Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try .

Drafting

Just to keep parties and others up to date...

This started as a case that had a lot of claims that might be hard to evidence, as well as significant potential for "sprawl"/drama/confusion/heatedness, and it's therefore been given a fair bit of time for evidence to be heard and to 'bed in' (rather than assessing it too soon). In practice, the case has been somewhat smoother than it initially seemed it might, and in general, the Workshop pages have been used by participants and onlookers to produce some useful viewpoints and opinions too. (Thanks!)

Initial review of the case pages and evidence, while the rest of the case is posted up onto these pages, is likely to be taking place shortly by Arbitrators.

Just an FYI for all, to keep up to date.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:57 (UTC), 31 May 2008

Thanks! any hint on things the committee would like to either see more of/have questions on/like more opinion about? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel that the catharsis is nearly complete. Before disruptive elements move in and clutter the pages with endless arguments, perhaps now is an opportune moment to read them all and start drafting a decision. Jehochman ^Talk 16:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Valid point. some of that has already started. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the collection of evidence and interpretation of it in the Workshop has had enough time, but I believe it'd be worthwhile to wait for this (see also here). dorftrottel (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hold your horses there cowboy! I have apologised for several of the things presented about me - and you can consider this an apology for any genuine (MONGO - telling you to pull the other leg is not uncivil) incivility on my part. I try to keep cool and most of the time I succeed but sometimes I act rashly in the heat of the moment. Apologies to those offended by my words or actions in said heat of moment. Viridae^Talk 13:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice try...surely such less than half measures now exempt you from your admin transgressions.--MONGO 04:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Viridae, I'm sure it would be appreciated if you summarised your acknowledgement of whatever parts of the evidence presented against your behaviour you think is valid and included related diffs or links, or repeated any apologies you think are appropriate here. I'm confident such a conciliable statement wouldn't go unnoticed by the ArbCom when they evaluate what to expect from each of the parties in the future. On the other hand, I'm also confident the ArbCom will take into account the de facto refusal of any party to acknowledge any part of the evidence presented against their behaviour as further evidence against that party. (Also, I never played the cowboy. I always was an Indian. You see, when we played as kids, the Indians always were the heroes, the cowboys were the villains; and since nobody wanted to be the cowboy, we mostly played happy community life instead of war. Weird Germans, hah?) dorftrottel (talk) 05:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Minor apologies. The delay isn't due to discussional matters - it's more due to end of school year and "that time of year" of all things. A number of arbitrators have had family matters (family vacations, events, kids needing more attention than usual), wikibreak, and the like. Plus, I've been working on some fairly intense review cases that haven't really brooked delay. Let's try this again shall we? :)

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

In other words, the Arbcomites haven't even started looking into this case. 93.86.33.117 (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, just as long as it is taken seriously. Unlike the statement in the section below, there are some serious, long-term abuses that need examining. Wikipedia is being raked over the coals time and again for allowing administrators to get away with these abuses, both by the public and the mainstream media. I urge you to take both the evidence and the workshop seriously, there are scores of very valid concerns that some people would rather see swept under the rug. From experience, I think we should know that sweeping things under the rug only causes worse problems down the line. --Dragon695 (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Unrealistic expectations

I don't think I've ever seen an arbitration workshop in such a "hanging" mood before--and to my mind the evidence doesn't seem to speak of massive abuse (by any party). With experience of previous cases I can't help feeling that, no matter what the proposed decision, there is likely to be a great deal of disappointment and frustration expressed on this talk page in due course. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the Mantanmoreland case had a similar 'hanging' mood about it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Tony makes an astute, if obvious, observation, no matter what happens in this case, someone will be disappointed. Oddly, I suspect that is the case in every case brought before the committee, although certainly more so for some than others. I'd opine that the reason the mood seems "hanging" is that the evidence seems strong, contrary to what Tony seems to think, that there are serious matters in need of addressing... and that we've been hanging around for a month now waiting to see what ArbCom was going to start doing (or not doing). I am hoping we aren't going to be kept hanging too much longer... ++Lar: t/c 04:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

FT2 has just posted on the Proposed Decision Talk Page explaining that things have been a bit backed up for various reasons, apologizing for the delay, and saying he's hoping things are back on track. See [1] for more info. SirFozzie (talk) 09:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the proposed decision talk page. --B (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This tread has been moved around. Viridae^Talk 22:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd forgotten about the mood of the Mantanmoreland case. I think the evidence was also equivocal there, and (more to the point) there was apparently unrelated ill feeling which clouded perceptions and led to disappointment. I hope the Committee will grasp the opportunity to deal with that ill-feeling (which seems to involve many but not all of those involved here) and help to clarify what is best for Wikipedia. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 19:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and not repeat their mistakes from the Mantanmoreland case. Which was, to remind everyone, coming up with a wishy-washy statement that pleased nobody and saved them from making any sort of call, only to get egg on their collective face when the fellow ignored them and happened to be caught purely fortuitously a little later. And to call any ill feeling here "unrelated" requires remarkable ability to ignore diffs. --19:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I live in hope. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't the nice thing about the Mantanmoreland case that, if it turned out that he really was an incorrigible sock, we'd all be happy to see him go? And so it transpired. His recidivist socking was detected by checkuser in late April, blocked and then community banned without any dissent. None of this "he said lipstick on a pig and we think he went for a holiday in India because he edited after 8am GMT" nonsense. No need for all that kerfuffle over what turned out to be a very finely judged arbitration indeed. --Jenny 04:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think the evidence presented at the arbcom hearing was pretty clear that he was an incorrigible hosiery abuser. It just took a couple of extra months to show his defenders. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This was a guy with a history of socking, but the fact is that at the time of arbitration none of the checkusers were able to make a definitive statement based on checkuser data. Moreover the arbitration committee (all of whom would, at least in principle, have been able to see such checkuser data as was available) wasn't able to reach a comfortable consensus that there was ongoing socking. That tells me there was a little more going on than mere "defenders". We had to wait for actual evidence of ongoing sock abuse, that's all.

The guy clearly couldn't help himself, which is a known pattern with repeated sock abusers. --Jenny 06:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the 'defender' lingo, as it strikes me as unnecessarily antagonistic. I believe the AC (honorably but somewhat feebly) attempted to find a compromise which of course could only result in no action taken. But I for one did think back then and still do that the Evidence presented by G-Dett was both elegant and fully conclusive. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 11:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well to some of us that just looked like an exercise in wishful thinking, an essay. I note also that G-Dett's evidence was largely an attempt to prove, not that Mantanmoreland was actively socking, but that he was Gary Weiss, which was hardly the point. Mantanmoreland was sanctioned for socking and in the end he was banned for socking. It doesn't matter who he was; if he'd been involved in making seriously damaging edits rather than (for the most part) removing such edits, it would have been disruptive no matter who he was. If he was Gary Weiss, that would explain his protectiveness about Gary Weiss (not a bad thing in itself) and his occasional glee at finding yet another unflattering press description of Byrne's (self-admittedly flamboyant) behavior. A little light mischief at most. Bagley's and Byrne's silly campaigns and their external websites, by contrast, are crude and obviously malicious. They provided us with an object lesson in how not to influence our encyclopedic content. --Jenny 12:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed much worse than the way Weiss tried to influence our encyclopedic content by sockpuppeting. And that's not ironically spoken. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear WP:RPA Committee;

Do you ever intend to actually do anything with this case? The appearance is that you (collectively) may be drahma-addicted, and now that you're bored with this you've moved on to the next Gianno-related bloodletting. - brenneman 00:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You and Irpen [2] should form a club, it seems like you'd find a lot of new members right now. Just curious, though, is it possible for anyone to address the Committee these days without insulting them? --InkSplotch (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair point, and I am trying to drag myself away from the keyboard before I invent any new insults. When dealing with the individual members I am (I think) always polite, but the collective group is operating so sub-optimally right now that it becomes difficult to contain my frustration. Particularly since we're given so little information about the committee's brain, I'm reduced to kicking and screaming.

My experiance with committees is that in camera decisions tend to protect the least competent, and I'm tipping here that there are (at most) three members who are screwing the pooch for all the others. If we start to see the committee as individuals with actual rational thought processes, we could probably move forward more effectivly. Open up ArbCom discussions and let us see how the sausages are being made, perhaps my "input" could take on a less adversarial tone.

brenneman 01:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a somewhat more obvious (to my mind, at least) reason for the slow speed with which this case is proceeding. ;-) Kirill ^(prof) 01:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The Arena football playoffs? --B (talk) 01:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I could write it myself in ten seconds: all parties to write a 5,000 word essay discussing the phrase "Wikipedia is not a battleground" with examples of how they themselves have failed to live up to it. --Jenny 02:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

At last... a reason I can understand and support for your wanting to be a party to this case, Tony! More seriously... Kirill, I would like to hear the reason/issue, and also know if the committee is in need of anything from the community on this, such as additional evidence, more workshop work, or anything else? Or is it all internal? ++Lar: t/c 04:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Luke 15:7, John 8:2-11. --Jenny 04:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It's somewhat simplistic, actually: with Newyorkbrad gone and myself recused, neither of the usual decision-drafting arbs is available for this case. Kirill ^(prof) 12:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

@ Kirill, Yes, that one wasn't that hard to figure out.[3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Look above. An essay competition and two scripture references. What more do you need in the way of drafting? :) --Jenny 12:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I can think of a dozen people who could do it rather quickly. Are we really saying that Arbcom is this wrecked that they can't do what the rest of us could? Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 14:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Kirill - I would still request that you 'un-recuse' the scope of this case has gone beyond what it was initially, and is sufficiently personal that I would still want the whole committee to be in on the deliberations, even if some then decide not to vote. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

@Kirill: I would also strongly request that you un-recuse yourself. There is a standing request that another arbitrator recuse themselves... one that I think has a strong reason to do so, and who has apparently started commenting here. Your reason is weak to nonexistent, in my view. But, I suspect that if it's drafting the decision that really is the problem, there is the workshop. If the proposals aren't to your liking, perhaps contact privately some folk who are close and ask for a redraft? I'm sure that drafting the decision (once you've decided what it is you want to decide) isn't going to be that hard. I think the broad outlines of what the remedy ought to look like are already present in the workshop. (if you discount the minority view that Cla68 be thrown to the wolves and his valid concerns dismissed, which really is quite unsupportable) ++Lar: t/c 21:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea if you are talking about me. But if you are, I'm inactive on this case and noted that I plan to remain that way on the Clerks page when I returned from my month long break. I have not read anything about the case and do not plan to participate in it. My above comment was confined to a procedural matter. On my return I was surprised that the case had not been drafted yet. I'm concerned by the delay in the case and my only participation will be sorting out what needs to happen to get this cases moving the same as several other cases that have been slow to close. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you have a very clear conflict of interest, so compelling of one in fact, that you should recuse, not merely state that you are "inactive and planning to stay that way". The difference may be moot, practically, but perceptually, it is vast. I would think that a good arbitrator, especially at this particular point, would clearly see that. I again directly call for your recusal. I think it should be clear to everyone that you will not be voting in this case. ++Lar: t/c 21:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, this case has been the last thing on my mind since I've been away for a more than a month and I wrote a brief note to the clerks on my return thinking of the more practical aspect of letting them know that I was back. I already wrote to Cla on seeing your earlier comment. I apologized for any stress that I might have caused him by not knowing my status and made it clear that I do not plan to participate in any way in the case. If it caused you stress or concern I apologize to you as well. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

We need more ex-clerks on the Committee. :-) Jehochman ^Talk 21:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

;-) FloNight♥♥♥ 21:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Could somebody explain the grounds for the request for recusal more clearly, please? That an arbitrator has in the past made friendly statements about one party to the arbitration, and opposed another's bid for adminship, it seems to me, is ridiculously weak. There must be more to it than that. --Jenny 01:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It that's weak, then why is Kirill recused because he works closely with Cla at MilHist? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Now that sounds like a sensible reason to recuse--an ongoing relationship or dispute with one of the parties. If FloNight has such a relationship or dispute, she should recuse. But "once said nice things about" and "opposed for adminship" are a long way short of that. --Jenny 03:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

As hard as it is to imagine for people following the situation, I have no idea what the case is about. I've been away for more than a month and never read the case before or after I left. I thought that I was going to be away when it was voted on since I was traveling for my son's wedding in the Virgin Islands and then had celebrations back home. When I came back I stayed inactive because I knew nothing about the case. I looked at the case pages today to try and understand the delay in drafting the case. I saw some rumbling about a recuse and checked and decided to recuse. It really makes no difference since I was not going to work on the case one way or the the other. But if I can ease minds in any way I want to do so. FloNight♥♥♥ 03:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I find it highly suspicious that of all the islands to have a wedding at that the Virgin Islands were chosen. Must you shove your blatant conflict of interest in our faces at every opportunity?? ;-) daveh4h 04:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

;-) FloNight♥♥♥ 11:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's just get this resolved if we can. I doubt that the efforts to "get" SlimVirgin are just going to go away on their own without some sort of arbcom statement to Cla68 and the other WR and Hivemind partisans to backoff.--MONGO 23:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Or is it the other way around ...? Naerii 23:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we get a little agile development methodology here, please? Have one of the clerks write up the decision, then start voting and tweaking. Jehochman ^Talk 01:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I've always wondered why that wasn't done in the workshop pages. It seems pointless to me that we cannot work together to craft these decisions, rather than having this kind if "it's not my job" bottleneck to the work. The inherent flaws in Jehochman's proposal are that

• Why do we presume that clerks have any better idea at what might get voted in that anyone else, and more to the point
• Why should they be allowed to serve as that kind of gatekeeper?

Does no one recall that cler's "summary" function was rejected by the community, and having them right up proposed decisions makes them Jr. Arbs. A better solution would be to have the arbs make the effort to take part in the workshop page and just vote on the proposals already there. I'd hate to think that we're so beaurocratitc that the commitee can't decide on a porposal until a servant gently flaps the right ear of the commitee on the proposed decision page. - brenneman 02:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree. Daniel (talk) 02:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This I don't agree with. Daniel (talk) 02:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think aaron will actually help, you know! - If it helps stop making heads explode, I'm certainly prepared to endorse him as a clerk.... that old 'comment on content, not the contributor' thing (and yeah yeah, it means article space.....) actually applies really well here too. It's a good edit - it helps, and that's far more important that whether or not he's 'allowed' to do it. P'raps he's just ignoring a rule? :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

predictable, I suppose

Clinging to paperwork even when the system isn't working? Don't let me stop you. - brenneman 02:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Clerks have never had sanction to write the proposed decision, our ability to edit that page is limited to formatting, typos and such. Aaron is certainly not in a position to appoint himself as clerk and drastically expand the scope of the office in one edit. Thatcher 02:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I think a clerk could read the workshop, see what proposals have the most support, and put them forward in an organized manner for voting. Voting on the workshop page would be messy because of the length, redundancy, and back and forth debates. Why not have clerks distill what's there and then let the arbitrators have at it. Clerks are trusted to only clerk in cases where they are impartial, and not to edit war with each other. Jehochman ^Talk 02:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, however expanding the scope of the clerk function in that way would require the assent of Arbcom and is not something to do on the spur of the moment. It's nice to think that all the clerks are trusted and respected (and I hope that is true) but it hasn't always been so, and as a result the clerks themselves are probably most reluctant to assign themselves new tasks. Thatcher 02:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

In real life courts the clerks write the opinions, and then the judges sign them. This is nothing new. We are lucky to have many fine, level headed people around the wiki who work quietly, without drama, and don't seek power. Those would be the folks you want to recruit as clerks. Arbcom, what do you say? Taking the workshop and distilling it to final proposals is precisely a clerical task. This would also encourage you all to make your feelings known on the Workshop page, rather than using your "super secret" list to make a backroom decision. I think more openness would immensely help the Committee's reputation. Jehochman ^Talk 02:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• No way, Aaron. You don't get to do that. If you are actually attempting to do anything other than make a rather ridiculous point, I suggest here or here. Oh, and FloNight is recused, so making this request to her is bizarre at best. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 02:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

well I thought it helped. No biggie, I guess - bit of a shame though. Privatemusings (talk) 02:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• • (ECX3) I'm not trying to make a ridiculous point. See User_talk:FloNight#Request_for_temporary_clerkship where I've made an utterly serious proposal. ( I asked her because she was recused, but *shrug* if you disagree that's fine.) If we're actually saying that the reson that this case isn't proceeding is that because no one has written anything down on the "correct" page then please let someone do that. Regenerate this has made the offer half-in jest, but if he would be more acceptable to your clerkships (based upon his former fez-hood) I'd be happy to see him follow my lead here. - brenneman 02:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
    • If you want to seriously propose principles etc. for a decision, you know the appropriate venues, and you know that those venues do not include this page. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 02:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I have written workshops that were lifted almost intact and pasted onto the PD page. It's a skill that few people seem to have mastered, and a well-written workshop is a gift from the gods to the Arbitrators. If you can write a brilliant decision then put it on the workshop and if it really is good, it will get used. Thatcher 02:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Right. When workshopping is done well, the arbs can copy and paste and sign, as is being proposed here. There is no need for anyone to add content to the PD page in a misguided effort to assist the committee. Anyone can go to the Workshop page and try to improve it, or distill it. I think privatemusings even offered to do that. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Has anyone created a meaningful objection to the arbs actually using the workshop page? That it "would be messy" is a fairly weak argument, just create a section for arb's oppose support and let them rip. Are we really saying that the arbs are going to be confused by looking at a proposal on other that the sancrosect page? If there's something that's lacking overall it's engagement by the committee on ongoin cases. All we see is drive-by voting on a little island of a page. Either open up the floodgates to this page (since there appears to be no meaningful reason that this case is stalled) or don't be so damn lazy that a copy/paste is equired before you can vote.

When did we all get so hidebound by "process" anyway? Wasn't that the reason proferred by the speedyness of the OrangeMarlin case, that it was important to get the right thing done, not to fill out the puce form in triplicate?

brenneman 03:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

A couple of arb.s commented on the use of the Workshop page / how they go about things here (which also contains some of my views on the matter...(should we do a page move to the ''Doesn't really Work'shop? - maybe!). Privatemusings (talk) 03:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)I've got an idea that editorial clerking might actually help in some contexts, but haven't found the time to demonstrate what I mean (yet!)..... sorry John!

Obviously it would be sheer chaos to mix arbitrator proposals and voting (which are binding) with community proposals and comments (which are not). And that's putting it mildly. Why would we want to make things worse? --Jenny 03:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

yeah - that does sound crazy! - on the other hand, aaron's edit wasn't exactly the most violently anarchistic action I've witnessed! - I think it helped. Privatemusings (talk) 03:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"Obviously?" Your perspicacity clearly exceeds my own. How would a section, titled something like "only for arbs to oppose/support don't touch!" where they could indicate how they felt about a proposal, be chaos? Gosh, how about we just use the existing "Comment by Arbitrators:" section? If there is any concern about audit trail, let them include a diff to the version they are supporting/opposing. Is that really so cats-and-dogs-lying down together crazy? - brenneman 03:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

They do have a a section marked don't touch, it's called the proposed decision page. Some proposed decisions appear out of nowhere, and are probably drafted and commented on on the Arbcom wiki or the mailing list, or are created here de novo by an arbitrator. Others are lifted from the workshop, if it is a good one. Write a good workshop, if you feel strongly. Thatcher 05:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I rather think the salient point may be the relevance or otherwise of the Workshop pages to the final decision, and the fact that the community voice somehow seems rather muted. This, when combined with the fact that it's very hard to see any momentum at all in what one would hope would be a case with a high priority, is a bit of a worry. We've also recently seen problems with some decisions that appear out of nowhere. It's hard for me not to agree that there aren't systemic problems, and insofar as Aaron editing the decision page reflects an idea to modify a broken system, I think it's a good thing. Privatemusings (talk) 05:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)we've strayed into RfC territory really, so I'll step back in this location....

all for one or flying solo

Maybe I'm misremembering but I seem to recall the workshop pages of a year or two back sometimes getting pretty close to the final decision, including having arbitrators comment on some of the planks to help hone what was needed. I daresay that the move to having each set of principles/findings/remedies associated with a different person may have lessened that, though... perhaps it's time to try moving back to one amalgamated set? ++Lar: t/c 05:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe that's a very recent change. Yonks ago I recall when the workshops were new, less well known, and much quieter, it was relatively easy to draft a substantial part of the eventual final decision on the workshop itself--proposals would be lifted wholesale to the proposed decision and passed.

While this does still happen, there is nowadays a more pronounced tendency for the workshop to get very busy, which of course increases the chance that it will state a version of the problem that quickly diverges from what the arbitrators think is most important for Wikipedia. The badlydrawnjeff case, as long ago as eighteen months ago, was the first case in which I noticed such a large divergence.

In the circumstances, the new "one set of proposals per user" model may actually work better, by encouraging those who are good at drafting proposals to have a go at specifying the problem. --Jenny 06:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The current fractured approach certianly isn't condusive to actual discussion. Looking at the workshop page, is there some reason that (just for example) the proposed remedies

1. 4.1.3.3 SlimVirgin desysopped
2. 4.1.3.4 SlimVirgin placed on civility parole
3. 4.5.2.2 SlimVirgin commended
4. 4.6.3.2 SlimVirgin 1RR
5. 4.8.3.4 SlimVirgin administrator privileges are revoked, and
6. 4.18.2.2 SlimVirgin and JzG restricted from alleging harassment

Could not all sensibly discussed in one section?

brenneman 06:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well they absolutely COULD. But they are kinda apart from each other. Ok, well there is one outlyer, the commendation one... give that one the rightful death it deserves, maybe? Then it becomes a matter of what is the best remedy to deal with a long term positive contributor who has also had a long term corrosive effect, rather than a "wonderful/not wonderful" question. ++Lar: t/c 12:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

With respect to the "pronounced tendency for the workshop to get very busy" Dorftrottel and Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The have made over 20% of the last 500 edits to the workshop page, and that Tony alone has made over 20% of the total edits to this page. Draw what conclusion you will from these data points, but perhaps some upper limit on how much each person can contribute would be helpful. - brenneman 06:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you take issue at any particular edits I made, or do you see any particular problem with the number or proportion of edits I made? If so, please state it plainly and I'll see how I can improve, if simply by walking away. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 08:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The workshop isn't really much use for discussion. Really it's just a place for developing proposals, which may be cherry-picked by the arbitrators. A little discussion happens on the way and (in some cases) may help to resolve the situation, but usually the problem in arbitration cases cannot be resolved by discussion--otherwise it would not be at arbitration. --Jenny 06:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

How many of the workshopped proposals in a case typically get used by the arbitrators these days? Not necessarily passed, but added to the Proposed Decision page. If not many are, and the proposals that do appear in the /Proposed Decision page come from elsewhere (the Arbcom private Wiki, the mailing list, out of the fecund minds of the arbitrators, wherever), then I would question the value of a /Workshop subpage altogether. If I was being cynical, I would say it does have purpose (lets people blow off steam, lets people think they are making a significant contribution, keeps Tony away from sharp objects), but not value. Neıl 龱 09:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I've helped draft and tweak certain proposals (used in final decisions) in a few cases - through the workshop page.... :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Comparison of workshop and proposed decision

Neil asks: How many of the workshopped proposals in a case typically get used by the arbitrators these days?

Anyone can look at the workshop and proposed decision pages of a recent arbitration, Homeopathy, say, and see which proposals made it into the mix. Eleven editors made a total of about 50 proposals.

Of the five proposed principles, all were stock principles developed in previous cases, and two of those had been workshopped by Kirill Lokshin, an arbitrator. Four of the five passed.

Of the two proposed findings of fact, one of them (DanaUllman) resembled a more verbose proposal workshopped by Moreschi, and both passed.

Of the five proposed remedies, one of them (Discretionary sanctions) resembled a more elaborate and explicit version of a proposal workshopped by Vassyana (Community discretion). Only two of the five proposed remedies passed.

The proposed and final decisions aren't so far removed from the workshop, the problem seems to have been framed in similar ways in both places, but the principles and findings in the proposed decision tend to be more parsimonious or conservative in scope than those in the workshop, and one of the remedies in the proposed decision appears to me considerably more adventurous than any proposed in the workshop. The more adventurous proposed remedy came fairly close to passing, so in this case the result was quite close to the workshop, but this could well be mainly because Kirill floated a lot of the principles in the workshop. --Jenny 10:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

So in the Homeopathy case, there were fifty proposals on /Workshop, of which two (4%) made it onto /Proposed decision. And those two were modified (one distilled, one enhanced). The other nine proposals on /Proposed decision were not particularly based on anything done in the workshop.

That does lend credence to my suspicion that expending too much energy on the /Workshop subpage is becoming a futile exercise. Neıl 龱 10:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Blame the participants for that. In contentious cases the workshops seem to be used more for scoring points than anything else. Thatcher 10:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The evidence page is more use in complex cases where everybody is shouting. --Jenny 10:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Blame the participants as in all the participants? Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 01:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

There's some truth to both the "blame the participants" and "scroing points" comments. I'm more guilty than most (but not as much as some.) If the committee was more active, however, the noise ratio would drop quickly: Three quick comments by Arbs to the tune of "don't be daft" or "can it" when I start adding nonsense to a workshop page would rapidly make the page more useful. Same goes for "evidence" that's just puffed up opion: If an active arb dropped the hammer the first time it happened, then there would be less chance for it to happen again. It's been said many times: If the commitee is going to keep complaining about the workload, and about not reading submissions, then either get out of the way and let others do the useful work, or tell us what is actually helping them. Otherwise we flail around to no end. Think of the excellent work on the MM case that was mostly for nought. brenneman 01:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Per Tony, IIRC (and subject to correction if I've misinterpreted the gist), there was no excellent work on the MM case, merely a great deal of evidence that meant nothing, a great deal of analysis that was obviously fundamentally flawed (because analysis and evidence are out weighed by people's gut feeling that they can spot socks) although Tony couldn't say why exactly. No, no excellent work there. Except by ArbCom itself, which produced an absolutely brilliant solution, shame on us for not instantly agreeing. Also per Tony, IIRC (and subject... ditto), really there is no justification for removing evidence that is just puffed up opinion, because if you do so, you remove Tony's entire contribution to the evidence, which would be exceedingly unfortunate. Per Tony, anyway. ++Lar: t/c 02:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You've misread my statements. On my evidence, see here. On the Mantanmoreland case evidence, see here for a recent summary. Use of sarcasm in that way is not effective unless your aim is precise.

Moreover I do not believe there is any shame involved in your dissent, although the wisdom of the arbitration committee's decision has been amply proven by events. There was no consensus for a community ban until checkuser evidence was procured showing that he had egregiously broken an editing restriction imposed in the case. The judge is happy because orderliness and sober assessment of evidence, and not a group of angry citizens, decided the case. The copper is happy because he was convinced the fellow was a wrong'un all along.

I think I can summarise my position as: submission of evidence and analysis does not equate to convincing the Committee. As frail humans, we often grossly miscalculate the persuasive power of our own statements and greatly underestimate the persuasive power of the statements of others. --Jenny 02:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Tony, I was completely serious in my characterization of what I believe your views are, without a shred of sarcasm. As for "any shame involved" ... have no fear, I am not the one that needs to worry on that score. The wisdom of the arbitration committee's decision has been amply DISproven, rather than proven, by events, I would say. That you and others were able to manipulate the discussion on a community ban to prevent the proper outcome until more time was wasted... well, I won't say you SHOULD be ashamed, although I could. We have no judges here, and no coppers. Only citizens. You should be cognizant of that. Finally, I think you have indeed grossly miscalculated the persuasive power of your own statements in this matter, since you indeed remain in the minority. As you did in MM. I am not sure I find your participation here completely helpful. ++Lar: t/c 03:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

My use of the "judge" and "copper" simile were perhaps a little too oblique for you. I was referring to two very different approaches to natural justice. The copper doesn't need evidence, he can smell a wrong'un. The judge insists on standards and believes that it is in all our interests to refrain from the urge to relax those standards because to do so would be popular. --Jenny 04:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, in the MM case then, we had the AC "coppers" saying "MM doesn't smell bad, so let's let it slide" and the community "judges" saying "look at all this voluminious evidence showing that MM is socking and carrying on, it's detailed, it's meticulous, it's sound, why let go based on gut?"... ++Lar: t/c 05:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You refer to myself and others (some of whom you are aware are administrators) "manipulating" a discussion on a community ban. You are of course aware of what our banning policy says about failure of consensus for a community ban due to disagreement among uninvolved administrators. It follows that there was no manipulation. Stating an honest intention to unblock an editor is not manipulation. --Jenny 04:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said on my talk, conversations can be manipulated in many ways. There was a failure to reach consensus, but that does not mean that the process was not somehow manipulated. ++Lar: t/c 05:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I beg you to rethink your final statements. You appear to be implying that you do not welcome reasoned expression of a minority viewpoint. I cannot believe that my friend Lar, or any Wikipedian, would say such a thing. --Jenny 04:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree with that, because I of course welcome reasoned expression of minority viewpoints, as should we all. I just don't think that there is a lack of consensus about this case the way you do. You are in the minority. Reasoned expression is helpful. Not all of your statements in this matter have been reasoned, though, my friend. Which pains me, since I early on looked to you for guidance in the way of the wiki. How far we have diverged, Tony. (sorry for threading inbetween but there were a number of points, I can dup if it's a big deal) ++Lar: t/c 05:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I have taken this to Lar's talk page as it seems to be more of an interpersonal dialog than a discussion of this case. --Jenny 06:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As below, prematurely archived, but meh. ++Lar: t/c 12:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

cut to the slow speed chase...

I summarized the principles, findings, and rememdies from the workshop page here. I reduced some of the reduncancy, combined some items, and left out some that I felt were irrelevant. I took out the discussions, excpet comments that seemed really germain to explaining the item. I would not characterize this as a draft proposed decision, but as a summary of the workshop page. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice work. However there are a few things missing from it such as WMC's proposed items. Those did not exactly meet with universal acclaim so omission may be a good "sense of the community". Maybe adding some nose counts would be helpful. And maybe, actually, since we do not vote, it would not be. But I think you are to be commended for a very good distillation. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 18:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I left out the ones that I think are totally irrelevant (user is commended and crap like that). I wouldn't want to try and evaluate the users for and against, as so much of it in this instance was discussion and commentary, not so much support/unsupport. And there is also I think a fair bit of useful material in the analysis and general comments section that could/should be evaluated by those making any decisions. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

{{archivetop}}

In a case where the community has failed to resolve a long-running dispute, the "sense of the community" may not be particularly useful. --Jenny 01:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps individuals working individually all failed to resolve it. There is a problem here that this case addresses. That it was possible to subvert the way we do things by undermining one voice at a time is, really, the crux of the problem. But perhaps by speaking collectively the community will succeed, where individual voices were drowned out, or defeated in detail, if you like. (use of battle metaphors saddens me, frankly, but they fit.) That the community succeeds is my fervent hope. ++Lar: t/c 02:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

My reading of this case is, in all honesty, very different from yours. I cannot account for the difference because I do not know how your mind works, but I can say that the difference in our intepretation, and the diversity of evidence presented, is a strong indication that there is no consensus on the problem, or even who is its principal cause. Therefore it's clearly something only the arbitration committee can resolve. As I stated earlier, I believe that unrealistic expectatios have been raised, as they were in the Mantanmoreland case, and there will be substantial disappointment no matter what the final decision. --Jenny 03:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus does not require unanimous consent, thank goodness, and allows for minority views. I suspect your view does not match actual community consensus on what the crux of the matter is, and what needs to be done to remedy it. I suspect I am not alone in that belief. ++Lar: t/c 03:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no community consensus on this matter. That's why it's before the arbitration committee. Different parties see the same facts in different ways, emphasis is placed on different areas of policy. In addition, all of the parties involved are well respected, well established, valuable contributors. I've told the committee that I don't envy their task in deciding where the best interests of Wikipedia lie, but as I've said on the workshop and elsewhere I think the biggest failing in the case, is the failure of all parties to assume good faith on the part of other editors. --Jenny 04:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. There clearly is failure to assume good faith but it's not at all an equal failure among all parties. Much of the failure can be attributed to a very few folk. Further, this matter is before the Arbitration Committee because the AC voted to accept it when FM brought a spurious case against Cla68 rather than sanctioning FM for foolishness. As it turns out, the case now could address more fundamental issues... Many cases come to ArbCom not for mere lack of consensus, but rather for some intractable problem in applying that consensus. This particular case clearly has backfired on FM and SV, since the vast majority of evidence presented has demonstrated that the issue lies with FM, and with SV, not with Cla68. (note that I am completely ignoring the JzG/V part of the case here, since it is really a separate case that ArbCom foolishly combined, and because it's easier to resolve... JzG needs to stick to his word to try to do better, and JzG and V need to stay away from each other, no real ArbCom muscle is needed) Consensus, judging from the discussion on the workshop pages, seems clear on the outlines of where the problem lies. Whether the AC will do the right thing, whether the AC will assist the community in applying behavioural standards when onesie twosie actions have been overcome by tagteam serial reverting and by poisoning wells and by other manipulative behaviour remains to be seen. Do not confuse lack of consensus with lack of ability to apply consensus. The community needs help applying consensus, not help in determining it. Unless I am very much mistaken, that is. Time will tell. ++Lar: t/c 04:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

{{archivebottom}} Um... this is a talk page. That was an active discussion, with new points relevant to this case being brought out in each post. I'd say premature archive, whoever did it, but meh. If I'm the only person that thinks Tony is in the minority on his view of this case, that lack of consensus is not the only reason that cases come to arbcom, that this case backfired, that the outcome is clear if arbcom will only apply it, or any of the other things I raised, I'd be interested to know that. ++Lar: t/c 12:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I stipulate that I'm in the minority and that lack of consensus isn't the only reason why cases come to arbitration. The rest is up to the arbitrators to decide, and whilst I have opinions I don't make any predictions except that, whatever happens, there is likely to be significant disappointment. So actually, there's very little for us to discuss that is relevant to the case or interesting to anyone else. --Jenny 13:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well then, if you already agreed with me, why did you waste my time and everyone else's? As per usual (20% of all comments in the MM ban discussion from you alone, I heard somewhere... if that's not manipulative, what is?), you do tend to go on. More fool me for replying, I suppose. I do still think there are substantive points made in the above, and am interested in the views of others on that. You and I exchanged posts very late in the US night, on the day before a big holiday, so traffic would naturally be lower than normal. I removed the archive tagging since discussion continues. If someone NEW restores it, they should move it down below this bit too, I suppose. ++Lar: t/c 13:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I dont see much sense in archiving any of the above, but I dont see much point in the two gents continuing to discuss it either. Especially when they could be discussing this. I think it would be helpful for it to be moved to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Workshop/Merged, and checked thrice over to ensure it encapsulates the workshopping done so far. It might even be worth notifying everyone who presented evidence or worked on the workshop. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

move done. please review. Maybe next would be to link to the specific evidence to go with each finding? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed closure based on protraction

I drafted a new proposed decision and posted it to the workshop [4]. My proposal is based purely on how this case is handled.

In view of the fact that the ArbCom is unable to identify bad conduct of any party here or propose what to do, it should not keep the open case and parties' uncertainty. The matters would go back to the community that will at least try to solve it.

If ArbCom is unable to handle this case due to its being busy or lazy or incompetent or too timid, it should just admit that it has no solution and close the case. At least it would be more honest and more fair than keeping parties nervous and itself badly embarrassed by its maintaining this many months long case open and doing nothing. --Irpen 03:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it is unfair to keep parties in the ducking stool for so long, though I'd like to see firm action taken to prevent future abuses. Jehochman ^Talk 03:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anyone complaining, and I don't see any reason not to rule on the issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No matter what the issues are, if the arbitrators have not done anything for months on this case, what can change to make them do it? Lack of time just does not cut it. They had plenty of time. They don't see the solution? Well, what would make them see it all of a sudden if they could not until now. Even if they are continuously "brainstorming" and could not come up with anything for so long, why do you think they will ever will. It's not like 2-3 weeks of intence brainstorming. It's more like two-three months. No amount of brainstorming can help arbcom solve issues that is too complex for them, be it cure AIDS or build a Chevy Volt. So, if this task is also beyond their competence, they should at least openly admit it. --Irpen 04:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom is well known to take its own sweetass time. This is hardly the first time it takes awhile, and hardly the longest. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

It's a big case with lots to be considered and I am sure they have discussed matters in depth between themselves and have yet to reach consensus on major issues. It's not likely they have chosen to ignore this.--MONGO 11:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The paranoid side of me wonders if this wasn't intentional on arbcom's part - delay ruling until it is moot. But then again, I'm paranoid. --B (talk) 12:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

That's Zen dispute resolution. If it works... --Jenny 13:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

B, I can relate to that, but I'm paranoid, too. MONGO's explanation rings true. Everyme 13:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I HOPE MONGO's right. I FEAR B is. The thing is, it won't be moot, for any reasonable value of delay. There are vital issues here that need dealing with. But... dear ArbCom... go read the consolidated workshop page, think about what it's telling you about how the community feels about this, and get a move on, eh? Or tell us what you still need to reach a conclusion. I would not be surprised to see this case raised as a campaign issue by at least one candidate... possibly several. I know I plan to ask about it in my questions to candidates (assuming I am not running myself, that is) ++Lar: t/c 17:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If the involved people are on their best behavior due to a ruling not being pronounced in this case, maybe the best choice is to continue the current state of affairs. That would be a creative solution. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. --Jenny 21:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I am a party, and I don't care how long it takes. Just as long as we get a decision eventually. Viridae^Talk 23:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
There are obvious huge problems here and saying that they should just be ignored because ArbCom apparently can't draft any solutions is absurd. --Tombomp (talk/contribs) 08:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's curious to see comments pop up saying things like the AC "can't" or "are unable" to draft and vote on a solution. Why can they not? How are they unable? I for one am not letting them off the hook so easily. They can, they just haven't so far, and they should acknowledge and act upon the slowly growing impatience, at least by issuing an official explanation for the delay. We've done our part, there's no good reason why they just keep procrastinating. user:Everyme 08:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hence the "apparently". I do pretty much agree with you. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 08:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind waiting for a decision in this case. A look at my contributions over the last month or so should show that this case hasn't stopped me from editing in (I hope) a productive manner. I haven't edited this past week because I was on a leisure trip in which I was completely removed from computers and the Internet. I'm back now and ready to pick up where I left off. Although I think that the community should have first had a chance to comment on the issues involved here via RfC, I think an ArbCom ruling on the evidence presented in this case is necessary, appropriate, and prudent, no matter how long it takes. Cla68 (talk) 11:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The arbitration committee sometimes needs a polite reminder of the issues in a case. I'm beefing up the evidence section, though it is my impression that they're well aware of the problem. --Jenny 16:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I certainly hope it improves. So far I see: 1. one POV edit, not half of what you've strenuously defended from Mantanmoreland, 2. a number of comments suggesting Cla68 opposes Wikipedia cliqueism, and 3. that Cla68 did not see good faith in all aspects of the WordBomb/Mantanmoreland affair. Mixed in with this you quote various statements that seem to present nothing other than what you believe are unfashionable political views. If this is the basis for your as yet unsupported accusations, I suppose I should be glad you are presenting it. Mackan79 (talk) 16:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

If you think any of my evidence involves a reference to anybody's political views, it's possible that you were reading another wiki page by accident. Please check your browser. The conduct issues covered have on occasion required deletion of article revisions, and he has repeatedly made accusations of massive conspiracies involving trusted Wikipedians and the like. The evidence speaks for itself, so the term "unsupported" seems a little out of place here. --Jenny 17:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting a Déjà vu with all of this late presentation of evidence, months into the case; it reminds me one of the issues this ArbCom should be examining. Perhaps you can request the case stay open much longer, so others can examine your evidence? Maybe another month or so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Call me confused then about what a number of these are trying to show at all. Is there something wrong with calling someone an "advocate[] of the theory of human-induced global warming"? Your comment about him having been "rebuffed" is simply absurd, while the fact that you put edits like this in evidence leaves me unsure if the whole thing is some kind of WP:Point. That's leaving aside the attitude, at this point, that only someone who has been brainwashed would see anything wrong with the Weiss/Mantanmoreland side of that whole dispute... and that this should call for some form of official correction. As to what speaks for itself, I think there's considerable disagreement, although I admit the purpose of your submission here is beyond me. Mackan79 (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Move on, nothing new

The obvious stalemate in the ArbCom regarding a case including SlimVirgin is nothing new. Each and every case before this one developed along the same lines, with some mild trout-slapping all around but no teeth. It think that is it save to continue with things as they were as nothing will be resolved. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you post your allegations directly to WT:AC instead of indulging in this crappy defeatism? user:Everyme 23:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Striking; seems not so inappropriate now. user:Everyme 12:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, things are predictable here! -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

We can now expect a few weeks of inactivity again (till the storm of dismissing the case goes down), after which a narrow majority suddenly and quickly will vote, and close the case. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

JzG wikibreak

Not sure if anyone has noticed, so dropping off a note here. JzG has announced a long wikibreak, possibly until September. See here. Does this affect this case? Carcharoth (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

not really. It would be surprizing for any remedies other than 'play nice' to apply to him based on what's been shown (not that there's no problems, but that they seemed to be getting better prior to his being away). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Getting better? You mean blocking editors while calling them trolls based on zero evidence, after the recent RfC? Captain Nemo III (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

What!?

You must be joking, Sam... —Giggy 11:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It's nice to see all this time was spent wisely. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 11:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that passing would finish off the community's wavering faith in Arbcom. If the conduct was "highly regrettable" but concerned "events long ago and behaviour which is vexing but unsanctionable", then you should not have accepted the case in the first place, Sam. Instead, you accepted it, allowed the community to spend hours upon days upon months working hard on providing evidence, and flippantly dismiss it with two sentences. Neıl 龱 11:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Got to say, I'm a little confused as well. A lot of the evidence does date back quite far, but some is therefore presumably more recent. The fact that this arbitration case was brought and accepted suggests that there are some current issues that need dealing with, and these presumably go beyond reminding long-established editors to read our basic policies. This looks like an attempt to just "get it over with" on this case, which is almost certainly not the intention, but I'm fearful that this is how it would play out in the wider community. My 2p anyway. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Bleh. Naerii 12:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• What!? is my exact reaction to seeing Sam Blacketer's proposal. This is worse than bad kidding, but to clarify just in case: No, we don't find this funny, Sam. It is surprisingly impertinent though, even by ArbCom standards. user:Everyme 12:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

What in the world is this? I have provided clear, unambiguous, and recent evidence of abuse of the administrative tools. The only reason anything is "long ago" is that arbcom has sat on this for nearly two months and two of the four admins in this case haven't touched the tools since the case opened. --B (talk) 12:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Bull. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 12:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

User:B's evidence reminds me of Tango, where poor actions dating back several years were used as evidence. In this case, the poor actions are much more numerous, more recent and arguably worse. User:Cla68's evidence shows recent problems as well as using actions from several years ago; mostly from 2006 onwards, the same date as in Tango! Saying that this happened too long ago is pretty much bullshit, to be frank. --Tombomp (talk/contribs) 12:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If nothing else, you should explain why none of the recent evidence against FM is sanctionable. Increasingly it seems that ArbCom is a colossal waste of time, only solving easy problems that the community could have solve on its own, and sometimes not even then; the community is forced to address problems on its own.

What is the function of ArbCom? I'm almost positive it wasn't supposed to be a time-sucking drama machine. Cool Hand Luke 12:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with letting bygones be bygones for long ago incidents, in cases where all (further) behaviour by that party has been exemplary. We all grow and change, after all. But for users where the pattern of activities that concern the community has continued, I don't think an exhortation to get along quite cuts it. If there is clear evidence of recent abuse, act on it, please... ++Lar: t/c 12:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I hate to ask for the arbiters to use up so much of their valuable time, but if it isn't too much trouble, maybe they could read Inappropriate_use_of_admin_tools_or_responsibilities_by_FeloniousMonk. I specifically and intentionally only looked at things from the last year. None of this is long ago. Arbcom is abdicating its responsibility to at least consider the evidence. I have no confidence in this body any more. --B (talk) 12:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd like to know why the heck arbcom rushed to accept this case to begin with, especially given the fact that it was done entirely out of process. Cla68 should have been allowed to proceed with his RFC, because it seemed clear to me the issues he wanted to raise would probably require prolonged community discussion and consensus as per the JzG RFC, and that arbcom would strongly prefer not to deal with such a matter prematurely. Instead, arbcom pounced upon the case within hours of its posting, with no explanation for why it warranted out-of-process acceptance, and then - as if it didn't look like enough of a mess already - added JzG to the list of involved parties! And now two months later, Sam throws his hands up in despair and says it's all too much? Methinks your epiphany has come a tad late Sam. Gatoclass (talk) 12:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's be frank. It's obvious now that even if they were to consider the evidence, this will definitely end with a slap on the wrist at best. To everyone who has taken so much as a (neutrally minded!) passing glance at the evidence, it's clear that the sole reason to propose the dismissal is precisely because this RfAr threatens to backfire on the people who opened it, because of... oh... the facts (some opinionated essays that have erroneously been posted to the evidence page notwithstanding). We should just accept that the ArbCom has deliberately refused to fulfill its function and move on to considering potential consequences, including the impeachment of each and every arbitrator who supports this proposal — starting of course with Sam Blacketer, who has already made himself officially impossible as an arbitrator at this point. user:Everyme 12:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's unlikely to pass. There is evidence of ongoing problematic conduct on Cla68's part at the very least. --Jenny 13:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... More like he never did anything outstandingly problematic. And now that the ArbCom realises they cannot do what they are here for, namely to protect their friends and clusterfuck their friends' enemies, they want to dismiss the case. The reason they want to dismiss it is because your "evidence" is completely invalid and useless for your and their common interest. user:Everyme 13:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Tony, you missed an important "no" in that statement, and included an incorrect "ongoing" which should have been "any". The accurate statment would read "There is no evidence of any problematic conduct on Cla68's part." Unless you intentionally intended to misrepresent the truth, which I assume you didn't. GRBerry 13:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Erm, this is one arbitrator's motion, nobody else on the committee has chimed in, and they haven't really had time to digest the latest evidence/workshop stuff, assuming that they will do so. I think Sam's motion is cause for deep concern, but let's go easy on the outrage at this point, shall we? Everyme, I respectfully think you especially should refactor some of your comments. alanyst ^/talk/ 13:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I just don't think that using phrasing like "protect their friends and clusterfuck their enemies" assumes enough good faith of the arbitration committee as a whole. I remain hopeful. ++Lar: t/c 13:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

How much more evidence to the contrary do we need? Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 14:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Precisely. user:Everyme 14:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm confident in the strength of the evidence of ongoing problematic conduct by Cla68. It is for the arbitrators to evaluate the situation, including all evidence available to them. and determine what to do--a task I am confident they are highly capable of and would not, as a body, shirk. --Jenny 14:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering you're still around... Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 14:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

As somebody who has deliberately stayed away from the Arb Comm-bashing and the like over the last few weeks in the interests of giving it some space to work out its issues, let me just add my voice to those who say that a passage of this motion will leave my entirely free of confidence in the body. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with many people above. If ArbCom votes not to do anything, especially after the past couple weeks, this will destroy arbcom's reputation for many, and make the whole process look rather ridiculous. I urge other arbitrators to decline the motion to dismiss. Wizardman 16:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear Option.

Well.

I think now it's time to bring out the nuclear option on this.

In light of the great amount of community concern shown, both in this case and in arbitrators actions in general, it is hugely unwise for Arbitrators to dismiss this case with a hand wave.

If the motion proposed by Sam Blacketer passes, then I think it is fair to say the Arbitration Committee will have voted to ignore their own duties.

In such a case, the community would be obliged to take the extraordinary step of making it clear that we have no confidence in the Arbitration Committee, and will not accept it's authority until it is suspended and new members elected.

You were warned against making further actions like this, you were expressly told that suspending the Arbitration Committee was an ultimate if reluctant option, but it seems like you haven't grasped that we really meant it. You should consider yourselves on notice.

I strongly urge not only rebutting the proposal to suspend the case, but to retract the proposal all together. --Barberio (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Who do you claim to speak for, John? --Jenny 14:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Electing new members isn't going to solve anything. There have been new members annually (or more often as needed) and if that were all that were necessary, this should be the best arbcom ever. The silliness of arbcom has really gotten old. (Anyone remember last year where the solution to address harassment was to redirect pages to clown?) We need to completely get rid of the separate class of elite users (mini-god-kings) that arbcom has become. Why not allow any admin in good standing who has been an admin for at least 6 months to throw their name into a pool of "jurors" that can be randomly selected to hear a case? A single "clerk" can oversee everything to maintain focus and decorum, but only the randomly selected "jurors" would make any binding decisions. This solution would solve arbiter burnout and remove the air of superiority from arbcom. --B (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Because obviously a pool of people self-selected for the desire to make decisions governing other people's conduct is much more likely to be representative of the community at large, and much more likely to reach a unanimous, non-controversial decision, than the current arbitrators. Obviously. Thatcher 14:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

(Although, if there was a rule that any admin who expressed a point of view on the situation or the parties prior to some defined stage--say, 7 days after the opening of the evidence page--was barred from participation in the final decision, we might get somewhere.) Thatcher 14:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

(And I'm sure that open participation would make vote counting and closing the case quite interesting, since a few new participants showing up at the last minute could change the required majorities and swing the results of narrowly divided cases. But of course no one ever uses secret mailing lists or IRC/gchat for such purposes, right?) Thatcher 14:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Holding two principles in mind, I don't see any alternative to an elected arbitration committee:

1. There needs to be some arbitrating authority, lest we end up with the horrors of "votes for banning"
2. I wouldn't trust vast swathes of admins to fulfill this role.

While acknowledging concerns about some recent decisions of the Committee (I'm fairly sure the clown thing failed, yes?), I strongly suggest that these concerns are channeled into helpful dialogue, rather than screaming and shouting condemnation, as appears to be the vogue. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 14:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem with "votes for banning" currently on ANI and on the old WP:CSN was that decisions are made by whoever shows up. So if 10 people show up quickly who don't like a user, they are banned before anyone else has a chance to reply. That problem goes away completely when decisions are made by a randomly selected jury. Instead of being whoever shows up, it's a random group from a pool of experienced admins. --B (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I can think of several admins with more than six months' experience whom I would not trust here. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I of course agree, but no one person would be hearing the case. A 12-person jury is, as a whole, going to be effective, even if one member has an agenda. --B (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I can think of several arbs whom I would not trust here؟ The annual ArbCom elections take up a massive amount of time and energy. Jury selection might be more efficient. Perhaps juries could be chosen to serve for a few cases at a time, and then be disbanded. Jehochman ^Talk 15:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Jury duty is significantly different because there is no level of skill needed. Arbitration decisions are clearly more complex than up-down guilty-not guilty decisions. The other difference is that jury duty is compulsory (or near enough) -- non-compulsory jury duty would result in only those with strong opinions being involved. I am not only thinking of agendas, though, when I say that I wouldn't trust people -- I'm also thinking of competence. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

<--The arbitration process involves several complex tasks including analyzing evidence and writing decisions that are based on the evidence but which take into account policies and community standards of behavior. In the US/UK legal system, at least, these functions are split between the prosecution, defense, and judges. The reason you can pull 12 random people off the street and get a reasonable outcome is that you have a judge to explain the law, and attorneys to lead the jury through the evidence, suggesting how the facts line up on one side of the law or the other. I have seen the kinds of workshop proposals that are written by random editors who are interested in a particular case but have no experience with the process otherwise. The only way a random jury system has a chance of working is if the "clerks" you propose are tremendously empowered to rewrite or even dispose of proposals written by the jury that are out of bounds. And if you don't think that would be controversial, you haven't been paying attention. Whom would you trust to be the "clerk" of the latest Giano-related case, for example. Thatcher 15:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, in the UK at least, civil cases are rarely tried with juries for all these reasons. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Mr Korn's line of thought up to this point, but not with Mr Blacketer's move to dismiss. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's just appoint a Witchsmeller Pursuivant and be done with it. --Jenny 15:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of reasons for the current dissatisfaction with ArbCom; some are actually ArbCom's own doing (Orangemarlin? Clown?), while others stem from the unrealistic expectation that ArbCom can resolve longstanding, essentially insoluble personal conflicts in a way that makes everyone happy. Partly I think the departure of Newyorkbrad, the Arbitrator with the most unanimous community mandate, has hurt them.

They're currently dealing with quite a few intractable issues; maybe this is partially their "fault" for accepting cases of limitlessly unmanageable scope (like this one), partly it's that people expect them to take on these kind of poorly delimited cases. Certainly I've been unhappy with the way some recent issues have shaken out. On the other hand, earlier this year when I had a real, significant, carefully delimited user-conduct issue that required Arbitration, I was very impressed with the Committee's ability cut through the usual handwaving BS and adjudicate the case quickly and well.

I think in some ways, ArbCom has been set up (or set themselves up) for failure by taking on cases like this, and now that the result is inevitably disappointing, people are howlin mad. Additionally, there is a growing class of editors who have decided to cease contributing value to the encyclopedia and hang around solely to politick, pursue their age-old grudges and idees fixes, and fulminate about the cosmic unfairness and corruption of the system. I don't know for whom Barberio claims to speak. While I've voiced significant dissatisfaction with specific ArbCom actions, I as an invididual member of the community certainly wouldn't endorse the threatening and scolding language of his post here. MastCell ^Talk 16:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Nor would I endorse it. Barbiero does not speak for me. There are difficult issues that ArbCom needs to address, most notably how to deal with problematic VestedContributors, and the way to deal with them is to actually come to grips with the issues, not issue generic statements. So the ArbCom should get on with it, should deal with the issues. Dealing with this case firmly and forcefully would be very helpful. This case is not of limitlessly unmanageable scope, and dealing with it correctly would set good precedent. The needful findings and remedies are (I think) clear to a rather large majority of the community, are relatively crisp in their span, and should be embraced. We very much need an ArbCom. One with the gumption to do what is needful, not shirk away. That is not the same as calling for a revolution, or nuclear force or whatever. But I predict this year's elections will be interesting. ++Lar: t/c 16:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem with waiting for next election cycle, is it's a clear pass for those not up for re-election, and who assume it'll all die down by the time their turn is up.

We've been asking the Arbcom to try and not be a gaggle of ducks for a while now. We flat out told them that rolling this up into an absurdly large omnibus case would make it unmanagable, but they didn't listen. The handling of this case and others has taken the turn for arrogant, obnoxious and foolishness. And as has been clearly demonstrated, simply asking them to not keep making these blunders hasn't stopped them from continuing to make these blunders.

Do you really want to let them off with a slap on the wrist and "Oh we'll see what happens when you're up for re-election then".

Nope, I for one have no more confidence in this Arbitration Committee. I think others will agree. --Barberio (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"Clown" was a single sarcastic proposal by a single frustrated arbitrator who is no longer on the committee. It's time to move on. Thatcher 16:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

And yet, here we are, with another blunder. --Barberio (talk) 16:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain what you believe to be a blunder? --Jenny 17:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Tony, we get it. You don't think anyone but Cla68 has done anything wrong. You either aren't reading the evidence very well or you are not seeing the obvious abuse of the administrative tools. The admin tools are not toys to be used in the furtherance of personal grudges or editing positions. There are four admins here and in the case of three of them, there is significant evidence of administrative abuse (the exception being SV, where the evidence focuses on issues having nothing to do with the admin tools). Yes, there is a lot of noise mixed in and a good portion of the evidence is just sour grapes or "he disagreed with me therefore it is harassment", but that doesn't justify ignoring that there is some pretty flagrant abuse of the tools. That needs to be addressed in some fashion. Address it through desysopping. Address it through warning. Address it through saying that the evidence is misrepresented. But don't address it via putting your fingers in your ears and humming loudly. --B (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who "we" are supposed to be in the above. Whoever they might be, I don't think they get it at all, and I'll explain my perspective so that perhaps they might understand. I haven't examined the other evidence in depth, but my main concern is the abuse of Wikipedia for the pursuit and enabling of external vendettas, which I perceive to be the single most damaging aspect of this case, and on which I have contributed evidence. If there is other problematic conduct, that will also come out and be addressed by the committee. However abuse of admin tools is relatively routine and easily addressed, compared to what I consider to be a far more insidious problem.

Having said that I find much of the other evidence difficult to follow and not particularly useful. It seems as if some of those submitting the evidence are raising long-running differences of opinion involving some bad behavior that would have been better addressed at the time rather than raising in this case, which was called over the conduct of Cla68. If there has been "flagrant abuse of the tools" I think we'd have seen that in the evidence. --Jenny 17:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not even sure where to go with this. Please read #Inappropriate_use_of_admin_tools_or_responsibilities_by_FeloniousMonk and tell me that you don't see a problem. He has had multiple bad blocks, protected pages to gain an advantage in a content dispute, closed off discussion over the appropriateness of an image claiming to be an "uninvolved admin" despite clearly being involved, and cherry picked reports from SlimVirgin and Jayjg. This is the very definition of abuse of the admin tools. If this were 14 admin actions out of 50K over 5 years, ok, whatever, but this is 14 out of 40 and only within the last year. I don't for the life of me see how this can be called anything other than flagrant abuse. --B (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

We are all indebted to you for seemingly breaking your "rule to only contribute roughly once per day to any community discussion". It's been enlightening. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 18:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I wondered who would bring that up! :) I'll take another rest. --Jenny 18:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

B, with all due respect, SandyGeorgia lays out a clear reason why SlimVirgin should loose the tools. She uses adminship to bully non-admin editors. That is as bad as misuing the tools. --Dragon695 (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That may be and that wasn't the point I was trying to make. An abuse that involves hitting the block, protect, or delete buttons is an abuse that the community as a whole lacks the power to deal with and so arbcom must deal with it. If SV is bullying users, that's outside the scope of the point I was making. --B (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Dragon695; please don't attribute to me conclusions I haven't stated anywhere. If you look at the Workshop page, you'll see the positions I took on JzG, FeloniousMonk and SlimVirgin. If you want a characterization from me, ArbCom is overlooking clear and compelling evidence about FeloniousMonk throwing past ArbCom rulings to the wind wrt his treatment of fellow admins, while they are busy examining OrangeMarlin, who certainly might have taken his on-Wiki behavioral cues from FeloniousMonk. With respect to SlimVirgin, I would have thought ArbCom could come up with a way of dealing with those issues. I guess we all thought that sorting out a complex case (made complex by them) was why we elected them. I can say that the ArbCom members I've voted for and supported in the past aren't ruling in this case, and that my one-vote-per-year rule is kaput; next December, I vote up and down on every one who presents. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

<--I'd like to suggest that if the case is dismissed, it would be possible to file a new case, and I would further suggest that to be effective, any case should be specific, narrowly targeted and with reasonable expectations for outcome. Cases of the type All these people are bad, please tar and feather them are never handled well, even with lower profile editors. Thatcher 19:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little confused; this case was originally 3 people. I'm not really sure how much more specific you wanted it. The JzG addition was completely ridiculous and has muddled everything further, but ignoring that I don't really understand where "All these people are bad, please tar and feather them" came from, especially as this case was originally bought against one person and the evidence page has simply been examining the behaviour of the bringers of the case as well. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 19:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It was ArbCom members who voted to roll all these cases up into a ridiculous omnibus case, against community opinion. --Barberio (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sam wrote earlier: "Furthermore, in the UK at least, civil cases are rarely tried with juries for all these reasons." Sam Korn 15:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC) I believe in some systems of justice, juries sit with a judge acting essentially as a neutral facilitator. Suggest it should be possible to devise something similar --luke (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Specifics please

Dismissing this case and asking people to "play nice" does not add value. Please list out each involved party and provide specific feedback on their actions, whether good, bad, ugly or stale. Even if you choose not to place sanctions, a bit of reminding could be helpful, and if nothing else, specifics may help resolve issues. Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 15:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Handicaps on how soon the problematic editing and behaviors resume, anyone? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, JzG has said he doesn't anticipate returning to edit before September, so I'll go out on a limb and guess that he won't do anything problematic before then. Lacking any evidence of a break on the part of FM or SV, I decline to make predictions about anyone else. GRBerry 18:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps individual arbs should simply post items to vote on, even if there is no draft consensus, if things are deadlocked. A public vote will at least break a deadlock by forcing the issue, wouldn't it? Politics mean nothing. rootology (T) 17:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, just like the last IRC case, posting a dozen or so proposals with no hope of achieving a majority on any of them will be good for the project, no doubt. Thatcher 18:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

At least we'll know where they stand. Weighted Companion Cube (are you still there?/don't throw me in the fire) 18:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Thatcher's point. After two months, all of the parties have been on tenterhooks for long enough, regardless of the outcome. It seems clear that Arbcom will not come to a consensus on this case. Writing out a long list of FoFs naming each individual affected editor/admin is not helpful and only prolongs the pain if there is going to be no agreement or remedy. A general "everybody behave yourselves" remedy is about the most that can be hoped for at this stage, and I'm pretty sure that will satisfy nobody. While accepting this case as an omnibus may not have been the best choice, it is the one we have to live with. Risker (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding?!? You do realize that SV and FM are lying low just to achieve this. Editors like SandyGeorgia came forward, knowing that they might be later harassed, hoping that the committee would do something about these administrators. It is not enough to just say kiss and make up. Where is the justice for Tango? Tango did a lot less and lost the bit. No, it will not be acceptable to dismiss the case. It has been shown that these editors just go back their old ways once they are out from underneath the spotlight. --Dragon695 (talk) 18:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Bingo. Two of the four administrators mentioned in this case haven't touched the buttons since the case started, so making a judgment over what has happened in the last month doesn't really tell anyone anything other than that the committee is incapable of performing its duties. --B (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) While I can agree with Thatcher that it would probably not be helpful for the Arbs to propose remedies that they know have no chance of passing, I disagree with Risker's assessment of it being clear that Arbcom will not come to a consensus. Discussion I've seen to date simply indicates that there is nobody attempting to draft a proposed solution, which is quite different. If the Arbs have indeed been discussing this and decided that they can't handle it, the motion to close without any findings ought to read "The Arbitration Committee finds itself unable to resolve this dispute, therefore..." That isn't the current motion. GRBerry 18:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually drafting a proposal is hard work, and the two arbitrators who have done the majority of this heavy lifting lately have come under ferocious attack for doing so. Funny that they would be less than enthusiastic about tackling this one. Thatcher 19:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the attacks were due to the writing, exactly, so much as when the writing happened... ne? ++Lar: t/c 20:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to trouble them to do their job. If they don't like the responsibilities of the position, they are free to resign. Nobody forced them to seek election. --B (talk) 19:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I do have to ask, how someone who lacks the skills to draft a proposal ends up on the arbitration committee of a project this large? If they didn't want to do the things the job entails, they should not have accepted it. Any arbitrator who does not feel capable of writing a clear piece of text stating their opinion on a matter is unqualified for the position, and should resign. --Barberio (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

We voted them in, for the most part, if I recall correctly. I don't think we administered very many "proposed principles/findings/remedies" aptitude tests during the elections, if I recall correctly. ++Lar: t/c 20:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That's why I suggested a clerk write the opinion (glances at Thatcher and smiles a wicked grin). Jehochman ^Talk 20:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The decision is already written (by Rocks/dirt), it just needs a few planks knocked out. ++Lar: t/c 20:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)