Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed decision/Archive1

Drafting
Just to keep parties and others up to date...

This started as a case that had a lot of claims that might be hard to evidence, as well as significant potential for "sprawl"/drama/confusion/heatedness, and it's therefore been given a fair bit of time for evidence to be heard and to 'bed in' (rather than assessing it too soon). In practice, the case has been somewhat smoother than it initially seemed it might, and in general, the Workshop pages have been used by participants and onlookers to produce some useful viewpoints and opinions too. (Thanks!)

Initial review of the case pages and evidence, while the rest of the case is posted up onto these pages, is likely to be taking place shortly by Arbitrators.

Just an FYI for all, to keep up to date.

FT2 (Talk 11:57 (UTC), 31 May 2008
 * Thanks! any hint on things the committee would like to either see more of/have questions on/like more opinion about? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel that the catharsis is nearly complete. Before disruptive elements move in and clutter the pages with endless arguments, perhaps now is an opportune moment to read them all and start drafting a decision. Jehochman Talk 16:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Valid point. some of that has already started.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the collection of evidence and interpretation of it in the Workshop has had enough time, but I believe it'd be worthwhile to wait for this (see also here). dorftrottel (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hold your horses there cowboy! I have apologised for several of the things presented about me - and you can consider this an apology for any genuine (MONGO - telling you to pull the other leg is not uncivil) incivility on my part. I try to keep cool and most of the time I succeed but sometimes I act rashly in the heat of the moment. Apologies to those offended by my words or actions in said heat of moment. Viridae Talk 13:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice try...surely such less than half measures now exempt you from your admin transgressions.--MONGO 04:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Viridae, I'm sure it would be appreciated if you summarised your acknowledgement of whatever parts of the evidence presented against your behaviour you think is valid and included related diffs or links, or repeated any apologies you think are appropriate here. I'm confident such a conciliable statement wouldn't go unnoticed by the ArbCom when they evaluate what to expect from each of the parties in the future. On the other hand, I'm also confident the ArbCom will take into account the de facto refusal of any party to acknowledge any part of the evidence presented against their behaviour as further evidence against that party. (Also, I never played the cowboy. I always was an Indian. You see, when we played as kids, the Indians always were the heroes, the cowboys were the villains; and since nobody wanted to be the cowboy, we mostly played happy community life instead of war. Weird Germans, hah?) dorftrottel (talk) 05:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Minor apologies. The delay isn't due to discussional matters - it's more due to end of school year and "that time of year" of all things. A number of arbitrators have had family matters (family vacations, events, kids needing more attention than usual), wikibreak, and the like. Plus, I've been working on some fairly intense review cases that haven't really brooked delay. Let's try this again shall we? :)

FT2 (Talk 09:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In other words, the Arbcomites haven't even started looking into this case. 93.86.33.117 (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, just as long as it is taken seriously. Unlike the statement in the section below, there are some serious, long-term abuses that need examining. Wikipedia is being raked over the coals time and again for allowing administrators to get away with these abuses, both by the public and the mainstream media. I urge you to take both the evidence and the workshop seriously, there are scores of very valid concerns that some people would rather see swept under the rug. From experience, I think we should know that sweeping things under the rug only causes worse problems down the line. --Dragon695 (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Unrealistic expectations
I don't think I've ever seen an arbitration workshop in such a "hanging" mood before--and to my mind the evidence doesn't seem to speak of massive abuse (by any party). With experience of previous cases I can't help feeling that, no matter what the proposed decision, there is likely to be a great deal of disappointment and frustration expressed on this talk page in due course. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the Mantanmoreland case had a similar 'hanging' mood about it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Tony makes an astute, if obvious, observation, no matter what happens in this case, someone will be disappointed. Oddly, I suspect that is the case in every case brought before the committee, although certainly more so for some than others. I'd opine that the reason the mood seems "hanging" is that the evidence seems strong, contrary to what Tony seems to think, that there are serious matters in need of addressing... and that we've been hanging around for a month now waiting to see what ArbCom was going to start doing (or not doing). I am hoping we aren't going to be kept hanging too much longer... ++Lar: t/c 04:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * FT2 has just posted on the Proposed Decision Talk Page explaining that things have been a bit backed up for various reasons, apologizing for the delay, and saying he's hoping things are back on track. See for more info. SirFozzie (talk) 09:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the proposed decision talk page. --B (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This tread has been moved around. Viridae Talk 22:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd forgotten about the mood of the Mantanmoreland case. I think the evidence was also equivocal there, and (more to the point) there was apparently unrelated ill feeling which clouded perceptions and led to disappointment.  I hope the Committee will grasp the opportunity to deal with that ill-feeling (which seems to involve many but not all of those involved here) and help to clarify what is best for Wikipedia. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and not repeat their mistakes from the Mantanmoreland case. Which was, to remind everyone, coming up with a wishy-washy statement that pleased nobody and saved them from making any sort of call, only to get egg on their collective face when the fellow ignored them and happened to be caught purely fortuitously a little later. And to call any ill feeling here "unrelated" requires remarkable ability to ignore diffs. --19:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I live in hope. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wasn't the nice thing about the Mantanmoreland case that, if it turned out that he really was an incorrigible sock, we'd all be happy to see him go? And so it transpired.  His recidivist socking was detected by checkuser in late April, blocked and then community banned without any dissent.  None of this "he said lipstick on a pig and we think he went for a holiday in India because he edited after 8am GMT" nonsense.  No need for all that kerfuffle over what turned out to be a very finely judged arbitration indeed.  --Jenny 04:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I think the evidence presented at the arbcom hearing was pretty clear that he was an incorrigible hosiery abuser. It just took a couple of extra months to show his defenders.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This was a guy with a history of socking, but the fact is that at the time of arbitration none of the checkusers were able to make a definitive statement based on checkuser data. Moreover the arbitration committee (all of whom would, at least in principle, have been able to see such checkuser data as was available) wasn't able to reach a comfortable consensus that there was ongoing socking.  That tells me there was a little more going on than mere "defenders".  We had to wait for actual evidence of ongoing sock abuse, that's all.


 * The guy clearly couldn't help himself, which is a known pattern with repeated sock abusers. --Jenny 06:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't like the 'defender' lingo, as it strikes me as unnecessarily antagonistic. I believe the AC (honorably but somewhat feebly) attempted to find a compromise which of course could only result in no action taken. But I for one did think back then and still do that the Evidence presented by G-Dett was both elegant and fully conclusive. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 11:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well to some of us that just looked like an exercise in wishful thinking, an essay. I note also that G-Dett's evidence was largely an attempt to prove, not that Mantanmoreland was actively socking, but that he was Gary Weiss, which was hardly the point.  Mantanmoreland was sanctioned for socking and in the end he was banned for socking.  It doesn't matter who he was; if he'd been involved in making seriously damaging edits rather than (for the most part) removing such edits, it would have been disruptive no matter who he was.  If he was Gary Weiss, that would explain his protectiveness about Gary Weiss (not a bad thing in itself) and his occasional glee at finding yet another unflattering press description of Byrne's (self-admittedly flamboyant) behavior.  A little light mischief at most.  Bagley's and Byrne's silly campaigns and their external websites, by contrast, are crude and obviously malicious.  They provided us with an object lesson in how not to influence our encyclopedic content.   --Jenny 12:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed much worse than the way Weiss tried to influence our encyclopedic content by sockpuppeting. And that's not ironically spoken. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear WP:RPA Committee;
Do you ever intend to actually do anything with this case? The appearance is that you (collectively) may be drahma-addicted, and now that you're bored with this you've moved on to the next Gianno-related bloodletting. - brenneman  00:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You and Irpen should form a club, it seems like you'd find a lot of new members right now.  Just curious, though, is it possible for anyone to address the Committee these days without insulting them? --InkSplotch (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point, and I am trying to drag myself away from the keyboard before I invent any new insults. When dealing with the individual members I am (I think) always polite, but the collective group is operating so sub-optimally right now that it becomes difficult to contain my frustration.  Particularly since we're given so little information about the committee's brain, I'm reduced to kicking and screaming.


 * My experiance with committees is that in camera decisions tend to protect the least competent, and I'm tipping here that there are (at most) three members who are screwing the pooch for all the others. If we start to see the committee as individuals with actual rational thought processes, we could probably move forward more effectivly. Open up ArbCom discussions and let us see how the sausages are being made, perhaps my "input" could take on a less adversarial tone.


 * brenneman 01:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a somewhat more obvious (to my mind, at least) reason for the slow speed with which this case is proceeding. ;-) Kirill (prof) 01:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The Arena football playoffs? --B (talk) 01:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I could write it myself in ten seconds: all parties to write a 5,000 word essay discussing the phrase "Wikipedia is not a battleground" with examples of how they themselves have failed to live up to it. --Jenny 02:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * At last... a reason I can understand and support for your wanting to be a party to this case, Tony! More seriously... Kirill, I would like to hear the reason/issue, and also know if the committee is in need of anything from the community on this, such as additional evidence, more workshop work, or anything else? Or is it all internal? ++Lar: t/c 04:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Luke 15:7, John 8:2-11. --Jenny 04:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's somewhat simplistic, actually: with Newyorkbrad gone and myself recused, neither of the usual decision-drafting arbs is available for this case. Kirill (prof) 12:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 12:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * @ Kirill, Yes, that one wasn't that hard to figure out.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Look above. An essay competition and two scripture references.  What more do you need in the way of drafting? :) --Jenny 12:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I can think of a dozen people who could do it rather quickly. Are we really saying that Arbcom is this wrecked that they can't do what the rest of us could? Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 14:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply to Kirill - I would still request that you 'un-recuse' the scope of this case has gone beyond what it was initially, and is sufficiently personal that I would still want the whole committee to be in on the deliberations, even if some then decide not to vote. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * @Kirill: I would also strongly request that you un-recuse yourself. There is a standing request that another arbitrator recuse themselves... one that I think has a strong reason to do so, and who has apparently started commenting here. Your reason is weak to nonexistent, in my view. But, I suspect that if it's drafting the decision that really is the problem, there is the workshop. If the proposals aren't to your liking, perhaps contact privately some folk who are close and ask for a redraft? I'm sure that drafting the decision (once you've decided what it is you want to decide) isn't going to be that hard. I think the broad outlines of what the remedy ought to look like are already present in the workshop. (if you discount the minority view that Cla68 be thrown to the wolves and his valid concerns dismissed, which really is quite unsupportable) ++Lar: t/c 21:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no idea if you are talking about me. But if you are, I'm inactive on this case and noted that I plan to remain that way on the Clerks page when I returned from my month long break. I have not read anything about the case and do not plan to participate in it. My above comment was confined to a procedural matter. On my return I was surprised that the case had not been drafted yet. I'm concerned by the delay in the case and my only participation will be sorting out what needs to happen to get this cases moving the same as several other cases that have been slow to close. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you have a very clear conflict of interest, so compelling of one in fact, that you should recuse, not merely state that you are "inactive and planning to stay that way". The difference may be moot, practically, but perceptually, it is vast. I would think that a good arbitrator, especially at this particular point, would clearly see that. I again directly call for your recusal. I think it should be clear to everyone that you will not be voting in this case. ++Lar: t/c 21:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, this case has been the last thing on my mind since I've been away for a more than a month and I wrote a brief note to the clerks on my return thinking of the more practical aspect of letting them know that I was back. I already wrote to Cla on seeing your earlier comment. I apologized for any stress that I might have caused him by not knowing my status and made it clear that I do not plan to participate in any way in the case. If it caused you stress or concern I apologize to you as well. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 22:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We need more ex-clerks on the Committee. :-) Jehochman Talk 21:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ;-) FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Could somebody explain the grounds for the request for recusal more clearly, please? That an arbitrator has in the past made friendly statements  about one party to the arbitration, and opposed another's bid for adminship, it seems to me, is ridiculously weak.  There must be more to it than that. --Jenny 01:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It that's weak, then why is Kirill recused because he works closely with Cla at MilHist? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Now that sounds like a sensible reason to recuse--an ongoing relationship or dispute with one of the parties. If FloNight has such a relationship or dispute, she should recuse.  But "once said nice things about" and "opposed for adminship" are a long way short of that.  --Jenny 03:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As hard as it is to imagine for people following the situation, I have no idea what the case is about. I've been away for more than a month and never read the case before or after I left. I thought that I was going to be away when it was voted on since I was traveling for my son's wedding in the Virgin Islands and then had celebrations back home. When I came back I stayed inactive because I knew nothing about the case. I looked at the case pages today to try and understand the delay in drafting the case. I saw some rumbling about a recuse and checked and decided to recuse. It really makes no difference since I was not going to work on the case one way or the the other. But if I can ease minds in any way I want to do so. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 03:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I find it highly suspicious that of all the islands to have a wedding at that the Virgin Islands were chosen. Must you shove your blatant conflict of interest in our faces at every opportunity??  ;-) daveh4h 04:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ;-) FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 11:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's just get this resolved if we can. I doubt that the efforts to "get" SlimVirgin are just going to go away on their own without some sort of arbcom statement to Cla68 and the other WR and Hivemind partisans to backoff.--MONGO 23:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Or is it the other way around ...? Naerii 23:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we get a little agile development methodology here, please? Have one of the clerks write up the decision, then start voting and tweaking. Jehochman Talk 01:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've always wondered why that wasn't done in the workshop pages. It seems pointless to me that we cannot work together to craft these decisions, rather than having this kind if "it's not my job" bottleneck to the work.  The inherent flaws in Jehochman's proposal are that
 * Why do we presume that clerks have any better idea at what might get voted in that anyone else, and more to the point
 * Why should they be allowed to serve as that kind of gatekeeper?
 * Does no one recall that cler's "summary" function was rejected by the community, and having them right up proposed decisions makes them Jr. Arbs. A better solution would be to have the arbs make the effort to take part in the workshop page and just vote on the proposals already there.  I'd hate to think that we're so beaurocratitc that the commitee can't decide on a porposal until a servant gently flaps the right ear of the commitee on the proposed decision page. -  brenneman  02:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Totally agree. Daniel (talk) 02:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This I don't agree with. Daniel (talk) 02:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think aaron will actually help, you know! - If it helps stop making heads explode, I'm certainly prepared to endorse him as a clerk.... that old 'comment on content, not the contributor' thing (and yeah yeah, it means article space.....) actually applies really well here too. It's a good edit - it helps, and that's far more important that whether or not he's 'allowed' to do it. P'raps he's just ignoring a rule? :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

predictable, I suppose
Clinging to paperwork even when the system isn't working? Don't let me stop you. - brenneman  02:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Clerks have never had sanction to write the proposed decision, our ability to edit that page is limited to formatting, typos and such. Aaron is certainly not in a position to appoint himself as clerk and drastically expand the scope of the office in one edit. Thatcher 02:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think a clerk could read the workshop, see what proposals have the most support, and put them forward in an organized manner for voting. Voting on the workshop page would be messy because of the length, redundancy, and back and forth debates. Why not have clerks distill what's there and then let the arbitrators have at it. Clerks are trusted to only clerk in cases where they are impartial, and not to edit war with each other. Jehochman Talk 02:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Possibly, however expanding the scope of the clerk function in that way would require the assent of Arbcom and is not something to do on the spur of the moment. It's nice to think that all the clerks are trusted and respected (and I hope that is true) but it hasn't always been so, and as a result the clerks themselves are probably most reluctant to assign themselves new tasks. Thatcher 02:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In real life courts the clerks write the opinions, and then the judges sign them. This is nothing new.  We are lucky to have many fine, level headed people around the wiki who work quietly, without drama, and don't seek power.  Those would be the folks you want to recruit as clerks.  Arbcom, what do you say?  Taking the workshop and distilling it to final proposals is precisely a clerical task.  This would also encourage you all to make your feelings known on the Workshop page, rather than using your "super secret" list to make a backroom decision.  I think more openness would immensely help the Committee's reputation. Jehochman Talk 02:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No way, Aaron. You don't get to do that. If you are actually attempting to do anything other than make a rather ridiculous point, I suggest here or [mailto:arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org here]. Oh, and FloNight is recused, so making this request to her is bizarre at best. Sam Korn (smoddy) 02:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * well I thought it helped. No biggie, I guess - bit of a shame though. Privatemusings (talk) 02:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Has anyone created a meaningful objection to the arbs actually using the workshop page? That it "would be messy" is a fairly weak argument, just create a section for arb's oppose support and let them rip. Are we really saying that the arbs are going to be confused by looking at a proposal on other that the sancrosect page? If there's something that's lacking overall it's engagement by the committee on ongoin cases. All we see is drive-by voting on a little island of a page. Either open up the floodgates to this page (since there appears to be no meaningful reason that this case is stalled) or don't be so damn lazy that a copy/paste is equired before you can vote.
 * (ECX3) I'm not trying to make a ridiculous point. See User_talk:FloNight where I've made an utterly serious proposal. ( I asked her because she was recused, but *shrug* if you disagree that's fine.) If we're actually saying that the reson that this case isn't proceeding is that because no one has written anything down on the "correct" page then please let someone do that. Regenerate this has made the offer half-in jest, but if he would be more acceptable to your clerkships (based upon his former fez-hood) I'd be happy to see him follow my lead here. - brenneman  02:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to seriously propose principles etc. for a decision, you know the appropriate venues, and you know that those venues do not include this page. Sam Korn (smoddy) 02:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have written workshops that were lifted almost intact and pasted onto the PD page. It's a skill that few people seem to have mastered, and a well-written workshop is a gift from the gods to the Arbitrators.  If you can write a brilliant decision then put it on the workshop and if it really is good, it will get used. Thatcher 02:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Right. When workshopping is done well, the arbs can copy and paste and sign, as is being proposed here.  There is no need for anyone to add content to the PD page in a misguided effort to assist the committee.  Anyone can go to the Workshop page and try to improve it, or distill it.  I think privatemusings even offered to do that. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

When did we all get so hidebound by "process" anyway? Wasn't that the reason proferred by the speedyness of the OrangeMarlin case, that it was important to get the right thing done, not to fill out the puce form in triplicate?

brenneman 03:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A couple of arb.s commented on the use of the Workshop page / how they go about things here (which also contains some of my views on the matter...(should we do a page move to the ''Doesn't really Work'shop? - maybe!). Privatemusings (talk) 03:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC) I've got an idea that editorial clerking might actually help in some contexts, but haven't found the time to demonstrate what I mean (yet!)..... sorry John!
 * Obviously it would be sheer chaos to mix arbitrator proposals and voting (which are binding) with community proposals and comments (which are not). And that's putting it mildly.  Why would we want to make things worse? --Jenny 03:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * yeah - that does sound crazy! - on the other hand, aaron's edit wasn't exactly the most violently anarchistic action I've witnessed! - I think it helped. Privatemusings (talk) 03:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Obviously?" Your perspicacity clearly exceeds my own. How would a section, titled something like "only for arbs to oppose/support don't touch!" where they could indicate how they felt about a proposal, be chaos? Gosh, how about we just use the existing "Comment by Arbitrators:" section? If there is any concern about audit trail, let them include a diff to the version they are supporting/opposing. Is that really so cats-and-dogs-lying down together crazy? - brenneman  03:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * They do have a a section marked don't touch, it's called the proposed decision page. Some proposed decisions appear out of nowhere, and are probably drafted and commented on on the Arbcom wiki or the mailing list, or are created here de novo by an arbitrator.  Others are lifted from the workshop, if it is a good one.  Write a good workshop, if you feel strongly. Thatcher 05:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I rather think the salient point may be the relevance or otherwise of the Workshop pages to the final decision, and the fact that the community voice somehow seems rather muted. This, when combined with the fact that it's very hard to see any momentum at all in what one would hope would be a case with a high priority, is a bit of a worry. We've also recently seen problems with some decisions that appear out of nowhere. It's hard for me not to agree that there aren't systemic problems, and insofar as Aaron editing the decision page reflects an idea to modify a broken system, I think it's a good thing. Privatemusings (talk) 05:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC) we've strayed into RfC territory really, so I'll step back in this location....

all for one or flying solo
Maybe I'm misremembering but I seem to recall the workshop pages of a year or two back sometimes getting pretty close to the final decision, including having arbitrators comment on some of the planks to help hone what was needed. I daresay that the move to having each set of principles/findings/remedies associated with a different person may have lessened that, though... perhaps it's time to try moving back to one amalgamated set? ++Lar: t/c 05:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that's a very recent change. Yonks ago I recall when the workshops were new, less well known, and much quieter, it was relatively easy to draft a substantial part of the eventual final decision on the workshop itself--proposals would be lifted wholesale to the proposed decision and passed.


 * While this does still happen, there is nowadays a more pronounced tendency for the workshop to get very busy, which of course increases the chance that it will state a version of the problem that quickly diverges from what the arbitrators think is most important for Wikipedia. The badlydrawnjeff case, as long ago as eighteen months ago, was the first case in which I noticed such a large divergence.


 * In the circumstances, the new "one set of proposals per user" model may actually work better, by encouraging those who are good at drafting proposals to have a go at specifying the problem. --Jenny 06:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The current fractured approach certianly isn't condusive to actual discussion. Looking at the workshop page, is there some reason that (just for example) the proposed remedies
 * 4.1.3.3 SlimVirgin desysopped
 * 4.1.3.4 SlimVirgin placed on civility parole
 * 4.5.2.2 SlimVirgin commended
 * 4.6.3.2 SlimVirgin 1RR
 * 4.8.3.4 SlimVirgin administrator privileges are revoked, and
 * 4.18.2.2 SlimVirgin and JzG restricted from alleging harassment
 * Could not all sensibly discussed in one section?
 * brenneman 06:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well they absolutely COULD. But they are kinda apart from each other. Ok, well there is one outlyer, the commendation one... give that one the rightful death it deserves, maybe? Then it becomes a matter of what is the best remedy to deal with a long term positive contributor who has also had a long term corrosive effect, rather than a "wonderful/not wonderful" question. ++Lar: t/c 12:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * With respect to the "pronounced tendency for the workshop to get very busy" Dorftrottel and Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The have made over 20% of the last 500 edits to the workshop page, and that Tony alone has made over 20% of the total edits to this page. Draw what conclusion you will from these data points, but perhaps some upper limit on how much each person can contribute would be helpful. -  brenneman  06:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you take issue at any particular edits I made, or do you see any particular problem with the number or proportion of edits I made? If so, please state it plainly and I'll see how I can improve, if simply by walking away. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 08:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The workshop isn't really much use for discussion. Really it's just a place for developing proposals, which may be cherry-picked by the arbitrators.  A little discussion happens on the way and (in some cases) may help to resolve the situation, but usually the problem in arbitration cases cannot be resolved by discussion--otherwise it would not be at arbitration. --Jenny 06:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

How many of the workshopped proposals in a case typically get used by the arbitrators these days? Not necessarily passed, but added to the Proposed Decision page. If not many are, and the proposals that do appear in the /Proposed Decision page come from elsewhere (the Arbcom private Wiki, the mailing list, out of the fecund minds of the arbitrators, wherever), then I would question the value of a /Workshop subpage altogether. If I was being cynical, I would say it does have purpose (lets people blow off steam, lets people think they are making a significant contribution, keeps Tony away from sharp objects), but not value. Neıl 龱  09:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I've helped draft and tweak certain proposals (used in final decisions) in a few cases - through the workshop page.... :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Comparison of workshop and proposed decision
Neil asks: How many of the workshopped proposals in a case typically get used by the arbitrators these days?

Anyone can look at the workshop and proposed decision pages of a recent arbitration, Homeopathy, say, and see which proposals made it into the mix. Eleven editors made a total of about 50 proposals.

Of the five proposed principles, all were stock principles developed in previous cases, and two of those had been workshopped by Kirill Lokshin, an arbitrator. Four of the five passed.

Of the two proposed findings of fact, one of them (DanaUllman) resembled a more verbose proposal workshopped by Moreschi, and both passed.

Of the five proposed remedies, one of them (Discretionary sanctions) resembled a more elaborate and explicit version of a proposal workshopped by Vassyana (Community discretion). Only two of the five proposed remedies passed.

The proposed and final decisions aren't so far removed from the workshop, the problem seems to have been framed in similar ways in both places, but the principles and findings in the proposed decision tend to be more parsimonious or conservative in scope than those in the workshop, and one of the remedies in the proposed decision appears to me considerably more adventurous than any proposed in the workshop. The more adventurous proposed remedy came fairly close to passing, so in this case the result was quite close to the workshop, but this could well be mainly because Kirill floated a lot of the principles in the workshop. --Jenny 10:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So in the Homeopathy case, there were fifty proposals on /Workshop, of which two (4%) made it onto /Proposed decision. And those two were modified (one distilled, one enhanced).  The other nine proposals on /Proposed decision were not particularly based on anything done in the workshop.


 * That does lend credence to my suspicion that expending too much energy on the /Workshop subpage is becoming a futile exercise. Neıl 龱  10:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Blame the participants for that. In contentious cases the workshops seem to be used more for scoring points than anything else. Thatcher 10:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The evidence page is more use in complex cases where everybody is shouting. --Jenny 10:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Blame the participants as in all the participants? Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 01:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There's some truth to both the "blame the participants" and "scroing points" comments. I'm more guilty than most (but not as much as some.)  If the committee was more active, however, the noise ratio would drop quickly: Three quick comments by Arbs to the tune of "don't be daft" or "can it" when I start adding nonsense to a workshop page would rapidly make the page more useful.  Same goes for "evidence" that's just puffed up opion: If an active arb dropped the hammer the first time it happened, then there would be less chance for it to happen again.  It's been said many times: If the commitee is going to keep complaining about the workload, and about not reading submissions, then either get out of the way and let others do the useful work, or tell us what is actually helping them.  Otherwise we flail around to no end.  Think of the excellent work on the MM case that was mostly for nought.  brenneman  01:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Per Tony, IIRC (and subject to correction if I've misinterpreted the gist), there was no excellent work on the MM case, merely a great deal of evidence that meant nothing, a great deal of analysis that was obviously fundamentally flawed (because analysis and evidence are out weighed by people's gut feeling that they can spot socks) although Tony couldn't say why exactly. No, no excellent work there. Except by ArbCom itself, which produced an absolutely brilliant solution, shame on us for not instantly agreeing. Also per Tony, IIRC (and subject... ditto), really there is no justification for removing evidence that is just puffed up opinion, because if you do so, you remove Tony's entire contribution to the evidence, which would be exceedingly unfortunate. Per Tony, anyway. ++Lar: t/c 02:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You've misread my statements. On my evidence, see here. On the Mantanmoreland case evidence, see here for a recent summary.  Use of sarcasm in that way is not effective unless your aim is precise.


 * Moreover I do not believe there is any shame involved in your dissent, although the wisdom of the arbitration committee's decision has been amply proven by events. There was no consensus for a community ban until checkuser evidence was procured showing that he had egregiously broken an editing restriction imposed in the case.  The judge is happy because orderliness and sober assessment of evidence, and not a group of angry citizens, decided the case.  The copper is happy because he was convinced the fellow was a wrong'un all along.


 * I think I can summarise my position as: submission of evidence and analysis does not equate to convincing the Committee. As frail humans, we often grossly miscalculate the persuasive power of our own statements and greatly underestimate the persuasive power of the statements of others. --Jenny 02:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Tony, I was completely serious in my characterization of what I believe your views are, without a shred of sarcasm. As for "any shame involved" ... have no fear, I am not the one that needs to worry on that score. The wisdom of the arbitration committee's decision has been amply DISproven, rather than proven, by events, I would say. That you and others were able to manipulate the discussion on a community ban to prevent the proper outcome until more time was wasted... well, I won't say you SHOULD be ashamed, although I could. We have no judges here, and no coppers. Only citizens. You should be cognizant of that. Finally, I think you have indeed grossly miscalculated the persuasive power of your own statements in this matter, since you indeed remain in the minority. As you did in MM. I am not sure I find your participation here completely helpful. ++Lar: t/c 03:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My use of the "judge" and "copper" simile were perhaps a little too oblique for you. I was referring to two very different approaches to natural justice.  The copper doesn't need evidence, he can smell a wrong'un.  The judge insists on standards and believes that it is in all our interests to refrain from the urge to relax those standards because to do so would be popular. --Jenny 04:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, in the MM case then, we had the AC "coppers" saying "MM doesn't smell bad, so let's let it slide" and the community "judges" saying "look at all this voluminious evidence showing that MM is socking and carrying on, it's detailed, it's meticulous, it's sound, why let go based on gut?"... ++Lar: t/c 05:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You refer to myself and others (some of whom you are aware are administrators) "manipulating" a discussion on a community ban. You are of course aware of what our banning policy says about failure of consensus for a community ban due to disagreement among uninvolved administrators.  It follows that there was no manipulation.  Stating an honest intention to unblock an editor is not manipulation. --Jenny 04:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said on my talk, conversations can be manipulated in many ways. There was a failure to reach consensus, but that does not mean that the process was not somehow manipulated. ++Lar: t/c 05:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I beg you to rethink your final statements. You appear to be implying that you do not welcome reasoned expression of a minority viewpoint.  I cannot believe that my friend Lar, or any Wikipedian, would say such a thing.  --Jenny 04:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I absolutely disagree with that, because I of course welcome reasoned expression of minority viewpoints, as should we all. I just don't think that there is a lack of consensus about this case the way you do. You are in the minority. Reasoned expression is helpful. Not all of your statements in this matter have been reasoned, though, my friend. Which pains me, since I early on looked to you for guidance in the way of the wiki. How far we have diverged, Tony. (sorry for threading inbetween but there were a number of points, I can dup if it's a big deal) ++Lar: t/c 05:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have taken this to Lar's talk page as it seems to be more of an interpersonal dialog than a discussion of this case. --Jenny 06:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

As below, prematurely archived, but meh. ++Lar: t/c 12:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

cut to the slow speed chase...
I summarized the principles, findings, and rememdies from the workshop page here. I reduced some of the reduncancy, combined some items, and left out some that I felt were irrelevant. I took out the discussions, excpet comments that seemed really germain to explaining the item. I would not characterize this as a draft proposed decision, but as a summary of the workshop page. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice work. However there are a few things missing from it such as WMC's proposed items. Those did not exactly meet with universal acclaim so omission may be a good "sense of the community". Maybe adding some nose counts would be helpful. And maybe, actually, since we do not vote, it would not be. But I think you are to be commended for a very good distillation. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 18:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I left out the ones that I think are totally irrelevant (user is commended and crap like that). I wouldn't want to try and evaluate the users for and against, as so much of it in this instance was discussion and commentary, not so much support/unsupport.  And there is also I think a fair bit of useful material in the analysis and general comments section that could/should be evaluated by those making any decisions.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In a case where the community has failed to resolve a long-running dispute, the "sense of the community" may not be particularly useful. --Jenny 01:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps individuals working individually all failed to resolve it. There is a problem here that this case addresses. That it was possible to subvert the way we do things by undermining one voice at a time is, really, the crux of the problem. But perhaps by speaking collectively the community will succeed, where individual voices were drowned out, or defeated in detail, if you like. (use of battle metaphors saddens me, frankly, but they fit.) That the community succeeds is my fervent hope. ++Lar: t/c 02:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My reading of this case is, in all honesty, very different from yours. I cannot account for the difference because I do not know how your mind works, but I can say that the difference in our intepretation, and the diversity of evidence presented, is a strong indication that there is no consensus on the problem, or even who is its principal cause.  Therefore it's clearly something only the arbitration committee can resolve.  As I stated earlier, I believe that unrealistic expectatios have been raised, as they were in the Mantanmoreland case, and there will be substantial disappointment no matter what the final decision.  --Jenny 03:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus does not require unanimous consent, thank goodness, and allows for minority views. I suspect your view does not match actual community consensus on what the crux of the matter is, and what needs to be done to remedy it. I suspect I am not alone in that belief. ++Lar: t/c 03:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no community consensus on this matter. That's why it's before the arbitration committee.  Different parties see the same facts in different ways, emphasis is placed on different areas of policy.  In addition, all of the parties involved are well respected, well established, valuable contributors.  I've told the committee that I don't envy their task in deciding where the best interests of Wikipedia lie, but as I've said on the workshop and elsewhere I think the biggest failing in the case, is the failure of all parties to assume good faith on the part of other editors.  --Jenny 04:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, no. There clearly is failure to assume good faith but it's not at all an equal failure among all parties. Much of the failure can be attributed to a very few folk. Further, this matter is before the Arbitration Committee because the AC voted to accept it when FM brought a spurious case against Cla68 rather than sanctioning FM for foolishness. As it turns out, the case now could address more fundamental issues... Many cases come to ArbCom not for mere lack of consensus, but rather for some intractable problem in applying that consensus. This particular case clearly has backfired on FM and SV, since the vast majority of evidence presented has demonstrated that the issue lies with FM, and with SV, not with Cla68. (note that I am completely ignoring the JzG/V part of the case here, since it is really a separate case that ArbCom foolishly combined, and because it's easier to resolve... JzG needs to stick to his word to try to do better, and JzG and V need to stay away from each other, no real ArbCom muscle is needed)  Consensus, judging from the discussion on the workshop pages, seems clear on the outlines of where the problem lies. Whether the AC will do the right thing, whether the AC will assist the community in applying behavioural standards when onesie twosie actions have been overcome by tagteam serial reverting and by poisoning wells and by other manipulative behaviour remains to be seen. Do not confuse lack of consensus with lack of ability to apply consensus. The community needs help applying consensus, not help in determining it. Unless I am very much mistaken, that is. Time will tell. ++Lar: t/c 04:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Um... this is a talk page. That was an active discussion, with new points relevant to this case being brought out in each post. I'd say premature archive, whoever did it, but meh. If I'm the only person that thinks Tony is in the minority on his view of this case, that lack of consensus is not the only reason that cases come to arbcom, that this case backfired, that the outcome is clear if arbcom will only apply it, or any of the other things I raised, I'd be interested to know that. ++Lar: t/c 12:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I stipulate that I'm in the minority and that lack of consensus isn't the only reason why cases come to arbitration. The rest is up to the arbitrators to decide, and whilst I have opinions I don't make any predictions except that, whatever happens, there is likely to be significant disappointment.  So actually, there's very little for us to discuss that is relevant to the case or interesting to anyone else.  --Jenny 13:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well then, if you already agreed with me, why did you waste my time and everyone else's? As per usual (20% of all comments in the MM ban discussion from you alone, I heard somewhere... if that's not manipulative, what is?), you do tend to go on. More fool me for replying, I suppose. I do still think there are substantive points made in the above, and am interested in the views of others on that. You and I exchanged posts very late in the US night, on the day before a big holiday, so traffic would naturally be lower than normal. I removed the archive tagging since discussion continues. If someone NEW restores it, they should move it down below this bit too, I suppose. ++Lar: t/c 13:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I dont see much sense in archiving any of the above, but I dont see much point in the two gents continuing to discuss it either. Especially when they could be discussing this. I think it would be helpful for it to be moved to Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop/Merged, and checked thrice over to ensure it encapsulates the workshopping done so far. It might even be worth notifying everyone who presented evidence or worked on the workshop. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * move done. please review.  Maybe next would be to link to the specific evidence to go with each finding?  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed closure based on protraction
I drafted a new proposed decision and posted it to the workshop. My proposal is based purely on how this case is handled.

In view of the fact that the ArbCom is unable to identify bad conduct of any party here or propose what to do, it should not keep the open case and parties' uncertainty. The matters would go back to the community that will at least try to solve it.

If ArbCom is unable to handle this case due to its being busy or lazy or incompetent or too timid, it should just admit that it has no solution and close the case. At least it would be more honest and more fair than keeping parties nervous and itself badly embarrassed by its maintaining this many months long case open and doing nothing. --Irpen 03:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, it is unfair to keep parties in the ducking stool for so long, though I'd like to see firm action taken to prevent future abuses. Jehochman Talk 03:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see anyone complaining, and I don't see any reason not to rule on the issues. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No matter what the issues are, if the arbitrators have not done anything for months on this case, what can change to make them do it? Lack of time just does not cut it. They had plenty of time. They don't see the solution? Well, what would make them see it all of a sudden if they could not until now. Even if they are continuously "brainstorming" and could not come up with anything for so long, why do you think they will ever will. It's not like 2-3 weeks of intence brainstorming. It's more like two-three months. No amount of brainstorming can help arbcom solve issues that is too complex for them, be it cure AIDS or build a Chevy Volt. So, if this task is also beyond their competence, they should at least openly admit it. --Irpen 04:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Arbcom is well known to take its own sweetass time. This is hardly the first time it takes awhile, and hardly the longest. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * It's a big case with lots to be considered and I am sure they have discussed matters in depth between themselves and have yet to reach consensus on major issues. It's not likely they have chosen to ignore this.--MONGO 11:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The paranoid side of me wonders if this wasn't intentional on arbcom's part - delay ruling until it is moot. But then again, I'm paranoid. --B (talk) 12:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's Zen dispute resolution. If it works... --Jenny 13:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * B, I can relate to that, but I'm paranoid, too. MONGO's explanation rings true. Everyme 13:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I HOPE MONGO's right. I FEAR B is. The thing is, it won't be moot, for any reasonable value of delay. There are vital issues here that need dealing with. But... dear ArbCom... go read the consolidated workshop page, think about what it's telling you about how the community feels about this, and get a move on, eh? Or tell us what you still need to reach a conclusion. I would not be surprised to see this case raised as a campaign issue by at least one candidate... possibly several. I know I plan to ask about it in my questions to candidates (assuming I am not running myself, that is) ++Lar: t/c 17:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If the involved people are on their best behavior due to a ruling not being pronounced in this case, maybe the best choice is to continue the current state of affairs. That would be a creative solution. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. --Jenny 21:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I am a party, and I don't care how long it takes. Just as long as we get a decision eventually. Viridae Talk 23:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC) There are obvious huge problems here and saying that they should just be ignored because ArbCom apparently can't draft any solutions is absurd. --Tombomp (talk/contribs) 08:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's curious to see comments pop up saying things like the AC "can't" or "are unable" to draft and vote on a solution. Why can they not? How are they unable? I for one am not letting them off the hook so easily. They can, they just haven't so far, and they should acknowledge and act upon the slowly growing impatience, at least by issuing an official explanation for the delay. We've done our part, there's no good reason why they just keep procrastinating. user:Everyme 08:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hence the "apparently". I do pretty much agree with you. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 08:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't mind waiting for a decision in this case. A look at my contributions over the last month or so should show that this case hasn't stopped me from editing in (I hope) a productive manner.  I haven't edited this past week because I was on a leisure trip in which I was completely removed from computers and the Internet.  I'm back now and ready to pick up where I left off.  Although I think that the community should have first had a chance to comment on the issues involved here via RfC, I think an ArbCom ruling on the evidence presented in this case is necessary, appropriate, and prudent, no matter how long it takes. Cla68 (talk) 11:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The arbitration committee sometimes needs a polite reminder of the issues in a case. I'm beefing up the evidence section, though it is my impression that they're well aware of the problem. --Jenny 16:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I certainly hope it improves. So far I see: 1. one POV edit, not half of what you've strenuously defended from Mantanmoreland, 2. a number of comments suggesting Cla68 opposes Wikipedia cliqueism, and 3. that Cla68 did not see good faith in all aspects of the WordBomb/Mantanmoreland affair.  Mixed in with this you quote various statements that seem to present nothing other than what you believe are unfashionable political views.  If this is the basis for your as yet unsupported accusations, I suppose I should be glad you are presenting it. Mackan79 (talk) 16:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you think any of my evidence involves a reference to anybody's political views, it's possible that you were reading another wiki page by accident. Please check your browser.  The conduct issues covered have on occasion required deletion of article revisions, and he has repeatedly made accusations of massive conspiracies involving trusted Wikipedians and the like.  The evidence speaks for itself, so the term "unsupported" seems a little out of place here.  --Jenny 17:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm getting a Déjà vu with all of this late presentation of evidence, months into the case; it reminds me one of the issues this ArbCom should be examining. Perhaps you can request the case stay open much longer, so others can examine your evidence? Maybe another month or so.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Call me confused then about what a number of these are trying to show at all. Is there something wrong with calling someone an  "advocate[] of the theory of human-induced global warming"?  Your comment about him having been "rebuffed" is simply absurd, while the fact that you put edits like this in evidence leaves me unsure if the whole thing is some kind of WP:Point.  That's leaving aside the attitude, at this point, that only someone who has been brainwashed would see anything wrong with the Weiss/Mantanmoreland side of that whole dispute... and that this should call for some form of official correction.  As to what speaks for itself, I think there's considerable disagreement, although I admit the purpose of your submission here is beyond me. Mackan79 (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Move on, nothing new
The obvious stalemate in the ArbCom regarding a case including SlimVirgin is nothing new. Each and every case before this one developed along the same lines, with some mild trout-slapping all around but no teeth. It think that is it save to continue with things as they were as nothing will be resolved. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Why don't you post your allegations directly to WT:AC instead of indulging in this crappy defeatism ? user:Everyme 23:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Striking; seems not so inappropriate now. user:Everyme 12:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, things are predictable here! -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

We can now expect a few weeks of inactivity again (till the storm of dismissing the case goes down), after which a narrow majority suddenly and quickly will vote, and close the case. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

JzG wikibreak
Not sure if anyone has noticed, so dropping off a note here. JzG has announced a long wikibreak, possibly until September. See here. Does this affect this case? Carcharoth (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * not really. It would be surprizing for any remedies other than 'play nice' to apply to him based on what's been shown (not that there's no problems, but that they seemed to be getting better prior to his being away).  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Getting better? You mean blocking editors while calling them trolls based on zero evidence, after the recent RfC? Captain Nemo III (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

What!?
You must be joking, Sam... —Giggy 11:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's nice to see all this time was spent wisely. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 11:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that passing would finish off the community's wavering faith in Arbcom. If the conduct was "highly regrettable" but concerned "events long ago and behaviour which is vexing but unsanctionable", then you should not have accepted the case in the first place, Sam. Instead, you accepted it, allowed the community to spend hours upon days upon months working hard on providing evidence, and flippantly dismiss it with two sentences. Neıl  龱  11:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (e/c)Got to say, I'm a little confused as well. A lot of the evidence does date back quite far, but some is therefore presumably more recent.  The fact that this arbitration case was brought and accepted suggests that there are some current issues that need dealing with, and these presumably go beyond reminding long-established editors to read our basic policies.  This looks like an attempt to just "get it over with" on this case, which is almost certainly not the intention, but I'm fearful that this is how it would play out in the wider community. My 2p anyway. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Bleh. Naerii 12:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What!? is my exact reaction to seeing Sam Blacketer's proposal. This is worse than bad kidding, but to clarify just in case: No, we don't find this funny, Sam. It is surprisingly impertinent though, even by ArbCom standards. user:Everyme 12:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

What in the world is this? I have provided clear, unambiguous, and recent evidence of abuse of the administrative tools. The only reason anything is "long ago" is that arbcom has sat on this for nearly two months and two of the four admins in this case haven't touched the tools since the case opened. --B (talk) 12:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Bull. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 12:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

User:B's evidence reminds me of Tango, where poor actions dating back several years were used as evidence. In this case, the poor actions are much more numerous, more recent and arguably worse. User:Cla68's evidence shows recent problems as well as using actions from several years ago; mostly from 2006 onwards, the same date as in Tango! Saying that this happened too long ago is pretty much bullshit, to be frank. --Tombomp (talk/contribs) 12:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If nothing else, you should explain why none of the recent evidence against FM is sanctionable. Increasingly it seems that ArbCom is a colossal waste of time, only solving easy problems that the community could have solve on its own, and sometimes not even then; the community is forced to address problems on its own.

What is the function of ArbCom? I'm almost positive it wasn't supposed to be a time-sucking drama machine. Cool Hand Luke 12:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with letting bygones be bygones for long ago incidents, in cases where all (further) behaviour by that party has been exemplary. We all grow and change, after all. But for users where the pattern of activities that concern the community has continued, I don't think an exhortation to get along quite cuts it. If there is clear evidence of recent abuse, act on it, please... ++Lar: t/c 12:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I hate to ask for the arbiters to use up so much of their valuable time, but if it isn't too much trouble, maybe they could read Inappropriate_use_of_admin_tools_or_responsibilities_by_FeloniousMonk. I specifically and intentionally only looked at things from the last year.  None of this is long ago.  Arbcom is abdicating its responsibility to at least consider the evidence. I have no confidence in this body any more. --B (talk) 12:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'd like to know why the heck arbcom rushed to accept this case to begin with, especially given the fact that it was done entirely out of process. Cla68 should have been allowed to proceed with his RFC, because it seemed clear to me the issues he wanted to raise would probably require prolonged community discussion and consensus as per the JzG RFC, and that arbcom would strongly prefer not to deal with such a matter prematurely. Instead, arbcom pounced upon the case within hours of its posting, with no explanation for why it warranted out-of-process acceptance, and then - as if it didn't look like enough of a mess already - added JzG to the list of involved parties! And now two months later, Sam throws his hands up in despair and says it's all too much? Methinks your epiphany has come a tad late Sam. Gatoclass (talk) 12:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's be frank. It's obvious now that even if they were to consider the evidence, this will definitely end with a slap on the wrist at best. To everyone who has taken so much as a (neutrally minded!) passing glance at the evidence, it's clear that the sole reason to propose the dismissal is precisely because this RfAr threatens to backfire on the people who opened it, because of... oh... the facts (some opinionated essays that have erroneously been posted to the evidence page notwithstanding). We should just accept that the ArbCom has deliberately refused to fulfill its function and move on to considering potential consequences, including the impeachment of each and every arbitrator who supports this proposal — starting of course with Sam Blacketer, who has already made himself officially impossible as an arbitrator at this point. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">user:Everyme 12:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's unlikely to pass. There is evidence of ongoing problematic conduct on Cla68's part at the very least. --Jenny 13:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah... More like he never did anything outstandingly problematic. And now that the ArbCom realises they cannot do what they are here for, namely to protect their friends and clusterfuck their friends' enemies, they want to dismiss the case. The reason they want to dismiss it is because your "evidence" is completely invalid and useless for your and their common interest. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">user:Everyme 13:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Tony, you missed an important "no" in that statement, and included an incorrect "ongoing" which should have been "any". The accurate statment would read "There is no evidence of any problematic conduct on Cla68's part."  Unless you intentionally intended to misrepresent the truth, which I assume you didn't.  GRBerry 13:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Erm, this is one arbitrator's motion, nobody else on the committee has chimed in, and they haven't really had time to digest the latest evidence/workshop stuff, assuming that they will do so. I think Sam's motion is cause for deep concern, but let's go easy on the outrage at this point, shall we? Everyme, I respectfully think you especially should refactor some of your comments. alanyst /talk/ 13:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I just don't think that using phrasing like "protect their friends and clusterfuck their enemies" assumes enough good faith of the arbitration committee as a whole. I remain hopeful. ++Lar: t/c 13:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How much more evidence to the contrary do we need? Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 14:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Precisely. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">user:Everyme 14:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm confident in the strength of the evidence of ongoing problematic conduct by Cla68. It is for the arbitrators to evaluate the situation, including all evidence available to them. and determine what to do--a task I am confident they are highly capable of and would not, as a body, shirk. --Jenny 14:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering you're still around... Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 14:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

As somebody who has deliberately stayed away from the Arb Comm-bashing and the like over the last few weeks in the interests of giving it some space to work out its issues, let me just add my voice to those who say that a passage of this motion will leave my entirely free of confidence in the body. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with many people above. If ArbCom votes not to do anything, especially after the past couple weeks, this will destroy arbcom's reputation for many, and make the whole process look rather ridiculous. I urge other arbitrators to decline the motion to dismiss. Wizardman 16:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Erm...jigga-WHAaaa? You really can't be serious, can you? Between the last ArbCom misstep and this alleged "solution", I don't believe I'm being overly Cassandra-esque when I say that if this passes, WP will experience a mass exodus of--or at the very least, some rather unattractive anarchy among--the ranks of established editors. Honestly, I don't think this is a very good idea. Please reconsider. Gladys J Cortez 01:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear Option.
Well.

I think now it's time to bring out the nuclear option on this.

In light of the great amount of community concern shown, both in this case and in arbitrators actions in general, it is hugely unwise for Arbitrators to dismiss this case with a hand wave.

If the motion proposed by Sam Blacketer passes, then I think it is fair to say the Arbitration Committee will have voted to ignore their own duties.

In such a case, the community would be obliged to take the extraordinary step of making it clear that we have no confidence in the Arbitration Committee, and will not accept it's authority until it is suspended and new members elected.

You were warned against making further actions like this, you were expressly told that suspending the Arbitration Committee was an ultimate if reluctant option, but it seems like you haven't grasped that we really meant it. You should consider yourselves on notice.

I strongly urge not only rebutting the proposal to suspend the case, but to retract the proposal all together. --Barberio (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Who do you claim to speak for, John? --Jenny 14:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Electing new members isn't going to solve anything. There have been new members annually (or more often as needed) and if that were all that were necessary, this should be the best arbcom ever.  The silliness of arbcom has really gotten old.  (Anyone remember last year where the solution to address harassment was to redirect pages to clown?)  We need to completely get rid of the separate class of elite users (mini-god-kings) that arbcom has become.  Why not allow any admin in good standing who has been an admin for at least 6 months to throw their name into a pool of "jurors" that can be randomly selected to hear a case?  A single "clerk" can oversee everything to maintain focus and decorum, but only the randomly selected "jurors" would make any binding decisions.  This solution would solve arbiter burnout and remove the air of superiority from arbcom. --B (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Because obviously a pool of people self-selected for the desire to make decisions governing other people's conduct is much more likely to be representative of the community at large, and much more likely to reach a unanimous, non-controversial decision, than the current arbitrators. Obviously. Thatcher 14:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (Although, if there was a rule that any admin who expressed a point of view on the situation or the parties prior to some defined stage--say, 7 days after the opening of the evidence page--was barred from participation in the final decision, we might get somewhere.) Thatcher 14:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (And I'm sure that open participation would make vote counting and closing the case quite interesting, since a few new participants showing up at the last minute could change the required majorities and swing the results of narrowly divided cases. But of course no one ever uses secret mailing lists or IRC/gchat for such purposes, right?) Thatcher 14:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Holding two principles in mind, I don't see any alternative to an elected arbitration committee:
 * There needs to be some arbitrating authority, lest we end up with the horrors of "votes for banning"
 * I wouldn't trust vast swathes of admins to fulfill this role.
 * While acknowledging concerns about some recent decisions of the Committee (I'm fairly sure the clown thing failed, yes?), I strongly suggest that these concerns are channeled into helpful dialogue, rather than screaming and shouting condemnation, as appears to be the vogue. Sam Korn (smoddy) 14:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with "votes for banning" currently on ANI and on the old WP:CSN was that decisions are made by whoever shows up. So if 10 people show up quickly who don't like a user, they are banned before anyone else has a chance to reply.  That problem goes away completely when decisions are made by a randomly selected jury.  Instead of being whoever shows up, it's a random group from a pool of experienced admins. --B (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I can think of several admins with more than six months' experience whom I would not trust here. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I of course agree, but no one person would be hearing the case. A 12-person jury is, as a whole, going to be effective, even if one member has an agenda. --B (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I can think of several arbs whom I would not trust here؟ The annual ArbCom elections take up a massive amount of time and energy.  Jury selection might be more efficient.  Perhaps juries could be chosen to serve for a few cases at a time, and then be disbanded. Jehochman Talk 15:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Jury duty is significantly different because there is no level of skill needed. Arbitration decisions are clearly more complex than up-down guilty-not guilty decisions.  The other difference is that jury duty is compulsory (or near enough) -- non-compulsory jury duty would result in only those with strong opinions being involved.  I am not only thinking of agendas, though, when I say that I wouldn't trust people -- I'm also thinking of competence.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

<--The arbitration process involves several complex tasks including analyzing evidence and writing decisions that are based on the evidence but which take into account policies and community standards of behavior. In the US/UK legal system, at least, these functions are split between the prosecution, defense, and judges. The reason you can pull 12 random people off the street and get a reasonable outcome is that you have a judge to explain the law, and attorneys to lead the jury through the evidence, suggesting how the facts line up on one side of the law or the other. I have seen the kinds of workshop proposals that are written by random editors who are interested in a particular case but have no experience with the process otherwise. The only way a random jury system has a chance of working is if the "clerks" you propose are tremendously empowered to rewrite or even dispose of proposals written by the jury that are out of bounds. And if you don't think that would be controversial, you haven't been paying attention. Whom would you trust to be the "clerk" of the latest Giano-related case, for example. Thatcher 15:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, in the UK at least, civil cases are rarely tried with juries for all these reasons. Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Mr Korn's line of thought up to this point, but not with Mr Blacketer's move to dismiss. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's just appoint a Witchsmeller Pursuivant and be done with it. --Jenny 15:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There are a number of reasons for the current dissatisfaction with ArbCom; some are actually ArbCom's own doing (Orangemarlin? Clown?), while others stem from the unrealistic expectation that ArbCom can resolve longstanding, essentially insoluble personal conflicts in a way that makes everyone happy. Partly I think the departure of Newyorkbrad, the Arbitrator with the most unanimous community mandate, has hurt them. They're currently dealing with quite a few intractable issues; maybe this is partially their "fault" for accepting cases of limitlessly unmanageable scope (like this one), partly it's that people expect them to take on these kind of poorly delimited cases. Certainly I've been unhappy with the way some recent issues have shaken out. On the other hand, earlier this year when I had a real, significant, carefully delimited user-conduct issue that required Arbitration, I was very impressed with the Committee's ability cut through the usual handwaving BS and adjudicate the case quickly and well. I think in some ways, ArbCom has been set up (or set themselves up) for failure by taking on cases like this, and now that the result is inevitably disappointing, people are howlin mad. Additionally, there is a growing class of editors who have decided to cease contributing value to the encyclopedia and hang around solely to politick, pursue their age-old grudges and idees fixes, and fulminate about the cosmic unfairness and corruption of the system. I don't know for whom Barberio claims to speak. While I've voiced significant dissatisfaction with specific ArbCom actions, I as an invididual member of the community certainly wouldn't endorse the threatening and scolding language of his post here. MastCell Talk 16:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nor would I endorse it. Barbiero does not speak for me. There are difficult issues that ArbCom needs to address, most notably how to deal with problematic VestedContributors, and the way to deal with them is to actually come to grips with the issues, not issue generic statements. So the ArbCom should get on with it, should deal with the issues. Dealing with this case firmly and forcefully would be very helpful. This case is not of limitlessly unmanageable scope, and dealing with it correctly would set good precedent. The needful findings and remedies are (I think) clear to a rather large majority of the community, are relatively crisp in their span, and should be embraced. We very much need an ArbCom. One with the gumption to do what is needful, not shirk away. That is not the same as calling for a revolution, or nuclear force or whatever. But I predict this year's elections will be interesting. ++Lar: t/c 16:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with waiting for next election cycle, is it's a clear pass for those not up for re-election, and who assume it'll all die down by the time their turn is up.
 * We've been asking the Arbcom to try and not be a gaggle of ducks for a while now. We flat out told them that rolling this up into an absurdly large omnibus case would make it unmanagable, but they didn't listen. The handling of this case and others has taken the turn for arrogant, obnoxious and foolishness. And as has been clearly demonstrated, simply asking them to not keep making these blunders hasn't stopped them from continuing to make these blunders.
 * Do you really want to let them off with a slap on the wrist and "Oh we'll see what happens when you're up for re-election then".
 * Nope, I for one have no more confidence in this Arbitration Committee. I think others will agree. --Barberio (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't saying that the next election cycle was the magic cure. Just that it will be an interesting election. I predict (from this distance) a number of "new broom"-ish candidates will run. If meanwhile there is no change in ArbCom's approach, then the new candidates, assuming they even pass (all this may be a tempest in a teapot by then, or have been forgotten... or it could continue to be something that folk remember as very important, who can say?) will have some influence but will not necessarily be a majority. The RfC may be of some impact, or it may be like many RfCs, ignored. It's all rather unclear. Who knows. ++Lar: t/c 11:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Clown" was a single sarcastic proposal by a single frustrated arbitrator who is no longer on the committee. It's time to move on. Thatcher 16:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And yet, here we are, with another blunder. --Barberio (talk) 16:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you explain what you believe to be a blunder? --Jenny 17:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Tony, we get it. You don't think anyone but Cla68 has done anything wrong.  You either aren't reading the evidence very well or you are not seeing the obvious abuse of the administrative tools.  The admin tools are not toys to be used in the furtherance of personal grudges or editing positions.  There are four admins here and in the case of three of them, there is significant evidence of administrative abuse (the exception being SV, where the evidence focuses on issues having nothing to do with the admin tools).  Yes, there is a lot of noise mixed in and a good portion of the evidence is just sour grapes or "he disagreed with me therefore it is harassment", but that doesn't justify ignoring that there is some pretty flagrant abuse of the tools.  That needs to be addressed in some fashion.  Address it through desysopping.  Address it through warning.  Address it through saying that the evidence is misrepresented.  But don't address it via putting your fingers in your ears and humming loudly. --B (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know who "we" are supposed to be in the above. Whoever they might be, I don't think they get it at all, and I'll explain my perspective so that perhaps they might understand.  I haven't examined the other evidence in depth, but my main concern is the abuse of Wikipedia for the pursuit and enabling of external vendettas, which I perceive to be the single most damaging aspect of this case, and on which I have contributed evidence. If there is other problematic conduct, that will also come out and be addressed by the committee.  However abuse of admin tools is relatively routine and easily addressed, compared to what I consider to be a far more insidious problem.


 * Having said that I find much of the other evidence difficult to follow and not particularly useful. It seems as if some of those submitting the evidence are raising long-running differences of opinion involving some bad behavior that would have been better addressed at the time rather than raising in this case, which was called over the conduct of Cla68.  If there has been "flagrant abuse of the tools" I think we'd have seen that in the evidence.   --Jenny 17:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not even sure where to go with this. Please read #Inappropriate_use_of_admin_tools_or_responsibilities_by_FeloniousMonk and tell me that you don't see a problem. He has had multiple bad blocks, protected pages to gain an advantage in a content dispute, closed off discussion over the appropriateness of an image claiming to be an "uninvolved admin" despite clearly being involved, and cherry picked reports from SlimVirgin and Jayjg.  This is the very definition of abuse of the admin tools.  If this were 14 admin actions out of 50K over 5 years, ok, whatever, but this is 14 out of 40 and only within the last year. I don't for the life of me see how this can be called anything other than flagrant abuse. --B (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * We are all indebted to you for seemingly breaking your "rule to only contribute roughly once per day to any community discussion". It's been enlightening. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 18:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I wondered who would bring that up! :) I'll take another rest. --Jenny 18:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * B, with all due respect, SandyGeorgia lays out a clear reason why SlimVirgin should loose the tools. She uses adminship to bully non-admin editors. That is as bad as misuing the tools. --Dragon695 (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That may be and that wasn't the point I was trying to make. An abuse that involves hitting the block, protect, or delete buttons is an abuse that the community as a whole lacks the power to deal with and so arbcom must deal with it.  If SV is bullying users, that's outside the scope of the point I was making. --B (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Dragon695; please don't attribute to me conclusions I haven't stated anywhere. If you look at the Workshop page, you'll see the positions I took on JzG, FeloniousMonk and SlimVirgin.  If you want a characterization from me, ArbCom is overlooking clear and compelling evidence about FeloniousMonk throwing past ArbCom rulings to the wind wrt his treatment of fellow admins, while they are busy examining OrangeMarlin, who certainly might have taken his on-Wiki behavioral cues from FeloniousMonk.  With respect to SlimVirgin, I would have thought ArbCom could come up with a way of dealing with those issues.  I guess we all thought that sorting out a complex case (made complex by them) was why we elected them.  I can say that the ArbCom members I've voted for and supported in the past aren't ruling in this case, and that my one-vote-per-year rule is kaput; next December, I vote up and down on every one who presents.   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I must say as a casual browser of these and related conversations recently, MastCell's comments always seem to be dead-on. Can he be forcibly drafted into ArbCom to fill one of the vacant seats? - Merzbow (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hah. The check's in the mail. You only have to convince another 91 people... MastCell Talk 21:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You have my vote. Make that 90. --B (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Actually, I already voted for you ... I guess I don't get another one. --B (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I can do it for you. I am yet to see a comment by Mastcell that is not completely and utterly flawless. Merzul (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Add one to the Mastcell plus column; I seriously regret my past voting strategy. I didn't fully appreciate the importance of carefully analyzing and weighing in on every candidate. I won't condemn ArbCom for conducting a secret investigation; there are circumstances that necessitate confidential investigation:
 * "I strongly believe in transparency on-Wiki, but there are limits. An RfAr under these circumstances would be a horror show and should not be suggested again. We need to be able to identify and deal with the(rare) sensitive situations like this that need to be investigated and resolved in a highly sensitive and confidential fashion. Newyorkbrad 15:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)"
 * I do have a problem with the possibility that Orange took his cues as to acceptable behavior on Wiki from FM, an admin active in the articles that got Orange into trouble, rather than viewing the likes of Mastcell or Tim Vickers as more appropriate examples of how to get the job done without getting crossways with core policies. It's very troubling that on the one hand, ArbCom investigates Orange, while on the other hand, they may let the example which may have led him to behave that way off the hook. This sends a message about acceptable behavior on Wiki, and disregard for previous ArbCom statements. More troubling is that, had an RfC on SlimVirgin gone forward, the community would have overwhelmingly spoken and taken action.  ArbCom took that option from the community when they prematurely accepted the case so an RfC couldn't proceed, but appears on track to do nothing to resolve the issues.  We need two-year term limits.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

<--I'd like to suggest that if the case is dismissed, it would be possible to file a new case, and I would further suggest that to be effective, any case should be specific, narrowly targeted and with reasonable expectations for outcome. Cases of the type All these people are bad, please tar and feather them are never handled well, even with lower profile editors. Thatcher 19:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused; this case was originally 3 people. I'm not really sure how much more specific you wanted it. The JzG addition was completely ridiculous and has muddled everything further, but ignoring that I don't really understand where "All these people are bad, please tar and feather them" came from, especially as this case was originally bought against one person and the evidence page has simply been examining the behaviour of the bringers of the case as well. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 19:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It was ArbCom members who voted to roll all these cases up into a ridiculous omnibus case, against community opinion. --Barberio (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sam wrote earlier: ''"Furthermore, in the UK at least, civil cases are rarely tried with juries for all these reasons." Sam Korn 15:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)'' I believe in some systems of justice, juries sit with a judge acting essentially as a neutral facilitator. Suggest it should be possible to devise something similar --luke (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My first impression is "that could only work with a neutral facilitator who doesn't form judgments". You are still left with the problem of actually writing the decision -- if it was the facilitator who did that, you would have even more accusations that the facilitator would be influencing the case with their own biases -- and those accusations would probably be fair. Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Both decision-making and group discussion should be transparent and open to scrutiny. The role of the expert facilitator is to be neutral, and relevant parameters are to be set by the community. --luke (talk) 06:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Specifics please
Dismissing this case and asking people to "play nice" does not add value. Please list out each involved party and provide specific feedback on their actions, whether good, bad, ugly or stale. Even if you choose not to place sanctions, a bit of reminding could be helpful, and if nothing else, specifics may help resolve issues. Thanks. Jehochman Talk 15:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Handicaps on how soon the problematic editing and behaviors resume, anyone? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, JzG has said he doesn't anticipate returning to edit before September, so I'll go out on a limb and guess that he won't do anything problematic before then. Lacking any evidence of a break on the part of FM or SV, I decline to make predictions about anyone else.  GRBerry 18:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps individual arbs should simply post items to vote on, even if there is no draft consensus, if things are deadlocked. A public vote will at least break a deadlock by forcing the issue, wouldn't it? Politics mean nothing. rootology ( T ) 17:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, just like the last IRC case, posting a dozen or so proposals with no hope of achieving a majority on any of them will be good for the project, no doubt. Thatcher 18:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * At least we'll know where they stand. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 18:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Thatcher's point. After two months, all of the parties have been on tenterhooks for long enough, regardless of the outcome. It seems clear that Arbcom will not come to a consensus on this case. Writing out a long list of FoFs naming each individual affected editor/admin is not helpful and only prolongs the pain if there is going to be no agreement or remedy. A general "everybody behave yourselves" remedy is about the most that can be hoped for at this stage, and I'm pretty sure that will satisfy nobody. While accepting this case as an omnibus may not have been the best choice, it is the one we have to live with.  Risker (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding?!? You do realize that SV and FM are lying low just to achieve this. Editors like SandyGeorgia came forward, knowing that they might be later harassed, hoping that the committee would do something about these administrators. It is not enough to just say kiss and make up. Where is the justice for Tango? Tango did a lot less and lost the bit. No, it will not be acceptable to dismiss the case. It has been shown that these editors just go back their old ways once they are out from underneath the spotlight. --Dragon695 (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Bingo. Two of the four administrators mentioned in this case haven't touched the buttons since the case started, so making a judgment over what has happened in the last month doesn't really tell anyone anything other than that the committee is incapable of performing its duties. --B (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Dragon695; we can hope that ArbCom has factored my evidence, and understands the concern about the chilling effect and how editors are silenced on Wiki by powerful cliques. I suspect this will affect editors' willingness to come forward with evidence in future cases.  I took (for the second time) valuable time away from a family vacation trip to get my evidence in on time (so ArbCom could sit on it for six weeks).  Every community makes choices, we elected ArbCom, they've made theirs.  Whenever one engages online, the outcome is always uncertain, because anyone can say anything on the internet. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) While I can agree with Thatcher that it would probably not be helpful for the Arbs to propose remedies that they know have no chance of passing, I disagree with Risker's assessment of it being clear that Arbcom will not come to a consensus. Discussion I've seen to date simply indicates that there is nobody attempting to draft a proposed solution, which is quite different.  If the Arbs have indeed been discussing this and decided that they can't handle it, the motion to close without any findings ought to read "The Arbitration Committee finds itself unable to resolve this dispute, therefore..."  That isn't the current motion.  GRBerry 18:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually drafting a proposal is hard work, and the two arbitrators who have done the majority of this heavy lifting lately have come under ferocious attack for doing so. Funny that they would be less than enthusiastic about tackling this one. Thatcher 19:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the attacks were due to the writing, exactly, so much as when the writing happened... ne? ++Lar: t/c 20:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to trouble them to do their job. If they don't like the responsibilities of the position, they are free to resign.  Nobody forced them to seek election. --B (talk) 19:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I do have to ask, how someone who lacks the skills to draft a proposal ends up on the arbitration committee of a project this large? If they didn't want to do the things the job entails, they should not have accepted it. Any arbitrator who does not feel capable of writing a clear piece of text stating their opinion on a matter is unqualified for the position, and should resign. --Barberio (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We voted them in, for the most part, if I recall correctly. I don't think we administered very many "proposed principles/findings/remedies" aptitude tests during the elections, if I recall correctly. ++Lar: t/c 20:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh - made me go back and look at the results. I wish I could invent a time machine and go back to vote for Giano - whatever his other issues, at least we know he can write prolifically. Kelly  hi! 22:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This should probably be remedied. Perhaps a strong suggestion that candidates should shadow current cases, and provide a summary of what the current or most recent cases are about, and proposals they would draft. At a minimum ability to write 500 words on a current case should be something an arbitrator can demonstrate.
 * Perhaps we also need to think in the other direction, and *reduce* the numbers of arbitrators, and increase the frequency that we elect new ones. To reduce the number of mediocre alsorans getting in because we have to fill the seats, and decease the lengthy terms that seem to cause burn out. --Barberio (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's why I suggested a clerk write the opinion (glances at Thatcher and smiles a wicked grin). Jehochman Talk 20:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The decision is already written (by Rocks/dirt), it just needs a few planks knocked out. ++Lar: t/c 20:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * hmmmm. I suggest maybe going a head and identifing the planks to remove?  I think I'm mostly done with this.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It was all predictable. The RfC was stopped because ArbCom accepted the case.  Then ArbCom merged the cases, creating a mess.  Then they dismissed the case because it was a mess.  End result; no community input in an RfC, which would have yielded at least some result.  Community was short-circuited.   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Sandy. This is disgraceful, though I'm going to assume good faith and believe that this is incompetence rather than malice. Pretty bad in either case. Kelly  hi! 22:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop/Merged is whats being referred to, it appears. rootology ( T ) 21:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No way. If we let people off the hook because they take a wikibreak during an arbcom case, lets not even have arbcom anymore. Kwsn  (Ni!)  22:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, looks like someone had that idea already LOL --B (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * When, in the course of human Events... I think our problem is that we have no Thomas Jefferson to express the will of the community. But the grievances from that document come to mind..He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good...He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them... (only half-joking) - Kelly  hi! 22:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't think the Arbs could have handled this in the first place when it was just Cla68-FM-SV. They themselves should have known that, and sent it back to the community then. However, at least having the evidence and workshop pages on all this allowed the community to significantly refine the evidence and the remedy proposals. The material here could still be used for some really well-documented and well-focused RFCs on some of them at some point. (not really joking) Amerique<small style="color:DarkRed;">dialectics 01:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

To urge the parties involved to review core policies and ask them to generally play nice from now on is something I could have done, and it certainly does not constitute a solution to this matter in my mind. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 02:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd echo that, AD - in fact it surprised me a little, having just caught up with the last few days (weeks?) of this case (!!) - that at least one arb seems to have come around to agreeing with me somewhat. The trouble with taking many weeks to deliberate something like this is that it now kinda makes sense for the community to question what exactly you've been doing? How have you been examining this issue? What are the thoughts within the committee? Can you provide some sort of leadership? or maybe just a few 'opinion' pieces from arb.s would go a long way? I'd also like to support rootology's point below - if the case was a mistake to have accepted and heard in this manner, it would really help for all arb.s to try and identify exactly where the mistakes were made, and how we're going to avoid them in the future..... Privatemusings (talk) 05:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

At least give it an honest try
I'm chummy to semi-friends with people on both sides of this, for my COI disclosure. I think you guys--the Arbs--should simply vote and get it done with. Thatcher's commentary above about the IRC arbcom was completely unhelpful and alarmist to say the least, when I suggested this above (sorry, Thatcher). Just vote the damn thing up and down, to give it a fair go. If you can't arbitrate it point by point, bit of evidence by bit of evidence because of politics, friendships, or improper protection of vested users on any side, so be it. At least then it'll be done and everyone can move on to either resolve it community level or do something with the arbcom (fire you all, disband arbcom, enforced change, status quo, whatever). Start with this: Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop/Merged, copy it over, add some Cla sanctions to vote on, and we have political NPOV. I appreciate you guys, since you do have a frankly shitty role, but you decided to do it. You're not here to be liked, you're here to vote this stuff up and down. Please let this end one way or the other. rootology ( T ) 22:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree, but am saddened by the inability to deal with our long term user problems. for the record I struck a number of the rememdies and findings in the /merged, that I find to be uncompelling.  anyone else please feel free to change it or add more from the workshop page if there's something that is missing.  I don't see any thing in cla's conduct as presented in the evidence that would lead to any kind of finding/remedy directed at him, but that's just me.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe I should've let my arbcom bid run its course last year... Wizardman  00:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Replies to some recent comments
Suitably reminded that volunteering to be an arbitrator was not out of a bid for popularity, I would like to comment briefly on some of the opinions that have been expressed here. The role of the arbitration committee collectively is to issue binding decisions in complex disputes so as to help the writing of a neutral high-quality encyclopaedia. If it is an arbitrator's considered opinion that not issuing any findings would be the best way to help write an encyclopaedia then they are honour-bound to make this proposal, however unpopular it might be. Just as an administrator does not have to block an editor who has broken some of the rules if they think it would be harmful, so it is with arbitration; the mere fact that someone has done something that causes problems and might warrant restrictions does not mean that they will be restricted when all things are considered.

So far as I know the only contact I have had with and from the parties in this case is when I upbraided one for incivility some time ago, so I hope this refutes the suggestion that there is some kind of invisible protection of particular editors. No other arbitrator has yet voted on the motion; if it is rejected then the time will come for all non-recused arbitrators to vote on a full decision. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. You think this is the best solution. I think you're wrong, but if you get support from other arbs, so be it, ArbCom will have spoken, and the community will have to either accept that, accept it and take some other action, or rebel (and the last case is highly unlikely, and one I advise strongly against). But I think up/downs, with reasons, on the merged proposals would be beneficial. I want to know who stands where for future reference. Of course, this has been asked for before in other cases and not granted. ++Lar: t/c 11:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't that like treating an arbitration case as an election campaign? Surely we want the Committee to be able to resolve difficult disputes in the interests of the encyclopedia, not have to be peering over their shoulder to see who's going to vote them down because they didn't agree with an individual opinion in committee.  --Jenny 11:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair point. It's a balance. We don't want to second guess every decision, we elected them to make hard decisions when for one reason or another we did not. But, ArbCom serves at the will of the community, and serves to implement policy (which is derived from consensus) and consensus as best it understands it, not to set new policy. So some oversight of the committee's activities is a good thing. Including asking that Arbitrators take stands on things. I did not vote for any arbitrators to become star-chamberites. Balance all that against your point, which is that we don't want to constantly have them second guessing themselves and checking polls before deciding what to have for lunch. Some balance is required. But, ultimately, arbitrators are accountable, or should be, with rare exceptions for things that need to remain private. Arbitrators that feel they are above community review of their actions may get less support going forward, I suspect. ++Lar: t/c 13:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a quick comment to Sam's point that "...an administrator does not have to block an editor who has broken some of the rules if they think it would be harmful". While this is certainly true, it would be a rare case where that administrator does not at least reprimand that editor and counsel against future similar behaviour, especially where there was no indication that the editor realised their behaviour broke the rules. You may not want to sanction any of the parties to this case but your phrasing of the motion to dismiss suggests you do think some of the parties erred. I see little evidence during the progression of this case of many "mea culpa - I have done better since" statements. Perhaps it would be helpful if the Committee made it clear where they have found misconduct even if no formal sanctions are ultimately issued. WjBscribe 14:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you folks fob off this responsibility, you will be serving the trolls a roasted turkey with crunchy skin and tasty stuffing. Please, take Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop/Merged and vote with reasons.  If nothing passes, so be it.  At least the matter will be closed. Jehochman Talk 10:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree. It would be a good idea to do something, once and for all, about the abuse to which SlimVirgin has been subject for several years now.  The problem isn't going to go away.  There are other, deeper issues, of which that is only a symptom.  --Jenny 10:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Slim will get her just desserts, it may not be this time around, but someday... --Dragon695 (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The 'just desserts' might happen this time, but if they don't then the potential of something even stupider from the unbalanced folks who get info from the board of outter darkness where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth is much higher.  And that's not right either.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "If it is an arbitrator's considered opinion that not issuing any findings would be the best way to help write an encyclopaedia then they are honour-bound to make this proposal ... ." So in other words, the fact that the parties to this case do some good work, or, at least, work that you agree with, excuses bad conduct.  So I can push a POV, treat anyone who disagrees with me like a troll, block people I don't like, and close AFDs of my own articles?  That certainly sounds like the "best way to help write an encyclopedia". --B (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that's an overly broad interpretation of what Sam said. I don't agree with him in this case but I agree that in some cases this is a good and valid finding to make. ++Lar: t/c 13:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Just as an administrator does not have to block an editor who has broken some of the rules if they think it would be harmful" <-- I see what Sam is saying here, and I was once in a similar situation. I did block an extremely established editor for edit warring once, and consider it one of the best moves I've made, as it showed guts and a desire for the right outcome. So really, I would say a temporary block shows that an established editor is just like any other editor; favoritism just slows us down as an encyclopedia. Hindsight may be 20/20, but Sam, if both sides are disagreeing strongly with your proposed decision, that would cause me to think twice about wanting to do that. Personally, I just don't want to see a C68-FM-SV 2. Wizardman  13:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the notion that in some cases not issuing any remedies would be a good and valid outcome, but I don't see how failing to issue any findings whatsoever can be beneficial after ArbCom has accepted a case and allowed it to proceed. If a committee member thinks there is a justifiable reason not to take any action, fine; there should be findings of fact to delineate what problems have occurred, and a detailed rationale for why taking no action will better aid the interests of the encyclopedia than any of the proposed remedies will. After all, there's a default presumption that significant violation of core WP policies is detrimental to building the encyclopedia, so a strong case needs to be made for why circumstances are extraordinary enough to warrant allowing such violations to continue. alanyst /talk/ 13:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Considering what many of the detractors of Arbcom have been saying about this case here and elsewhere and how this is exactly what they'd been saying was going to happen because it would give some unpopular admins a get-out-of-the-manure-pit-free card, this is a bloody awful idea. There are thousands of words of evidence and debate over this, there's a (arguably incomplete) set of findings and proposals that have been drafted by the community indicating some important points that can provide the Arbs with a focal point for their own discussion, and dozens of editors have been involved on all sides of the debate. Frankly, if this passes, to me as an observer of the process and someone who respects the work and effort Arbcom puts into what is a thankless volunteer position, this would be a copout of the highest magnitude and simply lead to a far more intense bout of zomgDRAMAZ!!! in the near future - which would certainly not be of much use in building the encyclopedia. I strongly urge the arbitrators to consider that they are, at this point considering the issues that have arisen recently around the Orangemarlin case and others, on a raised stage with the community watching them carefully. Bailing out on a case like this, where there has been so much work done to place it before the committee, would validate a lot of the opinions floating around, and it will be very, very hard to earn the respect back that will be lost. Please continue to consider this case and, as Alanyst mentions above, at least bring forward some findings that will help all of us build the encyclopedia more effectively. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There is obviously a very sharp division within the community upon how this case takes shape. For me, it would be better to have a resolution to this case of some form than none, and I've been saying this for a while now.  However I don't see why it would be such a tragedy if no resolution was forthcoming here.  To take an example, did the resolution to the Badlydrawnjeff case have to come in that case?  The commmittee could have bided its time and come up with the same decisions in other cases, involving some or all of the same parties.  The fact that it chose to do so in that particular case was really more of a raffle (and I speak as one of the active parties) than may be generally realised.  The fact that this isn't taken for granted worries me a lot.  The principles going forward from a case are often of much greater value than individual findings and remedies. --Jenny 22:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

If this is dismissed:
I will keep this exceedingly brief. If this is dismissed as appears likely - while not essentially being evidence that double standards exist, it will certainly have the potential to give the impression that they do. If you, individually or collectively, cannot bring yourselves to even have a vote on the merged proposals, I would ask those who cannot to consider stepping down as arbitrators as they are clearly failing to execute the responsibilities which they have been elected to fulfil.

This is not intended to be a piece of dramatic hyperbole, it just seems a little pointless to me to have a set of arbitrators who do not seem to be in a position to carry out their duties properly. If I was currently a sitting arbitrator (something that would never happen, of course) I would not hesitate to nail my trousers to the mast by voting in this case, and I completely fail to see why any arbitrator feels that by voting, they would damage the project. Brilliantine (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The worst joke is that they don't even vote on the motion to dismiss... <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">user:Everyme 19:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If they don't vote, it doesn't pass... :) ++Lar: t/c 20:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I somewhat disagree. there's no deadline on en.wikipedia, so it can defacto be dismissed by non-activity.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly my concern. And then, after another two months, when someone asks at WT:RFAR, they tell him "Look, there was a motion to dismiss, and not even that was voted on. — Come on in, it's Arbitration Comedy. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">user:Everyme 20:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, 6 of the eight arbiters listed as active on this case editied en.wikipedia today. Some not very much (less than 3 edits), some quite a bit (something like 90 edits).  I'm having a hard time with good faith on this right now.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There seems to be an official decree that arb.com members avoid commenting as independent human beings, but wait until they can collectively issue the perfect press release. This is to avoid drama. Merzul (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There may well be, but it shouldn't and it isn't working. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but there is a motion to dismiss this case, that would seem to need a quick bit of attention/voting. It would be easy enough to vote no, if one didn't feel like they had put sufficient thought into the case yet.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

[unindent] Precisely. That's why the non-votes are so alarming. A lot of users here find the motion absurd, but not one of the remaining 9 arbitrators does. To them it's apparently an option they can seriously entertain.

Charitably, this case had too much evidence for them to follow. That's quite possible&mdash;merging these unrelated and prolific disputes wasn't ideal. Uncharitably, the committee has neglected this case (or worse). Cool Hand Luke 23:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm tending to a more favorable view of the motion to dismiss. I've been gathering evidence on Wikipedia Review for a few days and I'm finally beginning to get a feel for why the mood on these talk pages appears so far out of kilter with that of the community and so vehement and--in a manner that reminds me of the Mantanmoreland case--incommensurate with the evidence.


 * It looks as if certain Wikipedia Review users have been paying special interest in this case and that the rather hysterical speculation of that forum may have affected the views of some who have edited here. As I remarked earlier, I thought the case was heading for a denouement which would cause widespread disappointment, because of incorrect perceptions leading to unrealistic expectations.  I now think I have isolated the principal origin of those unrealistic expectations: the hate campaign on Wikipedia Review.


 * It may well be better for Wikipedia to wait this one out. We'll still be here long after the obsessions of Wikipedia Review have been forgotten.  There are no conduct issues here that have not been aired well enough to merit future community action if it should become necessary, and if the community should fail in future we can come back to arbitration.  However there is much to be said for closing the case without passing sanctions.  I would urge the committee to acknowledge in closing that there is a considerable, long-running and well documented hate campaign directed against some of the subjects of this case on Wikipedia Review, and to remind all Wikipedians, particularly those who frequent that site, that involvement in such campaigns is unacceptable.  --Jenny 11:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You analogize this to the Mantanmooreland case (the one where everyone thought Mantanmoreland was socking, so we eventually blocked his sock amid howls of "lynch mob," and then he started socking again immediately thereafter, rendering ArbCom's unwillingness to reach a decision even more ludicrous). I think that's appropriate.
 * Wikipedia review has been calling for SV's head for ages. And I agree with you that the evidence toward that user is weak. There's good evidence elsewhere, though. My point, however, is that I doubt this community will be able to outlast Wikipedia Review. The site seems more determined than that. Axe-grinders can post on there for years, and they have.
 * We should just do the right thing here, without obsessing over whether Wikipedia Review denizens think it's a good thing or not. Dismissing is not the right thing. We had a problem, and we asked ArbCom to deal with it. They ought to. Cool Hand Luke 14:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

How come you left off the Arbiters and Arbiters Emeritus that participate on Wikipedia Review from your evidence list, Tony? You left off a significant number of users, as seen here (do not redact this link, as I consider it evidence). Additional users in excellent standing, including arbs with accounts, major Wikipedia historical contributors, most if not all with posts: A Man In Black, Aaron Brenneman, AGK, Avruch, Bishonen, CBDunkerson, Casliber, CharlotteWebb, Daniel, Danny, David Levy, Deskana, Derktar, Doc glasgow, east.718, Essjay, FloNight, Giano, Golbez, Greg Maxwell, IronDuke, James F., Jehochman, Krimpet, and people can see the rest. Just in that grab bag of names I recognized (others will see more) I see people that work hand in hand with the WMF, admins, arbiters. rootology ( T ) 15:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't forget Newyorkbrad, who still posts there even though he's left Wikipedia. Kelly  hi! 15:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I like Brad a whole lot and given all the bullshit he's had to deal with didn't feel like using him as some tool in any debate by anyone. I just wanted to point out the extremely selective and POINTy nature of Tony's funny list. :( rootology  ( T ) 15:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm user number 13 there, and a number of other Wikipedians have old accounts too. The site was not always so bilious (indeed, I recall it when there was the occasional constructive discussion). --bainer (talk) 15:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Stop kibitzing, start voting. I mean, what are we paying you arbitrators for?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The userlist is restricted to those who have posted in recent months to the attack forum dedicated to SlimVirgin; I have made no effort to exhaustively list the names of every Wikipedian who has ever posted to Wikipedia Review. This evidence, by showing apparent active participation in that attack forum, refutes the credibility of claims that there is  no bullying directed at SlimVirgin and orchestrated offsite  (there are similar attack forums, on the same site, directed at other Wikipedians, and I have entered those in evidence too).  Participation in Wikipedia Review doesn't necessarily mean a Wikipedian is up to no good, but it does affect his credibility if he posts on one of the personal attack forums on that site and then denies that such offsite (that is, off-wiki) forums exist.


 * Cool Hand Luke believes that the arbitration committee was "[unwilling] to reach a decision" in the Mantanmoreland case. It was certainly unwilling to reach a decision unsupported by the evidence, but nevertheless reached the right decision in that case, rather than the one demanded by certain editors on the workshop.  This is exactly how I would expect an arbitration committee to work, and I'm glad we have one that doesn't bow to popular demand (which in this case was apparently also orchestrated by offsite operations, on Bagley's site and through Bagley's operations on Wikipedia Review).  Long may the Wikipedia community and its arbitration committee retain their rightful disdain for attack forums.


 * The decision by arbcom in that case gave an editor who had made valuable contributions in the past the chance to reform. I'm proud of the committee that gave him that chance and proud of the community that refused to ban him in a subsequent discussion.  He didn't take it, he was caught by checkuser evidence, and he was then correctly banned on good evidence and leaving us in the Wikipedia community with a clean conscience in the knowledge that we had done the right thing. --Jenny 17:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Long may the Wikipedia community and its arbitration committee retain their rightful disdain for attack forums. That's fine, Tony, if it likes. Unfortunately, what you are doing is to obscure the issues that have been raised here with reference to other activity that really has nothing to do with them.  That seems to me extremely misguided, and indeed an extension of your apparent view that Wikipedia should keep fighting fire with fire and disregarding wide swaths of other issues in that pursuit, in particular while attempting to malign the greatly increasing number of editors who disagree with you on this approach. Mackan79 (talk) 23:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia Review (WR) has little to do directly with this case, but, if you'd like to discuss some of the merits of that forum, here's one of them...on WR you can discuss issues with other interested parties, some of whom you may have differences with, without worrying about your comments being deleted or censored. Unfortunately, that's often not the case here in Wikipedia  . Cla68 (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The arbitrators gave Mantanmoreland a chance to reform? That's patently absurd. Neither the committee nor the "community" said any such thing, and Mantanmoreland denied socking until the bitter end. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is not how we should defend the free and the brave. There's prima facie abuse on the table. It's fine to say that no sanctions are necessary, but arbitrators ought to explain why. If all evidence is claimed to be old, they ought to explain why apparently new evidence has been discounted. Cool Hand Luke 06:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Luke, if you're denying that the outcome of the Mantanmoreland arbitration case was that Mantanmoreland was left free to edit as long as he stayed away from the area of contention, and that he was forbidden to use alternate accounts, and that the community subsequently rejected a proposed ban on Mantanmoreland, you're denying the facts. If you're admitting that but denying that that was a chance for Mantanmoreland to reform, I don't know on what possible basis you could make that statement.


 * I agree that there is abuse in the Cla68 case. We probably disagree on where the most significant abuse has been.  In my opinion, the most significant factor of this case is the use of external websites, by Wikipedians, to coordinate attacks on other Wikipedians; a secondary factor is the deliberate importation of external attacks on Wikipedians to Wikipedia.  In essence, we seem to have a situation where a good number of Wikipedians believe the arbitration commitee's rightful place is as a rubber stamp or endorsement of extreme opinions expressed on an external website.


 * Cla68, you're aware of Wikipedia Review's historic and ongoing use as a forum for personal attacks and encouraging sock puppetry and other abuses. You use that site in full knowledge of its purpose.  You have knowingly used a forum on that site dedicated to attacks on SlimVirgin.


 * Mackan79, Wikipedia has never had a policy of "fighting fire with fire" and never will have. We don't have such a policy, nor would I or any other Wikipedian in good faith support one.  The posturing of trolls on Wikipedia Review is not ever likely to influence our policies.  --Jenny 10:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If I can summarize then, it appears you are arguing solely that ArbCom should direct editors not to criticize Wikipedia editors on other websites. Ironically, as a guideline this is something I could support, at least assuming that Wikipedia showed its ability to address behavioral issues here.  Unfortunately it isn't true; you've simultaneously been quite clear in claiming that the case is primarily a WR plot, and then going on to provide lists of editors who I guess you believe are involved and/or should be rebuked.  At least for me that aspect is much harder to appreciate and does suggest you are pursuing fights. Mackan79 (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Your summary is incorrect. I have made no such argument. You've completely misinterpreted my clear an unequivocal statements to the effect that there exist several attack sites against SlimVirgin from which Cla68 has imported material to Wikipedia, and that some other Wikipedians may also have been influenced by them or even participated in the attacks.  I have further noticed that the nature of the attacks is speculative, conspiracy-minded, and clearly intended primarily as hate-fodder. --Jenny 11:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Tony; instead of speculation, I see you would like to compile lists of editors who you think have been unduly "influenced" by another site, to assemble half-baked evidence sections, and to obliquely smear editors related to situations you know little about. Which incidentally still wouldn't be to say you didn't have an argument, if you would just try to make it instead of turning this into a show.  However, if you add "and rebuke Cla and other editors for having done so," then that's your argument as far as I can read it. Mackan79 (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom and cases focused on long-term user-conduct

 * ''I've retroactively made this a new section with the faint hope of generating some discussion. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been mostly a passive observer of this case but its possible dismissal strikes me, first and foremost, as very telling about the profound gap existing between what many (I'm hesitant to say most) editors expect of the ArbCom and what the ArbCom can or is willing to do. Arbitrators handle relatively well cases about long-term content disputes because content disputes can actually be arbitrated. Cases involving long-term grievances about editors' behaviour on the other hand cannot be arbitrated in the usual sense of the term and ArbCom has usually failed to deliver decisions that resolve the underlying ill-will. The Mantanmoreland non-decision simply postponed the eventual community ban of Mantanmoreland. The last BetaCommand non-decision postponed the community's agreement on the "Sam Korn solution". Of course, one can take comfort in the fact that ultimately some sort of community consensus arose in these two examples. Some would also argue that this is exactly what we want the ArbCom to do and indeed I believe many arbitrators feel that imposing sanctions to resolve grievances about long-term user conduct is not within their mandate. But it should be painfully obvious to the committee that in the two cases above and in the present case, editors who brought the cases were looking for justice. Justice on Wikipedia is unfortunately a bit difficult to obtain because it most often is served by "lynch mobs" (a popular meme from the MM case) or is otherwise stuck in endless shouting matches. So those who, rightly or wrongly, feel powerless in their attempt to find justice look at ArbCom as some kind of authority which will mimic the institutions of justice most of us are accustomed to: presentation of evidence, debate before a judge/jury, fair and informed decision. While the ArbCom can decide that it simply isn't such an ultimate authority, it is perpetuating the illusion by accepting these cases (especially when that results in short-circuiting the very very imperfect RfC system). The outcome here is obviously a cruel disappointment for those who spent so much time building the case and I certainly hope no one will condescendingly blame them. The feeling of injustice is one of the more powerful and destructive social sentiments and we cannot as a community bury our heads in the sand and pretend that the project is free of legitimate feelings of injustice, pretend that the project is free of power structures that can foster these feelings, pretend that editors who feel wronged are just thin-skinned, pretend that in the utopian world of good-faith, civility, consensus and "no big deal", there is no need for some sort of judicial authority. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Been watching this from the sidelines as well.


 * It is easy to find ill will amongst editors in Wikipedia. That it exists amongst administrators is thus not surprising (perhaps even expected given that people are voted in or denied by these same editors). That situations develop where the watchers' opinions harden and they begin to see bogeymen around every corner is also unsurprising. The fact that the Arbcom has dodged the case might be the only option: there is no winner in this situation, and perhaps there shouldn't be as neither "side" has bathed itself in glory. It is problematic though, not only for the remaining sense of injustice, but for the plain fact that the residual animosity will fester and spread. In many respects it is the scourge of this medium: it's easy to be righteously intransigent or just plain mean from the anonymous comfort of one's keyboard.


 * In any event, these problems will continue to plague Wikipedia. jddphd (talk · contribs) 04:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't want justice. This ain't a system of government. It's a project. I want editors to be able to work happily on articles (cue Irpen's "comfortable editing environment") free of the long term corrosive influence of those who use bullying or badgering or unevenly balanced tactics to get their way in disputes... tactics that are not pleasant, not collegial and ultimately, not acceptable. The evidence has been presented that this has been going on for some time. There is no sign that these tactics have ceased. Merely that there has been a lull in the problematic behaviour. So a dismissal with no specificity really doesn't suit the situation. ++Lar: t/c 05:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Amen. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">user:Everyme 06:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The idea of 'justice' indicates some manner of actual injury to be made whole. I don't think that's the case.  I agree with lar, the goal is Irpen's 'comfortable editing environment'.  I've not been involved with disputes with the folks here, but I have felt the stifeling influence that is brought by some of the behavior discussed in this case, and would really like the committee to come down one way or another on it.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Lar, you may not want justice, but I don't want to see this encyclopedia built on bullying and injustice meted out to some of its editors. Even within a "project" there has to be natural justice and good management. If people see injustice, or experience it themselves, they will vote with their feet. Do you really want to look back on all this in x years time and say "we got the project done - we rode roughshod over many objections, and shouted down claims of justice and free speech, but we got the project done. The means justified the end, and though many of our contributors were made unhappy by the editing environment, we concentrated on getting the project done", etc, etc? You very consistently take the line that you do about "no government", "this is a private project first and foremost", so maybe we should talk about management instead of government? Carcharoth (talk) 06:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Carcharoth: You may have misunderstood me. I don't want to see that sort of project either... I think you may have "The means justified the end" backwards... means justifying the end is goodness. It's when people assert the ends (an encyclopedia) justify the means (riding roughshod over contributors) where there is a problem. I don't want justice. I just want good management... good management does not include bullying the participants. It does not include stifling the ideas and contributions of those who are not "on the ins". It does not include people made unhappy by harassment, false accusations, or rigged discussions and outcomes. None of those things have a place in a well managed project. WE are the management of this project, we manage ourselves using the consensus process. So WE, through our arbcom, which we empowered, need to sort this out. If our arbcom fails us once, give them the benefit of the doubt. Twice, worry. Thrice, it may be time to seek other mechanisms to manage matters. ++Lar: t/c 06:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * it helps me a lot to add 'for its own sake' to the end of Lar's first sentence (and similar caveats in other places - even if Lar doesn't intend them to be there - it helps me!). I totally agree, particularly in that a Supreme Court of Wiki-Rights would be a truly horrible thing. I also totally agree with you that the principles of fairness and justice are important (we'd call it giving everyone a 'fair go'). It sometimes makes my head hurt to realise that the two positions aren't in tension. cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 06:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, if Lar had said "I don't want justice for its own sake", I would have had no problem with that. Except he didn't say that. It is obvious from what he said later that he meant that, though, so it's OK now. If we can move away from "government" and "quasi-legal setups" and "courts of law" towards "good management" and "fairness", while recognising why humans want to see justice and due process (large systems need checks and counter-balances to redress abuses and avoid injustice), then we might get somewhere. It is obvious that ArbCom does a good job of attracting those who like a quasi-legal set-up. It is not so obvious that it does a good job of attracting good managers. I also think the arbitration role got lost somewhere and is being subsumed under a prosecutorial role, maybe due to the changing nature of the job (ie. the community handles the simple cases relatively well, as FloNight often points out). See also inquisitorial system versus adversarial system. Carcharoth (talk) 06:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the idea of the community dealing with this issue rather than the ArbCom (think Mantanmoreland) is ridiculous, and a preposterous suggestion in the context of an RfAr brought on against an editor in exceptionally good standing for trying to do something about the problems of bullying, gaming of consensus and rules, doubtful and worse use of the tools, tag-team "6RR" etcpp. THIS is what happens when the community tries to sort it out themselves. An RfAr is brought on against them, i.e. if they cannot by quickly silenced with an indef block on flimsy grounds. Doesn't anyone else see the irony? <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">user:Everyme 06:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're correct, everyme - we really need to do something about the terrible bullying Felonious Monk and Slim Virgin have suffered for a long time. Privatemusings (talk) 06:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC) /me rips of Jenny mask and winks ;-) - actualy you're spot on. This comment is solely intended to parody my beloved Jenny, and does not represent the author's views on anything.
 * LOL, PM! I had just come here to extend my comment with "I mean, obviously Tony does. But who else?" <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">user:Everyme 06:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Both of you stop with the sarcasm, ok? SV has been a victim of harassment. To mock or deny that is not helpful. I just feel she plays the "I'm being harassed" card way too often, and worse, in a way that apparently lets her win disputes by intimidating, or giving the appearance of intimidating, those she is in dispute with. Loads of evidence has been introduced to that effect and there is no need to mock her over the real harassment she has suffered, which does not dilute that evidence. ++Lar: t/c 06:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I know that she has been harassed, and I'm not mocking her or anyone else who has, and certainly not for that fact. But the onwiki 'bullying' is a big problem. And in 99 out of 100 cases where she has anything to do with bullying, she's the perpetrator. I'm just mocking Tony for alleging that Cla68 and others are bullying. However, that's probably not a good idea in its own right. But my initial bulleted comment above was totally serious. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">user:Everyme 07:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right to call out anyone wishing to blame a victim, downplay nasty aggressive behaviour, or get cheap laughs from being mean.... I hope that's not the effect of my post above, and it's certainly not the intention - which really was a friendly tease aimed at Tony, whom I hope would not be offended. Apologies for and offense caused. Privatemusings (talk) 07:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC) everyme used to be a village idiot, I think - I guess that's his excuse.....
 * I see no irony in the bald statement that SlimVirgin has been subject to, and continues to be subject to, some very extreme bullying. That it has been directed from external websites and at least partly, it appears to me, condoned and facilitated by some prominent Wikipedians, is also a cause for concern.  I am of course surprised to find claims, for which I can find no support, that SlimVirgin herself has been the aggressor in these matters.  That's why I think this is a very good job for the committee. Sorting it out either way is unlikely to enhance their kudos, but I don't think the community can resolve it.  In the unlikely event that the committee agrees with the idea that the problem actually lies with SlimVirgin's conduct, I will accept that and we'll go forward from there.  --Jenny 09:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So what prominent wikipedians have condoned and facilitated bullying of SV...? Evidence Tony, not more empty statements. Viridae Talk 09:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's the committee's job to evaluate the evidence. I make no empty statements. --Jenny 10:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You made accusations without providing evidence, in the face of overwhelming public feeling contrary to your position. YThat is an empty statement. Viridae Talk 10:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think Wikipedia Review and its cliques and supporters can in any way be said to be representative of Wikipedia. --Jenny 10:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And I Like Cake, so must be right. Ignoratio elenchi, Libum mendacium est. --Barberio (talk) 10:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Talking about those direcly involved on this talk page, WR member or not. You are very much in a minority - "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" Tony - so where is that evidence? Viridae Talk 10:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll ensure that the Committee has an opportunity to examine the evidence, which is public, in detail. I prefer to be in a minority that defends against,  than a majority that condones and enables, or by remaining silent may give the appearance of assenting to, bullying on this scale.  That is to say, I recognise that we all have a moral duty to speak out on matters like this--preferably before they reach the level that has been reached in the attack forums whose purpose is specifically to denigrate, attack and spread rumors about SlimVirgin. --Jenny 10:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You're not helping "your case" by editing your comment after it has been replied to. However, the tactic of using (existing, granted) off-wiki harassment as an excuse is nothing new; not at all. Being the target of harassment does not make one an angel. Also, we (i.e. the rest of us, you are excluding yourself) are addressing long-term on-wiki issues. What do you expect anyone on wikipedia to do about off-wiki harassment? Do you want the ArbCom to shut down WR, ASM and other sites? Stop this stupid and old tactics. OTOH, you're providing excellent proof why these matters must be ruled on by the ArbCom. The kind of comments you're making, totally detached from reality, are what has always been employed as a tactic to filibuster any community discussion on the issue into oblivion. So, again, I think you're doing the right thing by intentionally demonstrating what we're here for and that the ArbCom needs to act on the massive on-wiki bullying perpetrated by those whom you cleverly pretend to protect. Smart of you. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">user:Everyme 14:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The majority of the evidence was an unsupported essay... Once again Tony - when making claims about others you should be providing evidence to back them, which you have thus far failed to do. So either provide your evidence, to support you "extraordinary statements" or stop making said statements. You aren't only answerable to the committee here, you are also answerable to the community and to those who you besmirch. To put it bluntly Tony - put up or shut up. Viridae Talk 10:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Tony, that's just too ridiculous, even by the standards you have established for your comments during this RfAr. You are trying to defend people who have —on Wikipedia— frequently engaged in bullying people, often for nothing more than civilly dissenting in content or project discussions. The fact that SV has been harassed from off Wikipedia and has also been on the receiving end of exceeding assumption of bad faith on Wikipedia does in no way excuse the fact that she has engaged in frequent bullying of fellow editors, frequently assumes bad faith and personalises disagreements, and is an all-around rather contentious person whenever she doesn't 'get her way'. Tony, you have presented your personal opinion in the evidence page; then you overproduced it in the workshop and on all the case's talkpages. Seriously, it's time you stopped commenting here unless you have something new. Your statement that you prefer to be in a minority rings true. But you are the one who is trying (and pathetically, I might add) to defend bullying, and you yourself are thus participating in the bullying against Cla68. Please, just acknowledge the real evidence and stop deliberately trying to insult the intelligence of those who don't share your own personal interpretation of the evidence. And please don't play dumb like that. Your comments are starting to read like you're deliberately summarising and satirising the average comments representing what ostensibly is your stance on the issue. Assuming both good faith and intelligence, I'd say that you're having your fun by playing one long big practical joke on us. I think you know exactly just how contorted the things you say really are. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">user:Everyme 11:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a proposal: for cases of extreme behavioral problems, the project is in need of one of these. jddphd (talk · contribs) 11:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Going back to Lar's original very interesting reply to my comment: I think your interpretation of what I call "justice" (or injustice) is narrower than what I intended. You want the project to be "free of the long term corrosive influence of those who use [unacceptable tactics]": the injustice I'm referring to is the one stemming from the routine impossibility of attaining this goal. Ultimately, we would like to change the conduct of those who knowingly participate in the poisoning of the editing environment and force them to either change or leave. But as long as an editor is entrenched in the belief that he's doing no wrong and that his unfair tactics are the only way to respond to unfair tactics of the opposition, stalemate persists. This inevitably leads to the feeling that other editors fail to recognize or at least fail to stop unacceptable conduct and I believe it is correct to label this a sentiment of injustice. I agree that sanctions are not necessary to cure this but in the present proposal to dismiss the case, there isn't even the slightest recognition of the validity or invalidity of the underlying grievances and it feels like the ArbCom is really saying "this is a lawless land". While that may be a fair assessment, I find it hard to believe that we can construct Irpen's "comfortable editing environment" in a society that doesn't sanction or even formally identify those who participate in its destruction. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Motions based on use of bluelinks
Does the committee really think that those facing an Urging to read a few bluelinks in the motion to dismiss have not read them many times before? It's a classic patronising use of such links. If you can't handle the case, then at least delete that bit from the motion. I mention again that the committee must also cure itself of the notion that it matters to anyone whether there is any difference when they are urged, cautioned, admonished or warned. Splash - tk 13:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * They know full well that it's sub—slap-on-the-wrist. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">user:Everyme 13:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The root of the problem
Hello, just putting in my two cents as a passive observer not taking any sides. There is this notion that being an admin is "no big deal." Fine, but once you become one you are basically appointed for life which automatically puts you in a powerful position. This is a position where you need to dedicate a lot of your time for the project and be trusted. I think that life-long appointments go against the notions of "no big deal" and that there should be "no cabals" and all that. If admins were limited to two-year terms and would have to go through another RfA if they wanted to remain an admin, that would solve a lot of problems. After two years there will be some who have done a tremendous job with no controversy while others may be burned out but can't stop themselves or do not have the consensus to be an admin they once had at the time of promotion. I do not see any reason why one would oppose this, after all being an admin is no big deal, right? This is just my perspective and maybe someone has better insight showing why I'm wrong but for now I'll go with that. MrMurph101 (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

One exception to the motion
abuse is still [very current] and not occuring so much in the past. Blocking an admin he has been in a dispute with for a week with no warning over an "edit war" that consisted of 3 reverts spanning weeks is abusive and illustrates the same lack of judgement that caused him to be named to this case. --DHeyward (talk) 07:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but I have to put up with abuse on offsite forums for simply asking Viridae to take my talk page off his watch list so he isn't tempted to improperly use the tools or otherwise harass me.  I don't think my tone or request was unreasonable but nevertheless Viridae saw fit to disparage an established editor on an external site for daring to request that he doesn't involve himself with my edits.  He characterized this as "pitching a fit" which is neither accurate in terms of tone or content.  Dealing with abusive admins is one of the most difficult and daunting tasks an editor can face.  --DHeyward (talk) 08:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This may be a seperate matter at this point..one that will need a new case with more limited scope..but indeed, I have posted more evidence regarding Viridae and it is current....discussions at my talkpage with Viridae have been pretty disheartening as well......what amazed me the most is his demand that I was not allowed to comment on his admin actions since I never provide any proof that he misuses his tools or position. Clearly, that is not correct. Well, if arbcom has time to review the links and threads, they can see all this mater themselves.--MONGO 08:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with concerns about Viridae, but honestly, this case has got nowhere. I think it would be preferable to close this case, open a RfC on Viridae, and then open a new ArbCom case if necessary. PhilKnight (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What would that accomplish? If the arbiters want to copy/paste the evidence about one particular individual in this case to another case, they are fully capable of doing so.  A lot of work has been done here to present evidence of abuse of the administrative tools by several admins and arbcom could at least do the decency of responding in some way.  Desysop ... say that nobody did anything wrong ... issue formal warnings ... whatever they want to do, the evidence is here for them to do it.  Sticking their fingers in their ears and humming really loud (ie, what they are doing now) is the worst possible alternative. --B (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree...but again, as I mentioned previously...surely arbcom has looked all this over and have not reached a consensus on what is the best thing to do. I am not surprised considering the scope, quantity of evidence and the ramifications.--MONGO 15:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I do have to add however, that indeed, we are near two months since this case was accepted...some resolution needs to be provided and no matter what the outcome, there are going to be some editors that are disappointed.--MONGO 15:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Please topic ban Tony from ArbCom pages
This is out of control, now he is not only trolling the ArbCom talkpages, he's doing it in both the evidence and workshop pages as well! He's even created two separate sections on the workshop page for each of his socks! That's not only confusing to people who aren't aware of his socking, it is against policy as it clearly constitutes abusive sockpuppetry. Enough is enough! Why do we have to put up with this? Oh, and BTW Tony, that quote you linked me to is something I said in DRV, too. I won't retract it nor will I apologize until there is real proof that SV isn't manipulating her position as a victim to game the system and avoid being called on her bullshit. Her intimidation tactics against others needs to stop forthwith. Your incredulous "evidence" does not phase me on bit. --Dragon695 (talk) 12:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I recently retired an older username and switched to a new one as a result of a complaint about the length of my older username ; I did the same in February this year. They are not sock puppets.  I am not engaged in abusive editing or any other abuse of Wikipedia. I've merged the two sections (one under the older user).  There is clearly no intent to deceive as I've updated the user pages and whatnot every time I switched, and have identified myself in discussions where my earlier username seemed relevant  [.  My evidence will be evaluated by the arbitrators and I'm willing to leave the decision to them.  --Jenny 13:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I too was a bitten by the name change, but obviously I agree that there was no intent to deceive and thus no abusive sockpuppetry. Dragon695, if you really want to ban Tony from this case, file a motion to arbcom.  If you want to ban him entirely from all arbcom pages, you better get some steel undies on and head over to WP:AN or similar.
 * Thanks for merging them; I think it would be better if you merged them under the new username, or under "Tony" or something similar, but it matters not as long as the reader can figure out whats going on (when they read it three years from now). John Vandenberg (chat) 13:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the confusion caused. For the record, I have placed on the wiki a copy of a recent email reply I made to a user who wondered about the username changes.  User:RegenerateThis/Usernames. --Jenny 13:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Feel free to change your name to Jenny, but signing one name while using another is poor form. Your readable signature should resemble your username, not just link to it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * It's a nickname based on the pronunciation of "regeneration", "generate", and so on. See Jenny (Doctor Who) for context. --Jenny 15:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And...it's not like this is the only editor who does this.--MONGO 15:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "While not an absolute requirement, it is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the username it represents" seems reasonable, and I think my signature easily fulfils that. --Jenny 15:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I probably confuse some people by having "Dtobias" as my username and "Dan T." as my signature, both variants of my real-life name. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Jenny - Regenerate? OH! I get it! :-) Seriously, I didn't see the connection until Tony pointed it out. In all seriousness, though, even though there is no User:Jenny, if someone registered that acount and started editing, then Tony would have to change his name. Again. No regeneration jokes, please. Carcharoth (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Because, Tony, a common first name is a resemblance to an obscure bit of trivia from an obscure bit of sci-fi. Sure. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * is registered but has no edits and no uploads. I see no reason to do anything about this.  There is no chance of confusion.  --Jenny 16:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Back to the trolling issue... I agree. Tony has now resorted to the hilarious tactic of desperately trying to make this about Wikipedia Review, which only adds to the disruptive quality of his participation in this case. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">user:Everyme 17:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you deny that there exists a forum on Wikipedia Review dedicated to making personal attacks on SlimVirgin, a party to this case? Do you deny that Cla68, a party to this case, has posted on that forum falsely accusing SlimVirgin and others of setting up "Verifiability not truth" as a standard on Wikipedia in order "to allow POV-pushing by some of its proponents, including SV."?   Is your web browser functioning correctly? --Jenny 17:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Jenny, my dear, you're really pushing the "roughly once per day" limitation to which you agreed on your talk page. We all eagerly await and devour your wit and wisdom, but I fear you may providing us with too much of a good thing.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a self-imposed restriction. If I have more to say, I will say more.  Naturally a discussion that is about me will tend to invite my participation. --Jenny 17:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a forum there dedicated to discussing and criticizing Slim, based on her status as a powerful and influential member of the Wikipedia community, yes. And Cla68 has participated there.  Any implication that the forum is to "make personal attacks" or that Cla has posted "falsely" there is entirely your personal spin on it.  But I note that these days it's the opponents of WR who are most frequently linking to it, so I guess I can at least rejoice in the fact that the BADSITES pseudo-policy is now well and truly gone. *Dan T.* (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point about the linking...there could come a time that getting what you wish for might be something you hadn't wished for to begin with. But of course, these offsites exist primarily so people can comment without getting penalized onsite...the issue is when these comments go well beyond mere "review" and instead, as they oftentimes do, become simply more conspiracy theories, posturing and agenda building. If you expect many to believe that WR hasn't been used for the furtherance and perpetuation of myths and heresay, then you are mistaken.--MONGO 17:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If "not perpetuating myths and hearsay" is the minimum standard for linking, then we might as well go ahead and delink all references to Wikipedia too, not just WR. :-) ATren (talk) 12:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Tony, I deny the relevance to this case. you are deliberately trying to make this all about WR in order to discredit the legitimacy of concerns about e.g. SlimVirgin's behaviour. I hate WR, and I agree that the attacks, the harassment and the outing attempts against her are appalling — but you are trying to make this all about WR, and that's intentional disruption, plain and simple. I regard your implicit accusation against e.g. myself of being "influenced by WR" or even "having participated in any off-site attacks" an unacceptable personal attack. And it's a hilariously transparent tactic in the first place. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">user:Everyme 17:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I want to make it plain that I have always believed that this case was about offsite harassment condoned, imported and promoted by Cla68, amongst others. My first statement in evidence here made it plain, as did this response by me on the workshop.  That was well over seven weeks ago and my opinion on the seriousness of this problem has only been confirmed by my more recent findings on a visit to Wikipedia Review--before then I had been more concerned with Cla68's amplification of the offsite attacks of WordBomb.


 * Note that in my evidence on May 24 I referred to Cla68's "frequent resort to bad faith accusations based on statements made on unreliable and clearly biased external websites." Note that on the workshop I referred to "attacks on Wikipedians by other Wikipedians and by trolls those opinions those Wikipedians have chosen to amplify on Wikipedia."  If you think this is some new distraction introduced by me at a late stage, then you haven't done your homework.  And it isn't just me.  Similar concerns about Cla68's conduct are expressed in Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV, which opened this case.


 * Other editors are entitled to their belief that the case is about something else. That is not my concern.  In my opinion the other alleged problems such as those outlined in the evidence of other parties is quite routine stuff and certainly nothing we need to lose sleep over--arbcom can easily handle such problems if it finds it necessary to do so.


 * Disagreeing with my opinion is one thing--as far as I'm concerned the only opinions that matter are those of the eight or so active arbitrators in this case.


 * You however go further than polite disagreement. You describe my expression of my opinion, which is backed by evidence that I personally find extremely persuasive if not incapable of refutation, as intentional disruption  and trolling .  It is not.  You say I accuse you of being "influenced by WR" or even "having participated in any off-site attacks".  I do not.  Please read my evidence and my proposals again.  Your characterizations of my position are simple non sequiturs and are based on a misreading of, or sheer ignorance of, my expressed opinion throughout this case. I freely admit that I may be wrong--as may you and any other participant in this discussion.  The accusation of dishonesty and chicanery, however, is false and unacceptable. --Jenny 17:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is spot-on and high times someone told you your contributions to this case have left the realm of the constructive long ago. And this case has been about people's on-wiki behaviour all along. And that in turn has resulted in the wide agreement in these pages that Cla68's on-wiki behaviour is entirely unproblematic when compared to FeloniousMonk's and SlimVirgin's. This is not about WR. Stop trying to make it about WR. That's not good-faithed participation you're indulging in. It's outrageous personal attacks against editors in good standing, and you should at the very very least be banned from editing this case's pages any further. And you did personally attack me by clearly and intentionally implying that only people who subscribe to WR's skewed world-view could ever have any concerns about SlimVirgin's behaviour. It's a personal attack, and you're making matters worse by feebly attempting to justify it. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">user:Everyme 18:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have never stated or implied that "only people who subscribe to WR's skewed world-view could ever have any concerns about SlimVirgin's behaviour." Far from "feebly attempting to justify the attack", I assert plainly that I never said or implied any such thing.  It is in fact a ridiculous straw man statement.  The fact that not all Wikipedians are affected by the campaign is good and not something I would want to deny or downplay--in fact I think it's most likely a very small number indeed, who believe or are influenced by the frothing hate that spews from that forum.  Nevertheless this hate campaign exists and it has been my opinion from the start of the case that its existence and amplification on Wikipedia is the main theme of the case.   --Jenny 18:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That sort of raises the question... do YOU have any concerns at all about the behaviour of ANY of the parties to the case other than Cla68? I think you aren't willing to admit there IS a problem there, because it would rather debunk your thesis. Am I wrong? Easy fix, Tony... put in some evidence about what you feel might be problematic behaviour on the part of all the parties to the case. Else it's rather hard to buy what you're asserting here, because you come off as seemingly saying JzG, SV, FM, et all are perfect and there is no reason for any concern about any of the things they have been doing. Oddly, JzG already acknowledged he had areas that needed improvement, though. ++Lar: t/c 18:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Give it up Tony, you've been nothing but tendentious and laughably transparent this entire case. I can't speak on your behaviour elsewhere but if what I've seen here is representative I'm surprised you've not been reprimanded for NPOV issues in the article space. You've apparently deliberately tried to stir up drama throughout the process, the "evidence" you provided is speculation and conjecture unsupported by diffs and/or consists entirely of ignoratio elenchi, and you even added yourself as a party for reasons known only to yourself. A slew of editors have told you to stop. What exactly motivates you to continue attempting to turn this case into a trainwreck? --78.145.83.124 (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Use your normal username. --Jenny 11:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * He (she?)'s not obliged to, Tony. I'd like to see you answer the last question, also. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#963"><B>Neıl</B> <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#936">  ☄   11:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a "have you stopped beating you wife?" question. In other words, a personal attack.  We do have a policy on that, you know.  If someone is going to go around making personal attacks on Wikipedians, he should use his correct username. --Jenny 11:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll add one thing more: I find the way in which SlimVirgin, who is a longtime recipient of bullying, offsite and onsite, and nobody here can deny it with a straight face, is being depicted as herself the cause of the problem, and herself a bully, improbable and unsupported by the evidence. The evidence of the campaigns against SlimVirgin, which go back several years, is in my opinion the primary evidence of this case.  It shows why Cla68 felt free to single out SlimVirgin as his new target in his personal campaign, which is evidently motivated by his freely admitted reading of, and more recent participation in, attack forums.  This is the subject of this case.  There is such extra baggage and detritus as any effective editor will accrue over time, and then there is also a lot of nonsense motivated by the attack forums, and this has muddied the case somewhat.  The evidence, when the dust clears, will remain, however.   --Jenny 11:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Characterising the whole of a forum as an "attack forum" is not accurate; the forum (I presume you are talking about Wikipedia Review) is not an attack site, it's a review site, and the actions of some members should not be used to smear all members. A disclaimer: I am a member of Wikipedia Review, as are many higher-profile and better Wikipedia contributors than you or I, Tony, including bureaucrats, many admins, checkusers, and former arbitrators.  I am sure many people misuse Hotmail; this does not make it an attack site.


 * I agree that there is a section on Wikipedia Review dedicated to SlimVirgin, and I do not agree with much of the content therein, much of which is bullying. It is not a binary choice, though, Tony - there is not a "100% good side" and a "100% evil side"; the choice is not just either "SlimVirgin is completely innocent of all accusations and is being bullied", or "SlimVirgin is completely guilty and deserves everything she gets".  Has SlimVirgin been a victim of unfair treatment?  Yes.  Has she been harrassed?  Yes.  BUT: Has she treated others unfairly?  Yes.  Has she misused her administrative tools?  Yes.  Has she shown poor judgement?  Yes. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#963"><B>Neıl</B>  <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#936">  ☄   12:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've made it clear in my evidence and in the workshop motions that I refer specifically to the SlimVirgin attack forum on Wikipedia Review. My evidence contains summaries of the top five threads on that forum as it was a couple of days ago when I submitted the section.  You continue in your misrepresentations of my statements when you depict them as a false dichotomy.  The other evidence must stand on its own merits, but dealing with admins and users who act inappropriately is routine.  Handling long-term offsite-motivated harassment is something more.  I feel that most of the others involved in this case have lost sight of the case when they attempt to depict it as primarily about SlimVirgin's conduct--like any long term editor, she has some, but that does not account for the attack forums (nor for the sheer vehemence of the talk pages or the rather nasty reception given to anybody who doesn't actively attack SlimVirgin). --Jenny 12:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I can only speak from personal experience, but I have never actively attacked SlimVirgin, and have never received a nasty reception. Two questions, then, Tony - I'm sure you will agree that Wikipedia has no power to stop Wikipedia Review (as an entity) from commenting on SlimVirgin, and Wikipedia has no power to make them get rid of the forum. So, okay, you believe this case is about the "long-term offside-motivated harrassment" of SlimVirgin.  My questions:  In your mind, a) which Wikipedia users are directly guilty of this? and b) if there are any, what could/should be done? <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#963"><B>Neıl</B>  <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#936">  ☄   13:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This case is specifically about Cla68's conduct, although there are obviously others involved in on-wiki hounding of SlimVirgin that is primarily motivated by offsite interests. Those interests openly identify themselves on those external sites or in public communications associated with those sites: they are Judd Bagley (who admits owning a website that contains attacks on SlimVirgin and others) and Daniel Brandt (sample evidence; note that the posting has been pinned, an operation that requires authorization which can only come from the site owner).


 * As Wikipedians, we all must avoid cooperating with, or giving the appearance of using Wikimedia resources in cooperating with, or promoting, such attacks made by off-site interests, because they are incompatible with the aims of the Wikimedia Foundation and in themselves constitute unacceptable attempts by those entities and their associates to interfere with Wikipedia and its content. Moreover, if we want to use off-site resources to join in with those attacks, our good faith in continuing to edit as Wikipedians may legitimately be called into question.


 * Legitimate concerns about any editor's conduct must stem from Wikipedia policies and norms, not conspiracy theories and the like promoted by external interests. --Jenny 14:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Or those promoted by yourself... Viridae Talk 14:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No conspiracy theories are involved in my evidence. I have given chapter and verse.


 * This is a good example of an off-site personal attack based on a conspiracy theory. This is apparently the first posting on Wikipedia Review by Cla68, in which he openly admits that he actively hunted for dirt which he has used in order to inflict "permanent damage" on the on-wiki reputations of named Wikipedians.  That he believes it's a good thing is beside the point.  He admits he's doing it.  --Jenny 14:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's rather an interesting (and fallacious) spin you've put on that posting. If I point out that you've inflicted permanent damage on your reputation by your actions, it doesn't necessarily mean that I was the inflictor... merely the observer. There's a progression in terminology here... "careful investigation" -> your "hunting for dirt" -> someone else's "massive conspiracy and smear campaign"... as I showed in my evidence, Cla's bringing matters to the attention of the community has been beneficial. Regardless of your spin. ++Lar: t/c 15:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you re-read Cla68's posting, you will realise that it is you who have (no doubt inadvertently) put a spin on his words. Cla68 directly attributes the putative destruction of on-wiki reputations to his own actions in promoting attacks on them on an external website.  He (and you) appear to believe that the achievement was worth the damage done.  Of course it wasn't.  A minor (and, as yet, unproven) conflict of interest case was elevated to absurd levels of hysteria as a direct result of Cla68's promotion of a vast and ridiculous conspiracy theory.  --Jenny 15:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. But... serves me right for taking your trollbait. Unless Amerique's right and you really are the hotline to how ArbCom intends to find, despite common sense. ++Lar: t/c 15:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)I'm pretty confident that Tony speaks for ArbCom's pov. He seems to be the only one doing so, as this point. Amerique<small style="color:DarkRed;">dialectics 15:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well the Committee's opinion here is what matters. I don't have a hotline to arbcom any more than anybody else in the case.  It's unseemly to accuse someone of being a troll over a difference of opinion, Lar.  I have simply looked at the evidence, including the statements that Cla68 has made openly, on-wiki and off, about his conduct, his motivations and the source of his conspiracy-based accusations, submitted them in evidence, and proposed relevant findings.  I am at a loss to explain why your opinion is different from my own, but I do not doubt your sincerity.  Do not doubt mine. --Jenny 15:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If it were only a difference of opinion, I wouldn't label your comments of late "trollbait". I have differences of opinion with lots of folk. But I think you have a blindspot about what makes sense to contribute and what does not, when it comes to your own contributions. That they are trollbait does not necessarily make you a troll, and I have not labeled you as such. As of yet. Your analysis of the evidence is lacking in rigour and completeness. This has been explained to you by many folk, and your assertions refuted, but you persist in repeating the same unfounded, scurrilous, misdirective, and generally unhelpful stuff. So be it. I should know better than to respond to it, though. ++Lar: t/c 17:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I somewhat disagree with "I don't have a hotline to arbcom any more than anybody else in the case." I think you do have a good sense of what they committee would have wanted (and why the case was accepted and combined with jzg) to do as a decision.  That is to come down hard on 'badsites' folks and give a free pass to olde tyme valued contributors.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * An alternative reason to combine the JzG and SlimVirgin cases would have been that both were longtime contributors and active administrators over whose recent conduct certain legitimate questions had been raised. In fact, both reasons might apply in parallel.  There may be legitimate questions about JzG's and SlimVirgin's, and Cla68's conduct.  I concentrate on the latter because to me it seems more pressing and of much greater overall significance to the kind of encyclopedia Wikipedia is and the kind of community it has to fulfill that purpose.


 * Obviously I do agree that the degree to which nonsense from Wikipedia Review is imported into disputes on Wikipedia is a cause for concern. If that's what you mean by "badsites", then I think and hope it would be of concern to arbcom.  To put it as briefly as possible: Wikimedia resources are not to be used to pursue external agendas.  --Jenny 16:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I think I disagree with your prioritization of the problems, but that's not important.  I guess my question to you is why did it take six weeks to decide that your priority needed and evidence and workshop section?  And there is a fair bit of evidence that sv has been a pretty strong offender of importing disputes or at least exacerbating disputes from off site as well.  what to do?  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I stated at the outset of the case that I believe the relevant evidence of Cla68's conduct was well known to the Committee. I said this on account of my observation of the aftermath of the Mantanmoreland case, and my observation after-the-fact of events leading up to it.  When one of the arbitrators proposed a motion to set the case aside, I thought I'd post the evidence I have personal access to, for completeness.  I found rather more than I expected.


 * If you have evidence of any other party to this case using Wikimedia resources to promote an external agenda, it may be as well to post it. --Jenny 16:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * At the risk of being accused of incivility, I would like to put on record I am sick and tired to death of reading Tony Sidaway's persistent and tiresome trolling on almost every single Arbcom page regardless of case and subject. He recently apologised to me for this behaviour, after I put him straight but obviously his apologies count for nothing as he continues in his trolling of Arbcom pages. The Arbcom would be well advised to address this problem that is continually under their noses before sanctioning those attempting to write the encyclopedia. They could do this by immediately restricting those that continually poke their noses (Tony is not alone) into every single case spouting little more than trolling garbage. These people do nothing more than confuse the issues being discussed.  FWIW this is the first time (and hopefully last)  I have ever commented in a case in which I am not closely connected. Giano (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone's comments on this matter, but if I could say something I hope that may be of help here. In 12 Angry Men, after jury deliberations appear to be going in a direction that Juror 10 doesn't like, Juror 10 launches into a long, angry rant (and no, I'm not suggesting that anyone here is racist like Juror 10). One by one the other jurors turn their backs on him until he realizes that no one is listening and he stops talking. I suggest doing the same thing here. Cla68 (talk) 00:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh, watching, listening, and to a limited extent interacting with Tony about this, I'm reminded of Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision which came 1 vote short of passing because of a last minute promise by Tony to refrain from such behavior in the future. That promise is embodied at User:Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The/Civility sanction and with Tony's agreement "Should Tony Sidaway make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Tony Sidaway may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations."  GRBerry 18:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In this discussion I'm seeing a fair bit of incivility, quite a lot of personal attacks, and not a few naked and openly expressed failures to assume good faith. None of them, however, emanating from me.  I intend to be held to that voluntary civility parole, however, and will not appeal any blocking decision made under it.  --Jenny 19:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I try to hold my self to high standards of uninvolvement, so I won't be acting. But you do certainly seem to be repeatedly assuming bad faith.  GRBerry 19:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Without comment on Tony's evidence and workshop activity, his comment above seems to be fairly accurate. This is a pretty long thread dedicated to removing Tony from this Arbitration proceeding.  Makes it look as if there is a wish for a more tightly controlled echo chamber here.  R. Baley (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think Tony should be sanctioned. I do think his claims have been poorly supported and that his recent evidence submission wasn't much help.  I suppose most of it is the lack of arbitrator involvement or guidance we've had. Mackan79 (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I was indifferent until I saw Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop. This is a twisting of his words and really not a constructive proposal at all.  There's no other way of putting it - you are a former administrator and former clerk and you ought to know better. --B (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe Cla68's words damn him more fully than I ever could. If something I said upsets you, ignore it and read here the glee he expresses at the harm he believes he has done to some Wikipedians and to a journalist he believes was involved.  Is that really how we're supposed to make Wikipedia better?  I really, really hope your answer is a firm "no".  --Jenny 23:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I have an idea: someone with a WR account should start a WR thread encouraging Tony to continue arguing his case against Cla here. Then, Tony himself will be acting as WR's "conduit" - which, if he is consistent to his principles, should force him to stop. :-) ATren (talk) 02:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I must oppose this. It is a rare quality for someone to be able to cut through the mess and be able to collate and analyze facts and arrive at cogent conclusions and theories. Somebody diligent enough to follow the evidence and read what the parties have to say. Somebody brave enough to express theories that must be explored during Arbitration. Somebody who can be depended on to honor his pledges. Somebody who treats others with respect and civility. Tony Sidaway has all these qualities and is an extraordinary asset to the Arbcom, and, I would humbly suggest, his unconventional thinking and knack for proposing innovative solutions is exactly what the Arbcom is looking for. If only we could all follow the fine example he sets in elevating the discussion and putting forth well thought out and reasoned proposals. Were he to be banned I fear that the Arbitration pages would devolve into a mess that nobody could follow, and people would not hold the Arbcom with the regard and respect which it currently enjoys. It seems that the others are addicted to the drama and I would hope they take a break and do something productive. 98.134.206.33 (talk) 04:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL! Viridae Talk 07:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I've regrettably posted in regards to Tony being banned from disrupting arbitration here: Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop. rootology ( T ) 20:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Go and do something else
I am astounded that so much time can be wasted arguing about something that has not happened yet. So much text, with so little to show for it. This time would be much better spent editing this article instead. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The scary thing is, I clicked that link ten times, saw some articles I might have liked to edit, but don't have time right now, and I'll probably never see those articles ever again (because Wikipedia is so large). The only one that was interesting for me was veteran. I should go and edit that article now, to counter-balance the waste that was this post! I encourage everyone else reading this to click that link until they find an article they like and edit it. Carcharoth (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I clicked your link for a while, but it kept giving me the same article :) --NE2 21:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If that link doesn't help, try this one. Wizardman  21:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe we've found a new way to deal with the ArbCom peanut gallery? Carcharoth (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I clicked your link for a while, but it kept giving me the same article :) ++Lar: t/c 22:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We could continue this "I clicked your link" conversation all day; I'm sure Tim would love it. ;-) —Giggy 00:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC) I clicked "save page" for a while, and something happened!
 * Ok, I've fixed something. Now back to the issue at hand... where were we? <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">user:Everyme 15:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Alec's Saga
There was a time when I had a unique opportunity to devote extensive time to Wikipedia. I'd like to think I helped out on some articles, dumped a lot of info into the melting pot of article space. But I found out that projectspace it wasn't for me, and I'm sure there are a lot of people like me.

Officially, everyone is equal in the eyes of Wikipedia-- but the reality is, some people have definitely learned how to play the Wikipedia game very, very well. Incivility that would result in bans for a newbie is routinely ignored if coming from a "popular" contributor. Controversial actions can stand if the actor is sufficiently popular or sufficiently skilled at Wikipedia. Blocks don't last. A 'popular' account really must almost have a complete breakdown and go WAY WAY WAY over the line before they will experience negative consequences.

For me, the last real straw was when it came out that there was extensive, active, and thorough off-site coordination and collusion-- the so called "secret lists" and however many other acts of coordination go on. That kind of coordination, though well-intentioned, completely undermines consensus. Consensus assumes, at its heart, that people aren't secretly coordinating, forming alliances, strategizing, etc. Normally we call those sorts of behaviors meatpuppetry. But if you have the right bit, the right edit count, and the right buddylist, it turns out we call those behaviors "defending each other" and "zealous defense of the encyclopedia". In practice, some editors are far more equal than others.

Which isn't the end of the world. Wikipedia's an experiment, a wonderful one. Maybe it just so happens that the people who are best at "playing the wikipedia game" are, in fact, the very same people who are best at running an encyclopedia-- maybe except for a few Wikipedia platitudes ringing a little hollow, everything is actually as it should be. Or maybe it's a problem, but one we'll get it right eventually. And if not, forks are cheap and free, and someone else online will get it right. So it's all good, and I'll happily still contribute to the project-- I just don't pour myself into it in the same way I might have if the community were a little different.

As best I can figure it, the problem isn't any one person or a few bad apples;  It's not as if we could just lop off some of the most-popular people from the community and expect that no new popular people will emerge to take their place. I haven't mentioned any names in this statement cause it's not about names.

The problem is a systemic one: Wikipedia is currently unable to rein in moderately-objectionable behavior of people who are very "good" at the game of Wikipedia.

If this is a problem, somebody should try to fix it. And if it's not a problem, somebody should make it clearer that popular, trusted community members are afforded extremely wide latitude, so that people don't have "disillusioning" experiences such as mine.

Hope all that helped someone. --Alecmconroy (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For those of you who aren't aware, it was Alec's dedicated and committed efforts, along with others of course, especially Dan Tobias, that defeated a certain group's attempts to institute a general censorship of sites that that group didn't like under the title of BADSITES. For his success in that battle alone, I believe Alec deserves some recognition.  As usual, Alec makes a very good point that should be considered here. Cla68 (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Alecmconroy's thoughts, I've often thought that one of our biggest long term problems is the lack of codification of our double standards. I don't really have a problem that we have them, but we need to define what 'long term valued contributors' can push v. what others can.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Codifying standards smartly would make them harder to game or manipulate. I don't think thats the reason they aren't codified firmly. rootology  ( T ) 15:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I honestly think we don't have any due to a good percentage of folks denying that there are or should be double standards, even while they use the 'good will' they've generated to push the limits of our guidelines and policies. What any such standards should look like, I've no idea.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The double-standard I'm referring to here, however, is less "valued-contributor -vs- newbie", which I think is well-recognized. This is a certain "good at networking" skill that doesn't inherently have merit, although obviously, the people "good at playing the wikipedia game" are, in fact, very often valued contributors.  --Alecmconroy (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you knew how to play the projectspace game, you would have posted this as evidence. Kudos for not doing that, if only from us fellow little people and not from anybody else, especially not Tony (or the ArbCom, for that matter). <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">user:Everyme 15:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If there is any evidence to support the above tirade, it should be submitted, else this is simply a broad-brush attack aimed at those with whom Alec and his allies happen to disagree. If the arbitration case shouldn't end to his liking, Alec can simply claim it was due to a Cabal operating through "extensive, active, and thorough off-site coordination and collusion" and he seems to feel free from any obligation to substantiate his slurs.  --Jenny 16:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Kind of a mug's game, there Tony... when you post stuff that's opinion and nothing else, in the evidence section, it's OK because "arbcom should know what Tony's opinion is"... but when someone else posts opinion, on a discussion page, you want evidence. I don't really think that's fair. ++Lar: t/c 18:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's an opinion, not evidence. If you want evidence, go look at how much evidence has been presented and see how much behavior has occurred without the underlying problems getting solved.  If there are any behavior problems in this case, why haven't they gotten solved before now?  Because dealing with behavior problems of 'popular' users is something Wikipedia hasn't gotten good at yet.


 * As for the dismissive "You think there's a Cabal??!? har har"-- that joke stopped being funny when we found out some people had gone so far as to create Wikia-hosted mailing list which they used to stealth canvass.    --Alecmconroy (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And posting personal opinions in lieu of actual evidence is something up with which Tony/Jenny will not put, is that right? *Dan T.* (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's more how utterly preposterous it is that he of all people actually doesn't shy away of commenting about this carefully worded opinion, and then -true to form- calling it a "tirade" on top of that after entering nothing but tirade and bad faith himself. Hilarious, Tony, truly hilarious. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">user:Everyme 17:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, Tony is under sanctions that he be blocked for failing to assume good faith, as seen here. rootology ( T ) 17:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To his credit, he does know where to draw the line... <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">user:Everyme 17:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The sanction are real. I will never, ever appeal or attempt to revoke any block as a result of that sanction agreed between me and FloNight.  This sanction makes me a better Wikipedian. --Jenny 21:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Has Alec made any attempt to substantiate his clearly ridiculous attack which accuses us all of pre-arranging all significant decisions on Wikipedia? To quote him directly: "extensive, active, and thorough off-site coordination and collusion-- the so called "secret lists" and however many other acts of coordination go on. That kind of coordination, though well-intentioned, completely undermines consensus."

I'll make no bones about it. The only mailing list associated with English Wikipedia, or discussing anything related to English Wikipedia, of which I am a member or have ever been a member, is known as wikien-l. It's a sewing-circle, and its business is completely public.

On "stealth-canvassing", obviously if I and my wife, my children, my grandparents, my grandchildren, my friends, my like-minded colleagues and whatnot (whose Wikipedia usernames, if they have them, you cannot know) should care about the same things that I do, well obviously we're going to have to deal with it if and when it actually happens. My own opinion is that we should require every editor to verify every edit, and moreover to verify his identify by acquisition of a passport. If Jimmy Wales had been me, Wikipedia would have died some time in 2002.

As far as I'm aware, nobody has ever done any Wikipedia editing at my bidding.

And please remember: I'm the one being accused of trolling.

Wake up, child, arbcom isn't going to roll over that easy. You actually have to convince reasonable Wikipedians that there is something bad going on. That isn't the same as saying "holly shit, those mofos don't agree with us."--Jenny 21:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Jenny-- I'm confused. I think you somehow think my comments were somehow personally directed at you. They weren't.  Insofar as possible, I _tried_, to the extent that I could, not to direct my remarks towards any individual, in fact.


 * The problem is bigger than any one person. If you look over the evidence page, it seems, to me, to be completely proven that some people are doing some things that they shouldn't. The question isn't so much "have there been problem behaviors"--  the diffs are there.  The real question in this case is "Does Arbcom have the desire and will to put a stop to those behaviors at this time, in this venue?"


 * My own impression is that it seems like Wikipedia doesn't really have a functional system to stop moderately-severe problem behaviors by well-connected individuals. This impression is doubly confirmed by the motion by at least one arbcom member to dismiss the case outright, despite all the evidence that has been presented on the evidence page.


 * Take the behavior of stealth canvassing and meatpuppetry. It turns out that what sort of off-site private collaboration is permitted depends greatly on who you are and whether you have a lot of friends or not.  Perhaps this is as it should be-- a case can and was made.  But to me, it was off-putting and reeked of double standards-- one standard for Wikipedians, and another for the well-connected people.


 * I don't mean to overstate the problem. Don't get me wrong-- egregious misbehavior _IS_ handled.  If an admin starts randomly deleting dozens of FA pages without comment, no matter how popular the individual is, that behavior is going to get dealt with.   But in moderately-severe cases, the situation is different-- then it seems like Wikipedia has a very hard time enforcing its policies on the sufficiently-popular.


 * Case in point. WP:CIVIL is one of the most clear-cut, easy-to-understand policies we have.  And yet, you'll note that the number of times a sufficiently-popular person may tell other users to "fuck off" is, currently, unlimited.  --Alecmconroy (talk) 22:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know all that stuff. Could you please try to say something understandable and applicable to the present case? --Jenny 22:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Irony. Dance With The Devil (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please explain. --Jenny 22:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * HAHAHAHA! Viridae Talk 22:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you'll have to do better than that. Waving your hands is okay to gain attention, but after than you need to say something that can be explained in everyday English.  Please explain it to me. --Jenny 23:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think, and I may be wrong, but Dance with the Devil, and Viridae are pointing out the ironic nature of your asking for relevant commentary, when in thier view you have provided very little of it (though lots of posts). I don't know that I agree with that, but I think that's where they are comeing from.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. The way I see it, it's a bunch of trolls (various websites, but let's be honest, not many websites sre so focused...)  Pagainst Wikipedia (a rather popular website).  I would say that these websites are the price Wikipedia pays for making the internet not suck.  I would also say that we should not feel ashamed to block the trolls.  They're hangers-on, not contributors.  We should treat them like the dirt that they are.


 * And that's it. If anybody admits to involvement with the troll site, treat him like the piece of shit that he is.  No excuses. --Jenny 23:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Under the recntly pointed out civility sanction you are under, what you just said is a blockable offence. As an involved admin I am not going to do anything about it, but suggest you refactor before someone else does. Viridae Talk 00:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (after EC) That invective sounds more like the Tony I know an love... I daresay your demure "Jenny" affectation was wearing out her welcome, slogging drearily through her civility parole, managing to irritate and obfuscate, but nary blowing a gasket, Sidaway-style. Now that you have regained your faculties, I ask you: if the community decides to crack down all parasitic, non-contributing trolls (which it will not, I assure you), then what will you and I do with our precious time once we are blocked?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If you really believe it's a blockable offence to say that we should ban the Wikipedia Review trolls, block me. --Jenny 00:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't but see ANI. Viridae Talk 00:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, fortunately, the so-called "WR Trolls" tend to be of the pro-free-speech persuasion, being opposed to such silliness as "BADSITES" link bans, which makes them not particularly strongly disposed towards banning or blocking anybody for their speech, including you. Unfortunately, there may be others of a less-free disposition in the debate too, which could prove less favorable. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So to be clear, you are saying that any registered user of that site should be site banned from en.wikipedia for trolling and harrassment of users in good standing? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Block review
Please see Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. I've blocked Tony for 24 hours. - brenneman  00:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Umm, although I, of course, should be offended by Tony's description of WR participants as "pieces of shit", I personally think it's best to ignore Tony, because I think he's seeking attention, including negative attention. I expect that this block and its resulting discussion will bring him more of this attention that he is seeking.  Please unblock and ignore him. Cla68 (talk) 00:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Tony is absolutely correct
"If anybody admits to involvement with the troll site, treat him like the piece of shit that he is. No excuses."

- Jenny

"...I took a brief time out from Wikipedia to chat with people on Wikipedia Review (my user account, in which I self-identified as Tony Sidaway, was hermione)."

- Tony Sidaway

Wikipedia's moral compass strikes again. Dance With The Devil (talk) 00:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, does that include User:Newyorkbrad as well, who seems to have joined in February as per here? I honestly think Jenny is casting the net way too widely here. John Carter (talk) 01:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the point was to take Tony's comment as commentary on himself, thus making his argument (as Jenny) moot. So no, it doesn't apply to Newyorkbrad. Or anyone else. To do so would be silly. —Giggy 10:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

New evidence
Morven remarked recently that much of the evidence is "stale". Well, here's some new evidence that probably wouldn't be considered stale, in fact, it's from a few hours ago. Cla68 (talk) 08:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Another one...removing two other editor's comments from an ongoing discussion thread . Cla68 (talk) 10:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That last one isn't wholly accurate - note SV restored the comment from Dayewalker in her very next edit . The only comment she removed was that of Jehochman. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#963"><B>Neıl</B>  <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#936">  ☄   10:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's the full story. Jehochman correctly called her out on her userpage for removing the edits, she restores Dayewalker's edit but tells Jehochman that she won't restore his .  And she doesn't. Cla68 (talk) 11:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrators, what happened today as shown by this new evidence I just posted is but the latest, as the full evidence page shows, of this type of behavior on SlimVirgin's part going back for a good amount of time. Please, please, make her stop. Cla68 (talk) 13:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom MfD - Notification of intent to seek abolition of the Arbitration Committee in the event that the motion to dismiss is successful
If the current motion to dismiss finds favor - that is, in the event that the Arbitration Committee shirks its duties yet again by dismissing the C68-FM-SV case, it will have become clear to almost all that it no longer serves any useful purpose and must be salted and deleted to force the community to come up with a better, faster, smarter, and more agile mechanism for last-resort dispute resolution. Think about it: if such a lengthy case, with such serious misbehavior, such complexity, and such time and effort devoted to the presentation of evidence by the community can simply be waved off out of sheer lack of interest and dedication, what hope do we have to reform ArbCom through the even more tortuous process of the RfC and its fallout?

None. The only way to reform ArbCom is force the creation of a new system. ArbCom must be put through an MfD.

If you would like to contribute to this effort, the beginnings of a draft are in place on the subpage User:Mr._IP/ArbCom_MfD. Contribute as you see fit. Mr. IP (talk) 07:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a waste of your time. Don't bother.  It won't pass.  Quite apart from the fact that the motion itself seems unlikely to pass...  Sam Korn (smoddy) 09:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The italians deleted their arbcom. Viridae Talk 09:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Give it a little while; they'll bring it back... MastCell Talk 09:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Officially the funniest comment on an already farcical page. I am still gurgling with amusement. -- Relata refero (disp.) 08:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But we won't... Too many people think the AC is the worst solution, except for all the others.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 09:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As you're an "arbitrator emeritus", still on the mailing list, your would-be pithy statement may be translated as "We did a good job!" False. No doubt, you'd like the community to fear what life would be like without you. One has only to look at these current cases and those past to see how baseless this really is.Proabivouac (talk) 10:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You might equally say that I can simultaneously (a) believe that the AC is the best solution we can manage; (b) disagree with certain decisions taken; and (c) as a member of the private mailing list, keep my criticism of the Committee private. You are reading an awful lot into my statement that is not there and I object strongly.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What are 'the others,' and how do you think we should evaluate their merits or demerits? Thnx in advance --luke (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think that "almost all" will think that this is a distraction from writing an encyclopedia. Arbcom has brought much criticism on themselves for leaving the case hanging for so long, but that does not mean that "almost all" agree with either side of this debate. MikeHobday (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Waste of time. Do we need some changes to the current system?  sure.  do away with it?  no.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, an MFD is a waste of time inasmuch as someone would, within about 2 minutes of it opening, speedy close it. If actually given a legitimate choice of "should we abolish arbcom", I think the community would answer resoundingly in the affirmative right now.  I would certainly !vote delete ... but at the same time, I know that at least one admin out there somewhere would speedy close it and the community will never actually have that choice.  We also, of course, do need to replace it with something and removing it before that something is in place would be a bad idea. --B (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Dispute resolution process and procedures can be improved
WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Checks and balances (deliberately thought out, not spontaneously generated like our current policies)
 * 2) Limited terms in office (no more admin for life)
 * 3) Division of powers (Arbcom has how much power now?)
 * 4) A deliberative body selected for the task of constructing a well thought out system of dispute resolution (there are experts at this that can be contacted and perhaps hired)
 * 5) Replace drama inducing rules that force people to accuse each other with rules breaking with a reconciliation process that focuses on an optimum outcome.

The Foundation is, every year, getting more professional and accountable. We, their showcase project, should too. I think we can count on their help in this effort. WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

FM blocks Dragon695


Today, at 8:48 AM eastern time, FeloniousMonk blocked Dragon695. This personal attack made at 11:47 AM July 17 - nearly 2 days ago - was the reason for the block. Dragon695, NINE MINUTES after making that edit - at 11:56 AM July 17 - removed his edit and acknowledged his error. Blocks are to be preventative, not punative. Blocking a user nearly 2 days after the fact for a personal attack that the user immediately removed is wholly inappropriate. Dragon695 has offered opinions on this arbitration, including but not limited to supporting the desysopping of FeloniousMonk, so this block looks clearly retaliatory. I would ask that the clerk overturn this block forthwith and that the arbitration committee stop neglecting its duties and desysop a flagrantly abusive administrator. --B (talk) 13:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Prior to this request here, I took this to ANI.  I'll leave it with the clerks from here.  Looks like the clerk here is going to get a trial by fire. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I noticed the post at ANI and have unblocked the user, and left a note for FeloniousMonk. An arbitrator is invited to review the situation and decide whether to restore the block, or not. Jehochman Talk 13:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a final straw, if I've ever seen one. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">user:Everyme 14:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Unaware of this thread, I started a similar one here. Sorry about that.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say the chances of this case being dismissed without action just plummeted to zero. I've said elsewhere, wikipedia doesn't do so well with "moderately-severe problem behavior", but once behavior crosses a certain threshold, the system does tend to right itself.  Blocking someone you're in a dispute with?   Blocking someone two days after a supposed personal attack?  Blocking someone AFTER they've retracted their statement?  Each of those are very bright lines no admin can reasonably cross.  Doing all three in a single action-- that's something even then most timid of arbiters can't reasonably ignore. --Alecmconroy (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And executing that very questionable block in support of your co-defendant on this case, where much of the evidence focuses on allegations of questionable blocks in support of that same user. I would think that the "no recent evidence" claim is now completely unsupportable. ATren (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess we should stop assuming bad faith and harassing FM... <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">user:Everyme 14:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh give it up. This was a highly sensible block and I'm frankly disturbed that it didn't stick. Edits like  and   are incredibly uncivil and Dragon has engaged in them on a regular basis. The block might be slightly late but the sheer number of these comments makes a block highly understandable. Dragon695 needs at minimum to get a much better understanding of how the preview button works. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Expressing an opinion about abusive behavior of others is now a blockable offense? *Dan T.* (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Waah! Waah! Sounds like sour grapes to me. Why don't you go crying back to MONGO's talk-page and see what you can tattle on Viridae for next." doesn't sound uncivil to you? JoshuaZ (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Diff please. Jehochman Talk 16:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I linked to it right above. If you want I'll link to it again. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That diff is five days old, very stale. Do you have a fresh diff that shows the need for a block? Jehochman Talk 16:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, I linked to multiple difs above. You could actually try to read them rather than make me have to repeat each one individually. (And 4 days is hardly "very" stale and since the block was for chronic incivility is highly relevant). In any event, referring to other editors as "rif-raf" less than 5 hours ago is relevant (again, linked to above). JoshuaZ (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * He should have asked another (uninvolved) admin to look at it. Do you dispute this point? ATren (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Would that have been ideal? Probably? Is this a big deal? Not really. Again, the level of involvement here was very low. Simply because Dragon made comments on an RfAr page hardly makes them so involved that a block immediately becomes evil. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No one has explained to me why FM was involved in any convincing detail. If you can explain that rather than simply repeat your claims I'd appreciate it. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are involved in an arbitration case, you shouldn't be blocking anyone else involved in that arbitration case. That is pretty obvious.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 16:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If we followed that logic, FM wouldn't be allowed to block Jason Gastrich socks for example, so that cannot be correct in the general case. Moreover, Dragon has only been somewhat involved in the abritration case which involves a large number of people. Moreover, I'm not even sure that FM was even aware that Dragon had commented on the case? FM doesn't seem to be paying that much attention to the case. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There are 1500 admins. "FM wouldn't be allowed to block Jason Gastrich socks" was a good approach, while the case was ongoing. Maybe afterwards, when the outcome was clear, blocking would be OK... but even then... there are 1500 admins. Also, if FM's not paying attention to the case... um, so? That's not an excuse. If I were a named party in an arbitration case, I'd be paying attention to it. Especially if I had been the person who apparently was the initiator. (His name is down as having initiated it, after all, and maybe it was even actually his idea...) Even if it dragged on for months and months. ++Lar: t/c 17:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So not paying attention to pages you should have been keeping a better track of is now a desyssopable offense? Keep in mind that Dragon wasn't even a party to the case, but rather another person making comments ont he workshop. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * FM did file it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.93.74 (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * FM is also an ID editor, isn't he? The comment that triggered the block was directed at ID editors. There is involvement on many levels here. ATren (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the ID folks tag-team on talk pages of users with whom they disagree. A similar thing happened to me a few days ago after I made a generic comment about ID editors. Kelly  hi! 16:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought most people agreed at the ID RfC that the one thing we didn't need more of was lumping people into large groups. And making generic comments about "ID editors" is exactly in that category, especially because when people say "ID editors" they seem in practice to mean FM, OrangeMarlin, Jimsch and MastCell. Let's not pretend otherwise. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ears... burning... I was afraid that the fact that I've never edited any article related to ID would be a barrier, but I'm obviously not giving Wikipedia enough credit. MastCell Talk 21:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I apologise if my wording wasn't tight enough for you. You shouldn't block someone where there is an on-going dispute that both of you are involved in.  The Jason Gastrich case isn't even remotely analogous and I am flabbergasted that you think it is.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 17:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So what constitutes an ongoing dispute? I agree that the Jason Gastrich case is an extreme example but the basic point remains: there is a point where blocking people one has been involved with are ok. It isn't at all obvious to me that blocking someone who happened to make comments in an RfAr you were in is so involved as to get to that point. Indeed, if I had to guess I'd guess it wouldn't be. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, no. If there is doubt about the validity of your making a block, you should not be making it.  And that is to presume one accepts your apology for him, which I am less than certain I do.  And it was a dreadful block in any case, let's not lose sight of that.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 23:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really true. It sounds nice in theory but I can give a lot of circumstances where it wouldn't apply. For example, say someone vandalizes an admin's userpage with profanity. There's no issue with an admin blocking that user. Or say someone is putting in serious BLP problems into an article, an admin who is reverting can block them. In the second case we'd likely prefer if the admin in question added a note on ANI noting their actions. Or if one had a dispute in a certain point in the past that was a long time ago we'd see it as ok. So the exact line of what constitutes involvement isn't clear. And regarding your claim that it was a "a dreadful block in any case" - that's simply not the case. Dragon had repeated warnings for incivility and referred to other editors as "riff-raff" among other things (I've discussed the difs in question elsewhere in this thread). Even Lar who is no friend of FM by any stretch of the imagination agreed that it was unacceptably uncivil . And the only reason the ANI thread was archived was because it degenerated into lots of people accusing others of cabalism rather than discussion of the difs in hand. I'm not saying that FM has been an angel here. Anyone looking at the evidence and workshop pages can see there aren't any angels in the RfAr. But the notion that this block should be shocking and extreme simply isn't backed by the evidence. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The 2 hypothethical situations you cite are strawmen; in those particular situations (vandalism, BLP vios) blocking might indeed be approprate, but this was neither vandalism nor a BLP violation. ATren (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a strawman at all. That isn't what the term means. The argument isn't that those are the circumstances. The point is that absolute statement that Sam and others have made is simply not true since there are circumstances we all agree that it would be ok. Obviously this isn't BLP or vandalism and no one is claiming that it is. The point though is that once we have situations where something is sometimes acceptable and sometimes unacceptable and we have multiple editors including Lar who is not at all a fan of FM agreeing that Dragon's behavior was unacceptable this becomes much more about shades of gray. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, let me try again: let's say it's a content dispute between an admin and a non-admin; there is no incivility, just disagreement between the two editors. It's clearly inappropriate for the admin to block his opponent for civil disagreement during a discussion, right? ATren (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a shade of gray. The block was for actions taken in an arbitration where FM is an involved user.  It would be like a police officer who is on trial going out and arresting one of the witnesses against him.  This is indefensible conduct and it's time to take the blinders off.  It's unfortunate that Wikipedia has become so polarized that people on whatever "side" they are on will defend anything from their "side", no matter how bad it is.  Wikipedia is not a place to push a political, religious, or anything else objective. If someone on your "side" is acting inappropriately, you need to be willing to say so.  The staunch defense of Felonious Monk is just ignoring the facts.  On the other hand, about 95% of the presentation concerning JzG and Slim Virgin is just sour grapes.  (This isn't to say that the other 5% isn't meaningful, heart-felt concern that arbcom would do well to address in some fashion short of desysopping, but the vast majority of it is just whining.) --B (talk) 17:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not staunchly defending FM. The point I'm trying to make isn't that FM is sinless. The argument is that this isn't really that bad. I do agree that there has been tremendous problems with that sort of side-taking and I give Lar a lot of credit for being willing to step forward and say that Dragon's comments weren't acceptable. I think this entire arbitration and a number of related interactions have really illustrated tremendous problems of belief overkill from a large number of parties. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (unindent for clarity) I think there are two different issues here.  One is whether Dragon behaved inappropriately.  Clearly, there are some reasonable arguments to say he did.  "riff-raff" is hardly the "pieces of shit" and "fuck offs" that have been thrown around.  He self-deleted his own comments in some cases.  He had a clean block log.  BUT-- a case could still be made he was being uncivil.


 * Meanwhile, there's the totally separate question of whether FM acted appropriately as an admin. Here it is easy to say he did not. Let's draw upon recent history to make a comparison.


 * If, as jpgordon has claimed, it was inappropriate  for the arbcom clerk to issue a block for calling others "pieces of shit" as part of the case, then it is most definitely inappropriate for a party in that case to issue a block for calling others "riff-raff".


 * If you're a party in the case, don't use your admin tools in relation to that arbitration. End of story.  There was ZERO emergency and ANI is just a post away, where 1500 non-involved admins eagerly wait to back you up if your reasons are valid. --Alecmconroy (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL. I think you've done a great job of laying it out.  Maybe the same arbiter that demanded the clerk's resignation will demand FM's resignation?  (I'm not holding my breath.) --B (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I think Josh was wrong on the clerk matter so also. But Alec's division of this into two separate issues and his overarching approach strikes me as sound. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary break for clarity

 * One can find plenty of uncivil statements by FM, like "This RFC has been useful only insofar as it provides us list of all the ED-aligned nogoodniks who need to be watched and dealt with. Thanks!" (diff) and "Your little group has recently tightened the FA criteria to the point of absurdity... I'm taking a personal interest in seeing your group's vendetta against Raul654 and SlimVirgin aired out and ended for good." (diff). Sauce for the goose and the gander, anyone? *Dan T.* (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, so now the fun begins. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you applying for the job as Tony's replacement? <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">user:Everyme 16:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Joshua, you've made your point and the conversation is now disintegrating. If you have evidence of mitigating circumstances for the block, please present it in the appropriate place. The Arbs will no doubt take it into consideration. To get into a flamewar here only undermines your position. Kelly  hi! 16:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, If JoshuaZ thinks that this was a defensible block at all, it makes me wonder if we should be asking for another remedy for desysopping for lack of judgement. That's just me, however. (that is, even if he's an admin now). SirFozzie (talk) 03:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * JoshuaZ is not an admin any more if that's your question. --B (talk) 03:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Dragon695 had a clear block log

 * has been a reliable contributor for more than 2.5 years and was never blocked before. In a situation like that, the user deserves every possible assumption of good faith, as well as a few extra warnings before hopping on the block button.  This was a terrible block, and I am shocked that FeloniousMonk has not recognized that yet. It would have been so simple to say, "Oh sorry, I guess I got carried away." Sure, people make mistakes, but when mistakenness is combined with extreme stubbornness, that's a real problem. Jehochman Talk 18:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For most people, saying "I'm sorry" is simple; not for all. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry about this. I would like to say that some may take issue with the reliable contributor part. I will not rehash this again, as I've already explained on my talk page why I got discouraged and decided to edit as an ip for two years between my joining and this year. However, I will say this: I went to do something else after leaving that brief message of condolence on Uncle Ed's talk page for what I felt was a rather nasty RfA. I did not continue to make inappropriate statements nor did I further cause trouble. I fail to understand the necessity of the block. It was the next morning before I even was on wiki again. I also think picking at comments which were refactored by my own hand minutes later is extreme wikilawyering. Like FT2, I sometimes feel the need to tweak what I wrote after re-reading it a few minutes later. This is not something the preview button will help with. As for calling DHeyward a tattler, I suppose I was indulging in WP:SPADE, since that was his second running to AN/I to tell on Viridae within a 24 hour period. Hard to assume good faith about that. Especially when it turned out he was totally wrong, yet refused to apologize. It struck me that his behavior was similar to that of a petulant child and that's what I told him. I regret doing so in such a terse manner. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? What was the first time I went to ANI with Viridae?  And second, I was't wrong at all.  I only asked for a review of the block as the reasons weren't adequately explained.  I didn't ask for an unblock nor did I express any belief that Viridae was incorrect.  Viridae was asked on his talk page and on the users talk page for reasons and the answers were not forthcoming.    Considering that it took another user to run checkuser to explain them, I hardly think that counts as wrong.  Viridae holds the bar a lot higher for other admins than he does himself.  Your comments about me and a lot of other editors is completely unwarranted and it's difficult to explain your animosity.  Case in point is this purely gratuitous reference to smear another wikipedia editor while also taking a shot at MONGO.  And if you regret it, I have yet to see an apology on my talk page.  Or a refactor of the ANI report.    --DHeyward (talk) 07:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for those of you who are listening but this is for those who obviously aren't. Until you asked went to ANI with concerns about that block, noone at all had actually asked for my reasoning as to why I thought that was an InternodeUser sock. Had they done so I would have provided that reasoning (as I did when you posted to ANI). Furthermore, despite claims to the contrary, I had been in contact with that user via email prior to someone expressing concerns about the block on my talk page. In my email contact I told him i knew exactly who he was, and if he wished to contest the ban he was subject to he could do so by contacting arbcom. Lastly I had thought the relevant records would be too stale for Checkuser, or I would have contacted Alison to run it passed her - as I turns out, there were other factors that allowed a checkuser to confirm what I already knew. Viridae Talk 07:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There was this request for an explanation of the validity of the block.  Your response was  "don't question my blocks".  He had previously  explained to the blocked user how to contact Viridae and what he should expect, but agains there was no response to this by Viridae on the talk page.  For the record, it wasn't me who raised that question on Viridae's talk page, but his "don't question me" response is what triggered the AN/I.  A little evidence and civility in response to the question would have went a long way.    Second, that was the first time that I have initiated an AN/I request on Viridae though I had commented on other AN/I requests that were brought regarding his conduct.  His actions are not unreviewable.  Since this is a section on Dragon695's attacks, it's worth noting that he has absoultely no excuse for being uncivil and he has done so many times.  --DHeyward (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

True story of ArbCom
So you were sitting in ArbCom posting suggested remedies to the workshop. Meanwhile all the other cases are closing. All of a sudden the phone rings and it's Sam Blacketer. He says "This ArbCom is irrelevant to today's Wikipedia and I am going to dismiss it." You tell that to Matthew Brown and he says "But Sam Blacketer accepted this case!" THEN WHO WAS PHONE????? Shii (tock) 07:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think I understand. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * One time I locked my coathanger in my car. Fortunately, I had a key. (I have no idea what he was talking about either.) --B (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've done that....I used to drive an F150 with nice side vent widows...I could open it almost as fast with a coat hanger as with a key....but I digress....--Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It means that about two months ago, Sam Blacketer voted to accept this case, and now has proposed that it be dismissed. Matthew Brown did not vote either way in accepting/declining the case, and is now disagreeing with it being dismissed. This is a translation service only and does not reflect any opinion on the commentary it is translating Risker (talk) 01:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * but but 'who was phone??????' i.e., I still don't get it.  Though I do understand that SB has moved on from this case, though I don't know why.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Translation service resumes It means that Sam Blacketer's acceptance of this case is inconsistent with his desire to dismiss it, or (to put it colloquially) "would the real Sam Blacketer please stand up". translation service ends Risker (talk) 01:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe he means "who was on the phone"? Or maybe "PHONE" is a pseudonym fo ra higher power, like the arbcom mailing list or something. Wizardman  01:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * [Stage direction: Shii crosses the screen dragging a piano full of donkey carcasses]. I think we've officially lost the tune. MastCell Talk 03:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it's the senseless tune or the confusion that's making me laugh now, lol. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It has the sound of a 4chan meme, and a quick google for "THEN WHO WAS PHONE" confirms it. --NE2 07:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Honestly, at this point it would be a substantial improvement if most of the evidence diffs linked to the video for "Never Gonna Give You Up". MastCell Talk 18:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually expected that April first was going to see massive rickrolling on the mainpage. That might be a bit of a beanish thing to say. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I just imagine that one editor who, diff after diff, would go “What th—?” and then proceed to look at the next. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 23:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In recent days, I've had many harsh words for the Committee concerning their refusal act, but, judging from the discussion surrounding today's events, it looks like they're finally ready to move forward with their decision.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Who is going to believe that? The Arbitration Committee has quietly reformed as a prayer circle, pleading to a higher being for a miracle that will free them from the responsibility to act. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 01:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What have I done?!? MastCell Talk 19:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Mast, you know me, I'll be here for you. I'm never going to give you up / never going to let you down / Never gonna run around and desert you / Never gonna make you cry / Never gonna say goodbye / Never gonna tell a lie and hurt you hbdragon88 (talk) 06:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest we ask the ArbCom for clarification on if it counts as getting rickrolled if you get the lyrics only. —Giggy 11:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh god. ArbCom better get off their high horse and start doing something soon before this page becomes mistaken for a 4chan RickRoll'd thread. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what we in the biz call motivation. MastCell Talk 17:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's your lucky day, Nishkid! —Giggy 14:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * May I suggest interlocutory appeal to the federal courts, regarding the rickrolling issue? Or, removal of the whole case to the federal courts?  Not that I'm wikilawyering or anything. :-) Seriously, is Arbcom deliberating about this matter or not?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy Two Month Anniversary!
I thought it would be a good idea to throw that out there. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 12:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it would really be a mensiversary. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 23:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Two months? It seems so much longer.... DuncanHill (talk) 00:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My theory: The Arbitration Commitee was going to effect a two-month statute of limitations tomorrow, but that plan got trashed in the wake of recent actions and allegations. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 01:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My head hurts. Two months. That's a year and two months, in dog years. Is anyone... you know... actually planning on... doing anything? Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 15:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This follow-up post officially makes me a WP:DICK, but... two links that are not rickrolled:
 * Sam Blacketer
 * Thebainer
 * Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 16:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

roll up roll up!
anyone interested in raising money for a good cause - and in helping along this rather stalled (but no doubt difficult) process is invited to take a look here - as a bit of an added incentive, I'll match donations for the first 4 folk to sign up for 10 bucks... (I'm in for $50) - but only if they're in the next 24 hours...... :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 12:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Signed. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">user:Everyme 12:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's already been reverted by zscout. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's been added back-- since RFAr have never before been on RewardBoard, zscout didn't realize it was serious idea. And a dang good idea it is. --Alecmconroy (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it reads like a serious enough offer, and the minimum would have been to consult with PM instead of just removing it with comment "you have to be kidding me." That sounds like a value judgement rather than confusion. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">user:Everyme 18:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Unicef seems a worthwhile charity to me. While the thing is a bit of a potshot at ArbCom, if it ends up getting money to a worthwhile charity, it's better than your run of the mill potshot, isn't it? ++Lar: t/c 02:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Dangerous precedent, though ... what if someone offered a "bribe" by tying their donation to a specific outcome of the case? I'm not sure I like this, even though it's obvious that arbcom's conduct here leaves a lot to be desired. --B (talk) 12:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nod. Yup, the stunt was a funny once, don't do it again, sort of statement. While I LOLed, it was not a good idea, really. As I told someone offline. ++Lar: t/c 13:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * They're unlikely to make that donation happen though. 15th August... I see it more like a prank or funny bet. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">user:Everyme 13:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Right. To my point and B's... funny once. Disruptive if done to excess. ++Lar: t/c 13:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"You're stealing money from charity!" Among all the valid and invalid criticisms of the Committee, this must be the most extraordinary... Sam Korn (smoddy) 13:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * re disruptive...I'm not privy to Privatemusings' thinking but it seems that he was just asking ARBCOM to see this case through, since the committee have already decided it was worthy of their attention. There seems to have been a lot of effort to marshal evidence, and it therefore *doubly* seems a total abnegation of responsibility to abandon the case without even going as far as supporting the motion to dismiss which is on offer. --luke (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Re:Disruption - which is more disruptive, someone offering money to charity in the event of the committee doing their job, or a committee apparently ignoring a case? DuncanHill (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * All I'm saying is there's a line here, without taking away the validity of the points made. I am sure individual members of ArbCom know that there is some frustration within the community about where matters are at. I am sure they're chagrined about it themselves. But this is not necessarily as easy a case as some of us might think. Periodic reminders are one thing but at some point crossing the line takes you into the realm of disruption. Funny once. Not funny twice. Something like that. Take that as you like. I LOLed, really I did. Periodic reminders probably are good, if not taken too far. ++Lar: t/c 18:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed it's a difficult case, and I didn't say a word against the committee between when they accepted the case and when Sam brought out his motion to close. I had assumed that, during that period, they were working their way carefully through the evidence, and that it would just take a little longer than usual for somebody to come up with a well-reasoned and thorough proposed decision.  Sam's motion strongly suggested to me that I was mistaken in that assumption.  The fact that now, more than three weeks after he posted his motion, only one other arbitrator has voted on it is, in my mind, absolute proof that I was mistaken.  There is not a single Arbitrator other than Morven and Kirill who has not fallen in my estimation as a result of this case (Sam less than his colleagues, and for different reasons).  I'm not sure this is in any way on topic, but I'm generally so mild-mannered and drama-averse that I figure I'm entitled to one of these every now and then. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree it's complicated, but not due to the reasoning that seems obvious. It's complicated because the committee didn't review the diffs/evidence closely enough in the request and thought that it would be a straight forward tell these editors (especially the participants of the board of outter darkness where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth to leave each other alone period kind of case.  But then....all manner of difficult behavior was identified from those who have been thought by the oldeguard to be 'heros' of the project.  Now, what do you do?  follow through on the evidence straightup and deadmin some very long time admins?  Ignore that and sanction longtime good faith contributors who (while excitable) seem to be trying to follow the rules?  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

<- Whilst I understand (and intend) the offer to donate some money to charity may raise a smile or two, for me the old 'many a true word spoken in jest' applies also. Witness the comment and analysis that this small issue has warranted, and compare it to apparent levels of activity on the case itself. Leaving aside the issues around the Reward board in general, it's pretty clear that the point Sam Korn makes above could be disruptive, were anyone making it, and I agree with Duncan's response. We're up to $105 pledged - and I note that a 'school in a box' costs only $186 - I'd like this to give a sort of gentle incentive to the arbcom, as well as both keeping some perspective on the matters in hand, and doing some serious good in the world - please consider signing up... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * or to put it more succinctly - :-) Privatemusings (talk) 07:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Have we now been BritRolled? *Dan T.* (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Dangerous precedent, though ... what if someone offered a "bribe" by tying their donation to a specific outcome of the case?  - what if someone offered a bribe by tying their donation to a specific POV slant of an article? That's bollocks - there's no such precedent here. --Random832 (contribs) 05:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If they did that I think the donation offer could be safely rejected. The fact we're almost up to the $186 without any such issues probably indicates people are more interested in getting a resolution than any particular one. Orderinchaos 18:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm considering lowering my bar to include any edit to the pages.... p'raps the arbs are applying ancient wiki systems and allowing the pages to lie fallow for a month or two.. you know.. a kind of resolution by osmosis. In the unlikely event that this may not actually.. um.. work... I'm sure it'll be over by christmas regardless......
 * I've also seen noted that it's necessary to resolve the privately heard 'Lar' case in order for this to progress..... maybe someone could explain why? I see the cross overs, but to me this shouldn't warrant a complete hiatus (and if this is the view of the committee.... could someone maybe let us know?) - I'm sure at least one of you chaps could bust a fili if so prompted... ah go on.... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 11:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * can't say I'm really all that surprised at popping back here with an hour and a half to go and discovering absolutely no progress. I think it's really disrespectful to the people who clearly care about this process to do absolutely nothing on wiki for this long (it's only ever worth teasing folk about things you care about, right?). In fact I think it's inexcusable. Privatemusings (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Note
Just to let you guys know, I actually went and wrote up a proposed decision and sent it to ArbCom for this case with the intention of giving the Arbitration Committee something they can work with. I'd post more information on it but rather would not without their permission here so they can ideally work on it in peace. Just letting you know that I'm at least trying to get this closed. Signed, not-an-arbitrator Wizardman  12:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ideally I'd like to get updates on what they thought of my proposal, but my guess is it's privileged info. Oh well, ideally it'll be closed this year. Wizardman  03:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

quick summary of activity of the case active arbitors
FYI


 * Blnguyen 76 or so edits on 8/1/08, a few to arb pages
 * Charles Matthews 77 or so edits on 8/1/18 none to arb pages
 * FT2 0 edits on 8/1, 8 on 7/31, last 50 go back to 7/17
 * Jdforrester 0 edits on 8/1, 4 on 7/23, last 50 go back to 6/16
 * Jpgordon 2 on 8/1, none to arb pages, last 50 go back to 7/28
 * Morven 0 edits on 8/1, 3 on 7/30, last 50 go back to 7/13
 * Sam Blacketer 2 on 8/1, none to arb pages, last 50 go back to 7/20
 * Thebainer 0 edits on 8/1, 3 on 7/31, last 50 go back to 7/4

as you can see, the activity in general of the arbs listed for this case is not that high on any wikipages. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Very interesting. Another note is that Kirill recused, and he seems to write a lot of the proposals. But yeah, it's a double-edged sword, as a low edit count either means that they are taking care of their off-wiki lives, and technically avoiding this, or that their really looking deeply into this case. Which it is i'm not sure, I'm AGFing and saying closer to the latter.  Wizardman  21:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * yeah, I don't know what it means. With the exception of Blnguyen and Charles Matthews who are both active and not spending much wiki time on arb cases, the others are really not active at all.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also consider: one of the primary parties to this case is also part of another, more recent case - one that's being handled privately. It's likely that the outcome of that case will affect this one, and at the very least I don't expect to see this case voted on before the other one is done. --InkSplotch (talk) 22:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, though that one might be fast, without all the dhrama's that public ones have. and that it's about allegations of misuse of a logged activity.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

More cabalism?
FYI, I've just added some more circumstantial evidence of cabalism involving parties involved in this case that, as of today, is definitely not old or stale. Cla68 (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting... it looks like a full-court-press BADSITES-motivated clique attack aimed at killing a nomination for checkuser, just like the en:wp RFA well poisonings of days of old (a year ago). Recently, in this RFA at Commons, there was what looks like the beginnings of a lame attempt to scuttle the nomination, but it didn't gain any traction. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh good grief, "a lame attempt to scuttle the nomination"? Rootology was, until very recently, a banned user on en and is obviously not trusted.  There is currently an ill-founded idea to give commons admins access to deleted image revisions across all projects.  I oppose that idea for the obvious reasons - a commons RFA should not be an end run around a local project's process and local projects should have an opt out.  This is a case in point and there's an obvious interest for en Wikipedia that a user who is explicitly not trusted should not be an admin on another project if that adminship gives him partial admin access here. I only recognize two people from this case who commented on the RFA - myself and MONGO.  I must have missed the memo that we are a part of a clique attack. --B (talk) 00:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The 85% vote for adminship despite your objections hardly seems like a sign that he's "not trusted". These oppositions seem to me like an attempt to export the BADSITES idiocy from here to those other projects, which are fortunately not proving a receptive environment for such memes. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Getting 85% support on commons is not the same as getting 85% support on en. I don't really care one way or the other if he or almost anyone else is a commons admin.  As long as they know how to delete a copyvio image and aren't wishy washy on deleting images, there isn't but so much damage they can do.  HOWEVER, if they are going to give Commons admins partial adminship on other projects, an idea which I am very much opposed to, then I don't think someone should be a commons admin unless we would trust them to be an en admin.  I seriously doubt that Rootology would get 85% or even 50% on en.  There is one current commons admin that I can think of who for the longest time was on a short leash here and a hair away from being banned here.  How he ever passed an RFA at commons is beyond me and he has failed about 5 RFAs here with never close to 50% support.  The point is, there are two different standards and two different sets of people !voting.  My only position on the matter is that if we are at all going to consider this insanely bad idea of giving Commons admins global partial adminship, then we as a project have a vested interest in either being able to opt out from that extraordinarily bad idea or not having Commons admins that we would not approve of here. --B (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To be frank, this sounds like "We can't poison the well against undesirable editors on Commons, so their RfA process is broken, clearly Commons admins aren't the same quality as ours." --Barberio (talk) 00:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? Poison the well?  Is that code for "oppose someone I support"?  I don't really care who Commons has as admins.  I do care when Commons admins start having partial adminship here.  Their process can be to flip a coin for all I care ... but that's all out the window when they start letting Commons admins view deleted revisions on other projects.  --B (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Who is this 'they' who you blame for letting those awful lesser-admins on Commons have partial-adminship here? --Barberio (talk) 02:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Can I please not be used as some martyr or sacrificial lamb for any crusades or jihads by any or all cliques? And B, your concerns and AGF are appreciated. I imagine if I were not trusted, I would not have been unblocked at all and fine for nearly three months now. Please do not slag Commons in any way, as that's just not appropriate. And again, please don't try to use me for any pro/anti BADSITES nonsense. I got plenty sick of being held up as a mantle piece and trophy by multiple sides in that POS war watching from the outside, and don't appreciate it from the inside. rootology ( T ) 04:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There has been no doubt you have made reforms, but you were banned from here for a long time...a long time. A long ban should mean that when you are unbanned, a long time should pass before we just assume you have nothing but good intentions now. Your recent proposed remedies against Tony Sidaway here, an editor you had previous run ins with prior to your banning is definitely NOT what I can construe as showing that you have buried the hatchet.--MONGO 14:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Cla68, DTobais...the ongoing and stupid nonsense about cabalism is so childish...your ridiculous assumptions that try and tar and feather others simply because they vote as they see best is, well, simply ridiculous. I am not a very active contributor on Commons or here much these days...I have a job that makes me work close to 60 hour weeks...I also have a life besides these websites. But indeed, I do vote at Commons and here on various things as I notice them and never because somone asked me to vote, so your miscues about my intentions are dead wrong. But, we can play the other line as well...how many times has someone posted at WR and then all the little WR syncopaths shown up at Rfas, noticeboards and other venues to lodge their dissents or supports....well?--MONGO 15:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * um, MONGO, I read about the SB Johnny fiasco at Wikipedia Review, yet somehow I resisted the urge to log in with my seldom-used Commons account to cast my much-needed vote. Do you know why?  The matter doesn't concern me, and I'm not an established or respected member of the Commons community.   FeloniousMonk hadn't used his Commons account in 2 years, before someone told him to show up and vote.  For Pete's sake, Orangemarlin created an account just to pile on.  This is the very definition of meatpuppetry and it is plainly inappropriate. also, what's a syncopath??  is it like a combination of a sychophant and a psychopath?  i like... --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue is-- how did MONGO, et. al. stumble upon the discussion? Were you all independently crusiing around and happen to notice it?  Did you see it discussed on-wiki somewhere?  Or were emails/messageboards/mailinglists or similar things ever issued?
 * As the "cabalism" evidence begins to pile up, it's getting harder and harder for the community (and presumably the arbcom) to accept innocent explanations of mere coincidence. As we shake the magic-8-ball of judgment, the answer that comes back is "All signs point to canvassing/meatpuppetry/off-wiki-collaboration/ or 'cabalism'".
 * Doesn't mean innocent answers couldn't still exist-- but as evidence piles up, it's getter harder and harder to accept. --Alecmconroy (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe they saw it mentioned on WR [[Image:718smiley.svg|15px]] --NE2 20:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hahaha-- an excellent contrast, because of course, we'd be pissed if people used off-wiki forums like WR to whip up support or opposition without making that fact transparent. And WR isn't, as far as I know of anyway, private.  I'd actually feel better about the accusations of off-wiki collaboration if we found out they were done publicly. As is, all we can assume is either incredible coincidence or else stealth-canvassing. --Alecmconroy (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is surely a "cabal"..see...the power of the "cabal" is so strong that Rootology was almost denied his adminship...all 300 members of my private MONGO army showed up...as is sooooooo apparently seen, to oppose him! And...there is ZERO chance that I happen to have certain pages at Commons watchlisted....Well, believe whatever you want. I encountered the same problem when dealing with 9/11 conspiracy theorists...I stopped trying to tell them that we only support the facts since they only wanted to believe the conspiracy theories...I guess it was more interesting for them that way.--MONGO 01:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And...there is ZERO chance that I happen to have certain pages at Commons watchlisted.  I agree there is definitely a non-zero chance any given individual could have found out about a specific discussion simply because it was on their watchlist.  That is possible scenario.


 * But the question remains-- Is that what happened??? Did you just have that Commons page watchlisted?  Are you saying that your contribution wasn't in any way due to canvassing or otherwise being alerted to it by someone else who shared your viewpoint, either through emails, mailing lists, off-wiki forums, or anything of that sort?


 * There's been several examples where the same basic set of people show up at the same discussion within the same timeframe to espouse the same viewpoint. As the number of such incidents increases, the probability that it's innocent and coincidental rapidly approaches zero.  Then, when we consider that some of the individuals in question are known to have actively engaged in off-wiki stealth canvassing in the past...  it's basically inconceivable that there wasn't SOME form of meatpuppetry/stealth-canvassing going on.  --Alecmconroy (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did see that Rootology was running for admin on Commons, opposed his admin request for the reasons specified and did so just because I did happen to have certain pages on Commons watchlisted. I noticed a couple other editors attempting to gain further tools at Commons on the same day and voted my conscience on those bids as well. But as I said, for some folks, truth is not what they want to read...they want to read the conspiracy theory. So, believe whatever you want...but continued innuendos about, in particular, my voting activity, will surely land you in hot water sooner or later. I recommend you AGF of my voting record.--MONGO 22:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I make no claims about any specific user-- it is not possible for me to know the truth one way or the other. I merely state, as have others, that the evidence about canvassing/meatpuppetry that has been presented in this case is, to my eyes, pretty persuasive.  It must be pretty persuasive to at least SOMEBODY else, or else this case would never have had to go to arbcom.  Or if it did come to arbcom, it would have been declined.  Or if it was accepted, it would have been resolved long ago.  Obviously, a lot of people around here find the evidence rather persuasive as well.


 * On top of the other evidence, I notice that people have been surprisingly hesitant to issue straightforward denials of the allegation. For all the jokes about conspiracy, I haven't heard any "No, I've never ever been on any email lists that have been used to stealth-canvass or otherwise coordinate."


 * We get lots of "isn't it possible that...." and "in this particular instance, I found out through..."-- but I'm not sure anyone has actually denied the accusation itself.


 * Instead, it seems like the argument runs as follows:  "Maybe we do engage in stealth canvassing, but _OUR_ stealth-canvassing and meatpuppetry is for the good of the project, so it's okay".  Let me be clear, nobody has said that in quite those terms, but that seems to be the take-home message.


 * And maybe they're right. Maybe if you are sufficiently prolific and have your heart in the right place, even WP:MEAT and WP:CANVASS are rules that can be ignored.  --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for anyone but myself. What is this...the Inquisition? Confess...Confess...ah, confess what? I get it...when the legend becomes fact, print the legend. Surely, the conceptualization that some dark sinister forces are at work, forces trying to control and shape Wikipedia, then that is more appetizing than boring realities.--MONGO 23:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This tactics this group of editors employs are neither dark nor sinister. They are brazen, clumsy and unintentionally comical at times, but nonetheless effective and demoralizing to editors who attempt to play by the rules.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What group of editors?--MONGO 23:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What group? I'm not sure they have a name. I sometimes like to refer to them as A Good Number of We Admins. I nearly created a user category with this name to begin populating a good number of admins' user pages, but thought the better of it (my block log is bloated enough, especially if you count those of my sockpuppets).--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) What group?  That's exactly the point. Hey-- maybe someone should file an Arbcom case and ask them to aid the community in trying to answer that question. Oh wait-- we already have. :) --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Heresay...more conspiracy theories, could easily be summed up as people that have a tendency to vote along similar lines. However, editors that suddenly appear after long hiatuses or create new accounts just to vote should have their votes stricken. I last edited Commons the previous weekend, and the weekend before that.--MONGO 23:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, Durova and FeloniousMonk are not allies. So convince me FM went there via canvassing. Good luck.--MONGO 23:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm.. Okay, I'll see what I can do.    But of course, it's okay if you aren't convinced.  Even theoretically, if you were convinced the allegations were true-- would it bother you?  I mean, would you even think anyone should be desysopped for those activities anyway?  My impression is that, so long as it was good people trying do good stealth-canvassing for the purpose of making a good encyclopedia, you would consider it laudable, not sanctionable. --Alecmconroy (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * unindent for clarity.  And I'll add, in response to all the "dark conspiracy" imagery, that I have tried to stay away from the use of the term cabalism for just this very reason.  It's just not a helpful term.


 * There's nothing novel about what's been alleged here. It's nothing new, nothing sinister.  We've always had people trying to faction together, trying to stealth-canvass to throw !votes their way, and trying to use sockpuppets or meatpuppets to undermine consensus.  We deal with these sorts of allegations all the time, and we're dealing with such allegations here in this case.


 * The only thing that's different is that typically the people who are alleged to engage in these undermining consensus are just straightforward POV-pushers-- people who do little to build an encyclopedia. In this case, the allegations are directed at people who do a substantial amount of encyclopedia building.


 * Now, if the evidence of wrongdoing isn't persuasive, then it's an easy case to handle. No personal attacks for whoever made the false allegations, remember to assume good faith, and maybe a NPA patrol thrown in to boot.  Easy peasy.


 * But, on the other hand, if the evidence of undermining consensus IS persuasive, then the poor members of Arbcom find themselves somewhat caught between a rock and a hard place. If they sanction the popular users who contribute plenty but who are doing some things they shouldn't-- well there's going to be a lot of drama, a lot of tension, and it's possible Wikipedia might lose some hard-working editors.   On the other hand, the Arbs do nothing-- if they conclude that the good encyclopedia work these people do simply outweighs the bad behavior-- in that case, the situation ferments, the problems continue to boil, and some people continue to ignore rules like NPA, CIVL, CANVASS, and MEAT...  and that's not going to be good for business either.


 * When you remember, as I often forget, that Wikipedia isn't a community, it's a benevolent pyramid-scheme to build the greatest encyclopedia in the world.  When you remember the goal really is the end product of a good encyclopedia, not social justice--  then it really wouldn't be as easy a choice for the poor Arbs as I sometimes imply it should be.  --Alecmconroy (talk) 00:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * ...but I'm an active Commons contributor, so I had every right to express my opinion there, both by voting myself and by commenting on the rationales for others' votes. Since voting on Wikimedia projects is not a "secret ballot", and in fact it is expected to provide publicly stated reasons for one's vote, it is also perfectly reasonable to comment on and critique others' reasons.  In that vein, I found the reasons given by a number of the opposers in recent Commons actions to be severely lacking, and often full of what seems like an attempt to once again whip up the BADSITES hysteria whereby it is proper to deny all positions such as adminship to anybody who fails to hold and express the opinion that everybody who even thinks about linking to any of the eeeeeeeeeeeeeevil Attack Sites needs to be drawn and quartered. *Dan T.* (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Dtobais...have you got music to go with that chant? One would think after you been banging that drum for so long that some sort of rhythm would have developed.--MONGO 01:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You both need to knock it off, because you're singing counterpoint in the same song, and it sounds rather discordant. ++Lar: t/c 15:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But I can't carry a tune nearly as well.--MONGO 22:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Basically, the reason this is even being brought up is a result of this: Mongo says "your ridiculous assumptions that try and tar and feather others simply because they vote as they see best is, well, simply ridiculous." Well, the issue here is that this group of users just happens to decide to vote the same way in an area they usually don't go to. Said group has voted the same way as each other in other matters in the past. I don't know anyone who I've ever agreed with 100%, and I just find it hard to believe that a fairly decent sized group can agree on everything. It just has an odd feeling to me, I guess. Wizardman 02:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I came here and saw this new crap.  Went to Cla's evidence.  Went to commons and read the arguments.  Discovered from the arguments that voters for Support were being solicited on Wikipedia Review.  Are you sure you have right the right cabal accusation here?  It seems that WR contributors are pretty tight and they are pretty open about the tools and methods they use to canvass.  --DHeyward (talk) 06:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Kind of hard to recruit voters in secret on an open forum, innit? --NE2 07:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * And how did you "discover" from the arguments that WR had been canvassing? Was it by chance when someone someone upfront stated "Note that I was made aware of this request by way of the Wikipedia Review, which I sometimes read.".


 * Iamunknown's behavior was 100% consisted with WP:CANVASS.  He declared openly that he had discovered the discussion through public, off-wiki posting.  He did what you're supposed to do.  And WR's public forum is, of course, public and monitored by both all kinds of different factions, so no matter what, it's not the dreaded stealth-canvassing.


 * Let's contrast that with the hypothetically hypothetical use of a private, secret email list to urge people to votestack various polls. If there was evidence to suggest that WR was running one of those, surely we should react most harshly, wouldn't you agree? --Alecmconroy (talk) 08:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why contrast? Both are obviously incongruent with the goals, policies and guidelines of Wikipedia.  Whether you call it forum shopping or meatpuppetry or stealth canvassing, it is improper to recruit "voters".   It's nonsensical to conclude that posting to WR is open to the point of not being canvassing.  If all the WR readers and contributors had a "Wikipedia Review" userbox on their user page, it wouldn't be appropriate to notify them On-Wiki of a particular vote.  Since it's expressly forbidden On-Wiki,  why would it be some how more appropriate to notify them off-wiki?   As for the WR mailing list, since open posting at WR for these activities is wrong, it certainly follows that other methods are wrong.  What's disturbing is that the justification presented here is apparently "two wrongs make a right" and the loser in that faustian bargain is wikipedia.  There are those of us that aren't in any cabal, clique or camp that find making progress is impossible because these groups work against the goals of WP.  Solution: part of super secret cabal email list?  banned.   Post to wikipedia review?  banned.  --DHeyward (talk) 06:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Who's notifying a bunch of people on WR? Do you have any evidence that people are sending private messages there? --NE2 06:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Read my response slower. --DHeyward (talk) 06:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I did, and your analogy is with individually notifying people on their talk pages because they have a WR userbox. Is this what's happening on WR - someone is individually messaging people about it? --NE2 06:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Threads are started by individuals. The target audience is {{userbox|This user reads or contributes to Wikipedia Review.  What's the difference?  --DHeyward (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A mention in a thread is a one-time posting, and is more analogous to notifying a WikiProject of a deletion discussion. --NE2 20:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No fundamental argument on that your basic point. Unannounced canvassing undermines consensus, regardless of who does it.   I do consider stealth canvassing to be a substantially worse offense though.  When the canvassing is announced or is otherwise public, we can at least know what we're dealing with.  If you're open about your canvassing, it may result in a biased sample, but at least it's not deceptive.  Stealth canvassing, on the other hand, is basically doing an end-run around the whole idea of consensus, and engaging it is a basically akin to hacking the encyclopedia's servers in order to get your way.  --Alecmconroy (talk) 07:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither is conducive to building the encyclopedia. Biasing the sample is why deceptive canvassing is wrong.  If open canvassing leads to the same thing, it's just as wrong.  It might be easier to spot, but it's still wrong.  Bank Robery during business hours is the same crime as bank robbery at night regardless of which one is sneakier --DHeyward (talk)

Notification of emergency measures in C68-FM-SV
Due to the unexplained disappearance of the Arbitration Committee, we now face a pressing need to form an emergency Acting Arbitration Committee until such a time as the real Arbitration Committee may return to us. I will be spearheading these efforts. The Acting Arbitration Committee will be appointed on a volunteer basis, with no Wikipedian in good standing excluded. Requests for membership will be accepted immediately, and the Acting ArbCom will take office on August 7th. A decision on the C68-FM-SV matter will be reached within 48 hours, and then pursued through Arbitration Enforcement. Thank you.  Mr. IP  《 Defender of Open Editing 》 18:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I know that this is a joke, but if nothing happens here by, say, month four, we should probably just throw it to the community. ArbCom can review whatever the consensus there is. Cool Hand Luke 20:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see why it couldn't have been "solved" through normal dispute resolution processes short of RfAr eg RfC anyway. The "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried" section is currently a joke. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 20:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently any big-ticket admin dispute now gets free passage, like on a Monopoly board.  Mr. IP  《 Defender of Open Editing 》 20:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitely. This little bit of theater is designed to accelerate this process, and I'm fairly serious about carrying it through :D  Mr. IP  《 Defender of Open Editing 》 20:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As an addendum, for those worried that the Acting Arbitration Committee will delay or curtail the ongoing efforts to locate the actual Arbitration Committee, do not be afraid. We are continuing our search and will be combing project space in search of clues or survivors for the next several weeks.  Mr. IP  《 Defender of Open Editing 》 20:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Quote -> "The Acting Arbitration Committee will be appointed on a volunteer basis, with no Wikipedian in good standing excluded. Requests for membership will be accepted immediately, and the Acting ArbCom will take office on August 7th." er are you sure this is the best approach...I mean don't you think the route of wholly self-selected volunteers might not be the best way to proceed. Agreed that you need people who are reasonably familiar with Wikipedia, and know they are up to the task of systematically working their way through a long but significant case. Perhaps a randomly selected arbitration panel (say 50), from which people can choose whether to participate as arbitrators after familiarizing themselves with the bare bones of the case? Perhaps also consider  the role of a neutral facilitator. -- luke (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Does WP:BJAODN still exist? I don't mean to put too fine a point on it, but I sincerely hope you're pulling everyone's collective leg. I don't wanna be Italian and dissolve our (self-)government every third month or so. The remedy would be worse than the ailment. I hereby make a motion to continue to lightly pepper ArbCom with ironic comments, vague insults and sarcastic remarks. In case of severe emergency, There Will Be RickRolling. I drink your milkshake. Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 22:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe the real ARBCOM is pulling everyone's collective leg Maybe... it's a long term leg-pull ;-) --luke (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Tennis Court Oaths
To add to the shrill warnings I've said above, I think there's an ever-growing consensus that this case is a very very important one that needs to be resolved-- either through existing dispute resolution procedures if possible, or through the creation of novel dispute resolution procedures if necessary.

So far, we've seen people respond to the idea of an arbcom incapable of resolving this dispute. We've seen a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed_decision#Nuclear_Option. proposed "nuclear option"] no-confidence-in-Arbcom motion, a suggestion arbcom be deleted outright, a charity fundraiser to try to entice Arbcom into resolution, a proposal that Arbcom be given a deadline of one week to commit to resolve or else acknowledge their inability to resolve it, and now of course, we have the emergency Acting Arbitration Committee.

These sentiments are coming from quite a diverse group, and represent, in my view, a strong consensus this case is important and needs resolving. Hopefully, Arbcom will, in fact, prove able to resolve it-- I think this the most likely outcome.

Let's face it, this is a thorny case and I don't think the Arb got what they initially signed up for. The theory has been expressed elsewhere, and it makes sense to me, that initially the case looked like it would be a clear-cut case of simple policy violations by not-exceptionally-popular users. Instead, the evidence starting piling up that some very-prolific, well-connected, high-valued members of the community weren't playing the wikipedia game with unnecessary roughness.

So, Arbcom has a genuine dilemma on its hands. Dare they drop the hammer on the most popular, hardest working members of the community-- or would that enrage those people and fracture the community along fault lines? Alternatively, dare they turn a blind eye, letting edit counts translate into "get out of following policy free" cards? It's quite a dilemma, and that's assuming they could even manage to agree on seeing this facts of the situation in those terms in the first place. So sympathy abounds for the arbs tasked with sorting this out.

For the record, I think deleting arbcom, no-confidence-motioning, or "emergency acting arbcoms" are bad ideas. I think the charity fundraiser is cute, and I think the Aug 14 date that's been mentioned is a wonderful timeline for Arbcom to decide whether it can resolve the situation or whether some overhaul of dispute resolution will be require to solve this particular brainteaser. --Alecmconroy (talk) 09:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The question is...why do you care?--MONGO 22:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Bah!
Bah! —SlamDiego&#8592;T 12:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Humbug! *Dan T.* (talk) 14:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Spaghetti! Wizardman  16:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Where's my Rickroll? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Despite what the general tone is here, ArbCom, I'm never going to give you up! But if you guys can't fulfill Privatemusings' donation offer....please, someone, think of the children! hbdragon88 (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Rick and Roll is here to stay; it will never, ever die. *Dan T.* (talk) 12:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:RICK, however, was deleted. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 17:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Question
If I blanked the page, do you think an arbitrator would bother to revert it? --Random832 (contribs) 17:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I doubt they'd even notice it, let alone revert it. DuncanHill (talk) 12:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * arbitrator? no. Other users, yes.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hehehe --NE2 21:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If the page were blanked, and the matter were left to the arbitrators, then they would mull the issue until it became stale, at which point would be declared stale and the page would be left blanked. Therefore, just in case, I suggest that this page be copied into userspace by Random832. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 03:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If a page was blanked in the forest, and no ArbCom member was there to see it, does it still make drama? *Dan T.* (talk) 12:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * hmmmm....see WP:AN/I?....--Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

New finding of fact
This page sucks. Jtrainor (talk) 03:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * While some of that suckiness is highly regrettable, the majority of the suckiness dates back to long ago and is vexing but unsanctionable. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 04:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting point, Pascal - give me a year and a half or so to mull it over, and I'll get back to you. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This talk page or the attached as-yet-non-existent 'proposed decision'? Because I find this talk page highly entertaining (see the two comments above for examples of such :D)  naerii  16:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

August 16th
Next week will mark four months in this case, and not a single proposed decision has been drafted let alone voted on.

But we shouldn't focus on what the ArbCom hasn't done, let's focus on what they have done... and of course
 * Allowed Tony Sidaway to post a list of people he 'knows' have 'WR accounts'.
 * Let people mount smear campaigns and make personal attacks and false statements unimpeded.
 * Publicly humiliated and forced the resignation of one of their best clerks.
 * Wasted the time and effort of dozens of contributors.
 * Destroyed faith in the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution System.

I say we give them some kind of award on August 16th. --Barberio (talk) 17:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a shame that this has gone on this long. I know if I were an arbitrator this would've been taken care of. Dunno if the final decision would've been completely right or not, but it would've been dealt with and we could've gotten back to editing. At this point, whatever ArbCom's decision is will have problems, and if a decision's made in september/october, the losing side will be furious and the winning side will no longer care. At this point I would just like the case to be finalized, no matter what happens (as long as it's somewhat decent). Wizardman  18:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that Slimvirgin has several supporters on the arbCom list who will support her regardless of the evidence. Anything negative towards her and those supporters is considered harassment. At the moment, there is no majority for either side. Because of past mild trout slapping and the enormous resistance of the community towards a exoneration or mild slap on the wrist, those cop out can not be used in this case any more, resulting in an eternal stalemate. I think that this case might never be closed, and still be pending at the next Arb-Com elections. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know whether this assessment is correct, but if there is any stalemate of such sort then ArbCom now owes the community an explicit exhibition of it. C68-FM-SV/Workshop/Merged can be cloned (perhaps with tweaks) into C68-FM-SV/Proposed decision, and statements of support or opposition can be made. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 14:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well put, Barberio. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 05:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Arbcom's handling of this would make a good case study at WikiVersity's "Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia" project. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You have to wonder whether any arbitrator still has this page on his watchlist. Wednesday will mark the one month anniversary of the last edit to the proposed decision page and I'm honestly puzzled by both the committee's inaction and its refusal to even comment on that inaction. It's a difficult case but it's one the committee accepted to take and chose to make even more complex by the merge. Sam Blacketer's proposed dismissal was in essence a way for the committee to say "we made a mistake by accepting the case". I find that unacceptable but that still gave individual arbitrators a chance to say where they stand and explain to the community the problems that underly the deadlock. From the point of view of people who are not on the ArbCom mailing list, it's not even clear that the case is still being discussed actively and the current head-in-the-sand approach cannot go on forever: the ArbCom elections are getting nearer and the last thing we need is an election process centered on this one issue or on the frustrations and conspiracy theories that the current situation is fueling. The ArbCom is just undermining itself Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I wonder why anyone still takes the current arbcom seriously - they have shewn utter contempt for the community by their behaviour in this and another recent case. Unfortunately, Wikipedia lacks any mechanism to hold arbitrators to account. DuncanHill (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See, I don't think that the arbcom is really guilty of contempt for the community. A few people who have followed this case do feel as thought the arbcom is just laughing in their face. Call me naive but I think they are very much aware that their current indecision is problematic and in their defense, they are indeed juggling a wikipolitical grenade. For a case this complex, taking time is a good thing but clearly the current delay is not due to the time required to examine, understand and evaluate the evidence but either to a deadlock within the committee, to external pressure on the committee or both. It is also due to a reluctance of publicly admitting and explaining this deadlock. You think it's due to contempt that could be resolved by holding arbitrators accountable but I think the reality is grimmer. The ArbCom is not contemptuous, it is impotent and perhaps doomed to be due to its lack of independence and its insistence on decisions that are unanimous. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The slight problem with this argument, is that it was the Members of the Arbitration Committee that made this case complicated, by taking several separate cases and merging them together into this unwieldy and over complicated omnibus case.
 * I suppose we could argue that they're just simply ignorant, stubborn and incompetent; not really maliciously contemptuous. --Barberio (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Either that, or chronically divided and unwilling to make that public. I think the treatment of FT2 a couple of months ago over the Orangemarlin case effectively silenced any future courageous arbs willing to take on difficult and complicated decisions without knowing they have the full support to do so first, and if they don't, well, nothing happens. I know no more than anyone else, but it's an educated guess. Orderinchaos 04:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe we could just stop taking potshots at them and exercise some patience, too. It's not like this is an easy case to deal with. Or we could put a bigass bullseye on all of them and go "HEY DO YOUR JOBS YOU EVIL VOLUNTEER PEOPLE!" I mean, they're obviously not earning their pay with taking all of this time to decide what's such a simple clear-cut case like this one, right? Tony Fox (arf!) 00:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean, its a volunteer site, but remember that we elect these people with the hopes that they will go through the cases in due time. Plus while difficult, it's not impossibly to write a proposed decision for this case. Wizardman  00:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To Barberio: I honestly think they didn't realize how catastrophic the merge would turn out to be. And to Tony: I don't think I'm taking potshots at the arbitrators as much as I am taking potshots at the arbcom as an institution. I very much sympathize with the difficulties they face (see also my earlier comments) but at this stage I think it would be more productive for them to acknowledge and explain what I have to assume are structural failures rather than failures of individuals. As I said, it seems implausible that the case is stalling only because they have yet to find the perfect decision. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * They should, perhaps, have listened to the many people who warned them not to, then tried to get them to reverse the decision. If you make a bad decision, that's one thing. If you make a foreseeable bad decision, and were warned against it for the exact reasons that it would be a bad decision, then that's another. This is not a case of hindsight being 50/50, it's a case of members of the committee rejecting community advice, the advice of their own clerks, and proceeding to tie an albatross around their necks. If a single member of the committee had come out and said, at any point, that they might have made a bad decision here, I might cut them some slack, but they haven't. --Barberio (talk) 00:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm involved in a case. I therefore am constrained about what I can say, especially since that case and this have some interconnection. But I agree with Tony that some patience is warranted here. As much fun as we may have with aspects of this, I am sure that no individual member of ArbCom is pleased with how long this is taking, or with what it is doing to their reputation for probity. I further believe that there is a chance this case will come unjammed soon. Before August 16? Who knows. I remain hopeful. More than that I cannot say. Maybe I should not have said this. ++Lar: t/c 05:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The word “soon” can no longer be properly used with respect to this case; only mention is possible. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 00:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with invoking the fact that they are volunteers is that by taking these positions, they displaced others who would have volunteered. The argument would only work had they not taken something that that was valued; as it is, they have obligations that volunteers in non-rival capacities do not. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 21:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a very good point. OTOH, it's kinda sad that some clever mind has to point out the fallacy in the usage (not to mention overusage) of a platitude like "volunteers" before its effectiveness in defending the status quo can slowly begin to fade. Let's go tell Jimbo about it. I'm sure he'll get your point, and we will then begin to see some productive changes. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">user:Everyme 22:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm a volunteer in the Scout Association. If I didn't do the work required of my position, I'd be out the door (and quite right too). DuncanHill (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ":Mmm thats a good point - I am with the State Emergency Service and the same thing applies. Viridae Talk 23:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that they're volunteers should increase our sympathy when they face problems and increase our leniency when they make little mistakes but you're still right on: it doesn't preclude criticism. Volunteers as they may be, they hold a lot power and have responsibilities that they cannot turn away from. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 01:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The arbcom needs to either shit or get off the pot. SashaNein (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Question 2
If this case is still running when the elections come up for next year's arbs, will people take into consideration the fact that the person they vote for might actually write a proposed decision?

Or will you, like me, still vote for this man? —Giggy 05:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm reasonably certain that the various Arbs associated with this case are aware that the Wikipedia natives are restless, and want to see some leadership happen. That is what leaders do, after all. Lead, I mean. Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 13:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Giggy, the level of conversation here is already at an all-time low. Please don't add to it. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As the old saying goes, if one doesn't laugh, one goes mad. I think, in the absence of any actual progress on this case, humour is filling the void for what otherwise would be productive discussion about the case. Orderinchaos 04:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, Giggy, could you take a look at this? (Not Rick, I swear.) I think it has a lot of relevance to the point you are making. Kelly  hi! 03:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I wonder can we persuade Rick to run for ArbCom? Actually, wait... maybe we should contact Chuck Norris's agents. Orderinchaos 04:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Or maybe Ronald Reagan? Yeah, I know he's dead and all, but judging from the level of activity on the case, it shouldn't be a disqualifier - he would fit right in. Kelly  hi! 04:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Mind you, if Chuck was an arb, the findings of fact and enforcement sections could look rather interesting... Orderinchaos 04:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh, I always preferred the Vin Diesel versions to Chuck's. You can't re-arrange the letters in Chuck Norris to spell "I END LIVES". Of course, Chuck will now come to my house to roundhouse kick me in the face, but I still would have to support a Diesel candidacy over a Norris candidacy. Of course there will be plenty of openings so maybe they can both get an Arb slot. Kelly  hi! 05:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Chuck Norris Has Five Pillars... On Each Hand. And he takes a hard line on the ID cabal: There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live. MastCell Talk 02:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo's wisdom
"This idea of ArbCom vs. the Community is poisonous, please do not let that kind of meme take hold."--Jimbo Wales

I think it may have already taken hold, Jimbo, thanks in no small part to the behavior of the current band of Arbitrators on this case.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Memo to Jimbo: the meme has already taken hold and so have the Jimbo is incompetent and I wish Jimbo would butt out memes. I just don't understand why the en.wiki is still allowing him ultimate authority over a community he's only marginally part of. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 00:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But they're irreparably linked to Bagley! --NE2 01:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus builds this encyclopedia - if consensus is prevented from expressing itself in relation to this kind of decision, the basic aim of the project has been abandoned. Brilliantine (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this might be too harsh, but I'm reminded of Jimbo's "evidence" in the Mantanmoreland case (where he basically said that he was sure Mantanmoreland didn't sock). He was proved wrong, of course. I doubt any Arb would admit to weighing Jimbo's remarks heavily, but it's honestly very hard for editors to disagree with him. By publicly defending Mantanmoreland before ArbCom&mdash;an honor that nearly no other editor has ever received&mdash;Jimbo help ensure that the community would have to act in that case. It's not the "community versus ArbCom," but the community is forced to deal with problems that this body abdicates. Cool Hand Luke 06:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The comments you're referring to are here. I think it's more accurate to say he was sure Mantanmoreland and SamiHarris weren't socks, but that he was undecided on the issue of Mantanmoreland socking overall.
 * At times I have believed one way, at times I have believed another way. I have investigated the claims to the best of my ability and I have been unable to find proof one way or the other.
 * Beyond that statement (and I'd call it that, not evidence), I don't recall Wales taking an active role in that arbitration. What may have gone on in private, we'll never know of course, but I suspect it's unlikely he got involed - as I suspect it's unlikely he'll get involved here.  The only thing which raises ire faster than a committee making an unpopular decision is one person making an unpopular decision.  --InkSplotch (talk) 13:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Given the fact that only two Arbs have voted on Sam's motion – which cancel each other out – and no appreciable dialogue with Arbs on this page, it's very hard for us not to conceive this as us vs. the ArbCom. And it gets harder with each passing day. ArbCom can get us out of this poisonous meme, if they so choose to... hbdragon88 (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo is right...such a mentality is poisonous.--MONGO 04:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad that you recognize that the mentality of the ArbCom is poisonous towards the relation between the community and the arbCom. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 10:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And such comments are not helpful. --DHeyward (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Heyward is right, MONGO. Please strike or refactor your last statement.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * MONGO is right, Kim. Kim is also right, Fat Man. And most of all DHeyward is right that such comments are not helpful. I wonder why he posted it then. <span style="font-family:lucida sans, console;">user:Everyme 17:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We may all be right, but we're not all fat! --NE2 18:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Inaccuracy
I see it is claimed that there are 9 active arbitrators for this case, but as far as I can see there are no active arbs at all. DuncanHill (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * One arb has returned. Maybe he can fix this mess. rootology  ( T ) 02:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If anyone can fix this, it's #9, indeed. Wizardman  02:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's to hoping it ends up with a bit of [[Image:Fleishersuperman.jpg|55px]] here. rootology  ( T ) 02:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

A switch in time... Cool Hand Luke 01:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)