first is NOT good. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 21:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that the steward that desysopped him said he misinterpreted the situation, I think it'd best not to point fingers at the Committee, blaming them for the desysopping, before it becomes clear exactly what was said that was misinterpreted. --Deskana (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, according to him, there was a consensus of 3 members to desysop him, hence why he went ahead with it - it's not all JHS's fault.. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  21:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It is up to ArbCopm to have clear communications to stewards on such matters. Would any members of ArbCom involved in this situation today please comment on the communication process in this case. See Jon Harald Søby's comments at User talk:Zscout370. NoSeptember 21:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that the request to remove Zscouts's sysop bit was made by Dmcdevit to a steward after consulting with two or three arbs on IRC. I do not have access to IRC and wasn't part of that discussion. Paul August &#9742; 21:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Whilst I generally respect Dmcdevit, should he really be making decisions on behalf of ArbCom? This looks like what's happened in this case unfortunately. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  21:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Dmcdevit has no authority to act on behalf of ArbCom. My understanding is that he felt that there was sufficient support by the arbs he contacted to warrant making the request. Paul August &#9742; 22:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This of course brings up the question of which arbitrators were involved, and who made the request. Currently all I know is which steward fulfilled it (and later self-reverted). – <font color="#1E90FF">Luna Santin (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to dwell on names, it was just whoever happened to be around at the time. More important (to avoid problems in the future) is to be sure that there is a clear understanding that requests to stewards be made only when a clear decision has been reached by the committee, and what requirements need be met for a clear decision to be deemed to exist, (and how standards differ between  emergency and non-emergency situations).  NoSeptember  22:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What better way to make such things clear, than by dwelling on names? "This was a committee decision" is easily matched with, "Really? Which arbitrators said so? Where?" The easiest way to avoid unclear, shady dealing is to let the sun shine in on decisions. If people are unwilling to attach their meaningless pseudonym to a decision, that should tell you something about their confidence in the decision. – <font color="#1E90FF">Luna Santin (talk) 23:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh. My. God. IRC is bad enough as justification for blocks, but for desysopping? That's a horrid show of judgment; I only hope that it is not true. Sean William @ 22:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest Hanlon's razor rather than a backroom conspiracy? Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If anyone is wondering, like I was, what this is all about, see wikinews. After the convoluted Angela Beesly AFD/DRV over the past two weeks, I'm not surprised at massive panic here. -- Kendrick7talk 22:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am concerned by the circumstances, Ray, but the larger concern for me is the lack of any notice or warning to Zscout, in what doesn't appear to have been an urgent emergency (and still no notice, several hours after, anyway). Seems to illustrate poor care. – <font color="#1E90FF">Luna Santin (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Reversing a BLP deletion without comment or discussion is not acceptable behavior for a Wikipedia admin. I'm surprised there's any question about this. Dmcdevit considered it an emergency, got adequate support from ArbCom to act on it, and did so. If I'd been around IRC, I'd have supported it as well; bits can always be returned, as they have been. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We are currently discussing the exact circumstances of what took place here. My understanding is that several Arbitrators discussed the matter yesterday in the context of an incipient BLP wheel-war requiring emergency action; but, because of time differences between the discussion and the steward action, there was no longer an emergency to deal with by the time Zscout370 was actually desysopped, leaving considerable confusion regarding the procedure. Kirill 22:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks to both of you for the explanations. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the response, but that doesn't yet explain why this had to be done in secret, why a situation eight hours old was construed as an "emergency," why one user was singled out when the article had been deleted/recreated several times by others, or why no one involved contacted Zscout in any capacity that I can see, until Jhs did so about six hours after the fact. – <font color="#1E90FF">Luna Santin (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ArbCom discussions are almost always done in secret. The delay is the only part that's problematic here; ideally, once enough arbcom members agreed with the action, jhs or someone would have been immediately available to flip the bit. To me, it looks pretty clear. Dmcdevit noticed the problem and alerted the ArbCom mailing list at or around 2330 UTC on the 13th. He pinged one or more stewards (probably something like "Please emergency desysop Zscout"); but the ping wasn't noticed or acted upon for a few hours, at which point (as Kirill says) it was no longer an emergency; the missed step, I guess, was observing the timestamps on the messages, and deducing that it might not be an emergency anymore, and flipping the coin between not acting on an emergency request or possibly acting unfairly toward a volunteer. Tough call. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If this sends the strongest possible message to admins DO NOT EVER restore a BLP deletion without full and proper discussion and consensus, as there is never a rush, then maybe something good will come from it. Yes, in this case it might seem like overkill, but frankly we should be more concerned with BLP than with whether an admin got desysopped for a few hours in an irregular way. I'm worried that we are far more concerned with the 'rights' of admins than with getting BLP right.--Docg 22:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with Doc. If there's one single thing that could bring WP crashing down, it would be a big BLP debacle. Our many unreferenced bios on marginally-notable individuals constitute a disaster waiting to happen. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Don't fuck over article subjects" need not come at the expense of "Don't fuck over the volunteers." I'd be far more prepared to agree with your sentiment if there had been any notice at all prior to desysopping -- not to say it's not a worthwhile opinion. – <font color="#1E90FF">Luna Santin (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * From Paul's summary above, it seems that this was not a Committee ordered desysopping. It seems to me that the steward that desysopped thought it was an ArbCom ordered desysopping when it was not. Given the circumstances, it is not surprising that the Committee did not issue official notification of the desysopping... because they didn't actually order it. --Deskana (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What of the arbitrators supporting the action? The user(s) requesting it? The steward fulfilling it? Clearly the steward believed this was a committee decision. There must be some reason why. Is operational control so poor that I can stroll past and declare "three arbs said so, their names aren't important" to get anything done? – <font color="#1E90FF">Luna Santin (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Rather, that does not address the problem, even assuming (as in fact I do) absolute good faith. Please make, and if possible announce, a system by which actual decisions of Arbcom are clearly distinct from informal ideas being discussed by people who happened to be Arbitrators. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This is all sounding horribly familiar yet again, secret talks, the left hand having no idea what the right hand is doing - in short "fuck up" after "fuck up" and no one attempting to address the real problem, and more worryingly no one with the business or political brain or acumen to see where this is all leading for the project. All we seem to have running the show is a crowd  of little tin pot princes in tawdry battered crowns pressing their buttons before engaging their brains. Giano (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Given the situation seems to be that one steward appears to have misunderstood what someone else said, I don't think your description is at all accurate. --Deskana (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My view is 100% accurate, the old phrase about people not being able to organize a "piss up" in a brewerey is coming to mind. Giano (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The difference between an evil conspiracy and a plain old screw-up is that the conspirators agree on a cover story ahead of time. Thatcher131 23:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree on anything? this lot could not agree that an omlette is made with eggs, you are mentioning conspiracy I am talking of incompetence and a complete unawarenss of how to run the show. Giano (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Something to do with the rate of pay, I think. Guy (Help!) 00:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Do by all means lambaste all involved; this was ill-advised and careless.
 * But a word in your ear: none of the admins is named Haig. They reversed their mistake; they have been known to stop making any given mistake after the first or second time. This would in itself give them good standing among, say, statesmen or generals. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a disgrace. This was in no way an emergency. If Zscout had restored again, perhaps it would, but he didn't. There was absolutely no need to desysop, and especially presenting it as an "arbcom order" is ridiculous. I would have thought that a current steward candidate would have better judgement that to get someone desysopped behind the scenes for a minor non-offence.  Red rocket  boy  23:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC) I might just be a bit sore, though; I've already been accused of censorship on Wikinews for changing the link from her userpage to her article here, which suddenly became suspect once the article was deleted. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 02:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec; largely to Raymond) This could have been a debacle either way; keeping this article deleted without clear cause could not unreasonably suggest a conflict of interest for anyone with a position of responsibility at a Wikipedia project. Whether we need to show muscle on BLP is another question; but if we're going to make a demonstration of toughness, please don't lets make it here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I was speaking mainly to the wider BLP issue, not to the present case. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Glad to help. On the wider issue, I'm not convinced we need more muscle. Some of the arguments on the subject come close to taking BLP as The Most Important Thing, justifying both incivility and suppression of verifiable, significant, neutrally-phrased assertions of fact. We need to take a deep breath and step back, or this sort of embarassment will happen again. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think there are far too many knee-jerk reactions. I understand BLP and all that jazz, but at the same time, it shouldn't give us blanket authority to sweep stuff under the carpet if we don't like it. To the best of my knowledge (the Wikinews talk page has several sources), Ms. Doran has been convicted of a felony, making her a felon; saying as much isn't a violation of BLP. Removing such a statement under the banner of wiki-policy appears to be (not necessarily is) an attempt at covering a slight black eye to the Foundation, from whom we are to write about in a neutral fashion.

The only thing that is going on here is that Ryan has misrepresented my involvement. I didn't make any decision here, arbitrators did, and I went and found the steward online. An admin previously desysopped for wheel warring reversed a sensitive BLP deletion within 6 minutes, and went on to protect it after it was restored. The situation was deemed urgent by the arbitrators who saw it. I don't appreciate a call to oppose my steward candidacy, nor all of the falsehoods being spread here. If this is how we intend to support admins making tough BLP calls, I have to admit surprise. Dmcdevit·t 01:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I spoke to Soby and Jimbo and everything is sorted out. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh, I can't speak for everyone else, but if you're content with how everything has resolved, I can't imagine staying too worked up about it all; there's plenty other things to do... EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 02:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I appologise if you feel I've misrepresented your involvement, but my major concern here is that you requested something on behalf of the committee, yet you no longer have any juristiction there anymore. If an arbitrator made the call, I wouldn't have had as much concern, but even with support of a few members of the committee, you shouldn't have been the one making the final call to the stewards. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  01:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not? He knew he'd be backed up by ArbCom. He was quite literally requesting something on behalf of the Committee; it's no different than if I'd said "Hey Dmcdevit, we need to desysop someone, can you pass the word to a steward please?" --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 02:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm a process wonk, but under these circumstances, I think a member of the committee should take the relavent steps to ask a steward to desysop someone - there's plenty of avenues by which this could have been done. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  02:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Josh, since he had support from some arbs, he may well have assumed he would be backed up by the Committee. Whether he actually would have though is another matter. Had this been brought to the attention of the whole Committee, some might have argued that there was no need for an emergency desysopping, that following routine procedures was sufficient. Such arguments might have carried the day. Paul August &#9742; 03:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there some part of "emergency" that I'm confused about here? Should he have telephoned people in the middle of the night? He contacted those arbitrators he could find on IRC, and sent email on the list. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * How was this an emergency? Paul August &#9742; 17:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In any case, I didn't make any call, final or otherwise (as has been said here before). Unless you are suggesting I'm not even allowed to bring anything to their attention. I relayed the assent of the arbitrators who had been online to the steward. He was explicitly told that those were the people making the request. If I may quote myself (from the chat): "Now, it's not just me, (I don't think I'd ask if it were that) but three arbitrators were requesting a desysopping of him a few hours ago." I have the chat logs, and I don't mind making it public. This was not at all the conspiracy you are making it out to be, and I am mystified by your assumptions of bad faith, which seem to have com out of the blue. Meanwhile, this is very nicely distracting from a quite horrendous abuse of administrative tools, in my opinion, to undo a BLP deletion in under 6 minutes, with no attempt at communication, much less consensus. Dmcdevit·t 02:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And there is another concern. If the Committee acted, even through an agent, then the Committee did have a responsibility to inform Zscout and to hear his side of it. Depending on urgency, they may have been justified in acting before notification. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Quite horrendous abuse of administrative tools... with no attempt at communication, much less consensus." Look in a mirror, lately? What was the big rush? Why was there no attempt to resolve this via discussion, before running in with guns blazing? In a dispute between two admins, with all of the other available users in all of the IRC channels, why was one of the involved users key to making and communicating this secret decision? If this decision was so obviously proper, why can't the three arbitrators be identified? Why was the nuclear option the first weapon of choice? Why was the immediate response to go through back channels and get somebody taken out back and shot? Wouldn't it have been adequate to, I dunno, warn anybody first? Or at least contact them at some point in this process? Or even after the process? At this point, I'm undecided on whether the desysopping itself was appropriate -- something of a moot point -- but I am just about convinced that the timing was rather questionable, that you as a participating party should not have been so closely involved in the decision and following action, and that the overall handling was, frankly, piss-poor. It makes little apparent sense to insist on communication when you're doing a demonstrably terrible job of it, yourself, here. – <font color="#1E90FF">Luna Santin (talk) 09:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason for trying to make this as sensational as you can? Just because there is some recent controversy about secrecy doesn't mean everything can be contrived to be a part of that vas conspiracy and to make me seem evil. As I noted before, I don't see that I did anything more than alert the appropriate people, and continued statements like "closely involved in the decision" are just well-poisoning. You know, if you had simply asked whether there was contact with Zscout, instead starting with accusations, you might have been surprised to find that yes, Zscout and I and several other administrators were in discussion on the OTRS mailing list before anything happened. Where he also had a chance to have discussed the deletion before overturning it, and where his responses after it alarmed several others that responded. I guess you'll call that a "back channel" too, but back channel discussion with the person in question hardly seems like the problem you are concerned about. Dmcdevit·t
 * Not sure if this warrants some bold text to make it more obvious, but Dmcdevit and I have discussed things between ourselves, and he and I agreed to post a log of the conversation; it can be found on-wiki at User:Luna Santin/Dmcdevit 20071215. – <font color="#1E90FF">Luna Santin (talk) 02:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I was about to get all worked up about this, but then I saw what the article was. I've read The Register story and the first parts of the enwiki-l (mailing list) thread. This does need to be handled at the WMF level (and not just by deleting an article, but by correcting any mistaken reporting by The Register). Carcharoth (talk) 06:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * While I am certainly support correcting any mistaken reporting by The Register and even starting a libel case against The Register if there are enough material for this, I think WMF should not touch the article with a ten-feet pole. There is an obvious conflict of interests here. Any involvement of WMF would be certainly seen as an attempt of censorship. The more routine the handling of the article the better. IMHO it is unfortunate that the article was speedied rather than AFDed. Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Somebody was locked out from performing sysop operations for a few hours. Big deal. Editors are briefly blocked from editing Wikipedia all the time, sometimes incorrectly.  For the higher level privileges, it's appropriate to turn off the privilege quickly at any suspicion of a problem, then consider carefully whether it should be turned back on.  --John Nagle (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, if you make a mistake, then repair it an apologize, and learn from it then there is no point in seeking a pound of flesh. I think we can all assume good faith here. 1 != 2  17:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well spoken. <font face="Verdana"> Durova Charge! 18:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd be far more receptive to John's point if the involved parties were open to the idea that anything had gone even slightly wrong, or if they had any apparent intention of offering even an insincere apology. As I've said, the issue for me isn't the desysopping itself, but rather the poor handling surrounding it. – <font color="#1E90FF">Luna Santin (talk) 20:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

<<< Agreed. My problem with this and the earlier "unpleasantness" with another blocking is that we seem to act before fully thinking this through and finding out all the facts. I am not saying this is the gospel or anything but that is the appearance to me and a few others from reading the posts. Like Jimbo says, there is no deadline for Wikipedia (I interpret that this includes all actions on WP from simple edits to full on blocking). This was clearly not an emergency situation and waiting a bit longer can prevent drama filled episodes like these before they begin. <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;"><font color="#000">spryde | <font color="#000">talk  20:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So, is the only issue with "poor handling" the one where Dmcdevit and two arbitrators, feeling there was an emergency, made a request to desysop that only one other arbitrator has so far disagreed with? Is there any possibility that "poor handling" might also encompass the undeletion by Zscout370 when both the BLP policy and the Badlydrawnjeff arbitration case both said "Don't undelete BLP deletions without discussion and a firm consensus"; or that poor handling might describe any admin action that is overturned 6 minutes later by another admin without any discussion? Thatcher131 20:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Zscout should have handled the situation better, yes. But the point of having arbitrators is that we need a body not accountable to temporary consensus in the community. You can argue that this is necessary, but if so, then misconduct on their part is much more serious than on an admin's part. -Amarkov moo! 21:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly Zscout could have handled that differently. How does that excuse the absurdly harsh response? – <font color="#1E90FF">Luna Santin (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

So, getting back to the first post in this section, does the arbitration committee find the suggestion reasonable, or do we have to hear about these things from WR? --Duk 18:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks to me like Dmcdevit needs to be removed from the ArbCom mailing list. Cla68 (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What does the mailing list have to do with anything here? Kirill 22:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I thought that this involved the mailing list, when the discussion in question was actually on one of the IRCs. Cla68 (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That makes absolutely no sense. Mackensen (talk) 03:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just curious - why would people who are not arbitrators be on the arbitrator's mailing list? Videmus Omnia Talk  04:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Because they're former arbitrators. Kirill 04:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry if this seems like a dumb observation, but a "former arbitrator" equals "an editor". I wouldn't care unless the list contains confidential information...if it doesn't then ignore my concerns. Current arbitrators presumably enjoy the confidence of both the community and Jimbo, former arbitrators don't necessarily have either. (I doubt George W. Bush involves Jimmy Carter in many of his decision-making processes just because the latter is a "former president" - politics aside, Carter was given the bit by an entirely different electorate and national climate than Bush was. The analogy is almost certainly flawed but hopefully gets my point across.) Former arbitrators shouldn't be participating in ArbCom business unless approved by the community, IMHO. Videmus Omnia Talk  04:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, both Jimmy and the Committee consider the presence of the former arbitrators on the list to be beneficial to our work. Kirill 04:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So the list membership is strictly limited to current and former arbitrators (and Jimmy, presumably)? Videmus Omnia Talk  05:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes; see WP:AC. Kirill 05:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. Videmus Omnia Talk  05:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Historical note: when JFK was considering blockading and possibly invading Cuba, he first consulted, and received strong support from, Eisenhower and Truman. The Eisenhower conversation,  at least, was recorded. Not that this is quite so consequential the point, but in response to the above analogy. DGG (talk) 07:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

List of areas?
Could we have a list of areas in which "any editor" may be blocked by any uninvolved admin, with links to the cases? I did not know about the Digwuren case, applying this principle to Eastern Europe (which I approve), until I read the ArbCom page a few mintues ago. Such a list, possibly on or linked from WP:RfAr, would be a great help in dealing with public nuisances. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * General sanctions :)  Daniel  05:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Status of TruthCrusader block review?
On October 31st User:TruthCrusader was indefinitely blocked for off-wiki harassment of User:Calton. TruthCrusader maintains that he did not make the off-wiki postings he was blocked for and requested that the blocking admin, User:Jpgordon, provide evidence justifying the block. Jpgordon declined to discuss the matter on the grounds that reviewing the material would further aggravate the harassment by making the attacks known to a wider population. The suggestion was made that only ArbCom should review the evidence because of its inflammatory nature and TruthCrusader thus submitted the matter to ArbCom for review. TruthCrusader states that no response has been forthcoming to date.

Generally, I think the less which is done 'behind closed doors' the better. Making the evidence publicly available exposes it to additional eyes who may see things that a handful of arbitrators do not and thus actually prove the truth of the matter one way or the other. We've recently seen how that works in the !! case. We should only be invoking 'secrecy' in the most extreme of cases where personally identifying information, legal complications, or the like are involved... and then only for the smallest portion of those cases which actually must be kept from the public.

Regardless, it has been a past axiom of ArbCom cases (and common sense) that admins must be prepared to explain and justify their actions. If Jpgordon will not publicly discuss how he determined that TruthCrusader was behind the off-wiki actions attributed to him then at the least we need to hear from ArbCom that they have reviewed the matter. As it stands we've got a user blocked for nearly a month for actions he allegedly committed off-wiki. If he is or may be innocent that's unacceptable. If he is guilty then it is well past time to say so and close this matter out. --CBD 14:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC) archived from clarification section per Kirill, put here as did not find a case page for it, advise if there is. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 13:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Request help to file arbitration review case
Under the user name of "Tommysun" I was blocked during an arbitration case from editing all science articles. However, there was no reason stated for the block and no evidence was presented and I was not given a chance to defend myself and two requests for an appeal were ignored. I would like to appeal this block, discover for what reason(s) I was blocked, what the evidence is/was presented and how the determination was made to block me. I looked at the template but it does not appear to fit my request. My question is how would I go about requesting a review? signed Tommysun 209.247.5.16 (talk) 06:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a comment: I found plenty of evidence and discussion, as well as a comment from Tommysun at the Pseudoscience arbitration case.Kww (talk) 06:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I waited a whole day and still no help...The comment above indicates that plenty of evidence was found on the evidence page. (?) Let's cut to the chase, I edited "Boldly" and inserted a comment by Sandage in his speech during the Centennial celebration of Hubble's birthday, the fact that Hubble did not believe in expansion (the primary assumption of the big bang theory). As you know, it was Hubble's modified equation that gave rise to the "assumption" that redshift indicates expansion (accomplished by his colleagues by adding "C" to the original Hubble equation). Hubble did not believe that the redshift indicateed expansion, instead he attributing redshift to unknown causes "till his dying day" Sandage adds. My edit was reverted, not once but repeatedly. No reason was given for the revert except in one case SA said it was irrelevant. SA is, by his own admission, is an employee of a cosmological Institute and also by his own admission, a supporter of the big bang theory. In spite of this he repeatedly edited the plasma cosmology page which gave rise to the arbitration case mentioned above. As it turned out SA was given a warning and everyone else was banned. My own "bold" edits were described by the opposing group as "aggressive" and subsequently this somehow led to a block from editing science articles. I need to know which takes precedence, the fact or the opinion. Contrary to the opinion of SA, Hubble's opinion is crucial. It very often said in the press that "Hubble proved expansion" when in fact expansion has not been proved (especially by Hubble) and indeed the original theory has been falsified and replaced by Inflation theory (expansion to our universe instantaneously) of which there are 21 different versions none of which have been tested. Science without testing is pseudoscience. Rather than present all the facts of cosmology research. the article in Wikipedia supports the big bang theory and discounts everything else (as of one year ago) So I contend that it is not my "aggressive editing" or my "uncivil" attitude which scares some editors, but my insistence on providing all the facts. I submit that insistence of providing all the facts is not cause for blocking. Tommy Mandel (talk) 02:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The Arbitration committee has indicated that they want to review all outstanding sanctions to see whether they should be lifted, modified, or extended. Probably a specific appeal would not move any faster.  However, if you want to move forward with a specific appeal, contact the Arbitration clerks and see if one has the free time and is willing to help you. Thatcher 02:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Elections results
What happens to cases that will extend into the new year? (In terms of the switchover of members). --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Old arbitrators remain active on them; new arbitrators may become active on them on an opt-in case-by-case basis. Kirill 04:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Although the retiring arbitrators sometimes opt out as well. Thatcher 04:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Rschen7754
NE2 has refused to follow consensus several times, leading to the exhausting of the patience of the U.S. Roads WikiProject. With the current issue at hand, the inclusion of auto trails and city streets within the scope of USRD, NE2 has gone against the consensus (of six editors) and has reverted mainspace and project pages several times. In fact, he said he is willing to ignore consensus. In the Mediation Cabal started shortly thereafter, he declined mediation, fearing that it would lead to concerns about his conduct here. However, this conduct is nothing new. Three previous RFCs have been filed in regards to similar matters. In fact, with the last mediation (being carried out at WT:HWY), even though the consensus was against him, many users just gave up because they were tired of fighting.

And yes, this does remind me of the WP:RFAR/HWY case, where SPUI held a similar attitude (section 7.2.3), and of the subsequent end to SRNC with a refusal to listen to consensus.


 * In your above comment, you said that NE2 went against the consensus of six editors. Can you tell me the names of those six editors? <font face="sprint SF" color="#66CCFF" size="larger">AL2TB <font face="accent SF" color="#66CCFF"> Gab <font color="#99CCFF">or Tab 04:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * See WT:USRD. --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I need a clerk
Please can a clerk check this two edits: and ? I don't know why someone changed "Comment" to "Commentbeh" and deleted the word "uninvolved". Also, the "John Gohde" case should have the name "John Gohde 2" because this is the second case about John Gohde and in the Thomas Basboil case, please add the name of "party 2". --Kaypoh (talk) 12:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not as experienced here as you Kaypoh, and I didn't realise I could ask for a clerk, but I was worried by too, myself...because with the Statements undefined like that it changes the meaning of some comments, more than you might think, and confuses things. Though I am pretty sure this  changing "Comment" to "Commentbeh" was probably a typo from adding a comment under yours. --Zeraeph (talk) 12:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Thatcher (formerly User:Thatcher131) who did one of those edits is a clerk. See Arbitration Committee/Clerks. There is currently no link to the clerks page from WP:ARBCOM, though there is in the red box at WP:RFARB. There should probably be a link at the top of this page. The clerks page should also make clear when it is better to contact arbitrators directly (in this case, this is the role of clerks). Carcharoth (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Commentbeh" looks like an accident. I cleaned up the section headers because really, once you get to headers like "Statement by very-slightly-involved-in-the-past-on-the-periphery" you are dealing with window dressing for its own sake.  The clerks will generally look at the content of the statement and the involved parties list when opening the case to decide whether to place statements on the main or talk page, but ultimately "involvement" is determined by the Arbitrators after reviewing the evidence.  The clerk page is linked in both the red "How to" box and at the bottom of the template listing active cases.  Thanks for the reminder about John Ghode. Thatcher 14:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Question of community authority
Arbitrators and others may wish to comment at Administrators' noticeboard. Jehochman Talk 15:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration
I would like to request an arbitration for the article Teofilo Ora. I can't paste the template in the arbitration page. thanks.Kapatidsadiyos (talk) 07:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read through the Dispute resolution process. Arbitration does not hear content disputes or make rulings on proper article content.  Arbitration deals mainly with serious user conduct problems that have not been resolved after good faith attempts at dispute resolution.  You need to start by discussing your concerns on the article's talk page.  If this does not help, try a Request for Comment or Third opinion, as described in the Dispute Resolution Process document.  As far as your technical problem is concerned, the page is protected to prevent abuse by anonymous users; this method of protection also stops new accounts (less than 4 days old). Thatcher 14:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Rfar Request for Palestine-Israel conflict
Please feel free to add any informal comments here, if anyone wishes to do so. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * At this point, comments on the request for arbitration should be focused on whether the case should be accepted, that is, on whether it would be useful for the arbitration committee to consider the conduct of all involved parties and potentially issue remedies governing editing by the parties or editing of a particular article or series of articles. These comments should be placed in the relevant section of the main Requests for arbitration page. Unless I am missing something I don't see that it would be helpful to divide the discussion between the RfAr page and this talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. thanks for your comment. I understand. however, i thought that perhaps some informal discussion might be helpful, even in discussing the basic issue of whether to have this case in the first place. i thought about making a user page for these comments, but decided that this location is more neutral.
 * It is really not meant to anything partisan, but simply the usual opening for open discussion, the same as other pages around Wikipedia. hope that positively addresses your understandable and justifiable concerns. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm ... I haven't see things done this way before, but I guess it couldn't hurt to try, subject to what other arbitrators might think. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have a procedural question. Does it really matter who is named in the original RfArb? I think there are a lot of other people involved here, but they aren't named. Will that impact ArbCom's ability to consider their role, and warn or sanction as necessary? &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 20:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is my understanding that the ArbCom will consider everyone's role in the dispute, even if they are not specifically named. If the ArbCom believes that they played an important part in the dispute, then they will move to add the specific user to the list of parties. Sean William @ 21:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I've jumped the gun, the Committee has not yet accepted this case. It would be nice to have confidence that the ArbCom would focus on those who have been disruptive. Judging by the participant list as of this morning, that is still not the case.
 * User:Mastcell has proposed a clerk keep some order on the various pages - it would be nice to think that such a person will deal with the mass of vindictive, reckless personal accusations invariably made in previous cases. We shall see. The chilling effect of this behavior has been very evident. On my previous visit to ArbCom, even my advocate was harassed - so much for any chance of due-process!
 * The other serious concern is that, judging by many previous such cases, there will be little concern for the truth of evidence. I don't say that a mass of lies gets entered, but we can have little confidence since, when this has happened, it appears not to be a cause for censure. Surely participation here should depend on personal integrity? You'd never guess it judging by some of what goes on! PRtalk 09:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Questions to Jaakobou

 * 1) In your statement overleaf, you say "I also believe there is a serious need for formal mediation on Second Intifada and Israeli-Palestinian conflict". I've seen it suggested that you never agree to compromises (I cannot say, I think I once noticed you refusing to join an informal mediation at the Battle of Jenin). Please provide examples where you've done so, preferably in a new section. PRtalk 14:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) There was an RfC on CAMERA. Eventually (after a great deal of uncalled for participation by involved editors, into which I allowed myself to be sucked in, sorry), I summarised the conclusions as being two to none against CAMERA (or likely three to one, if we included someone who'd been only slightly involved, offering to mediate). You don't appear to have exactly rejected that conclusion (I cannot understand what you're trying to say here), but just one day later, you were encouraging other people to ignore the conclusion, eg here. I'm sure you'll understand that this could look very much like both tendentious editing (concealing the reasonably clear nature of the result at the RfC) and disruptive editing, encouraging disrespect for WP:Policy. Would you care to explain your understanding of the result of this RfC? PRtalk 14:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's hard to think that there will be any other result to this case (if accepted) than article probation, given ArbCom's past history with such disputes. I'm not sure analyzing everybody's behavior won't be a complete waste of time. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Given there's disruption from a hell of a lot of users in this case, article probations would look like the only feasible option (sanctioning indivdual editors would probably be far too complex for a volunteer project and unworkable). The problem is, the scope and severity of the article/topic probation.... <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  19:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree completely with JPgordon. I am greatly disturbed by the tone which is already emerging here. Since no specific article is the focus here, editors are already piling on allegations and counter-allegations of various misconduct. this is sort of inevitable, since ArbCom does not address content disputes, and can only address user conduct.


 * I would suggest that a slightly better route might be to focus on disputed articles and on questionable editors individually, on a case by case basis. It is possible to start Arbcom cases for individual editors, as you may know. I truly don't have anyone particular in mind here. My only point is that if some here do feel that certain editors need attention, there are ways to do that, in a manner which would keep the focus much more steady, and would not result in a whole slew of counter-allegations to confuse the matter. By the way, this is no reflection on ArbCom itself; i think ArbCom actions can be of immense value and helpfulness, if they deal with specific articles and editors individually.


 * Going on this current route will only lead us into fuirther acrimony, and furthermore we may also find that nobody ends up with a useful resolution, because everybody is so involved in making allegations and counter-allegations. (copied and revised a comment which i also posted at main page.) --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * (Grumble grumble grumble) I would like to raise two concerns with article probation in general and jpgordon's statement in specific.  First, article probation treats all affected editors equally, at least at first.  While it may be difficult to determine whether or not some editors are at more fault than others, it seems like it is Arbcom's responsibility to at least try.  Second, article probation shifts the responsibility of dealing with the matter from the 15 elected Arbitrators to individual admins.  Either the participants will recruit admins whom they believe to be friendly to them (albeit uninvolved in the content dispute) to take action, or they will make general reports at WP:AE, which historically has attracted a very low level of admin involvement.  I can tell you that the General sanctions and Editing restrictions put in place in Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 have had limited success.  The parties are each immovable in each's own conviction. They repeat the same arguments and disputes with no sign of listening to each other; their idea of compromise is that the other side acquiesce to the truth; and every slightest infraction reported to WP:AE results in a 5-page discourse on content questions that are far outside the remit of the board.  Just my two cents of course. Thatcher 20:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thatcher, you make some excellent points. the truth is that if we had some dispute resolution group which had ArbCom's role and prominence which was willing to rule on content disputes, we might be able to resolve such problems much more easily. for example, the Armenia-Azerbajan dispute you mentioned would probably be much more resolvable if parties could get a clear resolution as to the content, instead of simply getting a ruling on their own conduct, which they can probably implement only to a limited degree. so I agree with what you say, and I agree that in the end, this also will rest again with how we resolve individual content, through processes like the one you mentioned using individual admins. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You're quite right, Thatcher. Part of the problem in this topic area is that admins have steered clear because they've found that intervening in editing disputes leads to a barrage of abuse and personal attacks from some of the participants. Mastcell, ^demon and I have all encountered this at various points, and I'm sure other admins have too. I believe a number of editors are consciously trying to intimidate admins into leaving them alone to do what they like. If we're to get this topic area under control, it's going to be necessary to take a tough line against the offending editors. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, part of the problem is that certain people use false claims of "neutrality" to put themselves in a position to try to affect content, and if they are administrators, they sometimes abuse their powers or get their administrator friends to do their dirty work for them. Then, when their abuses are pointed out, they themselves claim they are being abused and intimidated.  If we're to get this topic area under control, it's going to be necessary to take a tough line against the offending editors/admins.  6SJ7 (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

A few thoughts: Carol Moore 21:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk
 * A content committee can only rule on general Wiki guideline issues, or else you have to become an expert on an issue. In this case of Israel/Palestine/and related issues, it would be best to have a permanent Process/Content Ombudsman Committee of volunteer long-time editors who have never edited on the issue and rotate them since over time they'll probably develop an opinion - or feel themselves pressured to do so - or be accused of having had one to start.  T
 * They also might have the power to start a check list of editors and every time they find an editor pulling a serious and intentional number (like deleting well sourced relevant content just cause they don't like it-one of biggest problems) they give them a black mark and over time those black mark's turn into escalating sanctions.
 * Need more and perhaps formalized detective work like done by User:Timeshifter on organized pro-nationalist editing.
 * There might be a general rule that anyone who does more than {__} edits on {__} articles on these topics within {__} time period should not be an administrator. It disgusts me that a couple of the worst offenders seem to be, though I know their powers are limited.
 * This pro-nationalist infestation of Wikipedia has a negative effect on Wikipedia in general, demoralizing and driving away some editors who get smacked down when they dare to edit certain articles; making others more aggressive in going into more of these articles and getting involved in edit wars, just to prove that they can't be bullied into submission; and teaching some editors bad habits they bring to other articles and use on less experienced people to get their way.

Be careful what you wish for...
Well, it appears that this case is about to be deemed "accepted" and opened, with no restrictions on the scope of the case having been imposed by the committee. I think we are all about to get a big lesson on the Law of Unintended Consequences. 6SJ7 (talk) 03:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, 6SJ7, we can all use this as an opportunity for improving the status quo on these pages, rather than just perpetuating existing divisions. CJCurrie (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A laudable goal, CJCurrie. I will certainly be interested in reading your contributions to the evidence and workshop pages to watch you avoid perpetuation existing divisions.  6SJ7 (talk) 04:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You may not believe this, SJ, but I'm tired of the endless politicization that has dominated these articles and would very much like to see a better system come into being. While I don't believe historical (and ongoing) wrongs should be swept under the table entirely, I strongly believe that this arbitration will be most effective if it casts its gaze on the future rather than the past.  CJCurrie (talk) 05:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * User:6SJ7 There is ample evidence of a few editors cheating. These editors have trashed consensus, they have committed acts of gross historical fabrication (judged against the standard of David Irving, several appear to be significantly worse), and some have engaged in hate-speech (again, several appear to be significantly worse than David Irving). Some have engaged in behavior contrary to the spirit of the project that should render their further contributions permanently tainted.
 * I listed the problems elsewhere as 1) illiterates who have hounded scholars out of the project. 2) straightforward cases of cheating (described above) and 3) personal attacks launched on witnesses at various "disciplinaries".
 * We will discover presently whether the ArbCom is willing (or indeed able) to deal with these problems. It can deal with cheats (usually), now it must deal with yahoos and yobs. PRtalk 21:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * PR, I'm sure you have valid points, but nothing is to be gained by using such inflammatory language. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 21:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Virtually everyone involved in this dispute has engaged in intemperate language at one time of another in the past (some more seriously than others), but there's actually reason to hope that the standards may be changing now.  Let's keep things above board, please.  CJCurrie (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

A little consensus building?
With respect for the very deep divisions leading to arbitration, and the real world concerns behind them, I'll offer a good faith suggestion to do some collaborative work. The Palestinian costumes article came to my attention a few days ago. I'd be glad to help with images and copyediting if the people here would like to help raise that from B-class to GA. Best regards to all, <font face="Verdana"> Durova Charge! 05:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've edited there some. Good idea, but maybe you should move it somewhere else now? HG | Talk 18:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This will get archived soon enough. Thanks for the help. :) <font face="Verdana"> Durova  Charge! 19:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg's removal
Is this kosher? -- Kendrick7talk 00:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe Quadell didn't see my reasoning for adding Jayjg's name.  I readded him and left a note on Quadell's talk page. Cla68 (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I highlighted your reasoning on the arbitration page (see my additional comments at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles and informed Quadell about my comments on his talk page. This was two hours before he removed Jayjg. I don't understand why he should claim an hour later that "no one has given any reason why his name should be listed among those who have recently had ownership issues with Israel/Palestine articles" when I'd done precisely that and informed him of it. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Which Israel/Palestine-related article would that be? I only remember people mentioning Messianic Judaism and Khazars. And it's definitely not appropriate to add parties after the request has been accepted. It does say, afterall, "Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case." – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I left a note on your talk page with evidence from a directly related article, and I readded his name to the case with a note left on the clerk's, Rlevse's, talk page. As clerk, if he agrees with your position, he can remove Jayjg's name and I won't readd it. Cla68 (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Update: Morven removed Jayjg's name.  Relevant discussions are on Morven's and Rlevse's talk pages. Cla68 (talk) 02:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Note for the AC - Requests for rollback/Vote
In case you haven't seen it yet, Requests for rollback/Vote, and you have been asked to ratify this here after the poll closes February 1. You have been asked to ratify the vote between February 1, 2008 and February 10, 2008 and sign off on it. Seems no other other way to get this done so people will actually work on something else. Treat the ratification like a simple AC decision, majority? Just wanted to post an unofficial note here to draw attention to this. Lawrence Cohen 06:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Not going to happen I'm afraid. The poll will again demonstrate no-consensus, but we're stuck with rollback because some developer has thought otherwise and there is no redress for the large minority that have opposed this. Arbcom don't want to know.--Docg 09:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There was interesting comment on one of the talk pages--I can't recall which now, that someone paraphrased Tim Starling apparently saying that the rollback was needed for purely technical and system operations reasons. The local communities have no say or control over purely operational network matters, do we? Lawrence Cohen  19:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe, but could be wrong, that these are the two diffs that may have been paraphrased., .  MBisanz  talk 21:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone should just ask the devs to say if there is a technical need for the feature that they see. If so, what say does the community have? We can't tell them how to run their servers. Lawrence Cohen  21:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there are a lot of features that the developers have technically available, but that particular projects might decide not to enable. In other words, the English Wikipedia might have one set of buttons and the German Wikiquote might decide on a slightly different set, etc. If English Wikipedia adopted a policy that no users are to have rollback, in a way that the community came to consensus on, then the feature could be turned off, or at least administators would know that they are expected not to use it. (Not opining on the merits of the proposed case at this point.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment to arbitrators regarding Discretionary sanctions in Armenia-Azerbaijan
I would like to note in response to Sam Blacketer's comment that appeals be restricted to Arbitration enforcement, that although AE provides a central forum for Arbitration enforcement complaints, there is no special reason not to also consider valid complaints to AN and ANI. In the case of appeals of discretionary sanctions, posting at AN and ANI becomes particularly important as AE is handled by a small number of admins, and requiring that sanctions which arise there be appealed there means that the same small number of self-selected admins that imposed the sanctions will be ruling on the appeal. Thatcher 11:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Concur with Thatcher. I feel that AE should be the primary venue for arb enforcement cases the vast majority of the time, but sometimes other options may be the wiser choice--especially on appels of AE cases once it's been to AE once on the same issue, so we should not limit it to AE in 100% of the cases, handling them on a case-by-case basis. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 13:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not suggesting ignoring complaints to AN and ANI, but attempting (so far as is possible) to avoid forum shopping by specifying the exact venue. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If a sanction is imposed ad hoc then WP:AE is a good place to appeal, but if the sanction was applied at AE, then a wider venue (one with a different group of admins participating) should not be discouraged. Thatcher 14:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone comment?
Are users who were not contacted about an RFAR allowed to add themselves to lists of users involved and make statements? – thedemonhog   talk •  edits  19:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * He said it. Yes, they are :)-- Phoenix -  wiki  22:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for clarification
In "Requests for arbitration/Digwuren" a rulling was made that:

"The restriction shall specify that, should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below. Before the restriction shall come into effect for a particular editor, that editor shall be given an official notice of it with a link to this decision."

1. Is it an assumption of bad faith when a Wikipedia policy or standard is eliminated within the editing process of an article?

2. Is it uncivil to argue that the Wikipedia policies and standards be accepted during the editorial process? 3. When an edit is made clearly from a POV that represents a agenda for promoting policies of a national organisation or institution above those of Wikipedia, is is a personal attack to point out that this contravenes the NPOV Wikipedia policy?

--mrg3105mrg3105 23:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC) Also 4. Is renaming of an article in a way that it can not be found again a form of deletion?--mrg3105mrg3105 00:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Before anyone responds, see AE, User_talk:Mrg3105, User_talk:Rlevse. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 00:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Mrg's argument is that policy supports the name he wants the article to be. All disputes begin because two (or more) people each think they are right.  Mrg may or may not be right, but that does not justify or permit name calling and other forms of incivility.  Mediation is second door on the left. Thatcher 00:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing this out Thatcher, but why stop there? In asking me to walk through that 'Mediation door', are you asking me to do so alone? I already have the opinion of Mediation/Arbitration process from one of the opposing party with this


 * "[edit] re:Request for arbitration (by mrg315)

do you even know what does that require, what does that inply? I BEG you to go ahead with this and continue to throw away both of our times. Nergaal (talk) 12:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)"


 * Clearly the other party has had previous experience in Wikipedia bureaucracy, and is content to sneer at it as a waste of time, and has achieved the result of his wishes by having me notified on an impending banning. Pardon me for knowing right from wrong and having the balls to say so.


 * But why stop there. Surely if one is uncivil, then spamming talk comments would be so considered, and yet nothing was said of the same user's practice in the article's discussion page? (all spamming has be removed now, and I don't care to go through history)
 * Abuse you say? "hey commie, you should stop using the archaic term rumunian (i.e. that term was in use in soviet russia/ussr) and use the one that is currently in official use in English (i.e. Romanian). Nergaal (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)" All Nergaal got from Fut.Perf. is a slap on the virtual wrist for that one.

The fact that he proved me right (the operation was by USSR, so historical and not anachronistic terminology applies) was just ignored by the learned Fut.Perf.


 * And here is the ultimate in deception. My comments and Nergaal's spam have been edited off the discussion page! Only the comments that suit the other party remain!


 * Well, whatever. I have now aquired Nergaal's appreciation of administrative capacity to contribute to solutions--mrg3105mrg3105 02:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

In his recent piece on Google "Knols," the search giant's answer to Wikipedia, El Reg associate editor Andrew Orlowski points out that Wikipedia articles may be "tightly controlled by a 14-year-old you've never heard of, who has risen to the top of the social backstabbing by seeing off rival 'editors,' by forming cliques and drinking huge amounts of Red Bull."

But that's just one possibility. The point is that if they have enough time and make the right friends, anyone can hijack a Wikipedia article. And hijacking begins at the top, with the title, so I see this issue as an important one of "nipping 'it' in the bud" before a precedent is set. Of course others couldn't care less--mrg3105mrg3105 02:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)