Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 22

AA 1 restrictions
I have a question with regard to the revert parole I and a number of other editors were placed on 11 April 2007, please see: According to the ruling of the arbcom the original duration of the parole was 1 year, which has now expired. The Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 ruled that all the editors placed on revert limitation in the first AA arbcom case were subject to supervised editing, however no time limits were specified. So I would appreciate if someone could advise whether the restrictions of Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan are still effective or not. Thank you. Grandmaster (talk) 07:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The original Supervised editing restriction said in relevant part "They may be banned by any administrator ..." The word "may" indicates discretion on the part of administrators, not a mandatory ban.  This wording has itself been superceded by the amended remedies in that case.   The amended remedies are also discretionary.  I would say that at the moment the restrictions are not in force, but that any uninvolved administrator can reimpose them or tougher sanctions if an "editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process."  Those editors who were previously sanctioned have demonstrated a prior pattern of problematic editing, and thus any new incident can be seen as repetition.  GRBerry 13:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: I think it would be best if you all stuck to 1RR, Armenians and Azeris alike from the AA1 case. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * These numerous and casual references to "Armenian and Azeri" editors is getting close to racism. I still recall you saying once that you had banned all "Armenians and Azeris" from making comments on a talk page for 5 days. If you had changed that to, say, "negroes and asians" do you think you would have got away with it? If you are going to go around advocating restrictions on editors solely based on their race, then you should not be a Wikipedia administrator. Meowy 21:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I personally will, but I'm not sure about everyone. Basically as I understand, the 1RR restrictions are not in force anymore, it is just a general recommendation of the admins that the parties to the first case stick to it. Maybe some sort of a general notification about the present status of AA1 restrictions to the parties to the first case would be good, along with a recommendation to voluntarily stick to 1RR. I think it would be good for future that the enforcing admin specified the precise time limits of any sanction, whenever possible, if any restrictions are applied to any user. That would help to avoid confusion. Grandmaster (talk) 04:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also it might be good to add a clarification here: Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2. Grandmaster (talk) 05:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI, this is wrong too: Probation.--  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 12:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey. If you chaps from AA1 start edit-warring, I'll simply use AA2 to put you formally all on 1RR again. If people informally stick to 1RR (per week) that won't be needed. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 14:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I personally think that rather than the individual paroles it would be better to place the entire area of AA related topics on 1RR limitation, i.e. no one should be allowed to make more than 1 content related rv, and any new users joining the editing in this area would be immediately covered by this limitation. I proposed that during the first arbcom. As for the present situation, I personally agree to stick to 1RR, I hope everyone else is too. But the link posted by Eupator also contains inaccurate info, it says that the parole is indef. An update is necessary. Grandmaster (talk) 06:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Any evidence subpages for this new page?
This wisely broken-out page will prove very useful. However it is apparent that in one or more clarification requests, the process difference between opening and reopening cases, as described at Arbitration guide, may be leading to confusion. Unlike a new case, there appears no provision for extending (500-word) summaries of reopened requests into evidence subpages, as I alluded on this page. Perhaps this is deliberate and/or there is a standard methodology already in place of which I am unaware.

In the Franco-Mongol case, perhaps due to this omission, several users have exceeded 500 words, possibly relying on an inference I observed somewhere that responses to other users may not necessarily be counted within the limit; and, incredibly, one user has already been refactored by three clerks, limiting the amount of summary material available for presenting a case. Also the clarification case has become a harbor for several violently opposed amendment proposals.

I recognize that discussing lacunae in a policy may be questionable when offered from a party simultaneously in a process covered by the policy, but it appears that in this heavily attended case an ad hoc standard may be better than leaving the question open. The process as-is seems to suggest that clarifications of rulings should be straightforward enough that ArbCom input can be safely predicated solely upon summaries and not upon extended evidence. The current case may not be that easily handled.

I note that four arbiters have already considered this ripe for reopening, which in an ordinary case would be grounds for creating an evidence subpage subject to the wider restrictions of generally 1000 words or 100 diffs, with some leeway. I would appreciate some clerk or arbiter statement as to whether the several involved editors should feel free to use some fresh page (such as this talk page)  for expansion of their summary comments at this time, as it appears several of the involved editors by their actions express a silent consensus that the summary limit is exceedible in this case and that the floodgates may be opened. Thank you. John J. Bulten (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Order of requests
My understanding is that the new requests are supposed to be listed first, and the oldest requests are supposed to be listed last. Is that correct? The instructions say, "Click the [Edit] link to the right of this section, and paste the template immediately below this box and above any other outstanding requests."

Since the request about me seems to be the oldest, shouldn't it be at the bottom?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's my understanding that when a request for clarification leads to arbitrators voting on proposals (which doesn't always happen), it gets moved to the bottom. As there haven't been any motions made as of now on your request for clarification, but others have, it's not at the bottom. Ryan Postl et hw ai te  01:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. Hopefully there will be some kind of resolution of this Request at some future time before I get old and die.  Not that I'm impatient, of course. :)Ferrylodge (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oldest requests should be at the bottom, whether or not they require voting doesn't matter. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 01:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of the PHG motion
Should it really be "and/or" between the two sections? I'm not sure what it means. I also wonder if 'articles' would be better than 'his articles'.--Slp1 (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed the wording to eliminate "his articles". "and/or" means that PHG can use one or both ways to meet the requirement. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification of how the "and/or" thing would work. I wasn't sure.--Slp1 (talk) 02:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * With these restrictions, is there any purpose for the topic ban on medieval history? Perhaps that remedy should be supplanted. Jehochman Talk 02:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please no. If PHG is allowed to go back to editing articles about medieval history as long as he uses English-language sources, I anticipate that we would go right back to a state of edit war on Franco-Mongol alliance and other articles.  Many of our core disputes were still about misinterpretation of English-language sources. And we still have dozens of other articles that we haven't finished cleaning up yet. The main thing that the new "English-only" restriction will do, will make it easier for other editors to followup on what PHG is doing.  And I'm sorry if this sounds like an assumption of bad faith, but I still anticipate continued problems with misinterpretation, regardless of which language that he's using. --Elonka 08:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Elonka on this point and would like to add that PHG's use of widely-available English language sources was just as problematic as his use of obscure or non-English ones. Restricting him to use of the former may make it easier for other editors to check his work, but it does not good at all in getting PHG to listen to or work with them.  In my experience, it takes weeks  of argument for PHG even to admit that he might have made a mistake, and I have yet to see any glimmer of understanding on his part on his problematic use of sources.  I would strongly support mandatory mentorship in that it might have the added effect of helping PHG learn to work with others while helping him avoid future sourcing issues. Kafka Liz (talk) 09:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Good quesiton, we need an answer to that. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 11:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC) It seems to me the arbs are voting for BOTH remedies. I say this because if they only supported one, they'd say so. Unless instructed otherwise, I'll implement both when there are 7 votes (currently there are 12 active arbs, so a majority is 7). For the record, the topic ban should remain in place. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 10:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure, Rlevse. This  suggests that the idea is that PHG can choose which of the two options he will choose (or both).Slp1 (talk) 15:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Does this mean that the other amendment being considered, about extending PHG's restrictions to include other pages, is now off the table? We still have the question of whether or not he should be allowed to make subpages in his userspace that deal with medieval history. --Elonka 10:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The "and/or" ruling has passed. I have asked the arbs a question about implementation and will take care of the whole clarification request when I have an answer. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 11:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Only the "and/or" ruling passed. The other did not. So I'm implementing only the "and/or" motion at this time. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 23:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Overload
The breakoff to this page may have made things clearer, but I fear that it is increasing arbitrator overload. They are likely to spend more time over on the main request page, instead of here. Not to be too pointy, but how long will it take for an arbitrator to respond to this? Carcharoth (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Until now, but I was on a wikibreak until Friday.... For what it's worth, I am not a fan of the page split, nor of the increased complexity of the "requests for clarifications" format, but we can continue the experiment for awhile and see how it goes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments about Sam Blacketer's kind reply
I would like to make few comments about Sam Blacketer's kind reply to my request, I hope this is the right place to do it.

First of all we all know that the main goal is "to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia" i.e. "high-quality encyclopaedia which is neutral point of view and based on reliable sources". We all know also that consensus does not always achieve this result. But there is absolutely no reason to think that one or few admins acting unilaterally and "discretionarily" would do better than consensus of several people on the talk pages. Admins are just more powerful users, not more wise ones. It is misleading to focus on the fact that consensus does not necessarily produce the good of the encyclopedia without addressing the fact that the decision of few uninvolved admins could be even *less likely* to realize the good of the encyclopedia.

Second and most important point: I cited people being banned for editing supported by consensus but It was not a criticism to the admins. It was a criticism to the situation that this action creates: if I must be afraid of being banned even for editing what is supported by the consensus then I can't definitely feel free to make any kind of edit at all! To be able to edit without being afraid I would need to consult the admins who could sanction the ban but this would make them "involved".

Third: we should always keep in mind that admins are just users with more tools. The punishments are not being delivered by an impartial jury after having listened the accusations and the defenses. The punishments do not even reflect a consensus inside the wikipedia community. The punishments are "discretionary", they just reflect the opinion of a single or few "users with more tools". It's like if a group of policemen both accuses you of a crime and sentence you to jail without any defense being allowed. Defenses are indeed completely ignored and discouraged with threats (as I have shown). Also the statement "editors unhappy with restrictions should look at the aspects of their own behaviour which have provoked them, and see if they can change it" seem to be a way to discourage people to defending themselves.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 10:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Consensus among a group of like minded people, such as 9/11 Truth Movement supporters, does not overrule core policy. You cannot overturn neutral point of view with 10, or even 100 editors at a particular article.  Jehochman Talk 10:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you are talking about. It's seems just a bad faith assumption which I'm not interested to address.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 11:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am referring to this incident, which resulted in your being banned from editing 9/11-related articles. Continuing to stonewall and wikilawyer is not going to help your case. Jehochman Talk 11:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To call people disagreeing with you "9/11 Truth Movement supporter" is just an unnecessay way to attack and to go into ideological struggle, maybe you like it, I do not.
 * I'm not asking any help, I am expressing my opinion, is it allowed?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 11:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles are not the place to express personal opinions. They are a place for consolidating verifiable information, presented from a neutral point of view. The statement you linked to has nothing to do with me.  Please be more accurate in the future. The Wikipedia community is thoroughly tired of POV pushing on 9/11 articles.  Those who whitewash articles by misrepresenting conspiracy theories as fact will be stopped from doing so, by bans or blocks if necessary.  Jehochman Talk 12:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously I am not expressing opinion in "wikipedia articles"
 * The statement I linked has to do with ideological struggle as your statements are
 * You just can't speak for the wikipedia community
 * I think to be working for WP:NPOV and I consider offensive and a bad faith assumption to be called "POV pusher".--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't an assumption of bad faith, because there is evidence, quite a lot of it, that you have been POV pushing. This is why you have been banned from editing these articles. As for offensive, I think it is offensive to insinuate that a living person has murdered thousands of people, when there is no verifiable evidence whatsoever.  I for one do not understand why you are allowed to continue editing Wikipedia in any capacity, as you have failed to recognize problems and failed to provide any reassurance that things will be different in the future. Jehochman Talk 16:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC) - Striking because acknowledgements have been made. Jehochman Talk 18:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do you think to be neutral when judging when an edit is "POV pushing" and when it is not?
 * My revert was a BLP violation and I did wrong (and I have been sanctioned) but it's very dishonest on your side to miss the difference between "insinuating something" and "reporting about insinuations made by other people".
 * Your last phrase is just another threat. Are really admins allowed to continuously theraten users they disagree with?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We are here to write an encyclopedia, and not serve as a soapbox. This is nothing about ideology, but about incorporating verifiable information from reliable sources.  For years now, Wikipedia has endured endless POV pusing.  Some users that have come before, such as User:TruthSeeker1234, have been actively involved in the 9/11 Truth Movement.  Some of their websites and people behind them do engage in blatant libel and harassment of individuals (e.g. Larry Silverstein).  Wikipedia needs to steer clear of this, refrain from using these sites as sources, only use reliable sources, and not cherry pick reliable sources where they made a slipup while reporting in the midst of chaos on 9/11. While I don't see you as an active member of 9/11 truth, to keep inserting blatant BLP violations in articles is absolutely not acceptable and we have had enough of such behavior. --Aude (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be glad to discuss about this problems but not now and not here because it would take us far away from the topic of my original post.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I happen to be an administrator, but for the purpose of this topic, I am just an ordinary editor, same as you. Jehochman Talk 17:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

As someone completely uninvolved in any 911 dispute(due to the fact that I have a strong personal bias I have chosen to avoid the topic) I can say that no amount of consensus can override the requirement for a neutral point of view. This is not up to the community, NPOV is imposed on us by the people that own Wikipedia. (1 == 2)Until 17:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply, however I did aknowledge this in my comment and actually nobody is disputing this fact!--Pokipsy76 (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh good, that is wonderful. (1 == 2)Until 18:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * :) Yes it is. However the main problem is: if people are banned for making good faith edits which have been discussed and reached consensus then nobody will feel free to make any edit whatsoever! And this is definitely not wonderful.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Pokipsy76, it may be fun for you, and good for your editing skills, to work on several articles that have no controversy whatsoever. This may help you gain perspective on what it is like to work "normally" with Wikipedia.  I am afraid that the atmosphere around those 9/11 articles is quite caustic and unhealthful. Jehochman Talk 18:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments in re Basboll's appeal
JungleCat has added another characteristic statement to my request for appeal. It's worth looking at the whole exchange and the article talk page discussion it was about. Notice that the noble sentiment JungleCat quotes himself for was originally expressed to support an editor who had exclaimed his wonderment that someone might "believe such crap" when the editor it was directed at had politely suggested he withdraw it. While calling someone's (alleged) beliefs "crap" may not directly violate the purpose of Wikipedia, it is surely a bit off the mark to quote the founding idea of Wikipedia to justify such insults?

The moon hoax analogy is instructive. While I was getting my doctoral training in science studies I looked empirically at fringe theories, including parapsychology (mainly mind reading and telekinesis) and the "we never went to the moon" idea. The most interesting thing about examining such views is that it forces you to understand the received view (psychology, the Apollo project, and, of course, progressive collapse) in some detail. I have never suggested that fringe views be presented as "legitimate theories" (i.e., as a accepted scientific positions). I have suggested that the articles can often be improved simply by providing the answers to the questions that proponents of fringe views claim are somehow open ("How can they explain...?") That does not mean representing fringe critiques of the mainstream. Those critiques need not even be mentioned. And that is why it is so frustrating to have people like MONGO interpreting every one of my edits in terms of a belief I have never expressed. (Not only was Morton insulting to call them "crap", he was being presumptuous to talk about my "beliefs" ... and he was even wrong about the relevant belief in this case, which had very litte to do with controlled demolition).

Aside from my interest in the controlled demolition hypothesis (as a popular belief not a scientific proposition), then, I have also been getting increasingly interested in what we know about how and why the WTC collapsed. (Just as I had a chance to learn a great deal about how we actually got to the moon when I studied the hoax accusations). I think my work on the article has made it more informative, and this includes the information it has provided on the limits of what we know and the nature of the investigations that led to that knowledge. I don't claim to have perfect knowledge of the subject, but I do claim to have been editing in good faith. I have not been trying to refute NIST or to defend the controlled demolition hypothesis (I have not been "pushing"). I have been working with the moderate assumption that NIST's is not the gospel truth and that proponents of the controlled demolition are not just talking nonsense; that is, I have been trying to make sense of both positions.

But regardless of who is right about the content issues, the incivility here is clearly on one side. ArbCom can choose to say that people who are interested in a particular set of problems cannot expect to be treated civily; or AC can demand that even the "right" side defend its views civily.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 07:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Question about appealing bans
A banned user wishes to appeal but there has been no reply from mail sent to the arbitrators. May that user ask another user to support his appeal by posting it here? Under what conditions would such a request be considered meatpuppetry, and under which would it not? 75.61.105.103 (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Under all conditions it would. If there's been no reply, try again. (We get lots of these requests, most of which are spurious, and some get missed.) --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts on Requests for arbitration
Without any particular motivation, I'd like to offer my thoughts on the current structure and operations of the Requests for Arbitration (RfAr). As we all seem to veer naturally towards pessimism, I will observe that the process works reasonably well. That is to say, RfAr serves its function to acceptable standards: as a page where editors can present disputes to the Committee, and request that they arbitrate them, it seems to fill that role well. However, it is prone to a lot of backwards-and-forwards discussions. For example, it's not uncommon to see a statement from a party followed by several sections titled "Reply to X... Reply to Y..."; that really is nothing but extended bickering. Perhaps we need to look at cutting that out.

What concerns me, however, is the lack of clarify and cutting-to-the-point in requests for arbitration. At present, the parties involved (and, increasingly often, uninvolved by-standers) offer statements, which are supposed to be short, to-the-point, and descriptive of the issues the Committee are requested to consider. This is, however, is not working. What we're getting is several rants from each side of the fence, which really does make it somewhat difficult (for me, at least, as a neutral observer of the arbitration process) to identify the issues in hand.

For example, would the addition of a "core issue" section, perhaps under the current "previous attempts at dispute resolution" area, not make that easier? I for one would find the first read-over of a rfar much simpler if the filing party had noted that it was over, for example, "Users α, β and γ have been grouping together to push through POV Θ".

Thoughts? Anthøny 21:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What if all requests created a new subpage? If a case is renamed upon opening, it would be a simple standard move to fix any "mislocation". Clerks could move extended comments and replies to the talk page, keeping the main request for the short and simple statements you seek. It would also permit the committee to keep better track of requests, is they so wish. For example, it would make it conventient to track repeated requests from or about particular areas and editors, or to see a previous snapshot of a dispute. Just a thought. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 00:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You clearly share my thinking :) I proposed all new requests be created on a case subpage. If the case was accepted by the arbitrators, it would be a simple case of wiping the request and pasting in the open case template. It was never agreed upon, however. I think one concern was that it would be difficult for arbitrators to vote on every case at once, which a lot of them, I believe, do. In my book, however, that's not really a major concern: I'm sure making four edits rather than one wouldn't be a huge deal to ask. Anthøny 09:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think we should automatically assume such replies are merely bickering, and would need to be dismissed. I also think demanding cutting-to-the-point may not necessarily be helpful in the actual process - even if it involves sifting through long replies (even after they've been cut down by clerks), it is better to give parties to a dispute the opportunity to be heard without potentially relevant parts being lost in translation. Taking shortcuts and not interacting with the parties of a dispute to the satisfaction of the parties, uninvolved editors, and the committee, often leads to certain problems being undetected - this, to some extent I suppose, undermines the purpose of coming here in the first place. I also personally prefer being able to respond on the same central page for all requests that have not been accepted or rejected (yet). For these reasons, among others, I do think we should keep the system as it is. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. Perhaps I laid it on too thick there: in my experience on rfar, I've seen some excellent statements. My point is, there tends to be excessive rambling; and, "reply to editor X"-style posts do tend to suffer from bickering more than other areas of rfar. Perhaps eliminating them wouldn't be beneficial, but I certainly think some sort of measure to focus threads more (e.g., a "core issue" section) is needed. Anthøny 16:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I can understand your concern in initiating this discussion, and agree that such replies can suffer from more of bickering than anything. And it may be worth considering, but there is also a setback from it too. A core issue section is very likely tempt a lot of people to ignore the remaining statements, and may make individuals (no matter who they are) to look at the statements in such a way that was different from what their opinion would have been, had there not been a core-issues section. I do think the current system is fundamental in (to some extent) forcing independent, individual interpretations to surface from all those who respond. But understandably, in comparison to eliminating those sections, I personally would be less opposed to such an idea. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts on backlog
At this moment, there is none. Not really.

One case is in its 7th week, but was about to close before getting stalled by unforeseen events, Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Proposed decision. In fact, it looks like one arbitrator going inactive, or one more voting would be enough to allow it to close.

There are two more, one in its 3rd week (needs another week?) and one in its second week (voting, but not close to closing yet).

Getting to May without a substantial backlog is an accomplishment. Credit to arbitrators for participating, for writing, for discussing, for voting, and in general for moving things along. And to the clerks, for, well, clerking. But also for prodding the arbitrators as needed.

But I see that 3 new arbitrations just opened, and that you recently lost one of your decision writers. I think the community will understand if you can't keep up quite as well as you have for the last few months. But I'd also like to encourage you to maintain the pace that allowed these last few months to pass (relatively) smoothly.

Again, thank you. Jd2718 (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Good points, Jd. In fact, I recently emailed the Committee mailing list, noting that Newyorkbrad's absence would hurt the Committee, and that his empty seat required filling; I was pleased with their answer: they got very quickly round to dealing with it. So yes, credit to them is due, I believe. Anthøny 09:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Appeal - please help
It is high time that the abuses against the unjustly banned user "Gibraltarian" were dealt with rationally and fairly. My ban was brought about by a troll user's malicious complaint, and he continually vandalised any words I tried to post in my defence. I appeal to any admin or Arbcom member with a sense of justice to please contact me on a_gibraltarian@hotmail.com to discuss the matter. Many thanks

DO NOT REVERT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.124.68.211 (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have placed a block on this IP address, due to its recent disruptive contributions. Additionally, it is rather evidently a sock puppet of Gibraltarian. Anthøny 00:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Involved Parties
I can't figure out what format I am supposed to use to list the involved parties (in the anti-americanism case). Life.temp (talk) 08:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the formatting/links now. You can check the difference from this-link so you know what you did differently. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Tango RFAR - need quick clerk eyes
Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Tango/Proposed_decision - his desysopping appears to have not passed, but it's being reported all over that it did. <font color="#800080">Lawrence Cohen § t/e 02:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I know you've already cleared this up at the case's talk page, but just for the record; per preferential/conditional voting, the remedy passed - confirmed in implementation notes written by arbitrators. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Where are the archives?
Pleae excuse my unfamiliarity with these page, I have tried to look for the archives of the past request for clarifications/appeal but I can't find them, do there exist such archives?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * They are archived to the talk page of the relevant case. GRBerry 14:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)
 * Requests for clarifications/amendments/appeals on past cases are not archived on a separate rejected/closed cases page. Instead, as they deal with an already decided case, they're just added to the talk page of the case itself. For example, an appeal or clarification on the 9/11 case will be added to the case's talk page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you both :)--Pokipsy76 (talk) 08:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

New template: RfarOpenTasks
Folks, I've finished developing the new template,, with a little assistance from Ncmvocalist along the way. The template currently only documents requests for clarifications, and requests for amendments to prior cases; I imagine standard requests for arbitration could be easily integrated.

The template is currently stand-alone; it may be more efficient to integrate it with ArbComOpenTasks, either as a full merger, or just having it transcluded (displayed) there. Please feel free to suggest amendments to the template, and keep an eye out for any changes to WP:RFAC, in case they warrant an update to the template.

Regards, <font color="#2A8B31">Anthøny 22:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just me but isn't "status: " a bit redundant given "needs Arbs" doesn't have it prefixed? x42bn6 Talk Mess  00:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Possibly. The only reason "needs arbs" does not have status: prefixed is that there is insufficient space to allow it to do so; it's something I'm open to flexibility over. If you feel it could be improved, be bold and tweak away. We can tidy up and improve afterwards. :) <font color="#2A8B31">Anthøny 21:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of sanity, subpages please
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 21

Per past discussion I am considering moving ahead and chipping away Requests for clarification to its own page.

Page name I thought was Requests for arbitration clarification and default shortcut WP:RFAC

-- Cat chi? 14:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This has already been tried, concluded as unsuccessful, and reverted. Please do not do it. Daniel (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you link me to this unsuccessful attempt? -- Cat chi? 14:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * and discussion: talk page noticeboard. Given the consensus of arbitrators and clerks on the issue is to not have it to a subpage, I believe it'd be wise not to revert back to a subpaged method against this consensus. Daniel (talk) 15:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To put it mildly arbitrators and clerks do not get to have any say more than us regular users. Wikipedia is an anti-elitist community. Where was this discussion? I'd like to read it. -- Cat chi? 18:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Clarifications and motions - these requests ended up being neglected when split to a separate page. Our of sight, out of mind I guess.... It was moved back following a request by Jpgordon here. <font face="Verdana">WjBscribe 15:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Though on refection you mean something different I think - still having them on the main page, just transcluded from a subpage for each motion? <font face="Verdana">WjBscribe 15:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We archive motions and clarifications to the talk page of the initial request to keep everything in one place. Subpages as proposed for each motion or clarification is not necessary, given (as White Cat knows) most motions aren't actually carried. Daniel (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It strikes me that separate pages for motions would be useful for participants - who can more easily check the progress of pages they participate in. On the other hand, arbitrators would need to remember to watchlist new pages. In both cases, I would hope the people concerned would actually visit the page regularly to read any new comments (rather than relying too heavily on watchlisting). <font face="Verdana">WjBscribe 15:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not think arbitrators need to "watchlist". It isn't like arbitrators watch discussions live. They read the whole thing and possible changes when they have the time. Subpages would makeit easier for arbitrators to follow discussions. For example, if an arbitrator knows the timestamp of the last time he looked at a certain case, he can load the difference from that time to current and see all the changes. Right now it is very chaotic. -- Cat chi? 18:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "arbitrators... do not get to have any say". It's actually quite the opposite. The requests for arbitration system is under the control of the Committee, for the sole purpose that all arbitration pages, their titles, and every aspect of the process therein, are under the control of the Committee. The arbcom requires control of those pages in order to "do its job", and hence controls whatever happens. It's a harsh reality, but the arbitrators (or, rather, the committee as a whole) do, ultimately, have much more of a say in the operations of the system. <font color="#2A8B31">Anthøny 22:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Its not acceptable. If wikipedia is the free encyclopedia it claims to be, I get a say on the matter as much as the next person. That is the actual harsh reality. If arbitrators aren't aware of that they do not fit to the position they are occupying.
 * I am tired of monitoring countless other cases when I am only interested in my own case. The main WP:RFAR is too large for me to effectively load it. You have any idea how long it takes to load the freaking page on a GPRS connection?
 * -- Cat chi? 22:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * White Cat, we have now crossed the boundary into rant, and I think this discussion needs to conclude. You're clearly irked (and that's definitely understandable), but precedent has shown threads from your part of this nature go nowhere. My two pence is, with respect, it's time for you to tail off this thread. <font color="#2A8B31">Anthøny 23:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well said AGK. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 23:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats it, I am definitely continuing this. How dare you call my post a rant?
 * Who granted such privilege to ArbCom? Did Jimbo do this while forming ArbCom?
 * -- Cat chi? 23:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Right now arbitrators are giving a long discussion on weather or not to unban/unblock a user that stalked me for 3 years - which is fine. Believe it or not that aspect does not bother me one bit. If Arbcom chooses to unban/unblock him making sure I do not ever deal with more stalking/harassment it would be fine by me. What aggravates me is them ignoring me when I appeal. I am a person with nothing to loose at the moment so threats of any kind will not work on me. Just clarifying in advance.
 * I'd prefer to work collaboratively but if arbcom will not do that then there is something broken and needs a fix. No one should take arbcom seriously if they ask others to work collaboratively and yet arbitrators themselves make it a habit of avoiding collaboration and discussion.
 * -- Cat chi? 00:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requests for arbitration/MONGO
Hi guys. There's a current request for arbitration open for the above case regarding whether or not the Encyclopedia Dramatica article can link to the site. The page is currently protected because of edit warring over the link, and the thing that's stopping things moving forward is the fact that linking to ED is banned per the MONGO case. There's even talk now of simply ignoring the arbitration committee. Can I make a real plea to you guys to take the request for clarification to a vote on allowing linking in the article? Whatever the result, whether it ends in net support or not, it will give the whole issue some clarity - the edit warring isn't going to stop without this vote. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  19:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Slight correction - the article is no longer protected, but the link is still in limbo so my statement still stands. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  20:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see what's so hard about applying the WP:BADLINKS guideline. The community has developed a generic solution here; simply wrap nowiki tags around the html and be done with it. -- Kendrick7talk 20:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is, per the restriction in the MONGO case, this is still effectively banned by ArbCom, so we need them to clarify this with a vote. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  21:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the decision was specifically amended to except the Encyclopedia Dramatica article and its contents from the decision. But if you want to be nitty, then, OK, it doesn't matter as we wouldn't be actually linking to it, merely providing the html link code, which isn't the same thing. -- Kendrick7talk 21:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What? This was clarified last November in Requests for arbitration/Attack sites. The community was encouraged to develop a policy.  It has developed a guideline that is attached to WP:NPA.  Follow the guideline.  Risker (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That does not overule the MONGO case which still specifically bans linking to Encyclopedia Dramatica. Attack sites didn't in any way overule MONGO, and the arbitrators just a couple of months back declined to lift the restriction on linking to ED, so no, let's not follow the guideline in this case because we have a specific remedy currently overruling it. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  21:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ArbCom has no legitimate powers in content disputes or to make policy, so quit the tired Arguments From Authority and engage in rational debate over what's best to do. *Dan T.* (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course they do, they just choose not to enforce content decisions for the majority of the time, but they still can do if they choose. All we need is a simple vote from the arbs - I'm not arguing for or against, it just needs clarifying. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  22:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Which of the following are links:
 * (a)apples
 * {b} http://www.google.com/
 * (c)oranges
 * (d)http://www.google.com/
 * (e)all of the above
 * Hmmmm? -- Kendrick7talk 22:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * B and D could easily be classed as links in the respect of the MONGO decision. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  22:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * D is unquestionably a link, and C obviously is not a link; these are not under question. A is an internal link, and therefore is not relevant to this discussion. The problem revolves around B, which is the crux of the issue. The linking policy does not specifically address URLs which are the subject of the article, because (until this point) there have not been any notable sites which egregiously violate so many of the criteria. (ED rather spectacularly fails the reliability, violation of privacy, frequency, and intention criteria at Linking to external harassment.) Unfortunately, on an article about ED, it is encyclopedically relevant to include the URL, but there is no requirement that it be hyperlinked. Option B seems to be the most satisfactory solution, if there is going to be an article on ED. There are plenty of reasons why we shouldn't have such an article, but that is another discussion for another place. <font color="DarkSlateGray">Horologium  (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The decision in the MONGO case reads, and I quote:

"Links to ED

1) Links to Encyclopædia Dramatica may be removed wherever found on Wikipedia as may material imported from it."

It does not say links must be removed, it says may be removed. The community has now developed a guideline, at the behest of the Arbitration Committee, to identify best practices in situations such as this. Two and a half years have passed, and during that time there have been several requests for clarification and arbcom cases all related directly or indirectly to the MONGO decision. The Arbitration Committee's ruling of long ago has been superseded by the guideline developed by the community. Risker (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This matter has already been ruled upon; note the amendment to the MONGO case passed on March 19:"The Arbitration Committee's decisions in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites shall not be interpreted to prohibit (or to encourage) the creation of an article on Encyclopædia Dramatica. The existence and contents of any such article may be determined through the ordinary editorial and deletion processes."(emphasis mine). There is currently no special prohibition imposed by the Committee on any material to be placed within an article regarding ED. Kirill (prof) 03:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Prohibited from mediating
Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek

To date I am the only person prohibited from mediating. In addition I am sure the enforcement of this remedy itself could be quite controversial. It would be rather amusing to get blocked for successfully mediating a dispute.

The abolishment of the remedy requires me to be officially appointed by the Mediation Committee. That has a snowball's chance in hell in happening as visible in this discussion. The arbitration committee almost completely ignored my past appeal. Although Arbitrators went out of their way to discuss the appeal by Jack Merridew who has stalked me for the past three years and engaged in abusive sockpupetry among other things, I believe it is very unlikely that the arbitration committee is considering my current appeal. Arbitrators have a tendency to ignore me and likewise I am not willing to listen to them (or anyone else) anymore. If you ignore me, don't be surprised if I ignore you in return.

So the only option left for me is to illustrate the point one way or another. I am just unsure the most effective way.

Do not get the wrong idea. I am not asking for advice. We are way past that. Consider this more of an FYI.

-- Cat chi? 21:07, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't troll other people (what you call mediation) just because you don't like the punishment you richly deserved Cool Cat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.189.135 (talk)
 * As comment by is evidence of it, I have been pursued non-stop, even now. Arbcom has been very very useless in actually helping me. -- Cat chi? 21:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Now a good question is why would a Portland IP with only two edits notice my edit within two minutes of it and make the above remark? -- Cat chi? 21:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Seriously though White Cat, how does this comment by a troll IP have anything to do with you being a mediator, which is what this threat was initially about? <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  21:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This attitude is why I would like you to not get involved with every freaking thing I post. You are effectively replacing Davenbelle's role, you realize that? You always treat me as the criminal. You are not even willing to ask the most obvious question (or at least you remove it right away). -- Cat chi? 21:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What are you going on about White Cat? I removed an IP that was attacking you! I've got interest in the thread above hence why I'm watching this place closely. Seriously, chill out. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  21:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't possible for me to chill out for a pico-second when I am being pursued non stop such as by that IP. The community is not being helpful at all so I have to deal with it on my own as I have for the past 3 years (since I registered). Rarely community discusses this and comes up with an agreement but it is often forgotten in a few days. -- Cat chi? 21:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That IP edit is very relevant why I do not wish to be a mediator. Imagine me mediating a dispute. What do you think such dedicated stalker(s) would do? How do you expect me to deal with the most volatile disputes (disputes that require mediation). -- Cat chi? 21:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 75.164.189.135 from DNS Stuff.com Location: United States [City: Portland, Oregon]
 * Hmmm...
 * -- Cat chi? 21:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Requests for checkuser/Case/75.164.189.135 -- Cat chi? 00:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"Completely ignored"
White Cat above says this:


 * The arbitration committee almost completely ignored my past appeal. Although Arbitrators went out of their way to discuss the appeal by Jack Merridew who has stalked me for the past three years and engaged in abusive sockpupetry among other things, ...

Now, a reasonable person would interpret that as "so no arbitrators commented on your appeal and just let it fade away as stale?" I agree that, if this was the case, White Cat may have cause for complaint.

However, this is clearly not the case. In fact, four arbitrators did comment on the previous appeal he alluded to, so it was hardly "ignored". You can see for yourself at this section (scroll up for the entire request for amendment).

Daniel (talk) 01:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You have access to arbcom-l. Tell me how many people are talking over Jack Merridew's appeal? -- Cat chi? 02:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not have access to arbcom-l. I believe I have an email moderation exemption for emails I send to arbcom-l, but that does not give me access to the archives or anything like that. Daniel (talk) 03:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A shame. I wager 10$ that it is more than four. It was let to fade away as no definitive conclusion was reached. And only four arbitrators bothered to comment. -- Cat chi? 03:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The JzG section is messed up
I think someone tried to "helpfully" fix the chaos but I think it makes it less clear. Some of those comments should remain indented as responses or moved back to their author's section. As it stands now, we have editors with multiple sections. Would a clerk mind looking into this? --Dragon695 (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I was the helpful sort. I did move a few comments so that contributors would each have only one section, marking some as "response to" as is traditional on this page.  Threaded comments within statements are normally discouraged.  I also outdented several comments, as I couldn't see anything to suggest they were responses, I think they just indented too far.  It happens sometimes, and has a bit of a domino effect.  Anyhoo, I agree it's still pretty chaotic (and I missed an extra comment from Jim62sch), but I don't think it has to do with indenting/outdenting.  It's simply length.  Anyone and everyone with something to say about JzG is throwing in their 2 bits, and the whole requesting is slowly beginning to thread itself.  It's entirely too much for a typical request, and it'd probably be best to split everything but the 'involved parties' (Viridae and JzG) to a subpage.  That could be transcluded into a collapsible section, so folks could continue to speak and be seen without cluttering up the page further.  But that's a major cleanup decision for a clerk.  I'm not one, and I won't do anything more than what I consider the most obvious, most minor formatting/spelling sort of cleanup.  Be assured, I'm only trying to help keep things tidy and to the standards normally present on this page, if I'm wrong or mistaken I encourage anyone to revert me.  It's only formatting, I don't want to alter anyones content.  --InkSplotch (talk) 01:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I will look into the matter, and tidy up where possible. <font color="#2A8B31">Anthøny 21:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, insofar as is possible. <font color="#2A8B31">Anthøny 12:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I appreciate that clerking is not always an easy job. For the record, I wasn't doubting Ink's motives, I was thinking of doing a similar action but then I thought it might be better to let a clerk handle it. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Tagging as resolved: the matter is largely moot, as the section is no longer present on requests for arbitration, per the recent case merger. <font color="#2A8B31">Anthøny 19:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent Design
It is important to understand that the Arbitration committee does not do a good job of handling large, sprawling unfocused cases. Remember that they know next to nothing about the dispute, while you have been involved in it for months. A request for comment against a group of editors is somewhat non-traditional, but where the usual goal is to persuade someone by force of argument to change their behavior, here the goal is to develop a focused presentation of alleged harms and desired outcomes. For example, if you have a diff of User:Smith telling another editor, "Your contributions are not welcome and will always be reverted, go away!" you don't want to dilute the impact by including ten diffs of Smith calling editors "poopyheads." Likewise you want to focus on good editors with proven track records on other topics being driven away, and not so much on SPAs who really aren't here to learn the system and follow the rules. I would suggest opening a RFC on group conduct. Build it collaboratively in user space for a few days. Organize it logically, "Biography problems", "Hostility toward other editors", etc. Present the best evidence, filtered and focused. Don't use the process for revenge, but aim toward improvement of the encyclopedia. Try to present some remedies and desired outcomes that flow logically and proportionally from the evidence. (Arbcom will not indef ban for calling another editor a "poopyhead" for example.) Then move it to project space and ask for comments, opposing views, and so forth. Be respectful of all opposing views, and mindful of conditional or partial endorsements. You may find that the community considers some of your allegations to be weightier than others, and editors to be more or less culpable, in which case refocus the case on issues the community considers most serious. And remember that your conduct in bringing the case will be looked at just as closely as the conduct of those you name in the case, so using the RFC as an opportunity for flamewars and personal attacks is going to be self-defeating. Thatcher 15:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well said, Thatcher. You might consider adding this comment in some form to the User Conduct RfC page. Cla68 (talk) 07:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Preparing evidence and logical thoughts before an arbitration case? Wonders will never cease. I think the arbcom (or other regular arbcom people) should be much more pro-active in this area and help the organisation and management of cases - much more so than arbcom clerks do. Of course, ultimately it is up to the parties and others to present the evidence, but a sprawling case wastes everyone's time. Carcharoth (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Thatcher has held off posting this directly into the RFAR because to do so would make him ineligible to clerk any arbitration case that comes forward from it. (Feel free to correct me on that if I am wrong, Thatcher.) There are sufficient commenters suggesting an RfC that someone should be willing and able to start up the format, and others can add diffs and so on as things go along.  Risker (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really, this is content-neutral advice on filing an effective case. To Cla68, I think it would be a bad idea to structure all RFCs this way. Certainly RFCs would benefit from being focused, neither rambling on nor dealing excessively with trivial matters, but I look at the typical RFC as a means to show someone that their conduct is unacceptable in some definable manner but that it is amenable to change and improvement.  The prosecutorial model doesn't really apply.  Certain of the more complex arbitration case, such as perhaps ID, would benefit from something like a district attorney or crown prosecutor, who in the real world a/ exercises discretion that some complaints are not worth prosecuting, and b/ collates and organizes the evidence to present the most effective case.  On Wikipedia that could perhaps be done collaboratively.  To Carcharoth, I think the history of the clerks' office will show occasional rumblings in the direction of offering direct assistance to parties, but it has always been controversial, and some people think I have already gone too far, apparently. Thatcher 19:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That's good advice, Thatcher. People coming to this page should think of it as the where's the beef stage of arbitration. Of course the Committee will look into a dispute before making a decision about whether to accept a case, but our capacity to do so is finite, and it's largely up to the parties who want arbitration to sketch out the boundaries of the dispute for us. Show us the meat of the dispute.
 * In this request, instead of movements towards a request for comment, or movements towards being sufficiently specific in the request for arbitration, we've seen little meat but an abundance of big, fluffy statements (33 and counting, with another dozen replies to comments) and only today have there been any diffs added. --bainer (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

So, what now?
H2O RFA is over now, with so many dram, backlashes and s*** throwing that I feel ashamed only by reading it. So, the arbs that said they were going to hold this until the RFA was over. What do you say now? Samuel Sol (talk) 02:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

apologies for failing in the template stuff
I've just filed a request - but have singularly failed to correctly fill in the templates, and copy them to the correct places etc. - sincere apologies for any hassle this causes - I just found it very challenging technically to work out which bits to cut, paste, copy, etc. etc. - any assistance from the wonderful clerks (or anyone else!) is hugely appreciated! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I took a stab at it. I labeled it a request to amend, but it might be more accurate to call it an appeal?  If someone knows better, please correct me.  --InkSplotch (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Scope of Arbitration powers to create policy. (Moved from project page)
Moved this material here, from the main page. Altho I do agree with Celarnor's points, it's best to keep outside discussion here, and focus on getting clarification and response from the arbitration committee on the project page. --Barberio (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Where does it say they are limited not to? Until(1 == 2) 17:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I would certainly hope that would be implied. INDEF doesn't say I can't indef-block a user based on his choice of operating systems; does that mean its a good idea, or that I'm explicitly allowed to?  I think not.  Going through the arbitration policy, I don't see anything to suggest that they have the power to do things of this nature.   Celarnor  <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  17:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * {| class="wikitable"

During deliberations, the Committee will construct a consensus opinion made out of Principles (general statements about policy), Findings of Fact (findings specific to the case), Remedies (binding Decrees on what should be done), and Enforcements (conditional Decrees on what can further be done if the terms are met).
 * }
 * }


 * Examples are given of both remedies and enforcements. Neither create the impression that they can craft new policy binding to the entire userbase and project.  They create they impression that they can do exactly what they're meant to do; deal with dispute resolution that no one else has been able to deal with, develop a remedy binding to a subset of users involved in the dispute, and appropriate enforcement against those users.  Nowhere does it hint at the ability to create policy by fiat or weaken the power of consensus in the community.   Celarnor  <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  17:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Although a lot of the principles are similar to common arbitration, their rulings are not limited to parties to a dispute - the binding nature extends to all users on this encyclopedia. This will not change until the Committee is dissolved - realistically, this is not going to happen until the encyclopedia no longer exists. By now, it should be clear and obvious: a lot of the norms and generally accepted principles are unwritten. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Unwritten rules are a very bad thing in a society that has over a thousand members. It leads to self appointed bureaucrats running the show. Allowing it to raise to this level has been very bad for Wikipedia, generated many kilobytes of drama, pushing out productive editors, and giving Wikipedia a very bad name as packed to the gills with officious empire builders and petty bureaucrats.
 * And what's sad I think, is that if you try and get these 'unwritten rules' clarified, or try to put in place clear boundaries and acountability, you get shouted down for trying to 'introduce more bureacracy' when you're trying to reduce the hidden bureacracy, and called a 'wikilawyer' if you dare ask for clarity and thought to how new policies might be abused.
 * And then there's the Coup De Grace, of being told that it's all okay, because 'Policy is Normative, not Prescriptive'. After questioning a new policy introduced by fiat and without any community consultation at all! That is near the definition of Prescriptive Policy!
 * Perhaps I should send the Arbitration comity a Dictionary?--Barberio (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you're reading into things that don't exist. Unwritten rules exist because reasonable people find it somewhat obvious or common-sense - moreso than the codified rules. Asking for clarification is not going to be frowned upon, but demanding codification, specific boundaries, accountability etc. is not always possible, if at all - it's often unique to each case's circumstances, and codified rules always find themselves not having enough 'exception' provisions or clauses anyway.

In essence, all rules (no matter what form - be it laws or policies or the like) are merely a means of resolving disputes - they are not fool proof, and there is a long history/tradition of both humans and non-humans having trouble following them, even where codified.

No new policy has been introduced as far as I am aware by the Committee. Of course, extra requirements and the like are sometimes imposed on existing policy for a variety of reasons. Sometimes, it is to avoid the need for future cases in relation to certain matters that are more novel and can be more easily resolved if delegated to certain groups of users, or the community in general - in "Arbitrators' view and discussion", Kirill has further elaborated this to more specific examples. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Question
In Requests_for_arbitration/Privatemusings, was restricted from editing any BLPs due to apparent past issues, but now in Requests_for_arbitration he has stated that "'m now going to edit BLPs in what I consider an uncontroversial manner - removing unsourced material, adding pic.s etc. - I started doing this shortly after this application, actually, and am glad that it's all working out ok thus far. After a month from today, should all go well, I will post freely to BLP talk pages, and after a further month I will consider myself unrestricted. I hope this works out ok for all." is an individual really able to overturn an arbcom restriction merely because they think they have changed their own behavior? I'll note that 3 arbitrators seem to agree with continuing the restriction, can someone clue me in as to what is going on here?  MBisanz  talk 00:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've warned him about editing BLP's. The remedy is still in effect and he can't lift the sanction himself. Hopefully that will be the end of it. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  01:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd tend to agree... PM is a good guy, someone I greatly respect for his perseverance and his attempts to add value in a lot of novel ways, but even PM can't just ignore a ruling/sanction. If no admin chose to enforce the sanction, it would be unenforced, but Ryan has already said he's warned him. I would support a block over this, with some considerable regret. PM, don't do it. Appeal the sanction and ask that it be lifted early, instead. I think you'd get massive support for that. ++Lar: t/c 01:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was not aware he was violating his restriction (hey, no one can watch every wiki edit ;-). No editor can overturn their own restriction. If he violates again, let one of us know. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 01:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

<- I'm a bit bummed at the way my request for the sanction to be lifted has worked out :-( - I get the impression (for example from Lar above) that some people who might have wanted to comment hadn't noticed it - although I was very grateful for the comments it did receive. I think it was pretty active up until today - maybe it could be restored, allowing the 3 arb.s who've commented to date to respond further, and the other arb.s to comment if they wish...? thoughts and advice most welcome. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ps. I certainly won't edit BLPs at all. Privatemusings (talk) 02:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd support not archiving it just yet, I suppose. However 3 arbs commented "not yet" to you, more or less. I can recall repeatedly pleading to get some sort of feedback on a matter where I was implementing a ruling that was rather novel/controversial/contentious, and was delighted to get even one arbitrator to comment. So 3 is rather a lot, really. They all said the same thing really. Keep doing what you're doing and the restriction should be lifted. Hopefully soon. ++Lar: t/c 03:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

0/0/0/0
What's the last figure? I think it goes accept/reject/recuse/what? DuncanHill (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * accept/reject/recue/comment - the latter is if an arbitrator doesn't make a decision on whether to accept the case, and simply wants to make a comment or ask a question. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  22:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Waiting for further input. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 22:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Thanks DuncanHill (talk) 22:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Disgrace
To see this within an hour after the case is submitted is a true disgrace. We have two very respected admins here (not without fault like all of us) and certainly stepping back and reflecting on this is useful. Instead, ArbCom members rush to accept the case and produce another drama-grande with no (at this point) sign that this can bring any useful solution for which the price of this drama is going to be paid. While at it, the much bigger drama which puts the very legitimacy of this arbcom caused by one Arbitrator and the sloppiness (in the very least) of the large part of the rest in allowing such thing to happen is still raging and ArbCom members who are under a very urgent moral obligation to clear this up are "too busy" to do that allowing this mess to protract. And instead, they rush to accept another Giano-related matter right when the steam is mostly gone. Call me naive but seeing everything I've seen here, I did not expect this. --Irpen 00:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How do you know it's a disgrace, yet? It could be pretty quick and drama-free, if they just want to quickly clarify their position on wheel warring.  The facts of the case are simple enough and already apparent; I doubt much intensive effort would be needed to settle this one.  I appreciate the "both admins should accept a trout-slap and move on" sentiment, but if similar things have happened too often before, maybe they want to put a bit more force behind it.  Why not give them a chance and see what they do before assuming it'll turn out badly?  Friday (talk) 00:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Friday, you know this place much better to seriously suggest that this could be "be pretty quick and drama-free". While the other drama is still rocking precisely because they are ducking out hoping it would somehow dissolve, they eagerly rush to accept this instead. --Irpen 00:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I mean, what Arbcom does can be quick and low-drama. What other people do is up to those other people.  If there are sanctions, people will howl about those sanctions.  If there are not sanctions, different people will howl about there not being sanctions.  Whether Arbcom addresses this issue or not won't necessarily cause any more drama.  The drama we get is whatever we get.  It's already out there.  Friday (talk) 01:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * While it's rare, I must disagree with Friday on this occasion. Until the commitee demonstrates that it can actually reduce drahma, it needs to stop creating enabling it.  See the comments on the request page for links to recent cases where they've made limp-wristed or inneffectual decisions.  There is very little in the way of "resolution" coming out of the commitee when dealing with issues of this nature, and the rush to accept here is more of the same, particularly in light of the semi-consensus among non-arbs that this is a non-event. -  brenneman  01:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the purpose of the committee is to reduce drama, which itself is becoming an irritating byword for any points of view people don't like and with which they loudly disagree. <strong style="color:#000">Avruch 01:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the committe is dispute resolution. How many of the recent dramas (as in "the quality of being arresting or highly emotional") have actually been put to bed by the input of the commitee? -  brenneman  01:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That can at least partly be attributed to the intractability of the disputes ArbCom gets and the weakness of the tools at their disposal, not to mention the readiness of the community to challenge any outcome and test any limits. The easy problems don't need the ArbCom, and often the hard problems are beyond their power to resolve. <strong style="color:#000">Avruch 01:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The solution to that is different tools, not doing the same thing over and over; one can only hope that some of the alternatives currently under discussion are tried for a change. The same thing goes for administrators, there is a reliance on the "mechanical" tools (blocking, page protection, etc) rather than the softer side of adminning - leading, counselling, and so on. While it does not surprise me that this case is before Arbcom, it is very unfortunate that there was insufficient discussion with the two administrators involved to assist them in seeing that there might have been errors made, for example, and rather than being faced with having to apologise or to correct an action taken, there are now public calls for desysopping. It was unnecessary to escalate this so quickly when other avenues had barely been examined; surely we have more to offer than just big sticks with which to achieve compliance. Risker (talk) 02:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Irpen, you've made your utter distaste of ArbCom known for the last couple of days, we hear you. I tend to agree that they are overstepping in some areas, but really WMC needs to be sanctioned this time around. He's managed to stave off a number of RFARs and RFCs, but his conduct to revert Avi's good faith attempt to avoid a wheel war was really bad. That this all happened without a single peep on AN/I was also disturbing. Yes, there had been discussion on AE for the initial block, but subsequent discussion is needed when there is a dispute between administrators. --Dragon695 (talk) 04:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I voted to accept the case based on the fact that it is unacceptable for any of these people, all long-term users, to behave in this way. I think the arbitration committee would be failing in its purpose if we put avoiding drama ahead of doing the right thing.  As to warnings, I believe all involved have been warned before, in some cases multiple times.


 * As to other matters, the committee has agreed that the OrangeMarlin issue need not be handled through arbitration, as he has undertaken to reform and be mentored. We have been vigorously performing an analysis of our communication and our internal procedures as well. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Dragon, please note that I never condemned the ArbCom in strong terms prior to the events that unfolded recently despite I was greatly displeased by some of its previous actions. I refrained from strong public condemnation of this ArbCom earlier because I thought that despite all its faults, we are better to preserve some degree of respect to the ArbCom as an institution and an all out attack on this arbcom by the long-standing editors may undermine its capability to address the Wikipedia problems in any way at all. However, the ArbCom itself has done just that by allowing this disgraceful incident of a Wikipedian in good standing been tried in some sort of a Gitmo trial with the arbcom acting as an activisti agent, the arbcom member serving a plaintiff, a detective, a prosecutor and a judge all in one (he did not recuse), the accused editor being not even informed, let alone allowed to face the accusation and present his side of the story.

This cannot be a fault of a single arbitrator who organized it as the ArbCom allowed this all to proceed. I asked the arbitrators some very pointed questions to understand how much of this mess is the fault of the ArbCom as a whole body and utter evasiveness of the answers I received convinced me that the matter is not just one arbitrator going rogue but the whole committee being responsible for this shame (even if through incompetence entirely, while this is unlikely to be the only reason.) Arbitrators were begged to provide a straightforward and forthcoming explanation by many editors including those who very rarely agreed with each other. Such an explanation might have helped us to get out from this pity state of affairs with minimal damage and the arbcom that can still function. None of that came out but such excuses as busyness, intensity of discussions they are carrying were involved.

So, we have a grave emergency that endangers the entire dispute resolution at Wikipedia and instead of trying to reduce the damage of this catastrophic fall of its prestige and ability to function, arbcom within an hour accepts another case on Giano-matters. I have reservations about WMC for a long time but none of this warrants an immediate action. Even if he has to be desysopped (I am yet not convinced) Wikipedia will not suffer if this is carried out even a month later.

Even finally acting upon its promise to address the IRC matters at "some later point", made by this ArbCom half a year ago, is more urgent. With so many truly crucial and pressing matters and arbs being "too busy" to address them, arbcom accepts this case on the incident when the situation already cooled down by itself. This is incomprehensibly irresponsible. --Irpen 04:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Where is this grave emergency endangering dispute resolution? Suppose I found myself in dispute with somebody right now, what's to stop me resolving it by going off, putting the kettle on, and having a nice cup of tea?  Is somebody going to block me for doing that?  If not, where is the grave emergency?  --Jenny 05:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Jenny, I don't know what conflicts were you at, but if this is how you deal with them (kettle, tea and lemon) you are much better-tempered than most editors whose conflicts reach anywhere even close to an arbcom-level. Unfortunately, in most grievous matters editors are not able to act like you. So, we need a legitimate arbcom with some minimum degree of institutional respect from this community for it to be able to function. ArbCom really needs to come clean up its act and come out with a public statement that would explain what happened and why this won't happen again. Instead, Arbcom whose claimed busyness does not allow it to do it, accepts instantaneously yet another case on Giano-matters. This should not be happening. --Irpen 05:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I should have stated that I'm the user you know as Tony Sidaway. --Jenny 05:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My point (and I hope it's not too subtle) is that the primary engine of dispute resolution is the individual editor and the primary dispute resolution methods, which are diverse, include such simple moves as the tea-making maneuver I described above, which I assure you really does work astonishingly well, no doubt due to the magical properties of tea. On the Giano matter, I do tend towards the "nothing to see here, move on" camp, but see my "Red pill, blue pill" suggestion below.  I'm probably a bit more phlegmatic than you about the FT2 thing.  It looks like a straightforward fuck-up and no harm was done.   Time and again I see us causing problems by talking them into existence, and I think this may be one such instance. --Jenny 05:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Good to see you. Tony, especially good to see these wise advises coming from you. I do not doubt that stepping aside and letting it go is one of the best methods to deal with conflicts. But let's not allow this triviality as well as the dramatic change you underwent deflect us away from an obvious fact that given the reality on the ground and how Wikipedia may affect the real world, Wikipedia needs an effectively functioning arbcom and for this ArbCom to ever be effective it needs to regain some respect from the rank-and-file editors and admins and come clean from the well it dug itself in. --Irpen 05:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh I think Arbcom's got enough respect, and there's also a healthy disrespect (there will always be a little bit of trotskyism, jeffersonism or what-have-you bubbling away in any large institution with a visible hierarchy of sorts, and that's a good thing).


 * A collapse of arbcom, short of being disbanded by Jimmy Wales or disbanding itself by internal consensus, is extremely unlikely, because there is nothing to fill the vacuum that would result, and not even the prospect of something to fill the vacuum. Moreover any serious challenge to arbcom by a community faction is likely to be shortlived.  It would be like forbidding the fellow who empties your dustbin to have access to your yard.  After a bit, things would start to pong.  The challenger would eventually be shouted down by a community that just wants some reasonably wise decision-making in serious disputes.


 * I do agree with you on the hope that the Committee will soon issue the results of its internal investigations. I also agree that there are plenty of other things for it to be getting on with that may appear at least as urgent as this latest little spat over blocking.  On the other hand, it's not likely to require extensive work.  The parties are all well known and the conduct issues are not new.  It's the kind of case that can be run through like a carwash. --Jenny 06:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Few notices from an outsider, far away off big politics and its crowd. I understand ArbCom is a Supreme Court of Wikipedia with Jimmy Wales as a Governor with a power to grant clemency in extreme cases when a ruling of ArbCom sends a certain article or a user to Death Row or to indefinite block. Petty complaints as yours, shouldn't be filed over here, especially not the ones, which are addressed to and against the body of ArbCom. It doesn't make sense, at least not to me. The Arbitration Commitee, as I understand the Wikipedia guidelines, decides if certain verdicts ruled by an administrator are in accordance with the Wikipedia Constitution better known as the Five Pillars, not if such a ruling was justified or not. User Irpen, still with me? Few suggestions. After you have exhausted all your legal procedures to modify, kill or resurect the article in question or its content, before you start complaining about the ArbCom on their page looking for the alliances, make it first on your User Talk Page leaving a note on the article's in question Talk Page, and if you're right on target, all the Wikipedia community will come back to you in flocks. All you need is seven administrators to back you up. Then you can go places. But so far, as I am concerned, you have made lousy job on the article's Talk:Administrative division of Polish territories after partitions. No admin has backed you up so far over there, not to my knowledge, just few non-admin users have expressed some half-assed backing, but to no avail, even their first two RM proposals have failed. greg park avenue (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Disgrace (section break)
Greg, I am delighted that you look at my contributions with such interest that you have even followed me to this page. However, I don't see how your bringing our content dispute here is relevant. This is a very small matter at the obscure article's talk and while I welcome more eyes there, let's not clutter this page with off-topic stuff.

Tony, now I recognize you as your last post is more in line with your style. Your analogy with the garbage collector is very apt but it should be put differently. Let's consider the job of Arbcom, which is to help this community deal with Wikipedia problems, as being somewhat similar to the job of a garbage man who helps us deal with refuse. As long as the garbage man does his job properly, it would be pretty stupid to interfere with him. We should be nice to him and even show some small appreciation at the Christmas time.

Suppose, though, he is somewhat sloppy; for example, my garbage man, when he empties the bin, often does it sloppily and while most of the garbage still is taken away, some junk falls on the ground and I have to pick it up and put it back so that he will take it away next time. He also sometimes leaves the garbage can overturned and, especially annoying, on the street where it may get hit by passing cars. Well, I do my cost-benefit analysis and find that even if he screws up a small thing or two once in a while, I am still better off to allow him to do his job. If the Arbcom did a reasonable job overall but slipped up sometimes, we would also accept it as nobody's perfect.

But suppose the garbage man leaves the situation messier than it was before he came. If he regularly came and emptied my bin on my own property and left me to deal with that, I would stop using his service. I would take my refuse to the landfill myself, inconvenient but less than having to pick my own garbage scattered all over my property after his visit. This is what we had lately. When Arbcom was asked to deal with truly difficult Wikipedia problems, it left them worse than they were before its intervention. All the truly complex cases it had that I followed are a worse mess after the Arbcom's intervention (I can elaborate on the big screwups within the last year but this would be a separate discussion.) So, what do I do? I've stopped asking the Arbcom to interfere. However inconvenient it is for the community alone to have to deal with things without an effective judicial body, we avoid the bigger damage of Arbcom intervention this way.

But if the garbage man not only scatters my own garbage on my property but also brings his own garbage and throws it on top of that, I will make an active effort trying to correct the situation. I will try to have him fined, fired and replaced and insist that the city contracts someone else. This is what happened here. Not only did Arbcom fail to help us deal with Wikipedia problems (violations of the letter and the spirit of our policies) but it committed a huge violation on its own by this extra-judicial hearing that blatantly flouts the arbitration policy in so many ways, that we have to take a corrective action as the community.

It is utterly clear that FT2 is responsible for this more than anyone. But it is still not clear whether this happened because the rest of the committee were just sloppy or they were actively involved. FT2 needs to go but the truthful answer to the second question is needed to for us understand how serious things really are. That to this day the arbitrators are actively evasive and contradictory, claiming busyness and other stuff, but still being not too busy to deal with other matters, including this case, suggests that it's not just FT2's fault and they don't intend to be forthcoming. And this is an outrageous state of affairs. --Irpen 21:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You're unhappy and you're casting around for someone to blame. FT2 is there so you blame him.  I don't think this is a reasonable approach. I think my approach, which involves being patient, listening to people's explanations, and making the occasional cup of tea, is more likely to work than demanding somebody's head. --Jenny 22:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The ArbCom is always a disgrace if they're sanctioning your friend, but brilliant when they're sanctioning your enemy. Wanting to speedily review something isn't disgraceful at all. Sceptre (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre, OM is not my friend. To the contrary, read my original request for clarification. Same can be said about WMC. Please check facts first and don't try to change the subject. This is not me being displeased by ArbCom's sanctioning anyone.

Tony, very pleased to hear that. This so different from Tony I knew! But answering your post, until this incident I refrained from demanding heads and condemning the ArbCom despite I saw its huge shortcomings for a very long time. I did that for these precise reasons you give. I assumed good faith, accounted for a human error, was patient, listened and drank tea. I avoided the broad statements out of considerations for the institutional legitimacy of the Wikipedia arbcom as a body.

However, this incident crossed every possible line. At some point, the malaise cannot be tolerated. I am eager to listen to people's explanations. I even went out of my way to ask for them? So did others. That only evasive statements and no clear explanations came out is an answer of sorts. I would not be surprised that all that would come would also be blurred and evasive. I would love to be wrong about that but I don't have much hope given the past history. --Irpen 22:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope you'll understand that I'm looking at the same event and I don't see this "incident [that] crossed every line". I suggest that this is, as in the case of the Carnildo RFA and the IRC channel, a symptom of the chronic paranoia that has gripped a small group of Wikipedians over the past couple of years.  We've gone from the initial bad faith assumption that people aren't permitted to talk about Wikipedia matters in private, right up to the current point where the Committee's deliberations, in private, about Wikipedia affairs are being described as abusive.  This isn't a helpful trend. --Jenny 22:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a bit over-simplified don't you think? The over-simplification of facts to match one's desired take on reality is not a helpful trend.  This is not about secret deliberations per se, it goes much deeper than that. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim <font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149; dissera! 23:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Really? Perhaps you'd like to explain. --Jenny 23:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a significant jump between the committee's routine private deliberations of cases openly presented on-wiki, and the act of conducting an entire trial in private without notice to the involved parties. I suspect that most in the community generally accept the former but think the latter is unreasonable.  Dragons flight (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In view of the "nem con" annotations in FT2's drafting of the now-vacated case, it doesn't look as if there was more than a simple misunderstanding. This is why I refer to the speculation that there was such a case as a symptom of the same paranoia that led Giano to claim in 2006 that there was a conspiracy between the arbitration committee and the bureaucrats, and (for some reason only he must be able to explain) Angela Beasley, to rig the second Carnildo RFA.  We're still living with the fall-out from our acceptance of such blatant bad-faith, and utterly baseless, assumptions.  --Jenny 01:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Following you as any seasoned Wikieditor should just to find out what our Wikiwarrior is busying himself with during lunchtime. Found you at this cozy corner of ArbCom Cafe having a cup of tea with other regulars complaining about the proprietors. No wonder they took their busyness somwhere else. Hope you guys tip at least the waitresses well? greg park avenue (talk) 00:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

jpgordon re OrangeMarlin
Given that jpgordon is going to be mentoring OrangeMarlin, the votes of the other arbitrators to reject the case seem reasonable and sensible and as Morven says a new case can always be opened if that doesn't work out. However, in the interest of setting (and then hopefully maintaining) high standards, it does seem that jpgordon's "personal arrangement" with OrangeMarlin should lead to him recusing rather than to voting to reject the case himself. Arbitrators seem eager to urge admins to only act in cases where they're uninvolved and can be seen to be uninvolved. I feel this should apply to arbitrators too for all the same reasons. 87.254.73.129 (talk) 12:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Not on my understanding of what constitutes 'involved admins', and the more recent wording for special enforcement (which you'll see in two proposed amendments on the main RFAr page) gives a clear steer that admins who are merely enforcing policy on a page or user are not thereby considered 'involved' until they step beyond that and start commenting on the merits of the user's edits or conduct. Jpgordon is therefore entitled to vote accept or reject on Orangemarlin based on volunteering himself to be Orangemarlin's mentor. We don't want to hobble either administrators or arbitrators on this subject; 'involved' is something different from 'engaged'. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Jpgordon had no prior mentor relationship with Orangemarlin that would make him involved. Someone was going to mentor Orangemarlin if we kicked it back to the Community. Jpgordon knew the need for an mentor and volunteered. If it has been someone else as mentor then Jpgordon would have still rejected the case if he thought civility would be strictly enforced. I see no problem with him voting. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 23:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggested acceptance method
<div class="boilerplate metadata" style="background-color: #edeaff; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #8779DD;">
 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A simple way to ensure a modicum of dignity in the speed at which requests are accepted and cases opened is to say that there should also be a minimum of 24 or 48 hours before a request can be accepted, even if this "net four" votes is reached before then. This realistically gives all arbitrators a chance to comment, rather than letting the first four arbitrators to arrive to decide whether a request is accepted. After this initial period of 24 or 48 hours, the "net four" condition is applied, and when that is reached (or if it has been reached already), then the request is accepted and a case opened (roughly) 24 hours later. If the "net four" level was reached before the initial period was up, then the 24 hour thing can be retrospectively applied (or not, see below). This would allow expedited openings if four arbitrators speedily accepted (as happened here), and no other arbitrators commented in the initial period. A more radical alternative is to allow the first 24 hours for the request to "develop" and for statements to be made by the parties and others, and for arbitrators to not vote before that initial period is up - and then apply "net four" from that point on, as presumably most active arbitrators will have had a chance to see the request by then. At the moment, Arbitration guide says: "After a request is made, the active Arbitrators vote on whether to accept or decline the case..." - this says nothing about whether arbitrators normally wait or not before voting, or whether the request will be given time to develop. The only other guidance, other than the mechanics of acceptance votes, is the figure of 10 days before a request is removed. I did find: Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures, which says: "A case is only opened after one day of four (net) Arbitrators accepting it; that is, four more accept than reject votes. Cases that have not met the acceptance criteria after 10 days should be removed from the page." If that is not correct, it needs changing or updating.

Looking at what specifically happened in the request here (or rather, the request above, the "Geogre-William M. Connolley" one - I initially wrote this as part of a response in that thread): the request was added at 23:21, 1 July 2008, and four net votes to accept was reached with Kirill's vote at 00:36, 2 July 2008. I make that 1 hour and 15 minutes. Daniel's clerk action noting acceptance of the request was timed at 00:38, 2 July 2008, which is two minutes after Kirill's vote and 1 hour and 17 minutes after the request was made.

Anyway, having looked at that, I'd like to lay out my logic again for what I proposed above:
 * (1) The primary delay should be to allow all active arbitrators (and parties and others) a chance to become aware of and follow a developing request, to add statements, and then vote. This delay should be timed from the moment the request is filed. I suggest either 24 hours or 48 hours to allow all active arbitrators to become aware of a request. All "counting of votes" should be delayed until this period has elapsed. This delay would also allow parties and others to add statements to the request if needed.
 * (2) Another type of delay could be applied to arbitrator voting to ensure enough time for the parties and others to respond to the request before arbitrator voting starts, though this could be same length of time. Whether a delay of this sort is adopted would affect point 3 below.
 * (3) The final delay is the one between the acceptance of a request and the opening of the case, which is presumably a cooling off period in case events change, and time to allow people to prepare statements and evidence. This should not be confused with the other delays mentioned above. This is currently 24 hours.

My suggestion for managing the third delay is that any tally of votes is delayed until the initial period (see point 1) expires. This theoretically ensures that all active arbitrators have had a chance to see the request and vote. Only once the initial period has expired and the net votes have reached four, would the request be accepted. "Net four" before the initial period expires would not be counted, as other arbitrators might arrive and change the net vote. Once "net four" has been reached after the initial period has expired, a clerk could note the request as provisionally accepted. Regardless of the fluctuation in the next 24 hours, if the net was still four at the time the case was due to open, then it gets opened. Though of course there would still be room for judgment and flexibility for requests where the voting fluctuated wildly (hopefully that wouldn't happen too often).

I think that covers all my thoughts on this! Does that sound workable in practice? Point two could be adopted voluntarily by arbitrators as they wished. It is probably good practice to wait before voting, but I know some arbitrators do like to set their vote out early on some requests, and this can lead to productive interaction with the community and people weigh in on either side to appeal to the arbitrators who have and haven't voted, and early votes can guide the community as well, so point 2 could be dropped as too inflexible. I do think the idea of an initial delay before anything is done, would be good. Kind of like a "cooling off period" following the filing of a case. Carcharoth (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Forgive; I've merely scanned your proposal, and I have a possibly contrapuntal suggestion. What's badly needed here is the option for Arbcom to issue a stay; a modified preliminary injunction to the effect of "whatever it is you're doing stop now while we figure out what's going on." Quick acceptance of a case has a similar effect but, as you and others have noted, carries with it all sorts of evil connotations. Of course, I doubt this most recent case will roll forward with anything approximating haste. Mackensen (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The idea of a "stay" could also be adopted. The two are not mutually exclusive. You are right in that four arbitrators voting to accept in just over an hour is more like a "OMG, stop it now!" statement. Of course, what arbitrators might call a stay, we would call a trout. There does also need to be some recognition that more time should be spent on matters directly relating to the encyclopedia, rather than managing the community. I would much prefer issues like the Christianity-Buddhism one that Jehochman has recently raised, and the issues at Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism (not an ArbCom issue, but I'm trying to get more eyes there) were discussed and progressed, rather than the time spent on this case. Carcharoth (talk) 21:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I like your idea, Carcharoth, and also yours, Mackensen. There would be a distinct advantage in Arbcom being able to issue something to the effect of a cease and desist order from the bench, especially in situations like the most recently accepted case, while deciding whether or not there is really something to be arbitrated. Your last sentence had me nodding in agreement, Mackensen. Risker (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I always thought that if the net vote number becomes four but goes below four at any later time the clock is reset and the new count starts after threshold is achieved again (which may as well be never). The reasons of the delay was everything Carch listed plus to allow the time for arbs to change their votes in view of late developments or their own contemplating. The propensity of arbs to change their votes vary from never (eg. Kirill Lokshin) to very often (eg. Flo). Since the event of a vote change is not very rare, it seems sensible that the policy accommodates this properly. --Irpen 22:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In response to the following:
 * "A simple way to ensure a modicum of dignity in the speed at which requests are accepted and cases opened is to say that there should also be a minimum of 24 or 48 hours before a request can be accepted, even if this "net four" votes is reached before then. This realistically gives all arbitrators a chance to comment, rather than letting the first four arbitrators to arrive to decide whether a request is accepted. After this initial period of 24 or 48 hours, the "net four" condition is applied, and when that is reached (or if it has been reached already), then the request is accepted and a case opened (roughly) 24 hours later."
 * There has to be at least 24 hours, given a case doesn't open until 24 hours after the first instance of four net votes to accept being present (provided four net to accept still exists). Your comment implies that this case didn't wait the necessary 24 hours after the first instance of four net votes to accept, when it fact it did; it wasn't speedy opened, as 24 hours from the fourth net vote to accept was given. The consensus above from Arbitrators and clerks is that the clock doesn't reset if the votes dip below four during the intervening period, but rather clerks exercise discretion in the circumstances about whether the votes are likely to change/benefit from being left for another X hours (which in this case I didn't, per the current status of the two other arbitrators). Daniel (talk) 01:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Daniel, please do not mix such fundamentally different by weight things as "consensus from Arbitrators" and "of clerks" and especially don't top it off by such a fundamentally nonsensial term as "clerk's discretion". Clerkship position is to stuff papers around, send notices, page placeholders, follow the straightforward procedures and arbitrator's orders. There is nothing like "clerkship discretion" unlike, say, abritrator's or even administrator's discretion. While arbs and admins are elected based specifically on the trust of the community (that is to exercise reasonable discretion) clerks are appointed based on their desire to hold this position, knowing the policies they are expected to follow and the ability to be organized well enough to not mess simple paperwork. There is absolutely no reason to assume that the clerk's are entrusted by the community to use any discretion. If the policy is ambiguous, it needs to be fixed, so that it is entirely clear what clerks have to do, at least in not uncommon situations. --Irpen 02:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The basis of my comment was FloNight's at 13:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC). Have you any arbitrator statement which counters it? Daniel (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflicted) That's not too kind a thing to say. And Clerks are appointed by ArbCom, just as CheckUsers and Oversighters are appointed by ArbCom. That doesn't mean that Clerks, CUs, or oversighters are discretion-less. That would just be silly. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The discretion of the arbitrators includes authorizing the clerks to carry out their responsibilities as appropriate. So long as the Committee is in agreement with what is being done, it matters not one bit whether it's one of us or a clerk that's doing the paperwork. Kirill (prof) 02:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) MZM, all I am saying is that I am aware of several instances of plainly bad conduct of the editors who are or were among the clerks and I am not aware of such instances among the recently arbcom-appointed checkusers. There must be a reason and the reason is that the ArbCom is very careful in the latter appointments making the best effort that it is given only in users ArbCom views trusted by the community. --Irpen 02:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Daniel, you are confusing acceptance of a request and opening of the case. I'm saying there should be a minimum period before a case can even be accepted (in order to let those interested say something, no matter how many arbitrators have voted), and that this should be independent of and before considerations of how soon after acceptance the case opens. I never said the case was speedily opened, I said that the case was speedily accepted. It is the distinction between requests and acceptance of requests, and cases and opening of cases, that is being lost here. Your point about a "consensus above from Arbitrators and clerks [...] that the clock doesn't reset" is true, but you miss the point that I'm not trying to pick holes in how this case was opened - I'm suggesting a new (though not very different) system for opening cases. That's why I put this in a new section. Kirill did say that the current system is "not, perhaps, the most elegant that could in theory be devised", so I made this suggestion in the hope that it was more elegant, and to address the problem of not enough time between filing and acceptance. Also note that once the initial period expires, the current system takes over again. It is only during that initial period that votes could reach "net four" and then dip back below four, with the request not being accepted because this initial "consultation" (if you like) period has not yet expired. I'd be happy to discuss this further if this is still not clear. Carcharoth (talk) 02:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

And just to get the terminology and stages clear: (a) Filing point (someone turns up and files a request and notifies the parties); (b) Consideration period (including addition of statements by parties and others and arbitrator questions and interim actions, such as emergency stays); (c) Voting period (when the arbitrators look over a mature request and decide whether to accept or reject - in some systems, the voting period overlaps with the consideration period, ie. voting can start straightaway, and in my proposal, the consideration period has to lapse before the vote comes into effect); (d) Acceptance point (decided by a clerk at some point after, but not before, the consideration period ends - in some systems, the case would open immediately at that point, in others, there is a period of respite before the case starts); (e) Interim period (between acceptance and opening, to allow people a short time to start preparing their case, to allow the clerks time to discuss administrative matters, to allow for further statements and evidence that might change things, and to allow last-ditch resolutions of disputes); (f) Case opening point (the point at which the case opens). It might seem overly bureaucratic, but in fact it is, from what I can see, a simple and elegant system that only slightly extends the way things work at the moment. Carcharoth (talk) 03:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting concept. However, how will it work with blatantly-to-be-rejected cases where 48 hours' consideration isn't even necessary to know that the case can, should and will be rejected? See, for example, this, this, and this (there's far more blatant ones that I missed, but I just clicked some rejected cases randomly and got these ones)?
 * Sure, that is the other side of the coin, though note that in all your examples, the requests were declined after several days, not after a few hours. But my point is that the current set-up does not allow for a required consideration period. In the request discussed in the previous thread, the jump from filing point to acceptance point was only just over an hour, thus short-circuiting the possibility of any reasonable consideration period - it is entirely possible that the community could have handled things in that time period. Frivilous and rejected requests would still be a matter of judgment, but the point here is to allow time for requests to mature before being accepted. Borderline requests would need the time anyway. And too-swift rejections can be undone or refiled, but undoing a case accepted too speedily can't be undone, other than by a motion to close it after being accepted. Requests heading towards or reaching rejection would still be a matter of judgment as to whether to remove before 10 days or not. Even the case of the OrangeMarlin request removal wasn't as clear-cut as it seemed - there will sometimes be requests of great import, even if being clearly rejected, where arbitrators will want to go "on the record". That just requires better communication between arbitrators and clerks. Carcharoth (talk) 03:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * They were voted on after a mere 30mins in one link. From how I read your proposal, Arbitrators wouldn't be able to vote so soon, but would rather need to wait X hours before voting. Daniel (talk) 03:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a flexible framework. The bit here: "in some systems, the voting period overlaps with the consideration period, ie. voting can start straightaway", is meant to address the possibility you raise. I doubt all arbitrators would be able to restrain themselves, so voting straightaway would still take place. The consideration period would still have to be allowed to run to allow others (including the parties) to react: eg. resign, retire (though that is more often a tactic), point out that the filing party is lying(!), kiss-and-make-up, resolve the dispute another way, and so on. And to allow arbitrators who are (for example) asleep to get a chance to see the request. The key point is to ignore the vote total until the consideration period has elapsed, and only then work out whether the request has been accepted. Rejection is still something that would need to be judged, as I don't think there is any explicit total for that, or is there? You would still get last-minute earth-shattering news that changes everything in the final minutes before a consideration period expired, but hopefully a clerk or arbitrator would exercise discretion and extend things a bit longer to see if the last-minute submission changes anything. Carcharoth (talk) 04:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I must say I don't understand the rationale "to let all the arbitrators see the request". That happens anyways right now, because it is nigh-on-impossible for a case to be accepted in less than 24 hours after it is filed (due to requiring 24 hours after the first instance of four net votes to accept). If we have arbitrators sleeping for 24 hours, then we have bigger problems :) Daniel (talk) 04:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Added in a bit about rejection to my previous post - sorry. To address your point here, you are still confusing opening and acceptance. Just wait 24 hours after filing before deciding whether a request should be accepted or not. Simple. Then open another 24 hours after that. That won't break the system, will it? Carcharoth (talk) 04:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A suggested alternative:
 * "For a case to be considered accepted and therefore opened by a clerk, it must meet the following criteria:
 * The request must have four net votes to accept.
 * The request must have recieved its first instance of four net votes to accept more than 24 hours ago.
 * The request must have been filed more than 48 hours ago.
 * If all of these criteria are met, the case can be opened. This procedure is ignored where a case is directly referred to the Committee by Jimbo Wales or the Mediation Committee (see Arbitration policy), or where an expedited open is explicitly requested by a sufficient number of arbitrators.
 * The key change to this is point 3, which is basically a consideration period. Daniel (talk) 04:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that is what I said, but boiled down to three simple tests! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 04:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Or rather, you've simplified things by merging the acceptance and opening points (moving the acceptance point to occur at the same time as opening), while still keeping the various 24/48 hour bits. Or would there still be a 24 hour period after a clerk notes acceptance, before the pages are created? But yes, I would be very happy to see the above wording from Daniel adopted. Now, where's my copy of the arbitration policy... Aha! Yes, it says only the committee can make changes. Is this a change in policy, or is it a minor tweak, and what happens now? Carcharoth (talk) 04:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that's where our confusion stems from - for me, a case is "accepted" when it has four net votes to accept and had it 24 hours (or more) ago, rather than simply when it has four net votes. Hence, it made sense (to me) to consider a case to be accepted when it's opened, just like a case is rejected when it's removed rather than simply when it gets X votes to reject. For avoiding confusion, I think defining "accepted" and "opened" at the same point will help future discussions on the issue :) Daniel (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Replying to the question you posed: See, this is the misunderstanding part :) I note that "four votes to accept exists" in the clerk notes once I see it, which therefore means "in 24 hours time this case will open". If we define "accepted" as "when four net votes to accept exist", then my answer is yes. If we define it as "when four net votes to accept exist and have been for 24 hours", then my answer is no - we won't wait another 24 hours after the 24 hour post-four-net period. Of course, the 24 hour post-net-period will become 24+(0-24) if four votes to accept exist before the case itself has been posted for 24 hours, for the purposes of meeting bullet point 3 of my proposed wording. Daniel (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes. That would cause confusion. But what do you call the point at which the clerk makes the note? The provisional acceptance point? Some name that would make clear that a new phase has started. The "countdown to opening the case" period? :-) Anyway, hopefully you will be happy to take things from here. Carcharoth (talk) 04:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

fools rush in, I guess... this is great work, guys! well done, and thanks! Privatemusings (talk) 04:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've reverted your changes. Please don't make changes to the arbitration policy without first gaining the support of (or at least the opinion of) a sufficient number of arbitrators. Daniel (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposing change to arbitration policy
Proposed addition to Arbitration policy:

For a case to be considered accepted and therefore opened by a clerk, it must meet the following criteria: If all of these criteria are met, the case can be opened. This procedure is ignored where a case is directly referred to the Committee by Jimbo Wales, or where an expedited open is explicitly requested by a sufficient number of arbitrators with due cause.
 * The request must have four net votes to accept.
 * The request must have received its first instance of four net votes to accept more than 24 hours ago.
 * The request must have been filed more than 48 hours ago.


 * Current wording: "'The Committee will accept a case if a net total of four or more Arbitrators have voted to hear it ('net' meaning that each 'reject' or 'decline' vote subtracts an 'accept'). Unless otherwise specified by the Arbitrators' votes, a minimum twenty-four hour grace period will be granted between the fourth vote to open the case and the actual opening of the case. The Committee will reject a case if four or more Arbitrators have already voted not to hear it, or if a reasonable period has passed without overall acceptance and it is unlikely to be accepted. Individual Arbitrators will provide a rationale for their vote if so moved.'"


 * Change: The addition allows a minimum period of 48 hours from filing before a request can be declared accepted and a case opened. The reasoning, as discussed above, is to allow adequate time for consideration by all parties after filing. The exact change in the wording, and the placement of the text, should be checked by the arbitrators, as there is some overlap between the two texts.

Arbitrator opinions

 * Because of the nature of the arbitration policy and its status about being closed to community amendment without the assent of the Committee, it is respectfully requested that arbitrators give their opinions in this section on the proposed change to ensure that the requirements to modify this policy are unambiguously met. If you wish to reply at length to an arbitrator, please copy their comment to the discussion section below and initiate the discussion below it, to keep this section as focused as possible.


 * Looks good to me, although I'd be happier if some indication were included of what a "sufficient number" is. Kirill (prof) 16:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 50% or more of active arbitrators seems reasonable to me. -- Avi (talk) 16:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And "due cause" according to whom? Otherwise, sure, I've been surprised myself to discover a new ArbCom case has been accepted before I even saw the initial request. And I'm rarely offline more than 24 hours at a time. But: how about if 50% + 1 of the active arbitrators vote to accept a case, it is accepted, and immediately. That's a rare occurrence -- as is expediting a case. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So you prefer an outright majority instead of half, fine by me. But I think you should say "majority" then, and not 50% +1, beacuse the latter is ambiguous in cases with an odd number of ArbCom, is it majority, or ceiling(Accept/total)+1? -- Avi (talk) 16:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So, change the last sentence to "If all of these criteria are met, the case can be opened. This procedure is ignored where a case is directly referred to the Committee by Jimbo Wales, or where a majority of active Committee members (as listed at Arbitration Committee) vote to accept the case without a reject vote being registered; in both situations, the case is opened immediately."? Daniel (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good overall, Daniel. One point, am I correct in that you are positing that if their is one reject vote, even if there is a majority that would result in a net +4, it cannot be considered "expedited"? -- Avi (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That was the intention, yes. Otherwise, I could have opened G-WMC eight hours earlier than I did, because six of 11 active non-recused arbitrators votes to accept (ie. a majority), and four net existed (ie. 6-2). If there's any registered dissent (ie. an oppose vote), we should wait for clarification, rather than making an expedited open. Daniel (talk) 17:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, thanks. -- Avi (talk) 18:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Having a minimum waiting period for opening that is greater than the accept makes sense to me. As does making an exceptions if noted by the arbitrators (or Jimbo). Again, I want to emphasis that breaking events need to be taken into account. So, if new information makes it likely that a case should not be opened, wait for the arbs to have a chance to see it, even if the other criteria has been met. So, I think that this should be seen in terms of the soonest that a case should open, as opposed to a case must open at this time. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * With the amount of time it takes the arbs to respond, getting a majority to waive the 48-hour rule will almost never happen. I think the 48 hours rule should be cut to 24 hours. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 11:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My view is that our usual practice should be a minimum of 48 hours from the start of the request by an initiating party before the clerk opens the case. This gives all active arbs a better chance to weigh in. As well, it gives the arbs a chance to review the responses by other arbs and the community. This is an additional criteria apart from the time period that we allow after 4 net accept votes. I have no problem with the criteria being to to wait a minimum of 24 hours after the first time there is a net 4 accepts. If the arbs want to open the case quicker, then we can say so in comments accompanying our votes. It the uninvolved clerk wants to hold off opening the case because in their judgment the issue still seems up in the air by their reading of the comments, then that should happen as well. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 13:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I still disagree with the requirement for four net votes; if four members of the Committee think a matter is sufficiently important for them to accept, I don't really see that mechanistic voting, as opposed to discussion and possible subsequent alteration of said votes, is appropriate. Also, this would prevent us from doing what we've occasionally done to good effect in the past, namely turn a concern expressed privately into a full public case, something with which I would also have difficulties in seeing the benefit. James F. (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Good points. Could the proposal be altered to accommodate that? — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 10:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I also support the position that it should be any four arbitrators indicating their acceptance that should open a case. 48 hours from the request being made seems a reasonable time to allow all who wish to make a brief statement, although there needs to be an ability to expedite the opening in obvious cases (just like we sometimes waive the 24 hours closing period). Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I support making this change per my discussion with Carcharoth above. Daniel (talk) 04:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I support it as well, obviously. Would it be possible to briefly explain the reason for the change and give the old wording? Carcharoth (talk) 04:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My summary style isn't too great, so if you could, that'd be great :) Daniel (talk) 04:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I heartily endorse this event or product. Mackensen (talk) 04:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Good work, everyone. This sounds very reasonable. Risker (talk) 05:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * looks good to me, wasn't it in the policy a short while ago ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 05:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC) good on yer Daniel and Carcharoth for working this out - and yup, its prolly best to get this done 'officially'
 * I don't think this is a matter for a change of policy--it's really just a clerical matter. Just convince the arbitrators that the procdure should be as so and they'll get the clerks to do it that way. --Jenny 10:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if we went that path, every clerk action taken under it would contradict the policy. Daniel (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Last year's change was performed as a result of arbitration committee internal discussions. It's up to the Committee to decide among themselves what process they will use to accept a case.  Moreover, if this were a change the arbitration policy, it should be discussed on wikipedia talk:arbitration  policy.  The first thing to decide would be a consensus process for changing the arbitration policy.  --Jenny 02:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Adding a 48 minimum in most cases is a good idea. People are not on wiki 24/7. -- Avi (talk) 12:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of the time they're up for well over 48 hours before they hit 4 net votes, so I would support this as well, also for the reasons above. Wizardman  18:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the time period should only be 24 ours vice 48 from the initial filing at RFAR. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 18:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not reset 24-hr timer each time the net-count falls below four? What's the rush? This gives arbitrators more prone to flip-flopping time to reconsider. If the vote change is a regular part of our process, the policy should accommodate it. --Irpen 19:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Pointless, it'd unnecessarily delay it, diminishing returns and all that. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 03:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Better left to the discretion of those who regularly handle such things. FloNight's point about delaying opening if events have changed should be written in to address this point: "if new information makes it likely that a case should not be opened, wait for the arbs to have a chance to see it, even if the other criteria has been met" - this should be one of the points a clerk checks before opening, and would require them to look closely at the timestamps involved. Any uncertainty, the clerks should note that opening is technically possibly, that they considered opening, but are leaving it for another x hours. But that is probably more for the clerks guidance page or the arbitration guide, than the policy. And I'd like to repeat my call for the policy, the guide, and the clerk pages (document, noticeboard and procedure), to be kept sychronised and "on the same page" so to speak (not literally, but you know what I mean). There are other arbitration-related pages that need to be updated, but those are the ones I want to highlight for now. Carcharoth (talk) 10:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I plan to synch those pages when this discussion is over. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 11:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closed as "yes"; now to discuss four net vs. four total
The above shows a clear preference for the 48 time period, so I've implemented the changes.

Howevever, there's been some rumblings about using four total rather than four net. This change is far more substantial, and as the discussion above didn't focus on the issue and hence there isn't a clear consensus, I propose that it be discussed separate from the 48 hour discussion (now archived, above), in this section.

Cheers, Daniel (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support four total iff there is a two-thirds majority to accept - theoretically, if every arb voted (including UiC), we could have 4/10/0/0 and it would still pass. Sceptre (talk) 16:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a different proposal. Awhile back (probably more than a year ago) I proposed changing the four net votes to two net votes. As I recall, I laid out a whole rationale showing the different percentages that would result with different numbers of arbitrators voting. Presumably this is in the archives somewhere. But the bottom line is that it would be a middle ground between potential acceptance of a case by a minority (four votes period) or bare-majority acceptance (one net vote), on one hand, and the overwhelming majority (four net votes) which is required now. At the time, I believe someone reported that arbitrators felt that the "four net" rule was still relatively young and that they would continue to observe its results. I think that at this point, sufficient time has passed for the arbitrators (or the community, if appropriate) to determine whether a change is desirable. 6SJ7 (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Found it: Actually there were two different discussions, both are now in Archive 18 of this page.  Here is one: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 18.  6SJ7 (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Having re-read what I wrote back then, the suggestion was to require at least four "accepts" and at least two "net accepts". In other words, 3-1 still wouldn't make it, but 4-1 would... as would, say, 6-4.  Right now, if 10 people are voting, 7 would have to vote to accept or the case is rejected.  That's more than two-thirds.  It doesn't seem necessary.  Personally, I don't see anything wrong with a simple majority vote, i.e. 4-3, 5-4 etc. being sufficient (with a "quorum" of 4 yes votes), but at the time of the previous discussions there seemed to be a strong feeling that this was not enough, so I suggested a compromise.  6SJ7 (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ban appeal
I'd like to appeal this ban.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's probably better to file this in the clarifications section of WP:RFAR. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 12:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Digwuren restrictions--a Modest Proposal by K. Lastochka
I've been gone for a while. I just returned yesterday and lo and behold, the Eastern European wiki-world is still as much of a dogfighting ring as ever. Plus ça change, plus c'est la meme chose. From this vantage point, until recently far removed from the conflicts, it is quite clear to me that the main problem at the heart of the issue is not tendentious editing, personal political preferences, national differences or any of the usual suspects blamed, but it is rather the personal feuds that erupt as a result of the political and national disagreements. Look at the comments from the most-involved combatants. There they all are again, the usual suspects calling each other out. "As Piotrus knows very well....", "Petri Krohn is even now continuing his battle...", "...particularly when Irpen wades in and ratchets up the drama...", "For a start I'd be for putting Piotrus under editing restrictions..." etc. etc. etc.

We've all made these wiki-identities for ourselves, defined by a nom de plume and some colorful userpages and also by the sum of our notable contributions. As a good friend of mine and fellow Wikipedian once commented, "Here, you are what you write." On such a project as this, when editors tend to focus on a certain topic or field, identities inevitably narrow into small niches, which then polarize and fly to extremes far beyond what you find in the real world. Piotr Konieczny and Andrey from Yaroslavl would probably have the same disagreements about history and politics in real life as they do on the Wiki, but in real life they could change the topic to a movie they had both recently seen and go get a beer. Prokonsol Piotrus and Ghirla, on the other hand, have no such option, as their identities are but the avatars of their specialized contributions. But even here, in the cold world of facts and cyberspace, human nature still asserts itself and we lose sight of the fact that these characters, these creations of ours, are only avatars, and it is then that they spring to life. We set them up against each other to size each other up like real people in real life, we make them bait each other, we watch them fight each other all the while concealed behind the screen of anonymity. The bravado engendered by this caricatured anonymity is what leads to the utter lawlessness of discourse--if we were all sitting around a table in someone's living room, so much of these vicious arguments would never even take place. We would disagree, we would argue, but we would not hate and feud like this, not when we could look each other in the eye. It's so much easier to blood-feud with an idea than a person--and these avatars of ours are all ideas, concepts--in other words, Ghirla temporarily ceases to exist as soon as Andrey logs out and goes to get lunch.

So, here is my modest proposal, which I mean only half-satirically. The way to end these storied conflicts without harming the encyclopedia is simply this: imprison the combating avatars. Take no action against the contributors' IP addresses, but freeze the IDENTITY they use. The human being controlling the puppet, then, is still free to post anonymously or under a new name, perhaps after a few-day IP block to defuse the pressure. Some sort of procedure and admin work will determine the sentence meted out to the offending avatar, be it imprisonment, exile or execution. <font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="3">K. Lásztocska talk 20:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, toy cars are fun to crash...real cars, - not so much. István (talk) 04:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

this page hurts my head!
I think i've probably done something wrong again in asking for my restriction to be lifted - it's just so bloomin' complicated! Sorry for making a mess (if I have - I can't even work that out!) - and any assistance in correctly formatting things is much appreciated.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Things seem perfectly formatted to me, Privatemusings: all the paperwork seems to be in order. ;) AGK ( talk ◊ contact ) 19:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

For the good of Wikipedia
Would you mind shutting down Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed decision? The Committee is obviously incapable of rendering a decision, or else one would have been posted already. While I think action is needed on this case, leaving the case open forever sort of makes a mockery of the Committee. As my second choice, you should say that you are hopelessly deadlocked, and dismiss the case. Jehochman Talk 13:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Leaving the case pending for now is not necessarily a bad decision. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is that an open case is a cloud of doubt hanging over the editors. In fairness to all of the parties, these doubts should be resolved or removed within a reasonable time. Jehochman Talk 14:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Totally shutting down is not a good idea. They need to resolve the issues in the case. Granted some are old, but there are also some very current issues that need to be dealt with. Preferable sooner than later. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 14:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We actually are working on it. The passage of time hasn't changed the nature of the issues involved. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a motion pending. Perhaps that could be resolved to show everyone that this case is still alive? Jehochman Talk 20:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Go look at past cases. Motions are often left pending, since not voting on a motion is functionally the same as voting no. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I see, no need to take unnecessary actions. Jehochman Talk 21:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

C68-FM-SV-JzG case
Hey, arbs, what's going on with this case? I hadn't looked back here for a long time, and I was basically gobsmacked that, not only is it still open, the Committee seems to have done jack with it in a month or two. Update, please? Kelly hi! 01:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (tumbleweeds) Shii (tock) 06:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, this does look like some progress is being made. Carcharoth (talk) 11:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Any tumbleweed that rolls without approval from the tumbleweed rollers' guild shall be blocked.
 * Proposed decision

I think we can all agree on this...? --NE2 12:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems the ball is finally rolling. Things have been rather hectic for the ArbCom of late, but I do hope they take the chance after this case closes to learn some lessons about the importance of managing workload and being efficient. Although they were previously our experts in that... <font style="color:#2A8B31;font-family:sans-serif;">Anthøny 23:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Smithies book
It looks pretty easy to find. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.4.102 (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Buh? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's re Angus McLellan's statement in the PHG appeal, where Angus mentions this book. I'm just pointing out that the book is not all that obscure.  I do have to wonder why it's not in more libraries. 75.62.4.102 (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for professional consultation
As suggested by Paul August, and others, I have moved a thread from the project page to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee. Jehochman Talk 16:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HEADSMUSTROLL → Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration
There is a deletion discussion here as to whether HEADSMUSTROLL is an appropriate shortcut/redirect for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Suntag (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Arb cases are not NOINDEXED?
I thought that per some of our systems all the arb pages and related talk pages were supposed to be NOINDEX for some time now? I just came across all this. Can we fix this somehow to make sure none of these are on search engines? Theres some pretty nasty stuff on living people in some of these. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 08:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * All Arb Cases are excluded via robots.txt, but apparently no one excluded Arb talk pages. Dragons flight (talk) 08:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's just the talk pages that were missed. Reopened the bug. --bainer (talk) 08:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Fantastic, thanks. :) <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 15:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * All of my arbitration cases are NOINDEXed (at present, this only includes Sarah Palin protection wheel war), so there's no problem there, I don't think. It may be worthwhile having the committee direct the clerks to NOINDEX all wikipedia_talk:RFAR/* pages as standard, pending the resolution of bug filed by thebainer. <font color="#2A8B31">Anthøny <font color="#2A8B31">✉  16:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it appears that, in a newly added feature, the robots.txt can now be altered by editing MediaWiki:Robots.txt, and someone Daniel has already edited it to apply this change. Good stuff. --bainer (talk) 02:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Voting on Proposed decision - Alastair Haines
This (reasonably straight-forward) case has been open for too long, and has had no responses for nearly a week now when all it needs is a couple more votes before it's ready to close. Votes are required from at least one more arbitrator - either FayssalF, FT2, Thebainer or YellowMonkey. Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, sounds like arbcom. Wizardman  15:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As of now, all of the members listed would be aware of the notification they received on their talk page too. I'll let the community ponder on the timeliness and appropriateness of their responses, as well as their priorities (in terms of contributions). Note also for the omnibus case, excepting FayssalF (who is inactive) and Morven (now unlisted, who has had some issues with time recently, and unfortunately has no intention of seeking to be reelected after this year), the delay is caused by the same names. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well
Hopefully now that the investigation of Poetlister/etc, which I can only assume was taking up so much of their time, has more or less concluded, the arbitrators can get back to handling cases. --Random832 (contribs) 20:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought it had been made clear. The Poetlister investigation wasn't an ArbCom action, and only a handful of ArbCom members were aware of it until everybody else did. It didn't take up any of ArbCom's time at all. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well then I'm at a loss as to what's been the holdup, then. --Random832 (contribs) 23:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Workshop page format
I don't remember where this was discussed previously, but I want to bring it up again. A ways back, the Workshop pages were changed so that instead of being grouped just like the proposed decision page -- Principles, Facts, Remedies -- the workshop pages were split up by contributor (proposals from X, proposals from Y, proposals from Z). This seemed poorly thought out to me from the start, and I'd like to see if we can get some discussion toward changing it back. I'd far prefer to dwell on the proposals, not the people putting the proposals forward; it would make it easier to compare and contrast competing proposals if they were all together. It really shouldn't matter at all who it is making the proposals. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem, if I recall, is that the workshop then tends to devolve into barely (if at all) controlled back-and-forth threads that simply rehash the original dispute rather that discuss the actual proposals. &mdash; Coren (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) IIRC, it wasn't a wide discussion at the time, possibly it was at the clerk's noticeboard or the talk page of whatever template they use in setting up the pages. I've said before and still believe that the new structure makes the page much longer via repetition.  I'd agree that going back would be a change for the better.  GRBerry 21:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It was apparently discussed on the arbcom mailing list, and Kirill just asked the clerks to implement it. I agree the old format was better as it makes much more sense to lump all similar proposals together.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 21:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Can I suggest one thing just from looking at the Palin one and that CLASVFM monster? Make it explicit policy that anyone can move around and group (but not rewrite) similar FoFs, Remedies, and all? As in, if there are 4 "desysop him!" type proposals on a given case, numbers 1, 5, 8, and 11, anyone can reorder them to all be 1, 2, 3, 4. Is that a good idea? <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 21:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The old way was better and rootology's idea has merit too. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 22:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rootology's proposal. --Random832 (contribs) 23:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * With all due respect to Josh, I'm not sure if someone whose focus has been on tasks other than the drafting of decisions is really in the best position to evaluate the relative merits of different workshop page layouts.
 * Speaking from my own experience, if the workshop page is to be viable as a place for productive participation by the Committee—as opposed to simply a forum for general mudslinging—then it is vitally necessary for there to be some means by which we can easily distinguish between those proposals worth paying any attention to, and those proposals which are so irretrievably nonsensical that they are of no value to us. Unfortunately, since anyone can propose as much as they want (and since people winding up in arbitration tend to be argumentative), it's common for a substantial portion, or even a majority, of the page's content to be in the latter category.  At best, the overall thread of the case is lost amid the chaff; at worst, the nonsense so overwhelms the real content that the page becomes completely unreadable.
 * Separating proposals by user is, admittedly, an imperfect approach to this problem; but it is both quite effective—users who are completely off the mark in some proposals tend to be so in all of them—and much less confrontational than deleting or otherwise marking proposals as worthless would be. Kirill (prof) 00:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

In several cases, first as a bystander and more recently as an arbitrator, I've placed a complete draft decision on the workshop for review and comment by the parties and community. Sometimes I don't write all of it at once, and sometimes there is a ton of other material elsewhere on the page. I think it is easier for those looking over my draft, including my fellow arbitrators, to have the whole thing in one place; and the same would go for anyone else's draft. An alternative would be to have proposals on the same general topic grouped together, which would at least organize things in that fashion; but the original method, everything from any user just in the chronological order it was proposed in, helped contribute to making the workshops less useful in the higher-profile, more controversial cases. At least that's my take on the subject. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kirill (and NYB). The problems the previous format used to have are a real issue (Kirill has identified the bulk of them), and uch problems have the propensity to grow over time. I don't doubt the issues will be bigger now, if we reverted back. I therefore prefer the current format. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec)Can I suggest a compromise? I see Kirill's point, but myself prefer the old system.  What would everyone think of a mix: format the page the old fashion in master sections of Premises, FoFs and Remedys, then subsections 'under each' per contributor.


 * Please forgive all the html code for my little table. --InkSplotch (talk) 00:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, we briefly discussed this a week or two back in the clerks' IRC channel, and I proposed a system identical to that InkSplotch has suggested. I'm willing to run with it. With regards to why the change was made, Ryan is correct: the matter was discussed privately by the Committee on ArbCom-l, and further to what I presume was a solid consensus on-List, Kirill directed the clerks to adjust the Workshop page's layout. The full thread is viewable here, for the intensely curious. I implemented that consensus as directed.  The only benefit I see, of segregating editors' proposals to "personal sections" is to permit a browsing Arbitrator to immediately 'spot' who is making what proposal—and proceed to adjust their attention according to the clue (or insanity :) levels of that editor. Workshop page proposals are not made with the improvement of the encyclopedia in mind.  A reiteration: I support implementing InkSplotch's proposal. The decision, however, firmly remains the Committee's.  <font color="#2A8B31">Anthøny  <font color="#2A8B31">✉  16:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's entirely subjective, but it seems to me like most contributors to a workshop page don't go all out - i.e. contribute all three sections. When an arb like NYB does, however, I'd support an exception for them to separate theirs out from the main area.  Kind of an intermediate step between Workshop and Proposed. --InkSplotch (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As a major participant in a few Arbitration cases, and an observer in others, I've found that the identity of the proposing editor on the Workshop page to be an indispensable guide to the quality of said proposals. For example, if I browse the Workshop page of some gigantic case, I'm going to immediately look for editor names like NYB and MastCell in the TOC because those editors have an excess of clue. Jumbling their proposals together with those from the inevitable sockpuppets and kibitzers makes little sense. And in general, an editor will be making a bunch of interrelated proposals at the same time, that make more sense when grouped together. So I support the current system, or InkSplotch's. - Merzbow (talk) 04:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Unapproved admin bots closing
Due to its unique nature, being both a rejected RFAR and a passed (alternate) motion, I've archived this as both an RFAR and passed motion. The RFAR archive is here: Requests_for_arbitration/Rejected_requests, the closed motion is here on the page for motions without an accepted RFAR case: Requests_for_arbitration/Closed_motions. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 20:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Policy - Proposed update
By popular demand (I don't think), a proposed revision and updating of the Arbitration Policy can be found at Arbitration policy proposed updating. Comments on all aspects of the policy and related issues are welcome on the talkpage. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Out-of-line Clerks
The community expects and prefers if disputes are dealt with as quickly and effectively as possible. Every member of the community has the right to push disputes towards achieving that objective, particularly if any stage of dispute resolution is falling short of that objective, even on this project page. The clerking body do not have the authority to deprive any editor of that legitimate right, or to prevent them from exercising it (whether it is on the odd occasion, or whether it is on a more regular basis), but insist otherwise. This power trip needs to stop, and is not reflecting well on the clerking body, which in turn, reflects on the Committee.

I feel that one or more of the clerks are out of line following some recent matters that were brought up on my talk page. Targeting my edits is not appreciated, nor is regularly bringing up me edits in a venue which I cannot respond (namely, the clerking mailing list), nor are at least one of the comments that were expressed there in bad faith. I've complied with the reasonable part of the request made by the clerks when I asked for their input, but it will not go beyond that. Whether it's the edits on user talk pages, or on those templates (cited as diffs on my talk page), they are going to continue, unless the Committee makes a public vote to topic ban me accordingly, which will translate into something else. In any case, if any member of the community or the Committee wishes to discuss this matter with me, they are welcome to do so, whether it's on-wiki or privately.

Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ncm, have you asked if you can become an "official" Clerk? I'm not entirely sure of the system, but since your edits are mostly helpful, it seems rather a stretch to ask you to stop completely. I do believe any editor should be able to make certain edits; for example, I work as a Checkuser clerk, but it wouldn't bother me if someone not on the list decided to archive a case/comment etc. I honestly cannot see the issue with you updating the templates, or asking Arbitrators for their opinions on a case. I would perhaps see AGK's point if you'd started creating pages/closing cases/notifying people of the outcome etc. But your "clerk-like" edits are minor helpful ones. I even did a "clerk-like" edit the other day, when I asked Jpgordon to sign his name on the page (he signed with the timestamp instead). Perhaps this goes to show we need more clerks if the current ones aren't making the necessary edits? Clerks may be appointed by ArbCom, but you are right in that they have no authority over other people wishing to assist with the process, be they official appointees or otherwise.
 * So what I suggest, if you haven't already: contact ArbCom expressing interest in becoming an "official" clerk. It would be good to get some Arbitrators' thoughts on this issue; is there a line to be drawn as to when someone is taking over the role of the appointed clerks, or is simply helping out? Best wishes, -- How do you turn this on (talk) 09:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. :) Yes, I'm considered too controversial to be a clerk at this point; I think AGK alluded to that at the bottom of his post. Honestly, given that I'm specifically NOT a clerk representing the Committee, I don't see my edits ruining that precious "image" that the clerks think they have, or are concerned about. I'd understand if I was doing something like refactoring evidence, even if it was just to make sure it complies with the word limit etc. - that's unambiguously the duty of a clerk. But that isn't happening - I'm pushing things in the way I've described above as a member of the community, whether that's on a user talk page or a template update. These are not exclusively within clerking duties, nor will they ever be. Those templates may be updated by any member of the community, per the page history that goes back 4 years, particularly for typos and obvious edits like those which I made.
 * I was okay with not editing on the clerk noticeboard at their request, but now this has gone too far for me to let it go quietly behind the scenes. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this matter has been moved "in front of" the scenes (that is, on-Wiki) because the previously-employed confidential email and private-window IRC discussion was not having the desired effect. And, to address How do you: the problem many Clerks—including me—had was not the nature of Ncm's edits (which, in themselves and if taken "in a vacuum", would be acceptable coming from any editor), but rather the cumulative mass they had, and the association Ncmvocalist was gaining because of that: in short, he was beginning to become something of a de facto Arbcomm clerk, despite the fact a proposal to invite him on to the team had been specifically rejected on the grounds of personal unsuitability (one of Ncm's most appealing characteristics is his willingness to tell harsh truths were they are necessary; this has came to result in his being associated by the average Wikipedian with controversy and non-neutrality, to some degree—making him not suited for the clerk job, due to the curiously unique nature of the job description). AGK 20:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ncm: from your use of "image" (inverted commas yours), I'm assuming you're pretty bitter at this request. It was made with a view to the general effectiveness of the position of the clerks—and, taking a broader look, the wider effectiveness of the process as a whole, rather than with a view to the pride of the clerks. I think everybody on the clerk team is old and wise enough to not give a toss if somebody we haven't officially "appointed" as a trainee (or the committee hasn't officially appointed as a full clerk) does our job; my skin is certainly thicker than that, and I do believe every other clerk's is also. AGK 20:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ncm, the clerks made a polite request for you to refrain from editing things like arbitration templates and other official things that clerks should be doing. The reason for this is because we want the every day user having confidence in the system. If someone who has nothing to do with arbitration starts making edits to templates which basically change the status of a case (e.g. from live to stale in the clarifications section), it undermines the system. Arbitration is basically the last chance saloon, and things should be done properly, with due process and it's the clerks job to manage that. I've actually been fighting your corner Ncm, but it's becoming increasingly difficult when you keep doing things you've been asked not to do. Nobody has any problems with you editing the workshop pages to makes proposals or pinging arbs when they haven't voted, it's just the more official things that the clerks do have a problem with. If I'm being honest with you, my advice would be to get out of Wikipedia space and dispute resolution for a while, mainspace is much more fun (as I've recently been finding out! (shock horror!!!)) and there's plenty of people to take over the area that you leave behind. You seem to be getting more and more frustrated in this area, and that's not a good thing - we're attempting to calm and solve disputes, not raise them up a notch.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Ryan here and suggest Ncmvocalist email the arbs if still has concerns. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 11:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Several clerks and at least two arbitrators have expressed concerns about your suitability to be appointed as a clerk. The arbitrators have always had the final word over clerk appointments and there is no real purpose in having someone as trainee, helper, unofficial clerk, or whatever you want to call it, if that person has no chance of a formal appointment. Handling the matter privately was intended to be for your benefit. Thatcher 12:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of that. However, deviating from the exact point of the thread doesn't inspire much confidence, Thatcher. Resigned clerks, or clerks, do not have the authority over other people who assist during that process, and your insight is unhelpful because more than one arbitrator has disagreed with you (both on-site and off-site) and felt otherwise about my edits. Perhaps the edits I've made recently (that the clerks apparently have a problem with) were not made so that I learn how to be a clerk, or under some sort of guise that I am a clerk helper - perhaps (zomg!) they were made for the explicit reasons I noted at the beginning of the thread. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, wot? I have never expressed an opinion on your clerk actions on-wiki or on the list.  I was merely noting the responses and the reason for handling the matter on the clerk mailing list.  As far as your reasons for making certain edits that you allude to, if your complaint is not that you are not being allowed to clerk, but instead about something else, you chose an extremely obscure place and method to raise the issue. Thatcher 13:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't recall saying that you did express an opinion on those actions. I could've addressed this privately or in another venue, "but private communication has had little or no lasting effect." Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You said just above, "more than one arbitrator has disagreed with you"; no one can disagree with me if I have not expressed an opinion. You are entitled to raise the issue publicly but understand that while you have deprecated the discussion of this matter on the mailing list, such private discussion was intended to be for your benefit. Thatcher 14:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That was said in response to "there is no real purpose in having someone as trainee, helper, unofficial clerk, or whatever you want to call it, if that person has no chance of a formal appointment" which seems to refer to the edits in question, and are in-line with the description of "clerk-like". I was told "private communication has had little or no lasting effect", so I don't consider that I was entitled to much of a choice as to the nature of this discussion, and the less-than-ideal venue. Bringing up my edits on the mailing list without that user approaching me direclty or asking/discussing it with me first (it's not as if no clerk did not have email access) was what I considered a big issue - you say that was intended for my benefit, so I guess I'm missing something. Still, another clerk approached me after the fact, as if my edits constituted something else, so I clearly stated my intentions - and that statement was passed onto the mailing list. For someone to then insist otherwise (directly contradicting what I said) was what I found problematic; if such assumptions are going to be made, then I might as well not have responded. To be clear, I depracated the approach and part of the discussions taken, as I fail to see how that could possibly be intended for my benefit. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It was for your benefit insofar as there was no percieved need to make criticisms of you in public when the matters which made the clerks and some arbitrators feel that you were unsuited to be a clerk are, comparatively, minor. There was a strong desire you avoid bruising you publicly, or to negatively affect your reputation, by turing down your offer to help (Wikipedia is, like it or not, a place where reputation and perception are the currency of the realm).  We have, at first, sought to keep the matter entirely officious and off-wiki to allow you to withdraw from what we felt was problematic without a fuss or making a big deal out of it.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am totally uninvolved and don't care who triumphs in this disagreement. Ncmvocalist, you are upsetting the mellow moods of this page with your posts.  I suggest you go out for tea and get some cookies.  Clerks, it might be best to let the upset editor have the last word.  Maybe one of you can have a private conversation with them to clear up any misunderstandings. Jehochman Talk 13:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) A quick comment. I've looked at some of the edits that NCM has posted and some are helpful. I'd be surprised if they weren't, because he is by and large undisputedly, a serious and experienced editor who tries to help matters along.


 * The concern is, that RFAR and Arbitration-related matters are often the focus of serious dispute and flare-ups, which happen unpredictably. These are areas where the Clerks may have to step in, and act, and not have to worry about well intentioned users accustomed to acting as a sort of quasi-clerk who aren't on the same page and could easily end up causing more disruption than they intended. Clerks can at times speak for Arbitrators, and routinely consult with them; their RFAR subpage edits on formal matters often relate to such discussions with opther experienced clerks, and with Arbitrators. NCM - you're not in that loop, and have at times (I gather) made controversial and less helpful posts as well as extremely helpful ones.


 * For the smooth running of this area, the Arbitrators have designated users they specifically ask to help manage the pages. Unlike "patrollers" in general, this is a decision taken seriously since it involves managing by definition, difficult dispute case behaviors and sensitive decisions on case management and other matters (which may not always be obvious). As a result, the clerks are sometimes given a little more standing by the community in such matters, due to that trust and role.


 * Cordially, please allow them to do their work and do not emulate them. Do not lead users inadvertantly, to confuse RFAR clerks who may speak for Arbitrartors and have discretion to help manage the pages, with "other users who sometimes try and act like clerks". It may work okay on routine matters, but under pressure of a bad post, misjudged item, or lack of awareness it carries too high a risk of a problem that is completely avoidable. Please respect that wish and allow them to do their job without these kind of activities, whether they are helpful or not in a given case. The intention is respected and appreciated, but the concerns are held by enough people that it's best left alone. If you feel something is needed, mention it to a clerk, let them make the choice. FT2 (Talk 13:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This seems to sum up what I was trying to communicate to Ncm on-Wiki well. My message's intention was not (read: not!) to try and cut non-clerks out of clerking; frankly, anybody can clerk if their doing so is helpful—I truly don't mind, and I doubt any of the other clerks do either. But, I think making a tonne of clerk-like edits is beginning to look as though you are indeed a clerk; in the long-term, and potentially speaking, that could have a negative effect. <font color="#2A8B31">Anthøny (talk) 16:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I would add to that that general help is always welcome; but that there are a number of tasks which should really be left to actual clerks in order to avoid controversy: everything explicitely listed at WP:AC/C, of course, as well as all of the "infrastructure" templates that are part of the structred handling of cases. The rationale for this isn't one of exclusion, but of due care: the clerks act on behalf, and under the imprimatur, of the Committee who has delegated a number of "maintenance" tasks in order to be able to concentrate on the decisions themselves; because this is the last place for unsolvabed disputes it is paramount that some organization is kept but the act of making things organized does, in itself, have the potential to cause controversy.  Originally, only the Arbitrators themselves were allowed to make such edits at all; and even this tiny delegation caused worries and much drama at first. Some arbitrators have indicated that they appreciate your "nagging" about the state of cases, and you are of course always welcome to keep doing what you feel is useful in helping cases plod along&mdash; but please leave the "more official" things to clerks.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps now would be a good time to ask the arbitrators (again) what it is specifically that they want clerks to be empowered to do that is different from regular editors. I wrote the current version of WP:AC/C with the intent of removing as many restrictions to helpful editors as I could. At the time, there was a somewhat justifiable backlash special roles for checkuser and WP:CHU clerks. I asked Arbcom if there were any specific tasks or roles for clerks only, and got very little specific direction, so I rewrote the description allowing as much openness as I thought I could. Certainly any policy page that has not been updated significantly in 18 months is overdue for a review. It is important to recognize that Arbcom clerks do have a specific voice in some matters, and require the trust of arbcom, and are appointed and dismissed by Arbcom, but there is presently no clear instruction as to what those matters are. Can a user make so many trivial clerk edits that they are perceived as a formal clerk when they are not? I suppose so. Should minor helpful clerk edits be completely discouraged? Probably not. This might be a good time to revisit the clerk function and seek renewed guidance from Arbcom. Thatcher 17:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That would probably be wise. <font color="#2A8B31">Anthøny (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is probably the most sensible suggestion to come out of this extraordinary discussion. If the boundaries are not there, who can say when they have been crossed? -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 18:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually asked something along the exact same lines in my post above: "is there a line to be drawn as to when someone is taking over the role of the appointed clerks, or is simply helping out?" -- How do you turn this on (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Gah... Sorry for not listening to you, HDYTTO! AGK 20:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Concur with Thatcher as well. Some additional direction on keeping pages "cleaned up" would probably be useful. Risker (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, some sort of formal outline of responsibilities would help both the clerks and the larger communities understand the role of clerks, and our mandate, so to speak.--Tznkai (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Clerks' role - a personal view

In brief, clerks have two or three areas of involvement. At least some of those require considerable judgement.
 * 1) To manage procedurally, the RFAR pages.
 * Significant aspects of judgement - a number of matters to do with forming a view when some point is passed or not (accept, injunction, proposals passed, close case) or a case decision is needed (name choice, special handling of some kind). These aren't always obvious, for example arbitrators may have votes that are conditional on other votes, or shades of strength of view, and so on, and yet most of the time the clerks anticipate well the view and consensus of the Committee, and the intent of arbitrators. In a fair number of cases this requires an above-average awareness of the Arbitration Committee's members and their outlooks, voting styles and so on, to accurately assess how to view some matter. It would be problematic if a matter was misjudged by clerks very often, given the high profile and sensitivity of some RFAR cases.
 * 1) To manage behaviorally, the RFAR subpages and at times rein in the conduct of case participants.
 * Significant aspects of judgement - this is a difficult one. On the one hand RFAR is a controlled environment, and ideal for showing whether users really can manage themselves or really do act up, and traditionally the pages are left for Arbitrators and their clerks to manage rather than usual communal or administrator actions. So an unusual leeway exists on the pages. But that (in principle) only takes one "so far". Often behaviors go too far precisely because there is that perception it's a separate environment and the envelope can therefore be pushed, or that it's a forum to act up in. It can be pushed, but this should be allowed only to a limited extent and valid purpose, not just to create an open house on personal attacks, random allegations and pointless dramatization. The same Arbitration management that allows more leeway to misbehave, also allows more leeway to direct the conduct of participants in relation to the cases as well. So there is a balance there - more leeway, but also, tighter control and limits than usual when the envelope is pushed too far. (I would say the latter aspect could and should be directed to be much tighter at times of disruption; and clerks given more autonomy, better guidelines, and explicit backing to judge usefulness vs. disruption and act thereon.) That's one traditional view. A different viewpoint is that RFAR should expect best behavior, not a circus, and very tight standards should be enforced on inappropriate user conduct related to a requested or open RFAR case.  Both views have their advocates; ideally the Committee should decide. For now it's enough to say both views exist. Clerks therefore act as enforcers of behavior, and have the delegated authority and backing of the Committee for their actions that are reasonably intended to manage behaviors of participants or enforce significant directions. This means they may have a slightly stronger than average voice in some posts and blocks, where this is an issue. But with this comes more responsibility, and such actions are not undertaken lightly.  Collectively, the clerks are users trusted by Arbitrators to act capably given the often-contentious nature of RFAR user discussions, and to broadly exercize judgement the Committee can endorse. (Perfection isn't expected but regular problems are not okay.) The interpretation of when to act, when to show self restraint, when to not worry about something, is a very sensitive and significant area of judgement. If Arbitrators are delegating this aspect of page and case management, they would probably wish to be confident in a few users that they delegate to, rather than give the entire community (that has failed to resolve the case) the role.
 * 1) Other sundry matters for the Committee.
 * Significant aspects of judgement - as Arbitrators may be asked to act in a wide range of matters, the clerks do a variety of sundry roles and actions to help them. For example, notifying them of anything needing attention, and using their knowledge and close relationship with the Committee to form fairly accurate assessments of the Arbitrators' views on matters and thus what action may be appropriate as clerks, if any. Broadly, from the arbitrators' viewpoint, clerks are users that can be trusted to be given a case-related job (other than case investigation and voting), understand it, judge it well, handle any unexpected matters, and generally deal with it autonomously, roughly as the arbitrators would, with little superfluous explanation. This requires clue, experience, and a certain approach/personality style, and experience of working with Arbitrators and having gained their confidence.

I wouldn't say this is a formal statement, but this does encompass roughly my informal perception of the Arbitration Clerks' role and responsibilities on the wiki at present. FT2 (Talk 14:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this is a good description of what I think what it is we do as clerks, and how fuzzy the lines of those duties can be. Clerking requires a balanced blend of caution and boldness, and more caution than typically encouraged on Wikipedia, making temperament much more apparent than obvious. I give credit to my fellows for making it look easy and simple, despite the fact that there is a great amount of judgment, insight, and discussion that goes on.--Tznkai (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

OK to nudge the arbs
One kind of edit that Ncmvocalist has been criticized for namely leaving requests on arb talk pages like this, while perhaps annoying at times, are wholly appropriate. For my past views on this see this. Paul August &#9742; 19:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * They are appropriate, yes, but I am aware some of the committee find them annoying. Perhaps pinging them in this way is doing less good than if they weren't made at all. I'm not too sure; it's a delicate issue. <font color="#2A8B31">Anthøny (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Annoying is ok, sometimes arbs need to be annoyed. As for making things worse, always possible, but it would take a rather childish arb to let such prodding actually make it less likely things got done. In my experience arbs are generally above that. Paul August &#9742; 20:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting comment... Forgive me if I quote this in an under-the-breath mutter in the future. ;) AGK 20:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (outdent)Then why is there still not one arb comment on this clarification: Requests_for_arbitration, which is about 2 weeks old. Several clerks and non clerks have tried to nudge the arbs on this. Should the clerks archive it? — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 20:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't. I wouldn't have much choice other than to re-open it, I think. It's time-sensitive, the arbcom ruling expires in about two or three weeks, and this needs to be sorted before that. If the arbcom would rather the community delt with it, they could say so, but I did prepare this in plenty of time to get everything sorted before the deadline. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 04:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with PA. Nothing illegal or contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Nobody got conscripted for AC after all.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to choose Australia's next top model! ) 01:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I pinged Arbcom-l regarding that request yesterday. I have as yet heard nothing back. AGK 15:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If an arbitrator wants people to stop "nudging" them, he/she can just leave a notice on their talk page saying, "Please don't remind me about current ArbCom requests or cases. I'm on top of all Arb business and don't require any reminders."  Although nudging is ok, lobbying arbitrators, however, probably isn't a good idea. Cla68 (talk) 01:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If they were on top of things they wouldn't need nudged. See my last post. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 02:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * well, as the saying goes, all good things come to those who wait. Bad things can come anytime, though.    While I don't object to nudging arbs on principle (not being one, of course), I am a bit troubled by this apparent need for haste: it seems to assume bad faith, as though we should be afraid that all hell is going to break loose on Wikipedia if the arbs don't do something right now.  Plus, I personally think ArbCom should have the option of letting certain problems fade off into the mist without comment, if they so choose.  sometimes the mere act of giving an answer (regardless of what the answer is) can cause more headaches than it relieves.  -- Ludwigs 2  05:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Other requests have come in since that one that they've responded to so they could have replied if they wanted to. I think that if someone files a request they are entitled to a response. If the arbs want to ignore one, they should tell the clerks to archive per arb direction. I object to your assumption of bad faith here. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 09:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Less bad faith and more "panic and urgency" really.--Tznkai (talk) 12:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * well, maybe. but ArbCom is specifically for dealing with the conduct of established editors ("The committee accepts cases related to editors' conduct where all other routes to agreement have failed"), and so what else would this 'panic and urgency' relate to?  any claim that there's an urgent need for a quick decision is tantamount to saying 'I am convinced that editor X poses an imminent threat, and checks must be placed on his/her conduct forthwith'.  whatever that might be, it is certainly not a good-faith argument.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a request for an extension. It is generally considered more appropriate to deal with extensions in good time, to provide continuity and prevent situations where the person, having been granted reprieve, suddenly loses it again. Where's the "panic and urgency" in following standard procedures? It should be dealt with before the old restriction expires, because were the request made after it expired, there would be excessive drama. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * that's a reasonable perspective, though I happen to disagree with it. I think there's more drama (and distrust) involved in the assertion that the problem is likely to recur and needs to be prevented than in dealing with it if it does recur.  You've made a request for an extension based on scanty evidence and old ills; if it were me on ArbCom, I'd probably just take a "let's wait and see what happens" attitude too. I suspect the only reason they haven't said that outright has to do with internal politics that I don't care to know about.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I missed a lot of the comments made here after my last reply to Thatcher because I'd unwatchlisted these pages. I'll give more thorough responses in the next few days. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything wrong with the example edits given. As Paul says, there's no problem with bugging us (even if it can be annoying, that's probably because we deserve it). I also don't see a problem with simple maintenance edits like this one. For the most part, any editor is welcome to get involved with these kinds of activities. Of course, the same rules that apply to clerks apply to anyone else doing such things (eg, not doing any clerking activities on a case where you're involved). Other than that people are welcome to help out. --bainer (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ditto. I've reviewed and re-reviewed my communications with each arbitrator for individual preferences, especially those that involved either of the 2 types of example edit. I've also discussed this matter in great detail with various uninvolved members of the community (in good standing) over the past few days, who have reviewed (or been reviewing) the discussions here. Some considered letting both type of edits be strictly for clerks only - however, they also concluded was that it is not practical or reasonable to enforce. Unanimous among all the users I discussed this matter with, was the following view: my edits were "not problematic or disruptive", I "give a substantial amount of thought in them", and that I "need not stop making them". So, I thank the community for their valuable input as always, and the arbitrators who gave thoughtful, concise and effective input here, which showed a true appreciation and understanding of my edits. I used a statement I made at 09:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC) as an intro; I am using the same to conclude. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

A quiet moment
is this a record?! - no cases requested, and no clarifications (and very little on this page too!) - must be the calm before the election storm, I guess :-)

I thought I'd take advantage of this quiet moment to indicate that I've posted a request to the arbcom list to try and clarify whether or not User:Steve Crossin is under an official 6 month ban or not (I think he'd like to edit again, and would like a full arb case if poss.)

The request for clarification I posted didn't take, and it's possible I haven't expressed myself clearly at all, so I thought I'd drop a note in here to see if anyone else felt that there was an opportunity, at this quiet time, to try and sort this out :-)

Happy to chat about any aspect of this - and I'd also suggest that anyone minded to ask a question of the arbs, or make a(nother!) request for clarification, touch base with User:Daniel first as a courtesy - he's clued in and generally smart about the situation :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * My knowledge of the matter is this: Steve is subject to a 6 month ban. This ban was recently reset, due to an instance whereby Steve ultimately failed to respect this ban, and furthermore reinforced with a block on this account lasting the full duration of the (now-reset) ban. This seems an unequivocal situation to me; the only point that remains to be clarified is your request for official vote tallies, Privatemusings—in response to this, I note, I can only say that the Committee alone may make the final decision on whether this is a prudent request to make.


 * I'm personally inclined to say that pressing this point is not a prudent course of action to pursue. This is a matter that would be very well served by zero excess attention—anything to the contrary would, I feel, serve to but "fan the flames." It's your choice, however; I would only remind you that occasionally, continually following up a matter in the interests of transparency is not for the 'greater good.'


 * Just my two pence, Privatemusings. AGK 20:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Fully endorse the above comment by AGK. Daniel (talk) 03:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Completely endorse as well. Not sure why this is so unclear -- Steve consented to a ban, ArbCom enforced it. Done and done. Glass  Cobra  12:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Next time...
Next time ArbCom intends to appoint a CheckUser/Oversight, I suggest they don't bother informing the community, since it is clear to me they do not care what the community thinks. Every single appointment since they have started "listening" to the community has been done anyway, regardless of any kind of feedback given. So, to save time, and end this pretence that they give a damn what the community thinks, I suggest they continue to appoint whoever the hell they like, regardless of suitability, and don't request feedback, since they obviously don't really care about it.  Al Tally  talk  03:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I assume you gave some feedback but the committee disagreed with your interpretation. That doesn't invalidate the role of feedback, or suggest that the committee doesn't pay attention to it. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You assume wrong. I don't see the point in asking for feedback if the result is always that the committee were right in the first place.  Al Tally  talk  03:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * See inductive reasoning. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The performance of the committee in the past few months may be subject to some legitimate criticisms, but I don't think this is one of them. In response to suggestions that we should seek greater community input regarding appointments to checkuser positions, we asked interested users to identify themselves and then, after we identified the people we were considering appointing, requested confidential community input on any issues with the candidates. No issues that we regarded as serious were raised regarding the candidates' qualification for checkusership, so we went ahead with the appointments. We then asked for input on a potential receipient of oversight privileges as well (even though I don't recall anyone asking for input regarding that position). Again, no concerns the commitee considered serious were raised, so we made the appointment.

Obviously, by the time we post a name as being under consideration for an appointment, we will already have discussed the person's qualifications and a clear majority of the arbitrators will have concluded that the person appears to be well qualified, subject to any further input we might receive. While we are fully open to revising our opinion if issues then come to light, in most instances it is to be expected that no concerns will arise at the last minute, because we have already done a fair amount of research before that stage. It would speak worse of the process if last-minute obstacles frequently arose, than it does that thus far they have not.

If in the course of a year the ArbCom suggests 10 people for appointment for various positions, and if it turns out that all 10 are fully qualified and we appoint them all, that does not mean that we are not paying attention to input from the community. It means that based on the candidates' contributions, history with the project, and reputations, which themselves are largely a function of the community's view of the candidates, they are qualified for the positions. Any suggestion that this reflects that the committee doesn't care what the community thinks or that the input process is a sham is unwarranted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That the Committee's appointments have coincided perfectly on a few occasions with the publicly-posted candidates does not mean that they have refused to listen to the community's opinions. The Committee is made up of largely sane folks, I think is what you're forgetting, Al Tally. Suggesting to the contrary is poor logic, really. AGK 20:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * To address the concern directly:


 * In the case of Checkuser the final announcement specifically referenced the feedback obtained, and documented the discussion that followed (link). It was considered very carefully and the process stated on-wiki.


 * The recent Oversight appointment had a wide range of extremely supportive views, and only one disagreement. The latter appeared to be based primarily on two reasons, which (as with the Checkuser appointments) were carefully considered. The grounds stated in that oppose were broadly, following discussion, not felt to be compelling and perhaps even somewhat mistaken. It also both started and ended by saying it was likely not to match the views of any other users, which was accurate. That said, the expression of concern was considered carefully even despite this. FT2 (Talk 12:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

This is merely a suggestion for ArbCom, not sour grapes over who was chosen - I'm happy with everyone that was cherrypicked (though of course, doing it entirely in public, and letting the community decide community issues would be so much better, but it's not going to happen). ArbCom have made up their minds when they post suggestions - not a single time have they ever been wrong. ArbCom can be doing so much more productive work than wasting their time listening to the community, because it is quite clear that they have made up their minds, and even if the community did have an issue, ArbCom would be most likely to dismiss it. Now I wish to have no more part of this,  Al Tally  talk  15:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you considered the possibility that you might, you know, just be wrong? The Arb likely selected candidates whom they already knew would not garner significant community opposition &mdash; it wouldn't be surprising that they, in fact, did not get that opposition and therefore could then proceed with the appointment unchanged!  Do you have a specific example of "dismissed" concerns or have you simply decided that since everyone put forward by ArbCom to date has been appointed then there must have been expressed concerns that were ignored?  &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong about what, "Coren"? If they knew candidates wouldn't get opposition, why on earth did they bother asking for feedback? For a laugh? No, I don't have any specific concerns - I never said there were any, only that since ArbCom were always right, it seems a waste of time asking. This idea is for ArbCom's benefit. I have no idea what they get up to on their private mailing list (other than the lovely attacks on me that were leaked to me several months ago), but I'm sure they have better things to do, than to request feedback that they're expecting anyway. This is merely a suggestion. No sour grapes, no individual cases where feedback was dismissed. It just seems a waste of time when they're always right anyway.  Al Tally  talk  15:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, you've got a personal ax to grind; that explains the animosity. Last I checked, the Committee never claimed infallibility, and it's possible (no matter how unlikely they might presume it is) that someone does have a genuine concern about someone's appointment that would make it a bad idea; it's much better to ask before, than have that concern raise after the fact to much drama, wouldn't you say?  &mdash; Coren (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong again Coren. No "personal ax", just helping ArbCom save time. If they don't want this, then that's up to them. They appointed people without bothering to inform the community, or ask their opinions in the past, so why the change? What's the point when they are never wrong? (And don't say they are, because they really aren't). ArbCom are the 'best, most seasoned, and skilled users' and 'is a better judge of a number of "people things" than the community is'. Why on earth would they want to listen to the community, with those kind of credentials?  Al Tally  talk  01:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there's value in asking the community for input. I think this process, in which ArbCom vets candidates and then asks for a final check, is a better one than what we had before. I'm not sure why that's even being debated. ArbCom are far from perfect, they're slow to act, slow to change their ways, and so forth, but they are who we selected. If they are not doing what we want, whose fault is that? Al Tally: Railing against this when it's a move in the direction that many desire seems odd to me. ++Lar: t/c 01:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes the ArbCom is slow to act, but the causes for that are primarily systemic. Paul August &#9742; 03:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Then the system needs changed a bit. Perhaps it would be helpful if someone would give a "view from the inside" as to what the systemic failures are, and how we might address them. Otherwise people assume it is arb lethargy, and we get another round of candidates saying "elect me and I'll speed it up/work harder" and they mean it, and we do elect them, and the system soon gets the better of their good intentions, and the circle repeats - and the cynicism grows. It does seem to me that the problems are structural not personnel related - but any outsider is speculating beyond that.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement from ScienceApologist ?
The cold fusion case has been accepted without a statement from ScienceApologist. I'm not familiar with ArbComm procedures. I would welcome any comment on the possible impact of ScienceApologist's silence on this case. Pcarbonn (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * He's notified, and he's a named party. Therefore, he will be bound by the results.  In fact, ArbCom is capable of issuing decrees that bind uninvolve parties, though these parties traditionally must be notified before any sanctions are applied to them. A clerk should confirm this, but I think my answer is correct. Jehochman Talk 21:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The standard line the Committee takes on party non-attendance at Arbitration proceedings is that they are only doing themselves a disservice; the case will proceed as normal, regardless of whether S.A. contributes at any juncture or not. The Arbitrators have shown themselves to be unsympathetic towards an editor who refuses to explain his or her actions in full. I therefore suggest, Pcarbonn, that the impact of ScienceApologist's silence on this case on a procedural level is zero—the case will proceed as normal, regardless of whether a party chooses to become involved in the adjudication—but on a decision-making (and largely unofficial) level, the only result I envisage is a decision that is unsympathetic to himself alone. Only through co-operation with the Committee can Arbitration proceedings entail as little stress as possible (and, curiously enough, the same logic applies to editing Wikipedia in general). AGK 22:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Note regarding pending motions
I had set aside some time tonight to vote on the various pending items on WP:RfAr, but Wikipedia is running slowly for me tonight so I may have to wait until later or tomorrow. If so, my apologies to those who have been patiently waiting for my input. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The trouble with vacating Matthew Hoffman
The request is to vacate the case completely. But not all findings relate to the aggrieved administrator. Part of the case was a ruling that Matthew Hoffman was unjustly blocked. This is partly a rebuke to the blocking administrator, but it also served to clear Matthew Hoffman's name. This was accompanied by a annotation of matthew Hoffman's block log. How can those parts of the case be vacated? with regard to these rulings, it would have the effect that the arbcom rules that Matthew Hoffman should have been banned after all. The block log annotation can't be erased, for one thing. Will the arbcom insert a second annotation that says "never mind"? Matthew Hoffman ceased editing before the case even began, but the case might have importance considering that intelligent design pages have continued to be a source of conflict. 140.247.242.233 (talk) 22:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As noone is asking for them to be undone, this is irrelevant. Vacated is not the same as reversed. Anyway, Hoffman was unblocked before the case even started. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Evidence links in old cases are broken
I've been going through some of the evidence and final decisions in some old cases, and I noticed some of the links are broken. There seems to be two reasons: (1) the way links work changed at some point this year; (2) subsequents edits to a page (for various reasons) break the links. Anyone have opinions on how to handle these two sorts of cases of evidence links breaking? Carcharoth (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (1) See here for an example of the first sort. Since FT2 fixed the outdated links there (more to do with the way something changed during the last year in the way links work, rather than the links being broken by subsequent editing), I presume it is OK to do the same in other old cases?
 * (2) For the second sort, my evidence section in that case is a bit of a mess due to subsequent edits to remove the name of a vanished user. Even when linking to past versions in the page history, links are broken (unless you go further back, but that would not be a good idea). Is there a way I can present past evidence sections for this case in such a way that it accurately shows how I presented the evidence at the time? The way I've done it so far is at User:Carcharoth/Contributions/Arbitration pages. Please also note the statement I made here. On my userspace subpage, I've said "Note that the case pages have been courtesy blanked, so the links below are to versions in the page history, though even there, some links are still broken" and "note that subsequent edits to remove a name broke some of the evidence links"). I am happy to leave things as they are, with only those statements on my subpage to explain to readers of that subpage what happened there, but wanted to go on the record here so that this kind of subsequent editing of case pages can be handled better in the future.
 * (1) should be clear sailing. (2) on the otherhand, I'm not so sure about. Courtesy blanking is a way of deterring search engines, the lazy and the idly curious to protect another user, so generally, try to make people do a little work.--Tznkai (talk) 19:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm happy that the way I handled this does still require people to do a little work, so unless anyone else objects I'll keep things the way they are. Incidentally, I believe case pages are NOINDEXED, so I don't think search engines are a problem here. And the blanking notice does specifically say that the case can still be viewed in the history if needed, and in my opinion this is a valid use of the page history. Carcharoth (talk) 21:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal of case
I posted a case that the clerks received anonymously regarding the conduct of ScienceApologist. Per the comments of some of the arbitrators, I've taken the case down now and I'm going to tell the anonymous user to either submit the evidence via their account on the cold fusion case, or email it to the arbitrators directly. Just to keep everyone in the loop.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The SlimVirgin case
The SlimVirgin case has been closed quite quickly, and it has been moved to a subpage, so, but there are very important questions left unanswered, so, in the hope that they won't be missed, I want to draw attention to this section of the talk page of the subpage. Thank you. ElinorD (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

How common are good findings about editors?
I wonder how common are findings along the lines "editor X is a valuable member of this project, edits in good faiths, etc.", and in what cases are they made? I am pretty sure I saw some in some past cases, but they are certainly not seen in all of them. What factors determine whether they are seen in a given case? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 06:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, in at least one case, personal bias [[Image:718smiley.svg|20px]] They may be less common or nonexistent after that. --NE2 07:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Two that I recently commented on:
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Durova
 * Here is one; Oddly enough, it was courtesy blanked, so here is a quick link.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 07:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Also see:
 * RFAR/NSLE
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Giano
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand_2
 *  MBisanz  talk 07:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the quick and informative reply! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The result of extending thanks to Kelly Martin might have discouraged future efforts. <font face="Verdana"> Durova Charge! 21:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The nature of an Arbitration case is sadly such that the Committee rarely has grounds to find positively. Where it does, it is often reluctant to do so: there is no presumption of guilt built into the Committee's operations, and therefore parties that are not explicitly named as having practised conduct unbecoming are automatically presumed to be editors in good standing. (This fundamental practice is derived from the spirit of Assume good faith, which was something of gospel in the days the Committee was founded.)
 * The Committee has found in a few occasions in the favour of an editor, and—where it has been necessary to do so—explicitly stated that an editor is not (usually, contrary to a mistaken assumption amongst some or all of the Community) guilty of poor conduct or of otherwise unacceptable behaviour. The most recent applicable precedent is Requests for arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar: #Lar's conduct ("the Committee finds that the checks run by Lar in March 2008 fell within the acceptable range of CheckUser discretion") and #Mackensen's conduct ("The Committee has examined Mackensen's conduct in relation to this matter, and sees no reason for concern, nor any reason why anyone should doubt his integrity").
 * AGK 22:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Jack Merridew motions
I am pleased to see progress being made on the Jack Merridew motions. There appears to be division in the opinions of the Arbitrators on the importance of on-Wiki clarifications about the terms of the unbanning. On one hand—the most heavily supported hand, it seems—there is assent for amending official Committee documentation on Jack's ban to clarify the terms the Committee are lifting it under: specifically, that Jack is to maintain a safe distance from White_Cat in editing and in comment. The rationale there is to maintain full clarity on the terms of the unbanning and to prevent gaming. On the other, there is dissent against those amendments, with a preference to relying on strong communications between the Committee and Jack to ensure the unban does not open the door to JM returning to his old habits. The rationale there is that excessive terms and conditions simply add unnecessary layers of information to an unban—a process that benefits from as little drama as possible, to avoid repercussions and "revenge attacks" on the ex-banee; and, that excessive terms increase the potential for wikilawyering.

For what it's worth, I agree with the Arbitrators who are striving for documenting what's happening on-Wiki. Unbanning is already, as it stands, a very secretive process; on some levels, necessarily-and ergo rightfully—so. The Community must at least know the terms on which Jack is being unbanned: the Committee cannot be everywhere at once—it knows this well—and the Community ought therefore to be blessed with as much information as possible to ensure the unban goes smoothly. Furthermore, secretive, off-Wiki communications are precisely what has been going wrong with the ArbCom of late. In this case there is no need for confidentiality; I would therefore discourage the refusal to be transparent in all matters. Why must we rely on ArbCom-l to set the terms of the unban? Why not update ArbCom pages to keep full transparency in this matter...? On the argument of potential wikilawyering: I view that as an argument we don't need to worry excessively about. Gaming is more of a problem, I'd say, than wikilaywering; we've plenty of incisive administrators to whack the sanity hammer around if Jack or any other party to this matter attempts to wikilaywer.

Proposal s 2) and 3) are important in this unban, and are most strongly substantiated. Please allow them to pass.

AGK 22:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Does proposal 2 have to do with documenting something on site? It deals with the Committee having the ability to step in over the head of the Community. Even if there is complete agreement at AE, this proposal says that the Committee must review the situation. I'm opposed to the Committee wading into situations without the Community asking us to act. With proposal 3, it actual weakens the restrictions on Merridew. The original idea was to keep Merridew completely away from White Cat. No editing the same page, the new wording allows Merridew to edit the same page if he can justify it. I see massive problems with this approach as it will permit Merridew to comment on pages where White Cat might edit. The problem with trying to write wording that anticipates every situation is that it introduces ambiguity. Using the mentors to enforce the strictest interpretation of the restrictions will give a better outcome since they can make decisions based on real situations that we can not anticipate. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 22:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've stricken "proposal 2)" from my comment. I didn't intend to include it: as you say, it doesn't pertain to on-Wiki documentation of the unban.
 * Would you not agree proposal 3) presents a much more elegant and less paralysing approach to segregating White_Cat and Jack? By using off-Wiki terms and conditions the Committee is preventing Jack from editing any page that White_Cat has touched; as a veteran editor, that's a huge number of pages already deemed "untouchable" to JM. (That's not a huge problem, in fairness: Jack can select from the remaining millions of articles to contribute to at his leisure. I am unsure to what extent Jack and Cat's editing interests overlap; if they do extensively—and have always done so—then this may have to be loosened.) However, by using the on-Wiki proposal, we are resorting to less crude methods of segregating the two users. That, coupled with the improved transparency, is my main rationale for suggesting going with proposal 3) rather than an off-Wiki talking to. I don't think we need to worry about Jack gaming the ability being extended to him to edit a page WC has edited so long as it isn't done maliciously: if he starts to violate the spirit of his restriction, I am very confident he'll be pulled up for it rather promptly. The Jack Merridew-White Cat situation's publicity levels are such that the community has assigned enough "eyes" to the case to make Jack gaming his restriction near-impossible in practice.
 * All in all, the on-Wiki proposal seems to be the better method to use here. AGK 00:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I don't. I feel that it opens the door for Merridew to edit on pages that the administrators that talked to Merridew did not intent for him to edit, at least on his return to editing. Other uninvolved editors now can show up and argue that Merridew can edit on pages where White Cat edits if Merridew can justify it. Given the past way that Merriew harassed White Cat, I feel that this type of discussion is harmful to White Cat. I've spoken to White Cat several times about Merridew's return to editing and I think that I understand his actual concerns fairly well.
 * Before these administrators were willing to speak up for his return they talked to Merridew for weeks and well as watched his edits on other wikis. Although it did not happen on Wikipedia English, I think that it was a very valuable part of the process. And since Merridew was a banned user, I don't see any other way that it could happen. I have no problem with the mentors writing up their expectation and putting in Merridew user space for other users to see. But I also think that behind the scene words of support, and advise, are appropriate for both Merridew and White Cat. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 01:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * How would you feel, Flo, about a proposal whereby the on-Wiki case pages were created, as is being proposed by FT2, but instead incorporated a blanket ban on Jack editing any page edited by White_Cat (within reason)? Would it be possible for you to propose that, if you indeed assent to the sentiment? AGK 02:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Addendum: behind-the-scenes advice is often exceptionally valuable. I concur with you on that point. (Eg., it played an essential role in resolving the Steve Crossin matter with as little on-Wiki fuss as possible.) I think it's bad practice, however, to rely exclusively on private communications to facilitate Committee actions when the matter in question is not confidential in nature. The ArbCom has of late been extensively criticised for operating "in secret" far too often. Situations like this one provide an excellent opportunity to shake off this image, and—as cases that have little in the way of material unsuitable for on-Wiki release are so hard to come by—I think we should seize it. AGK 02:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure where this discussion about on-wiki and off-wiki documentation comes from. The whole terms of the proposed unban are right there in the first motion. The disagreement is as to wording, whether it is preferable to be as specific as possible, or else more general with a view to a broad interpretation. --bainer (talk) 11:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Mhrm, yes, that's more what I'm looking for. Thanks for pointing that out, Bainer.


 * Jack has requested via email that the following comment be posted for the public record:


 * {| style="background: none; border: 1px solid silver; padding: 1px;"


 * <blockquote class="templatequote"> I know what this means, I think… but this needs more clarity. Rhetorical questions: Am I allowed to edit my talk page? White Cat has; and he's edited my user page, too. How about other user talk pages? (no, I don't mean his.)

I'm fine with not editing articles listed here (WC intersections with JM) (exception; A Midsummer Night's DreamJM WC) and probably most of the other intersections with my prior accounts; however, in this (WC intersections with Davenbelle), I see some likely exceptions: Padangbai, John Logan (writer)diff — and more; The Loss of the Ship "Essex" Sunk by a Whale and the Ordeal of the Crew in Open Boats (currently a redirect)diff. Other intersections; Moby Dick and Diyarbakir

There are other common pages; FT2 mentions ANI, but there are many others that are in the same boat. My view is that on ANI I should not start a thread about him and should not chip-in on sections about him or that he starts or is significantly involved in. There may be threads that we both comment in, but I would be most careful and would seek advice first; and mostly not! An obvious case would be a thread about me that he comments on; surely that would not preclude my replying to the original poster. This is where mentors should step in. The core question to consider in any future intersection of editing is intent; I believe myself able to exercise good judgment and to listen to wise counsel. AGK is right that I'll catch it quickly if I violate the spirit of this. I won't.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * }


 * AGK 14:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Policy question: Undoing Arb blocks
This question is directed specifically at sitting and former arbs.

So, ARE actions by individual arbs supposed to carry some +1 authority? If so, it needs to be approved by everyone, or else we'll see more people desysopped for this sort of thing, or have motions brought against them? See here. This is a serious question I'm asking--if they (Arbs) don't say they're acting for the Committee, are they one of the thousands of admins or are they admin+1 with a protected class of admin actions? <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 00:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * They are no more protected than any other admin action by any procedure or policy. That having been said, undoing such a block invites drama, controversy under many, if not most circumstances. The fine application of common sense suggests that we pause before clicking the save, or unblock buttons, and possibly gather some consensus to do so first. This is essentially the same principle for undoing any action: if you know its going to be controversial, make your case to the community first unless you have compelling reason to do otherwise.--Tznkai (talk) 00:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but that does not answer my question. I'm asking a binary question, not one with shades of gray, as this topic keeps popping up the past weeks. Are they regular admins when not wearing their arb hat? <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 00:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Regular editors, unless they specify that other functions apply. Onus is on them.  Some animals ain't more equal than others around here.  And if they try, we'll add an amendment to policy and make bacon. <font face="Verdana"> Durova  Charge! 00:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe they have the same privileges and lack thereof as any other administrator, but also believe that is not actually the question that cuts to the core of undoing an Arbiter's block.--Tznkai (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, that is the exact core of my question: Are their admin actions when they are not expressly working FOR Committee business of any special value, more than any other admin? For example, Danny Wool, who used to be the main WMF Office guy, was also an admin here--but his admin actions if memory serves were no more special or important than any other admin when he wasn't saying, "This is for OFFICE.". Conversely, you are just a regular admin--you don't have any magic +1 on anything you do, and you Tznkai are one of many with no extra value or power than any other admin in our machine. So, say I was an admin too. We'd be the same. You undoing me, and my undoing you, for one-off actions, are even. But what if we undo an FT2 action that isn't expressly AC business? Or Kirill? Or Flo? The same principle applies here, for my question, and I'd like Arbs to answer that so that it's encoded to some degree and people don't dumbly fumble around. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 00:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I would think that any Arb using admin function on behalf of the committee would need to say so in the action summary ("You are blocked for 55 hours for violating ArbCom remedy such-and-such; on behalf of the Committee"). If the committee then later found that the Arb had acted improperly, they can reverse the action, apologize, and sanction the Arb member who did it. Cla68 (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough, that thing with Danny never worked out that way. He often used his regular account (as opposed to the User:Dannyisme account which he created to segregate his office duties) to perform above-admin actions. He also desysopped Geni for reversing one of these actions, when Geni had no way of knowing that it was done on this special authority. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, if I take an administrator action and I don't say that the action is being taken as an arbitrator, I expect that it should carry the same weight as any other administrator's action. (I mean, it's okay to think that the action might come with a presumption of Clue given that I managed to do enough things right once upon a time so that I got elected to the ArbCom, but that's all&mdash; it doesn't mean it's exempt from being criticized or if necessary overturned.) That goes for both routine types of actions (if I see a repeat vandal or a bad username I'll block the account just like anyone else would) as well as any higher-profile ones. In fact, although there are times I choose to stay out of contentious noticeboard discussions to minimize potential recusal situations if issues come to ArbCom (this is referred to by me as the "Miltopia effect", after the user who predicted it would happen), there have been at least two occasions when I've made a comment on ANI and been upset that this triggered argument about whether this meant the ArbCom had ruled on the issue under discussion. If in any discussion I meant that I would say so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec x2) Yup, Rootology. That's a point I made at the talk page of the SLRubenstein RFC during dialog with Charles Matthews: Cary Bass specifies when his Office role comes into play.  And when he doesn't he's just another editor.  The site runs more smoothly that way.  We have enough tasks to fill the energies of volunteers without sitting on our thumbs waiting for this or that person to reply after the fact whether special functions came into play on any action they did.  People get those extra functions because they're responsible and proactive; the community deserves responsible and proactive communication. <font face="Verdana"> Durova  Charge! 00:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should add that to policy somewhere. Charles Matthews seemed to feel (at least, that's how it appeared to me) that his block as an Arb carried more weight; hence the RfC. I suspect FT2 recently felt the same. If clarified in policy, that might help other Arbs in future not to make the same mistake. SlimVirgin  talk| <font color="Light green">edits 00:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Can we not write policy based on our conjecture on the motivations of others? It doesn't work on Wikipedia well or in meatspace for that matter.--Tznkai (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No one has suggested doing that. SlimVirgin  talk| <font color="Light green">edits 01:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

There are two types of blocks that can be confused: &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocks that arbitrators make independent of any actions of the arbitration committee. These are certainly subject to the same rules as blocks by any other users.
 * Blocks made by any admin to enforce an arbitration remedy. These are not subject to the ordinary blocking policy, since the consensus that they are appropriate was already formed in the arbitration proceedings. This assumes that the block does agree with the wording of the arbcom remedy it claims to enforce. Such blocks should only be lifted if the blocking admin has actually misinterpreted the wording of the remedy (and its amendments, if any). If an arbitrator makes a block to enforce an arbitration remedy, there's a natural expectation that the arbitrator has correctly interpreted the arbcom remedy, and so unlhaterally lifting such a block is inappropriate.


 * My thoughts are as follows: Administrator actions done by an arbitrator have no EXTRA weight UNLESS it is done SPECIFICALLY as an act of the Committee as a whole and stated up front as such. However, (and here's something that should surprise no one, considering it's my pet cause) no one should be undoing the administrator actions of another administrator WITHOUT DISCUSSION OR CONSENSUS unless there's a clear and obvious error in rule (like, as it turns out, there was in the Giano block, where there was a statement from the Committee that Giano was not to be civility-blocked without the express written consensus of the ArbCom). SirFozzie (talk) 02:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That practice would be fine with me. And everyone seems to agree the most recent block was an obvious error. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Very close to my thinking, and not different enough to quibble. <font face="Verdana"> Durova Charge! 03:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is making sure that policy reflects this. I would support discussing modifying WP:WHEEL to simplify this, per the above discussion to state something like Wheel-warring is undoing another administrator's action, without discussing it with the original administrator or getting the consensus that the action was misguided amongst uninvolved editors/administrators. SirFozzie (talk) 03:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Done . Cla68 (talk) 03:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, as has been discussed in several ArbCom decisions both before and while I've been an arbitrator, and was also the subject of heavy questioning of the candidates in last year's election (see e.g. my candidate page), the definition of "Wheel Warring" has always been disputed precisely on the question of "is a single reversal of another admin's action a wheel war." My conclusion for the past year has been that the term is not helpful to discussion and I have rarely used it; the more probative question is "under what circumstances is one administrator permitted to reverse another admin's action?" And on this, there are nuances that the simplified definition here overlooks. (Example: Administrator A sees a justified request for page-protection on RFPP and protects the page for a month. The following day, the edit-war that required the protection is settled through talkpage discussion, and peace reigns over the article. A week later, someone comes back to RFPP and requests unprotection, and Administrator B sees that the dispute is settled and unprotects. Query (1) should Admin B be required to go back to Admin A in this scenario, and query (2) even if the best practice says that B should have consulted with A, would B be guilty of "wheel warring" for failing to do so?) Related questions could be asked about procedure for block reviews and the like. I am not taking a position here, just pointing out it's a little more complicated than the definition above might suggest. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The new wording is too categorical - what we're really looking here is for admins to exercise their best judgment: don't unblock if you think its going to piss off a lot of relevant people. Don't unblock if its going to cause needless controversy. Submit your judgment to that of the community. Don't invite, cause, or make more likely wheel wars. The details are less important than those goals.--Tznkai (talk) 04:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And fitting in the same vein, don't block for the same reasons, or do any admin action under such circumstances--you meant to say that, right? <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 06:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I hadn't thought of it, since we were talking about unblocks specifically, but yes, reblocking a user under the above circumstances would most certainly be wheel warring by any useful test.--Tznkai (talk) 07:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say re-block. I said block specifically as my use of wording. An initial block or action also should not be done unless the action is bulletproof. Do you disagree? <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 15:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I do infact disagree somewhat - the first action, be it protection or unprotection, blocking, unblocking can be unwise or misinformed but it doesn't make it wheel warring. We WANT all admin actions to be done in good faith and wisdom, and when an admin undoes another action its worth adding an additional does of caution and respect anyway, but especially so because of the major additional problems wheel warring causes.--Tznkai (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The only problem with that logic is that one reversal of any admin action, on a 1:1 basis (you reverse my block; I reverse your deletion) is not a wheel war. If one of us redoes the initial action we took--then WE are wheel warring by repeating the reversed action. One undoing by one person does not a wheel war make, and we'll just have to disagree that initial actions carry some special weight. I feel they never do, for non-Arb level actions. A bad action is a bad action, and if judged as such, we don't need to ask the initiated admin for some special leave. If you or I leave a bonehead block on someone, it's negligient to NOT undo it swiftly, for example, regardless of whether the blocking admin is around to say "OK!" <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 21:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Umm...How about nobody go about changing the wording of a subpolicy of a major policy used on a daily basis by hundreds of users and admins without discussing it extensively on the talk page of the policy? And I don't mean just for 12 hours or something. What is the urgency that it needs to be changed this minute? Risker (talk) 04:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Nemo sanctus singule. If the community wanted to have a user group which does all the same things as "regular admins"—but which is immune to being reverted by "regular admins"—we would be asking Brion to program this feature into the software, would we not? As of right now unless said action matches a specific arbcom decision there's nothing special about it (regardless of who's doing it). Of course, to avoid any confusion we should prohibit sitting arbitrators from enforcing their own decisions. Ideally this would also provide a minimal safety net in the worst-case scenario where arbcom makes a decision so bad nobody is willing to enforce it, but right now it's a pipe dream to expect the average admin to critically evaluate anything arbcom says to do. — CharlotteWebb 15:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Only if an arbitrator annotates a block (on the user_talk block notification, in the block log, or both) as being "For the Arbitration Committee" (or a variant thereof—'on behalf of the ArbCom,' 'by decision of the Arbitration Committee,' etc.) should the block be treated as being an act by the Committee and in almost all cases not really open to being lifted by any means short of a full-scale revolution. These blocks are usually made further to private discussion of the Committee, and therefore further to evidence of an explicitly private nature. (This is the main reason "For the ArbCom" blocks should not be lifted: the administrator lifting the block is not privy to all evidence, as a small amount of it is of a private nature.) I concur that Arbitrators should not enforce their own public decisions. "For the ArbCom" blocks ought to be made only in the case that off-Wiki evidence is a factor. That breakneck summary seems to be the current community (and Committee) attitude to blocks by sitting arbitrators. If I have misstated any facts, please correct me. AGK 17:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A block by a sitting member of the Committee should be interpreted as a standard block by a single administrator acting as an administrator, and nothing more. Whilst the fact the sysop is an elected arbitrator may be a reasonable justification for presuming the action is _probably_ on-target (most arbitrators seem to be quite clueful ;), the action is not "untouchable" and may be overturned by the same process a block by any project administrator would: through extensive consensus-building discussion.
 * Okay suppose Newyorkbrad blocks User:X "for great arbcom" because privacy issues prevent NYB from explaining the rationale. We would expect to see his fellow members make some kind of gesture (at their earliest convenience, if not sooner) to confirm that they for whatever reason came to the conclusion beforehand that User:X should be banned, drew straws and decided it was Brad's turn to do it.
 * However to the rest of us this would still be indistinguishable from a situation where none of his colleagues are willing to admit they are actually in post facto agreement to cover for a single arb-ronin who spoke too soon and possibly from his arse (on the basis that maintaining the appearance of stability is sometimes more important than making the right decision). I use NYB as an example here only because I don't believe he'd do that.
 * Even if they did "vote" on it somewhere off-site, we still have a right to know who participated, who supported it, and who opposed it, even if they are unable to explain their reasons (due once again to the privacy issues, which are infallibly to be leaked in due time, like it or not). The absence of this very basic information makes it difficult to decide who should or should not be re-elected (unless the default assumption is that nobody should be re-elected—which isn't entirely without merit). — CharlotteWebb 18:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't it seem a bit odd that we're discussing what policy should be at RFAR talk? Policymaking is the community's responsibility, not ArbCom's. The question that started this thread is whether arbitrators should notate their administrative actions when they act on the Committee's behalf. I agree that they should, and if there's a need to formalize that then we--the community--can add a few words to policy. We don't need to be over here tugging on anyone's sleeve for permission to write policy. Suggest closing this thread and moving discussion where it belongs: the policy talk pages. <font face="Verdana"> Durova Charge! 18:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you think it will make any difference, go right ahead. — CharlotteWebb 18:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar: decision adjustment.
For the public record, the final decision in SlimVirgin-Lar has been amended with the deletion of the "SlimVirgin's conduct" finding that was mistakenly passed by the case Clerk. (Background reading: the finding being deleted can be reviewed here.) My earlier comment seems to be prudent reading at this point:

There has been a clear metric miscalculation on the finding in question. With my thinking being that particular aspect of the SlimVirgin-Lar decision was at no point assented to by the Committee (as per this tally), I have deleted the finding from the SlimVirgin-Lar final decision.

Further to a number of Arbitrator abstentions on that particular proposal, the majority on that single proposal was adjusted downwards twice; evidently the clerk (understandably, I wish to note: I myself have came close to mistakenly including this proposal or that in a convoluted case) miscalculated as a result and included the proposal in the final decision.

This adjustment should be presumed to be in immediate effect. Apologies for the inconvenience to all.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK 21:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Pruned statements from Scientology section
Comment(s) taken from main RfAr page

Q: I have encountered User:Jossi as somebody, who does not take the crap from the usual anti-cult crowd, which -- just like pro-Scientology editors -- draws mainly on non-scientific sources to make their point (New York Times articles are almost the best either side can muster, Penthouse and Operation Clambake and similar crap are more frequently used, scientific articles, while not being argued away totally, are put en par w/ Scientology nonsense). Does that make Jossi an unsuitable Admin in this matter? Fossa <tt>?!</tt> 20:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed, no apparent relevance, in another user's statement.--Tznkai (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied at user talk. <font face="Verdana"> Durova Charge! 04:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by user:Peter Damian II
[Please note I am apparently not allowed to edit the main page of this article. Why is this please?]

First, I apologise for contributing to the confusion over what were the terms of my unblock. There were originally two versions of this: one was the 'enough rope to hang with' version originally proposed by Thatcher. This was the one I had thought had prevailed until tonight. I honestly did not notice the new 'terms' proposed on my very busy talk page when I came home last night. Why would I return to Wikipedia otherwise than to edit articles?

I am happy to return to editing on the condition that FT2 and I are able to tread entirely divergent paths. That was what I thought I had agreed with Thatcher earlier, anyway. That includes FT2 not leaving sanctimonious and patronising and self-praising messages on my talk page. It is my view that he is an unmitigated disaster for Wikipedia, but many other people are now beginning to see that, let them carry the torch, I shall step aside from the madness of Wikipedia politics.

I am not interested in a public debate with FT2, as I have already stated on my talk page. I just want him to avoid me entirely. That includes not banning good editors such as Headley (I am happy if Thatcher or some other disinterested admin can look after that matter). It also includes him not interfering with my work on articles related tangentially to linguistics such as Neurolinguistic programming. Can I simply point out my PhD is in a linguistics related area? Peter Damian II (talk) 10:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The main page is currently semiprotected due to vandalism. Your current account is not yet auto confirmed because it isn't old enough so you can't edit semi protected pages yet. I have moved your statement to the appropriate spot. Viridae Talk 10:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Viridae. Peter Damian II (talk) 10:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * FT2 has been editing Neuro-linguistic programming since 2004. If PD can show he's been editing it longer than that I suppose he might "claim" it. Otherwise it appears that FT2 got there first. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 17:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

FT2-Peter Damian
This is getting ridiculous. Having had his "excess length" statement removed, FT2 has now set about creating his own version of War and Peace in his user space. ArbCom need to either open a proper case for detailed evidence or ask the parties to restrain themselves - spreading the fight further afield is not going to help. In fact even if a full case had been opened, I doubt that FT2's screed would be considered acceptable for an evidence page - there are length limits there too. 92.39.200.36 (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That page, according to Microsoft Word, with all sections expanded, is 6800+ words in length. FT2 has no claim to the NLP articles, neither does Peter Damian. I like both of them, but this is gone past silly with the war between the two of them. Whatever FT2's beef with HeadeyDown, because some banned user tried to do x, which was decruft the NLP articles, doesn't mean no one else can now because it would be advocating some "banned" content position. There's no such thing as a "banned" content position. There's only our content policies.


 * I think there should just be at this point an enforced silence/recusal of FT2>Damian and Damian>FT2 on admin issues, RFAR issues, content issues, or any other issues and let's keep them both off of the NLP stuff by enforcement. If that happens, then we'll never see a single bit of this ever again. The first one to step over the line gets a reminder block. Sorry, guys.


 * That would be mutual peace, and then entirely neutral people can work on those articles. If the sock stuff from HeadeyDown is really so terrible, then any number of Arbs or Admins can keep him, himself, off of them. I can't even see how else this would be viable. They're both valuable contributors but are past the point of oil and water; they're napalm and white phosphorus to each other and both are acting completely over the top, but it's more FT2 of late. They should both be simply barred from even uttering anything about each other on-wiki or affecting each other for everyone's collective sanity.
 * Suggested proposal for the non-recused Arbs is here to accomplish this. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 19:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not involved nor do I want to be but I have to comment on this. This page is made by an arbitrator and it is wrong to allow this kind of page to continue.  There is enough drama going on all around.  We don't need an arbitrator to have a hate page set up to make a WP:POINT or anything else.  He is in a position of respect and power and people listen to arbitrators as they are the ones to have the last word.  Why would this page be allowed?  If a common everyday editor set something like this up the editor would be warned, blocked or banned.  Does this arbitrator have special priveldges to have a page like this and then link it to an arb page so that everyone can go and read all of what he has to say because it was deleted for being too long?  I'm sorry but I feel the rules should apply to everyone and that this page should receive an immediate speedy delete. I have been reading this and I am finding that having FT2 as an arb a bit scary that he would go so far as this.  I don't think this is what an arbitrator should be doing even if he is only acting as an administrator at the moment, he is wrong in his tactics. Sorry, I just had to say something, I'm gone now, please continue...-- Crohnie Gal  Talk  19:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Rootology, you and I have butted heads on occasion, so allow me to say I think you're right. For my own thought: this isn't about doing right for Peter or FT2 anymore - who knows if thats even possible. Its about doing right for the project and the rest of the community. We want peace.--Tznkai (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Amen! I agree with both of you, if that matters. It's time to find peace already. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  19:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Fairly obviously, the page concerned will be NOINDEXed and courtesy blanked on the close of this case, and the matter dropped. That should be obvious. But for the short duration of the case, it's in use to prepare evidence, as any user might. Asked to draft a shorter statement, I'm using userspace for the re-drafting on a present case -- which is correct use. The page did not exist before, and it will not be left there unblanked after. It was also not removed from the RFAR page because of any improper act in writing it, or anything wrong with the stated evidence, but merely because it was just too wordy.

I hope this reassures. FT2 (Talk 23:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I actually believe that you're acting in good faith here BUT this really is a case of 'if you want to get there (500 words) then you shouldn't start from here'. It's not going to happen. 92.39.200.36 (talk) 11:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Its a bit of a tricky issue. On the one hand, some people will believe there isn't evidence unless it's clearly provided. Citing the evidence of 5 misrepresented unblocks, evidencing co-editing with a known banned user, evidencing pov warring, and demonstrating the issue is serious enough to warrant an editing restriction, is not short. Especially with as much "smoke" as there has been, it requires point by point on the various examples, so that anyone who had doubts can easily check each event, and be sure any description or claim is "above board" and what it's founded on. Brevity and "evidencing the problem" conflict. This is the one process where if it's not evidenced, or it's just asserted unproven, it will not be considered. Writing as densely as I can will probably make it more confusing, but not a lot shorter. There's a lot to cover.


 * Rather than have to re-open this in future, I prefer "one time clears all" -- evidence the history once, thoroughly, to place it beyond doubt (to bystanders, arbitrators, cynics), and from then on it doesn't need evidencing again and we can all drop it, or at worst refer back to it via a link in any future case. I've ignored it mostly up till now. Asked once to document the current issues, let's do it properly, because after this statement, I don't want anyone to feel forced to look at any history on this, ever again, if at all possible. That's its job, to capture the historic evidenced issues related to Damian re-commencing his recent forms of editing and attacking, sum up his editing history and the warring that's gone on up till December 2008, get a considered view on it, get a suitable remedy and whatever restrictions the Committee feel will allow us all to move on, keep any decisions or promises made, and get on with more productive editing. To that end -- regardless of this case -- Damian has my open commitment to avoid him (subject to a couple of exclusions such as seeking formal dispute resolution), which he says he's happy with.


 * If you have advice on brevity, or any point made does not need evidencing and can be removed or handled differently, then I'll gladly accept it by email or otherwise. I'd like to keep it short. But given a lot of ground to cover, with a lot of claims and "smoke" to be thoroughly evidenced (not just "claimed via hearsay"), then demonstrating the behaviors point by point, with the detail in collapse boxes, seems to make it easiest on a reader. Any practical advice that would result in a shorter but "just as checkably evidenced" statement, would be appreciated - not averse to asking advice. FT2 (Talk 14:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

On Beback's claim
Just pointing out that the 'linguistics' in 'Neurolinguistic programming' is the same as the 'linguistics' in 'I [Peter Damian] have a linguistics-related degree'. If anyone is making content-related claims like this in an RFAR can they either back it up with a citation or state their own area of expertise? Peter Damian (talk) 10:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Obviously correct. To exclude expertise in linguistics from articles on NLP would be similar to excluding knowledge of physics from articles on cold fusion. 92.39.200.36 (talk) 10:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "Linguistics-related" is slippery. Having a degree in a topic "related" to X is not the same as being an expert in X. I have no doubt your degree may overlap in some areas and you may have specialist knowledge on some areas of linguistics. I do have doubt, from your posts, that you are any kind of "expert" on this topic.


 * If you did have expertise, and were interested in a positive productive contribution on the topic, you would show it, not just repeatedly have edit warred on it. FT2 (Talk 15:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

On the idea of an editing restriction
What some people are saying here, then, is that someone like me who has academic qualifications in a certain area and is concerned about claims of a pseudoscientific nature, cannot edit in that area because it would offend a powerful member of the Wikipedia administration? What happened to the basic ideals of this project, which I have been working on since the middle of 2003? Can I remind everyone I have never had a block for mainspace-related issues. All blocks have been 'political', including the current one. I will NEVER accept a content-related editing restriction. Happy never to mention FT2 on or off-site, happy that if he wants to include his pseudoscientific views on the project, then we handle it through a mediator. Not happy with a restriction. That is not negotiable. Peter Damian (talk) 10:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think that's what they're saying. I think what they're saying, rightly or wrongly, is that sometimes an acceptable solution to an entrenched dispute is to shut the disputants out of it and hope that other editors will clean up the mess. 92.39.200.36 (talk) 10:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would that be acceptable? You say 'sometimes an acceptable solution to an entrenched dispute is ...'.  Suppose FT2 had been heavily involved in cold fusion articles, and had (for example) been involved in blocking or banning qualified physicists from the article.  Why would that be acceptable?  For that is exactly what (I claim) has been going on here.  You cannot judge matters of verifiability and scientific judgment by behaviour alone, as though it were some kind of playground dispute.  That way lies madness.
 * Also to point out that that no edit war has taken place between FT2 and myself over the NLP article. He has not worked in this area for at least a year.  Thus I have not interacted with him at all.  See the talk page of the NLP article where the changes I made were discussed.  Follow the comments I made.  Does this look like the work of a virulent banned editor?  Note particularly the bit that begins "Great work on the article so far, Peter Damian! " made by (assuming from his contributions) an NLP supporter.  To be clear: FT2 does not want me editing these articles because he has a vested interest in them, and it upsets him someone is approaching them in a more scientific manner.  For that reason the suggestion of a topic ban is outrageous and untenable.  What if my work in linguistics articles takes me close to NLP-related areas?  Will I then be banned for saying something perfectly correct and authoritatively sourced and cited?  Simply because a powerful Wikipedia administrator would be upset?  Those who are putting forward this suggestion are simply not thinking the consequences through in a logical and rational manner.  Peter Damian (talk) 11:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Peter, imagine for a moment you could either accept a single content based editing restriction and get this all over with - or risk a different sort of editing restriction, one that doesn't allow you to edit at all. You can accelerate this whole mess going away, or you can spend your time protesting. How much do you want to get back to building an encyclopedia?--Tznkai (talk) 15:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Addendum: ":No, I don't think that's what they're saying. I think what they're saying, rightly or wrongly, is that sometimes an acceptable solution to an entrenched dispute is to shut the disputants out of it and hope that other editors will clean up the mess." Nail, head.--Tznkai (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said, that is not an acceptable solution. Quite happy to blank my page, leave the project, and continue the work I have begun with academics who are concerned about all sorts of conflict of interest in Wikipedia. Very happy.  Peter Damian (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Its not a proposed solution: it is a description of reality. Right now two things are true: you're restricted from article writing, and arbcom is slowly deliberating the possibility of you being invited to edit articles except NLP except interact with FT2. Barring ArbCom or someone else coming up with something brilliant and new, those are your choices - whatever you think is acceptable or otherwise (never mind what the REST of us think should be done). Right now you have a choice, you can accept the editing restriction with grace, and that may well push this along to resolution before the new year - or you can continue to protest, holding out for restriction free editing - all the while staying restricted until then.--Tznkai (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Then as you see I retire from editing. Can you please withdraw my application and RFAR.  Consider the matter closed.  If you had read my appeal it was quite clear that my reason for being on Wikipedia was to ensure academic neutrality, to support subject-matter experts, and to fight cruft and approaches to editing that were not based on science.  If so many of you are against these core beliefs of mine, I clearly have no place on the project.  You really fail to understand, don't you. Peter Damian (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To quote myself from else where "Wikipedia doesn't need you, and it doesn't need me." I can't speak for everyone, but I have no problem with people striving for increased knowledge neutrality, and cruft reduction - but you're not the only person to profess those beliefs. You're not a martyr Peter - you aren't being crucified for your beliefs. Your place here is largely up to you, you have the agency to effect the outcome - what have you chosen? You have chosen to give up, instead of to strive.--Tznkai (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't really understand why people are arguing so vehemently over something that no member of the Committee has actually chosen to propose or otherwise support. Rootology's ideas are Rootology's ideas, nothing more. Kirill (prof) 16:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize, I misspoke earlier - but right now the Committee has proposed restricting Peter Damian from interacting with FT2 at all, a motion that is one abstention or one support away from passing. This motion does bring up, inevitably, the question of who gets to edit what article, and Peter Damian would still be editing with a restriction. The thrust of my argument remains the same - Peter can continue to argue that the terms aren't good enough and not edit, or he can throw his support behind the motion or even Rootology's proposal in an effort to get this over and done with.--Tznkai (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Will one of the undecided Arbs please make a decision - we're all losing the will to live......--Joopercoopers (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A ban on commenting on another editor does not prohibit them from editing the same page. In the rare instances when the committee or a community discussion wishes to impose that restriction, it is done expressly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You've introduced the idea of a de facto ban, Brad, by posting that, "With regard to FT2's request for topic limitations ... this can be addressed should future editing indicate significant ongoing problems." This will make Peter reluctant to edit certain articles in case FT2 uses his interest to argue that nothing has changed. And yet Peter has a PhD in a subject directly relevant to some of the key issues here (e.g. NLP, pseudoscience), so nothing should be said that might discourage him from helping to clean up those articles. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 07:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * To reiterate what Kirill has said: no arbitrator has proposed or supported that idea. Brad is merely indicating that we will cross any bridges that may exist if and when we come to them. --bainer (talk) 08:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The motion doesn't just propose to ban commenting but also "interaction" : "Peter Damian and FT2 are directed not to interact with or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about each other on any page in Wikipedia." I have come across some odd perversions of the English language in common use on Wikipedia but if you're using "interact with" to mean "comment about" then you need to scrap your current dictionary and start over from scratch. In any event if the two mean the same thing then you shouldn't specify both as being prohibited - it can only confuse the issue. To suppose that "interaction" includes editing the same pages as each other is not a stretch at all. 92.39.200.36 (talk) 11:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Bainer, Kirill, Brad, you're all my bosses and I respect you all - but get a move on, get the rest of the Committee moving and do it now - and lets not get too cute about stated and unstated consequences. 1.1 Will lead to personal conflict over content edits - there ample examples of editor behavior to suggest that it will get personal and out of hand quickly. (Partisans can read responsibility in that statement as they prefer) The directive "not to interact with" is an invitation for well meaning and not so well meaning trigger happy administrators and cheerleaders filling up AN/I with the latest fight complete with a sideshow equine beating- which may well be inevitable - but lets not pretend that 1.1 doesn't open the door wide open for de facto topic bans. Our deliberations here are merely a preview of what could yet come.
 * Get this done, get this done now. As a Wikipedian, an administrator, and an Arbitration Committee clerk, I feel a duty to protect our processes from their failures, so let me be blunt. This situation must be resolved before the new Committee terms take effect. The impact of being asked to resolve a dispute involving a fellow Arbiter as the first order of business risks unraveling the working relationships within the Committee before they begin to form. Aside from being blatantly unfair and cruel, this situation will exaggerate the consequences any newbie mistakes by new Arbiters and the bad blood may well stain the Committee's reputation with the community for the entirety of the new Arbiters' terms: three years of already difficult work undercut by this Committee's failure to act. This request must be resolved - that need is paramount, perhaps even at the price of doing it "right" - because doing nothing is far more wrong. You have a responsibility: fufill it.--Tznkai (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Speaking as someone who might well be handed this very smelly fish wrapped in newspaper: Tznkai is entirely correct. I have spoken in the past of how the Arbitration Committee has set people up to fail. This time, it wouldn't just be the two disputants who are placed in an obviously untenable situation, though: failure of the current committee to act, and act effectively, will place the committee itself in a situation where there is no possible effective solution. Please do the right thing now. I know it isn't easy; it will be that much harder three weeks from now. Risker (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the people who are arguing that the restriction that Damian and FT2 are not to interact with each other must be interpreted as a topic restriction, or that it is a set up to failure, are well meaning but have no horse of their own in this race. "Comment on content, not the person" is advice that we give every editor every day; are you arguing that it is an impossible standard to meet generally, or only that one (or both) of these editors can not meet it personally?  And shouldn't the editors be given the chance to demonstrate for themselves whether they can or can not follow the ruling?   I would like to direct you particularly to SlimVirgin's most recent comment on FT2's edits to the NLP articles .  Is it your argument that the content comments made by SlimVirgin would be a violation of the unblock conditions if Damian made them?  If so, why? Thatcher 17:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My argument is that four members of the committee have not voted on the motion that was proposed on December 9th, despite all four of them being active on-wiki during the intervening time; only one has commented on this topic since the motion was put forth. An abstention, support, or declaration that they are inactive with respect to this matter from any one of them would resolve this matter. Even votes in opposition would at least confirm to the community and the disputants that the matter is being considered. (The same can be said of the other motions on the page, for that matter.) Editing restrictions are a moot point at this time; they aren't proposed. My concern is getting the remaining four members of the community to either voice an opinion or formally withdraw from consideration of this case. Risker (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (e/c)I suspect Risker was agreeing with the second part of my statement - the necessity of current committee acting before the next committee begins their term, which you do not seem to be agreeing or disagreeing with. As to the rest - 1.1' wording invites problems because of the particular users involved - and the peanut gallery of drama mongers and well meaning mandarins (I've been accused of the latter frequently, and the former a couple times myself) This is a specific instance where there are specific interaction problems - most users are able to comment in a cordial tone on the edits and not the editor - and yes, a section entitled "FT2's edits" is commenting on FT2, and as a side note the tone is counterproductive.--Tznkai (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "Is it your argument that the content comments made by SlimVirgin would be a violation of the unblock conditions if Damian made them?" Experience suggests the comments would be presented in a Request for Clarification in a few weeks. Then whatever arbs were interested would vote to ban, seemingly without regard to what the diff actually said. Tom Harrison Talk 22:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Proper RFAR please
Reasons


 * 1) The extraordinary attack that FT2 has made at Peter Damian arbitration evidence.  He has made accusations that I reneged on agreements made during my December 2007 block.  He should either withdraw these accusations, or they should be fully investigated.  Yet again, I am asking that the account given by User:WJBScribe should be presented as evidence.
 * 2) FT2 claims that the real issue is "Damian having a warrish content agenda", and  "Damian co-editing with a prior banned reincarnating and re-banned pov warrior, with similar agenda, banned for warring on the same identical topics".

Both these claims should be addressed by a new RFAR specifically designed for that purpose, i.e. to investigate whether I did renege on any agreement and whether I did in fact edit war over the NLP articles. Peter Damian (talk) 07:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If you refuse to edit under the restrictions currently proposed by the committee, as you suggested about a page above this, what's the point? Unless claiming you won't edit was purely a tactic and not meant seriously,  that is.  If you won't be back editing if placed under such a restriction, I personally don't care for letting you back into Wikipedia purely to argue. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 13:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not believe Damian objects to the currently worded restrictions (motion 1.1), but to the suggestion that a topic ban should be added. Since a topic ban has been proposed and discussed by some non-arbitrators and has not been proposed as an alternative motion, there does not seem to be much reason to get worked up over it now. Thatcher 15:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I concur with Thatcher; the issue on the table now is Motion 1.1, and that is where the focus needs to lie. Nobody with a vote in this matter has proposed a topic ban on either of the disputants. Risker (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Peter hasn't disagreed to not interacting with FT2, and was supportive of that. It was me that specifically posted a suggestion that they be completely cut off from each other, since given the tremendously mutual bad blood here, it's unrealistic to expect them to have anything to do with each other as far as process goes. It goes obviously without saying already that on any administrative or Arb process that FT2 has to abstain, given the massive COI inherent in it (and vice versa), and I suggested the kernel of that since theres no other realistic way that I could see mutual peace from the peanut gallery. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 19:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Way ahead of you there, rootology. You'll find despite all the past, not one instance anywhere, any time, of me acting with admin tools or "as an arbitrator or admin" with respect to Peter Damian, and very few of the instances where others acted, that I felt drawn to contribute even a word to the discussion in any way. When I said I've ignored him, I meant it, thoroughly and almost completely. I've ignored.


 * When his case came to Arbcom in May, I went so far as a stand-up argument with one arbitrator to advocate for Damian's right to be heard by the committee without myself being copied into the discussion. (The other felt that simple non-participation was enough; knowing Damian's concerns I disagreed it was sufficient.) I've endorsed (more than once) his wish for a public hearing, despite the disruption it would cause, in order that he can feel he was fairly heard. Enough evidence?


 * As I've said in the past, and affirm now, if Damian lets it be history, it's history; I don't carry grudges. This may have been life and death to Damian; it wasn't to me. He is entitled to his "take" on it, privately. He's just not entitled to act up from it, and has been doing so. It is time regardless, that these activities were called to a halt, because it's both disruptive to the project and community, and not that pleasant for me as an editor either.


 * I've given my commitment, both in actual evidenced behavior this entire year, and in words, to avoid all involvement with minor exceptions (a few past direct questions asked of me, and dispute resolution etc). That commitment will be kept. By contrast Damian's evidenced as breaking almost every commitment he made the last year, and continued to push this one constantly since 2007 right up to this week. Even despite that I'm not engaging him, he has repeatedly sought to engage me both on and off wiki. What he hasn't done, even once, is keep his word to just plain avoid disruptive or other promised-to-be-dropped-to-get-unbloked activity. Leave you with that thought. FT2 (Talk 21:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please redact the remark about 'breaking every commitment'. As I have asked before, could someone ask User:WJBScribe to publish the account he gave of the Dec 2007 block.  This makes it quite clear on which side the promises were broken, and makes quite clear the connection between the 'oversighted edits' and my inability to engage with the terms of the block.  Note that FT2 has still not answered the question posed by SlimV: "I ask you most sincerely to answer the question of whether your statement of July 4, 2008 was true, namely whether that was the first time you'd heard of the oversighting, during the 2007 ArbCom election, of your early edits. " How much longer do we have to tolerate this lying and evasion and obfuscation.  Yes, lying and evasion and obfuscation.  Peter Damian (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

pester power?
all wiki editors are, of course, empowered to at least try to pull on our arbitrator's skirts for attention. I'd encourage all those who'd like the 4 3 remaining active arb.s to comment on this matter to drop a quick 'please act' note on their talk page. It's been my observation that this actually works pretty well :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm certain they have better things to do than to listen to their little subjects begging them to do the job they were voted in for.  Majorly  talk  23:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ah don't be too cynical, Majorly ;-) - lets just hope this gets sorted pretty quick Privatemusings (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have supported motion 1.1 offered by Kirill as written. I do not read it as any sort of a topic-ban on either editor, although it does suggest that they must do their best to avoid unnecessary interactions. Reading the thread above, I suppose that it would be possible to present a slightly more clear wording of the motion, but this would require the voting to start over again, compounding the inordinate delay in voting on this motion that has already occurred. If in the future someone thought topic bans were needed on one or the other or both of the editors involved, this request could be presented through the usual dispute resolution procedures or, in light of the circumstances, directly to an RfAr. My hope is that such procedures would not become necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * one down, three to go :-) - jp voted. Privatemusings (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But not, I fear, on the Matthew Hoffman appeal, which has been up for a month, not just a week. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser and Oversight accountability
I have an essay on the topic of Checkuser and Oversight accountability and transparency posted at User:Thatcher/Quis custodiet ipsos custodes. Thatcher 04:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi case
Taking this wheel war to arbitration won't work. Every arbitrator is involved and would have to recuse. 140.247.42.142 (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I was thinking the same thing myself. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Pondering, but for a loose analogy, see the discussion of the "rule of necessity" at recusal (disclosure: I wrote it). Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't get to declare war on the constitutional supreme judges, and then demand that someone other than those judges hear your case.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If a full case will be opened, then I think that waiting for the new group of arbitrators is reasonable enough, although it will be a tough initiation for the new ones. But I also don't see why more than just a motion and a vote is needed here. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 23:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Back in the bad old days one just grabbed a steward and had done with it. Seriously though--if you want to overturn the Committee, run for it. The community can kvetch about the actions of the committee all it likes, but this is the committee it voted for. Mackensen (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The performance of current arbs at the recent election might give a better idea of where the community stands at present, though.  Black Kite  23:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No it did not. Jimbo appointed this committee, not the community. Saying "run for it" as a solution, is of course foolish. Besides, the community is not the same as it was in 2006/2007, and people change, both the voters and the electees. We are no longer satisfied with the poor behavior of the Committee's members - expecting people to behave impeccably for three years is stupid. But then again, I'm trying to argue with a well-known fan of ArbCom, and a former member - what do I know, being a mere subject of The Committee?
 * I agree with Black Kite. Funny how Mackensen supported all the ex-arbs who were running, despite their complete incompetence. Thank goodness it's not up to the Committee to decide who replaces Them.  Majorly  talk  23:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I also supported a number of other people, including Risker, who is by no stretch associated with the status quo. For that matter, I voted for Giano last year. Cabalist indeed. How my preferences have any relation to this I can't fathom, save your inability to spare the personal. If you're so fed up with a system that hasn't rewarded you in the manner you believe you are due than why don't you just storm off in a huff?
 * Moving right along, it is true that Jimbo appointed based on the results. This is a fine point. Of course, over the past few elections these appointments have been in line with the results. If Majorly would explain how the community's will was thwarted I'm all ears. Now, to answer Black Kite's point, there's an important principle at stake here. The committee is the last resort. For it to function at all it must have the expectation that its decisions, harebrained or no, will be respected. Otherwise its function is purely advisory and it should be abolished. We'll leave it to administrators to fight it out amongst themselves. I do not expect good results from such a system. Mackensen (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand. I'm not here for a reward. I have not been affected by ArbCom, though I have felt some of the incompetence reflect on editors I respect. Instead of trying to fix the system, you want me to storm off in a huff? Perhaps you should leave instead, we have enough arbcom brown-nosers around here. And a final point, I have not said anything about the community's "will" being thwarted. However, the community have changed their minds, and there's nothing they can do about it. Theoretical situation: suppose FT2 is brought before ArbCom with the request he be removed from the committee. Can you fathom it actually happening? Remember the David Gerard case? ArbCom are well-known to be biased towards their friends and own members. There is nothing we as a community can do to remove arbcom members who no longer have the trust of the community. Just look at the scores for Charles and James in the elections. They were well trusted weren't they.  Majorly  talk  23:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I think I understand perfectly. Mackensen (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * An interesting observation from all this is that arbitrators should avoid enforcing their own decisions. It would be far better to have the Committee type up a resolution, vote in public, and then ask a clerk to place any necessary blocks.  I think this would improve decorum and avoid the personalization of disputes. Jehochman Talk 00:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. Currently it simply looks like retaliation.  Majorly  talk  00:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, a very good point, and I suspect the reason the committee by tradition relies on administrators to enforce decisions (via the enforcement mechanism). In this case I think the concern was that no administrator could make it stick, nullifying the decision. Now, what happens when someone wheel-wars with the clerk, carrying out arbcom's request? Is the clerk a named party, or acting officially? Is therefore arbcom a party? Ultimately, as I said above, it comes down whether the committee's decisions stand, idiot (to some) or no. Constitutionally I prefer that the committee have ultimate authority; if that makes me a "brown noser" so be it. The alternative is chaotic and unproductive. Mackensen (talk) 00:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If a block cannot stick (assuming there is agreement for it not sticking), perhaps that shows that the block was probably a poor one. I think you sometimes forget that this is a website, not a medieval monarchy. One day, the community will eventually abolish arbcom as unwanted, and that will be the day that chaos and unproductiveness ends. Just look at the mess caused by FT2 and Charles Matthews today.  Majorly  talk  00:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think I could ever forget this is a website--not with days like this ;). I think you've got things the wrong way round--the assumption that this is all or mostly the committee's fault is not one that I share, but it's not worth arguing over. Mackensen (talk) 00:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The "mess"? Compare a one hour time-limited block that completely killed an incipient and historically likely wheel war and multi-way battling, with the example of the RFAR/IRC case of last January that shows how it can easily get.

This block worked exactly as it should have. It protected the project from a high risk of serious disruption by seasoned users (I don't count the few posts of today as "serious" or "disruptive"), other users who might have been dragged in and then ended up parties in a 2 month case were not dragged, the damage to arbitration process was averted (and this meant other wars have probably been prevented), and everyone went right back and decided that talk page dialog and dispute resolution was exactly what they had meant to do all the time. The block was reversed as soon as there was no risk, about an hour and a half later. FT2 (Talk 06:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

There is something I don't get here: so far, only one arbitrator has accepted the case, with seven either recusing or declining, but an Arb went ahead and nevertheless posted a motion. Furthermore, an Arb who previously declined to take the case has voted on the motion. This to me lacks any kind of logic or proper process.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You're making the common mistake of expecting arbitrators to behave rationally and ethically. DuncanHill (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you think any arbitrator realizes that this is exactly the kind of behaviour which undermines their credibility? If a majority of Arbs either decline or recuse - don't start making motions. If you decline a case -- don't vote on a motion. It's simple, no?--Ramdrake (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Credibility only matters to those with accountability. Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Let me explain. The RFArb was to open a full case which all of us but one person declined. As an alternative, we are making a motion to address the issue, promptly. As well, Giano has been unblocked now. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 17:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * So not having a case but jumping straight to sanctions is better in what way? DuncanHill (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Flo, my understanding of decline is that there should be no case, so no motions. Unless specified (decline a full case, but open to motions), I would interpret a vote to decline as the arbitrator unwilling to entertain any arbitration action based on the case's merits. When a judge refuses to hear a case, he doesn't impose a sanction just because he thinks the action needs to be addressed, but doesn't deem it sufficiently important to have a court case. The same should be true of arbitration cases: if they're rejected, reject them. If you think a motion is necessary, open a motion under a preceding case. That way, nobody will think ArbCom is taking shortcuts it shouldn't take.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I get the point that you are making. I'm coming from the place of knowing that more than one arb was suggesting a temporary desysop of Moreschi was the correct way to deal with the situation. I did not agree that a desysop was needed. This motion is being proposed on site as an alternative to the desysop. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 18:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * So what you're saying (and Deskana's comment seems to bear this out as well) is that the committee might well have voted not to take the case, and then voted in secret to desysop Moreschi?Woonpton (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Might have, yes. But it didn't. The discussion and voting has moved on wiki and that is goodness. :-) FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 19:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Bad Process
I'd like to commend Bainer and the committee for commuting Giano's term, but why are the committee now discussing entirely in secret and only emerging to act? Open process confers many advantages, one of which is public voting record - I can appreciate there are cases which must be deliberated in private, but I can see no good reason why voting can't be on wiki. Please reform this bad practice or at least explain its necessity. --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree in general. But in this instance it would have taken longer to implement the unblock if it was voted on site. We wanted to get it done at the 24 hour mark rather than hold up for an on site vote, okay? FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 17:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A motion to reduce a block would hardly be efficacious if the time taken to pass it exceeded the block length. --bainer (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see why voting on the site would have necessarily be slower than writing e-mails. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Because from yesterday at the time of the extension, we already had 5 arbs not wanting the extension. Later we had 2 more arbs agree to an unblock at 24 hours. To have all these arbs re-vote on site would delay the unblock past the 24 hours. Does that make sense? FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 17:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe they're all using Blackberries. Thatcher 17:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not all of us, but yes, e-mail is a much more always-on medium than the wiki. James F. (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * At least one arbitrator should be available to post the text of a motion and indicate who voted in favor via email. Those voters can add their remarks and signature later if they choose. Jehochman Talk 19:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, well if we're going to have more of these adhoc votes, may we put them somewhere central to refer to rather than on various user's talk pages? Thanks. --Joopercoopers (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And this after the action was taken and Moreschi had stated his defence was in part that a slim majority was not consensus (regardless of the debate re consensus vs majority) is very bad practice indeed. May we have definitive votes by individual arbs on wiki please rather than one member attempting to represent you all.
 * Can we now get a speedy conclusion to Peter Damians clarification, by similar expedite means?--Joopercoopers (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is my desire, indeed. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 17:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * All of it? --Joopercoopers (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

A review of Rex v. Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy may be in order.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * After the hideous cock-up (to put it as kindly as possible) of the OM !case, do the arbitrators understand why some of us find it hard to trust the "oh we emailed each other and this is the decision" method of arbitration? DuncanHill (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I hear you, Duncan Hill. We listed the names of the arbs supporting the block and unblock on Giano's talk page. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 18:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * After 45 minutes and an objection from an arbitrator, yes, an incomplete & un-timestamped list was posted. DuncanHill (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Appointments
The new arbitrators have now been appointed; Jimbo has said it's up to the ArbCom itself to decide when those appointments should take effect. I would like to see the new arbitrators start immediately; given the present call for change from the community (and even Jimbo himself!), it seems as though that would be more appropriate than unnecessarily waiting another 11 days. Everyking (talk) 03:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, those few days will allow us to get our bearings; I'm not sure I'd be ready to do a good job instantly without taking in some background and getting settled in a bit. I have no objection to having Jimbo declare us active now, but realistically you wouldn't expect much activity from any of us before a week or two anyways.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 04:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm kinda thinking it would be nice to let the new folks take their time and enjoy the holidays (if they celebrate them). // roux <span style="border:1px solid #614051;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;color:#614051;">  04:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We're breaking in now, come 1 Jan we're full voting members. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 04:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

In this context, I'm not exactly sure what it means to get broken in or settled in. Does that mean reading the mailing list, being informed of things in private? Does it mean reading up on old cases? I think anyone who stood in the election should already be adequately informed to do the job and I see no basis for a delay. There are things that need to be dealt with and a leisurely pace just isn't suitable. Everyking (talk) 04:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well there are some perfunctory functions to be handled, such as identification to the foundation, registration on the mailing-list and arb-wiki, granting of the privacy userrights (CU and O),as well as I assume learning how process is handled on the mailing-list and arb-wiki (I'm praying there is process there).  MBisanz  talk 04:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Mailing list registration takes what, a minute? And not everyone is granted CU/OS rights, unless things have changed. That can be discussed after they start their work, surely? Identification may take a little longer. I do agree with Roux that starting after the holidays would probably work better for most.  Majorly  talk  12:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * We were added to the mailing lists in minutes. Wiki registration in, oh, an hour or so. ID to the foundation time varies, though Jayvdb and I are already ID'd as I'm a CU and he an OS. Then there is some internal stuff to learn, but that's not too daunting. Traditional official start date is 1 Jan for things like voting. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 12:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, so there are a few paperwork-type things to be handled; yes, they do take an hour or two to do, at most. There is still lots of adjusting to do. I'm happy giving the new members until 1 January to settle in.
 * As an extension to this sentiment, the Committee will not be accepting new requests until 1 January. Cf., notice on WP:RfAr.
 * AGK 21:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I had a wikibreak scheduled (but not announced) for this week (over Christmas). I've already said as much to the rest of the Committee (that I'm taking a break this week), but am aiming to get up to speed after Christmas (i.e. 26th or 27th onwards) and then start in January. I would have been making preparations earlier, but it wasn't clear to me until earlier this week (and not for certain until yesterday with Jimbo's announcement) that I (and some of the others) would be appointed (it was, to some extent, different for those who finished in the top seven). So things have been in limbo for a week or so (I was also recovering from the election, but that's another story). Carcharoth (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

All right, I can see that there are some valid reasons for waiting, and the holiday issue was something I failed to appreciate. The notice below stating that RfAr will be "frozen" in the meantime eases my concerns. Everyking (talk) 10:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Requesting clerk action
Jehochman is including threaded discussion in my comment. This is expressly prhoibited in the rules of this page Arbitration_guide - "You should respond to others' points by adding brief notes in your own statement: 'In response to the statement by User X, '."

This is as an alternative to replying directly to that user in the section of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration thread in which he or she made the comment. If you comment in another user's section, the committee clerks will more than likely move your comment and refactor it as necessary."

Insertion: Removal: Reinsertion: With added edit-comment threat:

I appreciate your prompt attention. DepartedUser (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I request that DepartedUser refactor their remarks to remove personal attacks and hidden comments containing personal attacks. When falsities and attacks on my reputation are posted, I reserve the right to respond at the same location so that my response may be seen. Jehochman Talk 14:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is quite true, unfortunately, that posting responses to other editors outwith your own section is discouraged. Each Arbitrator undertakes a full evaluation of the Request—as does, I would hope, each reader; I wouldn't worry too much about defending your reputation, Jonathan.
 * Having said that, I would discourage you, DepartedUser, from slinging mud at your fellow editor's reputation. Say what you need to say, and no more; avoid bringing personal grudges into threads.
 * "Be professional" is the golden rule. AGK 13:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no personal grudge against Mr. Hochman. I would appreciate his comment being removed from my section. He was welcome - in fact, invited, to contact me on my talk page at any time to seek redress - he chose not to. I did everything possible to adress his concerns. My dismay that he was, at best, confusing in his responses to others who wished SA would take back what he had already taken back is not a "personal grudge," nor is it "slinging mud." Please remove Mr. Hochman's statements from my section. Thank you for your attention. Hipocrite (talk) 14:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As it stands, this case is in regards to fringe science topics and user:ScienceApologist, not user:Jehochman. Dragging out the welcome mat for old topics that bear no relevance to this case, except to only enhance potential drama or stir the pot, is discouraged. I am calling that you please refactor your comment to remove those said remarks and to stick with the topic at-hand. <font color="#CC0000">seicer &#x007C; <font color="#669900">talk  &#x007C; <font color="#669900">contribs  14:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * My topic is not "old" - it is an important fact about the dispute that was the immediate precipitating effect of this request. Calling for others to refactor their comments is fine - engaging in threaded discussion on an arbitration page is not. My statement, and the evidence I plan to introduce will show that administrators who pretend to be "uninvolved," fail to adhere to basic standards of fairness after they have picked a "side," and that said side-picking has negatively impacted scientific articles on the encyclopedia - and, repeated here, by you, negatively impacts the fairness of arbitration pages. Hipocrite (talk) 20:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I will move my response if Hipocrite refactors theirs, or if a clerk does so. It is not acceptable to call another editor dishonest.  It is a personal attack. Jehochman Talk 15:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That word no longer appears in my statement. If you had made your concerns clear on my talk page, it would have been removed much earlier. Hipocrite (talk) 20:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This lack of transparency throws Jehochman into disrepute. Substituting one personal attack for another does not impress me. Jehochman Talk 20:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Jonathan, what wording do you propose Hipocrite uses that communicates his point without being unnecessarily harsh? The nature of the point he is making makes it nigh impossible to sculpt wording that will not offend you. I propose we allow the statement to stand in its current iteration, and rest assured that the validity of it will be decided by the Committee in due course—one way or the other. (I make no comment on my opinion of the validity, beyond noting that I think Jehochman to be—from my experience of his work and my interactions with him—a solid administrator and contributor.) AGK 21:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * AGK, I disagree with your assertion that a point cannot be made without a personal attack. Just delete the statement throws Jehochman into disrepute and I do not see that anything is lost. Jehochman Talk 21:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That doesn't really resolve anything. I think what you're looking for is for Hipocrite to water down his point to the stage where he fails to really say anything of substance. Let's draw the line somewhere and grow some thicker skin; as I said, his assertion's validity will be adjudged quite soon.… AGK 21:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Disturbing violation of WP:OWN
I'm disturbed by the following comment, by a new arbitrator:

"As a matter of fact, the Arbitration committee does WP:OWN the RFAr, Arbitration and case pages. Editors at large are not allowed to edit them except in the manner prescribed by the Committee. Coren

Is it therefore true that ArbCom are allowed to violate an important Wikipedia policy? I did not realise the ArbCom were above, and different from the rest of the community. ArbCom should be following all policies, not picking and choosing what suits them.  Majorly  talk  18:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Um, there has to be transparency for them to do some of their job. For example, if they cannot exclude people from editing the proposed decisions page, it would be a mess. Remember, there's a reason why the RFAR pages is not in the main article space-- it's meant to be administrative. It's like arguing that the foundations shouldn't own the meta pages. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 18:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * But it's still violating a policy all the same...  Majorly  talk  18:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In that regard, you can say that because they have an opinion to come across the final decision, all the case pages are not NPOV... Somewhere along that line, housekeeping has to be able to occur. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 18:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Not really, because NPOV applies only to article space.  Majorly  talk  18:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * RfAr pages also don't qualify under any of the following: categories, templates, articles, images, essays, or portals. (taken from WP:OWN) - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 19:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * But they do, from the "nutshell": "This page in a nutshell: You do not own articles (nor templates and other features of Wikipedia)." I count such pages as other features of Wikipedia.  Majorly  talk  19:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Going to make a friendly joke: "Wikipedia, featuring an Arbitration Committee!". Seriously, though, I don't think you want to make controversial things "features". - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 19:10, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) It's only a policy violation when extending the policy beyond its intended reach and taking things out of context, in my opinion. To the contrary of your point, there have been many complaints about ArbCom not asserting enough ownership, for example by not being more aggressive in managing case page soapboxing. It's a standing (and fairly uncontroversial) tradition that ArbCom "owns" the arbitration pages. It's also a widely accepted point that only ArbCom (and clerks acting on their behalf) should alter closed cases and make other typically AC-only edits. That said, there is a clear demand from the community that case and request pages remain open to community comments, but that's quite another animal from demanding community ownership of the pages or denying ArbCom ownership of them. Vassyana (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Majorly, I don't understand the implications of the point you are making. Are you suggesting that if (for example) I post a workshop proposal or a proposed decision, that anyone should be allowed to edit it? Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not really trying to make a point. It just struck me as odd that arbcom were knowingly violating a policy on the case pages. If it's accepted practice, then I guess I'll have to live with that.  Majorly  talk  19:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This has been debated several times; I'll pull old discussion links in a moment for exemplification. The viewpoint is yes, it's not ideal for the Committee to "own" Wikipedia pages; but it's a necessary evil, to allow smooth ticking over of the process. (The value of the Arbitration process itself is a separate debate.) AGK 20:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The Committee does not "own" the pages, though there are certain community norms that we follow, such as not editing other people's comments. I think that the list at WP:CLERK is a good thing to have, to try and clarify which changes are best left for clerks.  However, I'm getting increasingly uncomfortable here with the attitude I'm seeing from some of the arb staff that all arbitration pages are "arb-only", and that other editors are somehow breaking a rule by even going in to make typo fixes or minor changes.  Now, if I made a change somewhere, and a clerk reverted me because the arbs preferred the text in a different format, that's fine, I would respect the change and would not revert.  But if I made a change, and a clerk reverted me simply because I wasn't "allowed" to make the change (and then the clerk went in and made the exact same change themselves a few minutes later), then that would be getting a bit bizarre. --Elonka 21:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "if I made a change, and a clerk reverted me simply because I wasn't "allowed" to make the change (and then the clerk went in and made the exact same change themselves a few minutes later), then that would be getting a bit bizarre".
 * Agreed; if you had been an acute source of bother for several months, however, and by making such an edit you gave the appearance of being an appointed clerk (and, in doing so, caused confusion for third party editors), then the revert would be warranted. (As it was in Ncm.'s case.)
 * The Committee does not own the pages, no, and I'm not inclined to start exploring the technicalities and principles of that topic. The Committee does, however, essentially have control over what happens on those pages—a necessary evil. It rarely exercises that control, of course—and rightfully so—but it does have a final say simply because it is elected by us to Arbitrate, and needs that control in order to do the job.
 * AGK 22:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * AGK, what I think you may be missing here, is that the problem isn't with the arbitrators owning the pages, it's with the attitude of the clerks. Or let me put it another way:  If I had made the most recent change that Ncmvocalist had made, would people still be up in arms?  If not, then it would seem that the issue here may not be an issue of ownership, but a conflict that has become personalized between some of the clerks and Ncmvocalist, such that any edit that Ncmvocalist is making, may be rubbing some clerks the wrong way, simply because it's Ncmvocalist making the change, and not because it's a bad change.  Now, I agree that some things that Ncmvocalist did in the past were still questionable:  Editing other people's comments, edit-warring on an arb template, etc.  But I get the feeling that because there was bad blood from the past, that a few of the clerks were sort of waiting for Ncmvocalist to "spit on the sidewalk" just so they could lower the boom.  Or let me try and phrase it another way:  If Ncmvocalist did something that would have been inappropriate no matter who did it, then sure, a ban may be the proper choice.  But if he did something which would have been okay for other editors to do, but Ncmvocalist got yelled at simply because he's Ncmvocalist, then that's a different kind of problem, and I don't think that a ban is necessarily the proper course of action there. --Elonka 02:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not missing anything here. Every "clerky" edit Ncmvocalist makes adds to the likelihood that an editor may mistake him to be a clerk. Case in point for why that's a bad thing: in the Geogre-William M. Connolley case, the ArbCom passed a decision that remanded the issue of how to resolve Giano's conduct problems to the general community; Ncm., who had been making a number of edits that were technically supposed to be left to the clerks, proceeded to initiate a thread on ANI that proposed a ban of Giano; due to the image that Ncm. had acquired&mdash;of being an official and appointed clerk&mdash;he was mistaken to be acting on behalf of the committee, and subsequently caused a lot of confusion. To me, the clear way of resolving that problem is to gently guide Ncm. away from acting as a clerk. He has repeatedly, and over a long period of time, refused to honour that request. The ban is a way of neutralizing this problem.


 * I am rarely a fan of bans -- I doubt many contributors are -- and I especially dislike bans of any type of established contributors. Ncm. is obviously established, and, furthermore, is a helpful contributor; his record in areas other than clerking are a testament to that (and, indeed, each individual edit he makes to "clerk pages" have been, if we analyze in a vacuum, constructive and productive -- that was my thinking behind leaving him this message, in fact). It's become such a problem, in fact, that something has had to be done; ultimately, the committee has had to step in because the clerks' office is reluctant to overstep the mark and give the appearance of trying to 'shunt out' an editor who has been irked at it in the past.


 * Further point of observation: the clerks are certainly not on a personal vendetta against Ncmvocalist, and nor are they on any kind of ownership campaign. In fact, each clerk I have worked with, I can safely say, level-headed, here for the benefit of the project, and exceptionally professional -- in other words, not the type of people to be petty enough to stop otherwise constructive edits because they "aren't allowed.")


 * The issue here isn't with personal vendettas, and nor with needless bureaucracy. The problem with Ncm.'s edits is with their cumulative effect; see above for exemplification.


 * Hopefully this sheds some light on a matter that remains somewhat shady [from my view in this incident, at least]. AGK 23:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So are you saying Ncm is not a clerk? That's a big surprise to me. Is there an official list of Arbcom clerks somewhere? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * He is not, see WP:AC/C <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 00:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK. How about we link this list on WP:RFAR, to avoid confusion? And maybe a list of Arbcom members? I see now that you can eventually get to both if you drill down through the links embedded in the text, but maybe a little informative header would be helpful to those of us who are a little dense about these things... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Added both to the header, right above "prior steps". <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 00:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting how this policy cited as violated nowhere discusses project (Wikipedia:) space; even taking the time to enumerate the pages where it does apply (the astute reader will notice arbitration pages are not part of that enumeration). The proposed decision page, however, does read "Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page."  &mdash; Coren (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Coren. The policy that Majorly said was being broken is called "ownership of articles". An editor has a certain degree of ownership over the editor's own signed talk page comments, for example, and to a lesser extent over their own talk pages.
 * It's my understanding per this incident: 1 2 that essays are written by one editor or by all editors, not by limited groups of editors. However, Arbcom pages are not essays.
 * It makes a difference who makes an edit. For example, if there's something inappropriate in a talk page comment, usually one asks the author of the comment to change it.  Clerks are asked to do certain things because they're uninvolved and knowledgeable about procedures. I agree with Arbcom generally deciding how certain parts of certain Arbcom pages are organized, with reasonable opportunity for the community to present comments on the cases. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 17:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Blanked case cited in policy article
This arbitration case is linked to from the sockpuppet policy page, but the former has been blanked by the committee. An (admittedly very cursory) glance at the history seems to show Vanished user's name as having already been redacted in the last non-blanked revision of the page; are you sure blanking the case is necessary? If so, would it be possible to unblank just the Principles, since they are referred to on the policy page and do not mention the Vanished user? Or should mention of the case be removed from the policy page? TotientDragooned (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no particular need to link the case, in my opinion; one might just as easily simply have the name in a footnote.
 * (As a practical matter, given that the current state of the case pages was established as a formal decision by motion, no change from it will be done without a further motion; and, given how controversial the first motion was, I wouldn't hold my breath for another.) Kirill 03:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Sorry I missed this when it was on my talk. I don't see an issue with putting just the principles back in. Leaving here for others to comment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, no. There is no need for a footnote, or a need to unblank part of a case, especially for decisions that were declared as poor and stupid by the wider community. The Committee will make whatever findings it wants. While the community may allow formalizing certain ideas presented by ArbCom, Committee votes do not become authoratative, or reliable, on precisely how the community looks at an issue, or on what they think of the case as a whole. The changes made to your original version of WP:NPLT was evidence of that.


 * The footnote reference to the Hoffman case has since been removed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm? I'm not sure what footnote you're referring to, but the link to the case is still there: third paragraph of Sock_puppetry ("While precocious editing skills...") TotientDragooned (talk) 06:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems I went right past it when getting rid of another case - it's done now. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Clerk removal of discussion here
I have to say, removal by a clerk of an entire discussion thread here because they felt some of it could go to user talk was inappropriate. It's really a bit worrying that what we can and can't discuss about arbitration is going to be controlled by clerks in a more heavy handed way than it used to. --Barberio (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * For those, like me, who dislike having to wade through edit histories to find out what has happened, the removal was done here []. DuncanHill (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration_Committee/CheckUser_and_Oversight_appointments
I would like to give a personal note that I think the use of consultation processes like this is a very good measure by the arbitration committee, and goes a long way towards improving the wiki. This is a very good addition to the ArbCom tool box, and I hope to see it's use in future policy related disputes. --Barberio (talk) 04:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Please create a sub-page for each request
Please create a sub-page for each request. That will make it easier to monitor the progress of a request via watchlist and 'history'. Lightmouse (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand
Regardless of the current problems with the article, I think we can all agree that Ayn Rand was an eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fail. <font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Syn <font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">ergy 01:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Facepalm3.svg|15px]] Facepalm. BJ Talk 01:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That was a typo for 22nd-century, right? --NE2 01:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I'm afraid not; anybody who wants what I would consider a more accurate description should contact me elsewhere. I'll agree on Russian-American, though. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, this is indisputable! --MZMcBride (talk) 22:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

tallies
Currently tallies are a slash separated list inside the section heading. I assume that they are in the section header so that they appear in the TOC, however they change often, which means the automatic section links in the history usually dont work.

In order to make it easier for everyone to understand what the tally refers to, maybe we could use a template instead. e.g.

I also think it would be better to place this tally underneath the section header, but I can see the value of having it in the TOC. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea! I frequently have to scroll to align the tallys with the positions; I cannot possibly be the only one. KillerChihuahua?!? 09:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, it is confusing not to actually say what the numbers mean. DuncanHill (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Great idea. Further, I think a review of the section headings used, generally, might be productive. I often try clicking on the -> for a section heading in my watchlist only to find that it takes me to the first of several with the same name, or whatever... perhaps some scheme where all heads carry unique prefixes might be helpful. (case numbers? shudder. But you get the idea) ++Lar: t/c 20:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, something like that would be good too - would also be helpful in watchlist to know which case was being commented or voted on. DuncanHill (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In a perfect world there wouldn't be enough cases for it to matter - but alas we live in this one. I've taken to referring to each case by shorthand as part of my edit summaries when I comment in cases -especially within clerknotes if I remember. The arb and the clerk sections could easily be retitled by a clerk as Casename:Clerk notes Casename:Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (whatever we do with the arb tallies). As far as statements go though, if the same user is commenting in too many cases to easily find out where they are, that may not be a problem we can fix with formatting.--Tznkai (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

(after an edit conflict) proposed wording of guideline thingy
In the recent comments, the arbs have said the wording of this should be clearer/stronger to remind users to be civil.

I suggest:-

Any help to make it more concise and any other suggestions would be great.:) <font color="#FF8C00">Sticky  <font color="#FF8C00">Parkin  22:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Typo in second section - good start though. I'll propose alternate (stronger) wording until we get the right mix of "helpful" and "stern".--Tznkai (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * typos fixed I think:) <font color="#FF8C00">Sticky  <font color="#FF8C00">Parkin  23:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I can never remember where to find the Mediawiki page for those edit notices. Where is that one? Carcharoth (talk) 15:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This one ? MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details. DuncanHill (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the one for the pretty coloured notice that it is being proposed to change. The one quoted up above. Carcharoth (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, back, it was mainly on someone's userpage, though I think it's a mediawiki thing too. One of the places it was was here. User:AGK/A.  It seems to have been removed entirely from the RFAR page now?  Am I just not spotting it?  Someone must've removed it from mediawiki or something if so :/ <font color="#FF8C00">Sticky  <font color="#FF8C00">Parkin  18:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is here MediaWiki:Editnotice-4-Requests_for_arbitration <font color="#FF8C00">Sticky  <font color="#FF8C00">Parkin  18:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The comment at MediaWiki talk:Editnotice-4-Requests for arbitration should also be noted. Maybe this discussion should be moved there, leaving a link from here? Carcharoth (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sigh..
Reading the whole mess above...

This was why I implored the ArbCom to lay out a schedule or an agenda publicly saying they were going to address issues, and giving a time scale of when we can expect reports back.

ArbCom of last year acted opaque and insular, and we had no idea what steps were being taken to solve problems, and found out to our dismay that such steps were being blocked by certain members of the committee. So now, we don't care about 'we have new members' or 'we need more time to look into this'. We want to know you're really looking into this, and assurances that you will do so at some undefined future point are not good enough. Right now, we're all going to work on the assumption that you'll act in the poor manner of the previous committee until you demonstrate otherwise.

I strongly suggest you provide us with an agenda of the reform issues you will be investigating, including dates by which we can expect reports.

Again, I will remind you that I'm going to go ahead and push forward ratification of a new ArbCom policy in May. --Barberio (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The Committee is moving this direction now. First naming Kirill as the Committee Coordinator for organizational matters. Then, making an announcement Notice Board. Our internal reorganization is going well. Don't mistake lack of public action for inactivity. The full Committee is methodically working toward making our internal decision making more public. Give us some time to make the adjusts needed, okay? FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Barberio, we have an agenda and you are not the only thing we have to concern ourselves with.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 16:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What I'm asking, is if we can see that Agenda? --Barberio (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, that's always been the plan. We've been finalizing it for announcement over the last few days so I don't expect it'll be too long now. It is, incidentally, much easier said than done to get consensus over precise priorities of sixteen independent (and largely strongminded) volunteers, living in multiple time-zones around the world. -- R OGER D AVIES   talk 18:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We could show you, but then we'd have to kill you. --TS 17:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * [Chuckle] I don't think it need come to that :) -- R OGER D AVIES   talk 18:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Who's "we" in this context? :) ++Lar: t/c 17:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * FloNight, the problem is that the Arbitration Committee was methodically working toward making internal decisions back when we had the RfC on Arbitration. I withdrew my request to put policy change ratification in the elections, because in October I was told that the Arbitration Committee was methodically working towards making internal decisions.
 * Saying you are "methodically working towards making internal decisions" is, at this point, meaningless. It's been said before too many times.
 * What would be meaningful at this moment would be to provide us with an agenda and time table. I don't want you to 'immediately take action', I want you to give us a date by which we can expect you to have taken action.
 * What I don't want is for the buck to be passed around, "internal discussions" getting nowhere because there's no date set for them to end, and before you know it, it's election time again and we all have to start over from scratch again. If you can't set a deadline by which you must provide the community with your recommendations for reform, then human nature is going to mean it just keeps getting postponed, till you can punt the whole mess over to the next committee. --Barberio (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Barberio, I've hung back for a while here, but please. Lay off this constant drumbeat of ArbCom complaints. The ArbCom has been in their jobs for less then 3 weeks. This is not a full-time job, as much as you seem them to think they should drop any semblance of a personal or professional life and spend twenty hours a day coming up with everything new. You're complaining about how things were going in October. Guess what? 75% of the ArbCom wasn't there in October. They came in January 1. There's something like FOUR Arbitrators who were there in October. All that previous discussion is probably null and void, because no one who was discussing it is still ON the list (let's not forget that the ArbCom-L is now aimed at current/sitting/arbs only, so they can't even jump in there!) So please, quit it with the constant badgering of ArbCom. If you really must do whatever disruptive activity in May you keep bringing up. Fine. Do it in May. Stop trying to use it as a Sword of Damocles hanging over ArbCom's head. SirFozzie (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not 'beating a drum'. I'm asking for some things that I expect of even volunteer run organisations of the scope of Wikipedia is now. As I see it, there are two major issues here.
 * 1) Orderly hand over of power shouldn't be 'new guys are in, we throw everything away, and have to spend two months redoing stuff from scratch'. The members leaving the committee knew they'd be gone, and should have prepared some handover support for their replacements. The remaining members should have readied themselves to carry over continuity and brief the new members, otherwise the whole 'staggered tranche' idea is meaningless anyway. The new members should have been getting themselves ready to take on the job from the moment they were nominated. "We have new members" shouldn't be an excuse, the committee should act to minimise the effect of handover. Business starts day one, not day thirty one, 'warm up' should happen before the new committee become active not after.
 * 2) It shouldn't require pestering and prodding for the Committee to produce timetables and agendas on actions they intend to take. Deciding their agenda should be their first priority, otherwise they'll be disorganised and nothing will get done. Their agenda should be public, and include explicit time scales that can be used to measure the success of the committee on timely addressing of issues. It should not take more than two weeks to make an agenda, and an initial suggested agenda should have been made by the outgoing committee.
 * Yes, I get that the Committee are volunteers, not paid, and working on this part time. But this is still a multi-million dollar project with a huge readership and global impact. This should be considered a professional volunteer position. You might think I'm holding ArbCom to a too high standard, I think we've let ArbCom slide by on a lower standard than the project as it is now deserves.--Barberio (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Barberio, it's all in the way you've approached this. You demanded arbcom act on your concerns on your timetable. You did not politely inquire nor did you present it as a community concern. I see few have supported you in this or in that clarification you filed. It's no surprise you are getting so little response, which is what you deserve. They said they are working on it and I'm sure they are. When you pay their salary, then you can demand things this way, but I doubt you're ready to do that. So far this arbcom has done more than last year's so give them the time they need. Are you willing to go through an arb election next year to see that things get done your way? 10 of 16 arbs are new and almost all promised reform. Rome was not built in a day and arb reform doesn't happen in 3 weeks just because Barberio demanded it be done instantly. Despite all this drama mongering by you, they'll probably still get this done before your so-called deadline. You're acting like a spoiled kid. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am reluctant to take chiding comments from someone who does not read what I actually wrote. I never, at any point, demanded immediate action on reform. I did, and do, demand a commitment from the committee to report to the community their recommendations for reform by a date some time in the future. I have suggested a time scale of months. I have said I will proceed myself to restart stalled processes which I expect to progress in May.
 * Reacting to all of this as if somehow I'm trying to usurp ArbCom, or threaten them, is not something I can consider a rational response. I have no interest in being a member of the committee myself, only in very strongly urging them to take appropriate and professional actions.--Barberio (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure someone will roll their eyes at me saying this, but leave them be for a little bit. They're 20 days into this, they're volunteers, and they have to hash this stuff out. Hand off support from old arbs? This isn't a transition of power from Bush to Obama, this is a volunteer website and a hobby for probably 99% of us. Not one of these things is life and death or even vaguely, barely close, no matter how stupid or retarded we collectively get at times. If we're at March 1st, 2009--three months into a three year session--then I'd be grumpy too, after all the promised changes, if nothing has come about by hook or by enforced crook.

And like they said above, they have to sort out these decisions amongst themselves--hopefully they aren't taking into account any consensus or need for consensus from anyone but current elected arbs (in other words, Jimmy and the ex-arbs don't get to decide, stop, or hinder reform, as they have no authority on that now), and I'd politely ask them to just clear that up, since I'm picking up in Barbeiro's angst a little bit of hostility toward that sort of notion, implied or otherwise. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 18:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The "ex-arbs on the mailing list" (and on the private wiki) issue has already been addressed. Here is the announcement. I'm not sure that everyone appreciated the full implications of it. -- R OGER D AVIES  talk 18:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to disagree. Wikipedia is a major source of information now for millions of people, it's a multi-million dollar project, actions on Wikipedia can now have severe impact on a person's life.
 * You and I may consider this a hobby. But the position of Arbitrator should not be considered a hobby, it should at this point be considered a professional volunteer position. If you don't or can't be professional as an Arbitrator, you shouldn't stand for the office. --Barberio (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How pompous. I expect to see your name on the ballott this Dec, Barberio, and to see you soundly defeated.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How many times must I say I have no intent or desire to serve as an Arbitrator for it to stick? --Barberio (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You appear to be in a vast minority of opinion in this, Barberio. I really wish you would reconsider this crusade. It's not realistic AT THIS POINT to expect "professional volunteers" spending their time doing nothing but ArbCom business. ArbCom is moving forward. I'm actually pleasantly surprised at what they HAVE done, considering the.. distractions that have been caused (no, I'm not referring to you in this case, but some of the active/extant cases that have been.. distracting lately) Rome wasn't built in a day, Barberio. SirFozzie (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to be using a different meaning of 'professional' than I do. 'Professional' means someone who takes the job seriously and treats it as a job not a hobby, not that they do it full time or for pay. I know multiple people who have board member, executive-committee, and VP positions; which are part time and unpaid; and they conduct themselves professionally in those position.
 * I would like to be able to expect the same of an executive-committee in a prominent multimillion dollar organisation.
 * Membership of the Arbitration Committee should not be a Hobby, treating it as such is probably what got everyone into a mess last year. --Barberio (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Without impugning the good faith or good intentions of some of our past arbitrators, I can somewhat understand your concern.. that if an arbitrator finds that they will not be able to provide the requisite amount of attention to their duties, they should resign.


 * I also saw a comment from Jimbo that he intends to monitor Arbitrators activities and to "suggest" they resign if it drops off (with their slots to be filled in the June 2008 "special election" that will elect at least two new arbitrators (to take Deskana's and FT2's arbcom seats). But I do not see any indication that there are any current arbitrators who treat the job they were elected to as a "mere hobby".


 * Again, your pushing here is not productive, and may in fact be counter-productive. SirFozzie (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, as soon as I see an agenda with time-scales on when we'll see reform recommendations, you can have my apology for assuming the worst of ArbCom.
 * But it has been suggested above that we shouldn't expect professional conduct from the Committee, and it was that which I was responding to. --Barberio (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you mean me, I never said it shouldn't be professional. We should all be professional, but my point was this is a hobby. Arbs aren't on-call, with a pager strapped to their hip, was my point. If they think they need so many weeks or a month or two to get ramped up on multiple years of internal history, good. Why not just wait till their agenda is published with their timetables? If they said "days" away above, then there's nothing else to be done from poking them with a stick between now and a couple days from now. If you want professional, that's how it works in the business world. A responsible company doesn't release material or content until it's ready to do so, no matter how much the odd stakeholder yells for them. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 20:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Executives and directors, even unpaid and part-time, have legal authority and responsibility and also (presumably) control over money and/or products. Perhaps you were looking for the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Directors? Although, neither the Board nor the Arbitration Committee preside over the core product (articles). In that sense, there is no analog here to the executive committee you describe. They're volunteers, in a non-executive capacity, and what's more the Committee operates on consensus - so I doubt any arbitrator will unilaterally post something until its been agreed upon by all. Back on the topic of content, though... Barberio, still only 4 content edits since November 1. <strong style="color:#228B22;">Avruch <strong style="color:#228B22;"> T 20:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you'd read my user page, you'd have noted I'm semi retired from wiki activity until I see signs that reform is actually taking place. I hope, and would like, to return to productive editing soon. --Barberio (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You may, with my grateful thanks for all your hard work, completely retire from editing even Wikipedia space, and devote your valuable time to other activities. If you're not actually editing articles I don't see any point in your editing the wiki at all, much less trying to boss the arbcom around. --TS 02:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to thank the Committee for publishing their agenda, and offer my apologies for any stress caused by being strident in asking for one to be published. I encourage this practice to be continued, and for maintaining a published agenda to be part of the normal housekeeping duties associated with the Arbitration Committee. It is an important step forward in better communications with the community at large. --Barberio (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Committee agenda as of January 20
Listed below are the items which currently comprise the agenda of the Arbitration Committee.

Two points that should be kept in mind:
 * Several of the measures being considered may require some form of community ratification prior to being fully adopted. The target date for this is not explicitly listed, but can be assumed to occur after the final date for internal Committee deliberations.
 * The target dates are not set in stone; while we will make our best effort to meet them, there are any number of unforeseen circumstances which may cause them to change, and they are subject to revision as other issues arise.

The agenda is as follows:
 * 1) Decide on updates to arbitration enforcement procedures
 * 2) * Initiate RFC by January 21
 * 3) * Compile RFC results by February 21
 * 4) * Draft reform proposals by March 7
 * 5) * Finalize reform proposals by March 21
 * 6) Determine procedure for publishing proposals
 * 7) * Decision by January 31
 * 8) Appoint CU & OS operators
 * 9) * Finalize election setup by January 31
 * 10) * Finalize appointments by February 28
 * 11) Determine case acceptance criteria
 * 12) * Decision by January 31
 * 13) Determine procedure for emergency rights removal
 * 14) * Draft proposal by January 31
 * 15) * Decision by February 14
 * 16) Decide on designating an IRC liaison
 * 17) * Compile chanop comments by January 31
 * 18) * Decision by February 14
 * 19) Decide on appointing CU & OS auditors
 * 20) * Finalize proposal by February 7
 * 21) * Finalize appointments by February 28
 * 22) Determine recusal standards
 * 23) * Draft proposal by February 7
 * 24) * Decision by February 21
 * 25) Determine workshop page structure
 * 26) * Decision by February 14
 * 27) Determine how to deal with users leaving during cases
 * 28) * Draft proposal by February 14
 * 29) * Decision by February 28
 * 30) Decide on acceptance of private evidence
 * 31) * Draft proposal by February 14
 * 32) * Decision by February 28
 * 33) Prepare updated guide to arbitration
 * 34) * Draft by February 21
 * 35) * Finalized by March 7
 * 36) Determine how to deal with users returning from bans
 * 37) * Draft proposal by February 21
 * 38) * Decision by March 7
 * 39) Decide on locations of arbitration pages
 * 40) * Draft structure by February 21
 * 41) * Decision by March 7
 * 42) * Implementation by March 14
 * 43) Move forward on handling civility
 * 44) * Detailed agenda by February 28
 * 45) Determine procedure for handling banned user appeals
 * 46) * Draft proposal by February 28
 * 47) * Decision by March 14
 * 48) Determine approach to considering off-wiki actions
 * 49) * Draft proposal by February 28
 * 50) * Decision by March 14
 * 51) Determine standards of conduct in requests for arbitration
 * 52) * Draft proposal by March 7
 * 53) * Decision by March 21
 * 54) Develop an arbitrator recall process
 * 55) * Draft proposal by March 7
 * 56) * Final proposal by March 21
 * 57) Prepare updated Arbitration Policy
 * 58) * Draft by March 7
 * 59) * Finalized by March 21
 * 60) Move forward on content dispute resolution
 * 61) * Detailed agenda by March 14
 * 62) Decide on using summary motions in rejected cases
 * 63) * Draft proposal due March 14
 * 64) * Decision due March 21
 * 65) Prepare updated transition document
 * 66) * Draft by October 31
 * 67) * Finalized by November 30
 * 68) Prepare updated induction document
 * 69) * Draft by October 31
 * 70) * Finalized by November 30

For the Committee, Kirill 01:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this


 * Cross-posted by Tznkai (talk), On behalf of the committee 17:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitrition
Is it recommended that I get into an edit wars before I file one of these? Dipotassitrimanganate (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC) 17:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It is recommended that you do not get into any edit wars, and only file a request for arbitration if you think it will help write an encyclopaedia. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What Sam said. You should check out this, our page on dispute resolution procedures. &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT  Jester    Son of the Defender  14:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think our questioner unintentionally inspired an item in WP:WIKISPEAK. I intend no offence to him, but it is funny. :) Crystal whacker (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Bit of a conundrum; help requested
In posting here, I am not looking for an opinion regarding this dispute. I am looking for an opinion as how best to proceed.

On 10 December 2008, a discussion began regarding the use of non-free sports team logos on rivalry, season, and specific game articles. On 22 December 2008, an RfC was started regarding the issue. The RfC appears to have run its course, with the only change over the last six days that of removing Template:RFCpolicy from the RfC's header. No consensus has been achieved by the RfC. A form of mediation was attempted by one of the contributors to the discussion. Though he had a particular bias in the debate, his efforts at mediation were largely in keeping with best practices.

On 7 January 2008, I noted the impasse we were at, and requested input on backing to implement removal of the images or advice on how to proceed if backing was not readily present. Results were equivocal.

We remain at an impasse.

Opponents of the image use maintain that a lack of consensus that the use is allowable under our policy and guideline requires removing the use. Proponents state the opposite.

It is believed by a number of people that if an attempt is made to begin removing the images from the season, rivalry and specific game articles that reversions will happen in rapid fashion.

I am approaching ArbCom here as to how best to proceed. My belief is that ArbCom does not generally rule on issues of policy, but only on conduct. At present, there is no conduct issue worthy of ArbCom's attention. However, if action is taken there certainly will be an edit war. I certainly would not want to see an overt edit war erupt just to raise this issue to the level necessary for scrutiny by ArbCom.

The crux of this is that there's nobody empowered to make the decision. The RfC did not achieve consensus. Mediation did not aid achieving consensus. If one administrator closes out the RfC ruling one way or another, it is highly unlikely that the ruling would be enforceable for either side. The weight of this decision is realistically too much for any one administrator to make. Mediation parties are not empowered to make rulings. Yet, a clear decision is most emphatically needed.

I would like input from ArbCom members on how best to proceed. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * For a formal response, since you said you're approaching arbcom, a RFAR would have to be filed. You can also seek input from clerks, or any other editor. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 21:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not looking for a decision but how best to proceed to resolve the issue. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking over the RfC and various discussion, it appears there is plenty of room for a middle ground. For example, most people (on both sides) seem to agree that logos on the main team articles are permissable, while use on rivalry articles is less defensible. In my eyes, the next step would be identifying which uses have the most support and which have the least support. This will require a full review of previous discussions and a bit more discussion (and perhaps another RfC). This may still leave some circumstances where opinions about the use are more divided, but once a "map" of acceptable/unacceptable is defined, it may be easier to resolve the grey areas using that context. I would recommend finding a neutral editor or two with some solid mediation experience to help review past discussion and guide things on to the next step. (Sitting or emiritus members of MedCom would be great choices or at least would be able to help recommend someone. The MedCab coordinators would also be helpful in the same way.) If I can provide further advice or answer any other questions, please do not hesitate to let me know. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Editnotice update
Go here-->MediaWiki talk:Editnotice-4-Requests for arbitration--Tznkai (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Question about date delinking injunction
The injunction prohibits using a script to delink, but presumably delinking in the course of ordinary editing is allowed. Is it allowed to delink in the course of making other improvements to many articles, such as updating infoboxes or adding categories? --NE2 01:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are consciously removing each bracket, and edit articles at a rate which is consistent with that, the injunction doesnt restrict you. The injunction doesnt completely prohibit the use of scripts, however editors should not be primarily focused on delinking.  The injunction was intended to put a pause on the delinking drive, and one user+bot (user:Ohconfucius) has been blocked for continuing the delinking after the injunction. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration statistics
I've just posted some arbitration data I've been collecting at Requests for arbitration/Statistics. They cover arbitration activity from January 1, 2009 onward. Perhaps someone will find this useful. Comments, suggestions, corrections, etc. welcomed. Lots of hand work here so plenty of opportunity for error, other eyes appreciated. Paul August &#9742; 20:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement RfC
The Request for Comment regarding arbitration enforcement, including a review of general and discretionary sanctions, will be closing at 0200 UTC on 21 February, 2009. All editors are encouraged to review the RfC and participate before its close. After the closing, the Arbitration Committee intends to formalize reform proposals within one month.

For the Committee, --Vassyana (talk) 07:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Page formatting
On the Requests for arbitration page, the box for the "current cases task list" is covering up the page index. Is this happening for others, and can it be fixed? Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed that too earlier today (using IE7 7.0.5730.11 WinXP SP2). Made this change - it still looks wacky but not overlapping anymore. Franamax (talk) 06:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Fringe science 2?
It is not entirely unprecedented for an arbitration case to go into full review within a month of case closure. Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education, which closed on 30 December 2006, went into Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education/Review on 29 January 2007.

The Fringe Science decision is not working. Since it closed on February 25, eight separate arbitration enforcement threads have opened. In addition, as the people who read RFAR are aware, a lengthy request for clarification is ongoing.

As mentor to ScienceApologist, I have endeavored to regularize the situation. Unfortunately, as I feared would happen, the Committee's decision to enact a phantom position under the same name as an existing mentorship has further confused matters. To quote from a well-meaning Wikipedian who has been trying to improve (or even make sense of) the deteriorating situation:
 * The mentorship can be considered a means of avoiding banning SA entirely. Does SA have a mentor, voluntarily accepted (by the editor and the mentor)? If not, we should know.

The full thread is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Durova&oldid=275696119#ScienceApologist_needs_a_little_guidance.2C_perhaps. here]. Under these confusing circumstances the finite resource of constructive volunteer time is wasted, and my ability to improve matters is seriously hampered.

When I brought Prem Rawat 2 to RFAR, the situation was less chaotic than the fringe science aftermath currently is. Less than two weeks after closure, the dispute appears less stable than it was before the case opened. In the past few days SA and I have actually been making contingency plans speculating how to arrange permission for him to write a featured article by proxy in case he gets sitebanned.

It would certainly be unusual to request a new case this rapidly, but a new case may be needed. Floating the possibility here; welcoming feedback from arbitrators and from participants on both sides. <font face="Verdana"> Durova Charge! 00:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Arbcom already handed the advocates of fringe theories and pseudoscience a resounding victory in the original case. For that reason I am wary of opening a second case which risks compounding the damage. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Durova says: "The Fringe Science decision is not working.".  I agree, but not because of any intrinsic problems with the decision.  It's not working because ScienceApologist is flouting it (and, for the moment, getting away with it).  He's a smart person and knows exactly what he would need to do to comply.  He could easily have done what any conscientious person would do, and try to avoid even the appearance of impropriety:  not even going close to fringe science topics; not making a game-y edit to Elonka; not harassing people whose content contributions he doesn't like with frivolous and POINT-y complaints.  How difficult would that have been?


 * Instead, he decided to go ahead and do all these things (for which, specifically, he was sanctioned!), and even escalate them. Yet some editors continue to support him, no matter how egregious his behavior: otherwise sensible and constructive editors, who support him but (tellingly) don't do as he does.  It's an extremely strange phenomenon, the way ScienceApologist seems to polarize the WP community.  But one gathers that's at least partly intentional, and that he enjoys the attention.  My suggestion:  let's quit making excuses for his juvenile behavior, treat him as anyone else would be treated, and stop the ridiculous DisruptionApologetics.  --Middle 8 (talk) 03:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The situation was better with Durova mentoring. Once this decision passed, things went downhill. Either siteban SA if a sanction is neede, or place a suspended siteban to deter SA from further baiting. In either case, it is high time to sort the fringers who have been needling him for so long. They must reform or go. Jehochman Talk 03:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please look at remedies 5 and 6 in the list here: Requests for arbitration/Fringe science. If other editors are being disruptive and engaging in baiting, please do request a review of their actions. However, that will probably require a full review or new case, as I've reviewed the evidence presented in the Fringe Science case and it was mostly focused on ScienceApologist, MartinPhi and a few others, plus some generalised philosophical laments that were short on actual evidence of misbehaviour. If evidence is presented of others in this area acting disruptively or refusing attempts at mediation, I for one would accept a review or new case. Carcharoth (talk) 10:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Another case? You folks had the opportunity to look at all the involved parties. Just do this: ban SA to remove his provocations from the arena, and then we'll be able to deal with all the tendentious fringers. In the alternative, remove the topic ban and let Durova do her work unhindered by fringer heckling and instigation. Listen to me; I have much experience dealing with trolls and fringers. Check the WP:ARB9/11 case to see who filed most of the complaints that resulted in topic bans there. Jehochman Talk 13:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but in this case (fringe science) you didn't file such complaints (check the evidence page). I don't follow fringe science articles closely, and I didn't have time to read all the previous cases in great detail (Homeopathy and Pseudoscience spring to mind, though there have undoubtedly been more). Unless someone points out who is doing the disruption, how are we suppose to act. I am actually aware of a few names that keep coming up, but unless someone does the legwork and lays out the evidence as to who is acting disruptively (don't assume all the arbs follow every dispute), nothing (much) will get done. Find the names, look up what remedies and sanctions may apply from previous cases, and then ask for stronger sanctions. Also, I don't get this: "ban SA to remove his provocations from the arena" - we have topic banned him. Are you asking for more than that? Carcharoth (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The topic ban is being gamed by parties on both sides. Please get rid of it--or make it much stronger. I make it my business not to assist people playing games. This situation prevents me from acting against disruptive editors on either side.  If SA leaves the scene, we'll see exactly who is causing trouble, and it will be a simple matter to remedy. I don't need to present evidence at arbitration because I have plenty of policies and remedies at my disposal if only SA will just stop disrupting the venue. Jehochman Talk 21:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman's faith is flattering, but his characterization doesn't apply very well to this mentorship. It isn't a substitute for sanctions; it seeks to regularize the situation so that sanctions aren't needed. Although I wish very much that it were possible to guarantee that ScienceApologist would be a model Wikipedian if the topic ban were lifted, I can't make that promise for him. A big part of the goal here is to calm things down enough that people can hold regular editorial discussions about how to apply NPOV to specific fringe science articles. Right now I see very little of that happening, and most of the dialog is meta-discussion about whether this or that person should be sanctioned. The area looks more like a game of musical chairs where people are attempting to make sure that 'their' side gets to keep the seats. That isn't viable in the long run. <font face="Verdana"> Durova Charge! 17:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I sympathize with Durova. I'm working on that aspect. However, it's become clear to me that the topic ban should be absolute, and strictly enforced, by any admin taking responsibility (no admin is obligated to enforce ArbComm sanctions) because of provocation from the SA side in particular; however, self-reverted edits shouldn't be considered violations unless they are truly disruptive. So if SA really wants to make spelling corrections, fine. Let him revert them, it would then take seconds for anyone else to put them back in, taking responsibility for them or any other edit, for that matter. A topic ban must be very easy to enforce, it should not require judging the edits, that's the point of a topic ban, otherwise the sanction would say, "Editor is to avoid disruptive edits." If it is not easy, we will argue over it. Given what SA has declared, anything short of a total ban is going to be tested to the limit, it will be disruptive. --Abd (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent) allow me to ask a very pertinent question: If certain editors (like ScienceApologist, Short Brigade Harvester Boris (as above) and a few other I could mention) were not frequently and loudly spouting off about 'fringe advocates', would there even be an issue here? In the time I've been on WP, I've run across maybe 3 editors who were actively trying to promote some fringe position, and each of those cases was handled (easily) using original research and verifiability arguments. as far as I can see, this is an entirely imaginary conflict, which only continues because these certain editors refuse to let it go. there may have been a reason for all this in the past, but there really isn't now, and the 'counter-insurgency' attitude that's taken up against these mythical opponents is disruptive and destructive.

heck, I'd go so far as to defy anyone here to show me a real example of fringe advocacy that I can't resolve, quickly, civilly, and effectively, so long as the anti-fringe people leave their drama-trauma out of it.

So look: if SA wants to be a martyr for his defunct cause, let him. if he wants to find a better and more civil way of doing things, let him. he's an adult, so forget about mentoring him, forget about finding excuses or loopholes for him. cut him loose, let him make his own choices, and let him reap the rewards and punishments of his choices just like the rest of us. -- Ludwigs 2 22:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well as an example MartinPhi was a fringe advocate (yes, I understand that you will disagree, but remember you only disagree because he is too much like yourself) - and was cut loose for it. There are others but before your time.  Shot info (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC) Please forgive me if I take your offer to resolve the situation "quickly, civilly, and effectively" not quite at face value. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * @SBHB: To the extent block logs figure in, how about SA's, which is way worse? The message of the ruling, a correct one imo, is that his methods are unacceptable and gratuitous ways of dealing with fringecruft (or indeed anything else on WP).  --Middle 8 (talk) 01:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * well, Boris, my block log results from a combination of being ignorant of wikipedia's ways and being rather unmercifully baited (by friends of yours, I'll add). I'm still new to wikipedia, but I'm learning.  besides, I'm not asking you to take anything I say at face value: I'm asking you to:
 * find me an actual page that has a current problem with 'fringe advocates' (if you can), and
 * step back (as a group) and let me deal with it, without the usual barrage of pointless reverts, petty name-calling, and other confrontational behavior that seems to be the normal way of handling these things.
 * I doubt you can do (1), but if you can, I know I can do (2). and believe me, if MartinPhi is the worst you can come up with for fringe advocates, you're just proving my point.  MP may have had issues (particularly where SA was concerned), but if you talked to him sensibly, he'd listen, and he'd respond.  I can work with anyone who's willing to listen and respond.  -- Ludwigs 2  02:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * if MartinPhi is the worst you can come up with for fringe advocates, you're just proving my point Shot info (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * @Ludwigs2: I commend your approach.  There are absolutely better ways to resolve disputes than SA's methods, and at this moment the best thing to do is to simply move forward and put them into practice, rather than try to engage SA (or any hyper-aggressive editor) directly.  Hope someone takes you up on your good-faith offer.  I'm happy to assist as well if I can. --Middle 8 (talk) 03:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't like to block editors who are being baited. SA definitely has engaged in baiting, gaming and incivility.  His presence in a locus of dispute makes it impossible for me to apply my personal standards of administration to the editors he is in conflict with. If others can deal with such matters, more power to them. Apparently nobody has yet succeeded in this endeavor. Jehochman Talk 02:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * yeah, baiting really disrupts things. unfortunately, it's effective at achieving some short term goals, and I imagine it's really hard to pin down from an admin's perspective (because no one is going to come straight out and admit that they're doing it, even if they're aware of the fact, which they might not be).  I have no idea how to keep people from doing it; wish I did.
 * @ shot info: I don't understand the reference. if I read the no true scotsman link you provided I'd be led to think that you think 'fringe advocate' is an improperly structured concept.  I don't think either of us believes that, though I'm guessing we have different criteria.  can you clarify?
 * @ Middle 8: let's see if someone does, and your assistance would be welcome.   -- Ludwigs 2  03:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Fringe Science, post-Arbocm thread archived, where did it go?
The WP navigation system can sometimes be very confusing. Om March 12th, the post Arbcom thread on this page was archived The decisions are moved here, but I can't find the discussion leading up to the decision. The only trace of it is the pre-archive page version Where is it archived? MaxPont (talk) 08:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * On the proposed decision page. They're also sometimes archived to the talk page of the main case page. --bainer (talk) 11:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. I found a link to the missing discussion visible in the headline here. MaxPont (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Changes to the "Arbitration Statistics" page
FYI: I've made some changes to Requests for arbitration/Statistics:
 * 1) All the "Arb activity" tables are now sortable (for example see: Arb activity (2009) — requests).
 * 2) The "Cases" section now tracks each case's drafter (see: Cases involving 2009 arbs only) and Arb activity (2009) — cases).
 * 3) The "Proposals" section now tracks the time order of each action (i.e. a support, oppose, or abstain) on each proposal. This is represented in the tables by appending to each "S", "O" and "A", a number indicating the order that each action occurred, (i.e 1 = first, 2 = second etc.). This allows for computing two new statistics for each arb, "firsts", which is the number of first actions -- generally indicative of being the drafter of the proposal -- and "AVR" (average vote rank), which is the average of the rank orders of an arb's actions on a proposal, following the first action (i.e. the average of the ranks > 1) -- giving an indicator of earlier versus later voting. So, for example for the five cases closed so far this year, encompassing 105 proposals, Coren with 38 "firsts" has apparently drafted about 36% of those 105 proposals, while Rlevse is on average the earliest voter with an AVR of 4.1 (see: Arb activity (2009) — case proposals).

Paul August &#9742; 19:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Update: I've decided to abandon tracking vote ranks (so no more AVRs), and instead, for each arb's action on a proposal (i.e. a support, oppose or abstain), the page now tracks the length of time between that action and the first action on that proposal. For the details see the page and it's talk page. Paul August &#9742; 19:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama articles
When a case is accepted maybe the bot can post a link to the case in the edit summary. I received a notice so I'm good on finding it. But people who are watching might not know where to look? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's at the first spot in the "Active Arbitration Cases" box near the top of the request page. That's where they always put the links. -- Noroton (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

New ban appeals subcommittee and procedure
One of the Arbitration Committee's responsibilities is to address appeals received via e-mail from banned or long-term blocked users. To improve the level of attention and response time for these requests, the Committee has formed a Ban Appeals Subcommittee, which will consist of three arbitrators. This subcommittee will consider ban appeals and recommend actions regarding them to the Committee as a whole, as outlined in the newly adopted procedure for handling ban appeals.

The subcommittee was created by a 15/0 vote, with no abstentions:
 * Support: Carcharoth, Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, FayssalF, FloNight, John Vandenberg, Kirill Lokshin, Newyorkbrad, Risker, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Sam Blacketer, Vassyana, Wizardman
 * Oppose: None
 * Abstain: None
 * Not voting: Stephen Bain

The procedure was adopted by a 10/0 vote, with 2 abstentions:
 * Support: Carcharoth, Casliber, Coren, John Vandenberg, Kirill Lokshin, Newyorkbrad, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Sam Blacketer, Wizardman
 * Oppose: None
 * Abstain: FayssalF, Vassyana
 * Not voting: Cool Hand Luke, FloNight, Risker, Stephen Bain

The subcommittee will begin work on April 1, and will initially consist of Carcharoth, FayssalF, and Roger Davies. It is likely that the membership of the subcommittee will be rotated approximately quarterly; further appointments will be announced at the appropriate time.

For the Committee, Kirill [pf] 00:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this
 * Cross-posted by Tznkai (talk) on behalf of the Arbitration Committee 13:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Date formatting and linking poll now open
The date linking and formatting poll is now open. All users are invited to participate.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Link to WP:RREV
I removed the link to WP:RREV at the top of the requests for arbitration page because RFA review is dead. Someone restored it with no explanation. Can we get a consensus to remove it? How many people type in WP:RFAR expecting to find RFA review?? Soberknight (talk) 01:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Why remove it? Although I agree it might be dead, I don't see benefit in removing the link. It's possible and there is no reason to make it harder than necessary for people who land here instead of where they thought they would. Regards  So Why  21:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * ditto. I undid yon knight's first removal, and he is mischaracterising my removal as vandalism (in his second edit summary and on my talk page). I'd say this is an issue for the clerks.    Jack Merridew 02:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Jack Merridew, you are lying. I never said your removal was vandalism.  I said that MY removal of the WP:RREV link was NOT vandalism, yet you reverted it with rollback, so you are TREATING IT LIKE VANDALISM.
 * To SoWhy: every single newcomer to the WP:RFAR page, which gets dozens of pageviews every day, has to see a meaningless, pointless, irrelevant link to some other page just because of a temporary project that put it there months ago. Nobody looking for RFA Review will type in RFAR.  They will either type in RREV or the full RFA Review.  The continued existence of the link is a blight on this page, a boondoggle to readers and a total waste of space.  I see it has already been removed once more. Soberknight (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Designated drafting arbitrators
To assist with managing case workflow, and to provide a default point of contact for case matters, the initials of the designated drafting arbitrator(s) for each case will now be displayed on ArbComOpenTasks next to those of the designated clerk(s) for that case.

This proposal was approved by a 10/0 vote, with no abstentions:
 * Support: Carcharoth, Coren, FayssalF, FloNight, John Vandenberg, Kirill Lokshin, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Vassyana, Wizardman
 * Oppose: None
 * Abstain: None
 * Not voting: Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, Newyorkbrad, Risker, Sam Blacketer, Stephen Bain

Discuss this

Cross-posted on behalf of the Arbitration Committee, <font face="times new roman"> hmwith τ   02:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Header delinking
Please stop delinking the header. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The clerks are just trying to do their job, keeping things within the style guidelines. For a bunch of very boring reasons, links in the header cause small but noticeable problems, something involving how linking to statement works. We have asked for a clarification the exact reasoning, but for now please allow the trainees to do what they've been asked to do.--Tznkai (talk) 02:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I received clarification on IRC just as soon as I posted this. The information I got was "The committee has asked that we not link headings because it makes it hard to read."  A little communication goes a long way, aye?  :)  Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That is to say, perhaps a clerk note would help end confusion if this happens again. I notice alot of delinking, but little communication about it.  NonvocalScream (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There was a dropped ball somewhere on ourside, probably my fault, I apologize.--Tznkai (talk) 02:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Or, next time you could not undo the actions of a clerk. To my knowledge the committee is working on clarifying this matter, but for the time being edit warring with others about it is very petty. Tiptoety  talk 02:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, the clerks will be trying their best respond to existing norms or arbitrator requests. That said, we're not infallible by any means, and we will make mistakes. Generally the best thing to do is to ask the clerk why they are doing what they are doing, and they will do their best to be polite and responsive.--Tznkai (talk) 02:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, we'll issue a suitably formal statement at some point—it's not really a very high-priority item at the moment—but, for the time being, suffice it to say that unlinked headers are much easier for us to work with. Kirill [pf] 02:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The principle behind delinking headers is as follows:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Section_headings

"Section names should not normally contain links, especially ones that link only part of the heading; they will cause accessibility problems."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ACCESS#Links

"Avoid putting links in section headings, unless the link text is the only text in the title. Some screen readers, such as earlier versions of JAWS, will stop reading the heading title when they encounter a link, and if the link is the first part of the heading title, they will only read the link text. For example, a heading title of "The chimpanzees invade the sewer system" may be read as "The", and a heading title of "Boxes in popular culture" may be read as "Boxes"."

Risker

I have been very much enlightened. And thank you for taking the time to explain. I absolutely had no clue that he links in headers also caused accessibility issues with screen readers. I'll will do my best in the future to remember not to be linking anything in the section header again. Thank you again. Cheers, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I cannot claim credit for the above, as the matter was researched by my colleague Carcharoth. I also apologize for failing to time/date the above post!  Definitely bedtime for me.  Risker (talk) 04:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Experimental reforms?
One of the things that's "killing" us is the fact that the community has gotten much better at handling much of the "easy" stuff. We're getting better at handling things faster but the cases that reach ArbCom in 2009 are monsters compared to the simple cases of, say, 2006.

One suggestion I would offer the community is to move to a system similar to the French Wikipedia's: All accepted cases are handed out to a (small) set of arbs (say, 3) according to who is available and not recused in rotation. The duration of cases is mostly a factor of how hard it is to get 15 or so arbs all voting and agreeing&mdash; this system would trade off the stability of en banc voting on every case against a much faster resolution time. Not unlike real-life appellate courts where you get n judges to decide, and you don't get to pick which.

The underlying principle behind this is that all arbitrators are equal; I would expect the community to trust that any three arbs can reach a good solution just as well as all of the committee. The whole committee would be allowed to vote to take the case the "traditional way" with all arbs voting.

To be honest, I've been planning towards something like this since before the elections (that was one of my "suggested reforms" I alluded to) but the context has not yet been right to put it forward&mdash; perhaps there would never be a "right" time, and more initiative is needed after all. I will offer the next case to voluntarily accept this as an experiment with the caveat that the result will be exactly as binding as the traditional method (voluntarily because I would not impose an experiment on editors caught in a dispute that's already a difficult strain).

I'm not going to write down exact procedure right now (even though I have a pretty precise idea) since, as an experiment, it's likely that things will need tweaking during the experiment. The objective would be to handle one case this way, document how it worked, and offer the "fast" arbitration voluntarily for a number of other cases until (a) kinks are worked out and (b) the community is satisfied this is an improvement (or (c) the whole thing is scrapped because it's a disaster after all).

I'll post a rough outline on how I see cases proceeding with this method to my userspace shortly, and post a link to it. In the meantime, what do people think about the general idea? &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (Oh, as a note, that "fast track" arbitration procedure also changes the way evidence is presented, the workshop and a number of other things&mdash; more details incoming soon, but the idea isn't just to change the proposed decision phase). &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Coren, could we stick to our methodical discussions about reforms so that we can get closure on them. Part of the problem is that many people over the past year suggested ideas but we never talk them through to completion. That is the reason that we moved to using an agenda. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 14:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I see this as entirely parallel, Flo. It's not a critique on the impending improvement and tweaks to the full arbitration system, which are also justified and necessary.  Our iterative improvements are a positive step forward, but the method isn't suitable for experimental new methods&mdash; I see both as equally needed and not "competing".  &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable to me- people that study teams mostly seem to agree that teams of 3 tend to work well. Fifteen is way too many.  As for the potential problem of making too many changes.. well, when what you have today isn't particularly working, you have the luxury of being able to try novel things, knowing you aren't really upsetting a working system.  Friday (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Virtually everyone agrees that 15 people are not needed on the Committee. Lack of focus is the main problem of the Committee. A large part of the problem over the past year has been disorganization. Recently, the Committee chose a Coordinator for the first time, we are working off an agenda, and we are forming subcommittees for specific tasks. I would like for us to focus on finishing the items on the agenda, making these changes and review them. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Its an idea worth discussion, but in order to test it legitimately, I think it needs to be done outside normal arbitration. That is, the parties would need to agree to be a test case. It'd be like giving someone a jury trial and announcing "we're trying something new. you get 3 jurors instead of 12. Next group, 26" The number of arbs is part of the system - the very difficulty in getting everyone to agree is one of the mechanisms.--Tznkai (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this is why I say this needs to be used at first on a voluntary basis &mdash; that is, the participants agree to use the new system (or, indeed, sought to use it). &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We have already embarked on a partial system. We're now trialling a process with three arbitrators taking primary responsibility for reviewing unblock/unban requests. As well, just this week we have discussed having a small group (2-3 arbitrators) working together to carry out the ongoing review of accepted cases and assist each other in drafting decisions, a process that appears to be moving forward now, with a "lead" arbitrator named for each case. Final voting is something that I believe every arbitrator should participate in, however, as well as case acceptance. I shall review Coren's proposal below and comment further there.  Risker (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My concern is that the reason the Committee was not success last year was because of lack of focus to discussing, implementing, and finishing tasks. For successful changes, I think that we need to continue to discuss the ideas in the systematic way that we developed and agreed that we would use. If we tweak our system further, I want to add the item to the agenda to mesh with our other changes. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems appropriate to mention that the Committee has been asked how those are going.--Tznkai (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Noted and replied there. Thanks for pointing this out. Carcharoth (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Draft here: User:Coren/Fast track &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me, and a welcome reform towards making individual arbitrators more accountable for individual cases. &mdash; Werdna  •  talk  15:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * We have recently decided to publicly allocate arbs to cases. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This is worth trying, provided the parties agree to participate as Tznkai recommends. It has often been assumed that all arbs dont read all of the evidence. Maybe allocating only three arbs to a case will resulting in more focus and a better decision. OTOH, if the MZMcBride case is an example of what happens when a case is fast tracked, I dont like it. I suspect that many fast tracked cases will be appealed. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) It's a pretty interesting idea. I am a bit concerned, tho, because, as Coren said above, a lot of the ArbCom cases nowadays are "monsters", and that's not much of an overstatement. The community is often deeply divided in what they should do about a particular issue (which is why it ends up at arbitration), and sometimes the arbitrators themselves are, too. Having just three arbitrators decide on such an issue might make the decision.. a bit random. The decision could be entirely different, depending on which three arbitrators get to decide. Then again, having a decision in cases like these is probably better than having none at all. --Conti|✉ 15:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a good point; I'm hoping that the stronger focus (all arbs would, on average, have 1/5 as much evidence to examine) will help decision being more deliberate while still being faster. I don't think we'll ever know for sure until/unless we try.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the strengths of ArbCom is that we have the situation reviewed by a large enough group of people that we can be fairly sure that the situation had a fair hearing from a wide swath of the Community. I didn't vote to close the MZMcBride case because I was interested in reading bainer's votes and comments before the case closed. I find that late comers arbs to a case will give good insight, and can change the direction of a case. I'm reluctant to move to using 3 people to the exclusion of a larger group since we could miss these opinions. How will you measure the quality of the decisions being made between the fasttrack 3 people and the full Committee. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm working from different presumptions (and I believe those are shared by a significant portion of the community): (a) all arbs are equally trusted, and (b) decisions from the full committee are not necessarily better because more arbs participated; they often needlessly devolve into unworkable compromise because there are more arbs. &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with trust. Three people is too small a group for me to think we are getting the best perspectives that can be put forward before a decision is made. Eliminating the other tasks that the Committee routinely does, such as OS and CU, should help loads. And working in a more organized way such as we are doing now that Kirill is acting as Coordinator. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning toward FloNight's perspective here. Certainly the views and comments of my colleagues have influenced my thinking on several cases. I'll add that reading of the evidence, and even the workshop pages, isn't that huge a burden and, in cases where both are massive, those are the ones where the full committee is most needed in order to avoid missing a small but crucial component. The more difficult aspects are in drawing the proposed decision out of the evidence and workshops. I agree that arbitrators should ask more questions or request certain types of evidence that they feel would help render a better-informed decision. I am not persuaded that this proposal would necessarily result in faster decisions. I am fairly certain, however, that it would result in less thoroughly considered ones. Risker (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * All Arbitrators are not equally trusted by all members of the community, and some arbitrators are expected to not understand certain aspects of this very-very-very large project. And compromise is exactly what makes the committee decisions enforceable. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is, ultimately, a question of professional trust. Real life courts handle considerably more serious matters with much less reliance on consensus as a decision method&mdash; and I would have no problem accepting that arbs could decide a case differently than I would without feeling slighted or that the decision was any less proper.  A decision isn't any more reasonable or "correct" by virtue of numbers; and if you made a ruling I disagreed with I would nonetheless respect it given that I have fully justifiable faith that you would have made it with due deliberation and consideration for the good of the encyclopedia. I don't feel the need to inject my point of view in every decision taken in every case; and I don't think that decisions would be any less good or legitimate for having had "only" three arbitrators take them.  There is a very good reason why real life courts do not take all decision by taking together all the judges:  it doesn't work right, and even if it did it would be a waste of valuable resources.  All arbs are equal, and all our decisions are just as good as every other arb's.  If we can get past this obsession with voting and counting heads and trust each other to work for the collective good, we'd be able to do a much better job, much faster.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't feel I need to vote in every case, either. That is because I think that someone on the Committee will most likely raise the point that I would make. I don't have the same confidence that will happen if we go from a full Committee to a small panel. Since we are the final decision makers, using a larger group is more usual than a small panel. The quality of our decisions does matter. I think that you are misreading the problems that stopped the Committee from being effective in the past. The problem was related to workload issues that can be solved without removing one of the strengths of the Committee...having a broad group of users selected by the Community to consider the issues. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 17:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent) At any rate, at this point, the ones whose opinion actually count at the community who placed their trust in us to help solve the unsolvable (yes, this does include ourselves, but we are but a tiny slice of the community). The offer to trial this new method of arbitrating disputes is open, and I would expect that &mdash; should the community take me/us up on it &mdash; we would do our best collectively to make it work. It's not perfect, and will have to get a lot of tweaking before anyone can call it satisfactory, but this is a wiki; trying new ways of doing things is the fundamental principle of change. We gain nothing by refusing the experiment because it might not work. &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Since I see the solution to arbcom's problem is for the Committee to focus its work in a more organized way, I see this experiment as a distraction from the progress that we've been making. If you go outside of the agenda and make proposals then other arbs will do the same and we will end up back where we were with loads of half-baked proposals that do not get properly reviewed, discussed, and implemented. I'm asking you to bring your proposal back within the structure that the Committee discussed and began using. As Risker pointed out, the Committee is moving in the direction of using a subset of the Committee to draft each case based on the needs of each case. So we already using part of the idea that I think will make us be more efficient. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 17:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't agree. I'm taking on coordinating the eventual test willingly, and if it does go forward with a future case, then it will detract less from our other work than the case otherwise would have had (occupying three arbs instead of all of us).  I don't see where a distraction is. As for the internal discussion over changes, they are very good at altering current policy and we have made some great strides in that direction, but I feel it is an inappropriate method for tentative and experimental changes in depth.  I don't think it is possible, or desirable, to attempt to come up with a new method ex nihilo by commitee&mdash; this is the kind of thing you go out and try, then learn from the attempt.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

My take on this...
So, I said I would post my views on how arbitration should work. I haven't yet looked at Coren's draft, so this is just what I had in mind.


 * Questions and answers about arbitration...
 * What's the biggest problem about Arbitration today? – the sheer volume of nonsense that gets talked between the participants (and the aggression, mudslinging, aggravation, escalation that usually entails)
 * Why do people talk so much nonsense at Arbcom? – because they are anxious.
 * Why are people so anxious during arbitration? – because they don't know if they are making their side understood properly.
 * Why are people unsure whether they are being understood properly? – because they aren't getting any immediate feedback.
 * Who could give participants immediate feedback? – the arbitrators.
 * Wouldn't that mean more work for arbitrators? – yes, a little investment of work early on, paid off by much smoother proceedings and much less work needed to cut through the bull later.


 * More feedback > more focus > less bull > less anxiety > less smoke > more rationality > more efficiency > less work.


 * Things a participant at arbcom is usually left in the dark about:
 * "Am I talking enough?" (if in doubt: TALK MORE!!!)
 * "Is my voice being heard? Or is it drowned in the noise of the others? Should I shout louder?" (if in doubt: YES, SHOUT LOUDER!!!)
 * "Have I given enough explanation/evidence/reasoning for the point I made?" (if in doubt: RESTATE IT!!!)
 * "Have the arbitrators understood what I just said?" (PROBABLY NOT!!!)
 * "Are the arbitrators even paying attention to me?" (COULDN'T EVEN BLAME THEM IF THEY DIDN'T!!!)
 * "Are the arbitrators interested in this piece of evidence, this line of reasoning, this proposal? Or will they ignore it?" (if in doubt: CAN'T TAKE THE RISK, STATE IT ANYWAY!!!)
 * "The other guy is making accusations and talking nonsense about me. Can I afford to just let it stand and trust the arbs will see it for the nonsense it is? Or should I refute it? (If in doubt: REFUTE IT!!!)


 * What you guys should do:
 * Move radically away from the Anglo-Saxon court model, where the judge/jury are just listening passively.
 * Move towards the continental European court model, where the judge actively investigates.
 * Make the workshop page a dialogue actively structured by you.
 * Give people directions to provide you just the kind of information you need. Tell them what kinds of evidence you would find pertinent (and most crucially, what not). Ask them questions.


 * Ideally, a workshop page should be a series of simple interviews, one on one. One arbitrator talks to one participant of the case. Ask them questions. Tell them things like:
 * "Of the accusations against you, this-and-that is the most serious. Can you tell me something extenuating about X, Y, Z?"
 * "Of the claims you made, this-and-that requires more explanation. Please provide diffs about X, Y, Z."
 * "Okay, I understood your point."
 * "Okay, I've heard enough. Now shut up."
 * In the best case, you could actually do this by appointment and in real time. Tell each participant: okay, please be online on such-and-such a day at such-and-such an hour, and have your diffs ready. Then talk with them, immediate question and answer in real time. You'd probably need less than one arbitrator's one hour's time for each participant, to thoroughly understand a situation. Plus, the interviewer would get an immediate first-hand experience of that person's behaviour and personality. Much better and much faster than anything you could ever gain from reading through the bullshit on today's workshop and evidence pages.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh. You really didn't read my proposal? :-) (Though I admit the idea of realtime "interviews" is both novel and intriguing, if we can solve the logistics)  &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, honestly, I didn't find the time to read yours yet. Will now. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate your thoughts. I'll be following your recommendations and add some few ideas I have in mind and others I am already applying (see User:FayssalF/JK or this live example). I believe the arbitrator should take the liberty to guide and lead the case. Arbitrators, by nature, use to limit themselves to Wiki protocols and taboos—which is wrong. The ArbCom idea of allocating arbitrators to cases mixed with your idea and some other techniques would certainly give its fruits.  -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF   - <font style="background: gold">Wiki me up® 19:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I endorse Future Perfect's description of case party pathology and abstain on the rest, except to note any massive restructuring, however justified, is something that we don't want to rush, nor surprise anyone with. If we came up with a solution that made everyone commenting and reading now happy, I guarantee we will have even more pissed off people arguments the next day. Change comes slowly because people do.--Tznkai (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Future Perfect's suggestions of making RfAR more interactive by having ArbCom members be more proactive. Most folks who participate in RfARs have never done so before, and probably aren't very good at researching or presenting evidence. That can mean too much irrelevant info and too little material that's important to the ArbCom. The net result is that everyone's time is wasted and real problems may be overlooked.   <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    20:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I totally agree. I'll be applying them (mixing them with a few other points as explained above) starting the next case I'll be taking. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: gold">Wiki me up® 21:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I too agree with large part of what Future Perfect said. With the caveat that questioning was used in the MZMcBride case (not quite closed yet) with mixed results. Sometimes a party has to be able, legitimately, to say "I don't think I should have to answer that question", or "that question is not relevant". But definitely, more arbitrator interaction with parties and others on the case pages is good - I for one have not been doing enough of that. But I disagree with Coren that three arbitrators is enough. The comments on the MZMcBride case show clearly that the result would depend greatly on which three arbitrators took the case. I think that having 15 arbitrators voting on a case is a good thing, but that teams of two to three arbitrators are needed on at least the big cases, and possibly all cases, just to keep things moving. And both parties and arbs should not be afraid to ask for others to help with assembling or tidying up evidence. Carcharoth (talk) 23:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fut.Perf.'s ideas are very good and perceptive. The default way is not good, and I'm not sure how much wisdom ever went into its design. Certainly we need to move beyond the current many weeks of silence->drafting arb draws up semi-random findings and remedies, -> remaining arbs rather passively cast unexplained votes, with a few exceptions originating from comments raised by users on the pd talk. This way is obviously the easiest and least work for the individual arb (the normal user having no way of knowing if most of the arbs did any work other than vote), but is not for the cases. Yes, less of the scores of empty arbitrator sections in those battle-filled but largely ignored workshops. Fut.Perf.'s definitely got it here, or something close at least. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 07:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur with Will, Carcharoth, Deacon, and of course, Fut Perf. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

A quick note. Any comparison we make to a real life judiciary should be taken carefully. We don't have prosecutors (a vital part of the modern inquisitorial system) around here for example, we don't have police who gather facts and evidence, and no one here has the power to compel testimony. I don't mean to say that looking towards a different model is a bad idea, just that we should be cautious in our considerations.--Tznkai (talk) 23:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Although at least 2 of the 3 points you raised are true in my view, there are much more factors that make the comparison problematic. But I think the reasons for wanting a new system have little to do with such a comparison, and certainly, the desired result of this proposal, in my mind, is to make a more effective and suitable structure of dispute resolution for Wikipedia. As long as any comparisons made are adequately justified as worthwhile and "use-able" (in the true sense) on the project, I don't see a need for such a level of caution in those considerations. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Things a participant at arbcom is usually left in the dark about"  by Fut. Perf. above hits the nail on the head.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Should 'fast track' proposals be on the Agenda for this Year or Next Year?
I'm going to say 'No'. Let's put this on the Agenda for next Year.

My reasoning is that we already have a huge process reform agenda, it's being worked on now, and the workload from that, plus the transition from ad-hoc to more established procedures is going to need time to settle in. I'm more than willing to give a one-time 'pass' for Arbcom's case processing times this year while they cope with all that.

Timely case management is an issue, but it's not an issue we can safely address this year since we don't know how the current reforms are going to settle out. Putting in a fast-track system could, and probably will trigger unintended consequences, until we can plan it around how the new Arbcom will end up working.

Let's return to this in a year. --Barberio (talk) 13:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll be posting an updated agenda in the next few days, so people can take a look at how to schedule things at that point. The latter half of the year is pretty much open as far as pursuing new ideas is concerned; the last (non-transition) item on the agenda is set for July 1.
 * We're also looking at opening a more general RFC on what we've done so far this year, and where people would like to see us focus our efforts; there will hopefully be more information on that by early next week. Kirill [pf] 14:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see a long stretch of operation of the new committee without any big changes in how it works first to identify what the work flow of the new system is going to be like, before we start in with changes aimed at 'fast track' or timely case management. Hence my push to get reform issues settled as quickly as possible. --Barberio (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with your thoughts. We've been working on loads of new stuff and it will be good to let some of the newer changes take hold before we make loads of new changes that are not already on the agenda. And hopefully this will help us catch up and stay more current on our case work. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Agenda as of April 8
The Arbitration Committee's agenda as of April 8 has now been published, and may be viewed at Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard.

In order to provide the community with a more up-to-date understanding of the Committee's plans, the published agenda will now be updated on a regular schedule (nominally once a week). Future updates will not be formally announced; editors interested in following the agenda may wish to [ watchlist it]. The agenda will also remain displayed at the top of the Committee's noticeboard.

In the near future, we anticipate adding cases in progress and the associated milestone dates to the agenda.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety  talk 22:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this


 * This committee agenda contains no less than twenty items, few of which pertain whatsoever to actually resolving disputes. We have such important problems as how to name arbitration pages, dedicating more time to how the committee should be handling its mail, and again attempting to come up with bureaucratic procedures for emergency rights removal, despite having been basically mocked by the community for wasting time on this barely two months ago.


 * The arbitration committee was created to resolve disputes. Yet this committee can find twenty other things to dedicate their time to than actually delving into the mire of cases and sorting them out. You can't even satirise this. Rebecca (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Rebecca, you raise a good point but, like it or not, this committee has several important administrative jobs that need to be handled in a timely manner. In the case of mail, it's very frustrating when editors send messages to the committee without receiving responsea, which often happened in the past. [There've been plenty of plaintive postings along the line of "I sent a message but never heard back".] In most parts of Wikipedia, if one person doesn't do a job then either it doesn't get done or someone else eventually does it. That approach doesn't work for the Arbom. The "buck stops" with them. Time spent improving the internal procedures now, if done right, will save countless hours and frustrations later. It's a task that's long overdue.   <font color="#595454">Will Beback   <font color="#C0C0C0">talk    04:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Last year's Committee had a number of shortcomings, one of which was that they lurched from crisis to crisis. Due to insufficient organization some things fell between the cracks that shouldn't have.  Correcting those structural shortcomings would make them more efficient. <font face="Verdana"> Durova  Charge! 06:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Tallies
Could someone remind me what the order is in the tallies (e.g. "tally now 7/0/0/1")? I ask because I can see 7 accepts in the Macedonia issue, but no other votes, so have no idea who or what the 1 is. DuncanHill (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Accept/decline/recuse/other comment. (Don't worry, I had to develop a mnemonic to help me remember. )  Risker (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks - would it be too much to ask for them to be labelled? DuncanHill (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Right now they are defined in the last line of the red box in Requests_for_arbitration. It would be possible to label them, but right now they are used in a section heading and the arbs have indicated in the past they like it being in a section heading, and any label would make the section heading so long as to mess up the table of contents.  MBisanz  talk 20:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, well thanks anyway - any bright sparks with a way of both clarifying for the ordinary reader and maintaining the integrity of the ToC please make suggestions! DuncanHill (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How about "7s/0d/0r/1o"? Only adds 4 characters, which I'm sure the ToC can cope with, and makes it far easier to work out what it all means (I've forgotten the order at times as well, it's very annoying!). It still requires a little existing knowledge to know what the letters stand for, but I expect most people hanging around RfAr can cope with that. --Tango (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I raised a similar query in January -- John Vandenberg (chat) 05:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Headers
The current layout is as follows:


 * 1) Prior steps
 * 2) Requesting Arbitration
 * 3) Current requests
 * 4) {name of proposed case}
 * 5) Involved parties
 * 6) Statement by {user}
 * 7) etc.
 * 8) Clarifications and other requests
 * 9) {name of proposed request}
 * 10) Statement by {user}
 * 11) etc.

This layout is unlogical. What bothers me most is that the titles of the proposed cases are level 3 headers, and the titles of the comments are level 4 headers. Because the fonts of the level 3 and level 4 headers look a like, it is difficult to see where one proposed case ends and where the next one begins. I say we get rid of the "Current requests" header (what's the point of that header anyway?), so that we can turn the titles of the cases into level 2 headers, providing them with nice horizontal lines.

My proposal:


 * 1) Current requests for arbitration
 * 2) {name of proposed case}
 * 3) Involved parties
 * 4) Statement by {user}
 * 5) Current requests for clarifications and other requests
 * 6) {name of proposed request}
 * 7) Statement by {user}
 * 8) etc.

Agreed? - theFace  19:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Always thought it was a bit weird. Mind you, prior steps would need to have a section of its own or at least a very eye-catching template.  x42bn6 Talk Mess  22:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that this will become somewhat moot once WP:AC/N is implemented, since the request page will become a transclusion of four separate subpages. Kirill [pf] 22:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok... I didn't knew that. This comes a few years too late apparently. Cheers, theFace  14:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Abstain section
While this may be under discussion "somewhere" (especially considering that the policies/guidelines/etc. are under overhaul), I'm not sure where, so bringing this comment here.

In looking over the "abstain" section, there are quite a few that seem to be "comments" or "notes", rather than true "abstentions".

While this may not seem to be a big deal, NYB mentioned in the past that by placing a comment under "abstain", the number needed for a majority changes, and so by abstaining, makes it easier for a motion to pass.

This seems to me to be a really bad idea.

I realise that it's been this way awhile, but that doesn't mean that it can't or shouldn't be changed/fixed.

And yes, I realise that the arbitrators likely know/understand that this is the situation, but I also wonder if perhaps they may at times feel limited by the format in this, or further, if they should be allowed to "vote" by not voting. (An abstention can act as more than a single "vote" due to the numbers changing.)

So I'd like to propose that the "proposed decision" page add an additional "Comment" section to each proposal. (Making each proposal have 4 sections: Support/Oppose/Abstain/Comment.)

As an aside, in a place (Wikipedia) where discussion resolution is consensus-driven, this "voting" process concerns me quite a bit. - jc37 03:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC
 * The Committee is aware of the issue of abstain votes affecting the final decision. It is often an interim vote and does not matter in the outcome of the case. Usually, proposals with many abstain votes will fail because someone writes an alternative proposal. Sometime, abstain votes are used to help a proposal pass when an arb can not completely support the proposal but does not want to obstruct the proposal from passing. I would not be opposed to adding a comment section to make it less confusing but I don't think the abstain section is a major problem so it has not been a priority to fix it.


 * Since the Committee members are from the Community, we have a consensus building mindset to our work. The Committee reads the other arbs comments and alters the ruling as needed. But in the end, a method to firmly record the opinions of each arb is needed so that the record is clear that a proposal passes, so we vote. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 11:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I understood that the committee was aware, and even that each member was likely aware.
 * But neither "often" nor "usually" is equal to "always".
 * In my proposal, I'm not necessarily suggesting that the abstain section (and how it's used) should necessarily be removed (changed). (Though, to be honest, I wouldn't oppose a discussion about that.)
 * I'm suggesting that another option (to be able to merely "comment") to be available for those other times not covered by "often" and "usually".
 * And as discussion is a Foundation principle, I don't think I'm that far afield to suggest this. - jc37 00:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * A Workshop page exists for each case and this is the place where discussion and comments are made about proposals. The talk pages are often places where comments are made about proposals. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)