Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee

BASC RfC

Looks like the last comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Expansion of Ban Appeals Subcommittee was about 10 days ago and the RfC bot removed the tag a few days ago. Should this be closed by a clerk or does this need to be listed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure? Thanks. 64.40.54.160 (talk) 06:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that the RfC necessarily requires a formal closure—unlike a typical RfC, where the closure results in immediate implementation of some decision, the details of any changes that would potentially result from this one would still need to be worked out by the Committee—but I wouldn't mind seeing what someone not involved with arbitration discussions makes of it. Kirill ^[talk] 20:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Thank you. 64.40.57.17 (talk) 22:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's my take. The community seemed generally supportive and it seems like an alright idea to me, but I got something completely different from it. The RfC was listed at WT:AC, at AN, at VPP, at VPR and at CENT, yet only 30 people commented on it. That's indicative of something; apathy, editor loss, summer vacation, who knows but it's indicative of something. Probably not what anybody else was thinking of, but that's what I made of it. Best regards. 64.40.54.55 (talk) 07:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It's mostly indicative that internal bureaucracy is boring shit to 99% of the people out there – and rightly so. Honestly, I'd be worried if the community was suddenly massively interested in ArbCom and functionary matters as this would indicate brewing trouble, whereas a resounding "meh" usually means things are going okay enough.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 14:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that the RfC gave the committee some ideas to think about. This is something they're talking about, and hopefully the discussions and suggestions at the RfC will help lay the foundation for changes that are actually implemented. -- Lord Roem (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

We've discussed it, and while I don't think there's really been strong sentiments to move in one direction or another we've definitely got more opinions to mull over. From my perspective, some of the comments are a bit moot due to the fact that ban appeals have tapered off recently, largely due I believe to some better discretion on the part of admins. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikimania

I am at Wikimania, it would be great to spend some time talking with any-one interested in the Arbitration process, particularly Arbs. Rich Farmbrough, 14:13, 14 July 2012 (UTC).

Well I have managed to have a short discussion with Courcelles on the New Page Process, but the rest of the committee remains elusive. Someone told me that they are avoiding me, but I'm sure that's just a rumour. Rich Farmbrough, 01:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC).

I cannot speak for other arbs' activity, but I was not at the vast majority of the conference due to work obligations. Also, we tend to be flighty and startled if not in large numbers. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Very unfortunately, I also was able to attend only a small portion of the conference due to scheduling conflicts. I hope our paths will cross on another occasion, perhaps at a local meet-up or a future Wikimania. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

From the arbitration perspective, it was pretty much a washout, those arbs I spoke to were not particularly forthcoming, one might even say evasive, on arbitration matters. A number of people spoke to me of the current disastrous cases running (Perth and Fae for example), and more were supportive over the recent case I was subject to, which of course warms the cockles of one's heart, but does nothing to address any of the underlying problems. When I have time I shall take a decent look at the arbitration scenario and maybe we can make some progress, unless of course, in true wiki-fashion the required reform has already taken place. Rich Farmbrough, 03:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC).

ArbCom training

Do new members of ArbCom undergo any training, formal or informal? If so, what is that training? If not, why not? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. We get OJT from the arbs more senior to us once elected on arbitration matters, and from the clerks on clerky matters as appropriate. We're offered the same training that new OTRS, Oversight, and Checkuser rights holders get, as desired and appropriate. Since the position is elected, no arbitrator's participation is limited based on their training--Arbs don't have to get "qual'ed" by the existing committee or anyone else before doing their jobs; the community did that by electing the person. Jclemens (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

What is "OJT"? Rich Farmbrough, 03:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC).

Ah! "On the job training." = no training. Rich Farmbrough, 03:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC).

Perth

I seriously don't get this. I got desysopped because I restored an admin decision that was reverted without discussion? The idea was so ludicrous that I'd forgotten the motion was even being discussed. It seemed uncontroversial: we don't go around reverting admin decisions that we disagree with, and arbcom found that the revert was inappropriate. (And I didn't continue when it was repeated.) So what gives? — kwami (talk) 16:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd recomend WT:AC/N. That's where the official post case discussion thread is officially set up by the closing clerk.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It seemed uncontroversial to you to breach admin policy (by wheel warring) in a situation which was clearly not urgent and where you were involved? And what about the pattern of edit-warring or move-warring - do you also think it seems uncontroversial for administrators to engage in such conduct (and that too, while being party to an arbitration case)? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

And the admin who started the wheel warring, against an RfM decision? That's acceptable? When have I ever done such a thing? — kwami (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You mean, besides Talk:Animal-rights movement#Requested move 2012? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

No, not at all like that. That was an MOS fix, not reverting a RfM. When an intelligent reason was giving for not applying the MOS in that case, I reverted myself. — kwami (talk) 08:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Nobody doubts you had the best of intentions. It was still wheel warring. While your vote for desysopping for wheel warring was going on. It cost you at least one vote there, it seems. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Kwami, you are the editor who started the wheel warring in the Perth case. If you meant to refer to the original revert, that earned the admin an admonishment, so no it seems it's not "acceptable", but it wasn't wheel warring. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I get it now. It's not really a problem to revert admin decisions made after weeks or months of debate, but it's a mortal sin to enforce that decision pending further discussion. — kwami (talk) 08:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Sort of, yeah, assuming you think "admonishment" == "no problem". Well, at least Deacon hadn't !voted in the RM. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Basically more craziness. This is clearly a situation where the fires had been damped down and the resort to Arbcom was by someone unhappy with the result (isn't it always?). Arbs should have admonished the plaintiff and closed the case. Rich Farmbrough, 03:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC).

An amendment to policy, regarding appeal routes

To the arbitration committee, per S3 of the policy, I commend to you this amendment to policy. The amendment would delete the phrase, "Remedies may be appealed to, and amended by, Jimbo Wales, unless the case involves Jimbo Wales' own actions." from the section, "Appeals of decisions." It is desirable and important that this be done as:

1. This route of appeal is a dead letter. Maintaining dead letters is a constitutional hazard.
2. This route of appeal authorises and cements the nefarious policy of reserve powers embodied in User:Jimbo's account and person. Jimbo has adequate access to ignoring all rules like any other editor, further empowerment is unnecessary, and therefore nefarious. Maintaining unnecessary reserve powers is a constitutional hazard.

As such, I encourage you to debate this amendment to policy internally and hope and expect you'll commend it to the population of editors for approval. (Given that I have mentioned him, I will subsequently notify Jimbo.) Yours, Fifelfoo (talk) 02:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

disagree. I think it is useful to allow Jimbo to keep a stick.--KarlB (talk) 02:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I would find it personally valuable if you expanded your preference into an argument and justified it? For example: is it useful the stick be kept in general; is it specifically useful that the stick be kept by a particular position; is it specifically useful that the stick be kept by a position and most desirable that position be held by Jimbo; or, is it specifically useful that the stick be kept by Jimbo as Jimbo? Fifelfoo (talk) 02:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I would say for now, Jimbo as Jimbo. If his position/role in the project changes significantly, then this could be revisited, but until then, I think it's useful to have a final appeal. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and ArbCom is not the supreme court. Your use of the word constitutional hazard above is interesting.--KarlB (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

A significant proportion of Australians have a natural hostility towards reserved powers given their unusual history of exercise here. The powers reserved to Jimbo specifically exceed the IAR we all have, they relate to the processes and policies of writing the encyclopaedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

But a majority do not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

As a practical matter, even if we staged a coup and deposed Jimbo on wiki, the foundation board of trustees ultimately controls the servers, and if they say Jimbo still has his historical authority, then he still does. If you want more then a symbolic change, you would need to go through the board. Monty₈₄₅ 03:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed; wikimedia foundation I believe owns the trademark as well, so they ultimately have a say in what happens to wikipedia; including shutting it down if they so choose. Someone else could then take the content and start "joe-i-pedia", but wikipedia itself is ultimately vested in the foundation (I believe). As noted below, having a benevolent dictator is not the worst of all possible worlds.--KarlB (talk) 04:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a strong view either way on this proposal, but note that the "appeal to Jimbo" option is not entirely a dead letter. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rodhullandemu#Appeal to Jimbo Wales. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• While a completely open and everyone is equal environment might be great (if that helped the encyclopedia), experience of the real world shows that the alternative to a benevolent dictator is a detailed constitution with a thousand pages of small print, and an army of lawyers. Leaving a rarely-used appeal option is very reasonable under the circumstances, and arguing over whether there is any difference between Jimbo and an average editor is pointless. Johnuniq (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• I wouldn't support a modification to exclude this rout of appeal. Fifelfoo asserts this as a "dead letter" provision. I think that is wp:or and wonder what that presumption is based upon? I've used it personally within the current year. The simple fact that he does respond to these kinds of appeal is a credit to the institution. This proposal is worse than dead letter, it's Non Sequitur. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 04:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• I find this whole idea of leveling (lowering) Jimbo's page status offensive. I've been watching the discussion since Hipocrite first posted his question, which I almost answered with an indignant, "Of course not--you're not Jimbo Wales." To resurrect a famous old American quote, Fifelfoo, "Have you no decency?" Yopienso (talk) 06:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I anticipate some changes and community ratification to this later this year when I present a proposal for reduction of my powers. I think this should be viewed as part of an overall process of reform and done thoughtfully, not piecemeal. This aspect of our current system is not in crisis nor, as far as I know, causing any actual problems. Other aspects are. The current appeal process has the benefit of being a safety valve, a part of a system of checks and balances that helps to ensure that the ArbCom itself doesn't become too powerful or make arbitrary decisions, while also allowing them by custom a wide latitude. To simply remove the power of one last review from me, and not put it anywhere else within the system, would eliminate an important step in the overall process.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Due to my perceptions and experiences with the Arbcom over the past several months I personally think that we need to have an appeals process of some kind whether through Jimbo or through the Foundation itself. I haven't been very happy nor impressed with several of their decisions of late. Aside from me there are growing perceptions within the community that the Arbcom has too much power and its getting more as time goes by so not allowing an appellate review process of their decisions is not a very good one. With that said, Jimbo has a mostly non interference policy so the process of appealing to him on an Arbcom ruling is largely symbolic and rarely if ever used so I don't think it will change anything as it exists today. Kumioko (talk) 10:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

While aiming for perfection is good, it would be useful to bear in mind that there is no fault-free system of justice in any organization anywhere. Despite all the layers of safety and appeals, the real world has many examples of innocent people being locked up for years, and many more of guilty people going free. Given that Arbcom is a system of arbitration concerning disputes among volunteers at a website, occasional bad decisions (if they occur) might be the best result achievable, and might be much better than adding more layers of appeal, with bitter rehashing of tired arguments. I think the appeal to Jimbo is a reasonable and low-cost mechanism, but anything more formal would not be helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 11:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• I think the current situation is about as good as it can get. Having Jimmy keep a last appeal is an important safety valve, and Jimmy being extremely deliberate in when he uses it is exactly what you'd expect: you'll note he his adamant about anyone being allowed to petition for his intervention at any time, yet he only very rarely opines (and almost never acts).

  Jimmy can correct me here if I'm mistaken, but by experience I know he works from the presumption that ArbCom is probably correct on the substance, and his two primary concerns are "could we be more compassionate?" and "did we do the best we could?"; and those are exactly the kind of oversights that are genuinely useful to have. I don't know about anybody else, but I wouldn't want someone who simply substituted his opinion for ArbCom's; nor would I want anyone left with nobody to hear their grievances if they feel ArbCom itself has been unfair or malicious. — Coren ^(talk) 13:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Agree with Johnuniq above. As Churchill once said, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried." Of course, ArbCom/etc can always get better, but I'm not sure if a more formal appeals process is the best route; if you look at the US court system, with its endless appeals all the way up to the supreme court, do we really want to replicate the sort of thing a nation state has for a simple website? So many websites are run simply by fiat, with moderators having essentially dictatorial power. The fact that there are two layers above admin discretion (+ dozens of other fora and dispute resolution mechanisms) is much more than any major community website I know of.--KarlB (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Agree with Jimbo, some form of appeal is good to have, even if rarely exercised. I think its a bad idea to remove it without some proposed and vetted replacement. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy (unless you count all of our methods, boards and processes) and as such, there needs to be a final place to appeal, one last bit of hope, where the bureaucracy truly ends. At this time, Jimmy is that that end point. Until we have established another, I see no reason to remove what has worked up until now. As it sounds like Jimmy himself has the same goal as the initiating party, but with an actual plan, I would defer to him and allow a replacement to be formed and allow a transition process to take place. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with the above comments that the right of appeal to Jimbo is not something that can be removed without being replaced. But the recent ArbCom case regarding User:Fæ gives a good illustration of why it is not good, in terms of transparency or confidence in the system, to have a single person make the call in last instance. A number of respected users seem to think that ArbCom has overstepped its remit by issuing a ban, and it looks like there is at least a prima facie case that they have done so. Fae can appeal to Jimbo, but faces a potential difficulty because Jimbo recently took the unusual step of banning Fae from his talkpage. It may well be that the claims being made on Fae's behalf are without merit. But, in that scenario, what is Jimbo to do? AFAIK, Jimbo has never trained as a judge. How can he find against Fae without creating the suspicion that he may not have looked objectively at the facts of the case? Formerip (talk) 02:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• The concept of "being trained as a judge" is extremely recent in history - in fact the idea that one must be trained formally in the law is quite recent - one of the US states still does not require it IIRC. States do not require "training" to become a Justice of the Peace. And the simple fact is that the running of this site gives Jimbo stronger insight as to what is needed here than any person with a JD could possibly have on a day-to-day basis. As for the powers of ArbCom - there is no doubt that it has the power to ban an editor - that is, in fact, one of its only powers. Collect (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Too many people are being too harshly treated already. Keeping the executive pardon is not unreasonable. I would suggest, however, specifically adding "or by office actions of the WMF", to indicate that they have that power (which I'm sure they do) and to help hint that appealing to them is not wrong. Wnt (talk) 12:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Jimbo is in principle willing to consider an argument from an editor that ArbCom got it wrong in some case. The problem you get when you get rid of that is that ArbCom itself is not capable of doing this. E.g. if you are under some editing restriction because ArbCom found that you did something wrong, but you (partially) disagree with that finding, you are expected to drop that matter, move on and only at the time that ArbCom has stipulated, are you allowed to "appeal". You can then can you ask for the restriction to be lifted. However, this is then not a real "appeal", you are expected to have accepted the previous ArbCom findings and show why the restrictions can be lifted. What you cannot do is start an argument about why ArbCom got it wrong, so it is actually a delayed guilty plea in exchange for a sentence of "time served" rather than an appeal to overturn the original verdict. Count Iblis (talk) 03:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Minimum contributions history for commenting at arbcom cases

Given that a number of recent arbitration cases have seen prolific contributions from previously unknown editors, I propose that the following minimum requirements be established for commenting at arbcom cases:

• Editors wishing to comment at an arbitration case should have been Wikipedia editors for three months and made at least 200 mainspace edits at the time the request for arbitration was filed.
• Editors who are themselves parties to an arbitration case are exempt from this requirement.
• Editors who have a close relationship to one of the parties (spouse, partner, parent, close friend etc.) are also exempt from this requirement, provided the relationship is openly disclosed in the arbitration case pages.
• Editors who do not fulfil the minimum requirements are entitled to request special permission to participate from the arbitration committee. Such permission will usually be granted if there is evidence of good-faith prior involvement in the topic area subject to arbitration.

This is to prevent people joining the peanut gallery just for the drama, and then disappearing again. --JN466 16:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure this criterion would have stopped Chester Markel. Mathsci (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support As is, any number of IPs can contribute evidence to cases, with no worries of their being identification as sockpuppets. It corrupts the process. I don't know where the bar needs to be placed to prevent this sort of corruption, but the bar needs to be placed. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Any disruptive behavior can be dealt with on a case by case basis.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

  Well, it can be, but generally it's not. That's somewhat a bug of the Arbcom clerking system, I think - clerks are given some limited remit to keep order, but are often hesitant to do much with conversations that are already spinning or with heavily-invested-in-the-case editors; arbs are less hesitant to take significant actions, but usually don't because they figure the clerks are there for that; and thus we find ourselves watching a free-for-all on a case talk and wondering why nobody is doing anything about it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Then it's a matter for ArbCom to handle. I imagine that Risker did not have a clerk do it because then it's a committee matter. But I think we should wait and see if they want to ask the community for this.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Fluffernutter is right. Also, the clerks have been quite undermanned for some time, and I'll freely admit that I do not follow every discussion on cases that I'm clerking. NW (Talk) 19:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with Wehwalt. You should have a minimum to get elected but not for discussions. Kumioko (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Please give me an example of a scenario where it would makes sense to have a new account contribute to an arbitration case if that account is not a party, is not related to any party, has no prior relationship to the topic area, and is unable to convince arbcom by e-mail that they have some special insight to offer. --JN466 18:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose – Everyone should be free to speak up. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Including trolls? I remember one case where someone participated with two sockpuppets in a workshop, making extreme and diametrically opposed workshop proposals with each, and then had everybody argue, with both their sockpuppets joining in, going hammer and tongs at each other. JN466 18:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
    • That's an acceptable risk, in my opinion. I don't believe that we should sacrifice free speech for the sake of stopping trolls. We shouldn't behave like the governments sacrificing privacy for security. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Threshold is too arbitrary. Arbcom could address this issue by singling out a couple SPAs with a finding that their contributions to a case are not helpful and did not influence the arbitors. That may discourage it in the future without WP:CREEP. Monty₈₄₅ 17:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - A clear standard is better than arbitrary rulings. While the specifics of the threshold could be modified, I feel that the idea of a crystal clear standard avoid more problems than it might cause. -- Avanu (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• There's a longstanding precedent that alternate or throwaway accounts aren't to be used in ArbCom cases (or, ideally, in other project-space discussions). We could probably be a little more proactive about enforcing that precedent. But I don't really see the need for hard-and-fast criteria; I'm not convinced there are really very many gray areas, and any set of rules immediately creates an incentive for gamesmanship. MastCell ^Talk 18:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Can we just empower Clerks and Arbs to simply bar (as in prohibit participation, no need to get into block/ban territory) obvious single-purpose accounts when deemed necessary? I'm not sure if we need a specific layer of bureaucracy to solve this problem. Tarc (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Way too arbitrary. There's no obvious problem with SPA here anyway, but if a discussion gets a user to register an account we should welcome that development. Wikipedia NEEDS more new editors, and being involved in the process may convince them to stay and add other valuable contributions. Excluding these discussions to the established cliques will not help the project and likely harms its overall interests. T. trichiura Infect me 18:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: Horribly misguided. Is it being seriously suggested that while anyone can edit the actual articles and you're not supposed to, for example, pre-emptively protect blps, that people should have to meet special editing requirements to edit the internal soap opera pages??? The primary function of the Arbcom pages is to give somewhere for people to do all their non-productive screaming and shouting, play their silly little games of cops and robbers and judges, to hurl invective and cry persecution well away from anything that actually matters. To talk about such pages being disrupted is nonsensical. The only legitimate reason to ban someone from Arbcom is if they would otherwise be doing something useful.87.254.70.195 (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• This conversation is reminding me of something that was discussed at WP:A/R/M a while back. Does anyone remember when that was? NW (Talk) 19:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Here it is. It was discussed last August but didn't pass a Committee vote. NW (Talk) 19:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks. :) I knew it had been discussed before, but could not remember where, and whether it had petered out or been rejected. --JN466 19:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• • (edit conflict) I don't remember exactly when it was, but we (the arbitrators) did vote on a motion along these lines a few months back. I opposed the motion, because there are times that a relatively new editor could add valuable content or perspective to an arbitration page. (I contributed on the arbitration pages as a relatively newbie myself, when I was starting out.) That being said, there is a difference between a new editor who posts a few comments on a case, which I think is fine, and a new editor who posts dozens of comments on a case, thereby in the process becoming the most active contributor to the talkpage for that case, while saying relatively little that provides helpful input to the parties or the arbitrators. Editors falling in the latter category, at a minimum, should be asked to step away from the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't believe this is an issue limited to new editors; if any editor posts dozens of comments while saying relatively little, it may be worthwhile to encourage them to reduce their contributions. isaacl (talk) 00:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Perhaps it would be sufficient to post "advice to editors who do not have substantial mainspace experience" in the form of (first draft) Any editor is free to post comments in a section set aside for that purpose. It is, however, improper to engage in any extensive colloquy other than presentation of your own succinct comments and discussion thereof, unless you wish to be possibly considered "involved" in the proceeding at hand. The possibility of the "new editor" thus being "involved" would, with any luck, dissuade some of the Minerva's who have appeared. Collect (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I strongly oppose the block of User:NewtonGeek for the stated rationale of too few contributions in mainspace. However, if you are going to make a practice of sending editors straight from the new account signup to the permanent-banned-by-ArbCom status, then you might as well not do it completely by surprise without written policy. I would suggest that the new policy contain a provision that a new editor gets at least one warning to shut up and go away before the lifetime block. Wnt (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

As I hope should be obvious by now, there are issues concerning NewtonGeek beyond the number and location of his contributions. That is all I want to say here about that. This thread will be more productive if focused on the broader issue. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm concerned about the unintended consequences of such a change. Would clerks now have to investigate every editor who comments, to check that they meet the qualifications? If yes, would a clerk just remove the comment? I feel such a process could lead to more drama than is necessary. Now, it's not only for editors who are patently uncivil or vicious in their comments, but anyone falling under an arbitrary bar. So, I'm not opposed to some rule, but it definitely needs to be fleshed out far better before it ever is implemented. -- Lord Roem (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose And admonish User:Jayen466 for potentially assisting (presumably inadvertently) in a whitewash. I agree with what Brad states above, this is clearly in response to a screw up by Risker - and that broader issues are relevant. However they have only become relevant because of the utter incompetence Risker has exhibited that has now spread over multiple pages; hence promoting this thread. This kind of proposal is not the solution and an alternative venue is better to discuss the issues of disruption - notwithstanding that we already have many options available rather than WP:BLOCKperICAN However let's be honest with ourselves for once - the reason this thread is here is the utter failure of a member of ARBCOM whose integrity is in tatters and reputation destroyed. There's a simple solution here to solving that part of the problem. Will Risker take it? I doubt it. Maybe she will be honest enough to herself and Wikipedia and prove me wrong. Pedro :  Chat  22:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, because the only thing that should matter are the arguments that are put forward in discussions. It should not matter for the ArbCom case if all participants were to be anonymized e.g. by being assigned usernames like ArbCom_Participant_1, ArbCom_Participant_2 etc. etc., and no one knew what ArbCom_participant_j's regular username for each j is. Count Iblis (talk) 02:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • In an ideal world, you're completely correct. We don't, unfortunately, live in such a world. Jclemens (talk) 06:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Hmm, it could actually work. If a bunch of such accounts were made and then people petitioned to be able to comment in a Arbcom case, they would be emailed the password for a random numbered account. Then, once the case is over, the passwords of the accounts would be scrambled. It could actually work, it would just require some effort and organization. Silverseren^C 07:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes, technically it could indeed work but this is one of the most sinister proposals I've recently heard. Given the existing propensity in ArbCom cases for drama and on occasion character assassination, I'm startled that anyone could possibly imagine that evidence and workshop proposals from masked and cowled participants would actually make matters better. Remember that's how Star Chamber started: with anonymous written witness statements.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose the use of blunt instruments. Penyulap ☏ 07:06, 22 Jul 2012 (UTC)
• Comment The proposal relies on an impression. As with any impression, it could be right or wrong. But it seems that a better basis for such a proposal would be after study from people intimately familiar with multiple proceedings over time (former respected arbs/clerks?) who gather evidence from "recent proceedings", and who gather statements on means of enforcement from people who have to enforce. Then the remedy can be fashioned that meets the needs and can be vetted by the community on the basis of the evidence collected. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not convinced I had 200 mainspace edits (and if I did, half of them probably just corrected my own bad markup) at the time of the Ottava Rima case. Ottava actually accused me of being a SPA/previously banned editor/alt account because of that. I think - as others have said - a rule is too rigid, one needs to look at the whole thing. If the contributions are helpful, keep them and support the new contributor to participate more widely in the encyclopaedia. If the contributions seem genuine but not particularly helpful, offer guidance and encourage wider participation as a new editor. If there is background (as there was with NewtonGeek) to suggest an alt account, returning banned editor, or some other problem, take action as appropriate. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as this is reactionary, biased from recent events, which dooms it from the beginning. As a community, we are already fully capable of separating the wheat from the chaff and raising the bar isn't going for further that goal. Incidentally, it might exclude worthwhile commentary as a side effect. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 14:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• In the discussion NW pointed to above, Thatcher says:

  Editors who are not involved in a dispute before arbitration and who nevertheless participate are in the same position as someone proffering an amicus brief to a court. (For involved I adopt the definition of either (1) a named party, or (2) have significant experience editing articles in the same topic area as the dispute, or (3) have significant experience interacting with the parties to the case.) Courts have the discretion to accept or refuse amicus participation and I do not think courts make a habit of accepting amicus briefs from individuals without standing or stake in the case other than wanting to be helpful.

  and suggests we leave it up to the arbitrators to allow or disallow amicus involvement, on each case's merits. I understand the desire to precisely define a priori criteria for amicus involvement but, as others have pointed out here and in that earlier discussion, arbitrary, precise criteria are too prescriptive. Thatcher's three factors could form a guideline for arbitrators, who I think we can trust to judge whether an editor meets one of those criteria, or whether they want to hear from an editor who does not. Thatcher's full proposal is longer than this excerpt and in my opinion worth considering. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

NewtonGeek - Arbcom block

I see above that there is a discussion started by Jayen that is an attempt to not allow users like NewtonGeek to be involved in Arbcom discussions. Probably because of the information NewtonGeek has on Jayen and DracoEssentialis' actions. Anyways, I started a discussion on AN and was told to come here instead, so i'm just going to copy my comment from there.

I posted this elsewhere to allow Arbcom the opportunity to respond. I didn't expect a response and didn't get one, so here we are, as I planned to do anyways.

There was a discussion of privacy going on at the Fae case and I thought the parallels were interesting in relation to NewtonGeek's block. Of course, at least some of NG's privacy was already given away by Secretlondon way back when at the Factseducado SPI event. Now, it can't be confirmed whether the bureaucrat NG was in contact with was Secretlondon (unless Secretlondon would like to confirm it), but it can be highly assumed. Especially considering that, when asked by the bureaucrat whether certain information could be revealed in the SPI, NG said no, but then suddenly Secretlondon is at the SPI revealing said info anyways. Nice bureaucrats we have here.

Onto the current events regarding NG. It seems that because of the past information leak regarding NG and Factseducado, members of Wikipediocracy found out the real identity of NG and Factseducado (with later repeated leaking of information thanks to Jayen and DracoEssentialis not helping, though Elen fixed the leak Jayen had purposefully made). Around the same time frame as NG leaving Wikipediocracy, spam emails started arriving, computer viruses, and worse computer issues began happening, not to mention continued discussion on Wikipediocracy about NG's real identity and harassing comments. Thus, for the past few weeks, NG has been in email contact with Arbcom about the issues in relation to WO members and the continued referencing of personal information on Wikipediocracy (mostly because of Kohs and HRIP7).

Now, as for the block. The reasons are interesting. Trolling is the main one given, primarily because NG was advised to stop commenting on the Fae case, considering the involvement of certain Wikipediocracy members that then have a negative involvement with NG. But NG didn't stop commenting and NG didn't have to. NG had also found out a significant amount of information in relation to the harassment of Fae, including WO users looking for things to mock him for from his 1990's histories and the doxing of any account revealed to be related to him (which is likely why he doesn't want to reveal certain accounts publicly). There's no rule that NG had to stop being involved anyways without being ordered to and Arbcom could have quite easily just kicked NG specifically out of the talk page if they wanted to. Instead, they indefinitely blocked NG. Now, ignoring the block reason and all the stuff before it became an Arbcom block, that's all a sideshow, why exactly was NG blocked? Because "trolling" definitely doesn't fall under Arbcom block standards. I'm sure someone will bring up checkuser data, as was commented on at the ANI discussion. But this must be wrong! Because the results of a checkuser are already well known, in fact, that is related to the private information that was leaked. The relationship between NewtonGeek and Factseducado are well, well known and were already discussed far in the past. So what checkuser data could there possibly be? If there was socking issues, that would have been pointed out, but it wasn't.

So, what exactly is the background for such a block? "Trolling and competency"? As has been pointed out by multiple users, NG was one of the most coherent commenters on this talk page, making very pointed and accurate comments. and being a rather good help to revealing the harassment campaign against Fae. And, regardless, neither of the listed reasons fall under an Arbcom block at all, so it should be up to the community on whether the block is kept. So what really is going on here?" Silverseren^C 01:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

When you were younger, did anyone ever tell you "no"? How about sporting events? Were you ever involved in anything where there were winners and losers? From the evidence supplied, I suspect not.101.118.54.191 (talk) 04:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Kohs/Tarc/whomever you are. Silverseren^C 05:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and the answer to your question is tennis. Silverseren^C 05:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Lolwut? When have I ever been suspected of editing via IP...or really, why would I ever have a need to? My own voice and account work just fine. As a wise man once said, "check yo self". Tarc (talk) 14:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Silverscreen, Factseducado was blocked initially due to accusations made toward me, yet Newton Geek has emailed me a number of times, evidenced by YGM templates on my talk page, and practically befriended me (check contribs). With what you already know, this might seem a bit odd, would it not? Noteworthy, at a minimum, particularly considering comments regarding me on other websites you mention. I don't have have the same info that ArbCom has and due to privacy concerns I won't detail what little info I do have, but I know there is much more here than meets the eye. There are a number of underlying issues that could easily justify an ArbCom block yet still have to be covered by our privacy policy. I don't expect I will ever have all the details unless Newton Geek emails me his perspective again, which oddly enough, he hasn't since the block. I have no problem with someone raising concerns here, but I can tell you from my own experience it is more complicated than can be disclosed, and while the initial block rationale is troutworthy, I am willing to bet that a block was justified for other reasons. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 14:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I suspect it's justified too. But I'd like to see more transparency on this, and also suggest that to avoid misunderstandings in future, it might be best for arbs to refer similar matters to some unconnected admin. That might avoid side issues, like this. Mind, I'm not saying anything inappropriate was done, but if it was a nonarb who issued the block, it might be simpler and certainly less dramatic.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Or if Arb is going to claim ownership and make it based on undisclosed info, be clear about that to begin with. I won't beat up on Risker, who has already been dragged around enough for the bad form on the block, but the delay before Arb came out and officially put their brand on it tells me there was some facepalming and scrambling going on. Likely, her compatriots were not thrilled as it reflected badly on the committee as a whole. Still, my confidence that a block was warranted is quite high. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 16:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought the block was long overdue and admonish Risker for her tardiness. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, yes, I also think it would have been better to declare it as an ArbCom block right away; it would have cut down on the drama threads. --Rschen7754 19:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

... and a day's delay from ArbCom is nothing short of astoundingly fast speed, given that we're globally dispersed and try to work by consensus. That's why we have specific emergency procedures for things like rouge sysadmins which have a much lower threshold for action. Nothing about clarifying or revising the stated purpose for a block was an emergency, so normal consensus procedures applied. Jclemens (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

@Dennis: NewtonGeek won't be able to email you ever again, since their talk page access and emailing capabilities were removed. So, unless you responded to one of those emails, giving them the capability to them talk with you outside of the Wikipedia email system, there's no current way for them to contact you at all.

I don't see anything at all that is blockable, unless you blocked NG for sending those emails about Wikipediocracy members. If you blocked for those accusations, then say that, though I still don't see how that would fit under an Arbcom block at all. Actually...I have the feeling that it has to have been for that, since "trolling and competence" is so far outside the range of what you guys do. Is this because of those emails? Is it because you guys didn't like the evidence that NG was finding on Wikipediocracy members, including some still editing Wikipedia members who post over there? Silverseren^C 20:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• The more I've followed this thing, the more confusing it has become. I do not share SilverSeren's perspective at all. I did not, however, see anything disruptive in NewtonGeek's public/onsite comments on the Fae case pages, although what I've seen on their user talk has been utterly bizarre. I would really like the Arbs to give some thought to providing a more informative explanation of the reasons for the block, even if a great deal of it has to be redacted, in order to help the community have confidence in the block decision. I realize that it will be a bit challenging to explain while holding much of the information in private, but I am pretty confident that you will be capable of doing so. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• I should add as my own explanation to Tryptofish, NewtonGeek has been emailing Arbcom for weeks involving the harassment from Wikipediocracy members against them. NG has also been emailing regarding the Fae case and the evidence NG was able to dig up about the harassment campaign against Fae. And NG found a lot. I'm still amazed that Delicious Carbuncle got off pretty much scot-free considering the other things he was doing which, sadly, wasn't presented in the case, but that Arbcom should know about because of NG's emails. Though I suppose Arbcom doesn't have to worry about that because, since the information isn't public, they can pretend it doesn't exist. Silverseren^C 21:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, only the 'emailing Arbcom for weeks' part is true. NG named no names as to who might be trolling them, nor did they provide any new evidence about the harrassment of Fae (they did point to a sock editing the case at one point) Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh right, I forgot about that no naming thing. Huh, well NG has a lot of evidence on DC, too bad it wasn't presented in the case. I dispute the no new evidence about the harassment though, there's a lot of things that I don't remember being pointed out in the case. Maybe someone did and everyone else ignored it.

And, away from the side track. So, Elen, why was NewtonGeek blocked? Silverseren^C 21:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you ever clicked on one of those links that claim to tell you how to "lose 2lbs of belly fat a day", "have teeth like the Hollywood stars", "beat wrinkles using this mum's tip" or whatever? And 20 pages later found that you're no wiser about the flat tum, white teeth or wrinkles, but you've somehow arrived at a page asking you to donate to a Mrs Ann Elk, founder of the First Church of Scientific Dieting? Well, the whole experience was a bit like that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Rather than using a metaphor, you could just say that you think NewtonGeek was lying. So, was that what the block was for, what you think to be lying? Silverseren^C 22:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think he was lying - I think he was trolling. And from the sounds of it, he was trolling you as well as us guys. He said he had all this marvellous evidence - screenshots, pdfs, 24 glossy photos with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back..... But he never presented any of it. He did keep emailing, initially a lot of requests to have the information that Factseducado was his wife removed from Wikipedia (he was apparently in contact with Larry Sanger to get it removed from Wikipediocracy, despite the fact that his wife was the one who posted it there) but the last dozen emails had only a lot of words and no actual content. A number of my colleagues are convinced that NG and Facts are the same person, and I suppose User:ItsLassieTime managed to create multiple personas quite effectively, but I can't make up my mind. If they are not the same person, it seems very odd that Facts was convinced to the point of martyrdom that Dennis Brown was sending her abusive emails, while NewtonGeek went out of his way to cultivate Dennis, and said it was Wikipediocracy members who were sending abusive emails, even though the alleged abuse started before they apparently had any connection with Wikipediocracy. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

And considering Factseducado's claim about me personally, um no, I didn't ever reply via email and answered on wiki instead. I did nothing but treat him with honest respect here, but that doesn't mean my memory had failed me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 21:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Was just letting you know why there probably haven't been further emails. Silverseren^C 21:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Silver seren, we just finished a case where the Arbs went through the evidence that was presented on-wiki. I know that SilkTork, for one, spent a lot of time going through various WR threads. I am sure that they were the recipients of evidence via email, but I have no way of knowing what those emails contained. If you think NewtonGeek had some evidence that was not considered, please post it here. I'm giving you my permission to post whatever allegations you like, because I am curious what misinformation is being spread about me. Otherwise, I will expect you to stop making statements like "Delicious Carbuncle got off pretty much scot-free considering the other things he was doing which, sadly, wasn't presented in the case". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, the moderating team at the BADSITE had to show this person (or people, perhaps) the door because he/she/they were flooding the place with massive amounts of off-topic (or at best tangential) material that got in the way of our (perhaps futile) attempts to try to have serious critical discussions about Wikipedia (which is what we want the site to be about). Any phenomenon worth talking about will have critics, defenders, and (apparently) people who just like to talk in circles. It's really just a matter of how high you put the signal:noise ratio on the priority list. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 23:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Hm. They told me (personally) that they had left Wikipediocracy because they were being subject to harrassment by Wikipediocracy members who were threatening their personal safety, and they were talking to Larry Sanger about getting all the information they had posted there removed to ensure their personal safety. Am I correct in interpreting what you are saying as that The Wife and In the Gulag were blocked by Wikipediocracy? Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Yes, their posting privileges have been revoked. I don't even know what to say about the other stuff. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 00:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Nor do I - really strange stuff Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

New section then

To make this easier.

@Elen: I think you need to consult with the other arbs, because NewtonGeek did send an email regarding DC specifically. NG unfortunately didn't send it during the case, but NG did before being blocked. Check with Roger Davies.

@Arbcom: Let's keep this simple with some questions for you to answer.

Did NewtonGeek ever ask any of you if it would be allowed if they passed on new evidence pertaining to the case? What was the exact reply given to NG by Arbcom? If any of you were asked specifically, did you not respond to the question?

@Delicious Carbuncle: I'll keep this simple too. Did you ever mention an image by von Gloeden anywhere? Silverseren^C 00:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

@Elen again: "They told me (personally) that they had left Wikipediocracy because they were being subject to harrassment by Wikipediocracy members who were threatening their personal safety" This sentence appears to be completely incorrect. I think you need to re-read the emails. Maybe you interpreted this or something, but it was never said. Silverseren^C 00:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Silver - how on earth do you know what he ACTUALLY sent to any of us. Sent you what he claimed to be copies, did he? Can't you just accept you've been rickrolled. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

So essentially you're going to divert the subject and belittle the person that can't respond. Um, Elen, I have no reason to believe you more. Silverseren^C 00:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I have been...or was, a few weeks ago...in contact with them both, and in that correspondence are assertions similar to what Elen noted above. What reason do you have to declare that people are being untruthful here? Tarc (talk) 01:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Quite. The chap told me he'd sent all this marvellous evidence to NYB. He obviously told Silver he sent it to Roger Davies. He kept this up from the 30 June to when Risker blocked him, variously telling people he had given evidence to other people while emailing still other people and asking what evidence he could submit. It was only when we compared notes that we realised what he had been doing. There was no 'evidence'. He repeated a few bits of gossip on Wikipediocracy that everyone already knew is all. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I did mention an image by Wilhelm von Gloeden, which I'm sure you already know. A search on WR turns up three results: one in relation to the image that was on Ash's userpage, one in a thread I started about von Gloeden's images on Commons, and another thread that remarked on removals of images from our article on von Gloeden. The image which was on Ash's page was discussed on SilkTork's talkpage during the case. Now that we've established that, what is it you and/or NewtonGeek are accusing me of? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Seren; I think you are fighting for the wrong side here. I was subjected to this individuals behaviour; they claimed all sorts of things including levelling accusations, what looked like threats to call my employer etc. I humoured them at one point and gave them my (emminently public) email address to have a "rabbi" and "police officer" contact me about how awfully bad I was. But nothing surfaced (although my work email did get a strange anonymous trolling mail that made various related accusations, I think assuming it was by bosses address - I'm not sure if it is connected, but it is something of a coincidence). In the end I think it is clear; this is an accomplished troll with one aim; disruption and lulz. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, also; are you in touch with this person? If so be very very careful. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Seren has a habit of making bald statements that he is either unable to back up, or turns out to be based on mistaken facts, he then tends to slinks off with tail between his legs when challenged. So don't be surprised if he doesn't respond with any alacrity. John lilburne (talk) 09:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Now now. He does always genuinely seem to believe there has been an injustice, and it is important for him to speak up for the silenced user. It's not fair to imply that it's all posturing. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't doubt his faith either, but if you look closely, these two blocked editors have pretty much said that every website they have become members of, someone has sent them harassing emails and threatened to out them. I'm not sure what the game is, if those two (or one person, perhaps) simply likes being the victim or is a rather elaborate and dedicated troll (my guess, on both counts). At some point, even someone with the best of faith has to declare "shenanigans" and move on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 14:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't doubt that he is sincere in his initial beliefs, just that he often grabs hold of the wrong end of the stick, and when challenged finds the foundations of his premises to be built on quicksand. John lilburne (talk) 15:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

proposal that will impact the arbcom mailing list

at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Time to do away with "no spam email" gimmick?. I have also added a note at the functionaries talk page, if anyone knows of any other lists out there that use the nospam thing please notify them. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Inactive arbitrators

The list on the page doesn't seem to have changed in nearly a year, & is misleading, whatever the rather convoluted definition. Johnbod (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi John-- what page are you referring to? The main WP:AC page shows the updated list of active vs. inactive arbs, and was updated just today. -- Lord Roem (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Updated today how? The page has not not changed since July 3. Hersfold and Sir Fozzie have been shown as "inactive" since 2011, but have been acting on cases. Johnbod (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I had thought that was pulled from something, not updated independently. I'll update it now. Thanks for the note! -- Lord Roem (talk) 23:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it appears I'm right. While WP:AC isn't regularly updated, Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Members is, and that's been updated recently. I hope this helps, Lord Roem (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Like you, I thought AC took it's data from AC/M. It ought to - it's horribly inefficient to have the same data in two places, because its inevitable that one list will be out of date. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

That is indeed the case; the listing on this page is just a transclusion from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Members, not a separate list. Hersfold and SirFozzie were only moved to the inactive list in the past couple of days, incidentally. Kirill ^[talk] 02:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, obviously this was not clear from the history on this page. I did check several rearlier dates, but I suppose transcluded sections only return the current text. It might be worth adding a small note explaining where the information comes from, as other pages do. Johnbod (talk) 09:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Basically the system of page transclusions and moves was set up some time ago and is now no longer fit for purpose, unless obfuscation is the purpose. In particular page history is thrown away, talk pages are condensed on one talk page, leading to great confusion, and process is constantly broken, regardless of the diligence of clerks. However only Arbs are allowed to make "motions" to change process so any suggestions for improvement tend to become lost due to the obfuscation under discussion. Rich Farmbrough, 02:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC).

Obfuscation never was and still is not the purpose, and attacking the clerks who decided to implement the transclusion to avoid having to update the same data in multiple places is plain silly. There are countless transclusions used in arbitration cases which all serve the sole and unique purpose of ensuring the most current data is displayed. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 08:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The unhelpfulness of having two different listings was noted a couple of years back and at that time, I believe one was set up as a transclusion of the other. Not sure why it changed back, but of course there should only be one list containing the most current available information. Thank you to Johnbod for pointing out the problem. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)