Wikipedia talk : Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 4

Mythdon's mentorship

This may not be the place to put such a notification.

I would like to notify the committee about something in regards to my mentorship. I was given one month to find a mentor or this very committee would do so. Let me say this. I would like to confirm to the committee in good faith that I have not even tried to look for one yet, and I have no commitment to finding one, which would of course mean I have not found one yet. I ask this committee to pick one for me as I have no interest in looking for one. To anyone reading this, please leave a note to all the arbitrators (with the exceptions of Newyorkbrad and Risker who recused from the case) about this notification. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon, are you saying you have no interest in finding a mentor, or no interest in being mentored? Risker (talk) 05:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that I have no interest in finding a mentor. But, I must admit that I don't have interest in being mentored either, which isn't exactly the point, and I can't get out of it without an appeal which would likely fail anyway. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Redirect talk page to free up watchlists?

I propose renaming this talk page to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Discussion and leaving only a redirect here, so that people can watchlist the project page without being tantalized by all the bounteous discussion that takes place here.

When one watchlists a page, the talk page is also automatically added to one's watchlist. In most cases, for example with articles, that makes sense; but for a few particular pages (this one and WT:RFA) large numbers of people want to watchlist the project page and aren't necessarily interested in, or don't necessarily need to be constantly tempted to participate in, the associated discussion page.

I got the idea for this from User:Abd/Notices, which has a redirect as its talk page for that reason. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This idea was soundly rejected at RFA talk recently, and quite rightly so. Majorly talk 00:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You can use this script to hide this page from your watchlist. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

no comment on the proposal except that it normally isn't so busy around here ;-)

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Any page that tends to be watchlisted by a huge number of people will tend to have a lot of discussion on its talk page, just because the talk page keeps appearing on large numbers of watchlists. People remove pages from their watchlists to declutter them; I removed W:RFA from my watchlist to get WT:RFA off it, in spite of the loss of useful information. Some of the arguments in that discussion don't make sense to me. Sure there would still be a talk page: it would be a redirect. Following a redirect takes almost no work: less than constantly ignoring a page that keeps appearing in one's watchlist, IMO. It was not "soundly rejected": I see some support there for the idea. I think watchlists show a certain number of changes, so using a script to hide some of the display won't give the same effect as removing high-traffic pages from one's watchlist; and someone said the script was annoying because the page appears for an instant: all the more tantalizing!! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

One of my current projects is to add a unique CSS class to each item of a watchlist, enabling a simple edit to monobook.css to hide certain pages. I'll get started again. X clamation point 01:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This was recently done (r50714); now we just need to wait for Brion to catch up the the two thousand revisions-worth of code review that needs to happen before Wikimedia can scap again... we're over two months behind the SVN copy of MediaWiki atm. Happy‑melon 08:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of arbitration decision and enforcement at ANI

Please note that there is a discussion regarding User:Guido den Broeder's recent unblocking by ArbCom at Wikipedia:ANI#User:Guido den Broeder. Clarification or other input from the members would probably be helpful. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks WLU. Noted. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Unexpected arbitrator absence

Wow.

What's the technical meaning/effect of "inactive" then? ╟─Treasury Tag►ballotbox─╢ 07:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This decision is about arbitrators going AWOL. "inactive" is when they provide advance notice of absence. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but I mean – so what? What is the effect of being declared absent or inactive or whatever? ╟─Treasury Tag►sundries─╢ 07:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Inactive/Absent/AWOL arbitrators are not counted in the total number of arbitrators on any case, which can mean that the number of votes required for a proposal or motion to pass is reduced. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 08:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this connected to this? Specifically, the way a couple of recent cases have been sliding backwards about as quickly as time is sliding forwards?? Happy‑melon 08:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Unrelated

The main motivation was to write down this unwritten internal procedure, but in the process of doing this we decided to adjust the rule to reduce the time spent twiddling thumbs.

If a case is in voting phase, a missing arbitrator can make a big difference to which arbitrators are needed to review the outstanding cases so that the committee can close them efficiently.

There have been a few times where arbitrators have stopped responding, and after a few days the rest of the committee and the clerks starts agonising over whether the "number of arbs" needs to be adjusted for voting purposes, and/or whether we should send out search parties - thankfully each time, the AWOL-arb has reappeared.

To a limited extent, there has been a bit of wasted time due to unplanned disappearances, but I wouldn't call it a significant factor in the slippage. Kirill might disagree with me on that one. What I can say for certain is that this issue has not had any impact on the date delinking case.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

As John says, the two are pretty much unrelated. "Date delinking" has slipped mostly because there's some disagreements over the remedies, not because we're lacking for votes per se. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 12:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Taking a situation where an arbitrator has voted on some proposals but not others, or voted on the initial proposals but not new alternatives, does this mean that if a case is ready to close and the arbitrator is not active to finish voting, that you will adjust the required majorities on only the unvoted proposals, or will you strike all the prior votes and globally adjust the required majority? Thatcher 11:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a hypothetical question: What does it really mean if an arbitrator goes AWOL in the long term? I assume that since there is constant contact and multiple ways of reaching each other if an arbitrator vanishes for a period of time, how long is that time considered before they may be removed by a vote of the committee? Or is this even possible? Now that there are 15 arbitrators it is not so much an issue as it was back when there were ~6 "active" committee members. So in theory, if an arbitrator goes AWOL rather than giving notice, can they be removed after a reasonable length of time (even over six, eight months)? Keegan^talk 04:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Flcelloguy (talk · contribs) went inactive; I don't know the circumstances. I recall concerns about this, and what should happen with his seat. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think more to what my point was, what if an arbitrator disappears from the internet? Like I said not a pressing concern, just something hypothetical. Keegan^talk 07:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This could be a good premise for a political thriller. Will Beback talk 07:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Guido den Broeder banned

Is it permanent this time (particularly given this conversation), or can he return under a similar appeal in the future? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

In principle, anyone is free to appeal their bans. In practice, however, I very much doubt we'll be entertaining any further appeals, given his failure to conduct himself appropriately after this last appeal was granted. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 12:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This may inform any discussion as well. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Per Kirill, he can appeal but given that it took such a short time for this reban, I doubt it'd get very far. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The hilarity continues. Daniel (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I've always thought the "block log cleared in full" an absurd demand. My block log has an error in it, and so long as it doesn't grow to an outrageous degree, that error won't hurt my standing on en.wiki. All I have to do is not get blocked on an ongoing basis. But whatever, appeals to Jimbo always work, it's the best way to try to reverse a community decision. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

*my* block log is bigger than yours, and it doesn't have any errors in it either :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

<boggle>I have been banned from en:Wikipedia by the local arbcom without explanation or evidence of wrongdoing.[2]</boggle> Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

You're a badass Will. I respect and fear you.

I've often wondered if GDB really was embarking on an experiment, one that never ended with his ban (and continued to this day). If so, I firmly believe the community actually acquitted itself rather well. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Guido no longer respects User:Coren, but now respects Jimbo, apparently for "agreeing" that Wikipedia is a social experiment.[3] Interesting. Cool Hand Luke 16:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It's sort of sad when "people I respect" and "people who agree with me" are entirely overlapping sets. MastCell ^Talk 22:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Gracious, short of someone deleting the main page, I've never seen such fast action. Kudos to the Committee for not letting this drag out past all worth. Keegan^talk 21:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I was rather taken aback to see GDB reinstated, I must say that all credit to Cool Hand Luke and the ArbCom for going that extra effort to offer the route to re-engagement; there being no prior groundswell of community petition for this, it was a fine example of doing the right thing with WP:IAR. Equally, as things failed to work out, they acted quickly. Other than ArbCom members not needing to recluse themselves, just because a difficult editor tenaciously so desires it (but very transparent of you), I agree this ArbCom shown admirable & forthright helmsmenship. David Ruben ^Talk 00:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"Failed to work out"? The whole thing seems like a rather conceited enforcement of 1RR. Let's take Global warming for instance. Guido attempted a minor improvement to the article. When this was reverted (pettily I might add, who really gives a shit if it was changed from "past century" to "last century"?), he attempted a more source-accurate replacement ("from 1906 to 2005"). Again reverted, so he tried "twentieth century". I guess this could be seen as breaking 1RR if you wanted to be a WP:DICK about it, but at the same time, 3RR was violated by the opposing party. It's not like Guido was replacing important uncontroversial/reliable/verifiable text with garbage. Editors need some room to move, but I'm guessing this was some sort of bureaucratic trap, which Guido fell into. - Tekaphor (TALK) 10:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I voted to re-ban him not just because of the technical breaches of his parole but also the truculent wikilawyering in various fora. This editor comes with a long history of problematic interactions both on this wiki and the Dutch one and there was no evidence that he intended to change his ways. In a case like this, the best interests of the encyclopedia come first. Roger Davies ^talk 10:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Not a "bureaucratic trap" but a very simple requirement of the unblock trial for him to start contributing collaboratively, and as and editor with repeated past blocks for 3RR he was fully aware of what counts as edit warring. He was not a newbie needing care to nurture and not feel bittn at, but a persistant edit warrior who had disrupted a lot of people's time and effort. As for "3RR was violated by the opposing party" I disagree, for once GDB broke his unblock 1RR requirement, his further edits were de facto disruptive and therefore 3RR did not apply. David Ruben ^Talk 11:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I retract my statement about 3RR, I was wrong that it was performed, although I disagree that reverts didn't count (I see nothing on WP:3RR which specifies that reverting Guido's edits were exempt). I still stand by the statement about pettiness. As for the other issues people have with Guido, I can't comment much on them because I haven't really been involved. - Tekaphor (TALK) 11:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Undent. I have a comment in mind here, but I refuse to let Guido take up more of my time. I'm going to let it drop. Perhaps the rest of the community might do the same. There is now a permanent block with no hope of return, so there is no point in arguing further. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

When posting a notice, can a link be given, or some detail, for members of the community who otherwise wouldn't know where this comes from or where it's stated? Perhaps the clerks could also notice if it isn't helpfully linked or clarified, and propose fixing it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, another point I need to retract is implying that Guido made 3 attempts at editing the same text, since the 3rd one was in a different area of the article. 1RR allows 1 "revert" a day right? Assuming edit # 2 by Guido on Global warming mentioned above was even a "revert", Guido did not violate 1RR as claimed, although Roger also said the ban was based on "truculent wikilawyering in various fora". I don't follow how a 1 week ban suddenly turned into an indefinite one (comments on Wikipedia Review???), but it looks like there's serious commitment to having Guido permanently banned, so I doubt there's anymore more I can really say. - Tekaphor (TALK) 00:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

From my own perspective, the re-ban was mostly due to a continuing pattern of wiki-lawyering. Debating the exact quantity of "x" in "xRR" really amounts to more wiki-lawyering. The editor in question was banned by the community for problematic actions, had the ban multiply confirmed by AC and the community, then was unbanned by ArbCom in what appears to be an unquestionable act of good-faith by CoolHandLuke. Further wiki-lawyering was the immediate result, including (non-personal) attacks on CHL, who went out on the line to get the unban. AC reviewed a really good-faith attempt to re-incorporate an excluded editor and decided - this started out as a good idea, but it's now a very bad idea, let's cut it short. 'Nuff said. The editor was unbanned only by the sufferance of ArbCom, and is now re-banned on the same sufferance. Game over. Franamax (talk) 02:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Wheel Warring over subpages?

I have no idea what on earth is happening here, but can someone review these deletes/restores of his sub-pages? What is this mysterious request to restore them? Is this a wheel war? rootology/equality 12:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not getting further involved in this matter; I restored them which was perhaps a mistake as they were deleted per CSD U2 which is incorrect. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 12:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Then shouldn't you re-delete them with the correct reasoning then? Syn 12:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I have done so... I'd just like this solved as easily and inoffensively as possible. :( weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 13:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks indeed like a quite blatant wheel war. Fram (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) keeps on deleting the page per Wikipedia:CSD#U2 and is overturned per several different admins, as Wikipedia:CSD#U2 does (quite obviously) not apply. — Aitias // discussion 12:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless Guido is also banned on the other Wikimedia projects linked on that page, it seems rather petty to delete it, since it is linked in Guido's sig. Fram should knock it off. Thatcher

Fram has now deleted them again; this is out of control a bit.[4].rootology/equality 13:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No, that was Garden, probably trying to do the right thing. ~~but (IMHO) making it worse.~~ Ah well. Thatcher 13:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As far as I can see it was deleted by Garden (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) now, not by Fram... — Aitias // discussion 13:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes I wish we had time-out buttons on anything we did, hard-coded in. rootology/equality 13:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That was me deleting them again, that seems the "stable" way to keep them until consensus as to their existence is reached. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 13:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

First undelete/redelete were because the undeleting admin did not realise that the user was banned (Guido den Broeder asked for the restoration of his pages on IRC, and the admin did this, not realising the beackground). We discussed this, other admin said he was mistaken, and I redeleted. Since we were in agreement and his restoration was an understandable mistake, no wheel-warring until then. Garden then redeleted the pages, apparently again at the request of the user (I assume again on IRC), but this time while knowing that the user was banned. I have not undone this, but tried to discuss with Garden, who first used a strawman argument and then left the discussion because I pointed out said strawman. The first discussion is at User talk:Closedmouth, the second at User talk:Fram. The only rather blatant violation of policy I can see here is edits made on request of a banned user: the deletion in itself is a perhaps mistaken interpretation of CSD U2: does a banned user still "exist" on Wikipedia? If U2 does not apply, I can always MfD them of course.Fram (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, a banned user still does exist. Where does the cut off on deleted content begin or end? Project space? User space? Article space? What if he wrote Some article and is sole contributor? Has the Arbcom said he'll never, ever, never be back? A year, two years from now? I can think of at least one user that some said would never, ever, never be back, and he's an admin now. rootology/equality 13:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I now see that Garden redeleted these, pending resolution of this. Thank you. I hope we can now drop the whole "wheel-war" argument (and the edits by proxy one preferably as well), and just discuss whether subpages of a banned user can be speedy deleted, or should be MfD'ed. If speedy deletion is the wrong method, I'll undelete them (or anyone else can do so of course). Fram (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think it's fairly obvious that Wikipedia:CSD#U2 does not apply here. It should be restored. — Aitias // discussion 13:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: As no one did respond here, I have listed the page at WP:DRV. — Aitias // discussion 15:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)If its at all possible to draw the point of discussion back to whether or not they should be deleted, I think we will find ourselves almost finished here. :) I've asked Guido on IRC to please stop asking admins to restore until this is figured out. Just so other admins who are unaware do not extend this. Syn 13:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Garden (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is explicitly trying to avoid wheel-warring by self-reverting back to Fram (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)'s re-deletion. Whether Fram's re-deletion is appropriate is another matter, however. --slakr^\ talk / 13:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That is correct - I really, really don't want to start a wheel-war and I'm willing to come to any possible compromise here. My sincere apologies if I have done anything wrong in this matter and I can assure you it will not happen again. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 13:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

My redeletion was just as (in)correct as my first deletion, a it came after a discussion with the undeleting admin with as his conclusion "No problem, I should have looked into it closer before acting.". I may have made an error in deleting these pages, but I would appreciate it if people would stop acting as if I wheel-warred and redeleted these pages against the wishes or without the consent of the restoring admin. This never happened. If I had wanted to wheel-war, I would have undone Garden's restoration as well. I did not, because that's not the way I edit here. Fram (talk) 13:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Fram, you and Guido were arguing loudly at ANI just two days ago. It would have been wise if you could just leave it to uninvolved admins. Why are we complicating the already complicated things further? There are tons of admins so why not leave it to them in the first place? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Fayssal - I'm not sure why you (Fram) were even involved in deleting these pages. Nathan^T 13:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Because most of them wouldn't be aware that these pages even existed? Because I (clearly mistakenly) thought these deletions were uncontroversial (beyond Guido himself, of course)? Because none of these pages had anything to do with the encyclopedia, and were just used as decoration for his talk page and as a method to guide people to his own wiki-site? I have not removed or reverted any mainspace or article talk edit by him, I just deleted some utterly useless userpage subpages. I was the one that brought his continued disruption in the week after his unban to the attention of other admins. I was the one who removed the copyvio from his user talk page. ~~None of you made any effort to stop him disupting Wikipedia,~~ none of you argued with him when he was again spouting nonsense on WP:ANI and spreading lies about my supposed involvement in the articles he was topicbanned on. But now everyone is declaring that I wheel-warred (which I obviously didn't) and that I shouldn't have acted here, without anyone indicating what the harm is that I have done or why these pages should be kept. He is twice banned here and indef blocked on the Dutch Wikipedia: one of the reasons for his block was the "experiment" he posted here on his user page. Yet, people insist that we keep a link in every signature he made to his Wikimedia page, where he still ahs a copy of that same experiment... Fram (talk) 13:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sincerely Fram... most of people who are unaware of something can be informed via noticeboards. And that 'beyond someone, of course' which should be avoided regardless of who that person/user may be or what they did in the past. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I just wanted to indicate that most "uncontroversial deletions" are controversial for whoever created the page. No insult intended there... Fram (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Fram, can you explain why, if the need for deletion was so obvious, you could not ask an uninvolved admin to take a look? --bainer (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Why would I bother another admin with was (in my naive view) an uncontroversial deletion? No one complained the last time I did these deletions (when he was first banned), so I didn't realise that these pages suddenly would be worth so much discussion. Isn't everyone here just continuing some utterly pointless drama over userpage subpages of a banned user, none of them in any way relevant to building an encyclopedia or to reviewing potential further ban/unban requests? These were standard deletions of temporary userpages (subpages, in this case). Fram (talk) 14:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

When another admin undoes your act, it is self-evidently not uncontroversial. Cool Hand Luke 14:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

When another admin undoes your act because he made a mistake, and acknowledges his mistake and that he has no problem with another deletion of the pages, it still appears to be uncontroversial. It became only clear (to me) that it was controversial after Garden deleted them again, and I have not taken any action about these pages since then, so what's the problem? Fram (talk) 07:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Those of you contesting the deletion under U2: how do you feel about Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages? Why can the pages in this category be deleted without discussion, but the ones I deleted (not even the main user page, but subpages without Wikipedia-related content) not? Fram (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we get altogether too hung up on acting like Immigration Control for users sometimes, when this stuff is self-evidently never urgent work. If a given page's contents are disruptive or policy violating, that can be dealt with. If it requires tools use, it should always be an involved admin, no exemptions, up to and including Jimmy's tools use, unless it's a BLP vio or copyvio. rootology/equality 15:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess you meant uninvolved ;-) But I'll be more careful about these things in the future (and I don't believe I have done any similar things in the past). Fram (talk) 11:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

There are also User talk:Guido den Broeder/Vereniging Basisinkomen (a copy of the article deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vereniging Basisinkomen (2nd nomination)), User talk:Guido den Broeder/ME/CVS Vereniging (a copy of the article deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ME/CVS Vereniging) and User talk:Guido den Broeder/Simon Wessely (for some reason, a copy of an older version of a talk page?)... MfD under WP:UP#Copies of other pages? Fram (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

MFD, as you're as involved as we get with someone when it comes to Guido. rootology/equality 15:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Very politely, I think the best thing to do is take it to MFD and leave it up to discussion. I don't consider it a controversial deletion (but I'm not an admin!) and since someone objected, 'tis time to discuss at MFD. Humble opinion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Banned does not equal non-existent. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This was taken to DRV, and I have restored the pages and listed them at MfD at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Guido den Broeder subpages. I suggest that further discussion of the merits of the pages is done there, and that we stick here to discussing potentially problematic behaviour by everyone involved (i.e. mainly me, of course). Fram (talk) 09:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Date delinking case

Forgive me if this is the wrong forum for posting for Arbcom attention (your noticeboard pages are not easy to navigate - if this is in the wrong place, please move it, but let me know where's it gone!) but I urgently direct your attention to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Date_delinking/Proposed_decision#Consequences_of_closing.

Thanks and apologies again if I've misdirected this message. --Dweller (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Formal complaint against Locke Cole remedy in date delinking case

Same apology for placement of this message as Dweller makes above.

I wish, as both an involved party in the date delinking case and a Wikipedia administrator, to lodge a formal complaint regarding the proposed six-month ban of

Locke Cole (talk · contribs) that seems set to pass as a remedy. Kirill commented that Cole has "[a record] of disruption spanning multiple years" and that "There's a point at which we must say that someone has had enough chances". Let's take a look at that block log:

21 November 2005 - 3 hour incivility block
3 December 2005 - 24 hour edit war block

4 February 2006 - 24 hour incivility block, cancelled, extended to 48 hours, then reduced to 10 hours, then unblocked within hours
28 February 2006 - 15 hour edit war block
31 March 2006 - 24 hour preventative block for mass page moves, revoked 15 minutes later
17 May 2006 - 24 hour incivility block
29 June 2006 - 1 month block following arbitration

Nearly two years pass without any issues.

3 March 2008 - 48 hour block for "harassment" (unexplained in log)
6 March 2008 - 1 week block for same, immediately revoked by issuer as an erroneous block
22 April 2008 - 24 hour edit war block, revoked within hours
16 May 2008 - 55 hour edit war block, revoked with comment "although there was a 3rr breach, locke cole was revert-warring against abusive sockpuppets"
3 June 2008 - 24 hour edit war block
5 June 2008 - 72 hour edit war block
18 November 2008 - 1 week edit war block, revoked within hours

26 March 2009 - 5 day edit war block, revoked within ten minutes

So, a few years back Locke was a bit hot-headed, perhaps a bit rude, and spent a month blocked following an arbitration. Then, last year, he got involved in a bit of edit-warring. Note the preventative short blocks issued and revoked.

Now contrast this to the actions of Ohconfucius (talk · contribs), who has repeatedly been blocked for violating the arbitration injunction, and then evading the the block by IP-editing; and has a raft of Committee findings against him, including incivility, edit warring, battling, and performing over nine thousand automated edits without the permission of the Bot Approvals Group. And what do the proposed remedies for Ohconfucius amount to? A topic ban, an editing restriction, and prevention from using automation.

How is this proportionate? How is it fair? I do not understand the thinking involved in issuing such an unbalanced set of remedies. Why is one banned, and not the other?

I am lodging this complaint with ArbCom in advance of the enaction of this proposed remedy. If said remedy is to be enacted, I will seek to appeal it using any mechanism available to me. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

A philosophical question – please bear with me. I haven't followed the extant case; I know nothing about Locke Cole beyond that I've seen his name from time to time at AN/I. His is just the specific case about which prompts me to raise the general question.

Why is it hard to avoid edit warring, particularly the bright line of 3RR?

Moreover, if it is not difficult to stay within that limit, why do we treat it as such a difficult thing to accomplish — offering warnings, paroles, repeated cautionary blocks, and stop-or-I'll-say-stop-again remedies? I can understand how an editor who is new to Wikipedia might be unfamiliar with our policies, or how such an editor might be understandably upset if their good-faith edits are undone. A new editor might be unable to figure out how to seek help in such a situation, and might become frustrated. 3RR violations by new editors will occasionally happen, and it's okay for us to try to bring those neophytes into the fold.

An experienced editor – one who has accumulated a few hundred edits and a few months' exposure to Wikipedia culture and practices – can't (or at least shouldn't) be able to fall back on the excuse of ignorance. That editor has been exposed to Wikipedia policy and practices, and has seen where to get help if the need arises. Such an editor should understand that not everything has to be fixed right this minute, and that possession of the absolute truth and unquestionable moral high ground is not sufficient grounds to bicker like a four-year-old.

Editors who have a consistent history of edit warring to get their way on any issue have failed to internalize key principles of cooperation, diplomacy, patience, and negotiation which are essential to the operation of a collaborative project and the maintenance of a productive shared working environment. Revert warring to get one's way is bullying, pure and simple. It takes advantage of the fact that most other regular editors are polite enough, courteous enough, and sufficiently respectful of our policies and guidelines not to fight fire with fire. At best, other more responsible editors will be recruited to the trouble spot to resolve the issue; at worst, the edit warriors drive off the polite contributors leaving only entrenched, polarized combatants.

An editor who draws multiple blocks for edit warring in the same area over a span of several months has not only failed to learn that edit warring is to be avoided, but has also failed to even learn enough to game the system well enough to avoid recurring blocks. The Arbcom should be acting to defend the community against such stubborn disrespect aimed both at other editors and at Wikipedia's principles. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

"The Arbcom should be acting to defend the community against such stubborn disrespect aimed both at other editors and at Wikipedia's principles" - I agree thoroughly. Lest it be misunderstood from what I wrote above, I'm arguing for parity here: if Locke Cole is to receive a ban, then so too should Ohconfucius. If Ohconfucius is not going to receive a ban, then neither should Locke Cole. — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

~~(Wasn't 10OfAllTrades found to be an abusive sockpuppet at one time? Oh, well.)~~ 3RR doesn't apply to reverts of edits of blocked users running under sockpuppets or IP addresses. (It may not apply to some additions clearly against consensus, or the usual monitors at 2008 and 2009 would have been blocked, although I cannot find specific wording to that effect.) At least 3 of Locke's blocks for 3RR violations were, at least arguably, of that form. However, the blocks and bans in an ArbCom decisions are supposed to be related, not to the severity of the offense, but directed to avoid the likelyhood of repetition. That being said, clearly Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) should be indefinitely banned from any use of automated tools. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

And he is, indeed, being so restricted. As far as the total ban goes: the fundamental difference between the two editors in question is that Locke Cole was already sanctioned for edit-warring in the Locke Cole case, while Ohconfucius has not been. If nothing else, we expect that we will not need to repeatedly deal with editors returning to the same misbehavior, since they will learn from a single episode of being sanctioned by us; someone that resumes edit-warring after already having gotten in trouble so thoroughly for it is going to be dealt with more harshly than someone who has not, since we have actual evidence suggesting that they will not improve their behavior from a minor restriction.

This is, in any case, a discussion that should be taking place on the case's talk pages; this is meant as an area to discuss noticeboard announcements, not as a general forum for leaving notes for ArbCom. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 04:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding placement of my message, I was following this suggestion by MBisanz. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I think, in retrospect, WT:AC would have been a more appropriate page for this complaint to be lodged at. MBisanz is quite correct, however: that page seems to receive inadequate attention from the arbitrators. AGK 19:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Colbert

Congratulations... you guys are famous! Meaning no disrespect, but this was probably the best description of Wikipedia I've seen in the media. It has considerable value if we view it in light of all of us, rather than just as it focuses on you all. Didn't hurt that it was pretty funny too. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a clue how to pronounce Carcharoth either :) Keegan^talk 04:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Stephen certainly mispronounced it. The word is Sindarin, and the "ch" is pronounced something like the "ch" in "Bach". Paul August ☎ 04:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a full IPA pronunciation at Carcharoth, for the inordinately curious. ;-) Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 05:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Surprised a geek like Colbert didn't know that! --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 06:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not all too surprised that I got three replies in a very quick manner. Here's to teh wiki. Keegan^talk 06:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks to Kirill for the link, and my History of the English Language professor for teaching me IPA :P Keegan^talk 06:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I found this to be quite amusing. And, uh, yeah....Carcharoth...hehe... Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 07:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh man, that was funny. Colbert understands Wikipedia more than most people in the media, and that makes it that much better when he makes fun of it. rspεεr (talk) 08:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

For those of us who are in regions unable to view the site. AGK 13:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Temporary injunction on delinking

A temporary injunction about delinking dates was issued back in January 2009. A poll about the topic was conducted from March 30, 2009 and April 13, 2009. The poll closed and the results were overwhelmingly in favor of what the MOS already says.... dates "should not be linked unless they contain information that is germane and topical to the subject matter." 208 editors voted for that. The other 3 options combined only got 84 votes. This is about as open and shut as I've ever seen a vote on here. Why is this injuction still in effect over a month after the body made its feelings known in a very strong manner? This matter seems like it should be closed and the injunction removed. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Injunctions typically remain in place until the case is formally closed. Given the difficulty Arbcom seems to be having in closing this case, adding something else for them to vote on might not be such a terribly good idea. Thatcher 04:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm missing it. Why would this be difficult to close? The body opined overwhelmingly in favor of the current policy. This should be a no-brainer. This injunction has sat for 5 months with no action. What is really left to debate? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  - A large part of the reason why this ended up at Arbcom was because of automated editing — bots and scripts — to remove the date links. A lifting of the injunction might well result in many of those automated processes restarting. Even accepting the "germane and topical" result, and I do, there are many who will quite reasonably ask how a bot or a poorly-monitored script is able to determine whether or not any date link is germane and topical. I for one hope that the community will be given a chance to figure out how to best move this forward in an orderly, responsible, and centralized manner without the inevitable cycle of edit, revert, revert, etc. to which we'd likely return sans injunction. Mlaffs (talk) 05:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Then make the injunction about using bots. I delink by hand on articles I happen to be reading. I don't go searching them out. Last night I got messages from an editor and an administrator about the injunction and my delinking. My delinking by hand couldn't possibly be considered mass delinking (which the injunction talks about) and was obviously done by hand and not by a bot/script. But I was threatened with a block by the ArbCom for violating the injuntion and pointed to an example of where an editor had been blocked for doing exactly what I was doing. This matter is sitting idle and delinking by hand shouldn't even be an issue. The MOS has not been changed and I shouldn't be threatened with a block for making a change in an article to have it conform to the MOS. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'd actually say this matter is far from idle at the moment. Voting by the committee members is well underway, and there are a number of possible remedies regarding how date delinking might be handled in the future, including some that propose leaving the injunction in place for a specified period following the case being closed. As a result, I think it's highly unlikely there'd be any traction on the idea of lifting the temporary injunction at this point. For what it's worth, I'd read Erik9's post to you as a heads-up about the injunction and Ckatz's post to you as a friendly piece of advice to be careful, rather than either of them being a threat to block, but I'm a big fan of nuance, so your mileage may vary. Regardless, I wouldn't presume to speak for Arbcom, but I'd hope that the occasional delink as just one component of a larger copy edit of an article wouldn't be a problem. However, if every time you see a linked date, you're removing the link, and if that's regularly the only substantive change you're making as a result of that edit? I don't think it would be unreasonable to interpret that as "mass delinking". Again, though, that's just my two cents. Mlaffs (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I saw the threat of a block. I responded to Erik9 that as I read the injunction, it was about mass delinking (scripts/bots) and that I didn't see doing it by hand as violating it. That's when Ckatz came in and said that I should read it again and implied that I would be blocked. I make plenty of other contributions, but when I see an improperly linked date and remove it, that may be the only contribution I make in that article. It's not as if I went looking for it, but if I see and fix it, that shouldn't be interpreted as "mass delinking", no different than seeing a piece of litter and picking it up. This is precisely why I posted this prod and would like to know why the issue hasn't been resolved. Enjoining editors from using bots is one thing, but changes by hand are another. Over the course of 5 months, the "temporary" injunction begins to take the form of policy and the MOS hasn't been changed, nor should it be changed arbitrarily. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- It appears to be a calming measure, like most preliminary injunctions, to keep the temperature down while the Arbitration case is sorted out. Rome wasn't built in a day, and Wikipedia doesn't have to be "fixed" overnight. The injunction hasn't changed the MOS. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The restriction is against "mass delinking" (apparently interpreted broadly), whether done by a bot or not. It's a bit odd, but if you edit one or two articles and you delink non-topical dates, you are editing according to consensus and the Manual of Style and you should be thanked for it. But if you do so on a hundred articles, then it's "mass delinking" and you should be blocked for it. Happily, this is only a temporary situation. The ArbCom case is moving at a good clip now, and it shouldn't be more than a week or two (I'd guess) before the case is decided. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I only do it in articles I happen to be reading, but sometimes that is the only edit I make in them. As Quadell said, it is within the MOS and shouldn't be something you should have to be concerned bout being blocked over. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Niteshift, there was no "threat", implied or otherwise; please take it only as a suggestion to seek a clear answer from ArbCom. As I said in my post on your talk page, violating the injunction could result in a block from ArbCom, and my intention was solely to prevent you from inadvertently encountering such a situation. --Ckatz^chat _spy 17:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I didn't say you personally were threatening me, but I took the warning (friendly as it was) as a threat from the Arbcom. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Editing too many articles to remove date linking can result in a block. This is true even if you make other edits at the same time, even if the edits are done by hand, even if done according to consensus and the MoS. That's due to the temporary injunction. Relax, it's just temporary; just in the past week or so the arbcom has approved 16 "principals", 43 "findings of fact", 23 "remedies", and 1 "enforcement", with several others only a single vote away. Be patient. Fix other formatting problems for now instead. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
"Temporary" has been 5 months now. I guess they define temporary as broadly as they define "mass delinking". Niteshift36 (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Katz is hardly an uninvolved Admin in this matter. Never mind it was not a direct threat of a block, he should have let another admin handle it. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  - There was nothing to handle, nor any administrator action taken or even implied. Did you read the note Ckatz left on Niteshift36's page? Please read through this, Niteshift36. It would be best to avoid running afoul of the injunction, as that can lead to a block from ArbComm. (Whether or not you feel it needs to be resolved, the simple fact is that it exists, and deliberate delinking as you are doing is not permitted.) Please ask if you have questions about this. Thanks in advance. I could just have easily left that note, and I'm not an admin. It's one user who's familiar with the situation giving another user a bit of advice, a friendly suggestion, as happens hundreds of times a day all over this site. That Niteshift36 took it as a threat is unfortunate, but Ckatz did nothing wrong here. Mlaffs (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I believe Erik9 and Ckatz are both wrong. That which is subject to an injunction is "mass-delinking", which regrettably has been ill-defined. Having said the above, the enforcement of what constitutes "mass-delinking" has also been regrettably patchy and very inconsistent depending on the propensity if the nearest admin to the case to mete out blocks. I know it is frustrating - it has been for many people. The fact now is, whether you like it or not, Niteshift36 has been "warned", meaning that indiscriminate punishment by such an admin is now within the realms of the possible.
However, in mitigation, I would say admins should look at the whole context of Niteshift36's edits, most of which appear to involved other copyedits in the course of his browsing and it is plain obvious that there is nothing semi-automated about his work. The editor should be thanked for edits like this, and this, which include vandal fighting as well as removing low value links. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me be perfectly clear. I'm not saying Ckatz did anything wrong or that anything needs handled......except for this ridiculous injunction to be put to rest and the overwhelming consensus of the community, which is to not link dates, be recognized and followed. Ckatz said he didn't mean it as a threat and I have no problem taking his word for that. The injunction was uncalled for in the first place, poorly worded when it was written and has not been followed up with due dilligence. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Wonder if the whole Scientology issue is going to make this simple issue drag on longer. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Another week passes and this issue remains unresolved. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology

Hmm, isn't the vote count in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Church of Scientology IP addresses blocked wrong? At Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Proposed decision#Church of Scientology IP addresses blocked I see no abstention and one oppose vote by Newyorkbrad instead, so it's (10/1/0) and not (10/0/1). --Conti|✉ 09:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I updated the numbering, thank you for letting us know. MBisanz ^talk 15:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have two questions for the Committee; had you anticipated the media attention for this case, and to a certain extent, the political nature of the final decisions ? ; and had you discussed this with the wmf prior to the closure of the case ? I am curious because similar situations may occur again in the future. Thanks, Cenarium (talk) 16:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

We may have anticipated the media attention somehow since it has been obvious to everyone familiar with the case that the Scientology media coverage has been significant outside the scope of the encyclopedia. However, ArbCom has been aware that WMF has little to do with the case. Let's not forget that this is a community case. It should also be noted that ArbCom has not received any note from WMF on how to handle this case. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course, I don't see why it would have differed from other cases in this regard. I rather thought of an information note from Arbcom to the wmf that the closure may attract media attention, and so they should be ready for activities of public relationship. Cenarium (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Press reporting on Scientology case

The Register article is being picked up by mainstream media:

Content is more or less a shortened version of the Register article. Headline typically "Wikipedia bans Church of Scientology from site". JN 466 12:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia bans Scientologists in propaganda row, The Guardian ("However, whatever your feelings towards the world of Scientology, Wikipedia's decision to enact a blanket ban appears to be unprecedented. That comes despite extensive information that a large number of other groups have edited Wikipedia in the past to improve their public image or erase criticism of them ...")
Wikipedia Bans Scientology From Site, The Huffington Post JN 466 17:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Bans Scientology From Site on the CNN SciTech blog. Though that one is more editorial than news reporting. — Coren ^(talk) 21:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,523238,00.html It made its way to Google news portal for Sci/Tech. Cenarium (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we add a {{pressmulti}} to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Scientology, or is this improper proceeding ? Cenarium (talk) 23:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not an article and I very much doubt bringing additional attention would be wise; we're not in the business of making decision a publicized affair. Jay Walsh, the WMF communication officer, handles that side of thing. I do think it's the first time an ArbCom decision featured in an ABC article, though. — Coren ^(talk) 00:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No, don't tag the page. Arbcom cases are a regrettable but necessary part of the project, but we are an encyclopedia first and the focus should be on the articles. Thatcher 00:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It does, however, make this case a notable event to put into both the Wikipedia and Scientology articles... :D Happy‑melon 09:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Surely this warrants an article "Scientology and Wikipedia". jellybeans, anyone? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

There's probably a stub in it. Where are the beans, John? Happy‑melon 09:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a section on this in the article on Scientology, marked by undue weight as typical in those cases. Press mentions are not only noted for articles though, see WT:PROD for example. Cenarium (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is undue weight; if anything it should be a one liner in Scientology and the Internet. IIRC, there is already a one line mention in there from a previous engagement between Scientology and Wikipedia. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Scientology Church Banned From Wikipedia Edits As Website Intervenes In Online Row Sky News, includes Church of Scientology response by Karin Pouw
Wikipedia blocks Scientology from altering entries Agence France Presse, features Church of Scientology response by Karin Pouw
Wikipedia shuts down Scientology editors St. Petersburg Times/Detroit News, includes Church of Scientology response by Tommy Davis JN 466 09:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

New York Times article, including interviews with some of the arbitrators involved: The Wars of Words on Wikipedia’s Outskirts JN 466 10:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

More press reporting on arbcom matters

On Sam Blacketer: [5] Of course, The Independent still repeats The Register's meretricious soundbite that Sam Blacketer changed Tory leader David Cameron's picture to one "not carrying saintly overtones" ... when in fact, Sam only reverted vandalism: [6]. How fair is that?

I am reminded that content disputes, including arbitration matters, have often hinged upon editors' views of the accuracy and potential bias of media reporting. Those editors who have argued that even quality media are at times unreliable have been derided or accused of undermining the Wikipedia system. We are currently in the fortunate position of having some first-hand experience of how accurate the reporting of reliable media sources is.

Here is another example: a couple of days ago, the LA Times, reporting on the Scientology case, wrote in reference to the "40 registered users from both sides of the debate" who had been topic-banned that "all but one of the banned users have successfully petitioned Wikipedia to have their editing privileges reinstated, Rosenthal said. The Church of Scientology has not." Here is Dan Rosenthal's comment on that: [7].

Many media articles did not even report that Scientology critics were topic-banned as well, focusing, as the Signpost article pointed out, on the ban of the CoS IP addresses. Another fact that none of the media reported is the number of editor accounts coming in via the CoS IP addresses, or the number of edits they made. The impression one gains from reading the articles is that there were hundreds of editors, making tens of thousands of edits. In fact, we were talking about a half-dozen accounts, most of whom had made less than 500 edits. [8].

Yet according to our sourcing rules, pointing out that none of the critics' topic-bans were in fact overturned, pointing to Dan Rosenthal's post saying the LA Times made their stuff up, or pointing out that Sam only reverted vandalism and added a humorous edit summary, is WP:OR. Our articles on these arbitration matters, if we had any, would have to report, dutifully, that all but one of the topic-banned non-CoS editors had their editing rights reinstated after they petitioned Wikipedia (citing no lesser source than the LA Times), and that Sam Blacketer, according to multiple sources (!), changed Cameron's picture in his bio because he thought the other one made Cameron "look too saintly."

There is no ready solution to this problem, and I am just musing. But next time there is an arbitration case where an editor is attacked because they queried the accuracy of news reporting, please remember these news reports on the arbitration committee and consider that the media may not be without fault.

And give me a good scholar, who's invested a few weeks of first-hand research in his book or paper, over a journalist's two-hour concoction any day. JN 466 18:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sam_Blacketer_controversy JN 466 22:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Once scholars have written about this case then using them will be an option. However for countless topics in this encyclopedia mainstream press reports are the best sources available. FWIW, Sam Blacketer did write, "Revert choice of picture to one not carrying saintly overtones."[9] The press reports did not get that wrong, though those of us "in the know" can guess the tone of that comment. The reporteres were presumably correct too when they reported Sam Blacketer's explanation that his sock puppetry was an "innocent mistake", an astonishing assertion that I hope he will either explain or deny. If we look at what scholars have written about Wikipedia I'm afraid we'd find nearly as many mistakes as contained in the Register or the New York Times. We're all just stuck with finding the best sources that we can. So long as we keep using the neutral point of view we'll be OK. Will Beback talk 01:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, this argument would be better made to the community than here. The boundary between reliable and unreliable sourcing is a content decision--one of the most far-reaching ones--and ArbCom's remit is conduct rather than content. If there were something to be discussed at this page regarding that general idea, then this set of examples places the arbitrators in an awkward position. It could appear self-serving for an arbitrator to post agreement within the context where a recently resigned colleague is the news subject. Durova^Charge! 02:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Still, this train wreck of reporting illustrates what happens when a saleable frame, or meme, has entered the journalistic arena. It acquires a life of its own, one that is divorced from the facts. Here is an Italian news article, in its Babelfish translation. The Italian publication actually shows the picture that Sam Blacketer restored, but says in the text that he is the one accused of trying to replace it with an "anything but thrilling image". All courtesy of Cade Metz. And btw, Sam's use of other account names dates back to 2007 – before he was an arbitrator. Another thing that Metz conveniently forgot to mention. JN 466 11:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The press isn't getting the half of it

Not only do we have an Arbcom member/ leftist politician violating conflict of interest policies and sock puppeteering, but now we also have admins working aggressively to delete the article about this politician that was KEPT in 2005 [10]. I guess Notability does expire? Like right after there's a controversy and Wikicensors want to hide the goods?

And let's not forget that this former Arbcom's buddies are still on the committee and working aggressively to put editing restrictions on good faith editors who have tried to address the imbalance and NPOV violations in our Obama coverage. That's right, after meeting with a wall of incivility and aggressive policy violating POV pushing that would try anyone's patience, the editors trying to get help from Arbcom are the ones getting hit with restrictions, while the worst policy violators such as Wikidemon get a proverbial slap on the wrist. It's disgusting to see this kind of censorship and bias being aided and abetted at the highest levels of Wikipedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

To be fair notability standards have risen rather considerably since 2005. It has been 4 years after all. Prodego ^talk 00:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

That is correct. ChildofMidnight, do you have some point you'd like to make here in a civil manner, or should I treat your comment as the trolling rant it appears to be? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have a point. Bias and censorship from Admins and Arbcom are totally unacceptable. It is highly inappropriate that this aritcle is now being deleted when there is very substantial coverage (and more to come).

This is an ugly story, but we have an opportunity to take a proper and appropriate stand against this kind of abuse and to root it out. In other words, we need to do the right thing. Instead we are going to look very bad when it's exposed that we try to cover this kind of thing up when it happens. He didn't object to having an article before, apparently, but now we should delete it because he was caught cheating? Tsk tsk.

Don't attack me, I'm not the one using sock puppets to hide my identity and COI edits, and I'm not the one trying to delete articles that are unfavorable after getting caught breaking the rules. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to write a userspace essay about it. I don't believe anyone is saying that Wikipedia should internally ignore what happened, only that we're here to write an encyclopedia (not argue with eachother about internal shenanigans) and we shouldn't let our imperfections as a community seep into actual article content. The simple fact is that the incident, and the subject, don't meet our requirements for inclusion. While you can debate this based on your own interpretation of the inclusion policies, I don't see how folks making this argument are "covering up" for Sam - nothing in the Wikipedia namespace is being deleted. Who are we hiding it from? The teensy number of people who will search for "Sam Blacketer" on Google, flip through dozens of non-articlespace pages, and finally come to the article that says "The Sam Blacketer controversy"? And he did object to having an article before - you should read up on the history before you make statements like that. Nathan^T 01:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

@ChildofMidnight: Ok, next question - what is ArbCom supposed to be doing, exactly? You seem to be accusing ArbCom of "censoring" this article, but I don't see that they are remotely involved (aside from the fact that the subject was recently an Arbitrator); only one arbitrator commented in the AfD, and in their capacity as an editor, not an Arb. As you know, ArbCom does not involve itself in editorial matters, and I don't see that this is being treated any differently. What are you expecting to be done? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

What did they know? When did they know it? What did they do about it? I looked through Sam's contribution history briefly just now and I found lots of troubling "contributions". Has Sam been asked for a complete disclosure of any and all sock puppets he's used? Have the articles he edited been investigated? He worked on MANY political subjects, and given his party membership that certainly warrants scrutiny. Despite the bogus claims of those saying he's non-notable, I found lots of coverage on google news including stories discussing his political activities before his indiscretions (some of them anyway) were disclosed. We need full disclosure now. We need an accounting of the problem. We need to deal with the problem of bias and POV pushing head on and to make sure we enforce NPOV and move campers and POV pushers off articles where they are disrupting. There's lots of work to be done, and none of it involves sweeping the problem under the rug or pretending that this kind of thing wasn't (or isn't) a big deal. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, we issued a statement within 24 hours of the facts coming out, explaining what we knew (didn't know) until when. It's discussed on this page, actually. And the arbitrators qua arbitrators have no opinion on whether this article should be kept or not (and I, at least, have expressed no opinion at all). Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Based on the press coverage, it would appear that the worst thing Sam did was to substitute one picture of David Cameron with another. That hardly seems to equate to a covert leftist takeover of Wikipedia. Actually, though, even if he was a one-man POV-pushing behemoth, that would have no bearing on whether or not Wikipedia should maintain a biographical article on him. Biographies and notability aren't a form of punishment. We're not seriously suggesting that a negative biographical article be maintained on someone as a means of enforcing "accountability"? MastCell ^Talk 17:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Guido den Broeder banned

I am looking for the discussion and reasoning for this ban. Can anyone give me a relevant link. SunCreator (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Links are on the June 2 revision of his user page see [11]. R. Baley (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope, those links found in that historical page neither show an Arbcon discussion or reasoning. SunCreator (talk) 00:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if arbcom necessarily needs to give its reasoning; GDB's unblock was championed by a single arb member. Guido went on to piss off enough other editors, including the one arbcom member who was willing to sponsor an unblock, that the community ban was reinstated. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It was a Committee decision to unban Guido. CHL proposed it but there was agreement to go forward with it. We put editing restrictions on Guido. After the unblock, he broke the topic ban, was warned and continued to argue about it. That aspect of the situation was non-negotiable. That was the reason that we quickly banned him again instead of tweaking the restriction or giving him some leeway. FloNight ♥♥♥ 18:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty

Well done - ArbCom has handled this matter sensibly, with the final findings and remedies being appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 03:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration motions regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names

Is this announcement (which was posted on Ireland) going to be posted on Republic of Ireland as well? thats the article where there has been alot of trouble and people seeking to change the article title. Also is it possible for a template message to be placed at the top of the related articles talk pages advising people not to discuss it on the talk page and linking to the correct place for debate? otherwise these messages could simply get lost in talk page debate if the dispute isnt resolved in the next few weeks or months. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2

"Single-purpose accounts are strongly advised to edit in accordance with WP:SPA and other Wikipedia policies." - It's hard not to read that as implying that WP:SPA is a policy but I'm absolutely certain that the arbitrators are aware that it isn't. If this is part of a campaign to promote it then aren't there more appropriate ways of doing that? 87.254.70.250 (talk) 22:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That is sort of unusual wording; has ArbCom cited FT2's essay as guidance or implied it has policy status in the past? Nathan^T 22:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

They linked to it in the Scientology case, which seemed to imply approval. Maybe elsewhere too. I'd seriously look at that definition in the first sentence before calling it a guideline or anything 'official'. Are you an SPA under that? It seems to hinge on whether you maintain a consistent 'manner' - but I'm not sure why it does. 87.254.70.250 (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Why shouldn't people edit in accordance with an essay, if that essay describes existing best practices? MastCell ^Talk 00:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't suggested that people shouldn't edit in accordance with the essay... I'm not sure where you got that from. I've questioned the implication that it's a policy. If you can't see that talking about "WP:SPA and other Wikipedia policies" implies that WP:SPA is a policy, then I'm not sure how to make it clear to you. If I refer to "Mastcell and other philatelists" then would you recognise that I am implicitly stating that you are a philatelist (replace 'philatelist' with a suitable term of commendation or condemnation if it makes the example more vivid for you)? 87.254.70.250 (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

3 months desysop for Future Perfect? Could the ArbCom inform us which Arbs are going to replace FPAS in policing nationalist disuputes in this area whilst he is de-opped? Or is it just going to pretend that area doesn't need any admin intervention? Or is it just generally clueless? I couldn't possibly say. Black Kite 00:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- <Puts finger on nose> Looks like you get the job! MastCell ^Talk 00:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  - I too would like to know who is going to stick their face in this particular blender. Bonus points for someone with the depth and breadth of expert knowledge in the area that FPaS has. //roux 00:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not exactly pleased, but it's a hell of a lot better than it was four days ago. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Second that. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

FPaS shouldn't have been sanctioned, but as another illustrious Wikipedia admin would put it, 3 months is better than a permanent desysop "in the same way that a slap round the ear with a wet kipper is to be preferred to a poke in the eye with a sharp stick". We don't have that many active admins, and there are only a few admins capable of the work users like FPaS and ChrisO can do. We do have to ask: after these radical Arbs have ridden Wikipedia of this kind of admin, what are they gonna do to fill the gap? I tell you, the dream they have of a bunch of content-shy robots monopolizing adminship is not gonna be one many true encyclopedists will enjoy living. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused about something. Remedy 25.3 in the proposed decision reads in part: "Upon regaining his administrator access, Future Perfect at Sunrise will not be allowed to use administrative tools in topical areas relating to Greece and Macedonia, or in relation to editors involved in that topical area. Should Future Perfect at Sunrise violate this restriction, the Arbitration Committee may remove his administrator access (either temporarily or permanently), or alter the restriction." This paragraph doesn't appear in the final decision, but I don't see any discussion why. Am I missing something? --Akhilleus (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Simple clerical error; it looks at though the paragraph was accidentally omitted during transcription. Fixed. — Coren ^(talk) 02:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thought experiment question, not advocating any action: is it within the community's ability to re-sysop FPaS via an RfA for or during the three months in question? After all, an editor permanently desysopped by ArbCom can theoretically be resysopped a week later by RfA, so can a temporary desysopping be similarly overturned by the community within the period of temporary restriction? (Note: having recently read over the case but not having commented, I concur with those commenting that the temporary suspension of tools with automatic return after three months is a very much improved outcome than the one contemplated only days ago, and I am glad to see that ArbCom did reconsider its actions in the light of community concerns.) EdChem (talk) 02:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I would, in general, say not. In fact, some arbitrators favored outright desysop because then the community sets the timeline; whereas a fixed duration desysop is exactly that: of fixed duration.

On the other hand, it has historically been more difficult for an RfA to pass after ArbCom sanctions, so temporary desysops with automatic return of the bit are generally viewed as "lighter". — Coren ^(talk) 05:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, there were so many soppy people making procedural opposes at LHvU's reconfirmation RfA a couple of weeks ago (oppose because this isn't the right place, even though you're a great admin) there'd be sure to be absurd numbers of people opposing specifically due to the 3-month period still being in place. ╟─Treasury Tag►inspectorate─╢ 07:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

While not exactly the same situation, Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/MZMcBride_2 was withdrawn at a stage that it was likely to fail. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree that an RfA for FPaS would likely fail due to procedural opposes (ArbCom's 3 month sentence shouldn't be altered), Scarlet Letter opposes (has been ArbCom sanctioned, therefore should be treated like a persistant vandal, plague carrier, etc), and opposes from editors FPaS has sanctioned / upset. For this reason, I also see the temporary desysop as a lighter punishment because the ArbCom Scarlet Letter essentially prevents a successful RfA. I described my question as a thought experiment partly because I recognise that the possibility is remote. However, suppose that an RfA was held and consensus was to resysop... would that community consensus carry the day, or would the ArbCom ruling prevent any Bureaucrat from promoting? Coren seems to me to indicate the latter, and I am curious as to other views. EdChem (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. I'm sure all those arbitrators in favour of Future Perfect's desysopping will now step into the breach and take over his role dealing with the endless Balkan wars on Wikipedia as promised. It's not like they're the Wikipedia equivalent of REMFs...--Folantin (talk) 08:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we need WP:Request for Arbitrator Intervention for requesting admin action in areas where ArbCom intervention has made admins unwilling to act? EdChem (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As an administrator who frequently staffs arbitration enforcement, I would disagree with any suggestion that complaints posted to that noticeboard would be left untouched. Those who enforce arbitration decisions on that noticeboard are pro-active and efficient in executing their duties. I don't imagine that there would be any situation where the administrators there would be unwilling to act. AGK 15:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

And what happens as soon as something falls outside the enforcement guidelines (I assure you, the Balkan editors will game any ArbCom remedy as much as they can) now that ArbCom have prevented one of the very few admins that actually understands the conflict from acting? I'm sure an Arb will be along in a minute to tell us, though. Black Kite 19:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's what will happen. One or more of the AR admins will try to help from time to time, quickly find themselves overwhelmed by the mess of it all, and unable to make heads or tails of anything, they will grow disinterested and leave. This will happen periodically with little more to show than a general decline in the quality of articles. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, looks like I might've been wrong. There's a shock, eh? Black Kite 00:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

On the bright side, I just came across one group that just doesn't seem to care any longer: Free Dacians. Unsourced and stubbed since 2005! Perhaps we can recruit a few of these guys to act as one of those "uninvolved" truth commissions... :-) Hiberniantears (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Free Dacians: the Dacians anybody can edit. --Folantin (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking actions against those aggressive editors. I tried to contribute to some Macedonia-related articles some time ago (years), but they were so aggressive and intolerant, that I gave up. They wouldn't even let me put the "disputed" tag on the Macedonia naming issue article, even though it is very biased. Your recent actions have reaffirmed my belief in Wikipedia. Thanks again. Crnorizec (talk) 02:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

practical exercise

Rather than theorizing about what's going to happen in this topic area, perhaps people can turn their attention to a current problem: Illyrians and Talk:Illyrians. This may not obviously require admin attention, because there's not edit-warring going on at the moment, but if you read through the talk page, perhaps starting at Talk:Illyrians#.22Albanians.22 and you'll see examples of the wondrous "discussion" that takes place on Balkans articles. See also User_talk:Kwamikagami#No_Genetics_plz, Wikipedia:Ani#Can_a_Admin_call_a_user_a_asshole.3F, and Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Can_a_Admin_call_a_user_a_asshole.3F. In my opinion, the latter verges on vexatious litigation, but perhaps my attitudes are out of step with the wider community's.

So, what action, if any, is needed here? (Please note that I have done a little bit here, at User_talk:Aigest#WP:ARBMAC_notification (related discussion is on my talkpage). --Akhilleus (talk) 01:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I am a bit perplexed. We were told that "Future Perfect at Sunrise is strongly admonished for displaying a long pattern of incivil, rude, offensive, and insulting behavior towards other editors..." The implication is that if an editor displays a long pattern of incivil, rude, offensive and insulting behavior... he/she will simply be strongly admonished and allowed to continue editing in wikipedia. [ps, I wrote this here because the link on my talk page sent me here to 'discuss this'] Politis (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sam Blacketer RFA/David Boothroyd article inquiry - Arbcom pressure?

Does anyone know what this sprang from? I received an email from User:JoshuaZ indicated pressure from more than one AC member in regards to this article's resolution before Sam's RFA in 3 days time:

Can you clarify here on the record what you mean? You sent me an email requesting my help for sourcing, indicating, and I paraphrase, that there has been "pressure" from "some" Arbcom members to resolve this article before User:Sam Blacketer's reconfirmation RFA opens on June 15, 2009. I will post a link back to here on the main RFA talk page. I am curious as to what "pressure" this is, and "who" on the Arbcom would do so, since it seems... inappropriate on the surface.

I asked Sam here, but he has no idea what I am talking about. I am concerned if any AC members are doing anything in even a semi-official capacity, or to be frank--any capacity--which can affect this RFA in any way. The mess is already tainted enough. Who are the AC members and what was said/asked that is this "pressure"?

I know that the AC sometimes works at a slow pace due to behind the scenes discussions, time zone difference, and it's general pace but this is now a matter on a fixed timeline, if Sam/Fys is going to proceed with the mandatory reconfirmation RFA on June 15. I ask on behalf of all of us that this information be disclosed prior to the start of the RFA in full. rootology (C)(T) 13:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No idea. After seeing your question, I sent an email to the Committee asking for information about it. FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm baffled that anyone thought it was a good idea to pull me into some illicit anything, given I so strongly dislike such things, and that's never been any level of secret...! rootology (C)(T) 14:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

hmmm... Thinking about your comment, maybe this is indicative of poorly communicated remarks rather an "illicit" plan to influence either discussion. You seem an unlikely co-conspirator for a plan to swing the outcome of the anything related to Sam. :-) FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, here it is. I believe this is short enough to be squarely within fair use, outside of copyright concerns, and fully within the public interest. It was sent via WP's e-mail system from JoshuaZ to me, and here in it's entirety:

"There's pressure from ArbCom members to resolve the Boothroyd article before his RfA starts on the 15th. Any assistance in tracking down sources or cleaning up the article would be appreciated."

I ask that no one get overzealous and try to redact this e-mail. This kind of thing needs to be on the record. That is what I got at 8:25PM PST last night; the Subject was the default "Wikipedia e-mail" one. My concern is that it appears (given this is touching on real-world politics in the UK, our internal politics here, a pending RFA, a defrocked AC member, etc.) that any kind of push on the content here is at a minimum in terrible taste, possibly against WP:COI, or just an outright tainting of, well, several things. I can see why I was asked, given I'm good at digging up sources and I indicated curiosity on the talk page about building it as an example of how to do such a thing "the right way", but then I lost interest just as quickly. I agree that I'm about the worst person to pull into anything "bad". ;) rootology (C)(T) 15:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

My sense is that nothing was improper here (based upon the scant information available). I myself have received "strong suggestions" from ArbCom members about one thing or another. I usually take what I consider to be good faith advice, but in the end, we are all equal. Just because an ArbCom member makes a strong suggestion, if you are abiding by policy and guideline it is your election to take the advice or not. Usually--not always--strong suggestions by ArbCom members (who often have a wider view and more complete information about a situation) are efforts to address multiple concerns without making it a huge public to-do. Nothing wrong with that. Where problems may arise is if "strong suggestions" about policy-compliant conduct turn into behind-the-scenes wrangling and/or sanctions of editor(s). That would be a problem. -->David Shankbone 15:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

For me, I find the creation of Sam Blacketer controversy and David Boothroyd to be fairly despicable behavior. It is either petty revenge-seeking, or uncontrolled navel-gazing. While I realize LexisNexis may have a US bias in its news sources, the only thing I can find about DB on LexisNexis is that he writes lots of letters to the editor of UK newspapers. Wikipedia does not need these articles and badly does need adult leadership. If some arbitrator contacted Joshua and asked him to reconsider the article and grow up, I consider that good advice, though doubtless it will go unheeded. Thatcher 15:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't Joshua sanctioned after sockpuppeting (which cost him his admin bit) to do BLP issues with Brandt, where he was barred from participating in either certain BLP issues or deletion-related issues? rootology (C)(T) 16:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Not, at least, expressly pursuant to that case; in response to an April 2008 AN/I request that he be topic-banned and an RfAr that sought a similar end, though, Joshua did accede to a voluntary ban from seeking the restoration of deleted Brandt-related content, after which there was no consensus, it is my understanding, for further sanction. I do know that at least one editor subsequently sought to ban JoshuaZ from editing BLPs—apparently being consistently a moderate voice on BLP is a bad thing—but I do not understand that the community ever formally considered, much less adopted, the proposal (I was largely inactive in project space across the latter half of 2008 and the beginning of 2009, so my knowledge is incomplete, but I have little doubt that I'm not too far off on this one). Joe 16:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

My memory of the Daniel Brandt related topic ban discussion matches Joe's statement. JoshuaZ avoided a Committee vote for a sanction by voluntarily agreeing to a topic ban. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That's more or less accurate. In any event, this seems to be getting a bit out of hand. The email I sent off to Rootology was based on a possible misunderstandings on my part. Apparently there are people on the ArbCom who are concerned that if a new DRV for the Boothroyd article runs prior to or during Sam's new RfA that could result in increased levels of drama and could also possibly make the ArbCom even more unhappy with me. I may have misinterpreted pragmatic advice as an attempt at pressure. Also, to clarify my request to Rootology was not intended to be illicit. He had expressed interest in the article before and I was hoping that he might be willing to help out with it. If enough eyes look at the matter before the RfA then we might have an unambiguous result for the article either as clearly notable or as clearly not thus possibly reducing the need for further discussion. I sent this by email for attempt to minimize the already high level of drama and since multiple editors have already expressed concern about editing the draft. The desire was primarily because Rootology is good at tracking down sources and I don't have library access this week). I'll go back into my tea kettle now. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You live in a tea kettle???? MickMacNee (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Joshua, why do you have an article like this in your userspace? Cla68 (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, he wanted to fix it up and take it to DRV. Hopefully where it would remain deleted, but that's just my opinion. Thatcher 20:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

JoshuaZ: Also, to clarify my request to Rootology was intended to be illicit. Since illicit means not permitted for lawful, moral, or ethical reasons, did you really mean to say your request was illicit and intended to be so? If so, why would you imagine an illicit request to Rootology was acceptable in this case? If not, perhaps you might strike that comment and clarify your intent. EdChem (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I read Joshua's comment to mean "discreet", as in the opposite of "explicit". I don't think devolving this further into parsing semantics will decrease the drama. -->David Shankbone 20:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "discreet" seems to be what he was aiming at. Thatcher 20:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Er, see edit summary of this edit. Somehow the word "not" got dropped. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine, thanks for clarifying and adding in the missing 'not'. EdChem (talk) 00:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Joshua, I'd like to ask again which AC members are the ones even delving into anything to do with issue which if handled poorly or with even the specter of anything off will be like us handing a loaded gun to the press? rootology (C)(T) 20:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Since my earlier comment to you was based in a large part on a misunderstanding of their concerns I don't think further discussion of this matter is really helpful. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well as that may be, I'm still asking for the Arbs to name themselves just the same in the matter of transparency, since our entire modus operandi of backdoor channels and dealings in general aren't acceptable, and anything of the nature--even vague, or innocent--on the types of nonsense Sam has caused here are patently unhelpful. The minute Sam left the AC as a body or in actions alone "back door" should have avoided the matter of his BLP as Boothroyd or his pending RFA like the plague to avoid even the downwind scent of impropriety, cover, or favoritism. I'm asking them to say what was said simply so that their standing isn't any more screwed up than Sam made it with his acts. This doesn't have anything to do with you, Josh. It's got to do with this being the sort of mess that should be 101% visible and transparent. If anything, you and the as yet unnamed Arbs may have screwed up his RFA by doing all this, including the BLP article in your userspace and the pointless DRV fights. rootology (C)(T) 20:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, the suggestion was simply that I finish editing the article before the RfA since it would a) minimize drama and b) it would minimize focus on me, given my own (somewhat precarious) position. I attempted to quietly get people to help out on the article so it would be either an unambiguous keep or an unambiguous delete. You really are blowing this out of proportion. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Given the history of impropriety from behind closed doors on this site, and my noted personal distaste for anything like that, are you honestly surprised I'd aim a floodlight at it all given the wording of the e-mail that you sent me, and that I'm now asking for a bit of finality and the Arbs in question to man up so everything is again 100% above board before the RFA? Sending me something that sounds like some sort of cover up is like throwing a bag of coke to a drug sniffing dog and then wondering why it reacted negatively. rootology (C)(T) 21:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, it could be that the only thing inside the 'bag of coke' was three cans of Coca-Cola and one of them burst and made a mess on the floor. Having turned in my own mop a couple of years ago, will leave a bucket at the door and wish others well with the cleanup. Sets up a Piso mojado sign before anyone slips and gets hurt. Durova^Charge! 21:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As background, I have been considering the possibility of an appeal/review of the JoshuaZ desysop, as enough water had gone under the bridge and all that jazz. Yesterday he inquired how it was going, and I told him that his involvement in the BLP for David Boothroyd was giving me reason to pause. JoshuaZ can explain his own motivations regarding the content, but for my part I want nothing to do with that article, or the controversy article, or anything to do with this, as it doesnt fit within my reading of WP:BLP1E or WP:NOTNEWS.

The date of the Sam Blacketer RFA did come up in the discussion, and I strongly recommended that JoshuaZ worked out his own position on this BLP prior to that date, in order to let the content side of things settle down before the community RfA commences. At no time did I try to tell him what the content should look like, and I was extremely clear that I was acting in my own capacity and not that of Arbcom - I explicitly said that, and also that Arbcom were not aware of my position. My own feeling is that if someone cant be proven to be notable within a day of research, they are very likely to be not notable, and should be given the benefit of the doubt. As a result, I am annoyed that despite Sam Blacketer putting off his recall RfA to allow the dust to settle a little, some community members have dragged this out for weeks now.

In summary, there was pressure from me, and nobody else, for JoshuaZ to hurry up. Sorry for the delay in fessing up. I was asleep. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd say you're pretty involved now. You indicated to him that his work on that article in his userspace would jeopardize the appeal and review of his desysop? You don't see a problem with that? And based on what would it jeapordize his review? What did he do wrong? Are you assuming bad faith? Why would his openly working on that article subject (that existed for four years) be cause for you to hold that over his head and threaten him? He's asked for input and help from anyone interested.

And this is on top of the fact that any Arbcom member with a scintilla of good judgment would steer clear of the issue entirely since it involves a fellow Arbcom member who stepped down over COI issues and subterfuge in a cloud that has already stirred questions about what his fellow Arbcom members knew. And we have Jimbo weighing in and then saying he doesn't want to be involved. You guys don't realize that when you offer up your take and give input that you are already involved and that it only makes you more involved? I find your behavior to be outrageous. And your suggestion that "some community members have dragged this out for weeks now," only adds to the problem. How dare you.

Who exactly in the community are you accusing of impropriety? Should we cut AfDs short and delete out of process, as was done with this subject's article that existed here for 4 years, when there was news that wasn't favorable? Are you not aware that the out of process deletion of the original article is already a source of controversy? Are you suggesting that Wikipedia should immediately censor article content of any high profile editor that is involved in controversy?

You owe the community one heck of an explanation (apology?). I don't see how someone exercising such incredibly poor judgment is fit to serve on our highest decision making body. This seems to be an epidemic of incredibly poor judgment. Are you guys serious? Do you really not get it that you can't go around threatening and pushing for a cover-up of controversial material that involves a body you're closely involved with? It's unbelievable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight, I don't think an arbitrator giving advice to a user about the general attitude of the ArbCom is a reason that they should recuse themselves. If that were the case then we'd almost never get anything done I'm not sure that Vandenberg even would if it came down to a vote support any form of appeal in any event. As far as I can tell, he's simply interested in the matter getting dealt with in a fair fashion. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

My role was to assist JoshuaZ in an appeal, and if you understood the circumstances of his original desysop you would recognise that his involvement in the "David Boothroyd" article is a legitimate concern that the committee might have. My concern was for JoshuaZ rather than Sam Blacketer. JoshuaZ is still free to appeal the desysop without my assistance, and I would recuse unless he expressly asked me not to.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Fair enough. But please be sensitive to the fact that having Arbcoms weigh in heavily on this particular issue is a very sensitive matter. You've said, "he's simply interested in the matter getting dealt with in a fair fashion." And I'm not sure if you're referring to Wikipedia's coverage of Boothroyd or another editor's desysop appeal. But in either event, you've still made some assertions as far as members of the community trying to "draw things out" and suggested that Arbcom doesn't look favorably on involvement in this article subject. That's troubling.

Our guidelines and policies should apply to article subjects whether they are friends or strangers. How many times have we blocked noobs trying to fix an article about themselves? Yet here it takes all these heavyweights to act unilaterally to get rid of this minor article and coverage of a notable, but not enormously significant event. The issues involved with Sam Blacketer are distressing in their own right, but the ongoing efforts to sweep it under the rug make the whole affair stink much worse in my view. And I say that as someone who can relate to an editor wanting their block log and past history to go away. But it's mighty strange that those with power and positions of authority seem unable to relate to the concerns of those who don't hold those positions and don't have the tech savvy to set up multiple accounts or the connections to make things "work out" and to make problems go away. That said, I appreciate your prompt reply. Have a great weekend. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

John has explained this perfectly, and I don't see any evidence of the AC sweeping anything under the rug about Blacketer/Fys/Boothroyd. John cautioned and advised JoshuaZ to wrap this up, which is good advice, and a lot of people have given him similar advice. JoshuaZ has a history of disruptive actions related to WP:BLP subjects, to the point that as an Admin he sockpuppetted to influence AFDs and DRV about Daniel Brandt. This is nothing by the AC sweeping anything away. Look at Sam's user rights. He's down to just Admin status, and that is going to be decided in 48 hours at a mandatory RFA. There is pretty much zero likelihood of Sam ever getting back Oversight, Checkuser, or Arbcom status, and his deliberate actions have been swept all over the rug by international news media. David Boothroyd was nominated for deletion by me, and deleted. JoshuaZ has (I believe) 48 hours before multiple people have said the userpage version will go up on WP:MFD, unless he deletes it himself.

There's nothing here about the AC hiding anything, or I can assure you I would have been one among the lines of people clamoring for explanations. John's answer to this e-mail situation is to me crystal clear, and I have no problem with anyone on the AC here in any way. Do I still wish they'd been more open and upfront about Sam immediately? Sure, but they waited 3-4 days. Big deal. "Justice" as such has been served I'm sure to everyone's satisfaction. What are we going to go after--a pound of flesh? There's nothing else to do to Sam except block him, which I don't want to see happen. Once the RFA is over, this is all a moot point anyway. rootology (C)(T) 02:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand where you get to 3-4 days, Rootology. There was, if I recall correctly, less than 24h between the moment ArbCom found out about Sam's previous identities and the time he stepped down. Given the timezones involved and email roundtrips, this is about as fast as is possible. It then took a number of extra hours (again, less than 24) for ArbCom to agree on a statement, which was then posted. — Coren ^(talk) 02:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Was it that fast? Sorry, I misremembered. rootology (C)(T) 05:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it's worth asking here given where this thread is going: what happens if Sam doesn't do the RFA? Loses his bit under the usual cloud? rootology (C)(T) 02:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Just thinking aloud here. When I get random Wikipedia e-mail, I usually read and file it, or I delete it. Is any part of this nonsense above necessary or helpful? Sam Blacketer used a number of alternate accounts. He'll stand for RFA on June 15. What the hell else is there to discuss and who cares? --MZMcBride (talk) 02:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If you're not interested don't discuss it. I'm very concerned about the integrity of Wikipedia's highest administrative body and about Wikipedia in general. The issue raises a lot of interesting and important questions, not the least of which is what process exists and is appropriate for users who want to turn over a new leaf. There's also the question of what constitutes a COI, what needs to be disclosed, and what editing limitations should be imposed in cases like this, if any.

As far as Sam's RfA, I for one haven't made up my mind. My biggest is concern is that Sam hasn't explained himself or answered questions (including mine). And as far as things being swept under the rug, there isn't any question that when an arbcom member became embroiled in a controversy his article was immediately and aggressively deleted. This action, even after quite substantial news coverage, was carried out and supported by the current and former Arbcoms in a way that deviates from usual practice and procedure for determining community consensus. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

"...there isn't any question that when an arbcom member became embroiled in a controversy his article was immediately and aggressively deleted."

^{[citation needed]} I nominated it for deletion, and another admin deleted Boothroyd, separate from the Arbcom. Did you look at AFD #2? He's non-notable. I hammered the point that whether he's Arbcom or the first editor we ever had here doesn't matter. No favorites; so he was deleted. Are you saying he should have stayed for a flogging in spite of WP:N? If you know anything about my history, I'm among the furthest from being a booster of "bad admin" behavior as this site has ever had. Or are you implying that I'm now a part of The Big Conspiracy?

rootology (C)(T) 02:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh wait, I am defending the Arbcom! Please block me now, I'm apparently an imposter that has taken control of User:Rootology! rootology (C)(T) 02:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Subsection: Episode VI Ewoks Fight Back

I'm creating a section break because that was a long thread. The AfD was opened at 19:34 and closed at 20:50 the same day (someone skilled in math can determine how many minutes it was actually open) by Jehochman ~~who is if I'm not mistaken a former Arbcom who served with Sam?~~ who I thought was an arbitrator because he's such a powerful and intimidating figure. (I'm sure I'll have to strike and correct some of this, but no need to yell.) Anyway, it certainly didn't get the usual 7 day hearing.

I've moved the article to my userspace per the above discussion and the consent of the former hosting party. I'm going to adjust it. What would be the ideal route after that? As it will be new with sources I would like to create it in article space with at least semi-protection, and full protection if anyone is willing to be so proactive. If it's put to AfD I would like to see it run the full 7 days (unless it's a true snow close at some point which seems unlikely). Unfortunately, the timing is a bit complicated by the RfA thing. And I don't know if the powers that be will demand a DRV? Given that it was deleted out of process (per my understanding of the consensus at ANI) I think a full and fair hearing at AfD would be most appropriate, but I'm willing to listen to other ideas. Those are my thoughts. I'm going to work on it and check back in now and again. My main question is what timing and process would be best to follow. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If you must, create it in userspace with a {{NOINDEX}} template, and then take it to DRV as a rewrite. This is the standard operating procedure, and this article should not get special favours in any direction. There is no grounds for protection or semi-protection of the article; generally speaking, only repeated vandalism or edit warring warrants protection. Risker (talk) 03:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

My recommendation is to leave it in your userspace, and come back to it in a month. If you want to write about it in the meantime, Wikinews is ideal for this purpose. Jayen466 (talk · contribs) could use a hand. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

With the current timing, several issues are coming together at once in an unfortunate confluence. If Sam Blacketer wants the dust to settle before his RfA then I suggest he resign his admin bit now (or maintain his voluntary embargo) and hold an RfA in several months, after all the news has been reported and the issues with the articles have been resolved. At that time his qualifications for admin can be viewed more objectively. Will Beback talk 05:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I see that Sam Blacketer has posted a notice on his talk page to the effect that he will delay the reconfirmation until the winter and he asks that his admin bit be be suspended until then. User talk:Sam Blacketer#Pelion on Ossa. I think this is wise and I endorse it. Will Beback talk 22:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Question for the committee. On his user page Sam indicated that the June 15 reconfirmation date had the aproval of Arbcom. Is the delay of reconfirmation to winter 09-10 officialy endorsed by the comittee?--Cube lurker (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

As he has resigned the tools, it no longer matters when – or indeed, if – he has an RfA. Roger Davies ^talk 15:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'm not sure if the situation is a matter of substance or semantics. On his talk page he talks about suspending his bit. Is there a diference between that and resigning? Would the accurate answer to the question "is he an admin" be "no, he resigned" or "yes, however his tools are suspended."--Cube lurker (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Cube lurker, Sam Blacketer voluntarily desysoped at meta and made a binding commitment to have a confirmation RFA before getting back the admin tools. Stating the timing of a future RFA, while helpful to give the Community an idea of his plans , is less important than Sam's agreement to do a RFA. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

So if that means that a voluntary suspension with binding future RFA and a straight resignation are substantialy the same thing then I will no longer worry about the semantics. Thank you for your time.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Episode VII: The Empire Strikes Out

Jehochman was never an arbitrator. Discussion has been open at ANI for days. Please turn down the temperature. Durova^Charge! 03:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually I was, but my agents erased your memories. All of you. Jehochman ^Talk 10:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Episode VIII: Endorian Holocaust

See:

[12] on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endorian Holocaust (it was VfD at the time) and then see
Theoretical genetic mutations that would have arisen if Leia had married Luke
(page needed a bit of levity)

Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

- Well, if one accepts the premise that George Lucas borrowed heavily from Richard Wagner and Der Ring des Nibelungen, the answer is that the twenty-first century public missed out on an even greater hero. (This presumes Luke = Siegmund, Leia = Sieglinde, and Siegfried = offspring of twins separated at birth who fall in love as adults). Durova^Charge! 19:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:ChildofMidnight/David Boothroyd

It's time we stamp all of the stupid in the neck, now that we've jumped the shark impossibly. What next, blowing up the under-construction second Death Star and killing all the innocent Wikipedia contractors from the UK? Good lord. rootology (C)(T) 13:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikinews

As Jayvdb mentioned above, I have been working on a Wikinews article to explain

that Sam did not resign because it was discovered that he had made secret politically motivated edits to David Cameron, and
that his edits to that article appear quite sensible, despite the media's preoccupation with them.

Would the committee like to release a statement that could be included in the article? This might explain the actual concerns over Sam's conduct, something which I can't cover adequately at present, as there are no sources.

The article's current status is here. The title and indeed the content may still change, as my Wikinews skills are still rudimentary, but I am hoping to finalise the article and make what improvements are still required for it to fulfil Wikinews quality requirements over the next couple of days.

If you would like to contact me privately, I have e-mail enabled; alternatively, I have the article's talk page over on Wikinews as well as this page watchlisted. JN 466 13:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I've invited Sam to make a statement as well, and am checking with Jimbo if it is okay to use his quote, or if he wants to say anything further. JN 466 14:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

That Wikinews article appears more like a personal essay than a news story. I hope it becomes objective and fact based. Will Beback talk 20:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

- At the moment the Wikinews article is up for deletion [13], so the matter may well be moot. JN 466 09:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Motion allowing parties currently banned from I/P articles to comment on naming guidelines for I/P articles

Ok, but... this is incomprehensible, what is this all about ? What is I/P ? And there's no link to the motion (if this was decided off-wiki, please say so). Why would a failed motion be announced here anyway ? Cenarium (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Err, in order: "Israel/Palestine", decided off-wiki, and because it was a response to an editor request and thus needed an answer. — Coren ^(talk) 00:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Cenarium (talk) 00:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines for placenames in Israel/Palestine articles are being developed at Placename guidelines and it would be helpful to have more editors comment in the polls on the talk page on the clauses that appear on the project page and a number of other proposed clauses. By the way, the motion was related to this remedy. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't make sense of it either. It appears to contradict this recent and related decision pretty blatantly. The ArbCom states that certain editors 1) may apply for a permission to participate and 2) that all such applications will be turned down. Am I the only one who sees the internal inconsistency here? MeteorMaker (talk) 08:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Well it is totally contradictory, of course. But nothing much surprises me any more in this context, what with the scope of the bans also being quietly extended after the event (on the basis that "well, this is what we always meant, even if we didn't say it. Can't you guess what's going on in our heads?"), together with the whole Sam Blacketer nonsense. I think an explanation of what is going on here is kind of due. I know none of us are long-serving editors or admins, but some kind of engagement similar to that which has taken place in respect of complaints about the Macedonia 2 decision would, if nothing else, be common courtesy. No wonder nearly everyone hit by the original decision has more or less given up on this place, even in respect of non-I-P areas. --Nickhh (talk) 11:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

As a point of principle, ArbCom has no binding precedent from past Committees: if a decision contradicts an earlier ruling, the earlier ruling is void, whether or not it is explicitly indicated as such. On the other hand, where such contradiction is noticed, it should be indicated as such explicitly. Happy‑melon 12:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Now, these two decisions were made in the same month by the same ArbCom members (minus one who was apparently found guilty of ~~abusive sockpuppetry~~ having used multiple accounts to gain significant personal advantages and forced to resign). It naturally raises the question if other decisions have similarly been (or will be) quietly de facto withdrawn even though they formally still stand, and whether the affected editors and the community in general have the right to be informed about such ex post facto changes of heart. There are indications that the ArbCom never actually intended certain remedies to be taken seriously — which is rather appalling, particularly as they entail significant editing effort from editors who may find six months of hard work in vain. Along with Nickhh's evidence of quiet retroactive amendments of supposedly final decisions and the strong community disapproval of its recent draconian remedies, this may serve as a further detraction from the current ArbCom's credibility. MeteorMaker (talk) 13:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't appear illogical to me. If an editor had applied with reasons for participating, or solid promises of changes in behaviour, or demonstrated changes in behaviour, such that Arbcom had found those reasons convincing, they might have responded differently. The remedy was that they would consider applications, not that they would necessarily accept any. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This decision is indeed unnecessarily confusing, but since an individual application was declined with a reference to this decision, which states that no applications will be granted, the conclusion must be that it applies to all individual applications. This is while the original offer is still up, which I think you agree is somewhat inconsistent. Furthermore, this decision was not disclosed until specifically requested several times. To avoid further confusion, clarification is needed whether the ArbCom considers other decisions similarly void or if they still stand, and if they can be expected to do so for any predictable amount of time. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that citing this failed motion as a grounds for declining individual motions is extremely confusing. Happy‑melon 17:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I follow this noticeboard, there is no need to distill the complicated Sam Blacketer situation to nine loaded words linking to an offsite article known to be riddled with factual inaccuracies. This noticeboard has rapidly become one of the most highly-visible pages on enwiki: how do you justify labelling a modification to a prior case proposed and discussed at the appropriate RfArb venue, voted on publicly by seven Arbitrators, and announced on said highly-visible noticeboard, the Administrators' noticeboard (accepted as the most widely-watched page on enwiki), and the talk page of the decision itself, "quiet"?? Where else do you want it, the sitenotice?

I do not find your evidence for the claim that "ArbCom never actually intended certain remedies to be taken seriously" to be at all convincing; it seems to me only to reinforce the point that ArbCom can, and has, reevaluated its conclusions over time, as they are entitled and expected to do. I agree that, where possible, explicit reversals of prior motions should be indicated as such. I do not agree with your general feeling that there is anything nefarious about their omission to do so in this case, especially given that the motion is not an explicit reversal (it is not even a successful motion!). While I agree it is somewhat confusing, my interpretation would be that, while a blanket removal of the restrictions imposed in the final decision has been rejected, individual users may still request suspension of restrictions in the manner specified by the relevant remedies as originally stated. Happy‑melon 13:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) See my reply to Coppertwig above. Re Sam Blacketer, I have not stated anything that has not been backed with reliable sources. My personal opinion is that it was correct of him to resign, and given the extraordinarily high standards the current ArbCom expects of others, desysopping would have been not only appropriate but inevitable to avoid speculations of double standards.

I can't remember calling anything about this decision "nefarious" — those are your words. I've pointed out an internal contradiction in the ArbCom's rulings and raised the question that there might be more such quiet reversals that we have the right to know about before we waste time on fruitless research or, even worse, get reprimanded for transgressions of rules we have not been informed about, like Nickhh. I've also shown that one individual ArbCom member considers the idea that editors agree to the conditions in one of the remedies "imaginary" and "slightly depressing".

Now, before I or anybody else puts in six months of hard work to comply with the decision here, I think we have the right to know if there's at least a remote risk that the goalposts may have been moved or even quietly removed altogether, like they were in this case. I say "quietly" because it was not announced until persistently requested — and in this case two weeks after Nickhh had received a warning for violating a decision not yet in place. MeteorMaker (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the source is nominally or generally reliable does not imply the need or ability to cite it blindly, even when its information is patently unreliable as evinced by the density of blatant factual errors. I agree with you that it was entirely correct for him to resign, that he would not have been elected had the information been public, and that failure to disclose the prior activity was an untenable breach of integrity. The phrase "abusive sockpuppetry", however, carries a very carefully-defined meaning on Wikipedia, and is not, in my opinion, the best choice of phrase to use in describing the situation.

Indeed it is my word, I try to be very careful to use double quotes for direct quotations, single quotes for scare quotes, and no quotes for my own comments. I do think, however, that it is an appropriate way to describe the "general feeling" you are presenting. Again I don't see your description of the ammendments as "quiet" as being justified. The announcements were made immediately the case was amended (beforehand, in fact). Or are you considering the actual change to the final decision page itself to be the "announcement" of a de-facto change? I don't see any evidence that that was the case.

I don't see Roger Davies calling anything "imaginary". As I understand it, the "slightly depressing" comment is with regards exactly what he said: the thought of editors who see the content activity required by the remedy merely as a 'hurdle', or a 'fine' to pay before being allowed back into the topic. Happy‑melon 17:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Re User:Sam Blacketer: "Abusive sockpuppetry" above changed to "having used multiple accounts to gain significant personal advantages". I'm still reading up on the case so I apologize for any mischaracterizations. I've learned that he has called fellow editors "idiots" on numerous occasions [14][15][16][17], yet voted to declare Nishidani guilty of "incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith" for three extremely minor infractions, one of which was a jocular remark to a friend. Some people may find that hypocritical.

Re my description of the amendments as "quiet": Again: 1) This particular decision, which may or may not (depending on which ArbCom member you choose to believe) render an earlier decision void, was not announced until requested several times. 2) User:Nickhh was reprimanded for violating an amendment that was not announced until two weeks later. If it was in effect at the time of his alleged breach, it had by all definitions been applied silently.

Re Roger Davies and his view of whether these offers were intended to be taken seriously: He has now clarified. I have requested clarification whether the "suspension of sanctions" offer has been retracted (some confusion remains) and whether the "lifting of restrictions" one can be expected to stand. MeteorMaker (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for amending that, that's a much less loaded phrasing. It is always possible to find bad things to say about public figures; much of politics is based on the ability to see the same situations or people in very different lights depending on how you approach them. Sam's actions were untenable as an Arbitrator, I think we all agree on that.

What are you defining as the "decision" and the "announcement"? Where and when was it "requested several times"? I still don't see any evidence against it being a standard amendment motion. Happy‑melon 09:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

First, let me say that if the punishment of Jayjg is anything to go by, I have full confidence for the ArbCom's ability to deal with their own bad apples, in one way or another, as soon as they are exposed.

Now, since you ask again, I repeat that we have two (known) cases of silent retraction/amending of decisions:

The one this talk page section belongs to, which (according to most but not all Arbs) voids this one — which has yet to be announced: The text of the document has not been changed so there's no way to know the offer is not open anymore, unless you happen to stumble over this page, and even then it isn't clear, with three Arbs offering conflicting interpretations and the rest remaining silent. In fact, this decision would apparently not have come to light at all if I hadn't repeatedly insisted on information how my own application had fared.
This one, which extends the scope of the J&S decisions. The motion (and the resulting decision) is dated May 27, exactly 14 days after Nickhh was warned for allegedly violating it. Again, if it was in effect at the time, it had by definition been applied secretly and silently. MeteorMaker (talk) 10:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

This indentation is getting silly :D I agree that the first situation is confusing, I'm not sure what to make of it. But the second I don't think is anything out of the ordinary. Rootology is not an Arbitrator, he is an Admin, and his AE notification was based on the published remedy as it stood at the time. That the Arbitration Committee later decided to amend the remedy is not a causal link. Rootology cannot have been enforcing a "secret and silent" change in the intention of the remedy, because he, like all the other admins, is not privy to the 'secret and silent' discussions that would have been going on on arbcom-l. You are confusing the Arbitrators who imposed the remedy with the Administrators who enforce it. If an Arbitrator had been the one to warn NIckhh, the situation would be very different, because that causal link cannot be discounted. But it is pure conspiracy to involve Rootology with ArbCom in this situation. Happy‑melon 12:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is.

Re: (1). The Guideline motion was general and "blunderbuss" in nature, and moved that all topic-banned editors be permitted to participate in the Guidelines discussion under specified conditions. This motion did not pass. Therefore, (i) the status quo prevails and original remedy in the original case remains in full force and (ii) individual editors may make individual applications, with each application being dealt with on its merits.

Re: (2). I don't see anything "secret and silent" about a publicly voted on motion on a much watched page. It was in response to a request for clarification: such clarifications are made all the time.

As a piece of general information, the arbitrators have cast about nine thousand votes in about six hundred decisions over the last six weeks. With this torrent of work, some imprecision is inevitable. Roger Davies ^talk 12:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

That's indeed a lot of work. Learning this, and given that the body of evidence in the J&S case was rather large, I can't help feeling my doubts reinforced that all decisions might not have been made with a complete and thorough understanding of the background, and that some procedural shortcuts may have been taken.

Re (1), it now seems the original decision does remains in force and that Coren made the simple (but confusing) mistake of referring to a related but different decision when he announced officially that my application had been turned down. Flonight's understanding of that decision appears to be that it applies to all editors that are eligible for applying, though if we assume she also made a mistake and intended to write "ban" instead of "bans", it might be read as being a decision on an individual rather than a collective. (Out of curiosity, what information was available to you during the processing of my application that you did not have when the "suspension of restrictions" offer was made? In other words, since I wasn't specifically excluded from the group of eligible editors, what made you change your mind and retract the offer in my particular case?)

Re (2), the crucial point was if the amendment was in effect at the time Nickhh was warned for violating it. If, as you confirm, it wasn't (and remember we are talking about a point in time two weeks before the fact), I fail to see why he should have been reprimanded. MeteorMaker (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The committee is making 14 decisions a day, 7 days a week? It's difficult to see how anyone could possibly do justice to each decision in such circumstances, let alone a group of part-time volunteers. If you're finding it difficult to be as thorough as everyone would like you to be, perhaps you ought to expand the size of the committee; though I note that a couple of your colleagues recently appeared not to be unduly stressed by their Herculean workload.--MoreThings (talk) 12:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

An outline of the rationale behind the committee's decision would have been helpful. That would have allowed the community to understand why the committee did not feel that it could accept the motion under the suspension of restrictions remedy, and how it is that the committee believes that this decision is in the best interest of the encyclopedia.--MoreThings (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

There wasn't a single rationale but it might be helpful at this point to explain that the motion was drafted in general terms. How the committee reacts to individual applications – accompanied perhaps by a summary of what the editor intends to say, along with assurances of good conduct and promises to avoid inflammatory rhetoric – is an entirely different matter. Roger Davies ^talk 16:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I apply again then, this time with an explicit assurance of good conduct and a promise to avoid inflammatory rhetoric. A summary of what I intend to say: In the event of a resurgence of the no-sources needed let's-override-bothersome-policies-with-consensus tendencies that have plagued us in the past, I intend to insist on compliance with WP policies and guidelines and on backing up claims with sources. Otherwise I intend to remain basically silent, because I'm still in the process of catching up on my regular job after the hundreds of hours I put into the ArbCom J&S case. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is implicit in your first 'application' :

"Since there is a theoretical possibility that nationalist editors with a 'no need for sources' attitude may still try to derail the guidelines discussion (though they've kept a commendably low profile so far), I would like to put my by now significant knowledge of this particular issue to good use in order to help ensure a proper, neutral, and solidly source-based wording."

The way I read that it's a good and honest account of your goals, with no doubt the best of intentions but... you're going into it to finish winning a war. For the right side. But that's not what they're looking for. They want people who haven't already made up their minds. They want people to enter with a fresh perspective and maybe to end up at the same conclusion you would, or maybe not, but you're going in there ready to do battle with the "no need for sources" nationalist editors and to them you doing that is part of the problem. You need to let go. Not sure why they're having so much trouble saying so though, so maybe I have it completely wrong. 87.254.70.250 (talk) 00:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if you're being sarcastic here, Anon, but you actually nailed two of the project's largest problems in one sentence: Knowledge must yield to "fresh perspectives", and avoiding "battle" (what is called argumentation in the world outside) is more important than ensuring neutrality and factual correctness. MeteorMaker (talk) 06:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't really explain why the motion was denied. It's not particularly clear from the announcement exactly what the motion was. I read it that each editor would be allowed to post a single comment in each section. That in itself is considerably more restrictive than the initial suspension of restrictions remedy. You seem also to be implying that each editor should submit their comment to arbcom for vetting before posting. Either way, the announcement makes no mention of any of that. It appears to be a blanket refusal to entertain the motion in any form.--MoreThings (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me - actually in reply to the IP editor above - but surely the problem is as follows: ArbCom decided, after topic banning everyone it could vaguely see in front of it, that editors could nonetheless apply for a specific exemption so that they could comment on naming guidelines in respect of the area at stake, where discussion had been underway for a while (seemingly unbeknownst to individual arbitrators, but let's leave that to one side for now). User:MeteorMaker then formally applied under that provision and no one seemingly could be bothered to respond to them. Finally, when pushed, ArbCom announced that there was a wholly new provision, secretly voted on, which ordered that no sanctioned editor was allowed to be involved in those discussions at all. That new finding of course rendered the previous - publicly voted on and approved, and still on the record as standing - option redundant, and meant that anyone relying on it was wasting their time. You know, either ArbCom is entertaining appeals on this point, or it is not. If they wish to be a serious body, as opposed to an arbitrary forum for bullying and exclusion, they need to be clear what they are doing. And let those people affected by their decisions know. This isn't a lot to ask, surely, given the sticks they appear to wield. --Nickhh (talk) 00:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Nichalp

Original announcement.

I believe it is a mistake to act so quickly when the community is still (actively) debating the merits of Nichalp's actions and the merits of paid editing generally. It would seem the Committee was more focused on having a response more than anything else, and that's disappointing. I see no reason that this issue needed to be expedited in the way it was. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You're forgetting the socking and failure to respond. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The removals are temporary until we can talk with him and get more feedback from the Community. The main issue is the use of an undisclosed account for the paid editing. General agreement within the Committee that disclosure of the alternative account would be appropriate since he has positions of trust and we want to fully understand an users contributions in these situations. FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Rlevse: It's my understanding that other admins have socked for years and the Committee was aware, but they still took months to remove rights from individuals. (Jossi comes to mind, actually, as a recent example.) Is there a particular reason to treat this case differently? Yes, he has additional user rights, but does that correlate, and if so, how? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Socking from an admin is generally not acceptable, and since I've been an arb we have always acted swiftly as soon as a case was brought to our attention. But yes, the higher privileges do factor in our reaction: primarily in how fast we react.

As far as I know, however, the Committee is not currently aware of any other undisclosed sock held by an editor with special rights. — Coren ^(talk) 22:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

As to the question of inactivity, neither account had any activity in the past two weeks, as far as I'm aware. What is the rush? What was the motivation to not discuss and debate this openly (as is done with other cases)? Will the Committee be removing rights from all inactive admin accounts that fail to respond to an e-mail? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) This is not just about inactivity 'McBride, this is about sockpuppetry, meatpupetry, and an overall abuse of the community's trust. This is exactly why the Arbitration Committee is here, and they have done their job well without needless levels of bureaucracy (and I commend them for that). All of that said, the committee has stated that things are still open for discussion and should Nichalp choose to become active again this situation may be re-evaluated. Tiptoety ^talk 22:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain how his public sale of editing services has an effect on his ability to promote administrators or remove non-public personal information from logs? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. If he is selling has services as a editor, who is to say he is not doing the same with his status as a 'Crat or Oversight? Tiptoety ^talk 22:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Who's to say you're not? It's time to get back to basics. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The difference is, Nichalp has been confirmed to have been selling his services. I have not, so please, WP:AGF. ;-) Tiptoety ^talk 22:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the problem isn't so much the paid editing as it is the paid editing using from an undisclosed alternate account of an editor in a trusted position. An undisclosed likely conflict of interest is a priori incompatible with holding a position of elevated trust, and will require a discussion with Nichalp before any rights are restored. — Coren ^(talk) 22:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If you honestly believe that none of the 1,600 current admins don't have undisclosed alternate accounts, you're delusional. And that doesn't begin to address the fact that unless there's impropriety, it's perfectly acceptable to have as many accounts as one damn well pleases. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe no such thing nor have I ever stated I did; though I expect they may not be as common as you expect. In any case, I am not aware of such accounts, and if I were I would move also.

As to acceptability, well, simply put: using an undisclosed account while holding a position of trust (admin somewhat, other rights even more so) is in itself an impropriety. Wikipedia is founded on transparency. I have no love with the concept of "legitimate socks" in the first place, although there are rare cases where I can see a legitimate use for one. I'm certainly entirely against the concept of avoiding accountability for one's actions by hiding behind another secret screen name. If paid editing is proper (something that one can make a case for), then there is no legitimate need to conceal one's paid editing. — Coren ^(talk) 23:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

According to policy, users are expected to assume good faith. Users place trust in a particular user to, say, promote administrators. What I'm failing to see is the correlation between the use of undisclosed alternate accounts (where we assume there's a valid reason to use them and that they're acting appropriate, unless there's evidence otherwise) and a user's ability to serve as a bureaucrat. Further, one might argue that using a separate account (regardless of disclosure status) is better (much like using a separate account for bot editing). Do you agree? --MZMcBride (talk) 23:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree if you were talking about disclosed alternate accounts (publicly or not). Bots, specifically, are very much disclosed for that reason. Note that one can always disclose accounts to (say) ArbCom so that if the link is ever found, there is no appearance of attempting to behave covertly or to avoid scrutiny.

The point is: if you volunteer for a position of trust, then you must be trustworthy. Covert acts break that assumption of trust (and understandably so— just look how Sam's previous covert behavior was perceived). — Coren ^(talk) 23:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I only found out about this just now, and have been trying to catch up at the RFC and elsewhere. I fully understand the temporary suspension of privileges. What's less clear to me is whether the editing from the Zithan account ever actually did anything wrong? The community seems divided on the issue, but a significant number of people seem to believe that we should focus on whether the content itself was reasonable and not worry about it's method of production. Aside from the fact he was paid for some of this work, was there any evidence of double voting or other traditional sock puppet manipulations? Given that Zithan appears to be the only account Nichalp has used since January, and the community seems indecisive on the paid editing issue, I'm wondering about the motivations for the indefinite block. Perhaps I am overlooking something, but I'm not clear about the harm being created by allowing Zithan to edit since Nichalp seems to have de facto adopted this as his primary account. Dragons flight (talk) 22:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paid editing#Statement by YellowMonkey and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Sugars. KIC paid for the links on Process Window Index, and what does star-brands.com have to do with Qualifying Industrial Zone? I have matched up about half of the customers with the paid content, and while we are obtaining some good content along the way, the articles are biased (if only by omission) and pieces that were paid for will probably end up removed as unnecessary or undesirable. It would be interesting to see how these articles would stand up under a more critical review.

The community being divided on paid editing is a very good reason why a 'crat and oversighter should not be doing it using an undisclosed account. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Come to think of it, what Nichalp did is a bit like what the press accused Sam Blacketer of doing. Using an alias to edit in support of an outside agenda while holding office. JN 466 23:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Those of us who edit openly and occasionally, using one account, at the lower reaches of the hierarchy here, and who have been beaten up by ArbCom over alleged "extensive and repeated" edit warring (read about 6 edits in a 6 month period on the topic in question, some 3 months prior to the case) might be a little bemused by the agonised navel-gazing above - is it a bad thing to allegedly be paid to edit? To do so while owning multiple accounts? To hold special privileges while doing so? Most people in the real world know the answers to these questions. --Nickhh (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you clarify where you are seeing "agonised navel-gazing"? Whose comments are you referring to? The committee has answered the questions you pose. Do you agree or disagree? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I was just checking the list of WP:FORMER looking to see if anyone's resigned while I was on semi-WikiBreak, and I find that Nichalp is desysopped. The circumstances certainly warrant it for the evasive use of an alternate account, but I have to say, it actually comes as quite a shock that he would do what he did. Nichalp has always struck me as a very polite, diligent, and trustworthy editor, and an exemplary administrator/bureaucrat. He always acted in the best interests of the encyclopedia. He would have probably been the last person I would suspect of abusing multiple accounts. Master&Expert (Talk) 18:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Well The Wikipedia details on the elance website has been redacted, so I presume Nichalp is definitely aware of what is happening and isn't going to reply although he seems to have scored another job on the website so I presume another new sockpuppet will be enacting that. So I guess whe could have a temporary desysopping/cratting/OSing of infinite duration YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I've been looking at the affected articles. Most of them are blatant advertising, and by now they're either in AfD or being rewritten. Brad Sugars, ActionCOACH, and S-200 (fertilizer) are on the way to deletion. Dalberg Global Development Advisors was listed as a good article, and it's on its way to being delisted. Broncolor and Click4Carbon now have warning boxes, and could use further review. These articles all seemed to have good references, but looking closely, most of the references were to self-generated sources like PR Newswire, not reliable third party sources. In other words, well-written spam. I agree with ArbCom's action here. --John Nagle (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

actually, S-200 (fertilizer) is almost certain to be kept at AfD, which illustrates the problem with ArbCom's action here: We don't block people for poorly written articles about notable topics, we fix the content. NoCal100 (talk) 04:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Can you request or Arb com enforce that Nichalp edit only with the Nichalp account if he ever returns to Wikipedia and bar him from using any other account.It seems he may editing with another account.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking

Many of the rulings contain the sentence "X is prohibited from reversion of changes which are principally stylistic, except where all style elements are prescribed in the applicable style guideline." Could somebody translate this into English, please? Looie496 (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I read that as "don't revert a style change unless the version you're restoring is backed up 100% by the MOS". Could be wrong though. –xeno^talk 02:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty much it. The gist of the restriction is that the editors subject to it may only revert stylistic changes when (a) the changes in question are covered by the MOS and (b) where the MOS prescribes a style ("articles must use X"), rather than describing several optional styles ("articles may use X or Y"). Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's too bad the ruling didn't use that wording instead of the incomprehensible one it does use. Looie496 (talk) 16:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Question: Will someone define "mass delinking"? I was warned about "mass delinking" when I reverted dates on a couple of articles, by hand. It was obviously done by hand, no bot involved, and all articles were ones I was reading. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
A large proportion of your edits prior to the notification were delinking dates. I count 63 edits with "wp:mosnum" as the edit summary out of these 200 edits over 11 days. There are less than 60 articles affected, as many edits are to the same article. The injunction was intended to restrict manual edits as well as automated ones, but in my opinion, your delinking is border line "mass delinking". Your delinking needed to stop in order to avoid an edit-war, especially as date delinking appears to be a major motivation behind your editing. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
That number can be deceiving. I edit by section of an article. So, for example, if the entire article has 8 sections, that looks like 8 different edits instead of one. That is because I do it by hand, not automated, and it makes it a little more manageable. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Some time ago I wrote abuse filter 106 to track date linking/delinking. It does not log anything at all until you do it more than 4 times in 24 hours, and I haven't talked to anyone about "mass" actions until they generated at least several dozen hits. Even so, during the arbcom case there have been 8000 hits in that log (though at least some are false positives, for example Drilbot is provisioned to remove links in == headers ==, and sometimes that means unlinking dates). Dragons flight (talk) 07:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Could the clerks please copy the informal clarification above to the date delinking case talk page if they haven't already? That seems like a question that will come up again.--Tznkai (talk) 03:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Statement regarding the Matthew Hoffman case

Better late than never. Thank you for issuing an apology. Hopefully this case can finally be laid to rest. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you very much for setting the matter right. Durova^Charge! 20:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Clerk request

I have a suggestion; reorganize the archives of the announcement page and the talk page so that announcements that are archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive X have their corresponding discussions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive X, that will make it much easier to find the relevant discussions just by clicking the "talk" tab at the top of the page. Discussions without corresponding annoucements, like this one, get archived in chronological order wherever they happen to be. Thatcher 12:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles

Very, very, foolish. The equality of the remedies passed out to people protecting BLP and people violating it has pretty much killed the ArbCom's explicit policy line of endorsing BLP enforcement by any means necessary, and the scale of the remedies does not match the evidence or FOFs provided. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What did you expect? They desysopped FutPerf for...um wait, hold on, I'll find the reason... oh yeah, being one of the only people who has both expertise in an area and the willingness to use it to stamp out nationalistic bullshit, and getting somewhat annoyed by the constant harassment and endless emptying-the-ocean-with-a-teaspoon feeling. ArbCom has made it clear with that decision and parts of this one that it is favouring style over substance. More to the point, BLP is one of the only policies mandated by WMF.. so they're punishing people who were upholding it because why exactly? This is a grave, grave problem. //roux 16:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm pretty sure NPOV is Foundation-mandated too. Moot point, though. I was a bit dismayed by FutPerf's desysopping because he's a good guy, if worn down from all of the idiotic bullshit he has to put up with (compare JzG, Giano, and myself, and even people like Orangemarlin). I'm fully intent on getting mine and Scjessey's remedies completely vacated, and Steve's and Grundle's restricted just to Obama articles. However, the COM sanction can remain in place, because it's the only punishment that fits the crime. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

All I ever did was add well sourced material to articles. The blocks and bans placed against me are nothing other than censorship. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Censorship only exists if you want it to. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Antandrus put it best, in his Observation #1. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Provisional suspension of community ban: Thekohser

Original Announcement

Is there a reaons why this was done? The list of sock puppets is impressive. After so much dishonesty over such a long period are we expecting the person to change his behavior, and if so what basis is there for that belief? It seems like the overturning of community bans should be better explained. Will Beback talk 01:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If he doesn't immediately change his behaviour he'll be banned again very swiftly indeed as there are many restrictions in place. Roger Davies ^talk 02:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Time will tell. The basic idea of paid editing is fine by me; it is happening here anyway whether people like it or not, so may as well get it out in the open. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

He has specifically undertaken not to engage in paid editing here. Roger Davies ^talk 02:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

And how is anyone to know whether he's being paid? The restriction is unenforceable in practice, so may as well drop it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that this place is run by a bunch of pseudonyms whose I.P.s can be checked only under very limited circumstances "It's unenforceable so may as well drop it" seems, as slopes go, not unslippery. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Foolish. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Where did the discussion about overturning the ban take place? Where is the reasoning? -->David Shankbone 03:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I also hope someone is thinking of the children. Privatemusings (talk) 03:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)actually I reckon everything has progressed pretty transparently apart from specific arb discussion and voting, which for some reason seems to occur only a private wiki?

I'll repeat the question: why? Will Beback talk 03:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather ask "Why not?" *Dan T.* (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

For starters, see "An annotated listing of sockpuppets and related accounts" at User talk:Thekohser#Thekohser responds. That's a lot of disruption. How many other editors have been allowed back after creating that many socks? Overturning a community ban shouldn't be done without a reason. It's only fair to the community. Will Beback talk 04:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Was he community banned? I thought he was Jimbo-banned? Steve Smith (formerly Sarcasticidealist) (talk) 04:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a confusing mess. Jimbo unblocked him here after initially blocking him. User:JzG then declared him banned here inspite of this on the name he switched to, User:Zibiki Wym. The unblock finally came on User:Thekohser, here. JzG's unilateral (and in hindsight, probably inappropriate, unless someone links a discussion endorsing that) declaration of an initial community ban is what made this get confusing, at least initially. rootology (C)(T) 04:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you paying royalties to George Bernard Shaw? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a familiar set of questions to when I was unblocked. This comment by Lar in particular still sticks out to me from 23 May 2008:

"...the number of people likely to be watching him closely, the risk to the project if he was shining us on is low, he would be reblocked swiftly I would expect. And the potential gain in contributions and in good will is very large. Seems a good gamble to me."

Whatever really happens here is up to Greg alone. rootology (C)(T) 03:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd repeat those words in this case if I thought it necessary... because they fit here, as Root so ably notes. ++Lar: t/c 04:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

He can be a smartass and a gadfly, something I do myself (though not as flamboyantly). I find this sort of thing to be much less objectionable than the attitude of punitive vindictiveness seen in those who forever oppose any reinstatement of a banned editor such as him, like the cop in Les Miserables pursuing to the ends of the earth the guy who stole a loaf of bread. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

do you hear the people sing? la di di da di da di da.. etc. etc. Privatemusings (talk) 04:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)although don't confuse Schoenberg with Schoenberg...

Eh? Sometimes your musings are just a bit too obscure. :) ++Lar: t/c 04:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Singing the song of angry men, it is the music of the people who will not be slaves again. When the beating of your heart echoes the beating of the drums, there is a life about to start when tomorrow comes. Viridae ^Talk 04:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Will you join in our crusade? Who will be strong and stand with me? Somewhere beyond the barricade Is there a world you long to see? Do you hear the people sing? Say, do you hear the distant drums? It is the future that they bring When tomorrow comes... KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue here is not the merits of this particular decision, but that a decision to overturn a community ban was made in secret, and nobody feels it important to at least explain to the community why they did so. The implications are a little bit bigger than Greg's case. -->David Shankbone 04:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It was handled exactly the same as mine. I asked on my talk page, I mailed a bit, then they did it and announced it. It was no different. rootology (C)(T) 04:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Your good work aside, you aren't a reason that this is a good/acceptable way to make decisions. -->David Shankbone 04:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Why aren't I? In many circles I was far more hated that Greg could ever dream of being, no matter hard he tries. rootology (C)(T) 04:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You aren't for the same reason Greg is not. This is about principles, not people. Are you saying that you have no issue that ArbCom feels no need to explain why they rule against the community? -->David Shankbone 04:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You know I'm the last person who wouldn't call the AC on the carpet over something. ;) But like I said here, was Greg actually community banned with an endorsed roll call on it like we're supposed to do, or are we basing it on JzG's purported declaration? rootology (C)(T) 04:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

David, ArbCom, per policy, hears appeals against bans and has done for years. Appeals are historically dealt with off-wiki. Nothing remarkable there. Roger Davies ^talk 04:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

What Roger said. As far as we're concerned, this was a routine appeal from a banned user, and we have lifted the ban because we believe that, with the restrictions we have imposed, the potential risk of further disruption is minimal, and is outweighed by the potential benefit to the project. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 04:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's hope this works out. It seems like it hasn't in the past, but perhaps the user has changed. Will Beback talk 06:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

What, exactly, "hasn't worked in the past"? Unbanning Greg? When was this actually tried (except extremely briefly way back near the beginning of his troubles)? Unbanning other banned users? It's been done quite a few times, sometimes successfully and sometimes unsuccessfully. Personally, I find the process by which users get declared "banned" to be far from a "good/acceptable way to make decisions". It's done sometimes by purported "community discussion" that consists of a handful of people who happen to show up on a talk page somewhere, usually dominated by a clique of the Usual Suspects, then declared to be final by some power-drunk admin. Then the same clique circles their wagons to insist that the alleged ban is permanent and irrevocable, using everything the user ever does in reaction to what he perceives as an unfair ban to be further evidence in favor of keeping it. Having the also-imperfect but at least more organized ArbCom as a safety valve seems like a good idea, especially when it's not controlled by the same clique that dominates other areas of this site (a few years ago, it sometimes seemed to be, but currently it seems pretty independent). *Dan T.* (talk) 11:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

My question is, who is going to be counting his edits to make sure he only edits outside mainspace when he has sufficient "credit" built up? If he just spends a week huggling... Nathan^T 12:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It's kind of a silly rule; he might be in violation of it already just for responding to stuff on his own talk page. There's a spirit behind it that has some sense to it (to get him to actually do something useful instead of just involve himself in drama), but making it a hard-and-fast rule leads to all sorts of senselessness once it starts being enforced by the anal-retentive obsessives around here. *Dan T.* (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Kirill, Roger, and the rest of ArbCom: we currently have a pretty strong movement that is against the JIMBO system, of which you all could be considered a part (he appoints you). I find your responses to be a little tone deaf to a large segment of this community that is against what is perceived as a lack of accountability and openness in the way this site is administered. Do you guys really think, particularly in a high-profile case such as this, that it's a good idea to be making decisions in private and announcing it as if you don't need to be bothered to explain yourselves to the community? Even dictatorships give reasons for decisions to their populaces. Regardless of what you have done in the past, if this is the way decisions are going down then I think Giano has a point and it's a surprise he doesn't raise issues like this in his RFC on governance. You guys are playing with fire, and you're providing fuel to the Anti-JIMBO movement, and it would be wiser for you guys to start recognizing that and stop this manner of decision-making. At the very least, you should be providing explanations for everything you do that effects this community. I see no argument against that, and if this kind of decision-making continues, I would probably join Giano in seeking to change the JIMBO system. -->David Shankbone 12:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Eh, mountains and molehills, seriously. If there's disruptive behavior, the account can be re-blocked. The past history regarding this account is well-documented and plenty of admins around here are trigger-happy. I don't see a real issue with giving someone a second chance. Generally speaking, some of this project's biggest problem users have been people we've ostracized or alienated. I would say it's nearly a universal truth that a forgiving community is better than an unforgiving one. We'll see what happens here. Go out on a climb, extend a bit of good faith, and hope everything works out. If not, Special:Block is a click away. --MZMcBride (talk) 12:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  - We are talking about two separate things and your response doesn't address what I wrote. -->David Shankbone 12:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    - Well, yes. I was hoping you wouldn't notice and you'd drop the other point altogether. Until you make a clearer argument and support assertions like "a large segment of this community that is against what is perceived as a lack of accountability and openness," esp. with regard to this situation or "un-bannings" in general, there's not much to discuss. We certainly wouldn't allow statements like the ones you've been making to sit in our articles, we'd tag them or remove them. I'm not inclined to give them much weight or credit here either. --MZMcBride (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
      - That's a rather dickish response to what is an obvious concern. Raising article policy in a discussion about secret, unexplained ArbCom decisions doesn't give much weight or credit to your intellectual reasoning, so I guess we're even. But I guess that's why I addressed it to ArbCom members and not to you. And if you need a citation, I provided one above. -->David Shankbone 13:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
        David, I'm more than happy to discuss and debate this with you, but (candidly) I don't know what exactly you're trying to argue. I see a lot of points that you could be making, but without clarification, it's nearly impossible to have a productive conversation. From what I'm reading, you seem to be arguing that the community should be in charge of community ban appeals. Or, you could be arguing about generic transparency. Or, it could be a combination of these two arguments or something else I've missed entirely. But at the moment, I simply keep seeing the word "Jimbo" being shouted and that's not something that's easy to have a productive or constructive conversation around. If you want to continue this, I'd be more than happy to, here or elsewhere (my talk page, yours, whatever)—it's an interesting intellectual debate that I think is worth having. I apologize if my comments seemed brusque or dickish. We'll just attribute that to morning grumpiness. :-) Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
        MZM, as a supporter of the JIMBO system I'm arguing for transparency to keep that system in-tact. This Arbitration Committee is part of that system. I dislike the lack of transparency, that these sorts of decisions are being handed to the community without explanation. I have a fundamental problem with that. If the lack of transparency--except where discretion is necessary to protect users--is an inherent part of Arb/Jimbo, then my support for that system would likely cease. The real fly in my ointment is that I can't see any reasoning or justifications for overturning a community ban, regardless of the merits of doing so. I want to see the logic. That's all. It's surprising to me that things have been going this way. You'll note it's not often you see my name popping up on administrative discussions. -->David Shankbone 14:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
        Let me put a different spin on this. User:Smith is convicted of being a public nuisance and is banished from the community by a bunch of people gathered in the town square, some of whom just happened to be passing by, others of whom deliberately hang out in the public square so they can be involved in the community's daily business. You want Smith's appeal to be handled in the public square, preferably by the same public that banned him, and if the appeal is going to be decided by the town elders, then it must be decided in the town square where the rest of the townspeople can eavesdrop, comment, interject, and otherwise attempt to influence the deliberations. How delightfully 18th century New England Puritan of you. Thatcher 14:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
        Jehochman's algorithm is pretty succinct: 1) Announce that the un-ban appeal is under consideration, and solicit comments from the community; 2) deliberate--in secret, if you wish--with both the user's and the community's comments in mind; and 3) announce the decision and the rationales for the decision. That's a one-size-fits-all prescription. What are you suggesting is better, or less New England Puritan? -->David Shankbone 15:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
        Quoting with slight modification, 1) Announce that the un-ban appeal is under consideration, and solicit comments from the community; 2) deliberate--in secret, if you wish--with both the user's and the community's comments in mind; and 3) announce the decision and the rationales for the decision, which will in all likelihood be unpopular with a substantial fraction of discussion participants, no matter what the outcome, leading to cries of "why did you ask for opinions if you were just going to do it anyway?. Thatcher 15:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
        Why ask the community for input on anything? Why don't we just have admins and Arbs make all the decisions and tell us how things are to go? You might be on to something, Thatcher. All those messy ANI and content discussions would be better handled on private wikis and IRC as well, with decisions simply announced. Sounds like the kind of place people would want to join! -->David Shankbone 16:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
        
        Just out of curiosity, why has this particular unblock brought you out so much in force against the system as it's existed for years and dozens if not tens of dozens of unblocks before? rootology (C)(T) 15:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
        If you want to ask me a personal question, please do so on my talk page as it distracts from the discussion. -->David Shankbone 15:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
        No, it's not a personal question, and the reasoning behind why a given person is pushing for something on-wiki in a group discussion has direct bearing on the standing of that line of questioning, it's validity, and the validity of the questioner. I know this is not a popular idea, to question in this way, but I'm not a popular person, and before anyone dreams of saying it--questioning AGF is perfectly in line with AGF itself. Why have you never complained about the Arbcom unblock process until Greg was unblocked? Why is he a different creature? rootology (C)(T) 16:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
        It is a personal question because it goes to my motivations, as opposed to procedure and policy arguments. The answer is pretty simple, and is found in my response to FloNite: why are you assuming that a content editor with roughly 20,000 edits, only 2,000 of which are to ProjectSpace, knew that decisions were being made in this manner? You seem to be assuming this about "Kohs! Kohs! Kohs!" but I've already stated I agree with the ends in this case, but not the means. The same is true for yours. I don't think it's wise to focus on singular motivations in discussions. -->David Shankbone 18:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
        
        Taking the road that wasn't taken, do you believe a community-led discussion regarding this user would have been productive? Do you think it would have resulted in the right™ outcome? Thatcher makes a pretty reasonable point below: can we expect the community to hear appeals of its own decisions?
        The Arbitration Committee maintains a private mailing list and a private wiki; it's contrary to the general idea of openness that's usually seen around here, but I'm not sure I see a compelling reason (or ability) to try to stop private chat.
        Not sure how much (if any) of this addresses your underlying concerns about this ban appeal being granted, but it is hopefully some food for thought. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
        
        I don't think it would have been productive to have this be a "community-led" decision. Without stepping too much into the case-at-hand, I think they ruled correctly. But I saw no effort to at least acquire input from the community, nor did I see any effort to allay concerns over transparency issues by coming out with justifications for the rulings. The underlying assumptions appear to be "We already know what the community thinks, and we don't have to tell them why we are overruling them." That's what is troubling. It's so simple: decisions that affect the community should have community input, and the results should be justified. I have yet to see a cogent argument against that. -->David Shankbone 14:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
        Well said. You make some very good points. I'd be interested to hear answers from some of the Arbitrators in response to these points. Kirill? --MZMcBride (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Outdent. (Speaking for myself and not a formal Committee position.) For starters. ArbCom is part of the Community. I firmly think that the Arbitration Committee is a much broader representation of the Community than the people that appear to discuss a specific topic in a threaded discussion on the ArbCom discussion pages. The pros and cons of the unblock and the specific editing restrictions were robustly discussed for weeks. Additionally, while in some cases the Community needs to speak about something in order for ArbCom to understand the issue, User:Thekohser's unban appeal was not one of those situations. The issues involved in the situation are widely known making it possible to weigh the different options for editing restrictions and the likely success of the unban. As well, that he was being consider for an unnban was not a secret. He is coming back with an user name already associated with him. Discussion about it has occurred in various venues both off and on site. And last, if we actually did miss an important point and someone wants to raise it, then this page is here for that to happen. If there are substantive rather than procedural issues that we need to address, then I'm happy to listen. I suggest that the procedural issues be discussed in the appropriate venue such a policy discussion page. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Does it concern you that you are making a lot of assumptions? They seem to be that everybody knows what's happening on all the far corners of this site; that situations haven't changed since the last discussions, that they were complete and that there is not new information relevant to your deliberations; and that discussion after-the-fact will have any effect on an already-announced decision? Those are mistaken assumptions. You said, "The pros and cons of the unblock and the specific editing restrictions were robustly discussed for weeks." - where? You said "that he was being consider for an unnban was not a secret." - where did you announce this, or were you relying on the Wikipedia/Review grapevine to get the word out? Do you think it's wise to govern this site with such rationales? And once again, my questions are not specific to this case. -->David Shankbone 16:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  - I'm aware of the fact that you disapproved of the user being unbanned. You stated the reason on site, on this page several weeks back. So that is not an assumption. That is a fact. If you want to update the Committee about a new issue or concern then do so instead of complaining about the process. A discussion about the process can happen in an organized way in another more appropriate venue. Currently, unbann appeals are going to happen off site because we reject many more than we approve and the process would cause loads of stress for the people that think that it could happen because a request is filed. The majority of the Community Ban appeals are heard by a the Ban Appeal Subcommittee. They have done excellent work processing the appeals in a timely manner and have gotten good results so far, I think. Saying no to an appeal is the safest route to take in most instances but not always the right one for the benefit of the encyclopedia. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    - You're addressing assumptions I never said you made since I wasn't referring to myself, and I wasn't referring to this specific instance. The only reason I knew is because Greg announced it himself. So let's say User:X is banned, and goes through all of this exactly as Rootology or Greg did. Then you unban him and leave the announcement on their Talk page. All of a sudden User:Y pops up and says, "How could you have unbanned that editor?! I didn't even know you were considering it and they recently started harassing me in real life." What do you do then after your weeks of robust discussion? Why not put an announcement on User:X's page that there is a serious ban appeal under consideration to alert people familiar with that editor to weigh in with information they think is relevant, both pro and con? If you want me to take it to "another, more appropriate venue" the result will be a new policy discussion about ArbCom governance and procedure, instead of civilly discussing it here. I thought this was a better, less complicated way to have my concerns addressed; but if I'm continually told to shoo then that's what I'll do. -->David Shankbone 20:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
      - With respect, David, this is one of the reasons why we vote for the members of the ArbCom, to take the decisions away from the hubbub of the passing AN board dramah vultures (I'm self referencing here). As RD and Flo have noted, ban appeals have been dealt with this way previously. We are also not aware of the divisions within the ArbCom for the same reasons, there is a general notification with a bare noting of those in favour and those who did not vote for whatever reason - there is an assumption of consensus because there are no "dissenting" votes, but it may have been so very much closer. Unlike nearly every "public" arena of WP, ArbCom does seem to work to debating rules; whoever makes the best argument, notwithstanding the individuals own views, gets the result they desire. Even if every other member was against it, it could be that the one person who advocated the lifting simply had the best backing in policy, rules and guidelines - and since those same policies, etc, are the consensus of the community written large, then the ArbCom simply enacted the consensus as expressed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Is there any reason this appeal could not have been listed publicly at WP:RFAR? Jehochman ^Talk 13:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Appeals from banned editors are almost always handled through email, since, being banned, they're not permitted to file them on-wiki. As we've said, there has been no special treatment for this user, as compared to the other users who've submitted ban appeals over the past several months. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 13:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  - There's going to be a lengthy discussion no matter what. Why not post the appeal publicly, first, take comments, and then decide? What you've done here is run the same process, but backwards: decide, public statement, comments. Same effort either way. Jehochman ^Talk 13:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    - So, someone who was "community banned" by a possibly faulty process must undergo that same process to be unbanned? Why bother to have an Arbcom then, or at least, why delegate ban appeals to Arbcom. Community bans may only be appealed to the community? Thatcher 14:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
      - "Possibly faulty process" describes ArbCom just as well as a community ban. Anything can be possibly faulty. What happened was Action, Announcement, Discussion. A much better algorithm would be Announcement, Discussion, Action. Jehochman ^Talk 15:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
        At least, having several independent entities faulty in their own different ways provides for some useful checks and balances to arbitrary power. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Query: If he violates his restrictions, who would do the re-blocking/banning? It would definitely need to be an Official Arbcom Action^TM to minimize drama (and even then, there would be much drama). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If anyone cares, I recused because of my off-wiki interactions with Kohs. I really don't know what to expect, but the sense I have is that he will be closely watched by the Committee and swiftly blocked if problems emerge. The Guido unblock turned out this way, and I think there wasn't too much drama. Cool Hand Luke 15:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

This does bring up the interesting question of the value of having the AC and Jimmy as the final arbiters, and whether a counter-body 100% community elected with the ability to countermand them 100% when needed would be a good idea. Checks and balances are never, ever a bad thing. Single points of failures are always a bad thing, though. rootology (C)(T) 16:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom is 100% community elected. Although Jimmy technically makes the appointments, he appoints on the basis of the poll results. Roger Davies ^talk 17:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but he's asserted multiple times that he can countermand you guys and the elections. What if a given person ran and got a top result, and he decided not to seat them or bypass them in favor of another user? rootology (C)(T) 17:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rootology's point, and I think more accurate than saying "is 100% community elected" would be to say "is historically community elected". Of course, in situations where there are close votes or ties, Jimmy would be a decider. -->David Shankbone 18:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if we used this very slightly modified version of election scoring that I wrote last year to score them, the mathematical odds of a tie happening are virtually nonexistant. rootology (C)(T) 18:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

My question for Roger still stands. rootology (C)(T) 18:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Sigh.
He has said that, like the Queen of England, he retains the authority to dissolve Parliament, and expects to use it about as often as she does. (If you think Jimbo is sitting in his office micromanaging enwiki content or even the arbitrators, you don't know him or his role very well.)
Joining Wikipedia and then complaining about Jimbo's role is like jumping in a lake in the middle of winter and complaining about the cold. There are many other social and Web 2.0 sites that would welcome the skills and dedication found in most Wikipedia editors. (I spent the winter season away from Wikipedia, answering tax questions on a tax software company's web 2.0 site. Got a nice gift as a thank you, too.) There are other fish in the sea. Thatcher 18:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It is actually useful to have someone who could veto an appointment if for example information about grossly unacceptable behaviour came to light at too late a stage for it to reflect in votes already cast. (Though in this case, I suspect Jimmy might well appoint and then ask ArbCom to look it the appointment as a matter of urgency.) My experience of him is that he has neither the time nor inclination to micromanage ArbCom. Roger Davies ^talk 18:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Very quick question here to clarify something; What would happen if the community went ahead an immediately reinstated a community ban? Could they overrule this decision? Not thinking of starting a ban discussion because I think TK has something to give here, but it's an interesting question. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I would hope, Ryan, that our administrators would not act unless they were able to justify a block based on the actions of the account - regardless of whose account we were talking about. Thekohser has some very specific editing conditions that, so far, he is meeting. Blocking an account that is operating fully within Wikipedia rules, and indeed within additional conditions over and above our standard policies, would be inappropriate; I would hope that none of our administrators would overlook this.

There has been some commentary above opining that the community should review community bans. As Iridescent points out on Thekohser's talk page, and I agree, the majority of the community of editors don't care whether or not Thekohser edits; however, those who don't care one way or the other are the editors least likely to comment on any block/unblock discussion. This holds true, regardless of the blocked account. This is, of course, an important reason why "community bans" are often reviewed by the (generally) uninvolved Arbitration Committee; the people most interested in commenting on such a review are those who hold strong opinions one way or another, and thus it's not a community consensus discussion but a discussion amongst those with vested interests. Risker (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Since it was held confidentially we don't know whose input was sought in this appeal. The impression I get is that none was sought, so the only discussion was between "TK" and the ArbCom. If there are other members of the community that have strong views or evidence then I don't see why those shouldn't have been heard too. For example, the ArbCom could have announced that they were hearing a private appeal of the ban and asked for interested parties to submit anything relevant to the matter. I can imagine how most RfARs would go if only one side were allowed to make a case. Will Beback talk 02:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Most of the objections to having community input, as well as the objections to having ArbCom handle the entire process in private, would be met if ArbCom announced that it had provisionally decided to unblock a user and would welcome community input for a week before making a final decision. To announce an already-made decision means ArbCom members are invested in the success of its outcome, which makes it difficult to take back the unblock decision if commenters come up with great reasons to continue the block (and to take it back is pretty unfair -- or at least overly painful -- to the blocked/unblocked/reblocked party). After a week, ArbCom members can ask themselves whether or not they've changed their minds and make an anouncement either way. Also, this gives the community the chance to email ArbCom members. Also, every unblock should be accompanied by a stated reason, even if that reason is very vague. -- Noroton (talk) 01:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This has been a very interesting discussion, with some very good ideas aired. Perhaps the best of these is the suggestion about including a rationale. To be honest, in this instance, I thought it was implicit but that might just be me. I'm not sure how community input is best sought though; perhaps asking that they be constructive and forward-looking rather than revisiting the original ban discussion is the answer. Many historic problems can be easily addressed by (i) getting the banned user to acknowledge the previous problems and commit to avoid them in future; (ii) tight editing restrictions, tailored to address specific behavoural issues; and (iii) a low theshold for revoking the ban suspension. Anyway, this can be looked at in more depth when the ban appeal procedures come up for review, sometime in July. Roger Davies ^talk 06:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect for the ArbCom's timetable, events have moved this matter forward, and the appeal procedures are currently under review, with or without the participation of ArbCom members. Will Beback talk 22:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Considering the user in question has said many times on WR that he plans on destroying Wikipedia (now "from the inside")[18], I think this was a rather uninformed idea by the ArbCom... --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Appropriate venues

This was a routine ban appeal heard and handled in the routine way, as has been done for a long time (with the exception that for the last few months there has been a subcommittee to whom some of the legwork is delegated). Many of the comments here seem to be about the nature of this routine. If the desire is to alter the banning policy then discussion should be held on the policy's talk page, and not in this thread about a particular user's appeal. --bainer (talk) 05:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should mention that the ban appeal procedures are up for review in a couple of weeks and input then would be very helpful, when the new draft is posted. Roger Davies ^talk 06:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've made a suggestion at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy#Appeals of community bans. Will Beback talk 06:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Seeyou

Good call. PhilKnight (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser and Oversight elections

Link for further information: WP:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight elections/August 2009

Are there minimum qualifications to be able to become a candidate, such as being an administrator, or having been an admin for a certain period of time? J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

No, there aren't; the only qualification is completing the Committee's vetting process. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

But I suppose non-admins won't get to the election stage, they'll be vetted-out ? Cenarium (talk) 17:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Since our biggest need now is for people that can handle complicated situations that often require admin tools, I think that people that are not admins would not be useful in the job. I'm talking about the most serious cases that need prompt and comprehensive management. I wouldn't encourage people to offer their services for this job, unless they have been an admin and have some experience dealing with disruptive users and vandals. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder that the Arbcom doesn't own mediawiki:watchlist-details and if you want to add the elections notifications to it, please observe and respect the community way to handle that by starting a discussion on the talk page beforehand where you can argue why this is needed. In short, don't do like last time, especially with the announcements of results. Thanks, Cenarium (talk) 17:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. Was there a discussion about it last time? I only see a minor correction being made at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details#February 2009 CheckUser and Oversight elections.

Maybe these could be added to the Wikipedia:Watchlist notices#Standing notices ? Obviously that is something for the community to consider. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity: What are the Committee's criteria for “vetting”? How does it decide whether a candidates “vetting” was successful/unsuccessful? I think a bit more transparency might be useful here. — Aitias // discussion 18:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Eighteen months ago, the community was simply informed of the names of editors who were granted these permissions. A year ago, the community was told who was going to receive these permissions unless a serious contra-indication was raised. This time, the community has the opportunity to specifically voice an opinion on all nominees put forward by the Committee, and the community's voice plays a critical role in the final decision. I'm not sure how much more transparent you can reasonably expect us to be, while still respecting the confidentiality of the editors who express an interest, and meeting our fiduciary duties with respect to privacy-related permissions. Risker (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

To clarify (for me at least): Does "by July 1, 2009" mean that you should have applied until yesterday or that you can still apply on July 1, 2009? Regards So Why 11:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You can still apply today. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 12:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I decided to do so but either my mail did not arrive or noone answers me. Ah well, maybe I'm just impatient. =) Regards So Why 20:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Darn spam filters. ;-) You should have a response by now. Risker (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Format of requests for amendment

Original announcement, Final decision.

Note: Further to a request from the Committee over clerks-l, the clerks are currently drawing up drafts for an implementation of this announcement. Any suggestions as to what we would be wise to include (or to steer clear of including) in the new format for amendments would be appreciated. AGK 16:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The new format has been implemented and is now in use on the arbitration requests page. AGK 10:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

A Man In Black

What is the appropriate forum for community discussion of the issues mentioned during arbitrator discussion of Remedy 5: Ikip warned? I don't know if I or another user will file anything soon – Ikip has been barely active recently – but I thought I'd ask while the case was fresh. Flatscan (talk) 04:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The administrators' noticeboard is usually the forum used for community discussion of concerns over the conduct of an editor. AGK 10:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. Having some familiarity with AN and AN/I, I think that neither is appropriate since admin review or action is not obviously required. WP:Requests for comment/User conduct was my first thought. If there is no further comment, I'll ask a few of the commenting arbitrators directly. Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

~~RFCU~~RFC/U is probably your best bet. –xeno^talk 13:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean RFC/U, not RFCU... Fram (talk) 13:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. –xeno^talk 14:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

So much for break. I cannot ever recall a single instance of a user taken to RFC/U or right back to any form of dispute resolution after an RFAR case involving them, let alone where they picked up remedies against them. As Ikip is on vacation, what is the possible benefit to Wikipedia of doing an RFC/U toward him? This smacks and feels of petty and grossly inappropriate retaliation on it's surface, but I would like to be convinced otherwise. rootology (C)(T) 15:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I am curious about what you believe to be my motivating reason for retaliation, so feel free to contact me directly.

If one reads the Remedy 5 discussion I linked and other Ikip-related proposals, much of Ikip's conduct was determined to be outside the scope of a case focused on AMIB and was thus not considered – which is not the same as considered and dismissed as without merit. There was an implicit referral back to the community.
I explained the timing of this question in my opening comment. It has been my observation that Ikip's behavior improves significantly following a wikibreak, but the disruptive behavior has so far recurred, leading into yet another wikibreak. A discussion would address the next recurrence. Perhaps Remedy 5's official warning will be enough, but the most accurate way to judge community consensus is to conduct the discussion.

Flatscan (talk) 07:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the best timing for any user, in this sort of situation, facing an admonishment from the Arbcom, is when and if the situation comes up again, per what you cited. Unless Ikip does something in the future outside of norms, then it should be looked into. Not when he's on a months-long recess for IRL business/travel/whatever, and not upon his return, unless he does something again in contradiction of that same admonishment. If that happens, it would be polite to talk page notify everyone involved with this RFAR of the discussion whenever, or if, it happens in response to those future actions, so we can pick up where we all left off. In the meanwhile, there's far more important things for us to aim our brain cells at. It's a non-issue in the meanwhile. rootology (C)(T) 09:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

While "hope for the best" and "wait and see" are reasonable approaches to this situation, I don't see them mentioned or hinted at in WP:AGF. When I started this discussion, I had considered the points you raise and was already leaning towards postponing any filing. Flatscan (talk) 04:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The status of arbitrator Coren

Once the situation stabilises, it would be helpful for the committee to make a statement on the current (and, if known, future) status of User:Coren's membership, replacement and anything else that may need disclosing. It would also be appreciated if the clerks could update the relevant pages to reflect the current state of play (foir example, whether or not Coren has mailing list acces). Mahalo, Skomorokh 17:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that the only mailing list whose membership the clerks can see is clerks-l. The func-en, arb-l, checkuser-l, and oversight-l lists are all private, even to the clerks. MBisanz ^talk 17:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I had thought that the clerks were in regular private contact with the committee and would be in a position to keep on-wiki records up to date. Skomorokh 18:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

We are in regular communication, but what we cannot see, we cannot update. Just like we can't bring over proposed decisions from the arbwiki because we don't have access there, we can't update a list we can't access. I suspect it would be updated if something had changed though. MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Coren announced that he is going off the Committee now. Per past practice, if he decides to return during his term then he could return to his seat. I see no problem with him retaining the OS and CU tools per past practices. If he decides that he does not have as much interest in using them, then he can return the tools. This all will be more clear when he returns from his break. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Flo, appreciate the clarification. Skomorokh 18:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ban appeal: Betacommand