Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

cs interwiki request

Please remove cs interwiki cs:Wikipedie:Arbitrážní výbor from the header for WP:RFARB subpage to not connect Wikipedie:Arbitrážní výbor with WP:RFARB here.

There is mess in interwikis in between languages - they are not matching procedural steps in arbitration. Not just english wikipedia has different pages and subpages for individual procedural steps.

This particular header Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Header implements interwikis for request subpage. There is request subpage counterpart in czech Wikipedia (see), but this header (and so the WP:Arbitration/Requests page display it) is now containing interwiki for the main arbitration site (czech counterpart of WP:Arbitration). The interwiki for czech request arbitration page would be suitable here (cs:Wikipedie:Žádost o arbitráž) , however that interwiki is already present at the end of page body of WP:RFARB. It results in two different cs: interwikis being generated in the interwikis list in WP:Arbitration/Requests. From those two iws, the one in header (here) is the wrong one.

Sumed: I ask to remove cs:Wikipedie:Arbitrážní výbor interwiki from here. Or optionally to replace it here with cs:Wikipedie:Žádost o arbitráž (and clean then the ":cs:Wikipedie:Žádost o arbitráž" from WP:RFARB)

Note: It seems to me that the another interwikis here have the same problem, for they all go to the main arbitration sites of respective wikis, but I am not familiar with their overall procedural structure there (they may or may not discriminate between WP:RFARB and WP:ARB like cs and en wikis do). --Reo ⁺ 10:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done, your latter option. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank You Martin. So I did follow You and did remove the remaining cs:Wikipedie:Žádost o arbitráž interwiki from WP:RFARB body.

Now I am sure that the :es: interwikis are in the same situation like the cs interwikis were. Here in the header is interwiki pointing to WP:ARB, at the same time the correct one for WP:RFARB is simultaneously at the bottom of the WP:RFARB.

Moreover there are two more iws, the azerbaijany and Russian iw's. They should be here in the header as well. Sorry for bothering again. And thank You. (I just came to solve the cs, but, seeing this, it's better fix all)

So the es: should be replaced here, and other two moved from WP:RFARB to WP:RFARB/Header --Reo ⁺ 14:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You're confusing me. There is already an ru interwiki in the header. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Ha, ha, ha, yes, it is confusing ;) But now it is still much better then before, thank you. Basically the confusion is why we are here. There was quite a mess. The only remaining part, where I can navigate are those two :ru: interwikis. Of those two - the [[ru:Википедия:Арбитражный комитет]] does not belong here, it belongs to WP:ARB.

After some time, it will need some update, becouse we will see what the interwiki robots will do with it on the other sites (as it was this way, there was bot confusion cross-languages, confusion between wp:ARB and wp:RFARB in all languages) Reo ⁺ 18:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I've lowered the protection so you should be able to maintain these interwikis yourself now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I will do just few languages per day. It is quite difficult. Going through googletranslate (with and without translations) and I need to follow rather more links coming fromthose pages to verify that I interpreted the meaning of those pages pretty well.

• One note to slowenian case. It seems that they had one before, but due to their internal processes they modified it to mediation process - they renamed the page and deleted the link. Google translation of the deletion log. Reo ⁺ 11:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

FT2

I note that FT2 is still active on cases. Is this right and proper as it now seems his fair and legitimate election to the Arbcom is in doubt. Giano (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Who cares? This really is pointless shit stirring. Giano, this is becoming boring now. If you really want to measure community support for this crusade opening an RFC would be helpful. Absent that why don't you just do something useful instead of instigating further tiresome drama? Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to RFC about. It happened - fact. I and many others want to know what the result is going to be. Or are all elections to the Arbcom going to be tampered with by pet check-users with oversight rights? FT2, Gerard and the Arbcom have had long enought to decide what they want to say in a statement about this. They can be very speedy when it suits them. This is not going to go away.Giano (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, Giano, let it go. Your conspiracy-mongering about the elections being rigged by "pet checkusers with oversight rights" is baseless, tendentious, and ludicrous. By now, we all know that you cannot stand the concept of the Arbitration committee, and unless you were able to personally pick every member of the committee you would consider them illegitimate. That's not going to happen, so let it go. Horologium (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The "conspiracy" has been confirmed: David Gerard oversighted diffs, in violation of the oversight policy, that were being used as a reason to oppose FT2's candidacy. Now, whether that actually had an effect on the outcome is unknown, but it's more than "pointless shit-stirring" or "conspiracy-mongering". --NE2 21:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

If this had been an issue during the election, it wouldn't have taken a year for it to become an item for discussion, and as FT2 had a net positive of 231 votes in support, it doesn't appear that it makes much of a difference. (Only NYB had a higher net positive, by a large margin.) As for the confirmation of diffs being oversighted, could you provide me with a link to such a statement? (Not snark, but I have seen accusations, but no confirmation; however, since I don't spend a lot of time at Drama Central, I might well have missed such a confirmation.) Horologium (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It probably would have come "out in the open" earlier had it not been forcibly hidden. If I remember correctly, several people were blocked or banned for bringing it up, creating a chilling effect. --NE2 00:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Look Giano, why don't we just cut to the chase. Say I volunteer for some offensive comments from you (make them funny enough and I'll put them in a userbox), then you can feel vindicated and we can all do something useful. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Spartaz, a person's edit record is all we have to go on when choosing an arbcom candidate. FT2's edit record was falsified, during an election to aid his candidacy. And you say; "Who cares?". I certainly do. What the hell do we even have elections for if this crap is allowed to stand? --Duk 23:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Then open an RFC and get concensus from the community about the matter. What does this thread achieve? Nothing. A definitiave view from the community would clearly resolve this either way - total condemnation than FT2 resigns, total support then they are safe. And, shhh, you are ruining my chance of a memorable userbox. Giano's insults are to be treasured. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, an RFC is the way to go. Complaining on here, while I can understand the reasoning, isn't getting anyone anywhere. – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

An RFC would absolutely be appropriate. In any case, Giano is using the talk page to air grievances (instead of the RFAr page), a tactic which was rather strongly discouraged in a recent arbitration case. Follow the proper procedures to address abuse of power, rather than abuse process by flinging accusations in non-relevant fora. Horologium (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

How can you have an RFC where the evidence has all been censored from the site, and where the person responsible for bringing it to light, an editor with five years of good work on Wikipedia, is currently banned for his efforts to to address this. Horologium, Spartaz, do you two actually have any idea what's going on here? Asking for an RFC is just another delay tactic. --Duk 01:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

<--I'm looking for accountability in the use of oversight. That means acknowledging that there is a problem and applying the appropriate remedy. I do not advocate David Gerard losing his oversight permission over a single mistake, that is for Arbcom to decide. Arbcom hands out oversight permission and only Arbcom can determine what sorts of mistakes, if any, warrant its removal. As long as they grant the power, they must accept responsibility to oversee the use of the power. (If Arbcom really wants an RFC to determine community sentiment about oversight, they should really just make granting and revoking oversight subject to a public vote and take themselves out of it entirely.) Damian's block is complicated but it has nothing to do with his efforts to expose the oversighted edits. Thatcher 02:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there should be accountability concerning the oversight tool. I'd like to see the ArbCom release a statement saying that they've looked into the allegation that Gerard misused the oversight tool and either clear Gerard of wrongdoing or take appropriate action. Perhaps someone needs to open a formal request? Cla68 (talk) 02:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Cla, I agree with you, and Thatcher partially. But I'd like to add, if this isn't a case for action then what is? The delay tactics are only making it worse. Thatcher, you say I do not advocate David Gerard losing his oversight permission over a single mistake. Why not? What's the big deal (besides giving the community a reason to believe in the arbcom)? Will losing oversight prevent Gerard from earning a living and supporting his family. Really, Thatcher, what's the big deal? Oversight isn't a status symbol, it's not a merit badge, it isn't a toy - if there's a problem then take it away. As far as a single mistake, I don't know that that is accurate. Do you, Thatcher? This is an admin who's behaved poorly in a great many ways for a long time. Also FT2 should be asked to run again this time around. I think it's very important for the community to see some responsible leadership and a just outcome here. --Duk 02:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to involve myself in the debate over what action should be taken. I know I would hate to lose my checkuser permission over a single mistake, but I also know that even a single mistake can be serious enough to warrant removal. And I don't know what other factors (if any) may be involved. It is up to Arbcom to decide what to do, and to explain it to the community. Thatcher 03:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec x 2!) Agree with Cla68 - having this floating around is bad for morale and all round feeling - it needs to get properly addressed, and RfC I think is the first port of call (as neutral). somewhere, as some sort of organised discussion and exoneration (or otherwise) of conduct is needed. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

An RfC would help get things going if the ArbCom isn't willing or able to address it right now. Cla68 (talk) 02:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this matter should be addressed promptly, but I don't see how an RfC can deal with non-public information. Would the oversighted edits be restored and the logs published? It seems like a decision is needed that no confidential or harmful personal information would be exposed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the community does not control oversight permission, I don't think an RFC will accomplish anything but ratchet up the drama level even further. Arbcom is already in possession of all the relevant facts, and if they are not, they know whom to talk to to get them. Thatcher 03:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, RfC's do often come off as free-for-alls, where anyone and everyone with an opinion is free to shout it out. An RfC, however, allows the community to provide formal input on an issue that goes into "the record". If ArbCom is willing and able to make an announcement in a reasonable amount of time on what their findings are in the inquiry they're presumably busy undertaking right now, then perhaps an RfC won't be necessary. Cla68 (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The thing is... there's nothing personally harmful in the edits, unless I (and many others) have been completely duped as to their content. I don't know if oversighters are allowed to even confirm the content without getting "fired", but at least that can be confirmed by someone trustworthy with an old database dump. As for the oversight summaries... that confirmation would have to come from an oversighter. --NE2 03:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

One cannot have an RFC when the whole topic is banned and the oversights remain in situ. That the oversight took place has been confirmed and is not in doubt. What is in doubt is how many more people ould have opposed FT2's candidcacy. Would he have been elected if the oversights had not taken place? We cannot know - so FT2 needs to resign. Gerard's actions may have altered the results of an election - he too needs to go. An election has to be sancrosanct. Giano (talk) 07:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

...but not so sacrosanct that one can't run a good-hand sockpuppet in the election? Giano, please, you're asserting a moral high ground here that you clearly do not occupy at the moment.

You made your point - the community is aware of the edits, the oversight, both people involved in that. Playing the martyr and demanding action is not morally consistent behavior here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for making that point for me, how quickly David Gerard can act when he choses in elections is interesting isn't it - and always to get a result that suits him. Giano (talk) 08:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

FT2 has replied to the accusations. There are more comments upcoming (from Jimbo for one, and more from FT2), but those throwing around accusations on talk pages everywhere already have some thinking to do. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Slimvirgin-Lar

A few weeks back I pointed out out that a case had been reported as closed with a sanction passing when there didn't seem to be enough supporting votes for that sanction to have passed. I expect this has been resolved one way or another but I'm a little concerned that the findings in that case seem to have been used as contributory factors in remedies in a later case. Does anyone know whether this situation was properly resolved? Thanks 92.39.200.36 (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks incorrect to me. Thatcher 19:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, Matthew Brown and Jpgordon don't seem to have bothered to have shown up at all even though they were listed as "active", so in reality the "active" number should probably be 9. There probably needs to be a better way to determine who's "inactive" and "active", though. 96.15.121.254 (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The arbitrators have a responsibility to declare if they intend to have nothing to do with a particular case. There is no precedent for the clerks to declare non-voting arbs as "inactive" or "recused" after X number of days of non-voting. Thatcher 19:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not suggesting a new standard be applied retroactively, but that going forward a better system might be more appropriate. It seems paradoxical to require some action to be be deemed "inactive" and no action to be deemed "active". Would the reverse not be better? Perhaps the arbitrators could demonstrate their active status by actually being active. As a first approximation those who vote to accept/decline a case, participate in workshop and/or vote could be deemed active, and the rest inactive. 96.15.121.254 (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

In response to Thatcher's comment that it "looks incorrect", almost everything about the case was "incorrect". It needs to be heard again, in the open this time.

Evidence was presented (and should be presented again in public)

1. that SlimVirgin went through private channels to no avail before the issue came to the mailing list, and that it wasn't she who brought it to the mailing list in the first place;[1]
2. that Lar received an email from me saying that I couldn't see how the check was justified (and none saying that it was), but then went ahead and posted on the private CU mailing list that I had admitted to him that it was justified;[2]
3. that Lar justified his passing on of my personal information to his wife by claiming that his wife had had a history of communication with me and a role of offering me advice and counsel, based on statements I had made to both of them,[3] when in fact I had had ZERO encounter with her and had never sent her a message or received one from her.

They cannot abuse the "need for privacy" by pretending that this evidence did not exist. They have forced me to out myself, by ignoring my private requests for clarification, and by using my privacy as a pretext for not dealing with the case on-wiki. Okay. I have outed myself. Sometimes doing the right thing is more important keeping safe. There's no longer any pretext to hush it up. Let's have the truth! ElinorD (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I feel in an awkward position here. On the one hand, I want to take the desysopping on the chin, because doing otherwise is somewhat cheesy. On the other hand, if this had happened to anyone else, I'd be speaking up for them.

My concern is basically that the Lar case was a real mess. Evidence was heard in private and was kept back even from the parties so that none of us knew what was being said. We couldn't check that other evidence submitted was accurate, and no "cross examination" could take place. Then FT2 posted a decision about me that was factually incorrect. My recollection is he said I hadn't taken any dispute-resolution steps other than to write to the mailing list — but I had and I also hadn't started the mailing list thread. I wrote to him correcting it. He didn't respond, and so far as I know didn't correct the finding. I tried to post a defence of myself on the talk page, but it was removed, as were comments from other editors who'd expressed concern, and the talk page was protected.

I gave up, because my faith in ArbCom was at an all-time low, and I decided just to let the findings stand and try to ignore the whole thing. I didn't even look to see whether it had been closed properly; I'm now concerned to read above that it wasn't.

Because FT2 used that case a few weeks later as the backdrop to his arguments to desysop me, and because he himself wrote the inaccurate finding, I'm starting to think it ought to be reheard in public. I don't think anyone who saw all the evidence would agree that it was handled fairly or appropriately. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 21:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

There are too many flaws in how this was handled for any result to be recognized as legitimate. Direct questions were never answered; some of the arbs misused the result in the recent de-sysop; and now the closing was done improperly? Sorry, not a huge surprise. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin - as stated, your logic here is incorrect. When considering a case, the question "was warning given to change, and that warning apparently ignored" is relevant. It was - in a remarkable and highly unusual four separate arbcom cases. It is not necessary to re-open the cases, and re-open the decision-making in them, to ascertain "was the user told formally that their conduct was seriously substandard and needed improvement". You have been told this on 4 occasions now. The conclusion is, telling alone was insufficient. Apparently the sitting committee felt that too, since they decided upon the remedies they did. You've had this concept explained several times; I'm happy to keep on explaining it if you cannot fathom the idea yet.

As for interpretation of what is likely, possible, probably, and appropriate going forward in the SV-Lar case, as I think I've said, we may need to agree to differ. If problems recur, we would of course reassess with this case in mind, but if they don't, it's more likely historical. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me which sentence from which email (you've seen them all) from me to Lar admitted that the CU was justified. Not only did I not say that, but I said the opposite. And he didn't post just that he believed I accepted the check, but he said specifically that I had admitted to him that it was justified. If you refuse to point out the relevant sentence, please admit that you and the other arbs know that Lar's claims (on the private CU list which he knew I couldn't access) were untruthful, and that you don't have a problem leaving untruthful people in a position of access to extremely confidential and sensitive information.

When you have answered that, please state whether or not SlimVirgin submitted evidence that she had tried private resolution to no avail before going public (and that in any case it was David Katz, not she, who brought it to the mailing list), and whether, in that case, the public findings that state or imply the contrary are inaccurate and unjust.

Those two questions are so simple. Can you answer them? ElinorD (talk) 12:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think a lot of people are happy to be rid of that case. I didn't follow it but I think it ran for a long time. If so, why didn't you present your evidence then? --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The case was to be heard "in private". So I presented my evidence in private, to the committee. I couldn't have known that they were going to ignore it. When I tried publicly requesting explanations for Lar's false statements, finally realising that the committee intended to pass over them, I got criticised for doing so when Lar couldn't answer because he was protecting my privacy. (He could have answered by private email, which I had originally requested.) Then I waived my privacy, as did the other two affected editors. There were still no answers. The case closed, and I wrote to the committee asking that since they had chosen not to address the issues of Lar's false statements, they would please inform me of which parts of the evidence had made them satisfied that the statements were not false. I got a reply back from James Forrester, saying that they were still discussing it and that hopefully I'd get a reply within a day or two. That was a month ago, and I have heard nothing since. ElinorD (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Experienced users will note that the only other things most will ever submit "in private" are their secret board-vote ballots. At least for that one gets some form of encrypted receipt to confirm that their vote is being counted. Here, nothing. — CharlotteWebb 18:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If there was a clerical mistake, then clearly it should be corrected. Otherwise, I would simply ask the committee to settle these claims, which continue to be brought across multiple forums. I assume that the committee did not ignore ElinorD's contentions, but heard them and considered whether they warranted a finding. All the same, it seems that something is needed to clarify whether editors should continue to argue these points, or if in fact the claims have now exhausted Wikipedia's final stage of dispute resolution. Until that happens, I will note that the merits of these claims were most recently discussed here. Mackan79 (talk) 08:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

On what grounds do you assume that the committee "did not ignore [my] contentions"? Do you really think that I would be raising it in public like this if they had answered my e-mails. Before I went public as Wikitumnus, I wrote and begged them not to put me in the position of attracting unwanted attention, but pointed out that the findings were inaccurate and unjust and that I would be obliged to come forward if they left them to stand. I got no answer. I've been forced to out myself, but I went into this with my eyes open, so perhaps people could now stop claiming that answers can't be given because they're "protecting [my] privacy" - as if they couldn't have answered in private, which was what I originally requested. ElinorD (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I assume it basically because if ArbCom doesn't review evidence that is submitted to it, even after it was requested, then a new case won't be of much benefit anyway. One thing I don't question is that ArbCom is uncoordinated and ineffective when it comes to communication, and in fact I think they should have done much more to address your concerns for your benefit and for others'. The failure to do so is in my view careless and irresponsible. However, that doesn't make your claims correct. Incidentally, I would still appreciate the ability to email you about this as I believe your actions here are unfair to others in ways that you do not realize but which are much better discussed by email. Mackan79 (talk) 09:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought the response for most of this, as before, was "asked and answered" [4]. Cla68 (talk) 08:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

No Cla, it was not. Nowhere does Newyorkbrad deal with the issue of Lar lying to his fellow CUs by stating that I had admitted to him that the check was justified, when I had said exactly the opposite. I asked for clarification from the committee in private emails. No attempt has been made to explain it. If I really did say that to him, or if I really said something that could have been misinterpreted that way as an honest error, they'd find it easy (as would Lar) to identify the relevant sentence and point it out to me. Cla, do *you* think Newyorkbrad has dealt with the issue of Lar lying about my views on the check? If not, do you think that he (or someone else) *should*? If a CU carries out a check which other CUs find somewhat iffy (to say the least), receives an email from the affected editor saying that she doesn't see how the check could be justified, then posts in response to questions on the private CU list that the affected editor admitted to him that the CU was justified, is that or is that not a problem? ElinorD (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

NYB said in his comments, "My review of the correspondence reflects that this is not a matter of lies by one side or the other, as some have characterized it, but comes down primarily to a matter of miscommunications—regrettable, but not venal; unfortunate, but not actionable." Cla68 (talk) 01:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I have seen that, Cla, and do not feel it deals at all with the issue. And I might gently suggest that if SlimVirgin, rather than Lar, were the one whose honesty was being questioned, you would certainly not accept Newyorkbrad's unexplained statement that it was "miscommunication". I wrote to the committee just after the case ended, asking that someone would explain to me (even in private) which parts of the emails submitted in evidence had led them to adopt that view (a view which I do not believe they sincerely adopted). I received a reply about five days later, saying that they were still discussing my email and I would hopefully get a reply within a day or two. I am still waiting. That was over a month ago.

Besides, Newyorkbrad's comment relates to the issue of how well Lar's wife and I knew each other. It does not relate to the fact that Lar told the private CU mailing list that I had admitted to him that the check was justified. When he wrote that (knowing that I couldn't see it), I had emailed him twice (and I never communicated with him by any other means). In the first message I didn't mention my views on the check. In the second, I said that it had been a mistake to revert vandalism on Crum375's page, because that would lead trolls and stalkers to start speculating on my identity, but that it could never have occurred to me that it would lead to a usercheck, because my understanding of the policy was that there had to be a valid suspicion of abuse, and there was none in this case.

Again and again, I ask this question: how could that statement on the CU list have been honest? Somebody from ArbCom, please tell me which sentence(s) of the two emails which you saw from that period led you to believe that Lar could have been justified in making that claim. If I ask in private, I get no answer. If I ask in public, I'm told, tut tut, smack smack, bad form to raise this in public when he can't defend himself without violating my privacy. So what can I do? My privacy is gone anyway. The arbitrators destroyed it by refusing to address the matter in private. Only a few days ago, Morven posted that the problem with that case was that parties were making allegations on the talk page while other parties couldn't defend themselves because of the privacy policy. Morven, you have my email address; you have copies of the emails I sent Lar. When I get a satisfactory answer in private, I'll certainly be able to stop raising it in public. I waited seven months before going public, and only did so after a heartfelt email to the committee BEGGING them not to force me was ignored. ElinorD (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Policy question: Undoing Arb blocks

This question is directed specifically at sitting and former arbs.

So, ARE actions by individual arbs supposed to carry some +1 authority? If so, it needs to be approved by everyone, or else we'll see more people desysopped for this sort of thing, or have motions brought against them? See here. This is a serious question I'm asking--if they (Arbs) don't say they're acting for the Committee, are they one of the thousands of admins or are they admin+1 with a protected class of admin actions? rootology (C)(T) 00:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

They are no more protected than any other admin action by any procedure or policy. That having been said, undoing such a block invites drama, controversy under many, if not most circumstances. The fine application of common sense suggests that we pause before clicking the save, or unblock buttons, and possibly gather some consensus to do so first. This is essentially the same principle for undoing any action: if you know its going to be controversial, make your case to the community first unless you have compelling reason to do otherwise.--Tznkai (talk) 00:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but that does not answer my question. I'm asking a binary question, not one with shades of gray, as this topic keeps popping up the past weeks. Are they regular admins when not wearing their arb hat? rootology (C)(T) 00:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Regular editors, unless they specify that other functions apply. Onus is on them. Some animals ain't more equal than others around here. And if they try, we'll add an amendment to policy and make bacon. Durova^Charge! 00:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe they have the same privileges and lack thereof as any other administrator, but also believe that is not actually the question that cuts to the core of undoing an Arbiter's block.--Tznkai (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that is the exact core of my question: Are their admin actions when they are not expressly working FOR Committee business of any special value, more than any other admin? For example, Danny Wool, who used to be the main WMF Office guy, was also an admin here--but his admin actions if memory serves were no more special or important than any other admin when he wasn't saying, "This is for OFFICE.". Conversely, you are just a regular admin--you don't have any magic +1 on anything you do, and you Tznkai are one of many with no extra value or power than any other admin in our machine. So, say I was an admin too. We'd be the same. You undoing me, and my undoing you, for one-off actions, are even. But what if we undo an FT2 action that isn't expressly AC business? Or Kirill? Or Flo? The same principle applies here, for my question, and I'd like Arbs to answer that so that it's encoded to some degree and people don't dumbly fumble around. rootology (C)(T) 00:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I would think that any Arb using admin function on behalf of the committee would need to say so in the action summary ("You are blocked for 55 hours for violating ArbCom remedy such-and-such; on behalf of the Committee"). If the committee then later found that the Arb had acted improperly, they can reverse the action, apologize, and sanction the Arb member who did it. Cla68 (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Funnily enough, that thing with Danny never worked out that way. He often used his regular account (as opposed to the User:Dannyisme account which he created to segregate his office duties) to perform above-admin actions. He also desysopped Geni for reversing one of these actions, when Geni had no way of knowing that it was done on this special authority. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Perhaps we should add that to policy somewhere. Charles Matthews seemed to feel (at least, that's how it appeared to me) that his block as an Arb carried more weight; hence the RfC. I suspect FT2 recently felt the same. If clarified in policy, that might help other Arbs in future not to make the same mistake. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 00:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Can we not write policy based on our conjecture on the motivations of others? It doesn't work on Wikipedia well or in meatspace for that matter.--Tznkai (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

No one has suggested doing that. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 01:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

There are two types of blocks that can be confused:

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

— Carl (CBM · talk) 02:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

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

That practice would be fine with me. And everyone seems to agree the most recent block was an obvious error. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Very close to my thinking, and not different enough to quibble. Durova^Charge! 03:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is making sure that policy reflects this. I would support discussing modifying WP:WHEEL to simplify this, per the above discussion to state something like Wheel-warring is undoing another administrator's action, without discussing it with the original administrator or getting the consensus that the action was misguided amongst uninvolved editors/administrators. SirFozzie (talk) 03:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Done [5]. Cla68 (talk) 03:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, as has been discussed in several ArbCom decisions both before and while I've been an arbitrator, and was also the subject of heavy questioning of the candidates in last year's election (see e.g. my candidate page), the definition of "Wheel Warring" has always been disputed precisely on the question of "is a single reversal of another admin's action a wheel war." My conclusion for the past year has been that the term is not helpful to discussion and I have rarely used it; the more probative question is "under what circumstances is one administrator permitted to reverse another admin's action?" And on this, there are nuances that the simplified definition here overlooks. (Example: Administrator A sees a justified request for page-protection on RFPP and protects the page for a month. The following day, the edit-war that required the protection is settled through talkpage discussion, and peace reigns over the article. A week later, someone comes back to RFPP and requests unprotection, and Administrator B sees that the dispute is settled and unprotects. Query (1) should Admin B be required to go back to Admin A in this scenario, and query (2) even if the best practice says that B should have consulted with A, would B be guilty of "wheel warring" for failing to do so?) Related questions could be asked about procedure for block reviews and the like. I am not taking a position here, just pointing out it's a little more complicated than the definition above might suggest. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The new wording is too categorical - what we're really looking here is for admins to exercise their best judgment: don't unblock if you think its going to piss off a lot of relevant people. Don't unblock if its going to cause needless controversy. Submit your judgment to that of the community. Don't invite, cause, or make more likely wheel wars. The details are less important than those goals.--Tznkai (talk) 04:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

And fitting in the same vein, don't block for the same reasons, or do any admin action under such circumstances--you meant to say that, right? rootology (C)(T) 06:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of it, since we were talking about unblocks specifically, but yes, reblocking a user under the above circumstances would most certainly be wheel warring by any useful test.--Tznkai (talk) 07:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say re-block. I said block specifically as my use of wording. An initial block or action also should not be done unless the action is bulletproof. Do you disagree? rootology (C)(T) 15:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I do infact disagree somewhat - the first action, be it protection or unprotection, blocking, unblocking can be unwise or misinformed but it doesn't make it wheel warring. We WANT all admin actions to be done in good faith and wisdom, and when an admin undoes another action its worth adding an additional does of caution and respect anyway, but especially so because of the major additional problems wheel warring causes.--Tznkai (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The only problem with that logic is that one reversal of any admin action, on a 1:1 basis (you reverse my block; I reverse your deletion) is not a wheel war. If one of us redoes the initial action we took--then WE are wheel warring by repeating the reversed action. One undoing by one person does not a wheel war make, and we'll just have to disagree that initial actions carry some special weight. I feel they never do, for non-Arb level actions. A bad action is a bad action, and if judged as such, we don't need to ask the initiated admin for some special leave. If you or I leave a bonehead block on someone, it's negligient to NOT undo it swiftly, for example, regardless of whether the blocking admin is around to say "OK!" rootology (C)(T) 21:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Nemo sanctus singule. If the community wanted to have a user group which does all the same things as "regular admins"—but which is immune to being reverted by "regular admins"—we would be asking Brion to program this feature into the software, would we not? As of right now unless said action matches a specific arbcom decision there's nothing special about it (regardless of who's doing it).
Of course, to avoid any confusion we should prohibit sitting arbitrators from enforcing their own decisions. Ideally this would also provide a minimal safety net in the worst-case scenario where arbcom makes a decision so bad nobody is willing to enforce it, but right now it's a pipe dream to expect the average admin to critically evaluate anything arbcom says to do. — CharlotteWebb 15:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• A block by a sitting member of the Committee should be interpreted as a standard block by a single administrator acting as an administrator, and nothing more. Whilst the fact the sysop is an elected arbitrator may be a reasonable justification for presuming the action is _probably_ on-target (most arbitrators seem to be quite clueful ;), the action is not "untouchable" and may be overturned by the same process a block by any project administrator would: through extensive consensus-building discussion.
  Only if an arbitrator annotates a block (on the user_talk block notification, in the block log, or both) as being "For the Arbitration Committee" (or a variant thereof—'on behalf of the ArbCom,' 'by decision of the Arbitration Committee,' etc.) should the block be treated as being an act by the Committee and in almost all cases not really open to being lifted by any means short of a full-scale revolution. These blocks are usually made further to private discussion of the Committee, and therefore further to evidence of an explicitly private nature. (This is the main reason "For the ArbCom" blocks should not be lifted: the administrator lifting the block is not privy to all evidence, as a small amount of it is of a private nature.)
  I concur that Arbitrators should not enforce their own public decisions. "For the ArbCom" blocks ought to be made only in the case that off-Wiki evidence is a factor.
  That breakneck summary seems to be the current community (and Committee) attitude to blocks by sitting arbitrators. If I have misstated any facts, please correct me. AGK 17:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay suppose Newyorkbrad blocks User:X "for great arbcom" because privacy issues prevent NYB from explaining the rationale. We would expect to see his fellow members make some kind of gesture (at their earliest convenience, if not sooner) to confirm that they for whatever reason came to the conclusion beforehand that User:X should be banned, drew straws and decided it was Brad's turn to do it.

However to the rest of us this would still be indistinguishable from a situation where none of his colleagues are willing to admit they are actually in post facto agreement to cover for a single arb-ronin who spoke too soon and possibly from his arse (on the basis that maintaining the appearance of stability is sometimes more important than making the right decision). I use NYB as an example here only because I don't believe he'd do that.

Even if they did "vote" on it somewhere off-site, we still have a right to know who participated, who supported it, and who opposed it, even if they are unable to explain their reasons (due once again to the privacy issues, which are infallibly to be leaked in due time, like it or not). The absence of this very basic information makes it difficult to decide who should or should not be re-elected (unless the default assumption is that nobody should be re-elected—which isn't entirely without merit). — CharlotteWebb 18:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

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

If you think it will make any difference, go right ahead. — CharlotteWebb 18:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for caselaw index

I hate to do this to Arbcom, but...

The current structure of how Arbcom is a) ruling and b) recording its rulings is not optimal for admins trying to understand what the state of current "case law" is on Wikipedia, as it were. I had to jump around a bunch now to find out where the links were to the SlimVirgin motion with the "Thou shalt not block Giano without Arbcom written permission" motion, though I knew it was being voted on etc.

Cases with just case-specific findings are easy enough to locate in the archives as is. But we're seeing general widespread policy being set and rulings which aren't easy to find anywhere indexed by user.

So... Putting it out there to the community and Arbcom... we (community) and you (arbcom) need to come up with another indexing mechanism / filing mechanism, with a centralized list of all general or wide applicability motions in settled Arbcom cases. At least going forwards, but someone ought to do it back through the archives as well.

Thanks... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

There are several relevant pages around, some of which you have seen and some of which you probably haven't, and many of which are to varying degrees out of date. I will ask the Arbitration Clerks to put together a list of what is out there and what seems to them realistic in terms of keeping track of things. Perhaps we can assign updating and maintenance responsibility to whoever finishes 8th through 25th in the election? Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ideally the result will have no more than three primary indexes... by case, by participant, and a central general list of general purpose (not case specific) decisions.

I've probably seen most of what's out there at some point, but having too many places to look is no more useful than having too few. I can't practically keep an index of index pages ;-P Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

As currently the clerks office is understaffed due to the elections, I'm afraid your perfectly reasonable request is going to be denied until I get my donuts, some more help, or peace and quiet out of the RFAR page. (Seriously, I'm putting it on my rapidly growing list of "things that the clerks should probably do" that I'll submit to the new slate of arbiters come January)--Tznkai (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It's sort of important that things like generally applicable policy and specific stuff like Giano blocking be well visible to admins... I know everyone's busy, but I've been around for years, and if it took me a while to find the final enacted motion...

It irritates me enough to consider being bold, but I'm not sure if that would step on clerk's toes, arbcom toes, etc., and I have a conference next week and an all-day webex session this week to prep for, so my brain hurts at the moment too. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Its a good idea, and you're welcome to step all over our toes - but I think the easiest thing to do is to wait for the new year. Hopefully no one will cause TOO much ruckus till then.--Tznkai (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

There is certainly a "backlog" now: both of useful reports by case, and of cross-indexation of topics. It would be a worthwhile task to render what we have more accessible. In a sense this should be a separate wiki, not just more lists ... it looks like a multiperson task, needing updates. An open ArbCom wiki, in fact. This could work as a solution. The closed ArbCom wiki, which I had set up by devs, was supposed to have such material which could I suppose then be exported. I hoped for more of that, but "pressure of work". :-( So, how much interest in a special wiki that all could read and some people could edit? Charles Matthews (talk) 13:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• We created tables with sortable columns, Wikipedia:General restrictions and Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Would it be possible to create a third table with columns as sort keys to store a list of motions with links to them? This is not necessarily clerk work. Any volunteer could pitch in to help get this done, including non-admins. If you want this done, list the sort keys you think would be most useful. I will finish 8th to 25th, but I've already done my penance helping build the above two files. Those who finish 1st through 7th will be assigned a much harsher penance. :-) Jehochman ^Talk 14:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Tznkai do you actually have an office or are you just trying to internalize the role-playing aspects of this? Brad has an interesting idea but it will probably only be another incentive for sensible candidates to drop out rather than finish (we don't need any more of that).
Oooh but sortable tables are so pretty! One "remedy" per row might work, but those can get confusing when several users are involved. This for example can be interpreted as 30 "remedies", roughly half of which are completely impertinent and certainly not worthy of enshrinement. — CharlotteWebb 16:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Tznkai is a clerk. Was the rest of your comment intended to argue against the idea of indexing past cases? If so, can you elaborate on why you're opposed? Avruch ^T 17:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

(Declaring first that I'm speaking with the experience of clerkship, as Tznkai received a bit of a trashing above when it was not known what rationale he had for speaking with vague clout. :-) )
An index of important principles in cases was once maintained at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions, but with ever-reducing manpower in the Clerks' office (a situation that will worsen if any of the several Clerks with candidacies to the Committee this year are elected) that page fell into disuse. A similar system—perhaps utilising Jehochman's sortable tables idea which works very well on WP:General_sanctions and other pages—could be restarted for remedies and motions, I suppose, if that is desirable. Manpower would be a key problem to overcome in that situation, however.
Give the clerks the resources to maintain such a huge page and I for one will happily do the grunt work—as would, I suspect, many of the other clerks also. AGK 17:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Am I that difficult to read? I'm not opposing this at all, only saying it won't be as simple as it sounds. I'm asking if there is any reason to enumerate, for example, restrictions on the administrative work of users who aren't admins (which would be completely pointless), or admonishment not to make "harassing or threatening comments" absent a finding of fact that said user is guilty of this (which would be an undue drain on one's reputation). That's why I would favor a more common-sense approach. — CharlotteWebb 17:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Is that comment directed myself or at Avruch? AGK 17:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hard to tell, he is difficult to read after all... although I understand now what he was saying with the office thing - he knew Tznkai was a clerk, but was commenting on describing the clerks as having a "clerk's office." Anyway, back to regularly scheduled programming. Avruch ^T 18:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I am much too lazy to have invented such a useful table. They were created by User:Kirill Lokshin. I just populated the data from old cases in my idle while simultaneously uploading or downloading large websites (as part of my work). Jehochman ^Talk 21:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The clerk's office thing was an attempt at levity and humor, but to echo AGK, we don't have the time and other resources to get it done at this moment.--Tznkai (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The term "clerks' office" is used from time to time, including by me (both when I was a clerk and now). It does not imply the existence of a physical office with a fax machine, a secretary, and a coffeemaker (although I will be glad to arrange for the clerks office holiday party provided that all of the participants come to New York for it). Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad curiously failed to either confirm or deny the existence of custom-printed stationery in the above list...interesting. Daniel (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar: decision adjustment.

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

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

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

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

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

user:Peter Damian II

Has been blocked almost immediately for editing mainspace in contravention of the agreement with Thatcher. I'd like to make a request to Arbcom to lift Peter Damian's restriction on mainspace - some may have issues with his behaviour, but his content contributions are of benefit to the community. Is this a sufficiently public forum, or should I make a formal request on the project page? Many thanks. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably cleanest on WP:RFAR so the arb-comments don't mix in with the non-arb-comments and get confused. MBisanz ^talk 21:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

File it in WP:RFAR under requests and other clarifications, list me as a party.--Tznkai (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, done. --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by user:Peter Damian II

[Please note I am apparently not allowed to edit the main page of this article. Why is this please?]

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

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

I am not interested in a public debate with FT2, as I have already stated on my talk page. I just want him to avoid me entirely. That includes not banning good editors such as Headley (I am happy if Thatcher or some other disinterested admin can look after that matter). It also includes him not interfering with my work on articles related tangentially to linguistics such as Neurolinguistic programming. Can I simply point out my PhD is in a linguistics related area? Peter Damian II (talk) 10:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The main page is currently semiprotected due to vandalism. Your current account is not yet auto confirmed because it isn't old enough so you can't edit semi protected pages yet. I have moved your statement to the appropriate spot. Viridae^Talk 10:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Viridae. Peter Damian II (talk) 10:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)