Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Ban Appeals Subcommittee appointments

Announcement

Can Ottava come back?

Hello ArbCom,

As you may know I have little knowledge of appeals processes and other paperwork, so I'll ask you in the simple-minded manner you can expect from me: can Ottava Rima (talk · contribs) come back? It's been a couple of years since a request was filed, and I don't even know if it is my place to ask for this, but I can't tackle all these literary articles by myself in between J-pop and K-pop and whatnot. I don't even know how to write a decent plot summary, and Ottava does. So please? Drmies (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Disclosure—I'm the one who suggested this, as Ottava's input would be genuinely valuable to Drmies's forthcoming work on Milton. You all presumably know my arguments in favor of unblocking from 2011. The reasons for converting OR's 1-year block into a permanent ban could be summarized as "he's irritating and refuses to admit he's wrong even when it's clearly the case, and sometimes has an exaggerated sense of his own importance"—if this were applied consistently about 50% of Wikipedia, 75% of Arbcom and 100% of the WMF would be sitebanned. If he comes back and starts acting up again, I'm sure there are plenty of people more than happy to kick him out again. – iridescent 21:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  (Yes, I know this is the wrong page for this—whoever moves this, feel free to move my reply as well) – iridescent 21:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Has he asked? I'm not against the idea but would prefer if there were some specific conditions laid out first. --regentspark (comment) 21:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• His email is blocked, his talkpage is locked, unless Arbcom has radically changed, anything he sends to arbcom-l is ignored, and Malleus (who traditionally acted as his ambassador in these situations) is gone. Not sure how he could ask. – iridescent 21:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• I assumed by email to you or somebody else. I seem to recall a previous request as well. Anyway, I guess it doesn't matter but it would be good to know whether he wants to come back or not before we start discussing how. Though, on reflection, I don't see a need for onerous conditions. --regentspark (comment) 22:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Hey RegentsPark, not sure if this matters, but the topic came up on my talk page, in conversation with Iridescent. I know that Malleus got along with OR and he's mentioned him once or twice, but I didn't know that Malleus was a kind of spokesperson (don't pin me down on this phrasing, and I don't intend this as anything but a paraphrase of what I just heard from Iridescent). I haven't had contact with OR since--who knows how long ago?--some spat I had with them years ago, before he got blocked/banned/ArbCommed (which, at the time, I certainly didn't oppose). So no, this isn't on anyone's request but mine, I suppose. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Presuming he understood the reason for his ban and subsequent extension and at least made an effort to work with others, then I'd be fine with a return. He's done plenty of great content and copyright work, and it was a call I really hated making from that perspective. Wizardman 22:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe OR is still active in other WF entities, like here, for instance, and it would probably be possible to contact him through one or more of them, and potentially have him address the issues either by sending an e-mail as per WP:ARBCOM#BASC or by request at WP:ARCA. I personally would welcome seeing the matter at least discussed, and would very much look forward to seeing him able to return for at least the subject under discussion here, and probably in a broader sense as well. John Carter (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Ottava Rima published his most recent unblock request on Wikipedia Review; I have not checked to see if he also posted the Committee's response to it there, although he might have. The request was reviewed in early January and declined. Arbcom is aware that Ottava has continued to participate on other Wikimedia projects, and examining his block logs and recent edits on those other projects was part of the review. Others might also find this informative. Risker (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

As I recall the previous committee wouldn't have him back if he was the last person alive editing Wikipedia, unless they were all dead first. And even then they wouldn't. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I certainly won't say you're wrong here, Elen; however, I think it's fair to allow others to draw their own conclusions, looking at the same information that Arbcom had at the time, since it is all publicly available. If Ottava had not published his unblock request publicly, it would be more difficult for others to examine the information. Risker (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, the information might usefully be made more accessible in this thread. This is the relevant 2009 RFAR, and note also the 2010 arbcom statement on OR's ban appeal with the consequent change of OR's block from one year to indefinite. Iridescent, I'm far from sure everybody knows your 2011 arguments in favor of unblocking; for instance, I don't. You might provide a link, unless you're referring to sekrit arbcom discussions (and using "you all" in a rather restricted sense). I'd be interested to read those arguments, especially to see if you summarised the problem then, too, as 'he's irritating and self-righteous, just like most other editors'. I think the evidence in the RFAR suggested something going a little beyond the common frailties of humanity. Bishonen | talk 00:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC).

"You all" was aimed at the arbs, but there's nothing super-secret there—even if it wasn't included in the leaked emails, my original post here pretty much summed it up. Ottava could be an insufferable prick at times, but no more so than plenty of others; the "go, and never darken our sheets again" treatment—normally reserved for the industrial-grade headcases, serial copyright violators and hardcore vandals—to me seems disproportionate; at present, Ottava is under stronger blocking terms than Mattisse or Scibaby. I hold no brief for Ottava—last time I encountered him he was spewing semi-incoherent abuse at me—but I don't feel the current position of simultaneously saying "you can't post anything" and "demonstrate that you've changed" is consistent. I have yet to understand how restoring talkpage access so Drmies can ask him for suggestions is going to break Wikipedia. – iridescent 00:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Iridescent, both Mattisse and Scibaby socks are blocked upon identification; they're no less unwelcome on the project than Ottava, and they both have been caught socking on several occasions (hundreds, for Scibaby). Ottava has never socked to my knowledge. Ottava has also taken the opportunity to work on multiple other Wikimedia projects, and his activity there is publicly reviewable; anyone can do so, and I urge anyone doing so to keep in mind the significant variation in the culture between different projects. Risker (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Neither Mattisse nor Scibaby have the blocked from editing/blocked from emailing/blocked from talkpage hat-trick which Ottava has. Yes, I know why all three were imposed; yes, I think there's a chance he'll cause problems if he comes back; but yes, I think he should get the chance. The decline of his original appeal was a matter of bad timing—Mattisse had made everyone involved leery of any "mentoring" or "rehabilitation" schemes—rather than anything else, and people do change—give him back access to his own talkpage and see if he can go a couple of months without insulting anyone. As someone once said long ago, "indefinite" was never intended to mean "infinite"; if Shalom can come back I don't see why Ottava shouldn't be given a second chance. (FWIW, I don't think "got in arguments on Meta, Commons and Wikiversity" is a valid argument for keeping an editor blocked. While there are plenty of fine people at all three, there are also large numbers of full-blown whackadoodles who would try the patience of a saint.) – iridescent 02:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, neither Scibaby nor Mattisse have regularly abused their talk pages after blocking; however, Mattisse and her socks *do* have email disabled because of abusive emails sent to people. And if you're going to slam editors on other Wikimedia sites (and I do understand where you're coming from), you might want to give some consideration to why you would argue Ottava does not fall into the category you've identified. Of course, you've just indicated in your edit summary that you aren't going to respond further. Risker (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Last time I let a banned editor use my talk page as a kind of medium the shit came down like rain. Maybe Ottava can find my very literary blog and post there, claiming to be one of my students and communicating in code. Drmies (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

You don't need to communicate in code off-wiki, Drmies; it's certainly not Arbcom's business, and you can pretty well guarantee none of us are going to look for your blog. You don't even need to communicate in code on other projects, provided that Ottava continues to be unblocked on them; I am fairly certain he has email enabled on at least one or two other projects, and you could email him from there. What I'm not seeing here is any evidence that you've already communicated with Ottava and received his agreement to assist you. After the initial unban discussion, to which Bishonen linked, some users did try to work with Ottava to import his work from other Wikimedia projects onto this one; however, that dried up fairly quickly, and anecdotally this seems to have been related to Ottava's private communication with those editors. I would hope that has changed. Risker (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Risker, you should be very interested in my blog since it talks of big books using really big words: just the way you like it. :) No, I know I don't need to use code. Honestly, I don't see why he couldn't communicate with me here, but them's the rules, I understand (well, I'll follow, I don't really understand). I'm really blissfully ignorant of Ottava's other work elsewhere: I'm very monogamous, wiki-wise. This is why I'm probably a terrible advocate for him or anyone else--I really just want him unblocked on principle, bearing in mind some of the points Iridescent brought up re:gravity of offense, and I would have preferred to do so without his agreement (that's part of the principle; it's unorthodox, I suppose, and probably silly).

Now, in the meantime I did in fact receive an email from Ottava, which was very nice. (For the record, I believe this is the very first time we ever communicated off-wiki.) It was not a ringing endorsement of my proposal, nor did it speak out against it. I'd like an unban on the following, very simple (or simplistic, you may think) grounds: he wrote a lot of good articles and made us look better, and three years is a long time. So what if he acted like an ass too often; plenty will feel the same way about me, and maybe when he comes back he'll rub fewer people the wrong way. We won't know until give him a chance, and if it doesn't work, well, he'll be reblocked and banned in a jiffy, no doubt. Thanks Risker, Drmies (talk) 03:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• • I would also append to Risker's statement that I gave Ottava full permission to post my response to his appeal; whether or not he actually did is not something I can answer. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking of the response from the previous committee, to clarify. It's possible it was phrased a shade more tactfully - I wouldn't have said the above was verbatim :) Am I right in thinking that a community unblock discussion at this point would carry no weight? Is it worth continuing the discussion if so. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The WR thread is here.[1] Mathsci (talk) 00:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I left a rambling note on Ottava's talk page informing him of this thread. I hope I didn't ruin anyone's weekend. Drmies (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I also would support Ottava returning. I know that he can be a royal pain in the ass at times, but he also has done a lot of work for this project, and has the capacity to do a lot more. I have been friends with him for almost three years, and at least twice a month he messages me asking me to help revert some vandalism or misinformation that has been placed on pages. Keep in mind this isn't just asking for a revert, as he often sends detailed messages explaining what's wrong. Clearly, he is still invested in this project, even if he is blocked. Returning to him being a pain, I also have seen him show remorse for his actions, in person. At Wikimania, he was able to diffuse a potentially volatile situation with another editor from a spat years ago by apologizing in person. To be able to come from an online community and apologize in front of someone whom you have only known over the internet is pretty damn impressive, because for anyone to admit a mistake shows that they are conscious of their actions. It is different to show this feeling over the internet, but he knows that he is wrong and admits that he has a tendency to overdo it at times. On the flip side, he also knows that if he messes up again, he will also be blocked. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• Ottava is that most problematic type of user: the prolific content editor who can write a really great article but sucks at getting along with just about everyone. As demonstrated here even those who want him to come back have had conflicts with him, but he is so darn useful they would be ok looking past it. In my few encounters with him I rapidly found him to be an insufferable bully with a massive ego. (Which is exaclty the type of person who brings out my own worst qualities, or at least those qualities which it would seem may work for me in the real world but no so well on Wikipedia) The community as a whole has clearly demonstrated that they have not a clue how they, as a group, prefer to deal with such persons, so ArbCom can't exactly take their lead from consensus on this one. So, I dunno, good luck figuring this one out. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comparing OR to Malleus or Giano is very unfair to the latter two. There is a reason why OR is banned and they are not.
  I think OR, at least the OR of 3 years ago, is best described as a recognition junkie. Basically, he will do anything for it. If it means asking a teacher or getting loads of books from the library and reading them to help with an article, then that's to Wikipedia's benefit. If it means making wrong stuff up and then insisting against all experts and all evidence that it's correct just because he says so and he is a scholar, then it isn't. In fact, last time I looked he wasn't a scholar but a graduate student whose pomposity on Wikipedia was matched only by his immaturity on IRC. Unsurprisingly, he is also extremely prone to the false consensus effect.
  He is young enough that he might well have improved sufficiently in the years since he was indeffed. As he has been active on other projects, we don't have to speculate. I haven't looked recently, and have never looked very closely, but I suspect that the result would not be in his favour. Hans Adler 10:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comparing OR to Malleus or Giano is very unfair to the latter two. It would be beyond unfair, but yours is the first suggestion of it on this page. The first mention of Giano altogether, I just did a search. Why bring them into this discussion? Was there something above that has been removed? Bishonen | talk 10:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC).

  No, there wasn't. I just felt that Beeblebrox' "the prolific content editor who can write a really great article but sucks at getting along with just about everyone" would be read as an allusion to these two by those who 'suck at getting along with' editors like Giano and Malleus. I guess I shouldn't have mentioned them, especially Giano, who wasn't mentioned here before. Hans Adler 11:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

sulutil:Ottava Rima tells me that Ottava has been blocked at various points on Commons, English Wikisource, English Wikiversity, and Meta. Some of the blocks were as late as 2012 (Commons was for 5 months, en.wikiversity was for 7, Meta was for 1). From my knowledge of Commons and Meta, they're much more relaxed than enwiki; not as familiar with the other two, but I know that they're fairly small. Those commenting may want to take this into account. --Rschen7754 10:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

That's useful research. I'd agree that it would be good to get Ottava back eventually. But I'd like to see either a track record on other projects that shows he's ready to come back or a commitment from him that he won't repeat the behaviour that got him blocked. Simply reiterating that he can do great work should not be sufficient, not least because he was blocked despite the quality of his work not because of it. ϢereSpielChequers 11:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I remember very well how he was blocked on Commons since I participated in the discussion with him which eventually got him blocked. The discussion was less than enjoyable, and kind of lifetime experience. The guy just does not know how and when to stop. On the other hand, he was later conditionally unblocked and from what I can say as an active Commons participant did not create any problems so far. I discussed things with him on Meta, also recently, and that was constructive. May be smth like the full ban on everything except for Article and Article Talk namespaces could work.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

As I remember it, article talk pages were where he was most problematic. I think something like a ban on making more than one comment per section per week in any discussion would be more helpful. That way he could still give potentially valid input, and everyone would be free to just ignore him when he is wrong. I guess it would have to come with something like 1RR as well, as he wouldn't be able to fully discuss reverts. Hans Adler 13:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, sounds like a good idea.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The record at other sites outlined by Rschen is concerning. As Ymblanter says, Ottava just doesn't know when to stop. Some sort of circuit breaker would be a good idea though I'm not sure 1RR will work because what Ottava needs is some sort of control over what, and how often, he posts on talk pages. --regentspark (comment) 14:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with the specifics of this case to have a useful opinion on whether OR is allowed back or not. It's my observation that, in general, overly elaborate schemes to allow editors return to editing often consume significant wiki resources to manage and often aren't successful. I recommend either "Sorry, no, not yet" or a hopeful AGF "Yes, you can return to editing." NE Ent 15:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Cassandra in front of the burning city of Troy at the peak of her insanity.

I certainly agree with the Ent about complex mentoring schemes. This is where I bore everybody with some Cato the Elder-type nagging: remember the Mattisse mentorship! Compare also Cassandra. "While Cassandra foresaw the destruction of Troy (she warned the Trojans about the Trojan Horse, the death of Agamemnon, and her own demise), she was unable to do anything to forestall these tragedies since no one believed her." Bishonen | talk 16:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC).

You're right as usual Bishonen. But, the thing is, we've slowly kicked out all the interesting Wikipedians (or !Wikipedians), either by banning them or by repeatedly dragging them to arbs over imagined civility issues! --regentspark (comment) 16:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I am going to agree with Bish; this sojourn fails Bobrayner's Law spectacularly. --Guerillero | My Talk 18:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• So...so far, the only idea anyone has come up with to reduce Ottava's problematic interactions is to heavily restrict him from the article talk page. How will this result in collaborative development of articles? If people cannot communicate appropriately about the content of the articles they are editing (and yes, there are plenty of examples of that in this case), what is the benefit of their return? I'm very serious: we *know* skilled and knowledgeable editors stopped working on articles in order to avoid Ottava. Why would we want to recreate that environment? Risker (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• Strawman: No one has said lets let OR back and hope he was just as disruptive as he was before! The original idea was more along the lines of perhaps enough time has passed that OR can contribute without being a significant disruption.NE Ent 17:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

The above link to his posted request on Wikedia Review shows him blaming others for his woes rather than admit responsibility for past actions. As this was just a couple of months ago, I think it's pretty indicative of the answer to the question if he's matured or changed significantly. I agree Ottava was an asset to the project. My question is, if an editor contributes 10 FA's to the project, but runs off 10 editors who each would have contributed 1 FA to the project, and consume a large amount of project resources with the drama created in the process, are they still a net benefit to the project? Dave (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Query to Dave: What "above link to his posted request on Wikedia Review"? I can't find it. Bishonen | talk 19:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC).

Posted by Mathsci high on thread. NE Ent 19:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

If Ottava actually does change, he could come back, in my opinion. It's reasonable to look for evidence of a change based on his behavior on the other WMF projects. In my opinion the mere passage of time is not enough to justify his return to enwiki. See an unblock discussion from May, 2012 on Commons. Ottava was unblocked subject to conditions but he has not been very active on Commons since that moment, so it doesn't give us much to go on. We can't tell whether his behavior on article talk pages has improved. Ottava has not done much substantive editing on English Wikiversity since mid-2012. This talk thread on Meta from November, 2012 doesn't reflect well on him in my opinion. I don't see his behavior on other WMF projects as showing a positive change. If he is really the same Ottava that was originally banned here then his return is not a net benefit. EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

His posts on WR should also be taken into account, too. --Guerillero | My Talk 18:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

courtesy break

• First let me preface this with fact that I don't have any delusional expectations that anything I'm about to type will matter in the least. Some of the arbs and perhaps a few others will also know that I've been a proponent of returning OR's editing abilities in the past. Now it seems that most people here are willing to concede that 1) OR can write some very high quality material for the project. and 2) There have been times that interactions with other editors have been problematical. I think I can safely say that Ottava is a unique individual (just like all the rest of us - sorry; but I love irony) Now it seems that the big question here is "What can we do to make Ottava conform to the acceptable mold"? OK, bear with me here for a few moments while I engage in a thought exercise ...

Taking that concept of "changing Ottava", flipping it on its side, stepping outside the box, looking at it from all 360 degrees, and playing devil's advocate; let me ask this. What can WE do as a collective group to improve the situation? I'm reluctant to mention other editors here because some people tend to infer that it's an equasion of some sort. But the question remains, why is it always the individual that must "change", rather than US. Sometimes - the individual actually does get it right, and the group with all its pitchforks, mob mentality, and collective group think is actually the party that's wrong. This leads a bit to the NE Ent and Bish posts above as far as mentoring. I think it's wonderful that some experienced users go to great efforts to take another editor under their wing and bring them into the fold. The forced "formal mentoring" however doesn't always work out quite so well. Short of having some IRL person with you to monitor your editing, the downfall often seems to be when a disagreement begins and some drama board takes off like a runaway freight train. People respond impulsively, emotionally, aggressively and it just snowballs into a huge ... "BAN HIM, BURN IT WITH FIRE" ... ummm .. consensus(?). At least one person has said that we do an absolutely horrible job of "educating" editors, I agree.

Wow this is getting rather long-winded, apologies for that. Anyway, I'm not sure I completely agree with Risker's assessment above. (Hey, it was bound to happen some day :)). What I mean by this is that over time I've become less convinced that individuals run people off the project. I suspect it is more the atmosphere of our project that does that than any one person. Yes, I know that there are a few folks that can be the personification of that so called "toxic" atmosphere, I'm just saying I'm not sure it's right to lay all the blame at any one person's feet. There are some fantastic, intelligent, top quality writers out there that simply don't find our environment enjoyable. There certainly is a scarlet letter quality about this place; whether the "wrong" is factual, or just perceived - it does exist. Quite frankly I'm not sure what keeps some of us coming back for more .. but I digress.

Now, IIRC - originally the entire "banning" situation started when an administrator unilaterally sanctioned OR, at which point OR took exception to it, brought it to RFAR, and questioned that a single admin. had that ability. As the case developed, it seemed to devolve into an "OR against the world" type of display. Ottava drew a line in the sand, and the committee basically said "No .. this is the line, and you need to choose which side of it you're going to be on." It's always been my perception that OR wears a badge branded with words like: honor, honesty, integrity, principle; and that he often sees things in black and white. Perhaps if he could learn to see some of the shades of grey it would be a different situation. I also very much understand that when you have 3, 5, 15 people pointing fingers at you, it's very easy to become defensive. And when heels start digging in, it often doesn't end well. I'd like to see Ottava understand that just because someone doesn't agree with him, it doesn't make them a bad person. One on one I've never had a problem talking to OR, but I have seen where his responses to others at times have been less than optimal. He can be quick to percieve something as a personal attack, and when he responds in what I think he considers a "factual" fashion - it often looks like a personal attack on its own. Often my own solution to something like that is to go talk to the person privately and try to understand what the differences are. If their talk page becomes too populated, then perhaps even email. I think if you treat OR with respect, then you will get that respect returned. OK, I saw this yesterday and had been thinking about it, so when asked - well I just do seem to be in love with the sound of my own voice - sorry about that.

Anyway, tl;dr: Yes, I'd like to see OR editing here. Let's face it; we certainly have enough testosterone filled young fellas about the project who absolutely get great joy in making use of that shinney little block button. OR, if you do make it back, and you feel something just isn't "right" about something - go have a chat with NYB, Worm, Iri, Drmies or a few dozen other folks I can think of that are really good at keeping things sane. I know not everyone always has the time to be on wiki, but keep a list of folks that are pretty rational, intelligent, and compassionate folks, and don't hesitate to tap those resources. As always, if anyone has any questions, feel free to ping me. — Ched :  ?  19:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Letting go of the past

Thank you, Ched. I dream of a Wikipedia anybody can edit. People banning people doesn't seem to go well with that idea, at all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

A hopelessly naieve statement, if you dont mind me saying, even for you. Dangerous even, in fact. But what the hell! :)Ceoil (talk) 02:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Your larger point is well taken. But it is much harder to change a system than it is to kick out an individual. Still, for the record, the original case is worth reading before any of us rush into an up, out or something in the middle decision. --regentspark (comment) 20:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Blocking Ottava rarely sticks or has any affect one way or the other. He has just as many testosterone laced friends as enemies that have access to that block button, which also includes an unblock button. That is part of the reason why virtually all conflicts involving him ended up at RFC and/or Arbcom. This argument of "if he starts again we can just block him" is completely inconsistent with past experience. Past experience is that it takes 5 RFCs 2 Arbcom cases and testimony from 50 editors just to get any sanctions to stick. (exaggeration but the point is made) Dave (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dave, ummmm, could you please link me to a couple of those RFC/U pages? I had a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ottava Rima and wasn't able to find them. Also any of the Arb cases outside the one that Ottava opened himself.

Also, while it's quite true that on any given side there will be admins. with testosterone; in my experiences it seems that it's often the person who unblocks a user who faces more scrutiny than the one that blocks. Now I fully understand that with WP:WHEEL, that's going to be the general nature of things, but I just wanted to mention it. — Ched :  ?  21:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps ANI would have been the better TLA to use in listing the venues. I'll grant you that RFC has not been used often with this editor, but ANI has been used frequently. However, many blocks against Ottava (or any experienced editor with civility problems for that matter) have been promptly reversed without any real discussion. Ottava's block log shows several such cases. That point in my argument is valid, the idea of "we can unblock and if there are any problems we can re-block" is laughable looking at Ottava's block log.Dave (talk)

I'm not saying you or any other user doesn't have valid concerns. But here's what often makes me do a double-take when it comes to precision in the English language. First you mention 5 RfCs and 2 Arbcom cases, and then say something like "RFC has not been used often with this editor". Now to me "seldom" =/= "never". And perhaps there's a deleted page somewhere that I can't see. My point here is that this is how urban legends and memes come into existence. As far as AN/I, I think I've seen a few of those. And IIRC some of them revolved around editing disputes in regards to content. I know that my memory isn't "all that and a bag of chips", but I do seem to recall that more often than not Ottava was actually correct in the content matters. Typically the problems seemed to be the way some of the discussion was couched. It's always more preferable to read "I think you are mistaken" than to see "You lie", even if the second is actually technically accurate. Now I have no idea how much OR even wants to come back to editing, but I do know that he does continually read, research, and write some very comprehensive things on encyclopedic matters. I can't imagine him ever compromising his principles, but perhaps he could be persuaded to use a less acidic tone in his discussions. Actually come to think of it, quite frankly, over the years of discussions ... yea, I'd say that he has mellowed to some extent. I have no idea if there is a way through all this, but I admit that I'd like to see everyone come out on the other side with a better understanding and appreciation of editors as people. Quite bluntly, when I do read through that RFAR, I somehow get the impression that there were a lot of things not said in public, so I'm not convinced I know the whole story. I understand and appreciate "privacy", so that's not a complaint, just an observation. — Ched :  ?  22:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

@Dave: I call bullshit. This is Ottava's block log. Which unblock is by "a testosterone laced friend with access to the unblock button" or was "promptly reversed without any real discussion"? Looks from where I'm sat like Ched called you out on one baseless lie, and you promptly moved on to another. 188.29.98.106 (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment logged in, my brave fellow. Bishonen | talk 11:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC).

The most obvious is the unblock for the simple reason of "time served" with no explanation. Two mention "no consensus" which are also suspect, and I saw at least one saying something like, "user has promised to behave from this point forward so I'm unblocking". Also, the block log does mention harassment at RFC's so that venue has been used at least once. Dave (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

@Ched: So you read through the RFAR? All of the evidence page? The evidence is far more telling than the barebones arbcom findings, IMO. Did you also read through the other RFAR six weeks earlier, filed by Ottava Rima under the name "RS and Fringe Noticeboard" which was unaccountably (IMO; compare my comment here) not accepted by the same arbcom that accepted the second RFAR with something like alacrity? Just asking. I'd be interested to know your impression, and also what kinds of things you think weren't said in public. (I found your comment on those things mysterious rather than "blunt".) I do realize it may be a superhuman time investment to read all that evidence. [Adding a couple of suggestions 14:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC):] A lite version might be reading this submission of mine in September 2009 and clicking on the diffs to the nine ANI threads from April 2008 to August 2009 that I list there. As for people changing, have you seen this from 31 December 2012 — two months ago?Bishonen | talk 11:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC).

• "Can Ottava come back?" Unlikely, per competence is required for one thing. Take this big bulging bag of baloney for starters [2]. I mean, it's quite amusing to be lectured on your lack of Persian by someone who can't recognise the Persian word for Iran (hint: it transliterates as "Iran"), but it loses its charm after the first hundred posts or so. Wikipedia is not here to foster an editor's belief in his own infallibility.--Folantin (talk) 12:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

@ Bishonen: Apologies for my delayed reply, and I will offer an extended response the first chance I get. Please note however that while my initial answer when asked is going to be: "Yes, I'd like to see OR back editing"; I also have no desire to throw myself on any sword in order to achieve that end. — Ched :  ?  16:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, with a few minutes here I'll try to answer a couple of those things. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that I "read" some of the (Nov.) RFAR posts at the time they were written, and had skimmed much of the other posts. No, I had not read all of the evidence page, but had seen much of it at the time, and I did spot some things I had forgotten. WOW - the 318143894 version of the case page sure was a jolt though, and not of the enjoyable sort. (I was quite emotionally invested in several of the other issues posted there at that time), but No, I don't recall being aware of the Fringe issue. I still haven't read through that, but will gladly give you my impressions once I have - and I will read it. The "not public" comment of mine is a general overall feeling I get in reading through the flow of discussion. There was something that NYB had posted that caught my eye which left me with an impression of a discussion that I was not privy to. (not seeing the specific one at the moment, but will look further when I have a chance). Although this brief thread is also a hint to such a thing. More specifically, there was an "announcement" (late 2010 or early 2011?) from the Arbitration Committee that was along the lines of: (and I am paraphrasing from memory) "The committee has reviewed a request from OR and has declined it."¹ I mentioned before that I realize that for many reasons there will be times where some items must be discussed in private; it was an observation, not a condemnation. Moving on: Yes, I had seen the recent request which was posted to WR. Obviously (to anyone who knows me), I didn't copy-edit or collaborate in the writing of that. I would have suggested being more concise, and I certainly would have removed any reference to any other editor's perceived shortcomings. Personally I viewed it as a very emotionally charged writing; but your point there is well taken.

In short (too late for that?); 3 years, 3 months, and x days is a long time to serve a 1 year ban. I do wish that OR did not hold such a cynical view, but there are times I understand it. I may be the polar opposite as he on the AGF scale, but I also no longer have the desire or energy to tilt at windmills. I'd imagine that if the Arbs were going to act on this, they would have done so by now. Even if this were to go to the "community", I'm not sure you'd see anything different than we're seeing here. Old grudges die hard around this place, and that's not something I find great joy in. On a personal note, Jehochman and I did not have the best of interaction at initial meetings, but we buried the hatchet long ago (hopefully), and I have no desire to pull it from the stump. So in the end: 3 years is a long time. re-Blocks are not hard to come by (especially when there's folks watching what you're doing), and I have no desire to butt heads with Arbcom or any other group. — Ched :  ?  20:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

• ¹ Meaning that I was surprised that it was not kicked back to the community for input — Ched :  ?  21:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Section break

The community even gave me another chance, commuting an indef block to time served after nine months. This happened last week. It's time for Ottava to be allowed another chance. Chutznik (talk) 01:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I have proposed on Drmies' user talk page something which I think might be acceptable to the wikipedia community, if not, perhaps, necessarily to Ottava Rima himself. I don't know what if any response it will receive, but I hope that, if nothing else, we might be able to get some sort of feedback, one way or another, from OR himself about whether he would be willing to come back under such terms, at least initially, before the discussion here closes completely. John Carter (talk) 03:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

John, would you mind copying that proposal here, modified in any way you see fit? Ottava tells me, in a note left under a flower pot at the bakery, that he agrees with such a proposal. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Before we start examining proposals of any sort, I think we should hear from Ottava first. It would be instructive, particularly after seeing the WR post linked somewhere above, how he deals with all this. So, if there is a serious intent to see Ottava back here, I suggest immediately restoring his access to his own talk page. --regentspark (comment) 14:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree it probably makes sense to allow Ottava to respond directly, and support the restoration of his talk page access.

And, basically, for informational purposes, what I had proposed on Drmies' user talk page was, basically, what seems to me to be almost a form of "work release" program, which would allow OR to be unblocked on the provision that he edit only in a specific designated group of pages for an indefinite but theoretically limited period of time, and that any edits deemed unacceptable in the eyes of independent administrators, including problematic edits in that area and any editing outside of that area, would be grounds for the indef block to be restored. Upon satisfactory completion of the edits in that range, or, presumably, at the request of some other editor like Drmies, the range of pages he would be allowed to edit could be expanded to include other designated areas, with the potential at some point in the future of having unrestricted access to wikipedia restored. John Carter (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you John. Yes, I support such a conditional return. Though I realize that for many this is already too much, I think it is a way in which Ottava's considerable contributions to the project can continue. I also agree with restoring talk page access, at least for the duration of this discussion. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've gone ahead and restored talk page access for Ottava. I checked the arbcom ruling and don't think there was a specific mandate against doing that but, if I am wrong, feel free (anyone) to remove that access. I just think we should see which Ottava wants to come back before we go down this road. --regentspark (comment) 17:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

"(del/undel) 17:16, 22 July 2010 SirFozzie (talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for Ottava Rima (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked, e-mail disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Misclicked box, user is not allowed to edit talk page) (unblock | change block)" and there's no mandate? --Rschen7754 18:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't specifically mentioned in the ruling. And, frankly, it is not clear to me what part of a ruling for a one year ban actually applies three and a half years later. But, if Risker says there is a mandate then that's fine with me. (Nothing attempted, nothing done!) --regentspark (comment) 21:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk page block restored. RegentsPark, please do not alter Arbcom-imposed blocks without Arbcom's permission. I will note for the record that the Arbitration Committee has not received a request from Ottava Rima to have his talk page access restored; if we did, we would without doubt consider it, particularly given several respected members of the community expressing an interest in the issue. Risker (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Rschen, I understand this is a hot-button issue involving hot heads and so does Regentspark (but slow down next time!). Let's all try to be cool cucumbers. I suppose restored talk page access, if it happens, is subject to the usual restrictions: if Ottava is deemed to abuse it, it will no doubt be revoked stante pede. I hope that, if talk page access is granted, Ottava will use the privilege wisely, and by the same token I hope that others will refrain from making it a forum for grievances, regardless of where their sympathies lie. Or, no baiting please. Drmies (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Question for Risker: First, I want to say that I have no real reservations about such matters as admins' acting on their own to circumvent ArbCom rulings being considered unacceptable. Having said that, would it specifically require a request from OR himself for access to be restored, or might a request from some other party, perhaps at requests for amendment, be considered sufficient? John Carter (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

As it turns out, Ottava has now emailed the Arbitration Committee requesting that his talk page access be restored, so it is not necessary for a third party to be involved. I have encouraged my colleagues to respond in a timely way, but will note that there is a lot on the Committee's plate right at the moment (three open cases — one in workshop, one in voting, and another in evidence, with a fourth about to open — several motions being voted on, addressing the IPBE issues, and several other time-sensitive matters) so it may not be the first email anyone addresses. I'll try to keep it near the top of the heap. Risker (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I've seen the workload ArbCom has, and the amount of reading that is required for anyone involved, and there is no way in hell that I am ever going to criticize anyone on it for not acting instantly on requests, believe me. And, in all honesty, I doubt a few more hours, or days if it comes to that, are likely to be critical in this instance. Thank you for your quick response to my comment above, and for being willing to subject yourself to all the requirements of being on ArbCom in the first place. John Carter (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I was leaning toward giving Ottava another chance, as the discussion above was convincing, but then I read the Unblock Request on WR, as linked above. OH HELL NO. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

If we ask that Ottava keep Wikipediocracy stuff on Wikipediocracy, he'll do just fine here. Count Iblis (talk) 15:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Question for Risker

Hi Risker, I'd like to ask you please what exactly could happen, if OR's talk page access is restored? Will the world end, or will Wikipedia collapse? You said members of the committee are busy then why not to let others to help the committee with such unbelievably important task as unblocking OR's talk? Do you know what Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger said about you and many others like you? He said: "I mean, they're so ridiculously self-important, when they aren't acting like trolls, and show no sense of grace, humanity, or even style. Admins and even rank-and-file contributors go around making high-sounding declarations and announcements, as if they were government officials dispensing court orders." 76.126.174.119 (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It never ceases to amaze me how people start an appeal to a judge by calling that judge corrupt/incompetent/arrogant/etc. Most people learned that's a bad idea at the age of 4 or so from their parents. There is a time and place to insult authority, but it's not when you are asking for an appeal, either for yourself or on behalf of another.Dave (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not asking for an appeal on behalf of OR. I believe he deserves to be blocked, if for nothing else then simply because for so many years he cannot make himself to forget Wikipedia. My post was made to ridicule the behavior of the members of the arbitration committee , and some other Wikipedians who act from the position of self-importance no matter how meaningless and absurd their actions are. They are laughable.76.126.174.119 (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Kevin's unblock of User:Cla68

Announcement

• Please feel free to point out where exactly this unblock was contrary to any policy. It wasn't an ArbCom block. There is nothing in policy to say that an OS block may not be undone, especially when it is obvious what was suppressed and the editor has given an understaking not to persist. The current conversation at WT:BLOCK makes it clear that no such wording exists (which is why there is a suggestion to add it). In other words, the committee just made this "infraction" up on the spot, which is extremely concerning. I see NYB voted against. First rule of ArbCom, when something passes with NYB against, it's pretty much always a stupid idea, or something dubious is going on. One or both may apply here. Still, for the rest of us admins, could you give us a list of other things we might be desysopped for that don't exist in any policy? I'm sure it'd be helpful when we're deciding whether to block, unblock, revdel material, etc. Black Kite (talk) 06:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• • Sure.
    • "An exception is made for administrators holding Checkuser or Oversight privileges; such administrators may block users based on non-public information revealed through the checkuser tool, or edits of the blocked user deleted via oversight. As such, an administrative action is generally viewed to be made in the user's capacity as an oversight or checkuser, although the action itself is an administrative one. All such blocks are subject to direct review by the Arbitration Committee." = WP:BLOCK#Confidential evidence
    • "Administrators reviewing a block should consider that some historical context may not be immediately obvious. Cases involving sockpuppets, harassment, or privacy concerns are particularly difficult to judge. At times such issues have led to contentious unblocks. Where an uninformed unblock may be problematic, the blocking administrator may also wish to note as part of the block notice that there are specific circumstances, and that a reviewing administrator should not unblock without discussing the case with the blocking admin (or possibly ArbCom) to fully understand the matter." - WP:BLOCK#Block reviews
    • Also, while WP:CUBL obviously doesn't apply directly, the same logic explains why this block was clearly marked with "contact an oversighter".
  • That aside, this action demonstrated clearly poor judgment, "inconsistent with the level of trust required for its associated advanced permissions", as required for Level II desysoppings. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Shall I presume that my emailed explanation was so woefully inadequate as to not warrant a response? Kevin (talk) 06:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
    • The unblock isn't so problematic that it could not have been dealt with by reversing it and warning Kevin not to repeat the issue. You know as well as I do that Level 2 removal is designed to stop immediate and pressing problems involving damage to Wikipedia (i.e. compromised admin accounts, mass wheel wars etc.)Doh. See below. This unblock had stood for a number of hours with no issues arising. It is fairly clear that whatever is going on in the background here goes further than that, though. Black Kite (talk) 06:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
      • That's Level I. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 07:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
      • (ec) Uh, if it's immediate, it's probably Level 1 (and not Level 2). Level 1 requires 3+ Arbs and no dissension, whereas Level 2 requires discussion and majority of Active Arbitrators. There is discussion; Kevin emailed ArbCom; there's a significant difference. Also, the number of hours is just shy of 9 hours (compare unblock timestamp and Hersfold posting on Kevin's talk page), which is rather short considering part of those hours were late night in the western hemisphere. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 07:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
        • It's Level II, for crying out loud ;) It says so in the motion.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
          • I didn't say that that this is a Level I. I am saying that Black Kite's description of what a level II is for is actually the description of what a level I is for :P Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 07:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
            • I know ;)  Roger Davies ^talk 07:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
              • Yeah, I got it back to front as well. I still don't see what's so desperate about this case that it requires immediate desysopping. If Cla68's block was restored, what did the ArbCom expect Kevin to do? Undo it? Then you would have had a case for desysop, which currently is very shaky. Black Kite (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The block log has a note by the two Oversight members: "malicious WP:OUTING, please do not unblock without consulting the oversight team." Ignoring that request shows extremely poor judgement. Non-wikipedians are encouraged to contact oversighters to remove information that potentially exposes WP to liability. Admins that unilaterally override that judgement by unblocking the offender they deemed it necessary to block should expect a very quick and intolerant response. --DHeyward (talk) 06:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Agreed. This isn't rocket science... Nick-D (talk) 07:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• I'd like to thank ArbCom for jumping in front of the bullet for me and taking one for the team. I'll tell your wife and family that you died honorably. It's a bold decision, I'll certainly give it that, but it's about to get very loud in here so I believe I'll just leave it up to you all to take it from here. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• This feels a lot like policy wank for little gain. The oversighter caveat does not give carte blanche to stop the community of admins from overturning decisions if the problem is addressed. The evidence that was only accessible to OS was discussed in detail and the blocked user undertook not to post it again, this is a perfectly legitimate use of the process and not something arbcom should be involved in. This is a matter for the community. But as usual we have nods and winks suggesting "sekret" evidence (oh how many times have we heard that...); but in reality it's just a power trip. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • It has occurred to me that Timotheus Canens, on behalf of Arbcom, has violated the brightline of WP:WHEEL. This is probably the most serious issue at hand (aside from the initial incident) and I am unsure how to address it? The normal route would be for an arbcom case, but in this case most of the committee is involved in the wheel warring. Off hand maybe temporary suspension of the committee pending an investigation by a group of admins/editors/WMF reps seems the logical step forward. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
    • ErrantX surely understands that Timotheus Canens reinstated the block on behalf of arbcom, following their joint decision made off-wiki. Presumably he also meant to write "wonkery". Even before his unblock, Cla68 was actively questioning Beeblebrox's original block. Cla68's postings, copied from wikipediocracy by me at his request just before the unblock, did not suggest that Cla68 had fully understood how he had violated WP:OUTING. When unblocked he demanded to know who had originally contacted Beeblebrox,[3][4] later revealing his hunch that it was the object of the (initially join-the-dots) WP:OUTING.[5] Mathsci (talk) 09:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Go ahead and overturn it if you feel that strongly about it. You obviously have all the evidence you need to make that call. You might want to block Timotheus Canens while you're at it to make a point. Or just block all the Arbcom members (except NYB, of course). Your vision obviously exceeds all of theirs just like this incident highlighted the vision of a single admin in lieu of two oversight member and the oversight and arbcom mailing lists. Put your tools to good use for the community and the result of that action will undoubtedly benefit us all. --DHeyward (talk) 09:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh my word. Could I get some answers to two very simple questions? 1) "Do we believe Kevin unblocked in bad faith?" 2) "Do we believe Kevin will continue to unblock this user or to reverse other arbcom blocks persistently?" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Difficult to know what their beliefs are, however I did email an explanation that seemed reasonable (to me), and I haven't been asked what I might do in the future. Kevin (talk) 11:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this. It looks like he believed he was reversing a bad block after community discussion. Considering the number of blocks that have been reversed with no discussion, or against the current discussion consensus, with no action taken against the reversing admins, this action really appears problematic to me.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with the desysop. It needs to happen more frequently, especially for those that only use the tools to increase drama, like in this case. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 11:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, let's bring out the banhammer and show how important we all are. *sigh* Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

That's a silly comment. Having the admin toolset isn't about being important. It is not necessary to be an admin to constructively contribute to the project. I did not say he should be banned. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 11:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'll make a more serious comment. By "banhammer" I mean any process where a user's privileges are revoked for reasons not apparently connected with preventing the encyclopedia from damage and disruption. Since you advocate more desyssoppings, that implies that you are concerned that a substantial proportion of admins are damaging Wikipedia by their actions and urgent sanctions need to be taken towards them to prevent this. Is that really what you're supporting? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am for less stringent requirements for desysops. It does not logically follow that I am "concerned that a substantial proportion of admins are damaging Wikipedia by their actions." -Nathan Johnson (talk) 11:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) Hmm? The user's privileges were revoked because of concern with damage and disruption. We have an elected committee to do that sort of thing. So, yes there is the potential that an individual admin is damaging things, especially when they are acting alone, with only their own claim that 'they know what's best'. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

One more Instant Justice "solution" in search of a problem - I am bemused by the finding that one admin "unilaterally" reversed a block - as any action by one admin is always "unilateral." The issue should be whether that admin presented reasoning behind the unblock, not whether he did it by himself, folks. Kevin is entitled to far better treatment than presented here, and this precedent is quite ill-suited to Wikipedia's long-term interests. Heck, desysops generally are given a fairly long period of discussion, which seems to be quite missing here - even where the acts are far more egregious. Restore Kevin's mop. Discuss this in an orderly fashion. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It will be discussed according to the process laid out, but why does the user need the mop while discussing it? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

If his only use of the mop for the last 3 years was this ill-considered unblock, why does he need to keep while arbcom discusses it further? His answer to the question was obviously unsatisfactory to ArbCom yet we haven't seen it so how can you makes the judgement that he deserves better treatment? Or that this precedent is "ill-suited to Wikipedia's long-term interests." The de-sysop is not permanent unless the future decision is to make it permanent. This is the beginning of the process, not the end. --DHeyward (talk) 12:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

If his only use of the mop for the last 3 years was this ill-considered unblock It wasn't. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

My take on this situation is that many people behaved badly. The members of our oversight team are an exception.

The first and worst instance of bad behavior was by the Wikipediocracy contributors who chose to create and post an obnoxious and entirely unnecessary article that included identifying information and some poorly sourced gossip against a Wikimedia contributor. This article was not a form of useful Wikipedia criticism. Several regular contributors to Wikipediocracy opined on that site that this piece should not have been published. Those contributors were correct.

The second instance of bad behavior was Cla68's linking to and publicizing the article. This was not necessary for Cla68 to illustrate any point that he was making. Even assuming that Cla68 believed the link did not violate the "outing" policy, once it was suppressed the firsttime, there was no reason to post the same editor's name on-wiki again. And once he was blocked for that and this edit was also suppressed, he certainly should have known better than to post it a third time. Cla68, a longstanding Wikipedian and Wikipedia critic (the two are not exclusive), has been cautioned more than once before about either violating or skirting the edges of our policy against posting editors' identifying information. He needs to heed the caution.

Cla68's defense based on the fact that identifying information is relevant in addressing conflict-of-interest allegations points to a tension in our policies and practices that does exist, as this Committee has long acknowledged. But this is irrelevant here, as the editing in question was not (and could not have been) the subject of an ongoing COI discussion. Cla68's contention that the editor has posted his own identifying information elsewhere is also unconvincing. Our policy against identifying editors by real name applies unless the editor has either deliberately posted his or her name on-wiki, or perhaps where the identification is such a matter of common knowledge that it would be frivolous to pretend we don't know who someone is. Neither exception applied in this case. Cla68's hectoring of the oversighters while he was unblocked, demanding that they cite the pages of the policy manual that they applied, suggests that he still does not understand the valid reasons for their actions.

Regarding Kevin's unblock, while up to a point I can sympathize with Kevin's desire to resolve the situation, I cannot agree with his action. Because the edits were suppressed, an non-oversighter administrator could not fully evaluate them (although there was some description of them on-wiki). Kevin knew that the block was tagged as one that should not be reversed without consulting with the oversight team, which also implies that it should not be overturned unilaterally, and should have respected that request. Kevin also was not privy to the correspondence taking place between Cla68 and the arbitrators.

Despite these concerns, I did not support the motion to desyop Kevin under "Level II" and to reblock Cla68. The tone of Cla68's posts while he was unblocked was strident and unhelpful, and he has declined to make an unambiguous commitment that would have put the remaining concerns to bed, but I still do not expect that he would violate the "outing" policy again. As for Kevin, I generally do not support desysopping an administrator for a single episode.

I have supported the pending motion to formalize that "oversighter blocks" are on the same level as "checkuser blocks," i.e. that blocks designated as such by an oversighter should only be reviewed by other oversighters or by the arbitrators. This is not because administrators who hold the oversight right "outrank" those who do not, but because only those who do can fully assess the circumstances of the block. (These may include the contents of the oversighted edits, the contents of any previous oversighted edits, and any relevant discussion on the oversighters' or functionaries' mailing lists.) As with checkuser blocks, it is important to realize that this policy does not apply to every block made by an administrator who happens to also be an oversighter, but only to blocks based on private information and expressly flagged as "oversighter blocks." It will be comparatively rare that such a notation will be made, but when it is, it should be respected.

I urge everyone to respect the good faith and legitimate concerns of the arbitrators who supported this motion, even though I opposed it, and to join me in again thanking our oversighters for their contributions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly endorse Brad's comments on this matter. Worm^TT(talk) 13:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, good faith or not, this is an instance of arbs merely increasing drama rather than decreasing it. What exactly was at stake here? And, since we're delving into chaos anyway, I'm still wondering why the initial block of Cla68 was made with an explicit please do not unblock without consulting the oversight team? Hopefully, since we're now in a "no actions left unexplored" world, we'll get some clarity on when oversight needs to be mandatorily consulted and when it doesn't. --regentspark (comment) 13:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I'll suggest what's at stake—when a highly controversial situation exists, and there is evidence that it is being reviewed actively by arbcom, and functionaries, one doesn't barge in and make an unblock without understanding what is going on. That was the drama increase. Ignoring it would send a message that admins are perfectly free to take actions with incomplete information and actively decline to talk to those who know what is going on. That is not what we want admins to do.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Hmm. Why exactly do we need functionaries discussing things in private when there was no private information being discussed any longer? Kevin unblocked someone, cla68 wasn't outing any more, what's all this behind the scenes "functionaries" (makes it sound like something out of a bad soviet novel) activity for anyway? Sounds to me like a lot of people being authoritative because they can. (I still want to know why Beeblebrox felt it necessary to state that oversight approval was required for unblocking in the first place.) --regentspark (comment) 18:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• The community should (temporarly) suspend ArbCom. What we see here is yet another example of how problems are "solved" by granting ArbCom more powers. The fundamental issue is that Wikipedia is subject to social pressures and that it hasn't insulated itself from that in an effective way. Off-site campaigns can then affect Wikipedia and you then need to take emergency actions (banning editors, but then because that's done for non-standard reasons, that may lead to conflicts at the Admin level etc.). If we look back at the cases against Cirt and Fae, then its clear that we have moved away from Wikipedia only being about editing this online encyclpedia, that arguments can be brought in against an editor that have nothing to do with editing here. By simply not allowing any such arguments to be considered relevant, we can deal with off-site harrassment in a much more effective way. If digging up dirt against an editor isn't going to be effective, people with stop doing that. And if not, an editor here would be allowed to deny anything, even if that would constitute not telling the truth. Count Iblis (talk) 13:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• Brad has once again demonstrated why he is the model Arb. The Arb's voting to desysop Kevin should take note. And yes, I am particularly speaking to those Arbs I have come to have great respect for.--v/r - TP 13:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• (1) Is it necessary for Cla68 to be blocked right now? I don't think he is actively engaged in outing. (2) Kevin did engage in discussions with the blocking admins at User talk:Cla68. While he did not receive consensus to unblock, it was clear that the situation had de-escalated to the point that a block probably wasn't needed. If the process is wrong, but the result is correct, just leave things be. The re-block and de-sysop are just adding needless drama. What we need now is (3) a clear, unequivocal statement from Cla68 that he understands the WP:DOX policy, and a statement from User:Kevin that he will never reverse and Oversight or Checkuser block again. Failing receipt of either of those assurances, further non-emergency steps may be needed. Jehochman ^Talk 14:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Note that the arbcomm had previously warned Cla about the issue and instructed to avoid "any form of harassing or threatening comments". Guettarda (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure whether this would have made a difference, but perhaps in the future a representative of Arbcom might weigh in with a "just so you know, we're actively discussing this" when a big messy discussion is going on on a user talk page about a block. I got the impression that at least some of the people commenting on cla's page (including cla) weren't sure if it was just being ignored. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 14:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Agree 100% with Newyorkbrad above. Some of you guys really like your drama way too much. This escalation was completely and utterly pointless. Actually, worse than pointless, since pointlessness implies a sort of "doesn't matter" neutrality. This is just going to poison the atmosphere further and waste a whole lot of time and energy. If this isn't simply dropped, I can see not just one person leaving the project, but quite a few, shaking their heads and muttering under their breath about how childish and dysfunctional this place is.Volunteer Marek 14:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• For the record, a discussion regarding the unblock's appropriateness was held on the Functionaries email list, which includes many more folks than just ArbCom, and I did not see a single email from a person who believed that the unblock was appropriate. So, while it may be all the vogue to hate on ArbCom, they did not take this action in a vacuum, nor without input from the other advanced permission holders vetted by the community. Jclemens (talk) 15:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Your argument supports an Arbcom opinion that the unblock was unjustified. That none of those on the list approved of an unblock does not justify the desysop, though. 100 people polled in Texas believe that the state has a legal right to secede, does that mean that California should develop it's own space station? Your logic and the conclusion are mismatched.--v/r - TP 15:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• Well-said Brad. As someone who does makes mistakes, I am sympathetic to the notion that we do not desysop for a single mistake, but this was extremely poor judgement. I am trying to comprehend how one could read that one ought to contact the oversighter and decide, unilaterally, that this wasn't needed.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• I fully support ArbCom's actions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• Since in my fantasyland Wikipedia blocks are preventative, not punitive, can anyone provide a diff of a contribution Cla68 made after Kevin unblocked them that violated the doxing policy? NE Ent 15:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Ummm....what makes you think that Cla68 wasn't going to do this again? If not with this editor, with another? We don't give second chances to editors who don't understand what they did wrong. Nor do we give second chances to editors who fail to indicate that they won't do it again. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Not exactly. Sometimes we do when we think someone's pride is getting in the way. If we think they get the point, we do unblock sometimes. But only for folks who show obvious clue like Cla68. I'm not judging on the merits of the original or reblock here, only pointing out that your comment isn't 100% accurate.--v/r - TP 15:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Third chance. Cla was warned by the arbcomm in 2008. Guettarda (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
        • I don't think they got the point. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
        • (ec) Fourth chance, arguably. Cla68's RfA in 2007 was derailed by his linking to an off-wiki attack site that attempted to out editors and posted negative information about them. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm not allowed to think about Cla68 -- I don't have access to the all important oversighted information, right? In any event, I don't particularly care about Cla68 (in either a positive or negative), I just don't like to see the all too common blood in the Wiki-water, to wit: How does desysoping Kevin make improving Wikipedia?? All the committee had to do part of what they did -- reblock with the explicitly clear {{ArbComBlock}} template. If an admin unblocked after that then they're clearly an idiot deserving of desyopping. NE Ent 16:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
      • And why does an admin deliberately ignoring the request to consult with oversight get a pass? What message does that send? (and I'll argue this is all about sending messages - what message should be sent to an editor who has been warned and continued to do something, and what message ought to be sent to an admin who jumped into a complicated situation and made it worse?) --SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
        • It was already a fracas, based on the Cla68 talk page churn; there was long conversation on the page, including the input of a couple oversighters, it's not as if the block was overturned hours after being placed or anything. The discussion had gotten down to the point of haggling over whether Cla68's promise was good enough or not, or too lawyering, or whatever. Wiki drama is like a fire triangle, no one editor can cause it by itself. Revert block, ArbComBlock stamp, done. Drama over. NE Ent 16:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
      • "All the committee had to do part of what they did -- reblock with the explicitly clear {{ArbComBlock}} template." No, that wouldn't have made a difference. People would now be saying the same things with only minor variations. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
        • I don't know what anyone else would be doing, but I wouldn't be saying the same things. NE Ent 16:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Clearly it was appropriate to block Cla68 in the first instance. I don't think anybody seriously disputes that. The problem arose when the block message was drafted in such a way as to prohibit unlocking by anybody other than oversighters (if I were wearing my cynical hat, I might say mere mortals, but I seem to be wearing my pragmatic hat). That doesn't have a basis in policy, despite Hersfold's cherry-picked quotes above which misrepresents policy in an attempt to justify this unjust and grossly disproportionate sanction (that policy subsection covers the circumstances in which it is appropriate for an admin to make a block based on evidence other admins can't see; it does not say that blocks by oversighters cannot be reversed by non-oversighters). That's not to say that actions following it were not problematic, but that's what started this absurd chain reaction. Of course Kevin exercised poor judgement in unblocking; he should have known that doing so would, at the very least, likely cause a lot of drama and that no harm would have been done by waiting a few more hours for more opinions. He deserves a bollocking for that, but I think most admins would consider having one of their action reversed by ArbCom to be a strong rebuke; the desysop was completely out of proportion. It was a hasty, ill-considered, knee-jerk reaction and it has served only to create more drama and draw more attention to the suppressed edits (which sort of defeats the point of all this, but that's far too subtle-a-point for a committee of hardliners and hotheads to grasp).

  The right thing to do now would be to hold your hands up and admit you over-reacted, but just giving Kevin his tools back and moving on would allow everyone to save face. The worst thing you could possibly do if you want to de-escalate the situation is to attempt to shoehorn through a new policy in the guise of a motion (which is ultra vires according to your own policy), and I would urge you to re-think what you are trying to achieve here and how best to achieve it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with the general tenor of this with three notable exceptions:

1. Most of the blog post consisted of indisputably legitimate Wikipedia criticism with only the first sections being of debatable legitimacy.
2. Beeblebrox was wrong to characterize and treat the initial comment by Cla68 as "deliberate and malicious" outing because it clearly was not either.
3. Kevin, and basically anyone who has looked at WO, knows exactly what this block concerned and Cla68's statements about it were posted publicly there so the main reason for demanding an "oversighter-approved" unblock is not present as the alleged offense was plainly known.

Beyond that I do agree that the seven Arbs concerned have only inflamed the situation, injecting nitro into the Streisand Effect as now we have an Arb making no real secret about where the blog post was at in a discussion that is being read even more widely than the previous discussion. By the time this is done the number of people who know this editor's identity will have grown exponentially. Something that probably wouldn't have happened if Beebs had just oversighted the edit and gave Cla68 a clear, reasonable advisement about posting such information rather than stirring up a hornet's nest by assuming bad faith to justify an indefinite block of an extremely productive content creator who far outclasses him.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Concur completely: it is OUTRAGEOUS that a user can be blocked for posting links to one of those beyond-evil "badsite", then castigated further on his own talk page for "doing it again" in his own defense ... and now no less than an arbitrator repeats the essentially the same information. If the oversight team is as good and professional as NYB claims, they should be going to work on NYB's comments right here, followed up with a indefinite block.

• I have to say I've been pretty disgusted by the melodramatic farce that the Arbs have set in motion today, and with a small number of honourable exceptions, my respect for you has been significantly diminished. You lot couldn't have caused a bigger explosion of drama and brought the "secret" to more people's attention if you'd put full-page ads in the fucking newspapers. I applaud Newyorkbrad for being, once again, the voice of sanity, and I concur with HJ Mitchell's assessment - just reverse your appalling de-sysop of Kevin and try to rescue what little respect you can for yourselves. (And seeing the way honourable, if misguided, admins are treated here makes me less and less likely to request the return of my own mop). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Moving forward (if possible)

The motion says Kevin is temporarily desyopped ... what's he gotta do to get the bit back? NE Ent 16:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• To start with, Kevin can begin to restore the community's trust by:
  • 1. Explaining what they did wrong.
    2. Explaining they can do to prevent the same problems from happening again.
• A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not on the committee, but if I heard something along the line of "I now realize I should have gotten better informed before taking an action, and in view of the fact that the situation had many eyes on it, there was no need for my precipitous action, and I'll never make that mistake again..." I've be inclined to resysop.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

AQFK - You do not speak for the community. So "Kevin can begin to restore the community's trust by..." is outside of your authority. Kevin never lost the trust of the community.--v/r - TP 17:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

If Kevin wishes to contest the desysopping, he may request a full case to examine the matter. If not, then the desysopping effectively becomes permanent pending another RfA. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 16:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

So it seems the temporarily is superfluous? NE Ent 16:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It would appear so. He now has to request a case, presumably with arbcom as party, to explain why he unblocked - despite the fact that he already claims to have explained that to the committee via e-mail, said explanation having been ignored or disregarded as insufficient. It would have been more honest of the committee to say that "Kevin is permanently desysopped, pending appeal of this decision or a new RFA". UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's a matter of honesty, it's a matter of clarity or haste in formulating the sanction. NE Ent 16:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

You see the problem, then. I wonder, idly, if the members who voted for this sort-of-temporary-but-really-permanent desysopping would have done so if it actually said "permanently desysopped pending a new RFA" or some such. Arbcom's remit was specifically to avoid hasty decisions, was it not? I seem to remember reading that somewhere, back in the day. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

An admin acted in good faith in a contentious situation, and yes, several questioned the action on Cla68. If the admin, Kevin, made a mistake talk to him about it. He doesn't have a history of this kind of action. Otherwise what we have is an action based on a punitive construct instead of a teaching learning construct which is how we keep and extend the abilities of our editors. Human beings in Western society are so infused with the punitive way of "teaching" we don't even know we're doing it. What a waste of human resources and time to have a case built around an editor who made a mistake as Kevin might have, is happy to fix the mistake, and with a few words could learn and move on.(olive (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC))

Thing is, he didn't do anything worthy of an unblock. The block he overturned wasn't an arb block, it was Beeb's original unblock, which was done in his capcity as a sysop (he's not an Arb, therefore, he can't issue an Arb block). _{Self Trout applied liberally} Removing his bit over this is hasty...there's no proof it was done in bad faith. Looks like he used IAR here. Give it back, his actions didn't merit this.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  17:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Requiring him to open a case is bureaucracy run amok. The committee made a decision, not in the context of a full case, but as a stand-alone decision. The committee should be willing to read a statement form Kevin, decide privately if it is sufficient in itself to persuade the committee to re sysop, and if not, inform him that a full case is needed. It is possible that exactly that has happened, but if the committee refuses to review a request from Kevin on the basis that they can only review in the context of a case, that would be wrong.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I think the paragraph "Return of permissions" in the relevant section of AC Procedure page sums up the probable reason: Removal is protective, intended to prevent harm to the encyclopedia while investigations take place, and the advanced permissions will normally be reinstated once a satisfactory explanation is provided or the issues are satisfactorily resolved. If the editor in question requests it, or if the Committee determines that a routine reinstatement of permissions is not appropriate, normal arbitration proceedings shall be opened to examine the removal of permissions and any surrounding circumstances. - My reading is that AC doesn't feel a routine reinstatement is appropriate?

@KoshVorlon: I think you're confusing something in your opinion: Beeb's original block was done under capacity as OverSighter - this is what is leading to the motion being considered right now (to treat OS blocks like CU blocks and not to be reversed w/o discussion w/ blocking admin) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 17:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The desysop's temporary in the sense that it's temporary pending the receipt of a satisfactory response. The ball is in Kevin's court: he can send in a response that convinces a majority of arbitrators, in which case he'll be resysopped; he can request that a case be opened, in which case we'll open one and proceed from there, and he will be resysopped at the end of the case unless we pass a desysopping remedy; he can skip us entirely and go directly to RFA, in which case he'll be resysopped if he passes, and remain desysopped if he fails (although he can theoretically come back to us if his RFA is unsuccessful, the committee would be highly unlikely to resysop him in that situation); if he does none of these three, then the desysop is effectively permanent. T. Canens (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

With that logic, all desysops are temporary. The definition of temporary, "Lasting for only a limited period of time", would seem to suggest that once a time period has elapsed then the situation automatically reverts back to the status quo. That's not the case here. In this case, there is no time period. It is permenant. The status quo has changed until action is taken. It's not an automatic process and so it is not temporary.--v/r - TP 18:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, had I found myself in the position Kevin was in, I would have assumed that an unblock would have carried a non-trivial of being de-adminned. To begin with, when you encounter a block that say "don't undo without discussing with X", you take that as a big red flag. But more importantly, you don't make your first edit in a month (and sixth for the year) a controversial unblock. There's precedent for de-adminning for that. Combine the two, and all I can say is that either Kevin should have expected this outcome, or he's more than 5 years out of date with how to use the tools. Guettarda (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• I take the opposite position, I was close to doing the same thing myself. I'm not at all surprised to find out someone else got there first. Tons of respect for Beebs, but we don't do ex post facto law here and there is no reason not to unblock a user after they commit to not doing something again. Similarly, there is no reason to desysop Kevin after Arbcom warns him not to do it again. You're basically punishing Kevin for offending the almighty here.--v/r - TP 17:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Just to make things clear: the procedure here is that the block is temporary until some final disposition of the matter removes it for good or restores it. By default, if Kevin does not appeal the removal or request a case, the bit will stay removed until he passes a RfA since we don't have a 'timeout' for the time during which he can appeal (although I think that there have been some cases where the committee made such a removal permanent by motion after some months with no appeal forthcoming, but this is neither systematic nor required). — Coren ^(talk) 17:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • You should automatically restore it once Kevin commits to not unblocking Cla68 again. Demanding that he bow at your feet and swear fealty is pathetic. That is the equivalent of what Arbcom is saying. "Kevin must appeal to us" is another way of saying he must submit to your authority. Arbcom should have a bit more decency. When you start rewriting the rules to justify punishments you've already issued, you lose faith of those you govern. This doesn't sit well with me. This is ex post facto changes to policy to justify a desysop. What's next?--v/r - TP 17:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly right. Normally in a situation like this Kevin would bring a case against party X to ArbCom. Here "party X" is ArbCom. How exactly is this appeal or case going to be decided? All the arbs who made the decision recuse themselves and the inactive arbs inactively decide the case? We have a public coin flip or something? Coren (and Hersfold), you're making ridiculous proposals.Volunteer Marek 18:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Similar to how Louis XVI convened the Estates-General to hear their grievances. Count Iblis (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, arbcom case is clearly a way forward. Maybe there is still someone on wikipedia who hasn't heard of this outing case, even though it has been mentioned in numerous highly watched talk pages (including Jimbo's). Gotta fix that and make sure that everyone knows, right? Or do people really think that anyone who is interested can't do 2+2 with information freely posted on various talk pages and figure out where outing took place? Whole focus seems to be on finding sufficiently harsh punishments and rewriting rules, then in practice focus should have been solving situation as discreetly as possible to avoid drawing further attention to off-wiki outing, even if that meant someone receiving mere warning instead of "proper" punishment.--Staberinde (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Here's an idea (only half tongue in cheek) of how to move forward: do what happens in the real world, at least in parliamentary systems. Usually in a situation like this the government resigns and we have early elections.Volunteer Marek 18:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• In other words, effectively ArbCom have extended their middle finger to the community, said "we know best, and we're quite happy to ignore reasonable objections without explaining why", and at the same time multiplied the amount of drama exponentially. I can't say I didn't expect ir given some of the makeup of the committee, though I must admit to being disappointed by a couple of people. So, well done people, way to demonstrate the encyclopedia is in good hands. Black Kite (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly my feelings.--v/r - TP 18:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Respectfully. We have to get past the mentality which blames. I see this page as a discussion with thoughts, ideas and ways to deal with the situation. We don't have to attack the arbs or anyone else. We are looking for solutions as a community. Must we side track that into once again hounding the arbs or any specific arbs? Can we make this simple and dignified.(olive (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC))

It's not an attack to be greatly disappointed and feel like your being given the middle finger. I'd like to see the Arbs acknowledge the community's feelings and consider they may have erred. I hold respect for almost all of them, a few I dont know well, but I can still be disappointed and confused by their decision.--v/r - TP 18:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that disappointment has a place and no one says any of the actions all the way along were in the best interests of anyone, but I'm not judging anyone, either. We've had a couple of arbs recently who were lynched, basically. Its such a waste of time and so "wrong". These talk pages can deteriorate into an attack mentality quickly. I'd hate to see that happen.(olive (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC))

(ec) Undo the re-block, undo the de-sysop, then we can have a respectful conversation. Otherwise it's like being pushed and kicked on the ground then being told by a bystander "you should have a respectful conversation". Why should the messed up situation we're currently in, because of the ArbCom, define the "tyranny of the status quo"? Volunteer Marek 18:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)