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)

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)

ElinorD, in your post here as Wikitumnus, you claimed on one of the case pages that one reason you thought I had emailed Lar was because you had seen me "trying to get SlimVirgin sanctioned for blocking Wordbomb." I have pointed out that this is incorrect and unsupported by any comment that I made, but you have not corrected yourself or apologized for this false statement about my actions. In light of your comments above, I wonder if you will clarify which comment I made that made you think this, or if there is not any, whether you would characterize your comments as honest.

Personally I don't conclude that you were lying, as more likely you made the comment without stopping long enough to think about it. In fact, there are many reasons a person could say something inaccurate, without "lying," or in a way that would not be actionable. As I have said above and I will say again, I think the committee's failure to respond here reflects badly on the committee, but I believe these are points that you should stop to consider. Mackan79 (talk) 07:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by user:Peter Damian II

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

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

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

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

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

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

FT2 has been editing Neuro-linguistic programming since 2004. If PD can show he's been editing it longer than that I suppose he might "claim" it. Otherwise it appears that FT2 got there first. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Cross-project evidence

Would the Arbitration Committee consider evidence from a sister WMF site if that evidence establishes a pattern of policy abuse?

That's come up at the Scientology RFAR. So before anyone fetches diffs, block histories, etc. let's find out whether this type of material would help the case move forward or not. A few words now from the Arbs could save a lot of time for everyone, since it looks like the RFAR is moving toward acceptance and some editors are mentioning Wikinews. Durova^Charge! 19:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The small part in the arbitration policy says:

Evidence and brief arguments may be added to the case pages by disputants, interested third parties, and the Arbitrators themselves. Such evidence is usually only heard by the Committee if it has come from easily verifiable sources - primarily in the form of Wikipedia edits ("diffs"), log entries for MediaWiki actions or web server access, posts to the official mailing lists, or other Wikimedia sources.

That is sufficiently ambiguous to require a clarification for this case, in my opinion. Daniel (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

My $0.02 is that implies that Wikimedia sources are considered reliable when making a case related to misconduct on Wikipedia. I think it is a given that Wikipedia arbitration is a Wikipedia remedy; it is not the place of this panel to judge the behavior of Wikipedians on sister projects, those sister projects having their own analogous mechanisms. Therefore any material brought over from sister sites should not be intended to show "actionable" offenses on those sites or even to show a pattern of behavior cross-project but should be limited to supporting a specific allegation of misbehavior on this project. To do elsewise elevates this forum to "Wikimedia arbitration", which it clearly is not. --Justallofthem (talk) 13:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Matthew Hoffman appeal: 1.3

It's now been over three weeks, and this proposal has 5:2 support, with one recusal and one abstain, making there a total of ten arbitrators who could possibly have voted. Can we consider it passed, and implement it, so that all of us can move on? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Arithmetic isn't my strong point admittedly, but I think that as it stands, the motion falls if closed now. There's 11 active, minus one abstention on this motion, means that 6 are needed to pass it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Why on earth would it be calculated that way? I thought arbitrators could choose whether or not to be "active" in a case, so after three weeks, we can presume those who didn't respond are not active. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope, always been (since I've been following) that arbs must consciously note somewhere that they are recusing or abstaining for it to lower the threshold. MBisanz ^talk 17:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The whole thing looks moot to me anyway. The "remedy" doesn't do anything. However, the time has dragged on here, and that's poor. I suggest if it matters to you, the best course of action would be to nudge the remaining arbs to opine. I guess there should be a statute of limitations on these things, but any default if arbs are inactive would have to be to the status-quo. --Scott Mac (Doc) 18:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It is very poor that arbcom stalls when arbitrators take three weeks just to decide whether or not to be active in a case. Very poor indeed, and not likely to inspire confidence. DuncanHill (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) I've posted to the mailing list a couple of times reminding of pending motions, and will again tonight if necessary. The Alastair Haines/Abtract matter is also aging rapidly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm right in recalling that excessive delays, and the negative impact they have on the arbcom's relationship with the community, were something about which concern was expressed in the recent RfC. DuncanHill (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Excessive delays have been a problem with the Arbitration Committee since it was created, quite frankly. Almost all candidates run on a promise of trying to reduce delay ... I won't repeat what I've said about this in various forums at other times. Hopefully voters are considering candidates' levels of availability and commitment in connection with the ongoing election. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

In case you want to ping directly the arbitrators who haven't commented on this case, they are Deskana, Charles Matthews, Jpgordon, FayssalIF and YellowMonkey. YellowMonkey rarely comments on motions. Avruch ^T 19:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Charles Matthews has said he's recused. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Further, Deskana is necessarily inactive on this request - if Deskana became active, the majority would increase to 7. The only arbitrators that can vote, and need to (in order for something to pass) are Jpgordon, FayssalF and/or YellowMonkey. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Wait, if Deskana is inactive, then the motion passes: WP:ARBCOM lists 12 active arbitrators, including Deskana. Subtract Deskana, Charles (recused), and Thebainer (abstained), and we get 9. 9/2 = 4.5; 5>4.5 Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

No. There are 13 arbitrators in total as listed on WP:ARBCOM; 12 active ones with 1 listed as inactive - FT2. However, for the purposes of this particular appeal, FT2 is active (evidenced from his voting on the motions). At the time when this appeal was made, Deskana was inactive and remains inactive. Together with Charle's recusal and Stephen's abstention, this reduces the active arbitrator count for the appeal to 10 - a majority of 6 is required. I was partially mistaken in my statement above (however); if Deskana became active on the case, the number of active arbs would increase to 11, but the majority support required would still remain at 6. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

In any case, I should point out that I've seen quite a lot of less formally set-out motions for clarification pass with far fewer arbcom comments, including one in the Matthew Hoffman case itself (the request for clarification on whether an RfA was possible had only five people comment in support of the retroactive change of the text to exclude RfA, with twelve active arbitrators at the time). Given that, how was I supposed to know the count would be applied rigidly here, when it wasn't on the last motion related to the case?

It's not worth going into that Request for clarification further, but I mention it to point out that the rules being applied seem to be chosen arbitrarily, using whatever the Arbcom feels like at the time. Can Arbcom kindly set out some standards that the Arbcom agree to consistently use during Motions for clarification, etc. Ideally, these should not allow cases with a supermajority of support to stay on the page for weeks waiting for arbitrators who don't want to or are too busy to comment on it to do so, instead of presuming they abstained. While that is a sensible and even necessary check in actual cases, it would appear that the Arbcom does not give the same amount of attention to motions, and if the Arbcom cannot reliably deal with them as a complete group, and is seemingly unwilling to insist that members vote or go inactive on the case, as with full cases, then what else can be done? I would also remind the committee that the Arbcom elections close in a few days; I would rather not have to wait for the new committee members to come in and then have to deal with this all over again, as half the votes become invalid.

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

A clarification on what the present state of affairs is is different from a motion to alter the present state of affairs. The former may or may not require a vote but the latter always will. --bainer (talk) 08:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The motion did, however, alter the state of affairs. No case previous to this disallowed RfA unless that was specifically stated, if Durova speaks true. That motion changed that, citing a secret change of Arbcom policy that had never been announced to the public. I will also point out that the committee additionally saw fit to alter the case so as to require me to make my private health matters public, and this was said to apply no matter how much time had passed. My private health matters were treated as a moral failing, by implying that I have a dirty little secret that shows I was evil - but it's secret so we're not going to tell. I still am very upset about that, as it forced my hand, making me reveal my private information in the current appeal, simply to prevent that being used as a weapon against me by the committee again. If that was not the intent, then the committee should perhaps be a bit more careful, and have used the numerous private means of communication they have with me to talk about it, instead of insisting on making it all public.

I have said I did not want to discuss th previous request for clarification. It was started by someone else, I specifically had told that person I did not want it to be filed, and it ended up revealing private information about me by insinuation. Let's drop the subject, shall we, and move on to the only productive thing that can be done with this case: Vacating it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Durova's assumptions about what was not stated were mistaken. --bainer (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you demonstrate that, by showeing cases from before mine where lack of right to RfA was not stated, and the Arbcom stopped an RfA? Durova provided concrete examples of the contrary, you have not provided any evidence in support. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Normal Wikipedian custom is to provide a courtesy notice when calling out a specific editor and asserting that person is wrong. It's a lucky thing I discovered this thread by chance while passing by in search of something else. It's unclear what the context is here, Bainer. Please explain what assumptions you suppose I made which you believe were mistaken. And in future, please think twice before using your authority to undermine the credibility of any other fellow Wikipedian at a thread where that person has not posted and is not present to defend him- or herself. Durova^Charge! 00:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see a lot of good coming out of this discussion, especially since Shoemaker's Holiday has already expressed regret that certain matters raised have had to be disclosed. I hope that a few more arbitrators will vote soon and we can close the pending motions (particularly 1.3, which I drafted) one way or the other. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I apologise that I got drawn into discussing that incident, it's probably not worth discussing on the crux of the whole thing becoming moot anyway. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Brad. I share the hope. Durova^Charge! 01:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it worth restating the main point, however: It's now... about 18 days before the new Arbcom members come in. Christmas is going to happen in the middle of that. It would be nice if this could be sorted out before everything gets thrown into chaos for a month. I think we can agree that the last thing anyone wants is for this entire situation to continue for another year.

To that end, a proposal: I leave for my mother's on the 21st. Should this not be sorted by the 17th, let us put it to community on the Administrator's noticeboard, letting them decide what to do, as the Arbcom will have proven unable to deal with it in a timely manner. I am not going to force this proposal, but I fail to see what else can be done, so would ask the arbcom to either publicly turn it over to the community or finally get their act together, or to propose an alternate solution. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fair. DuncanHill (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

EditNotice proposal

Background reading: Proposal on Clerks' noticeboard (permalink). Wikipedia:Edit notice. User:AGK/A.

I propose the addition of an edit notice to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. See User:AGK/A.

I've ran this proposal by the other clerks, and those that have commented seem to readily support the idea. I solicit the opinion of the Committee (and that of any editors reading here); does this seem like a decent idea?

Under normal circumstances I would simply ping the mailing list, but some transparency and public discussion is probably better, methinks.

All thoughts (esp. that of the Committee) welcome!

AGK 14:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the Mbox based edit notice. Good work. MBisanz ^talk 23:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I continue to be a fan of good ol' {| class="plainlinks" tables (rather than {{Mbox}}es), but fair comment. :-) AGK 00:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Needs a bigger font, some of us don't have the eyes we used to, but seems a good idea... ++Lar: t/c 04:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The second sentence of Point #2 should end at "provoke" (you could add "reactions in others"); remove the brackets from the final sentence. Point #3 should read: "Be succinct in your comments. Long, rambling comments are less effective." The sentence about the golden rule is unnecessary (and debatable as well, many would disagree). Instead of "pinging" a clerk, it's better to "contact" one. Write for the target audience; clear and simple language will make this more helpful. I like the idea a lot, and I think this is definitely on the right track. Risker (talk) 05:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

FT2-Peter Damian

This is getting ridiculous. Having had his "excess length" statement removed, FT2 has now set about creating his own version of War and Peace in his user space. ArbCom need to either open a proper case for detailed evidence or ask the parties to restrain themselves - spreading the fight further afield is not going to help. In fact even if a full case had been opened, I doubt that FT2's screed would be considered acceptable for an evidence page - there are length limits there too. 92.39.200.36 (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

That page, according to Microsoft Word, with all sections expanded, is 6800+ words in length. FT2 has no claim to the NLP articles, neither does Peter Damian. I like both of them, but this is gone past silly with the war between the two of them. Whatever FT2's beef with HeadeyDown, because some banned user tried to do x, which was decruft the NLP articles, doesn't mean no one else can now because it would be advocating some "banned" content position. There's no such thing as a "banned" content position. There's only our content policies.

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

That would be mutual peace, and then entirely neutral people can work on those articles. If the sock stuff from HeadeyDown is really so terrible, then any number of Arbs or Admins can keep him, himself, off of them. I can't even see how else this would be viable. They're both valuable contributors but are past the point of oil and water; they're napalm and white phosphorus to each other and both are acting completely over the top, but it's more FT2 of late. They should both be simply barred from even uttering anything about each other on-wiki or affecting each other for everyone's collective sanity.

Suggested proposal for the non-recused Arbs is here to accomplish this. rootology (C)(T) 19:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not involved nor do I want to be but I have to comment on this. This page is made by an arbitrator and it is wrong to allow this kind of page to continue. There is enough drama going on all around. We don't need an arbitrator to have a hate page set up to make a WP:POINT or anything else. He is in a position of respect and power and people listen to arbitrators as they are the ones to have the last word. Why would this page be allowed? If a common everyday editor set something like this up the editor would be warned, blocked or banned. Does this arbitrator have special priveldges to have a page like this and then link it to an arb page so that everyone can go and read all of what he has to say because it was deleted for being too long? I'm sorry but I feel the rules should apply to everyone and that this page should receive an immediate speedy delete. I have been reading this and I am finding that having FT2 as an arb a bit scary that he would go so far as this. I don't think this is what an arbitrator should be doing even if he is only acting as an administrator at the moment, he is wrong in his tactics. Sorry, I just had to say something, I'm gone now, please continue...--CrohnieGal^Talk 19:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Rootology, you and I have butted heads on occasion, so allow me to say I think you're right. For my own thought: this isn't about doing right for Peter or FT2 anymore - who knows if thats even possible. Its about doing right for the project and the rest of the community. We want peace.--Tznkai (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Amen! I agree with both of you, if that matters. It's time to find peace already. --CrohnieGal^Talk 19:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

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

I hope this reassures. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

On Beback's claim

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

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

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

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

On the idea of an editing restriction

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

No, I don't think that's what they're saying. I think what they're saying, rightly or wrongly, is that sometimes an acceptable solution to an entrenched dispute is to shut the disputants out of it and hope that other editors will clean up the mess. 92.39.200.36 (talk) 10:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Why would that be acceptable? You say 'sometimes an acceptable solution to an entrenched dispute is ...'. Suppose FT2 had been heavily involved in cold fusion articles, and had (for example) been involved in blocking or banning qualified physicists from the article. Why would that be acceptable? For that is exactly what (I claim) has been going on here. You cannot judge matters of verifiability and scientific judgment by behaviour alone, as though it were some kind of playground dispute. That way lies madness.

Also to point out that that no edit war has taken place between FT2 and myself over the NLP article. He has not worked in this area for at least a year. Thus I have not interacted with him at all. See the talk page of the NLP article where the changes I made were discussed. Follow the comments I made. Does this look like the work of a virulent banned editor? Note particularly the bit that begins "Great work on the article so far, Peter Damian! " made by (assuming from his contributions) an NLP supporter. To be clear: FT2 does not want me editing these articles because he has a vested interest in them, and it upsets him someone is approaching them in a more scientific manner. For that reason the suggestion of a topic ban is outrageous and untenable. What if my work in linguistics articles takes me close to NLP-related areas? Will I then be banned for saying something perfectly correct and authoritatively sourced and cited? Simply because a powerful Wikipedia administrator would be upset? Those who are putting forward this suggestion are simply not thinking the consequences through in a logical and rational manner. Peter Damian (talk) 11:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Peter, imagine for a moment you could either accept a single content based editing restriction and get this all over with - or risk a different sort of editing restriction, one that doesn't allow you to edit at all. You can accelerate this whole mess going away, or you can spend your time protesting. How much do you want to get back to building an encyclopedia?--Tznkai (talk) 15:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: ":No, I don't think that's what they're saying. I think what they're saying, rightly or wrongly, is that sometimes an acceptable solution to an entrenched dispute is to shut the disputants out of it and hope that other editors will clean up the mess." Nail, head.--Tznkai (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said, that is not an acceptable solution. Quite happy to blank my page, leave the project, and continue the work I have begun with academics who are concerned about all sorts of conflict of interest in Wikipedia. Very happy. Peter Damian (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Its not a proposed solution: it is a description of reality. Right now two things are true: you're restricted from article writing, and arbcom is slowly deliberating the possibility of you being invited to edit articles except NLP except interact with FT2. Barring ArbCom or someone else coming up with something brilliant and new, those are your choices - whatever you think is acceptable or otherwise (never mind what the REST of us think should be done). Right now you have a choice, you can accept the editing restriction with grace, and that may well push this along to resolution before the new year - or you can continue to protest, holding out for restriction free editing - all the while staying restricted until then.--Tznkai (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Then as you see I retire from editing. Can you please withdraw my application and RFAR. Consider the matter closed. If you had read my appeal it was quite clear that my reason for being on Wikipedia was to ensure academic neutrality, to support subject-matter experts, and to fight cruft and approaches to editing that were not based on science. If so many of you are against these core beliefs of mine, I clearly have no place on the project. You really fail to understand, don't you. Peter Damian (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

To quote myself from else where "Wikipedia doesn't need you, and it doesn't need me." I can't speak for everyone, but I have no problem with people striving for increased knowledge neutrality, and cruft reduction - but you're not the only person to profess those beliefs. You're not a martyr Peter - you aren't being crucified for your beliefs. Your place here is largely up to you, you have the agency to effect the outcome - what have you chosen? You have chosen to give up, instead of to strive.--Tznkai (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't really understand why people are arguing so vehemently over something that no member of the Committee has actually chosen to propose or otherwise support. Rootology's ideas are Rootology's ideas, nothing more. Kirill ^(prof) 16:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I apologize, I misspoke earlier - but right now the Committee has proposed restricting Peter Damian from interacting with FT2 at all, a motion that is one abstention or one support away from passing. This motion does bring up, inevitably, the question of who gets to edit what article, and Peter Damian would still be editing with a restriction. The thrust of my argument remains the same - Peter can continue to argue that the terms aren't good enough and not edit, or he can throw his support behind the motion or even Rootology's proposal in an effort to get this over and done with.--Tznkai (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Will one of the undecided Arbs please make a decision - we're all losing the will to live......--Joopercoopers (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

A ban on commenting on another editor does not prohibit them from editing the same page. In the rare instances when the committee or a community discussion wishes to impose that restriction, it is done expressly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You've introduced the idea of a de facto ban, Brad, by posting that, "With regard to FT2's request for topic limitations ... this can be addressed should future editing indicate significant ongoing problems." This will make Peter reluctant to edit certain articles in case FT2 uses his interest to argue that nothing has changed. And yet Peter has a PhD in a subject directly relevant to some of the key issues here (e.g. NLP, pseudoscience), so nothing should be said that might discourage him from helping to clean up those articles. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The motion doesn't just propose to ban commenting but also "interaction" : "Peter Damian and FT2 are directed not to interact with or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about each other on any page in Wikipedia." I have come across some odd perversions of the English language in common use on Wikipedia but if you're using "interact with" to mean "comment about" then you need to scrap your current dictionary and start over from scratch. In any event if the two mean the same thing then you shouldn't specify both as being prohibited - it can only confuse the issue. To suppose that "interaction" includes editing the same pages as each other is not a stretch at all. 92.39.200.36 (talk) 11:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Bainer, Kirill, Brad, you're all my bosses and I respect you all - but get a move on, get the rest of the Committee moving and do it now - and lets not get too cute about stated and unstated consequences. 1.1 Will lead to personal conflict over content edits - there ample examples of editor behavior to suggest that it will get personal and out of hand quickly. (Partisans can read responsibility in that statement as they prefer) The directive "not to interact with" is an invitation for well meaning and not so well meaning trigger happy administrators and cheerleaders filling up AN/I with the latest fight complete with a sideshow equine beating- which may well be inevitable - but lets not pretend that 1.1 doesn't open the door wide open for de facto topic bans. Our deliberations here are merely a preview of what could yet come.

Get this done, get this done now. As a Wikipedian, an administrator, and an Arbitration Committee clerk, I feel a duty to protect our processes from their failures, so let me be blunt. This situation must be resolved before the new Committee terms take effect. The impact of being asked to resolve a dispute involving a fellow Arbiter as the first order of business risks unraveling the working relationships within the Committee before they begin to form. Aside from being blatantly unfair and cruel, this situation will exaggerate the consequences any newbie mistakes by new Arbiters and the bad blood may well stain the Committee's reputation with the community for the entirety of the new Arbiters' terms: three years of already difficult work undercut by this Committee's failure to act. This request must be resolved - that need is paramount, perhaps even at the price of doing it "right" - because doing nothing is far more wrong. You have a responsibility: fufill it.--Tznkai (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

• It seems to me that the people who are arguing that the restriction that Damian and FT2 are not to interact with each other must be interpreted as a topic restriction, or that it is a set up to failure, are well meaning but have no horse of their own in this race. "Comment on content, not the person" is advice that we give every editor every day; are you arguing that it is an impossible standard to meet generally, or only that one (or both) of these editors can not meet it personally? And shouldn't the editors be given the chance to demonstrate for themselves whether they can or can not follow the ruling? I would like to direct you particularly to SlimVirgin's most recent comment on FT2's edits to the NLP articles [5]. Is it your argument that the content comments made by SlimVirgin would be a violation of the unblock conditions if Damian made them? If so, why? Thatcher 17:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • My argument is that four members of the committee have not voted on the motion that was proposed on December 9th, despite all four of them being active on-wiki during the intervening time; only one has commented on this topic since the motion was put forth. An abstention, support, or declaration that they are inactive with respect to this matter from any one of them would resolve this matter. Even votes in opposition would at least confirm to the community and the disputants that the matter is being considered. (The same can be said of the other motions on the page, for that matter.) Editing restrictions are a moot point at this time; they aren't proposed. My concern is getting the remaining four members of the community to either voice an opinion or formally withdraw from consideration of this case. Risker (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • (e/c)I suspect Risker was agreeing with the second part of my statement - the necessity of current committee acting before the next committee begins their term, which you do not seem to be agreeing or disagreeing with. As to the rest - 1.1' wording invites problems because of the particular users involved - and the peanut gallery of drama mongers and well meaning mandarins (I've been accused of the latter frequently, and the former a couple times myself) This is a specific instance where there are specific interaction problems - most users are able to comment in a cordial tone on the edits and not the editor - and yes, a section entitled "FT2's edits" is commenting on FT2, and as a side note the tone is counterproductive.--Tznkai (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Proper RFAR please

Reasons

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

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

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

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

I concur with Thatcher; the issue on the table now is Motion 1.1, and that is where the focus needs to lie. Nobody with a vote in this matter has proposed a topic ban on either of the disputants. Risker (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Peter hasn't disagreed to not interacting with FT2, and was supportive of that. It was me that specifically posted a suggestion that they be completely cut off from each other, since given the tremendously mutual bad blood here, it's unrealistic to expect them to have anything to do with each other as far as process goes. It goes obviously without saying already that on any administrative or Arb process that FT2 has to abstain, given the massive COI inherent in it (and vice versa), and I suggested the kernel of that since theres no other realistic way that I could see mutual peace from the peanut gallery. rootology (C)(T) 19:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

I've given my commitment, both in actual evidenced behavior this entire year, and in words, to avoid all involvement with minor exceptions (a few past direct questions asked of me, and dispute resolution etc). That commitment will be kept. By contrast Damian's evidenced as breaking almost every commitment he made the last year, and continued to push this one constantly since 2007 right up to this week. Even despite that I'm not engaging him, he has repeatedly sought to engage me both on and off wiki. What he hasn't done, even once, is keep his word to just plain avoid disruptive or other promised-to-be-dropped-to-get-unbloked activity. Leave you with that thought. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Please redact the remark about 'breaking every commitment'. As I have asked before, could someone ask User:WJBScribe to publish the account he gave of the Dec 2007 block. This makes it quite clear on which side the promises were broken, and makes quite clear the connection between the 'oversighted edits' and my inability to engage with the terms of the block. Note that FT2 has still not answered the question posed by SlimV: "I ask you most sincerely to answer the question of whether your statement of July 4, 2008 was true, namely whether that was the first time you'd heard of the oversighting, during the 2007 ArbCom election, of your early edits. [6]" How much longer do we have to tolerate this lying and evasion and obfuscation. Yes, lying and evasion and obfuscation. Peter Damian (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

pester power?

all wiki editors are, of course, empowered to at least try to pull on our arbitrator's skirts for attention. I'd encourage all those who'd like the 4 3 remaining active arb.s to comment on this matter to drop a quick 'please act' note on their talk page. It's been my observation that this actually works pretty well :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 23:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm certain they have better things to do than to listen to their little subjects begging them to do the job they were voted in for. Majorly ^talk 23:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

ah don't be too cynical, Majorly ;-) - lets just hope this gets sorted pretty quick Privatemusings (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have supported motion 1.1 offered by Kirill as written. I do not read it as any sort of a topic-ban on either editor, although it does suggest that they must do their best to avoid unnecessary interactions. Reading the thread above, I suppose that it would be possible to present a slightly more clear wording of the motion, but this would require the voting to start over again, compounding the inordinate delay in voting on this motion that has already occurred. If in the future someone thought topic bans were needed on one or the other or both of the editors involved, this request could be presented through the usual dispute resolution procedures or, in light of the circumstances, directly to an RfAr. My hope is that such procedures would not become necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

one down, three to go :-) - jp voted. Privatemusings (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

But not, I fear, on the Matthew Hoffman appeal, which has been up for a month, not just a week. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

CSI beta

I feel like launching the CSI case. I'd like arbcom to toss in a case for me to gather evidence. I was thinking of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology. If there is another case arbcom would like me to collect evidence on they should state here in the next 24 hours. -- Cat ^chi? 02:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but what exactly are you talking about? What's "the CSI case"? Kirill ^(prof) 02:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe he is referring to the idea he put forward at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_56#A_wiki_equavalent_of_CSI_.28developing_idea.29. MBisanz ^talk 02:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not sure what you are asking. If you are offering to volunteer to help the committee by collecting or evaluating evidence in a case, you may present evidence in any case you wish. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Thats exactly what I am asking. I wish arbcom to throw a case at me though. No one can argue at the randomness of the assignment then. :) -- Cat ^chi? 03:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Competent evidence gathering, analysis and presentation is welcome on any case; many times the parties are incapable of doing so themselves or are too caught up in the personal battles to do a good job. If you want to help by gathering evidence on any case, just jump in and do it. For various reasons, I do not believe the committee will (or should) invite specific people or endorse any particular scheme for doing so. Thatcher 15:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay then. I'll collect evidence on Scientology. I have picked that one because it is one of the most recently accepted case giving me enough time to compile evidence. -- Cat ^chi? 17:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Moreschi case

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

I was thinking the same thing myself. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Pondering, but for a loose analogy, see the discussion of the "rule of necessity" at recusal (disclosure: I wrote it). Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You don't get to declare war on the constitutional supreme judges, and then demand that someone other than those judges hear your case.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If a full case will be opened, then I think that waiting for the new group of arbitrators is reasonable enough, although it will be a tough initiation for the new ones. But I also don't see why more than just a motion and a vote is needed here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Back in the bad old days one just grabbed a steward and had done with it. Seriously though--if you want to overturn the Committee, run for it. The community can kvetch about the actions of the committee all it likes, but this is the committee it voted for. Mackensen (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The performance of current arbs at the recent election might give a better idea of where the community stands at present, though. Black Kite 23:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

No it did not. Jimbo appointed this committee, not the community. Saying "run for it" as a solution, is of course foolish. Besides, the community is not the same as it was in 2006/2007, and people change, both the voters and the electees. We are no longer satisfied with the poor behavior of the Committee's members - expecting people to behave impeccably for three years is stupid. But then again, I'm trying to argue with a well-known fan of ArbCom, and a former member - what do I know, being a mere subject of The Committee?

I agree with Black Kite. Funny how Mackensen supported all the ex-arbs who were running, despite their complete incompetence. Thank goodness it's not up to the Committee to decide who replaces Them. Majorly ^talk 23:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I also supported a number of other people, including Risker, who is by no stretch associated with the status quo. For that matter, I voted for Giano last year. Cabalist indeed. How my preferences have any relation to this I can't fathom, save your inability to spare the personal. If you're so fed up with a system that hasn't rewarded you in the manner you believe you are due than why don't you just storm off in a huff?

Moving right along, it is true that Jimbo appointed based on the results. This is a fine point. Of course, over the past few elections these appointments have been in line with the results. If Majorly would explain how the community's will was thwarted I'm all ears. Now, to answer Black Kite's point, there's an important principle at stake here. The committee is the last resort. For it to function at all it must have the expectation that its decisions, harebrained or no, will be respected. Otherwise its function is purely advisory and it should be abolished. We'll leave it to administrators to fight it out amongst themselves. I do not expect good results from such a system. Mackensen (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. I'm not here for a reward. I have not been affected by ArbCom, though I have felt some of the incompetence reflect on editors I respect. Instead of trying to fix the system, you want me to storm off in a huff? Perhaps you should leave instead, we have enough arbcom brown-nosers around here. And a final point, I have not said anything about the community's "will" being thwarted. However, the community have changed their minds, and there's nothing they can do about it. Theoretical situation: suppose FT2 is brought before ArbCom with the request he be removed from the committee. Can you fathom it actually happening? Remember the David Gerard case? ArbCom are well-known to be biased towards their friends and own members. There is nothing we as a community can do to remove arbcom members who no longer have the trust of the community. Just look at the scores for Charles and James in the elections. They were well trusted weren't they. Majorly ^talk 23:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I think I understand perfectly. Mackensen (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Threaded discussion in RFAR#Moreschi

In the RFAR, a couple of people have commented outside of their respective segments in reply to others. This isn't "allowed" and their replies should be moved to their respective parts, shouldn't it? :/ I wasn't comfortable with moving others' comments. Sticky Parkin 00:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, but let a clerk take care of it (if any of them are brave enough). Mackensen (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
• Additionally, Sam Blacketer's vote is internally inconsistent. He can't vote to accept and then recuse as an involved party. Either he's recused, or not. Could a clerk please straighten that out. Perhaps move Sam's comment to the parties area and mark his as recused. Jehochman ^Talk 00:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I was planning on, but given that I've got a reply to my comment I've got a bit of a COI, so I'm best leaving it to someone else. I'll see who I can find. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
    • It's a special vote; I am ignoring a rule which hinders the acceptance of the case in order to get it accepted, but recusing from hearing it. Arbitrators are not bound by consensus and in our British-style constitution we can fortunately depart from convention without formal process. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
      • In what contexts are Arbs not bound by consensus...? Except when functioning as a body, you're all stock admins with no special powers, I thought? rootology (C)(T) 00:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Please compare with Arbitration policy: "Former decisions will not be binding on the Committee - rather, they intend to learn from experience." Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
          • That makes sense for the fact it's the execution of an Arb action (voting to accept), subject to the rules and policies of the site (which the AC doesn't trump). I thought you were saying that outright Arbs were not bound by consensus "period", that you for example are not however exempt from 3RR, however, no more than Jehochman is, when not carrying out an Arbcom decision. Or FT2 can be blocked for personal attacks, or Bainer for sockpuppetry, or Flo for vandalism. Unlikely, sure, but the point being that when you're not exercising a supported Arb action (voting, executing a voted upon decision), you are bound by policy the same as anyone. rootology (C)(T) 00:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
            • Indeed I am bound by exactly the same policy as every other user (including Giano and Moreschi) when not acting on behalf of the committee. (In fact it is incumbent on an arbitrator to be particularly careful to obey policies and site norms in their non-arbitration conduct; wording to this effect will be part of the induction document given to new arbitrators when they are appointed) Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

FT2's word count is at 1080 words; Deacon of Pndapetzim's is also a bit over 500. Any clerk going to clean it up? 96.15.62.242 (talk) 06:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser and Oversight accountability

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

Amazing

Sadly you have now lost all my respect. I shall be ignoring this restriction safe in the knowledge that Haines will never report me since bullies never seek help from others. Provided he does not report me, there can be no infraction. Having said that, why the hell did you do it? You let him off scot free and restrict the one editor who stands up to his bullying consistently. Thank goodness I am gainfully employed elsewhere. Abtract (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)