Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 5: Difference between revisions

Seems like s/he won't be able to cause any harm under the restrictions proposed (though God knows there'll be a quibble about the definitions soon)... but why are we going to all this trouble in order to help a trouble-editor? ╟─Treasury Tag►belonger─╢ 09:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Would the Arbs who opposed or abstained mind noting why they did so? ÷seresin 09:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
- I thought it would have been those who supported that people wanted to hear from? Anyway, I abstained because I was heavily involved in the Betacommand (and non-free content criteria) discussions leading up to (and following) the second arbitration case, and sort of took part in that case (I was named as a party and submitted a brief narrative in the absence of time to submit evidence). I also took part in one massive noticeboard discussion where (following the discussion) I unblocked Betacommand. Technically, the appeal of the community ban wasn't related to the arbitration case, but while I still provided background information where I thought it would help, I felt I was too involved to vote and thus abstained. Carcharoth (talk) 09:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  - Well, I just assumed it was a general AGF sentiment that convinced them to support. If that's an incorrect notion, however, I would indeed be interested in knowing why. ÷seresin 09:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
    - Yes, you assumed about right, combined with the assurances provided by the stringency of the restrictions. Roger Davies ^talk 10:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
      - I can only comment for me, but I felt that the restrictions were comprehensive and structured enough, and he'd be watched to a point that any violation would be (a) discovered quickly, and (b) dealt with promptly, thus I felt safe enough in a trial unban. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
        I, for one, will be watching. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 16:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I opposed the measure due to a variety of factors. I will provide some of my main concerns. The problems were quite long-running and persisted despite a large number of attempts to resolve them. Betacommand was granted numerous "last chances", including under restriction. He engaged in sockpuppetry to evade sanctions. The community rejected an appeal only three months ago. His acknowledgment of misconduct is extremely limited and insufficient, leading me to believe he does not fully understand (or is unwilling to accept) the high level of disruption that his behavior caused. I do not perceive sufficient evidence counterbalancing these concerns, which would be required for me to support lifting the ban under any conditions. --Vassyana (talk) 00:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Enforcement:

Does having had a community ban conditionally lifed by the ArbCom mean that only the ArbCom may block the account in the future? In this case it says that ArbCom may restore the ban, but it doesn't exclude anyone else from making a block. Similarly, in another recent appeal there were no enforcement provisions, and a case was rejected at WP:AE due to that lack (though it might have been rejected anyway due to other factors). Could the ArbCom please be clearer when lifting appeals as to how editors with complaints against these unbanned editors are expected to proceed? Will Beback talk 02:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I second Will's question here since, as he says, one incident was already brought to AE for handling. If someone believes one of these provisional unbans has been violated, how/where should that be handled? Shell ^babelfish 05:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This provisional suspension is not only a waste of time but an insult to the rest of us who follow the rules & try to play nice. Beyond his clumsy (if not incompetent) handling of Fair Use images, BetaCommand contributed nothing of value to Wikipedia, & I'll be stunned if he ever does. -- llywrch (talk) 04:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. I just noticed this edit, which has the comment "add new twinkle config var". He apparently is using Twinkle, a well-known edit automation tool -- & has already broken one of the four limits on his behavior. If he truly wants to redeem himself in our eyes -- & not his own myopic ones -- then he can wikignome the same way the rest of us do: manual edit by manual edit, clicking the "Save page" button each time. Any other interpretation of that limitation is wikilawyering in my opinion. -- llywrch (talk) 05:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  - Aw, crap. It's been what, 48 hours? Less? And he's already breaking the terms? (re)Ban. Ban and delete his userspace and be done with this mess, permanently. No chance of coming back. None. The restriction is "prohibited from operating bots or running automated scripts of whatever nature". Twinkle is automated. No wikilawyering. Enough is enough. → ROUX ₪ 05:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
    - He has used Twinkle since the unban... once. Discretion may be key here. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
      - No, that way lies madness and the usual wikilawyering. The conditions are stark and clear: no automation. Period. BC is already nibbling around the edges of the boundaries. This is not okay. This is supposed to be his absolute final double secret probation chance. And he's already pushing it. Yes, he only used it once, but that is hardly the point. The point is that he is required to follow both the letter and the spirit of his restrictions, and he has violated both in this case. As I tried to explain to him months ago when I was trying to help head off the community ban, he has a responsibility to keep his nose extra super squeaky clean, and avoid even the appearance of flouting the restrictions he is under. → ROUX ₪ 06:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
        I am actually curious as to why he wasn't placed on the Twinkle blacklist. Sceptre ^(talk) 09:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
        I agree with Roux. Accordingly, I have re-blocked Betacommand (talk · contribs) indefinitely for failing to observe the conditions of his unban (specifically, the prohibition from "running automated scripts of whatever nature") by making this edit using WP:TWINKLE, an automated script. I will cross-post this to WP:ANI for any further discussion. Sandstein 09:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
        I had a look at his contributions earlier this morning to check the throttle and saw that he'd configured Twinkle. I didn't notice he'd used it. Roger Davies ^talk 10:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
        And this is the problem with community consensus. There was no ambiguity about 'no scripts of any kind', and if anyone believes that Betacommand made a good faith mistake on that, I am the Minister of Finance for Nigeria and I need your bank account information. Betacommand is doing exactly what he has always done: push the very edges of any restrictions he is under, and by the time anyone goes "Well hey now, wait a minute," he is so far off the reservation that dealing with it becomes an exercise in bizarre drama. Fool me once, your fault. Fool me a hundred times, and it just might be the fault of a community process that lets anyone spout off about anything without having any idea what's actually going on. In case I'm not being clear enough: the unblock was blindingly misguided and will only serve to enable Betacommand the next time he pushes at his restrictions. Which he's already doing, of course... bursts of identical edits, four at once, every 12-20 minutes? Come on. → ROUX ₪ 17:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Llywrch, your comments on this page are despicable and I sincerely hope you strike them. Betacommand, at one point, was an administrator on this project and has devoted a substantial amount of time and energy to it. To say he has "contributed nothing of value to Wikipedia" is simply beyond the pale. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  - What has he contributed of value? In the two years before he was banned, BC was a perennial thorn in the side of Wikipedia. I stand by my statement above. BTW, I have been an Admin on this project longer than he was a member, & devoted at least as much energy & time to it. Only I worked at contributing content -- the stuff users actually read -- & not making automated edits of a controversial nature. "Despicable"? -- bah. I'm going to bed. -- llywrch (talk) 07:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem with edit restrictions on someone like Betacommand is that whenever he breaks them his friends will make up excuses. A good wikilawyer can always find something. Also, we need to waste valuable volunteer time watching over him. Anyone who does risks being accused of baiting or harassing. I do wonder why some powerful people in Wikipedia spend so much effort trying to bring Betacommand back. This is the person who has probably driven away more content contributors from Wikipedia than anyone else. There are plenty of people more deserving of a review of their cases. I cannot avoid the (bad faith) impression that they feel indebted to Betatacommand for doing their dirty work for them. --193.11.232.222 (talk) 13:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Advisory Council on Project Development convened

MickMacNee (talk) 12:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Cool story, bro. —harej (talk) (cool!) 03:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Obviously this Committee was formed with particular issues in mind that need addressing. What are some examples? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that the group was really formed with reference to specific issues, actually. There have been a few vague ideas bounced around recently (e.g. having someone analyze the impact of flagged revisions if or when that actually gets trialled, coming up with an easy-to-understand summary of key rules that could be provided to new editors, and so forth), but these may not necessarily be things we ask the group to look at. A bigger motivator, I think, is just a desire on our part to have a someone readily available that we can turn to when we need advice.

The other aspect of the group, of course, is slightly more experimental; we think that pulling together a pretty diverse set of experienced, insightful editors and asking them to discuss issues relevant to the project is likely to produce something useful (regardless of whether the issues to consider are originally suggested by us, by the members of the group itself, or by other editors). Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 03:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, definitely. Somewhat suprised that no-one who has experience in content disputes was invited, as far as i can see. While arbcom doesn't deal with content, someone who has experience doing so would probably be of benefit. Vassyana and Xavexgoem come to mind. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope that this council will concentrate on project governance issues, not individual content disputes. Cla68 (talk) 06:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it Cla68, that will be the case - individual content disputes are not for the group which will concentrate on more general governance and long term objective (that will certainly be my input). Perhaps the goals and remit of the group need top be clearly defined before it convenes for the first time. Giano (talk) 07:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd also hope that this council will not concentrate on content issues. This is an issue of having people from multiple areas of Wikipedia in a "think tank" and I think someone who's had experience in content disputes, whether that's an issue the council will address often, would be of benefit, either way. They may at times give advice or make proposals on to how to solve certain complex situations, or make proposals on new methods. This is why I think it would benefit to have someone from the content DR aspect of things at the table. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 08:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Steve, I've no idea who else has been invited, but the statement currently says that there are some people who've yet to respond, so it could be that someone/s will pop up, and it also seems that ArbCom would welcome more suggestions. --86.170.162.220 (talk) 08:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed; and anyone expressing their interest is very much encouraged to mention if they can bring experience that the group currently lacks to the table. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 11:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Are these council discussion sessions going to be held in public? MickMacNee (talk) 10:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's definitely the plan at the moment, although we're not quite sure yet how exactly they'll be set up. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 11:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggest someone clicks WP:Advisory Council on Project Development and off we go. Kirill, I suggest we start by formulating some kind of agenda. As this is an innovation of Arbcom, are there any wishlists you'd like prioritise? --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggested agenda:

Item 1. A nice cup of tea and a sit down

Item 2. Plot the overthrow of arbcom

Patience, patience. ;-)

ArbCom will probably suggest some items in the next week or so—we don't have anything resembling a coherent list at the moment—but some of them are likely to be low-priority and of limited interest. As a practical matter, I think the easiest way to get something like an agenda going might be to have each member suggest a couple of topics that they'd like to see discussed; at least then we'll have a decent-size pool to choose from. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 12:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

MickMacNee, if you can't post sensibly then don't post at all - go play outside. On a serious note, what is the cap on numbers to this commottee going to be - to my mind, there is sufficient already - the more involved with any committee the more difficult it becomes to reach agreement. I am also concerned by the huge ratio of admins and Arbs to non-admins - hardly a cross section. Giano (talk) 12:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the body is likely to grow significantly, at least in the near term; I think we might add another half-dozen members or so, depending on interest. As far as non-admins go, we didn't look at admin status as a factor when putting together the list of invitees; I think it's largely a function of long-term editors who are known to us being more likely to be admins than non-admins. Of course, if you have any suggestions for additional members, please do send them to us. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 12:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

looks very interesting, and certainly most welcome :-) - I'm crossing my fingers that at least most of the group's activity takes place on this wiki - there are any number of ways of achieving this sensibly... hopefully there are enough members cautious enough of private mailing lists, and private wikis to ensure some good old fashioned wiki-transparency :-) Privatemusings (talk) 12:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)plus I get to throw stones at people I like then... always fun!

Congratulations to all of the appointees. I have a couple comments and questions:

Is this group going to be added to Func-L, since they share some of the "community leadership" responsibilities but not necessarily the privacy responsibilities
While I appreciate this group is a series of experienced and dedicated Wikipedians, I am concerned by the appearance of elitism - which I am afraid will dull its effectiveness to address the problems of those less hooked-in.
Related to the previous, I'd like too see some opportunity for a voice for those who don't show up regularly in governance issues, on boards or so on, who can give a more ground level viewpoint. Perhaps someone who is active in particular wikiprojects only?
Is it possible this council is given a less.... whats the word... pretentious title? "Advisory Group" perhaps.
This council doesn't have a clear mission statement or purpose but a series of hopes and caveats ("coming up with ideas that either the Committee or the community as a whole might choose to pursue" and "anything it might recommend will need to achieve consensus normally."
Its entirely unclear what the relationship of this group is to the arbitration/dispute resolution process is. Is this group going to be loosely affiliated, simply given the imprimatur of Wikipedia's formal social mechanisms, or is this group "too involved" to be involved in bringing forward arbitration requests and jump early in attempts to defuse disputes?
It is my hope that this group acts with energy and solicits input from a broad range of Wikipedians

--Tznkai (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

A few answers. No plan to include members on Funct-l. The group is more or less a think tank that is intended to hold discussions in a way that will help the Community find better ways to develop solution to broad issues that currently remain unresolved. ArbCom is aware of some of these issues because we see them repeatedly in our work. We plan to jump start the discussion with some issues that we would like the new group to discuss. But the topics for discussion will not be limited to an agenda set by ArbCom. FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
To address some of Tznkai's other points. Those invited have been asked about alternative names for the group, and everyone reading this is more than welcome to come up with a better name, though hopefully not too much time will be spent on that. The name should flow from the objective and purpose of the group, so discussion of that would be better. That covers the following point as well, I think. The final point, about dispute resolution, is easier to answer: my understanding is that this group will have little to nothing to do with dispute resolution (other than proposing general ways to improve it). The fact that it was proposed by what is a dispute resolution body (ArbCom) is essentially an artifact of the way ArbCom is sometimes (incorrectly, in my view) looked to for "leadership" (this emerges from the fact that people are elected to ArbCom and thus are seen to represent the community). In reality, taking the lead on issues should come from within the community, but this doesn't always happen. In this case, ArbCom have stepped forward and said "we think a body like this is needed". Hopefully this body will fulfill a role of moving ideas and proposals forward, but also listening to what is said, and still leaving the ultimate disposition and direction of things in the hands of the community. Carcharoth (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Just note, I expanded one of my comments above, I apparently was sleepy when I wrote it all out.--Tznkai (talk) 00:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not think the "name" is important. I do not feel comfortable with any of those listed as serving as a "laison" between me and ArbCom, especially since two are already ArbCom members. And the rest of us have no say in who is "selected"? How were they "selected"? —Mattisse (Talk) 00:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

This group is not going to act as a liaison between the community and the arbitration committee. It is merely going to make recommendations on large projects, and will sink or swim based on the quality of those recommendations. The arbitration committee has selected the current participants by proposing members and using a majority vote to determine who will be asked to be a founding member. Some candidates have declined, so that has also played a part in the make up of it. We have not decided how the membership will be maintained in the future. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

One further question, in the interests of transparency, would Risker, Stephen Bain, or Vassyana like to explain their opposition? (Or Casliber and Carcharoth their ambivalence?)--Tznkai (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a matter of broad project governance, which ArbCom shouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole. The same basic goal could be accomplished by interested, motivated, and experienced Wikipedians starting a "think tank" WikiProject. If ArbCom needs advice, we can email the functionaries list or post to any number of places on-wiki to solicit community input. Despite all intentions to the contrary, this is likely to create a new class of editors and distort governance development. (The two are intimately tied together.) The scope and purpose are also poorly defined, but that's almost a bikeshed color issue in comparison with the other concerns. If I can further clarify my position or if there are further questions, I will do my best to accomodate. --Vassyana (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Significant concerns to me were the lack of clarity in purpose and scope. My "oppose" vote was registered almost two weeks ago, and the Committee consensus has proved to be different than my opinion. My personal practice is to accept the consensus and work toward implementing it. As well, since the time of my vote, I have noticed that several proposals brought forward by individual editors, or in some cases small groups of editors, have failed to gain momentum sufficient to actually result in any decisions, despite the fact that they were serious ideas worthy of consideration. While I remain concerned about "scope" issues here (and hence did not change my vote), I am quite impressed with the calibre of editors who have accepted the opportunity to participate in large-scale, broad-representation teamwork to try to develop comprehensive proposals that address project issues identified both recently and as perennial proposals. If this works, and helps the project to move forward in some areas where we've been spinning our wheels for a while, fantastic. If it doesn't result in any change, at least a group of our excellent contributors have had the chance to get to know others from within the project whose paths they may not have crossed otherwise. Risker (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I and many others cannot accept the term "broad" being associated with the list that has already accepted. There are many, many wikiprojects that are ignored and many that are over represented. There is also a biased among many of the editors that have been selected that would severely harm any neutrality, especially in some of our more delicate subjects. I have already submitted most of this information to an Arbitrator. But the above list is very skewed and not in the best direction. The fact that some of these people are part of Wikipedia Review and lack significant edit contributions to any project or content area is downright troubling. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

My concerns were similar to those of Risker and Vassyana and bainer (in particular that it would have been better for a proposal such as this to be worked up from the ground up), but I was also aware that if launched right and given an opportunity to show what it could do, such a body of experienced users helping to generate ideas, consider the ideas of others, and fast-track proposals on crucial issues, while still ultimately bound by community consensus, could improve the workings of the project. Given this, I couldn't bring myself to oppose. So in the end I abstained (essentially reserving judgment), while continuing to support the idea in principle. I do intend to follow the development of this group with interest, and have compiled a list of questions which I will ask when the time feels right (it is a bit early to be coming out with a barrage of questions). At the moment, my feeling is that people should be saying whether they support the concept in principle (as I do) and then further discussion can take place later. Carcharoth (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I am personally very concerned with the ill defined scope and grand sweep. What I hope to see out of this is something much less formal than it is titled - a group of dedicated Wikipedians with working relationships that act as informal community leadership. In my view, I hope that future members are promoted by accolade - not appointment or election.--Tznkai (talk) 00:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

That is/was my view too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

That would certainly be a good goal to aim for. I think it's fair to say that this body is, in many ways, an experimental one; it's quite likely that it will evolve into something that's constituted differently, or operates differently, depending on how productive it is and how the community views its work. Hopefully, the effort will lead to a better Wikipedia in one way or another—even if the benefit winds up being a lesson in what works and doesn't work in groups of this type. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 00:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I opposed the proposal because, in my view, it was ultra vires for the Committee. Our remit is dispute resolution, and while the definition of that can sometimes be quite broad, it cannot possibly be stretched to encompass project governance. The body is obviously intended to have an impact on project governance, even though it is framed as being an advisory body; indeed it would be a waste of time unless it were intended to have an impact on project governance. Moreover, the necessity of maintaining the pretence that it is an advisory body to the Committee will mean that it will never be independent of or escape association with the Committee, which risks retarding any good ideas that it produces. It is true that many proposals to change the way the project operates never get off the ground, but they are typically proposals to change something directly, whereas this was a 'greenfield' proposal. There are some fine people involved with this already, and had that group been put together at a community level I am sure it would have been successful. --bainer (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

"The advisory group will also advise the Committee directly, providing us with feedback and ideas from a cross-section of the community that's not otherwise involved in our work." - Since when were Casliber and Kirill not involved with ArbCom? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom members on an advisory committee (Community Advisory Committee?) that reports to the ArbCom is probably not the best way of going about this, especially since ArbCom controls who is allowed to be a member and who is not. It is a lot of power for those people who are on both. They can block ArbCom opinions they don't like by rallying a few like-minded Committee members to prove the prevailing ArbCom opinion is not what the community wants. Likewise, they can block emerging Committee recommendations they don't like by fustrating the Committee talks (or divert the agenda, or a number of other political tactics). Likewise, they can justify their own opinions by influencing Committee agenda/talks. The mere appearance of this kind of conflict or use of insider influence is bad for legitimacy. --maclean 21:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

My feeling is similar to Carch's - in an ideal world (well, in an ideal world all new proposals and improvements, actions etc. would continue to be community driven) this would have happened 'from the ground up' - and I wished it would have, but the pragmatic side of me pondered whether someone needed to give it a kick-start, and arbcom seemed like a good organ to give it the intiial shove, as it were. I did propose that the committee itself figure whether it wanted 0,1, 2 or whatever number of arbs on it, but I think the feeling was to develop it and have a couple of arbs as liaison-type people anyway. We can also offer input on ease or difficulty of governance thus far. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

On wikipedia, anything from the ground up is stamped on and beaten into submission - accept that and we are half way to helping the project. Now, on a more realistic note it appears that Tony's invitation to join this august body has been lost on the post - Kirill, perhaps you would like to redress that, one more confirmed non-admin would help the balance wouldn't it? Giano (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Giano, the one thing that is likely to cause a proposal like this to founder is arguing over who should be on it. After the body has been set up, there will be ample opportunity for the members to co-opt other people to join them or advise them, but at the moment, we are asking for self-nominations. Tony1 should e-mail or contact us if he wants to be considered. Also, remember that anyone will be able to comment on talk pages - that is how I intend to make my opinions known if an issue is discussed that I have a strong opinion on. Actually being on the group (the way I envisage it) is not crucial to contributing ideas or participating in discussions, but such a group guiding discussion should make things a bit more orderly and productive. Carcharoth (talk) 22:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) What is the purpose of having two members of ArbCom on the committee devised to advise ArbCom? Also, from a personal perspective, I am somewhat concerned that out of 18 members (so far), six were indirectly (one) or directly (five members) involved in instigating the recent arbitration against me. Can you reassure me that this is a coincidence? Also, why are certain areas of Wikipedia overrepresented e.g. LGBT contributors, while others (science, religion) are under represented? What was the process in selecting these members? Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- In my view, the arbitrators are like liaison members, and also contribute their experience of Wikipedia and of arbitration. The council (not committee) is intended to advise the community, not just ArbCom. The proposal has nothing to do with any current or past arbitration cases, so your observation about your recent case is indeed a coincidence. The representation of topics in content contributions was not, admittedly, considered, but that would be extremely difficult to do. To get a proper representation of subject topics, you would need a large body of 100 people or more. On content, my view is that this advisory council would not consider specific matters of content (that would be, as always, down to editors discussing on talk pages and at article reviews), but more general, project-wide concerns. Carcharoth (talk) 22:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  - "The representation of topics in content contributions was not, admittedly, considered" This is the reason why myself and many actual, active content editors (which only a handful on that list can honestly claim as a title) cannot respect the committee's proposal nor would want the council "advising" us in any manner. I, for one, would not want a group made up of Wikipedia Review members and those who are in isolated niches with very little experience with content as a whole or much of it in general to pontificate about anything as if they know what is best for us. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
    - As I've mentioned below, any group of Wikipedians can come together and work on developing ideas for improving the project. If you think that this group's suggestions won't be worth listening to—and you are perfectly entitled to think so, although I would hope that you don't regard us quite so poorly—then why not gather up a group that you think could offer more insight? I would be quite happy if, in six months' time, we have a dozen different think tanks all doing their best to come up with proposals; it's not as though I think the editors we've gathered have a monopoly on good ideas! ;-) Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 00:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
      - Kirill, please take a moment and look at my user page and see how it is not like the others. Also note that I don't put my name on projects, join various groups, or anything like that. I work in many, many fields and I have probably over 20 different WikiProjects attached to the various pages that I work on. However, I don't like WikiProjects or any sort of group. I tend to keep to myself because it allows me to focus. Why? Because groups tend to breed cliques, have people assume power, and try to dominate others. They avoid the purpose and instead follow standard mindsets in such situations. Instead of focusing on how to get the job done, people care more about how they are seen. If someone wants to help me, they can come and edit, add wikilinks, add categories, or a million other tasks I can assign them to. Coming up with some obscure opinion about some governance wont help. We have ArbCom to settle decisions that can't be decided. We don't need a council of people with skewed viewpoints putting out some idea that wont help create content any faster. I don't care for groups, because groups are never around when there are things to be done. We need more workers and not "advisers". Ottava Rima (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

So, at a stroke, Arbcom's remit is extended from dispute resolution to project governance. To help it in this new role, it has appointed a group of editors to advise it. It wasn't felt worthwhile to ask the community how it feels about Arbcom becoming innvolved in governance, nor to consult the community about which editors should be appointed advisors. It will allow the community to suggest additonal nominees, whom it will appoint or not, as it sees fit. Cool. --MoreThings (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone had to do something, 'cos right now this project is headed for Hell in a handcart. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd certainly have voted for many of the people in the list to be given a say in the way the project is governed, and in the way it moves forward. But trampling on community consensus and presenting the whole thing as a fait accompli like this is not, imo, the way to do it. This is fundamental change in the structure of the project; handing it down as an announcement on a notice board can't be right. --MoreThings (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"Community consensus" is a millstone, a dead weight that we continually drag around behind us, an excuse for doing nothing. Nobody can even adequately define what it means, or how it's measured. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess; but a discussion and a !vote would have been a starting point. Perhaps it's true that a proposal to establish this unelected, self-selecting elite would have struggled to find consensus, especially when you consider the outcry that greeted Peter Damian's attempt to establish an elected, self-selecting elite. And as Jimbo often points out, this place is not a democracy, he can put in place whatever structures and processes he likes. He is under no obligation to consult anyone. I have to say that, personally, I find moves like this alienating; but if the consensus is that it's okay to ignore consensus in this particular instance, I'm happy to abide by the consensus :)--MoreThings (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see any fundamental change here, though. You'd be correct if this were an actual governance body; but, as I hope we've made clear—and we did try to make it very explicit—the body is purely an advisory one, and has no authority beyond discussing and making proposals (which is something any group of Wikipedians can do). I would hope that people will find the group's ideas to be useful—certainly, this many experienced editors ought to be able to come up with something worth considering—but the community is perfectly free to agree, or disagree, with anything this group suggests. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 00:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, Vassyana, Cla68 and Giano have all said they see the primary concern of this panel to be governance of the project. So we now have a panel of unelected editors whose opinions regarding the governance of the project carry more weight than the opinions of their peers. And I guess that wp:arbcom ought to be updated. At the moment it defines Arbcom's role as dispute resolution. It should reflect its new role in project governance.--MoreThings (talk) 01:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, how much weight the group's opinion has in general is entirely up to the community, isn't it? If people find the group's suggestion's worthwhile, then it will presumably be because those suggestions are good ones, and not because the group happened to be convened by ArbCom. (ArbCom's own opinions tend to be ignored more often than not, in my experience.)

The Committee will ask the group for advice, of course; but I would think that we're free to ask whomever we want for advice in any case. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 01:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You can ask anyone for advice, but it's informal. I don't think you have the right to set up a formal committee to decide the project's future *and* to close the membership *and* to include yourself (whether someone else suggested you or not). SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

This just seems such a major change, right out of the blue. The people involved all appear to believe that their job is to advise how the project should be governed. Do you not agree that becoming involved in governing the project is a fundamental change in role for Arbcom? And if Arbcom has now been asked to fulfuil that role, don't you feel that it would better if the people who you turn to for advice are endorsed by the community? --MoreThings (talk) 01:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) What was considered in the selection of these members? From my point of view, it is not neutral. Can you reassure me that efforts were made to cast an wide net? I want to feel good about the development of this committee, but I am finding it difficult to do so. I do not feel this group is in any way representative and would like to know by what criteria they were selected, as well as exactly what task they are assigned. I would also like to know who turned membership down, aside from the one case I know about who would have upped the number involved in the arbitration case against me to seven. I sincerely hope this committee does not impact me personally, because of the large number involved in causing me to undergo arbitration. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- There were a variety of factors, but I can assure you that their current or past relationship with you was not one of them. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 00:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a strange coincidence, I had considered the creation of an advisory committee/council for a few weeks, precisely to provide advises on some broad issues affecting the community, and allow the development of consensus in those areas. But I had come up with so many reasons not to do it, that I never proposed it. I think there are other ways to achieve the same goal. The community itself could develop a process to investigate broad issues, a sort of enhanced RFC, with similarities to an ArbCom case, but open, with the goal of achieving consensus. I had also thought of an executive committee, to transfer some executive powers from ArbCom to this committee, with relations with ArbCom to be determined. But I had always thought the community should decide on whether to create this or not, and not ArbCom. The selection of members should be thoroughly discussed. As of now, I can see users who I know have a strong opinion w.r.t. to certain issues, in such a number, that it is not representative of the community view. The initial pool should be enlarged. Questions: (1) Where and by who has it been discussed previously, who made the proposal ? (2) Is this subject to community review, that is, more directly, can the community decide to shut this down at any time ? Cenarium (talk) 03:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The idea of devolving authority from ArbCom is an interesting one, although I'm not sure what we could devolve that would be useful to a group of this nature. Generally speaking, I would suggest that the draft arbitration policy would be the best place to take considerations of that sort; the policy could be modified to include something along those lines before it goes up for ratification.

As far as your specific questions:

This particular group has been under discussion amongst the Committee since late May, but the general idea of an advisory body has been brought up at various times over the past few months. Off the top of my head, I don't recall any discussion outside the Committee along these lines, although perhaps I'm overlooking something.
In principle, I suppose the community has the ability to shut down anything it wants, whenever it wants. Under normal circumstances, though, the Committee can ask anyone for advice without needing the community's approval, so I'm not sure what the practical effect of this would be.

Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 03:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. Just noting that I didn't mean the executive committee would be related to the advisory council, it would be entirely separate in my mind. An advisory committee in this context shouldn't have any special power. Cenarium (talk) 04:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Re (2), the point here is that it's never been clear whether the community has the power to overturn broad decisions or processes introduced by ArbCom (WP:BLPSE for example). I'm not sure, either, that the community could, speaking theoretically, shut down ArbCom. So the question arises. Does the ArbCom explicitly allows the community to review this group and gives it explicit authority to dissolve it, and modify it ? The ArbCom can indeed ask for advises, but there's a stretch in creating a permanent body for that. ArbCom has already called for RFCs, it could call for investigations and advises on a problem to the community in a way to be determined, which could be related to the suggested process I mention earlier. Cenarium (talk) 09:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I would assume that the community shutting down ArbCom would be in the vein of a constitutional crisis of some sort, no? My feeling has always been that the community retains the authority to do so in principle, despite the lack of any actual procedure.

As far as this body is concerned, the community shut down the "think tank" aspects (i.e. by dissolving the body's public gathering); but it can't prevent ArbCom from coming to the people in the group for advice without shutting down ArbCom itself.

Speaking less of principle and more of practical approaches, I would of course encourage the community to constructively modify the group to better serve its needs. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 12:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest that whatever role the proposed group takes, it might be beneficial to set up a page similar to this one? Namely, that group members post to the front page, and debate can continue in an alternate track on talk? I figure that there is some selection here, and while we shouldn't silence those not of "the body", if we're going to be selected for our opinions we should have a similar venue to put them up. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You are quite right. I will propose that below. Carcharoth (talk) 09:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

"Off the top of my head, I don't recall any discussion outside the Committee along these lines, although perhaps I'm overlooking something." What a sweeping self-indictment! Not only was this a proposal introduced out of the blue as a fait-accompli with no community discussion, but those involved aren't even sure whether they attempted to discuss it outside private channels or not. Geometry guy 06:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is a long history of such ideas, in various forms, going back several years. If you dig around in all the essays and failed proposals, there *are* ideas similar to this one. One of the things I want to do at some point is gather them all together so a realistic assessment of the merits of each idea can be made. It might be said that the failure of previous similar ideas should tell everyone something, but that depends whether you think the ideas were fundamentally flawed, or just needed fixing and improvement. If you think such ideas are fundamentally flawed, and the "wiki-way" must be allowed full reign, then you are unlikely to ever support a proposal such as this, even though, as Kirill said, exactly the same sort of body could have been set up without ArbCom's involvement and endorsement. The key is whether the failure to set up such a body is a sign of community dysfunction (being too divided to ever come to an agreement on whether such a body is needed), or the community correctly rejecting the need for such a body? Carcharoth (talk) 09:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

That's now two editors who have asserted that LGBT editors or WP:LGBT is being overrepresented by this think tank thing. I'm so puzzled by this. I don't recognize any of the editors listed for this committee as contributors to primarily LGBT topics, major contributors to LGBT topics (and as I previously said, copy editing or reverting vandalism at Lady Gaga does not qualify one to be a member of or represent WP:LGBT), or frequent contributors to the talk pages of WP:LGBT. I suppose the inclination to be suspicious is human nature, as I was when I was asked to be a part of this. Kirill can attest that my response was nothing more than sluggish and ambivalent if not downright cynical. The claims, suspicions, bringing it up...all of it is confusing...like asserting "activist judges" are behind the change of public policy.

Furthermore, while I think there should be a way to communicate better ideas to ArbCom and think it a good idea to facilitate that, such a communication should not in itself be a lightning rod for controversy or put these idea suggesters in the middle of drama. I don't want to have to cover my personal life because I have ideas, the first of them being to be clearer about the scope of what this group plans to do. I agree with Risker. I think I can offer what insight I have, but I have to know first how my time is going to be spent or wasted and if anyone is going to be listening. I spent years in a major school district watching how advisory committees operate, and that is to say, they were created to give parents and school personnel an outlet for bitching about something, not for actually coming up with solutions to problems. The committees themselves were oddly full of self-importance; their members loved to clear their throats, raise an index finger and make their eloquent points about issues no one really cares about while the school district was quite clear they thought such advisory committees full of imbeciles and walked in a meeting once a year to wave, smile, and say "Great job! You're so invaluable to us!" while all along never entertaining the notion of listening to them ever. --Moni3 (talk) 15:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I also have some real life experience with community advisory committees. Their structure is a strong determinant of their output and dynamics. One of my community committees's (for a local gov dealing with land use issues) poison pill was the inclusion of an elected official. Of course he was elected the chairperson because he is so well respected and most knowledgeable about process. But he was also a member of the directors' committee to which the community committee reported. But when the committee started providing recommendations he didn't like, he independently set up a second committee in secret and used his influence on the directors' committee to have the first committee abolished and his selected committee established. Keep the 2 committees independent of one another. Have a completely neutral party as chair or facilitator (and clerk, in this case).

And I echo the warning about 'self-importance'. They all start with an understanding that they are to only provide advice (opinion) but that (always) quickly turns to a belief in advice (constitutional). --maclean 19:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

For some reason, I think it's worth it to clarify that I think no one so far has behaved in a self-important manner in this instance. I was just relaying my experience with advisory committees as it related to my apprehension of signing on immediately. --Moni3 (talk) 20:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

"Advisory Council on Project Development?" Doesn't that sound just a little officious? I'm not just throwing rocks here, I honestly believe that what you call a thing has a lot to do with how people treat a thing and act as part of that thing. I do however, hope that the anti-establishment rockthrowers that are on this council rememberkeep their feet firmly planted and do their best to focus on informal leadership rather than formal auhority.--Tznkai (talk) 21:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually surprised that no-one appears to have put themselves forward as registering their interest. Maybe it's the desire to not appear snobbish or cocksure by putting themselves forward. Or maybe my eyes are tired from reading. As an editor of over four years, I have noticed that the community, or at least, its spirit, has declined gradually and I think that the ACPD is a good idea. I also think that being a more content-minded editor, including my tenure on the project, editing philosophy, and editing areas would add variety to the body. Also, I have, over the past, introduced and proposed several ideas for the betterment of the community, for example, introducing a clause to the harassment policy to combat the then-overwhelming misuse of the policy. While I am aware that my history of small-scale disruption may be a stumbling block to my chances, if anyone would consider inviting me, I'd gladly accept. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I threw my hat in the ring last night via email, and your last sentence applies equally to my own status. → ROUX ₪ 05:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiVoices episode announcement

WikiVoices will be discussing this development at its next episode on 14 July 2009. Council appointees, arbitrators, and interested community members are welcome to join the roundtable discussion. The recording will begin at 10pm UTC (6pm Eastern, 3pm Pacific) via Skype. Signup is being held at Wikipedia:Wikivoices#Our_next_Skypecast. Durova²⁷⁵ 22:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

What is this Council for?

I find it hard to work out the purpose of this Council. In fact the fundamental problem appears to be the definition of ArbCom's functions. Let's consider the obvious contrast, with national governments. These make policy, i.e. they create new laws and regulations and amend older ones. Hence they need "think tanks" to examine and extrapolate in detail both proposed new /changed legislation and circumstances that might require such changes. However AFAIK ArbCom does not make policy - apart from a few that are mandated by the project office, mainly to keep WP out of the courts, policies and guidelines are supposedly the result of consensus within the community (how far that is true is a different matter). Since ArbCom is largely reactive, functioning as the highest level of the dispute resolution process, I don't see what use it has for a "think tank".

In fact one could level the charge that creation of this Council creates a new level of "inner circle" that may short-circuit or distort the results of existing community mechanisms such as policy RfCs. The over-representation of admins and Arbs in the proposed membership has already aroused comment. --Philcha (talk) 07:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned about this. The ArbCom is a dispute-resolution body. It's not here to decide on the future of the project. Any Wikipedian is welcome to set up such a committee, but they're not allowed to restrict its membership. I am also generally concerned about the powers that Kirill seems to be assuming for himself. It's getting to be a bit too much. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - any Wikipedian - does that not include the members of ArbCom? I think the real question should be "Is ArbCom prohibited from setting up this group for some reason?". It states on the page describing the group that "anything it might recommend will need to achieve consensus normally, as any other proposal would, before it can be implemented", so I don't see the ArbCom as deciding the future of the project, but rather the community. Awadewit (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. We have tried to make it very explicit that the role of this body is not to decide, but only to discuss and develop ideas for improving the project, in a slightly less chaotic fashion than might be accomplished by merely throwing vague ideas and premature proposals up on random pages.

Speaking more generally, I would hope that it is apparent from the Committee's actions in recent months—the elections of functionaries, the RFCs, the changes to arbitration policy to base it on community ratification—that we have no interest in trying to decide the future of the project ourselves and impose our wishes on an unwilling community. We are moving, instead, towards a vision of a community empowered to make its own decisions. The path is slow, to be sure, but I am confident we will eventually reach a point where the future of the project is determined by the community, not imposed from above; where discussion of policy and governance is held openly and transparently, not on secret mailing lists by unelected cabals; and where an effective and vibrant model of governance allows us to improve the project to cope with its growth, rather than tying us to outdated and stagnant methodologies.

This think tank is merely another step along that path. We have not instituted a governance model by fiat, nor set up a secret group to conspire against the wishes of the community; all we have done is gathered a group of people who we believe can offer insight into some of the issues facing the project, and asked them to come up with some ideas for improving it. If this method of generating proposals turns out to be unproductive, we can change it; if the community develops something better, we can obsolete it; but I don't think our presumption is so great, or our creation of the group so inadvisable, that it should be reflexively opposed rather than being given a chance to prove its value to the project. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 17:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that you chose the members in secret, and included yourself and your friends. That suggests you are trying to determine the future of the project. I've opened up an RfC for a community-wide discussion. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Advisory Council on Project Development. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Slim here. Given the kicking that was given out to Peter for proposing the Established Editors board – which would have had an elected membership – I don't see how a self-appointed star chamber of Arbcom's friends is somehow acceptable less than a month later. – iridescent 17:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure Giano could really be considered a 'friend' of Arbcom ;) And the major difference I see between Damian's group and this is that Damian's group was explicitly aimed at stacking votes, was open to a very select few (Arbcom has indicated that potential membership in this is open to anyone), and was generally adversarial. This is more of a round table for hammering out ideas, transparently, and is sorely needed. Consensus is all well and good, but Wikipedia is having the same problem that communes did in the 60s; if they were popular, they became too big and collapsed under their own weight. Some sort of guidance is needed. The general impossibility of getting anything done these days is evidence of that. Try gaining a consensus on any policy or procedural change that isn't utterly banal (and even then...), or anything that isn't a community ban of an obviously negative contributor. It just doesn't happen. We desperately need a group to pinpoint the problems, and find workable solutions without, sorry, everyone and their dog throwing in their snark or two cents' worth. I think the fact that this group will explicitly have zero power should be comforting. → ROUX ₪ 17:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

If it has "zero power", then all it will be able achieve is zero. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Or someone else has the power to act on its recommendations. Who would that be? --Philcha (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the idea is to come up with ideas that can be run by the community, which then has the power to reject, modify or accept them. JN466 20:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Where should discussion go from here?

Obviously there is much to discuss here, but I think it is important to consider where discussion should go from here. One thing I want to avoid is a mixing up of discussion between arbitrators and those opposing this idea, and the ideas and thoughts of those who accepted invitations. That is not fair on those who accepted the invitations. What I propose is that people discuss here the objections they have to the idea of an advisory council in principle, and also state their objections to ArbCom convening this advisory council, and their objections to the way this was announced and set up. But that discussion of what such a council would do, and how it would work in practice, be done elsewhere, and those questions be asked of those who have accepted invitations, and also anyone else who would like to join such a group (they, after all, not ArbCom, will decide what they do and how they do it). In other words, at some point fairly soon, the group should disengage from this announcement, and from ArbCom, and sink or swim on its own merits. This shouldn't happen immediately, as more discussion is needed here (not everyone will have seen this discussion yet, for one), but that is how I think the discussion should fork, when the timing is right. Carcharoth (talk) 09:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to post something similar this morning. The above concerns are clearly divided into two sets of questions: those of legitimacy and those of execution. If we could clearly organize the questions of legitimacy here, perhaps we could start a real dialogue and easily see just how many editors are worried about this issue. I don't know about the other people who accepted invitation, but I anticipated such questions from the outset and I am ready with my answers. :) Awadewit (talk) 16:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Failure to recuse

I'm suprised to see that Kirill Lokshin saw fit to invite himself onto the advisory council, accept his own invitation, then vote support on the proposal to create it, despite this very obvious conflict of interest. He even announced it "on behalf of the Arbitration Committee." Is this just Kirill and an entourage of rubber stamps? Why didn't he recuse?
Also, since we're informed that each proposed candidate was accepted or rejected with an up or down vote, are these votes going to be made public?24.18.142.245 (talk) 10:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Except that I was not the person who suggested that I should be a member; I did recuse, obviously, from considering my own membership; and I voted on the general proposal long before I, or anyone else, was actually invited.

(The fact that I happened to be the one to post the announcement about it is neither here nor there; I make most of our announcements, simply because doing so is one of my responsibilities as the coordinating arbitrator.) Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 12:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely believe what you say and would not have thought otherwise, but when the "coordinating arbitrator" votes in favor of a new (potentially powerful - let's be real here) advisory group invented out of whole cloth by ArbCom with no community input whatsover, accepts membership on it, makes the announcement about it, and then argues fairly passionately in its favor here on this page, there are going to be people who see possible impropriety there. Surely you must have foreseen that, given the obvious distaste with which much of the community views new bureaucracy and elite groupings of editors.

Not incidentally, you might have saved yourself some trouble by simply not making any Arbs members of the group. I have not seen any convincing arguments as to why that is necessary (it's not like the group can't be in contact with the committee if there are not committee members on it), and if the purpose of the group is to actually advise ArbCom, then it should not be a problem for it to be made of solely of non-Arbitrators. The presence of the coordinating arbitrator on the group will inevitably lead to feelings (justified or not) that this new body is little more than a way for the committee to extend its reach and authority. I'm sure you don't think of it that way and that in reality that was not at all your intention, but given the basic facts of how this came about I would hope you would agree that it's hard to fault other editors for coming to that conclusion. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Now comes the man on a white horse to rescue us, whether we want to be rescued or not. And whatever happened to Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC

I am really quite concerned about the implications of this. I've set up an RfC so that people can express their views. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Advisory Council on Project Development. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Kirill's Resignation

I see. It's not quite what I'd hoped for; a pity, I suppose.

In any case, I take full responsibility for the errors in judgment made in convening the ACPD, and have tendered my resignation from the Arbitration Committee.

I apologize to the community for the unfortunate situation that has resulted from my actions. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 21:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Please reconsider, whether or not this was a good idea or not, you are a valued (by me at least) member of Arbcom and losing your input and skills from Arbcom would be a big loss. I would hope that even the strongest critics of this idea agree that it does not need you to resign from arbcom. Davewild (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

As kindly as possible, this isn't the British Parliament, resignation is not a form of apology. Say you may have made a mistake, buck up, and move on. Resigning may look like the right thing to do, but its really just quitting.--Tznkai (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. You had what seemed like a good idea and people didn't agree. It's hardly a resignation issue. – iridescent 21:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Only some people at that. Its not like people are actually asking for Kirill's head, and if they have, I guess I've been ignoring them as melodramatic.--Tznkai (talk) 21:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It does demonstrate how severely out of touc this ArbCom member is with the community's belief about what ArbCom's parameters are. How can he think that accepting a position, as an ArbCom member, to a board that "advises" ArbCom on any subject is a reasonable idea? I think he needs to acknowledge this severe lapse in judgment in some meaningful fashion, if indeed he believes it is. Where is the resignation tendered? —Mattisse (Talk) 21:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Mother Mary an Jozef, this is way out of proportion. C'mon Kirill, you're one of the good guys -- withdraw your resignation and get back to work. Matisse, enough. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

<after conflict>Mattisse, while your code of conduct is bizzarre at the best of times, you seems to be currently behaving like a <removed --Joopercoopers (talk) 03:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)>. There are many here who are suprised that you are still able to edit so your so your current take on Kirill behoves you not. Regardless of the writes or wrongs of the new council, I don't think anyone doubts that Kirill's motives were honourable, and I say that as someone who has frequently disagreed with him. So please let us have no more from you on this. Giano (talk) 22:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

With deep astonishment, I find myself in complete agreement with Giano. → ROUX ₪ 22:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Please apologize for such a statement Giano. It is a personal attack. You need not attack my motives. Please assume good faith. It is an indication of why you might not be a good nominee for membership on such a committee. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Matisse, I'm hoping you'll take this with the best of humour - I have absolutely no axe to grind against you and I hear your concerns that some of the people on the council were involved in your recent Rfar. For the record no one has so much as breathed your name to me. Rather than this become an issue you get hot under the collar with, can I ask you talk through your objections with your mentors and if you still feel you'd like to pursue it, take their advise on board, before posting here again? Cheers. --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, please withdraw yourself from this discussion, because you've thus far accomplished nothing but hurt feelings.--Tznkai (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with above, there is no need for you to resign over this. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 22:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Kirill, I'd really beg you to reconsider - if this has got off to a bad start, it really has little to do with the purpose for which you were elected. What is to be gained from your resignation? The community beef seems to be the group will be an unaccountable executive formed without their consultation. Ok, lets deal with that then - listen, adapt and evolve - if even my esteemed colleague above hasn't called for your immediate desyssoping, it can't be that bad. --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't need this totally thankless job either. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Bah. Totally unnecessary. You botched the launch of this thing, that's a given, but we don't need or want hard working people to quit everytime they make a well-intentioned mistake. There is a heap of irony that trying to create the ACPD is itself a testament to the difficulties inherent in doing project development. You, and seven other arbitrators, and eighteen volunteers all meant well. For all the sound and fury, no one really wants to throw you to the lions. Dragons flight (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Piling on to the general consensus here. I don't think this was conceived of or rolled out particularly well at all and have said so, but I can't imagine that that's Kirill's fault solely or even perhaps primarily, and in any case it's far, far away from being cause for any resignations from anyone, though obviously Kirill should do whatever he wants to. A lot of the people objecting here and in the RfC, including myself, like the basic idea but not the manner in which the group was constituted. To me that just means we should just discuss it further—there are no bad guys or gals here, just some honest (and apparently significant) disagreements which we should be able to hash out respectfully. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you chaps (bigtime, dragon) considered that it's the emergence of a consensus that the council was poorly conceived, or the launch 'botched' which makes resignation the remaining option. You see, we've built a pretty system here which says 'consensus must be right', which means when you honestly disagree with it, you should consider leaving, no? Privatemusings (talk) 22:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess I don't look at it that way PM, at least for this case. Obviously you're right that when an editor fundamentally disagrees with a major "consensus" decision, resigning a certain role/position or leaving the project might make a lot of sense. But I think this particular contretemps is being blown out of proportion to some degree. People don't like the conception or the rollout, as you say. At that point why not simply discuss it further? Honestly I think further discussion could lead to something very similar to what was initially proposed and which the Arb members could absolutely live with, but which would be benefited by the fact that other "regular community" editors felt that they had some input into it. Also I'll stipulate that, while the rollout was bad, perhaps the community response was injudicious (too quick and too harsh) and therefore problematic as well. I just don't think anyone should be putting up barriers yet between those with opposing views and those who conceived of this or suggesting that the "consensus" has decided anything of substance. It hasn't, and there's plenty of room for agreement. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think someone who resigns at the drop of a hat is fit for ArbCom! --NE2 22:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The comment with the smiley that intentionally ignores the contribution by Krill is nothing but "mean".--Caspian blue 22:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree, NE2: with overt irony or without, that comment is in very poor taste. Happy‑melon 22:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

/me resists urge to make a comment truly in poor taste to demonstrate... ;-) - I think the comment is in good humour, and believe it would be received as such by those to whom it refers. Suggest hand sitting as a good tactic to prevent the infinity loop of commenting on comments about comments - and lighten up :-) Privatemusings (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You who baited Rlevse to resign the ArBCom should refrain from making such the nonsense.--Caspian blue 22:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope that Kirill will reconsider. While the concept and creation of ACPD may or may not be flawed, the contributions of Kirill to the ArbCom are evident and valued. I know how frustrating it can be to work hard on something and then get boos instead of applause. The concept may be fixable and even if it isn't there's no need for resignations over this. Will Beback talk 22:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

One more voice ought not to be necessary, but I'll add it anyway. Kirill, I hope you'll reconsider. When volunteer work is going well, it's incredibly rewarding; when it's going poorly, it's far more annoying than when you're being paid to take it. I can understand your frustration, but please don't take such rash action. BTW, I have a watchlist that's 3662 pages long (x2 when you consider talk pages); what does it say about us as a community when literally 99% of what's showing up on it today are updates to this page? Mlaffs (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Kirill, your value to Wikipedia outshines Matisse by about 50:1 at a minimum. Please get back in your judicial robes, or underwear, or whatever you Arbs wear. ~~Ignore the irrelevant user.~~ rootology (C)(T) 00:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

That personal comment is completely uncalled for and arguably untrue. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

In my take on this, Mattisse has been hurling emotional napalm in her/his latest "someone is out to get me campaign", and now Kirill has caught the flack of that, with Mattisse apparently thinking this advisory group is some cabal to "get" him. I stand by my statement that Mattisse, who consistently is on this site to battle and fight and carry on like a petulant politico (note Mattisse's block log), is of lesser value to the project than Kirill, who actually tries to get crap done as an Arb and has played a major role in driving content creation. rootology (C)(T) 00:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Definitely agree with Malleus here. Rootology, please retract both the above posts, it's completely inappropriate to bring your personal grudge into this. When you start getting civility warnings from myself and Malleus, something is seriously wrong somewhere. – iridescent 00:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I've got virtually no history of interaction ever with Mattisse, but have just observed from a distance. Is it really a personal attack for me to say that I consider Kirill more valuable to the project than Mattisse? Honestly? rootology (C)(T) 00:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

What Malleus and Iridescent said ... Mattisse has made many fine content contributions to this encyclopedia ... everyone, take a break from this, if you possibly can. You'll feel better for it later on. ;) JN466 00:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Your take on this irrelevant. Two wrongs don't make a right. Set an example, don't hurl napalm back. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I will graciously strike the "irrelevent" comment but note in the strongest terms that our tolerance for the useless political players is one of our greatest weaknesses. rootology (C)(T) 00:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You're taking the piss aren't you? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I never requested that anyone resign. I never requested that Kirill resign. It is a misunderstanding to think that I did. I requested that any errors in judgment, or lapses in judgment, be acknowledged. I do not know the statement about resignation is being attributed to me. I did not request any resignations. Please stop implying that I did. This misperception is not a justification to make personal attacks on me. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

However, I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that I am worthless to the project, as Rootology states. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I called you irrelevant, which I probably shouldn't have, but you beat the dead horse of the "arbs out to get you here" so hard and fast that your own knuckles split open on the dead mare's skull. As a content creator, you have tons of value, as any of us do, but any of us that start on the political games are all utterly worthless, in my opinion. rootology (C)(T) 00:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Your very recent ArbCom required that you do not personalise disputes. I very strongly suggest that you withdraw now, striking the above comments, and discuss with your mentors how to mitigate your last few contributions to this debate. I would ask you to consider how the remaining Arbs, even with their renowned dispassionate reviewing abilities, might consider these violations of the remedies recently attached to your continuing editing of this project. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Since my block log was brought up above, I have not been blocked for cause since LessHeard vanU blocked me without warning in 31 October 2007 for 24 hours. Please stop impugning me. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
LessHeard - that ArbCom dealt with content topic disputes. It did not claim that Mattisse cannot personalise matters which clearly deal with her person, as the above does. A user has the right to express concern about a high percentage of any make up which appears to be an imbalance. Your statement is highly inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

"tendered resignation"?

Has this resignation been accepted? If not, I very strongly request that the ArbCom do not respond until Kirill has had an opportunity to reflect upon the comments made in response to the announcement and contemplate whether the action was premature (or indeed appropriate reflection of the will of the community) and suitable for withdrawal. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Resignations from ArbCom are unilateral and automatic. In most cases though people that step down of their own initiative are free to change their mind and reclaim their seat later (as long as their elected term has not yet expired). Dragons flight (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah? Policy or practice? Anyway, this is a Wiki - these things can change, and should do to reflect the wishes of the community. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

We the community note Kirill's request to resign from the Arbitration Committee. We the community respectfully deny the request and ask Kirill to continue in service.

Noted and declined. Carry on. Franamax (talk) 23:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

We can't make a volunteer do anything. We can only urge them to do some things and (try to) prevent them from doing others. Will Beback talk 00:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Dammit, if we can stop a "volunteer" from vandalising the project we can as sure damn (try to) stop another volunteer from resigning responsibilities a whole lot of other volunteers agreed they could have. Support Franamax's denial of request. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that the resignation could be considered disruptive, and the editor could be blocked for that cause until he agrees to follow the consensus of the community by resuming working at the ArbCom. But that'd be a difficult remedy to enforce. Will Beback talk 00:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

With respect Will, I'm not sure if you were serious or not, but that's a horrendous idea. Sure, this resignation has been somewhat disruptive to the community, but block someone for it? Being an arbitrator is a thankless job, and I'm honestly not as suprised as I thought I would be when this happened. I hope Kirill and Rlevse reconsider, but I can understand their reasons. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I should think it is very unserious - if there had been a chance of it being successful he would likely have done it. Anyhow, there are other ways to diminish disruption outside of blocking. Allegedly. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I didn't think he was serious...or at least hoping not. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think anyone would take that seriously. Missing emoticon ;-) Will Beback talk 00:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, we've got to crack down on these problem editors. ;) The simplest solution here is for Kirill to just dust himself off and get back on the horse. My idea is just to say "OK, we've heard you, but that's not a reason to quit. Resign for personal reasons, but not for this one." Franamax (talk) 00:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope Kirill changes his mind, but he's a volunteer in all his positions in Wikipedia (and I'll acknowledge here the outstanding role he continues to play in the Military History wikiproject) and it's totally up to him. Nick-D (talk) 00:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It's up to him, of course, but I hope and assume he'll feel better next morning. DGG (talk) 04:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

If Kirill wishes to resign, then he can. We're all volunteers. To be honest, I find the wording of the "we do not accept" statement above to be slightly off; it sounds more like you're trying to force him to stay on some kind of technicality, though I admit it's completely clear that wasn't the intention behind the message at all.

Kirill, I say the following without even having to double check your recent edits... you are definitely a good force on the ArbCom. You made a mistake. Maybe the mistake itself was a big deal, but the fact you made a mistake isn't a big deal at all. I made a few, with some specifically related to my role as an Arbitrator. If you stay on ArbCom, ArbCom and Wikipedia will be better off for it. I know this for certain. Please don't feel obligated to resign because you made a mistake. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 11:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

As a (very) minor contributor to the project but avid reader both of articles and the governance of the project I don't know if Kirill will take any notice from an unknown Wikipedian, but there are two points which spring to mind. 1. He's a volunteer so if he wants to step down, however much we may regret it, it's his choice (though I think it would be a great loss). 2. Being coordinating Arbitrator must be a thankless job and I applaud him for all of his hard work. AlexandrDmitri (talk) 12:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I share the view that resignation is totally unnecessary and would be a loss to the project. A good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia did not work out as hoped. To err is human: integrity is demonstrated not by never making mistakes, but by always taking responsibility for ones actions. Already the apology and offer to resign because of what has happened demonstrates that. There is no question in my mind that Kirill has been anything other than an excellent Arbitrator. I also agree that if (after reflection I hope) he does not wish to return to Arbcom for whatever reason, then it is his decision, and the community should be grateful for all the good work he has done to date. Geometry guy 17:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I and a lot of people don't regret Kirill's resignation. If someone resigns over a dispute like this, then it shows that they were unfit to begin with. We don't need sychophantic pleading drawing out any of this drama. If he wants to come back, he will. If not, then he wont. However, these actions show a lack of conviction which only verifies a problem with all of these circumstances. This was a very bad move by Kirill and will damage his ability to function as an Arbitrator. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, the fact that Kirill is willing to admit that he thinks he made a bad decision is in itself an indication of his suitability for the position. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 18:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

He didn't admit that he made a bad decision and apologize and accept the fall out. He resigned and ran. There is a difference between the courage of saying you are wrong and trying to do your job right, and fleeing from all responsibility. Militaries use to shoot people for such desertions and not give them awards. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

"If someone resigns over a dispute like this, then it shows that they were unfit to begin with", Ottava, you have no idea what you're talking about. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Really, Rlevse? Because it is rather obvious. Kirill screwed up. Instead of allowing the community to settle it, he dropped out. This happens all the time with admin who resigned and take wikibreaks instead of letting the community decide their fate. It is a shameful act and completely disrespectful to the community. Anyone doing such is unfit to have held the position they had to begin with. History and tradition for thousands of years verifies my claim, and no amount of protestation can change what is a universal truth. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

What does this mean then? "In any case, I take full responsibility for the errors in judgment made in convening the ACPD, and have tendered my resignation from the Arbitration Committee." He resigned because he thought that he is unfit for the job, not because he is "running and hiding". J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 19:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

He didn't take any responsibility - we as a community were not given the chance to decide his fate. This is like a person killing themselves before they are put on trial. The only way for justice to be served is for justice to be served, not by hiding from it. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you were expecting the Spanish Inquisition. Had you already measured your red robes, Ottawa? 19:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

An RfC is standard in the case. There is already one about the merits of the project. He could have waited it out. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

"Militaries use to shoot people for such desertions and not give them awards." Ottava, what an earth are you jabbering on about. We are not a military and even if we were Kirill has not shown cowardice in the face of the enemy. For the simple reason there is no enemy, we have an Arb - who as far as I'm aware was not singularly responsible for the creation of a new committee, but for some reason has become the target of its opposers ire. The Arbcom, with the full support of J Wales, created a committee; it is legal and it's above board. Why Kirill felt the need to resign, I shall not speculate, but if he's anythiing like me, he wold have read those silly comments from those such as Mattisse and yourself and though "fuck the lot of them!" However, like most people who think "fuck it" in the heat of a moment, I hope he now regrets it and decides to reconsider. Either way, he has done nothing wrong - it's a committee on an internet site, it is not desertion in the face of the enemy and to suggest it is half-baked and really rather vile, I suggest you leave this page untill you want to post sensibly.Giano (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Your digression of hate above makes me unwilling to even read what you are stating now, so I wont bother. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to Ottava getting elected to arbcom this fall so he can a) fix everything he thinks is wrong and b) he will then see what it's like to be an arb — Rlevse • Talk • 19:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I would serve as an Arb. Tell Jimbo to appoint me. Would I "fix" things? No. I believe that the constant meddling, creating ideas and abandoning them as soon as there is a little opposition, and pandering to attack sites are the most serious problems. There is an easy way to fix that - don't abandon your job, don't try to create new roles for yourself, and keep editing the damn encyclopedia. If that is too much to ask, then why are you even here? We have over a million users. I'm sure by percentage alone there are some decent people out there that can handle it. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and Rlevse - I was involved in fourth months of hell with a decision that tried to wreck a WMF project that I devoted a lot of time with. I was stuck between the Foundation and a problematic user with a lot of technology at his service. We had a huge destruction of content and a major debalancing of our users. It was more of a problem than anything ArbCom has had to deal with for a long time. Did I run away? No. Did I whine about it? No. Was I emotionally affected? Sure, because it was someone that I got along with and was friends with for quite a while. So really, don't act like you know me when you fail to show the least bit of knowledge about what I've gone through here or elsewhere. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, you're whining now. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Blah! I haven't even mentioned the details or been specific, so, a big whatever to you. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

A note on non-participation

The announcement mentions that several people were invited to join but had not yet responded to the invitation by the time this announcement was posted. I was one of them. The invitation that I received last Monday morning was rather vague. Over the course of the next few days I exchanged several emails with Kirill discussing the matter, but had not reached a decision on joining by the time ArbCom made their announcement.

During those discussions I felt a general sense of unease that this proposal was poorly thought out, with both vaguely defined scope and process. I was also concerned that an appointed body created without consultation would appear illegitimate. I am saddened to say those concerns appear to have been validated by the community reaction thus far. Lastly, I worry that the failings of the current process, the lack of any meaningful authority, and the appearance of illegitimacy will make this into yet another discussion forum that expends large amounts of time and accomplishes little. I don't know if it would have made any difference, but unfortunately I did not really share my concerns with ArbCom before this was presented. My emails focused simply on asking questions, and I did not appreciate that their announcement was so imminent.

After further reflecting on my own concerns and the reaction of the community so far, I have decided that I will not be accepting ArbCom's invitation to participate in this process at this time. I can not in good conscience join an exclusive discussion group whose method of construction I feel is illegitimate. Without consulting the larger community and obtaining their approval, I don't believe it is appropriate to maintain such a members-only organization on-wiki. Yes ArbCom is free to seek the advice of anyone they choose, but I don't think ArbCom is free to authorize people to carve out an exclusive WikiProject such that only ArbCom can invite people to participate in it. Such an organization needs the community's blessing if it is going to justify limiting participation from the larger community. I also fear that the group as presently constructed is likely to accomplish little, and hence would be a poor use of my limited time. I don't hold any ill-will towards anyone who has chosen to participate, as I assume everyone involved is trying to make the best of a less than perfect situation. I would strongly urge those people who do participate to focus initially on creating an organization that is both functional and has some hope of claiming the support of the larger community.

Maybe in the future I would accept an invitation to join such a group (if it appeared to have the community's backing), but it will be at least several months before I am likely to reconsider on this group. As always, I am happy to informally offer my advice and input to ArbCom, ACPD, or anyone else who chooses to ask for it, and I would also like to thank ArbCom for the support implicit in their invitation.

In the mean time, I will continue to believe that various reforms are necessary. At times that may mean that I am poking around the periphery of ACPD, and at other times I will be off working in other places (such as my ongoing work with the WMF on the licensing update, or my recent proposal to improve the way refs are embedded in wikicode). However, before I conclude this statement, I would like to renew my prior call for an open and structured policy development forum to centralize and organize the discussion of contentious policy issues, to formalize polling procedures when necessary, and to help bring closure to some of the issues that perpetually divide us.

Thank you for reading my thoughts on this issue. I'll be crossing my fingers and hoping that this entire mess eventually leads to some legitimate and constructive improvements in the direction of Wikipedia's growth, but I feel there are better uses for my time and energy at this point (not least of which is finishing my PhD thesis due this December). Dragons flight (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

These are profound words of wisdom on every account, from the need for reform, the good faith of those involved in this proposal, the flaws in the proposal as presented, and the encouragement to make the best of things. The above is not too long to read, and I encourage everyone to read it. Geometry guy 21:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a bit of a Catch-22 in dealing with large systemic problems on Wikipedia. I too think there needs to be an open and structured policy development forum to centralize and organize the discussion of contentious policy issues. However, how do you get a dysfunctional community to bless the creation of such a forum? At this point, I'm hoping that the council can either become the open forum that Dragons flight desires, or be replaced by such a forum. However, a forum that behaves with a procedure that is radically differently from the status quo does not take shape in a vacuum. It needs a dedicated group of people willing to work on implementing it. I think that was the intent of the ArbCom, and that was the reason I and others said we would participate. If someone can explain to me some other, more effective way to create the forum that is needed, I'll redirect my efforts in that direction. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 23:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. You can't use a broken consensus-forming process to form a consensus to replace itself with something better. :) I wanted to work on fixing this problem. Awadewit (talk) 23:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. The current "consensus" model is irretrievably broken, wikipedia needs some new ideas. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but a consensus that the consensus system is broken just boggles my mind and I just can't accept that conclusion. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 00:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

What is the consensus solution? Or even the proposals for solutions? That is the key issue. Awadewit (talk) 00:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is a series of discussions. That is all we really can do, unless you want to switch to a straight up vote. I think all of the thousands of bytes added to threads like this is proof that people are perfectly able and willing to talk. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Some form of democracy is going to happen. I also think it will have to be imposed on us, to a certain extent. I respect arbcom for trying. Maybe Jimbo will do something what with all these resignations. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Samuel Wantman has added a further well thought-out statement to this thread that can't be reduced to a two line message. In my view, statements that "Wikipedia is broken" or that "the community is dysfunctional" may have merit in certain areas (BLP and FICT spring to mind, as do some recent massive !votes), but are misleading in general. The consensus model that lies at the root of Wikipedia's success continues to work well in most cases, and rumours of its demise have been somewhat exaggerated recently.

Arbitrators have drawn attention to a widely felt need for a smaller community of experienced editors to provide an advisory role on governance issues where it is becoming increasingly difficult to gauge or establish a community-wide consensus. I am not against Arbcom taking a lead on this in the absense of any other leadership in the community.

The first step in such leadership is (or should have been) a statement, onwiki, from the Arbitration Committee that it believes it would be helpful to the community and Arbcom for such an advisory body to be created, making it clear that this body is only intended as a forum for discussion and advice, not one which wields authority (as has been made clear). Comments should then be invited from the community as to how such a body should be constituted, how large it should be, what is its remit, how members are appointed etc. Individual editors, be they members of Arbcom or not, should be free to contribute to developing such an idea onwiki. There is unlikely to be agreement on a single model, but there might be some consensus that such a body would be helpful, and an acceptance of mixed and evolving model subject to ongoing scrutiny from the community and Arbcom, preferably without the process of !voting that increasingly deadlocks any contested issue. Again, I am not against Arbcom (with benevolent dictator agreement) recommending and/or supporting a particular approach or set-up after listening to the community. There are still issues here with separation of powers, but they are much reduced compared to those associated with an advisory body set up by Arbcom.

The present proposed advisory council and associated RfC may well move in this direction, but we are, unfortunately, starting from the wrong place. In my view, once the RfC is digested, a fresh start is needed. Or, in the spirit of a country yokel replying to a request from a tourist for directions to the new advisory council, "oh ar, if I were going there, I wouldn't start from here". Geometry guy 01:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Role of Jimmy Wales in the English Wikipedia is going nowhere fast as well. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It is a mistake to create hierarchy among users. Each persons thoughts should be valued. Why value these people's thoughts more than others? Disband the group and if you have concerns about project development, start a community discussion. Eventually such a discussion may produce an election of representatives. Imposing leadership top down, from ArbCom, is not going to work. Jehochman ^Talk 13:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Question for ArbCom

Without sounding overly adversarial (I would like to reiterate that I support this idea in its entirety), I have a question.

The community has spoken via the RfC: this council is rejected by the community. Does the ArbCom intend to dissolve the council? → ROUX ₪ 20:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The RFC was premature and flawed in the way that it was written. It has only been open for a few days. Let's wait to see how the Community thinks after the idea settles in that it was not a "power grab". I think that the RFC needs to run for a full month at least. People are still responding and adding new statements. The ACPD can be tweaked on the the projects page either now or later as the Council sees fit. The Council was launched by ArbCom but it is its own body. We intended to stop our direct involvement in forming it after the second round of invitations (the self noms) ended. We were going to make some suggestions for the agenda, but then let them go on as they wish. I think that we should stick with the original plan. Keep the current members and let them start working. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Granted on timing. If the outcome of the RfC does not change in a month, what does ArbCom intend to do? → ROUX ₪ 20:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we are all wondering what the ARbCom's intentions are - if the RFC has no confidence in the ArbCom, which at present it seems not to, what then - a resignation en masse? Is that what the commuity wants? What sort of person would remain on the Arbcom having received such a slap in the face? Giano (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

A fair number of people in that RFC who are expressing opposition to Arb Comm have also said that they were disappointed by Kirill' and/or Rlevse's resignations, so I don't think it's fair to conclude that community rejection of this initiative is the same as a vote of non-confidence in Arb Comm. If any Arbs feel that the community rejection of this council has made it impossible for them to do the job that they were elected to do, they should go ahead and resign. Short of that, I hope none do. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

There are many, many voices on the RfC to work through and 148,258 active users in "the community". Lets not summarize the results just yet.--Tznkai (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If I may (gently) chide Arbcom here, it's rather surprising that some relatively tame disclosures and objections could cause one and perhaps two of Arbcom's 16 members to resign their positions. As a body Arbcom makes far harsher determinations about other editors. We non-administrative editors often face, warnings, notices, and accusations. We weather all the random trouble of Wikipedia. Admins take personal attacks as an occupational hazard, and learn to be patient, ignore, empathize, and forgive. If an Arbcom member is unjustly accused of shenanigans, can't they just ignore it or say sorry but I disagree? And if the accusation is legitimate, can't they just say yes, you're right, and I'll do better next time? I'm left with this question: can Arbcom dish it but not take it? Wikidemon (talk) 08:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You may perhaps be unaware that arbitrators work in an environment of persistent complaint and criticism, aggravated by frequent personal attacks, on- and off-wiki harassment and/or stalking; and a heavy work load. Final straw and camels' backs? Roger Davies ^talk 07:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Flo, with all due respect, if it was not a power grab, then why was a page created which I am presumably not allowed to edit? Specifically the ACPD and ACPD/Forum pages (that I know of). You have taken away my "power" to edit those pages and given others the "power" to revert any edits I make there for the sole reason that "ArbCom says so". Yet they are not pages created for the sole purpose of resolving intractable disputes which come under the purview of the Arbitration process. You've prevented me from editing, in effect enacted a page ban. What is your basis in policy? Franamax (talk) 09:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, re:Giano's comment: when I've had the (oh so many lifetime) slaps in the face, I first consider whether my idea was all that good in the first place. Sometimes it turns out it wasn't all that good of an idea, in which case I just try to have a better one in future. Sometimes I'm still sure it really is a good idea, in which case I work with the consensus and keep on quietly promoting my idea. I've found that the good ones take 6-24 months until someone else has the same good idea, in which case I don't get the credit but the idea lives - which was my purpose anyway. Quitting is for quitters - there's always a way to ride a horse, unless you just don't like riding horses. Franamax (talk) 09:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't ride a horse to save my life :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The RfC is very specifically about the ACPD. Obviously it implies that many members of the community think ArbCom - and Jimbo - made an error in judgement (but the RfC is far from over and it is too early to draw conclusions from its results, people are still weighing in). The fact remains that it is not an RfC on the ArbCom. I think it is a serious error to take the opposition to ACPD registered at the RfC as a "vote of no confidence" of ArbCom. I do not like the parliamentary metaphor, but if we are going to use it, let me point out that "loyal opposition" plays an important role. The point is simple: people can disagree with decisions made by ArbCom, without feeling that ArbCom as presently constituted should be disbanded. The essence of WP:AGF is that people can disagree without delegitimizing one another. If I can disagree with an editor's edit, without wishing that person blocked, I can also disagree with an act of ArbCom, without withing its members to resign. There must be space at Wikipedia for dissent. Dissent should be part of ongoing conversations - about how to edit an article, about how to manage Wikipedia. If dissent always led to one side of the argument quitting (or being banned), people will just stop expressing dissent. We don't want that, do we? There should be a way for people to work together and express dissent when one feels called upon to express it. Surely an RfC concerning the ACPD is one way to do that ... isn't it? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Another question for ArbCom

This is said to be drawn from the from the original announcement:

"The Advisory Council acts as an advisory body to the Arbitration Committee and to the community; considers various issues facing the project and develops ideas, proposals, and recommendations for improving it; and serves as a forum for the sharing of best practices among the different areas within the project, The group can be regarded as a high-level think-tank, coming up with ideas that either the Committee or the community as a whole might choose to pursue. The Advisory Council also advises the Committee directly, providing it with feedback and ideas from a cross-section of the community that's not otherwise involved in its work."

Could this statement be clarified? How does this committee provide feedback and ideas from a cross-section of the community, given that the group is rather narrowly drawn and has no validation by the community? Are we to take this on faith, as there is no explanation of who these persons are? Also, is this not quite a broad scope for ArbCom to designate to a committee it creates? (I was beginning to feel almost ok about the committee, given the statements of many of its members that they recognize the need to be accountable to the community, but I worry again seeing this type of mandate. Even if the committee has no actual power, it is a powerful cabinet. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The composition of the group is not finalised yet, if only because the original announcement invited self-nominations (of which a fair number have been received). We are still working on these and how to handle them, plus some other matters to do with invitations and nominations that were caught in limbo between the time of the announcement and people writing back to us. If you have any suggestions for additions to improve the composition of the group, please suggest people you would like to see added. I would like (and want) to say a lot more on this, but most of my time (and those of others as well) has been occupied with helping to keep other things running as normal (see my post here). I've also been working on two documents, one is a brief summary and one is a fuller summary, detailing what ArbCom have done in the last six months, pursuent to the current top item on the agenda "Review Committee performance". This is complicated by the fact that many people will probably want to comment more on what has happened in the last two weeks, rather than the period January to June 2009, but it is important to give people the opportunity to comment on the performance over the first six months as well. I hope to have that initial summary ready shortly. Carcharoth (talk) 06:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Governance question

Well, gosh. As a matter of governance and administration, individual Arbcom members, and Arbcom as a body, are welcome to consult any sources they wish for advice. They could throw chicken bones for all it's worth. Where we get into trouble is where a group vested with the power to administer things either claims power greater than it has (e.g. a the power to appoint rule-makers to to make policy or content decisions that Arbcom itself is not entitled to make), or where Arbcom delegates its obligatory duties. The first should be obvious: the US Supreme Court has the power to review laws but not to make them. Thus, they cannot form a committee to evaluate the laws on a given subject and enact a reform of those laws. The second is more subtle but even more vital. The US has appointed certain individuals to personally hear and decide cases. They are certainly allowed a plethora of interns and professional staffers. However, a judge may not simply appoint their agent to sit in for them. There's a great deal of jurisprudence on this having to do with congressional committees, and also in corporate governance for boards of directors. By extension, Arbcom can hire advisors to recommend actions, but it cannot take its own hands off the keyboard, so to speak. Under this theory Arbcom members must personally make Arbcom decisions, weighing whatever advice and recommendations come their way. If it's just a question of where Arbcom turns for advice, then frankly, the secrecy, methods, rules, conflicts of interest, etc., are a matter solely for Arbcom to consider. However, if Arbcom proposes to transfer one iota of authority to the committee, or entrust in the committee any powers that exceed those of Arbcom, then the community must approve. Wikidemon (talk) 07:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

One very brief observation would be that ArbCom is not the U.S. Supreme Court and the council has no power. Roger Davies ^talk 08:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If it were entirely irrelevant we would not be here commenting about it. Accepting that it is an attempt to oversee our particular corner of the world, principles of governance are relevant. Wikidemon (talk) 10:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I find this "the council has no power" argument rather bizarre. It may not have any formal power, but I'm sure we are all well aware that this is not the only kind of power on Wikipedia or anywhere else in the world. It's a bit absurd to suggest that a group of (largely) admins brought together by ArbCom to discuss the overall direction of the project has no informal power.

More to the point, were it true that the group has no power (and never gets any), then there is absolutely no way it can succeed. In order to convince people to go along with their proposals, the council will need to be persuasive. If they are, by definition they have attained a degree of power in that they have proposed a significant change and were able to get the community to go along with it. To take a smaller example, if this comment is read by others who are then convinced by my argument, I will have attained a small degree of power simply be getting other folks to go along with my thinking (even if I'm unaware of it). The ability to persuade is indicative of some level of power, on Wikipedia or in real life. Veteran editors and/or admins tend to have an advantage in terms of efforts to be persuasive, and a group of them who set up shop at the behest of ArbCom would likely have an even greater advantage in this regard (though given the negative reaction, maybe not). Indeed isn't that the whole point of why this was created—important stuff isn't getting done so we need a thinktank/policy shop to get the community moving in a certain direction or directions? If so then claims that this group "has no power" are not remotely tenable.

This is not simply a matter of semantics, it goes to the heart of the disagreement. Roger and others are claiming the group will have no authority, formal or otherwise presumably, and as such many of the views of those in opposition must look rather odd to them (i.e., why would people complain about a toothless committee?). Many who oppose this endeavor view the group as far from toothless or would say that, if it were, then it is merely pointless because it will be impossible for them to actually accomplish anything. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is really a matter of semantics as there is a world of difference between actual power and perceived influence. I would hope such a council would be influential, but based on the strength of its ideas rather than on the nature of its genesis. Roger Davies ^talk 07:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Where to go from here?

Please see the section I started on this here. Carcharoth (talk) 11:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee: personnel change

Original announcement.

Roger: It's probably best if, even as co-ordinating arbitrator, you don't make announcements to which you are a subject. It just seems odd. :-) AGK 00:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science amended

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria

Ban Appeal Sub Committee - amending procedure

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine

Appeals to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee: Aarandir & Anonimu

Changes of account name by restricted users

New rules for inactivity on internal resolutions

Procedure for internal resolutions

Original Announcement

Second draft of updated arbitration policy

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse

Arbitration motion regarding User:Coffee

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ADHD#Final_decision

Original Post

I am happy with the decision and accept the outcome. I accept the advice to avoid edit warring. I have learnt more about how the enforcements are going to work and I now have a much better understanding of how they will work. I think that it is likely that the editing environment on ADHD pages will be much more productive and relaxed now. I would like to extend my thanks to everyone involved in this arbcom, most importantly the staff who have given their freetime to investigate and resolve this issue but also everyone who submited evidence to the arbcom. My hope now is that scuro and other editors will be able to work much more productively and calmly and without any serious disruption issue. Thanks. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Substantial and significant material was added to the proposal section just before the arbitration was closed. Specifically, with added comments to Nja247's proposals [1], with added comments to Stephen Bain's proposals, [2] and two new proposals which I added [3]. My hope was that arbitrators would consider additions to the proposals as evidence to take under consideration before making their final judgments. These additions were done after the evidence section was closed, and some of the additions could well have been done during voting. I had wondered if all of arbitrators had considered all of this new information before making their decisions and voting for closure.--scuro (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Was all this new information considered by all the arbitrators before the final decisions were made?--scuro (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I cant speak for all arbitrators, but we do usually watch the case pages closely as the case draws to a close. Late additions to the Workshop are less likely to gather community or committee interest, because there is less time to discuss them.

In regards to your proposals, the first one is about WP:CONSENSUS, and while your proposal was not integrated, much of the final decision is aimed at fixing some of the problems that were disrupting the consensus building process. Your second proposal is unacceptable as you are insinuating that others were dishonest and have gamed the system, but you did not prove this in the /Evidence. Also, you significantly changed this proposal after people had supported it.here.

In regards to the second proposal by Nja247, we usually use Wikipedia:article probation when there are a lot of editors involved in the problem, and more editors are likely to join the fray after the case closes, as it gives administrators quite a bit of control over how the article will be managed in order to restore and maintain sanity. In this case, the number of editors involved is small, and I would prefer to topic ban those editors rather than put an article under complete administrative control. If the current remedies do not appear to be working, the community can request an amendment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment for the committee to consider.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

As I understand wikipedia and consensus, the ultimate goal is to get it right. Rules, procedures, etc...are all secondary if this causes a problem to not be addressed. Hence, Arbitration heard this case even though the main criteria to file arbitration was never met. The goal of "getting it right", should work both ways. Issues about procedure, timelines, etc...shouldn't become roadblocks to meaningful closure. Bellow are issues that I would like Arbitration to comment on:

i)Throughout the topic ban and arbitration, Literaturegeek was uncivil to a degree that overshadowed both Doc James, and my documented examples of being uncivil. These instances would be impossible to miss because her comments are part of the record. Anyone involved with this case would have to know about this abuse. She was also shown to be uncivil and edit war outside of the ADHD pages. Why is there no mention of her uncivilness in the findings, and why was there not a more significant response given to her edit warring?

ii)No true attempt at mediation, negotiation, or true consensus seeking was ever made by the filing parties prior to seeking sanctions, or during the sanction processes. They avoided every attempt made to resolve differences during the processes. Arbitration is supposed to be a process of "last resort", and only "emergency" type cases are to be heard where no attempt at resolution has been made. Yet there was no emergency. This case has been characterized as "straightforward" by an arbitrator and the only sanction given was for edit warring. Was this not an abuse of process, especially when one also considers it in light of the issues raised below?

iii)Throughout the: Arbitration requests for comment, Arbitration, Topic ban proposal,...many of the parties provided a significant amount of accusations or evidence that was disingenuous or bogus. Evidence of this was provided in my initial response to each party, and in Nja247's case, in response to his proposals. The preponderance of such evidence led to several outcomes that impeded the normal functioning of the processes mentioned above. Such that: a)this lesser material may very well have influenced every decision to move forward in the sanction processes, b) that such material may have unduly influenced the parties into believing that their case was stronger then it actually was, and in doing so cemented the unwillingness to compromise at any level. c) that the magnitude of this material required most of my time and emotional energy to respond too, and diminished the quality and fullness of my response. Time pressure was always an issue.

Parties who insisted on the highest quality of evidence on the article on demand, provided a significant amount of low quality and bogus evidence during these sanction processes, and not uncommonly avoided responding to what was stated. This lesser material was used to further their only stated goal, which was sanctions. Does this not demonstrate a "gaming of the system"? In disregarding quality of evidence to such a degree, did they not approach arbitration in a dishonest way?--scuro (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Golan Heights

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ryulong

Tiptoety clerking

Wasn't Tiptoety not suppose to act as a clerk? He/she was to a certain level involved in the case, and even recused. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see my reply here, and clerks please see my mailing list post. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 19:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I've just read and responded. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Honest mistake on Tiptoety's part. It doesn't invalidate the fact that motion #2 is now in effect, though. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it? Tiptoey was a major participant in the case. He/she made a statement, presented evidence, made proposals on the workshop, and recused from the case as a clerk. I think that is more than good enough for another clerk to step in. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Nishkid64 is another clerk. He (as a uninvolved clerk) has stated that he feels the closure was proper. Now it is just a matter of whose name is associated with it, which honestly does not really matter. Tiptoety ^talk 20:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, attempting to claim the motion isn't in effect is just wonkery. I don't think it needs re-signed. –xeno^talk 20:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Should I wait a few days, and see what happens? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The closing clerk doesn't change the way the cookie crumbled. –xeno^talk 20:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

But wouldn't the baker have to remember before finishing the final touch? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Six votes is a majority of the unrecused Arbs, and the vote is unanimous. Tiptoety's dog could have closed the motion. I don't think there's any doubt that this was The Wrong Thing To Do, but it would be total wikilawyering to magically render the motion invalid because the bureaucracy was not properly conducted. At maximum, it would be nice to have another clerk sign off on the announcements. Happy‑melon 20:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Please note that Nishkid64 is another clerk. Also, I am sorry for all the needless silliness this has caused. Tiptoety ^talk 20:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't ever let it happen again. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is not like I planned on purposefully enacting a motion on case which I was recused. But yes, I will ensure this does not happen again. Tiptoety ^talk 20:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I know I started with the metaphor, but I don't follow. The fact that Tiptoety enacted the motion doesn't change the fact that it passed 6-0-1. –xeno^talk 20:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon: Your attitude on this page is entirely inappropriate. All users are entitled to make mistakes. Comments like "Please don't ever let it happen again" or "Hopefully" are needlessly snarky and completely unhelpful. They add nothing to the discussion except ill-will and a negative attitude. Please adjust your tone. Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know that mistakes are made. What I'm trying to do is make sure that Tiptoety does not make this "mistake" again, something I certainly hope for. I was a bit aggressive with my third comment, but not the ones you were referring to. Hopefully, this solves it. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Publication of half-year summary of arbitration activities

Forgot to disclose (when supporting publication in the original announcement) that I wrote most of the summary, with help from others. Stuff about the announcement itself should be discussed on this page. To discuss the summary itself, please go here. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 04:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Appeals to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee: Melonite & Geologician

Can you clarify please, the committee has presumably found that User:HobbieP was a meat puppet using a work computer, and thus, whether or not the checkusers will be looking for anymore registrations from Melonite's work IP address? In addition, has Melonite disclosed their home IP to checkusers, to ensure no sockpuppetry is possible from different locations at different times? It is of course feasible for a 'likely' result to have come from this situation, surely. And what happens if Melonite edits from work as an IP logged out from the Melonite account? MickMacNee (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

And also, given the disruption, can you please topic ban Melonite from Quayside, as on past experience, he/she will return to the page at some point, which given the previous sockpuppetry, is just not going to foster a good faith reaction from me at least. MickMacNee (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that a request of a topic ban by user MickMacNee is unjustifiable. Merely because MickMacNee and myself have both had disagreements over the article Quayside in the past, and that MickMacNee has in the past himself been blocked on a number of occasions for uncivil behaviour concerning his editing. As the saying goes it takes two to tango and therefore placing a topic ban on myself and not MickMacNee I would find wholly unfair, the very fact that MickMacNee has taken it upon himself to request this does it not show that the witch hunt continues? Melonite 16:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The Block log for MickMacNee clearly shows how his uncivil behaviour and the amount of personal attacks directed towards other users' has lead to himself been blocked for his behaviour. Is it not MickMacNee who has the problem with those who disagree with him, instead of merely moving on? Melonite 16:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

My block log (which incidentally has no blocks for sockpuppetry) is wholly irrelevant to the issue of whether your past practice of returning to the Quayside article to reignite long dead disputes, and the suspicion of sock-puppetry which arose from your actions on that specific article, merits a topic ban of you from that specific article. MickMacNee (talk) 17:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the thing to note here is that the block suspension is not an exoneration but a second chance. He was blocked for a month and the suspected socks remain blocked. The clearest case, HobbieIP, had only one overlapping edit and could conceivably be another user on the same IP address (which loophole, if it is one, has been closed with a specific warning about shared addresses). In essence, we have assumed good faith and given Melonite the benefit of the doubt on this one occasion, with the observation that extraordinary coincidences in the future will not have a similar outcome. The editor has also been asked to reflect on aspects of his editing style and explore ways of finding consensus on talk pages. Any future problems in this later area can be dealt with through the normal community channels and don't really need ArbCom to be involved. Roger Davies ^talk 06:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom motion re: Geogre

Announcement / Motion

Given that Geogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is an administrator, it seems a bit strange to me that there is not also a motion to desysop him over what appear to be clear and persistent violations of the sockpuppet policy. I assume that a checkuser has also been run to look for additional socks? Finally, a clerk might want to take action with respect to the ongoing edit warring over the {{sockpuppet}} tag that was placed on the sock's user page by an arbitrator. Sandstein 15:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I would hope that a desysop doesn't come by motion unless there is an emergency, and is related to the use of admin tools. Anyway, the placement of a sockpuppet tag is not mandated by policy (WP:SOCK says explicitly that the templates are not covered by the policy): these tags only seem to serve to humiliate. But why should an ArbCom clerk look at that? Kusma (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't really get much point of the motions. Utgard is already blocked, and while there's attempts to whitewash the fact that he's abusively used it as a sock, shouldn't we be holding him to SOCK anyhow? The motion just restates what should already be clear. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Given the lack of emergency, ArbCom would not normally consider a desysop by summary motion. There was discussion within the committee for the alternative of opening a full case in order to examine the situation with a wider view and consider alternate or supplemental remedies. However, how ArbCom could open a case on its own impetus (or, for that matter, whether it is appropriate that it does so in the first place) is an open matter and we didn't deem it wise to conflate the issues. — Coren ^(talk) 16:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

@Fuchs, the motion goes further than the SOCK policy to state that he cannot operate undisclosed legitimate socks which is permitted by WP:SOCK. –xeno^talk 16:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Insofar as the public evidence suggests that Geogre used his sock in discussions related to his administrator actions, this is arguably a matter involving the use of admin tools. Whether the ArbCom may open a case sua sponte is an interesting technicality, but given that the current motion presumes they can impose conduct restrictions on an editor in the absence of a case, I suppose they could (procedurally) also consider a desysopping by the same means, always provided that the administrator at issue has an opportunity to be heard in public. Sandstein 18:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

<edit conflict> I am surprised that there is no motion to desysop him also. Geogre made mischief [4] and then used his Utgard Loki account to fan the flames when I tried to edit and comment on Buckingham Palace, Augustan literature and Wikipedia:Featured article review/Restoration comedy, on his talk page [5] and elsewhere.[6] For example, Geogre used Utgard Loki to defend User:Giano II calling me a troll and to ridicule me.[7][8][9], as well as disparage me in edit summaries.[10] Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 16:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

General comment about the Geogre announcement and motion. Further action by the Committee is possible in several ways. The Committee had some exchange of information with Geogre that led us to take this preliminary action. With more input from the Geogre or others in the Community then the block could be reviewed or a desysop motioned added. These are two on a list of possible further actions that could happen. Also, not everyone on the Committee has likely fully reviewed the diffs so there may be some delay in voting or adding motions until the evidence cited at the motion discussion is fully reviewed. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If that is the case and there is so much evidence, are you certain that a motion is the best way to approach this? Kusma (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

What a lovely collection you have here to talk to FLo, had Utgard gone about calling people "cocksuckers" they would probably be giving him barnstars. as the Arbcom knows full well, there were very good and valid reasons for the creation of Utgard. What a fuss about nothing - or is there something else worrying these conscientious editors? Giano (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Using socks to edit war and circumvent 3RR is not "a fuss about nothing" - had a rank-and-file editor been caught doing that, he would, at a minimum, be subject to a short block. We hold admins to a higher, not lower standard. A motion to desysop should be an obvious next step. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein mentioned above ongoing edit warring. You were one of the editors involved in that edit warring. Could you explain your conduct on that page and how you found your way there 5 days after the edit you reverted, and less than a month after your account was created? I'll ask Sandstein if he wants to follow this up. Carcharoth (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the warring seems to have stopped now so no immediate action is required, but I've watchlisted the Utgard Loki page and will act if required to. As to LoverOfTheRussianQueen, his contributions make it appear likely that this is not this person's first account, but I see no clear indication of abuse that would justify requesting a checkuser. (He may well have taken notice of the userpage the way I did: by watchlisting this noticeboard and following the link.) Sandstein 22:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

By following what link and when? LoverOfTheRussianQueen edited the Utgard Loki page yesterday, not today. Carcharoth (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it was the Wikipedia Review thread on this matter that began July 1 [11]. –xeno^talk 22:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there something else? If this is decided by motion instead of a case / normal channels, we'll probably never find out. Kusma (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason all this is so secret? Can there be "valid reasons" for the creation of Utgard, and can the way the account was used be justified? —Mattisse (Talk) 18:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Geogre has offered an explanation privately to the committee, but he is of course welcome to restate it publicly if he wishes. That the explanation provided could justify the use of an undisclosed alternate account is debatable (though some arbitrators — including myself — found it unconvincing), but no explanation can justify misusing such an account. This motion is minimal handling and disclosure. — Coren ^(talk) 18:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah Mattisse, fancy finding you here; what a pleasant surprise, to find you still with us. Giano (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Giano, you are welcome to defend Geogre's conduct with the Utgard Loki account, but I cannot in good conscience get into a discussion with this about you or anyone until Geogre has had a chance to reply in public. Could you extend the same courtesy and wait until Geogre has had a chance to say something on his own behalf? When he has done that, then specific points can be discussed, including the points you have raised. Carcharoth (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No! I have already read above from one of your colleagues that "though some arbitrators — including myself — found it unconvincing" so if we are going to have the judges publicly airing their opinions on guilt, and those of their co-judges, before consultation and deliberation has even begun, I don't think I shall be bothered to be involved and comment further. It would be rather like introducing new evidence after the trapdoor has been sprung (or chair plugged in or whatever it is that's done in the USA) - In short, a waste of time. Giano (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Giano, if you read what I have posted at the motion, you will see that I e-mailed Geogre my concerns precisely in order to give him a chance to defend himself. He wrote back and I wrote back to him. He didn't write back after the last e-mail I sent to him - the ball is still in his court. Based on what was said in those e-mails, I have supported the motion currently being voted on. I've said there that I am willing to discuss what was said in those e-mails if all parties agree to disclose that. Geogre still has the opportunity to defend his conduct in public. That is why the motion was voted publicly - precisely to give him the chance to say something in addition to what he has already said by e-mail. I will go further - I am prepared to discuss every single edit mentioned in that motion, and the context of those edits, but that can only happen if Geogre defends himself. As I said, the onus is on him to rebut the edits presented. Carcharoth (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps he read what is written here by your colleagues, not too mention the peanut gallery approaching orgasm, and thinks like me - who knows? Giano (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, if he doesn't read this, could you be sure to point out what I said? I am serious about discussing this in public with him. If you (and he) want to defend his conduct, you need to actually be prepared to talk about things in detail and not just refuse to say anything, or claim that no chance at a defence was given. He had a chance to explain things in private. The chance is now being offered to put his side of things in public. I, for one, want to hear what he has to say, either at the motion, or at a later appeal if the motion passes (based on the private correspondence) before he has responded in public, or at any later request that may be filed resulting from this. Carcharoth (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Appeals, clarifications and any other requests concerning this motion should be directed to the relevant arbitration requests page. FloNight ♥♥♥ 18:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If someone doesn't want a sock tag on their user page, they shouldn't sock. Problem solved. The embarrassment was their own doing, not the person who placed the sock tag. Coren is correct, we usually don't desyssop by motion unless it's time critical. As for a full RFAR case, see the link by Flo if someone wants to file it. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser and Oversight elections

Earlier discussion: WT:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 4#CheckUser and Oversight elections

Could the ArbCom publicize the next round of elections better? As it stands, the August announcement page has had 514 pageviews in total so far [12][13], which doesn't exactly bode well for a high turnout. (The February page, on the other hand, had 718 pageviews on its first day alone[14].)

Next time, please send a note to the mailing lists, or even add one of those super-controversial watchlist notices. - Jredmond (talk) 19:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I never even knew these were going on until someone asked me if I had applied. –xeno^talk 20:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[Grabs watchlist notices, drives a wooden stake through them, and throws them into running water while waving garlic and sprinkling holy water.] Jehochman ^Talk 21:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It will be appropriate to announce the question/voting phase by watchlist, however; it meets the criteria of being an event of relevance to the entire editing community with a well-defined 'crowd control' mechanism. Happy‑melon 21:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Like Xeno, I didn't know about the elections until someone asked me if I'd applied. Lara 21:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately for you, they asked you prior to the close of the acceptance period =| –xeno^talk 21:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm in a similar boat as Xeno; I found out about this election today, and then only because it was brought up on a (private) mailing list. That said, I did put my name in back in March, though I haven't heard anything since. - Jredmond (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

←In regards to the watchlist notices, in the thread linked to at the top of this one, a member of the community had asked that the committee not use them. After reading it over again, it looks more like what they were asking was the ArbCom asked first next time and got consensus to add a notice to the watchlist announcements. I personally feel they were very helpful last time, and would support them being used again. Tiptoety ^talk 03:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I have requested a watchlist notice for the election at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details#August checkuser and oversight election. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The question period started earlier today now, and there will be a series of watchlist and noticeboards announcements soon.--Tznkai (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Motion to establish secondary ArbCom mailing list

Silly question, is the new mailing list archived? It would pretty much defeat the purpose of a list that doesn't include the involved party if as soon as the case is over they get to see all of the private discussion about themselves. People would feel no more free to submit evidence if they knew the person would see it in a month, as opposed to currently and arbs would feel no more free to comment on a colleague's behavior if they would see it in a week than if they would see it today. MBisanz ^talk 07:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The first priority is to set it up (last time we asked it took ages). The main purpose is not investigative but so the arb is on the same footing as the non-arb party. Whether or not it is archived is still under discussion: one route is having the option to delete some discussions from the archive but I don't yet know how technically feasible that is. Roger Davies ^talk 07:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think relying on the system administrators to routinely delete archived messages is a good idea nor do I think such requests would be fulfilled. See m:Mailing list#Removing emails from archives for a (very) brief explanation. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

1–Why now? Is this in response to any particular incident? 2–Why did the opposers oppose, if they wouldn't mind. ÷seresin 19:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

WRT 1, almost certainly because of Wikipedia:RFARB#Jimbo Wales' block of Bishonen: Jimbo is a subscriber to arbcom-l. Can't help you WRT 2... Happy‑melon 19:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I opposed because of archival needed to be clarified first. In my opinion, knowing that the party under discussion might read the archive after the fact is a problem, and that had not been clarified by the time the motion passed. — Coren ^(talk) 10:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Geogre

Thank you to the Committee for resolving this issue in a timely and conclusive manner. Daniel (talk) 02:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"[I]n a timely and conclusive manner" — shameless hypocrisy. El_C 11:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This case was not handled well. We've done a disservice to a long-standing contributor. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 13:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

And to make it worse, the sock puppet policy "Administrators using a second account in a forbidden manner will be summarily de-sysopped" was only changed the other day from "may be summarily de-syssopped" as a result of this case.[15] The motion summary makes it look like this was already policy, and no note to that effect is made. That's just plain rude to Geogre. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

"Will" is inaccurate because administrators who use socks in a forbidden manner might never get discovered. And, they might get a pass (unlike this case). "May" is entirely appropriate... Amending... –xeno^talk 14:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but when Arbs voted on "3.2) Administrators using a second account in a forbidden manner will be summarily de-sysopped, per the "Administrative sock puppets" section of the sock puppetry policy." That's an inaccurate statement of policy then isn't it? Shouldn't the motion be changed? --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It's probably not worth bothering, for a few reasons. First, in general, if an admin is found socking, they're probably going to be subject to desysopping. Second, that was clearly the case here. Thirdly, in the rare event there are extenuating circumstances, or the socking wasn't enough to merit desysopping somehow, IAR allows us to ignore that bit as needed. As with most policy, "may" and "will" are almost synonymous here, for that last reason. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and fourth, Geogre is desysopped anyway, so the exact wording of the motion doesn't matter terribly much. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually it does - if Arbcom have 'clarified' a policy here, it has an effect on future cases, conduct and the policy itself. The rules need to be clear. The use of IAR to explain away 'exceptions' or 'mitigations' isn't very helpful in providing a good ruleset for the community. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine then, come up with a counter-scenario, where the use of abusive sockpupptry would likely NOT result in summary desysopping? I can certainly come up with valid use of alternate accounts by an admin, and even can imagine cases where an admin may use an undisclosed account, but this is clearly a different situation. The blatant use of an alternate account to votestack and give the illusion of two people in editting where they are clearly the same person is a major problem, and I cannot imagine that such a violation of community trust should go unchecked. --Jayron32 19:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs of such abuses? I still haven't seen anything more than assertions. Where's the evidence? Please include diffs in your reply. Jehochman ^Talk 20:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you not see anything here that concerned you? Thatcher 20:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I see that we have a vague WP:SOCK policy that for no good reason allows people to operate multiple accounts without full disclosure. (My second account is User:Jehochman2.) Geogre disclosed at least several times that he operated both accounts. This was not widely known, but one user was able to find the disclosures in about 5 minutes of looking. What great harm was caused by Geogre? Was he malicious or merely careless? Was he using his second account to harass people? It seems that the worst he did was have a lame edit war over an image of the Peach Tower, but that happened two years ago. The reaction here seems over the top, as if it is some sort of score settling. This makes me feel uneasy. Jehochman ^Talk 01:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

"I see that we have a vague WP:SOCK policy that for no good reason allows people to operate multiple accounts without full disclosure." Some of us are trying to tighten up that language but there is one editor who is vociferously opposing any change, and is even accusing editors of bad faith for suggesting it. Will Beback talk 01:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

"one user was able to find the disclosures in about 5 minutes of looking" - my response to that is here. There may have been inadvertent disclosure (usually reverted or corrected immediately: [16], [17]), and rebuffs to questions asked ([18], [19]), and a consistent style used by both accounts that more people should have picked up on earlier, but there was in no way, shape or form the full disclosure that was required. What was required was this. After all, it's not like Geogre didn't know how to mark an alternate account. I'm aware of Geogre's concerns about what happened with that earlier alternate account's password, but he needs to follow that up and find out whether it is even possible (years later) to find out what happened there, rather than speculating. Carcharoth (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Carcharoth, can you tell me whether Geogre was acting in bad faith, or if he may have just been careless or misunderstood policy? How many times was he warned about this (if any)? It seems like bannishing him from being an admin ever again is overly harsh. (The chance of passing RFA again is virtually zero--we all know it.) Perhaps a warning and a temporary desysop for emphasis might be considered. What's been done here seems excessively harsh. Maybe I am jaded because I encounter sock masters who do really bad stuff, rather than those who write featured articles while socking. Jehochman ^Talk 21:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Joopercoopers - the edit you refer to, made after this case closed, is accurate. The arbitration committee decide on desysop requests brought to them. They have over many years, almost always desysopped for serious socking by administrators, which was the prior wording. The ruling confirms this stating that admins who sock "will" be desysopped. That's worth noting in the policy, so that the few admins who try and sock know what Arbcom have stated their own stance, as the "final voice" on such cases and desysoppings, will be. The wording change was precise and accurate, from "risk being summarily de-sysopped" to "risk being [Arbcom has said 'will be'] summarily de-sysopped". That seems accurate, and significant enough to add to the wording lest admins be misled. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think "risks being" is accurate. There are lots of editors, admins included, who have undisclosed alternate accounts. Many of them cross lines, whether intentionally or unintentionally. It is often only by chance that these are identified. Therefore it is a risk, but not an absolute, that inappropriate use of alternate accounts will be identified. Risker (talk) 05:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Enough! This has become a bore [20]. When can we agree to stop savaging a dead bone? Giano (talk) 21:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Only once all the pith has been extracted, it would seem. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Being the biologist chap I am, I'm pretty sure that pith doesn't apply to bones, only to vascular plants. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Archaically (No.6) or even 2. as a trans verb - or, Beauty is Truth. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well met. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Amendment regarding Obama articles

It's better, but I was rather critical of 9.2 and 13 being included as amendments, and I even said as much in my statement. I think this case shows that AC needs a layman advisory committee to act as a check on AC regarding sanctions so we don't get overly harsh sanctions like what was originally passed. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Geogre 2

This aspect of the discussion is now closed.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I really don't want to be a jerk here, but Geogre's user page still indicates that he is an administrator. I would say something on his talkpage but I have been savagely bitten by him before and have no interest in sticking my face in a blender. Could someone have a word, please? Non-admins (usually new users) are regularly admonished for claiming they are admins, and this seems to fit within that general principle, as any user unaware of the history who visits his page would think he is. → ROUX ₪ 17:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If you would like to avoid drama, as suggested by your edit summary, why don't you email an arbitrator instead of posting publicly? Most likely Geogre hasn't thought to remove the template. Feel free to remove my comment if you decide to remove yours. Jehochman ^Talk 18:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Because in my experience and that of others emails to ArbCom fall into a black hole and never resurface. → ROUX ₪ 18:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Also note they haven't edited since the motions passed. What's the rush? –xeno^talk 18:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I find E-mails to arbcom are very swiftly seized upon, anyay I hope this edit [21] satisfies you needs Roux - any other form of ritual humiliation you would like to see? Him posing naked in the snow with a feather on his head perhaps? He seems not not be editing so perhaps the aims of certain people have been acheived. This was a shabby affair and Wikipedia at its worst - no Durova, don't you dare comment! Giano (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

There was no rush, and this had nothing to do with any sort of ritual humiliation, so you can take your usual assumption of ulterior motives and do something else with it. As I stated, the concern is new users or those unfamiliar with history thinking he is currently an admin. Here's the thing, Giano: some of us state very clearly exactly why we are doing something. I am one of those people. → ROUX ₪ 18:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I never thought otherwise Roux. I'm sure the other millions watching this page agree with me on that. Your motives were of the highest order. Giano (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I have hopes--probably in vain--that one day you will stop trolling and act like a semi-reasonable adult human being. → ROUX ₪ 20:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This aspect of the discussion is now closed. Note that just as admins are told to protect disputed pages on the most recent version, I have stepped in here without regard to who had the last word or not. Enough already.Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee motion regarding Aitias administrator permissions

As much as I hate endorsing the desysop of a longstanding and valued contributor, Aitias has a history of questionable judgment and was previously given another chance. I was surprised when ArbCom opted not to desysop last time, and now there isn't much choice. Master&Expert (Talk) 08:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Motion amending Ryulong Arbitration case regarding Mythdon

Announcement

I wish this motion hadn't passed. It destroys quite a bit of what I need to do. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 15:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be that 'what you need to do' is disruptive. Thus the motion passing. → ROUX ₪ 15:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This was apparently an internal motion. Can we have the vote tally (names) posted with the announcement and on the case page please? Thatcher 16:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I see, it was public here. Thatcher 17:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

And has been archived at the case talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring in ArbCom pages

This is a temporary notice while waiting for a formal one:

This is to inform that any future edit warring in ArbCom pages —especially from established editors— will be dealt with firmly. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me guess; any future edit warring will result in a block. Is that correct? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon, please read WP:3RR and WP:BLOCK if you want to find out more about how this works. Carcharoth (talk) 01:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I already knew about those policies with my comment above. I was just asking if any further ArbCom page edit warring will result in a block. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Like I said below, that would depend on the circumstances and the judgment of the admin who dealt with it. Some might warn, some might block, some might also protect the page. It depends. That's why we have admins - to exercise judgment in such situations and to work out the best way to deal with whatever incident they are dealing with. Anyway, I'm done here for the night. It's time for bed where I am. If you have any more questions about how administrators would handle such an incident, please ask at the administrators noticeboard and not here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Fayssal. What happened tonight is finished and should not be dragged up again, but if edit warring like that happens in future, please can admins or clerks act here like they would anywhere else. No need to be stricter or more lenient, just act as you would if you found people edit warring on any other page, judge what is needed for the situation and warn, protect (or archive discussions) and/or block as needed. The exception to this being edits by clerks or arbitrators, who may need to revert or edit through page protection. Carcharoth (talk) 01:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Aye. Thank you for letting us know. In the past I have been loath to use sysop tools on these pages.Jehochman ^Talk 01:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Could someone link to the behavior in question? I just searched around and couldn't find it. Cla68 (talk) 01:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

[22]. Carcharoth (talk) 01:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry, I didn't realize it was on this page. I thought it was on one of the current case pages. Cla68 (talk) 01:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

And before anyone accuses me of having dragged it up again... "What happened tonight is finished". This really should be an end to it. If someone could add something to the (non-existent?) edit notice for this page about this, I'd be grateful. Carcharoth (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Tonight's edit warring was sad indeed. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Action should be taken should someone dare edit war like that again. Giano didn't even provide an edit summary for the reverts made. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Jimbo Wales and Bishonen

something odd in point 1.4 - where it says '30 half hour' and '10 announcing it' - thought you'd like to know :-) Privatemusings (talk) 05:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed it. Translation error when converting the Arb's links to fullurl's. MBisanz ^talk 05:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised to see this closed, since voting on both the case and motion had been going back and forth quite a bit. The last vote on the motion was only 4 hours before closure. --InkSplotch (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

There was actually an extension of the closing time for the case, but even after the extension there was no change in the outcome after 48 hours; the motion was still passing, and the case was still not accepted. It's important to close these matters out in a timely way so that the parties can proceed, knowing what the decision was. Risker (talk) 15:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

True, it was open much longer than I would have expected. But changes in voting seemed unusually active, and while the case itself fluctuated randomly, support for the motion seemed to be steadily declining from a winning margin of 3, down to just 1 when it closed. I got the impression that arb's opinions seemed to be shifting towards rejecting the motion, and usually there's a bit of time after the last active vote is cast before a case is closed. --InkSplotch (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... It doesn't seem to actually have passed; the last version of the page before removal says: "With thirteen active arbitrators on this case, seven is a majority." and I count 6 supports. Checking WP:AC, I see 12 active arbs and 6 out of 12 isn't a majority, either. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

With thirteen active arbitrators, less two abstentions, a majority is six. It passed. Roger Davies ^talk 05:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll have to go read about abstentions being subtractive. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Precis: if abstentions were counted as votes, they would be little different than oppose votes. The same system is used at RFA, where neutral comments are not counted towards the success ratio. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

ArbComOpenTasks template

I think it looks great to include the "motions" and "requests for cases" sections. I also think it good to include a "hide" button on the sections of the template. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3

Just to be clear, this restriction was originally imposed in 2005 and is now being extended to 2010. Can anyone think of another restriction that's been in place for so long without any violations? Everyking (talk) 01:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, Everyking, if you had spoken in response to the motions that were on the table, as you were urged to do by many people, there may have been a different outcome. As it is, there is now a finite point at which this sanction will end, barring complications. You did not object to it, knowing that it was about to pass, so there is no reason for anyone to believe you objected. Risker (talk) 03:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you think I should have said. On the one hand, I was being told that it was wrong for me to appeal; on the other hand, I was being told to talk some more about it. In effect, I was being told to shut up and speak up at the same time. Everyking (talk) 04:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the middle ground was chosen. As pointed out above, you now have a clear endpoint for this sanction. It will not last forever, and it won't end today either. But, unless you take some ill-considered action, it will end. Risker (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent summation. Nja²⁴⁷ 06:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Since I've now got a full year to wait, could you or the other arbitrators suggest something for me to ponder in the meantime? The ArbCom must feel my behavior has a lot of room for improvement if it believes a year-long extension is warranted. So any suggestions for improvement would be welcome. Everyking (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I realise that this Committee, like others before it, is frustrated by the frequency with which Everyking asks for the sanction(s) against him to be reconsidered. Personally, I think this reflects only the extent of the injustice that Everyking feels these sanctions represent. The extent that they (and now 1 last remaining one) trouble him is self evident. That the sanction has been reduced to one year is a positive step that I hope will give him some confort, but I am troubled by the addition:

"This expiration date of one year will be reset following any future unsuccessful appeals of this restriction."

Should Everyking really be punished for an unsuccessful appeal in this manner? Risker above refers to "ill-considered action", apparently this extends to having the temerity to officially object to a sanction. I remain of the view that successive Committees have treated Everyking very badly and that he has never really known where he stood. Conceptually, I can see that when someone appeals a decision they run the risk that they may be worth of after their appeal, but to have an automatic penalty for an unsuccessful appeal is a pretty dubious proposition. WJBscribe (talk) 11:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Everyking has filed 10 appeals and requests for clarification in the last 2-1/2 years, some verging close to vexatious ("I am allowed to edit in the same subject areas where Phil is interested?" etc.) Regardless of the merits of the argument that he "has never really known where he stood", now he knows exactly where he stands. Thatcher 12:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Does it matter that he has filed 10 appeals (which I don't think is accurate - some of those were filed by others)? Some of those appeals (though in short succession) have been (to some extent) successful. Indeed, this appeal, which was met by fairly hostile intially comments from Arbs that it should not have been made actually resulted in reduced sanctions. My point is mainly that having an express punishment (extension of sanctions) for someone who is unsuccessful in an appeal is Draconian and hard to justify objectively. WJBscribe (talk) 12:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

In some ways yes it does that he has filed 10 appeals - the remaining sanction can be viewed in a number of ways - given EK has stated he has no desire to interact with Phil, then the sanction can be construed as having no impact and hence its existence moot. Repeatedly challenging a sanction can give the impression one has not taken on board why the sanction was placed in the first place, and raises the possibility that one has not indeed moved on from the original issue (I sincerely hope I am wrong on that one EK). The current motion is a compromise as there is evidently a range of opinions on how this matter can be dealt with. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

After analyzing the whole thing, all I can say is the ArbCom should have been a little kind towards Everyking. He has done a lot of good work, and ameliorated multiple articles. I really hope that the restriction imposed on him will be lifted one day.... AdjustShift (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

WJBscribe, it might help you to understand where I stand if you realise that it was me that filed the motions that were voted on, and it was me that at least twice (at the request) asked Everyking to state on-wiki his objections to the motions, and he steadfastly refused to do so despite advice to do so on his talk page from others. In the end, Thatcher posted a good argument, and that persuaded me to change my stance somewhat. Whether my stance would have changed still further if Everyking had turned up and made a further statement after the motions had been posted, I don't know. But there is only so much time that can be devoted to one case. I gave Everyking the chance to comment at the motions after I posted them, and he didn't post there. I'm still happy to discuss those motions with him on-wiki for a brief time, but he rebuffed his chance to comment at the motions themselves, and thus pointedly passed over his chance to plead his case in the formal sense at the correct time and place (he entered the initial appeal, but then refused to say anything further, even when prompted). This kind of behaviour alone (putting aside all the past history) gave me pause for thought. I would also point out that Everyking asked Brad to explain his stance, and Brad never did so. Also, Phil Sandifer was notified, but never entered a statement. There are a lot of things being left unsaid here. I don't think that is good, but I can't require fellow arbitrators or non-restricted parties to make statements. What I can (personally) require, is that the person whose restrictions are being lifted, returns to the venue where he filed the appeal, and engages with the process after motions are filed, rather than staying away and refusing to post on-wiki. As for the number and details of appeals filed, I may provide that here to lay out the full details for those not aware of them. Finally, as to the general point, it is no more or less than an application of the principle that people should not be able to appeal at whim. Along with the option to lift the restriction entirely, I provided a simple option to limit Everyking to an appeal every year - that was rejected (though there were signs that an option based on filing only if there were grounds for appeal would have gained traction). I provided this "expiration date" option as an alternative (inspired by Dominic's comment) and added the "resetting of the appeal" clause to encourage Everyking to let this matter go and let it end quietly, and it passed. So the end result is that an expiration date has been set, and if Everyking choses to post an appeal (for example, when new arbitrators arrive in January 2010, or in six months time in February 2010), then he has to make a conscious choice between repeated appeals on a matter of principle or letting the restriction expire. It will be then be clear whether he wants the restriction to end, or whether he wants it formally lifted to make a point. Of course, the new arbitration committee may just lift his restriction, which is why I left that option in place - in other words, he is free to make new appeals, but he has to understand that repeated appeals are not free of consequences. See what I wrote at the motion itself for more on this, including my thoughts that repeated appeals should go through a preliminary phase where the appellant states why an appeal should be heard (e.g. stating what was incorrect about the initial case, or what has changed since the previous appeal), and only then, if that phase is passed, would it actually be heard. Carcharoth (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Announcement: Results of Checkuser/Oversight elections, August 2009

Congratulations to the new appointees! Feel free to consult a seasoned CheckUser or Oversighter if you have any questions or just need a second set of eyes. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

While it is theoretically possible for an Arbitration Committee to appoint people who have less than 70% support, I expect that the foundation would be alarmed it if ever happened. The closest checkuser/oversight vote that I can recall is commons:Commons:Checkusers/Requests/SB Johnny. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Sometime last month, I noticed checkuser and oversight weren't mentioned at Wikipedia:Elections; I've since listed them both, and have just now updated the page to reflect these new results (unless that should wait until everyone is identified and flagged, or the dust is otherwise settled). Beyond that, congratulations to all of our new and improved functionaries -- I'll look forward to working with you all. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Never seen that page before! The "Wikimedia Board" section needs updating as well. Carcharoth (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Grammatical pedantry.

Is it just me, or does "appoints the following editors as checkusers, pending identification to the Wikimedia Foundation" make little sense. I think it should be "subject to" rather than "pending" - pending would imply they are appointed now, but that will change once the condition is met, whilst I think what is intended is that they will be appointed once the condition is met.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not just you... WJBscribe (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is people with no real understanding of legalese trying to write in it (I speak as an ex-lawyer). They should either write it out long-hand or leave it to Brad.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you know Brad recently used the phrase "historical excursus" and referred to "caucus" in some legal sense that escaped me. I must ask him what he meant by that. I would point out that if Brad (or other arbitrators) use legal terminology, they have a duty of care to explain them to both the community and their fellow arbitrators! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC) See also: wikt:pending

Interesting theory; however, the appointments are the appointments, and the "pending" part refers to the identification process completion and the turning on of the permissions. Theoretically, an appointment can be withdrawn after the fact should the appointee fail to complete the process; however, I hope that won't be required. I suspect as well that this may be a regional variation in the use of the terms, as this is certainly common North American usage. This isn't legalese, either, Scott, it's just plain English. Risker (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, to me it means "awaiting". I see no problem with the wording. FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, whatever it is, it isn't plain - and that alone is a reason to change it. It may be that it is a regional variation, but I'm fairly familiar with these and this just seems wrong. I suspect it should say with "are appointed checkusers subject to identification being completed". Pending means "while awaiting; until" (dictionary US definition), which would mean that the condition (being appointed) was interim and ceased when the condition (being identified) was met.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If it is not plain then the wording can be changed. My point was to confirm that it was more likely to be a problem in that the wording reflects a regional colloquial usage rather than a non-lawyer using legalese incorrectly. Since the use of the word can change over time, additionally, the age of the person might be a factor in deciphering the meaning.

If this is the main complaint in reaction to the announcement, then I'm not alarmed. :-) FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Us pedants pick up on small things when there's nothing else to complain about ;). --Scott Mac (Doc) 19:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be "We pedants?" IronDuke 04:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

We could write it in faux theatre style and use an exaggerated east end/Leonard Sachs/The Good Old Days accent...."...appoints the following editors as checkusers....(drumroll.....................)" with a cymbal crash and out pops an "identified to WMF" template. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Reduced activity: 23–31 August 2009

Any particular reason why? And if so, why was it intentionally omitted? That seems spectacularly unhelpful. ÷seresin 07:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Does the reason matter, except inasmuch as it satisfies the curiosity of individual Wikipedians? :P AGK 16:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't intentionally omitted: it ended up on the cutting room floor by mistake. Significant numbers of arbs travelling is the main reason. Roger Davies ^talk 07:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I volunteer to be ArbCom's stand-in while they're gone. Address all your arbitration needs to User talk:Harej during the eight days of no ArbCom. ;] —harej (talk) 07:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

What exactly was the vote for? - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

For some time now, all official AC decisions have been decided by vote. Paul August ☎ 03:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. But what was the decision here? Was Rlevse denying the other arbitrators their vacation? ;-) Rjd0060 (talk) 03:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Rlevse would have to answer that. But the decision is given in the text of the announcement here. Paul August ☎ 03:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You're clearly missing the point which is that this level of bureaucracy looks foolish. At least that is the point I was trying to make. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does rather. I confess, having been away when this board came into being, that it rather amuses me. I presume it stems from the wish for greater openness about ArbComn decisions. It is self-evidently bureaucratic, but this is felt to be counterbalanced by the need to publicise which Arbitrators support what. Given that I argued for greater openness in the last election, that is certainly a good thing. But I'm not sure it really promotes that much "openness". The discussions that lead to motions, even really trivial ones like this one, remain hidden. The reasons for Arbs supporting or opposing these motions is usually unclear. Real openness would surely require moving some of the discussion of these decisions to the wiki rather than keeping them on the list. This seems a prime example of a motion where no secrecy over the discussion behind it is necessary. My hope for the future would be that ArbCom give very serious thought in each case to whether their deliberations actually need to private at all - if not, move them back to the wiki. WJBscribe (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

There has been discussion aimed at making much of the "administrative" internal discussion open and on-wiki (for motions involving sanctions where there is no need for consideration of private evidence, or no real urgency to act swiftly, we would probably use the newly-resurrected motions page). A wide-ranging discussion on what should be done off-wiki and what should be done on-wiki as regards arbitration business is long overdue. WJBscribe, if you would like to start such a discussion, that would be good (this, and much of what follows, is my personal opinion only). Timing it for after the recess, when more arbitrators are here, would probably be best.

My initial views are that the actual discussions of bans and sanctions is sometimes (often) sensitive, and there is often a need for a private space in which to be frank in discussions, normally ones where the evidence is clear, but there is disagreement on the level of sanctions. But yes, the administrative discussions and decisions could well be taken on-wiki (the discussion for internal motions usually takes place on the arbwiki, not the mailing list).

Some of the arguments against this include: the inevitable minority opposition to almost any sort of change that would distract from just taking a "working practices" decision and getting on with things; and (my argument) that the community should have primary say in the arbitration policy (the new draft of which hasn't been forgotten, and which was developed with community input) and that the committee should have the flexibility (within the limits of that policy) to change their working practices to suit different committees year-by-year (as the composition changes due to elections). If each of those sort of changes was micromanaged by the community (or the small subset of the community who take an interest in this sort of thing), then there would be a danger of placing future committees in a strait-jacket as regards changes to their working practices. Some of these working practices were unwritten, and it has helped to formalise them on the "procedures" page.

Your point about asking individual arbs what their reasons for support or opposition are, has been followed in some cases - look through the talk pages archives and you will see examples of arbs being asked their reasons and them answering - though I agree that more on-wiki vote rationales at the time of publication would help (or indeed moving on-wiki entirely, but note that even on-wiki some arbitrators don't give reasons for their votes or failures to vote).

As for the noticeboard, one of the big advantages of this is that it is a central venue where all changes and decisions are announced, allowing people to follow a single venue and also allowing a chronological view of what arbitration business has been done, and also to encourage comments at this talk page (look through the archives for examples of such discussions). Previously, decisions were archived in many different venues, and it was difficult to keep track of them all. The noticeboard proved very handy when I compiled a report on what had been done in the first half of this year. And for those like WJBscribe who have been away, the following three links to things I've mentioned above would be a good starting point if you want to comment or give feedback: January to July 2009 report, second policy draft, internal rules and procedures.

Reading the latter page reminds me that this concept of a "recess" should be added there, and that Unexpected arbitrator absence didn't get added to the procedures page. And reading the half-year report, I see that I noted that out of "88 announcements at the arbitration noticeboard", a full 16 were announcements of "changes to internal Arbitration Committee processes". Anyone can generate that list by going back through the noticeboard archives. A list of what I included in that stat will be in the fuller report, but as it is based on public on-wiki pages, I will provide that list on request if anyone asks at the discussion page for the report. Carcharoth (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This looks like "Arbitration Committee Vacation". Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

In Argentina [23]? Dragons flight (talk) 03:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

For many of us, I suppose. I know for a fact that I'll be there (I'm leading a panel on day two), and so will a number of my colleagues. — Coren ^(talk) 23:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, "leading a panel". Of course that's what elected officials do in Argentina. ;) rspεεr (talk) 04:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

... what? — Coren ^(talk) 13:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

See Mark Sanford. Nathan^T 13:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah! :-) — Coren ^(talk) 15:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Motion regarding The Rambling Man

Appeals to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee: Keeblesound and Arindamp

I'm not sure I agree with the unblocking of Mrinal Pandey (talk · contribs), but I trust the appeals subcommittee knows what they are doing. That said, I do feel it would have been a nice gester to have been contacted prior to the unblock seeing as I was the blocking administrator. Maybe that can be incorporated into the BASCs SOP? Tiptoety ^talk 17:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

That is a good idea and we should have thought of that. Sorry. Anyway, the unblock has some conditions so hopefully things will go smoothly. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking