Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Archives: 1, 2

Discussion of agenda

Audit subcommittee

I'm a bit confused:

1. Appoint initial subcommittee members by April 25
2. Prepare subcommittee procedures by April 25
3. Appoint final subcommittee members by June 1

Why two groups of members?--Tznkai (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The structure of the subcommittee isn't final yet—although I would expect an announcement very soon—but one of the possibilities is to have a mix of Committee-appointed and community-elected members; the gap in the schedule is intended to cover a possible election. Kirill ^[pf] 01:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hokay. --Tznkai (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of announcements

Notification of injunction relating to RFAR/MZMcBride

Original announcement

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science

Original announcement

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand

Original announcement

Ireland article names

Regarding remedy 2 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Remedies: On January 26, I accepted the appointment as a moderator. Two weeks ago I started a wikibreak because I need more time for things that are important in my live now. I tried to honor my commitment by sporadically showing up just for the Ireland question, but I now realize that this is not practical, and I made an announcement at WT:IECOLL#Resignation. In reply, someone proposed that I should ask an arbitrator to join instead of me. I think this makes sense, as ArbCom is very familiar with the issue, and an arbitrator would enjoy a position of authority, which seems to be needed at the moment. — Sebastian 01:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, is anyone here? Please arbcom, this issue has been dragging on for years, and dozens of editors have now put a lot of effort into working through the arbcom-sanctioned process to find a solution.

However, the process which the moderators established at WP:IECOLL now appears to have run out of steam. There was a period of taking statements from participants which lasted for about six weeks and closed on 31st March. But despite several requests from participants, there is still no indication that the moderators appointed by arbcom are anywhere near making any decision about how to proceed, let alone putting anything in place.

It would be a great pity if this effort to settle a long-running dispute was to run into the sands, and without a third moderator it seems at the moment that this may be what happens. Please can arbcom appoint a replacement for Sebastian (who appears to have been the most active of the moderators), and get this process moving again? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for all the efforts sought so far to help sorting out this dispute. I really appreciate and value the help provided by Sebastian here and feel very sorry for the resignation. We are discussing this at the ArbCom level for the time being and will seek a replacement within 48h.

In principle, I am not against the participation of an arbitrator in the process as suggested by Sebastian. However, I'd prefer reviewing the situation at the IECOLL project and see if there are other existing ideas to make sure decisions we'd take are appropriate and correct. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Aitias motion 2

The current reading of this motion gives Aitias full support to start a new account and run for RFA. Given that this account is already strongly suspected to be a second or alternate account of someone, this motion absolutely should be rewritten or clarified. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, this motion is rewarding him for simply resigning instead of dealing with his issues. Tiptoety ^talk 17:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll add another motion that require Aitias to edit with only the Aitias account until the issues in this case are resolved. Does that clarify it to your satisfaction? FloNight♥♥♥ 17:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that should do it. Thanks for the quick response. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the ratoinale for motion 3 specifying a shorter duration of 6 months rather than the standard full year allowance? Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

hmmm. I'm not understanding your question. There is no standard allowance as far as I'm aware.

The idea to include Motion 3 was not mine but I agree with the reasoning behind the idea. In this particular case, I think 6 months is a reasonable amount of time for Aitias to return and address the concerns expressed at RFArb. I don't think it is wise to delay making a ruling much past that time since the context of the situation gets lost over time. And editors may be unavailable to contribute their evidence to the case down the road. This is s/w expanding the Committee prior ruling about admin leaving but a step in the right direction, I think. We need for our admin to participate in dispute resolution. If they are not able to do it because for any reason, then we need for them to take a break from using the tools by voluntarily desysop. If they choose to not do it, then a involuntary temporary suspension of adminship is in order. I would like to see this become the norm so there is not ambiguity about admin that leave or drastically reduce their participation on site during a case, and then return to active editing at a later time (often as the case is closing). FloNight♥♥♥ 20:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I will take much of the credit and/or blame for motion 3. I'm not familiar with any one-year precedent as referenced by Ncmvocalist, but would welcome any clarification. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I certainly don't consider it a matter of blame; I was more curious than anything else - but my bad (in terms of how I worded it). What I meant to say was something along these lines: when a user goes on break, that is already a remedy of one sort. Given that in the past (on at least one occasion), the Committee has refused to review a situation until after a minimum 6 month period, I was a little confused as to why it was made as a maximum 6 month period here. Also, not to say that he's banned in any way, but given that the relative effect of 'retirement' is presumably close to that of a ban, I wasn't sure why the wikibreak (if it is that) should not be allowed for a full year period (like with typical ArbCom bans). Does that make sense?

In response to FloNight's comment: seeing we're speaking of a more broad sort of principle, than a specific one to Aitias, I'd like to bring up a previous case briefly. Some might assert that there was ambiguity with respect to one of the administrators at the end of the omnibus case; a wikibreak was able to do wonders, and he only returned to editing towards the end of the case. And to add to that success story, his participation in DR was considered by many to be extremely limited. This was despite a reasonably clear consensus (via RfC) that supported a desysop at the time. As such, if the proposed 'new norm' was in place, I pose the question as to whether the case of that particular admin would've ended with the same successful result? Personally, I don't think so, had someone touched his tools at the outset, but I'm open to explanations. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

My concern was that it's not reasonable to expect users to present evidence in 2010 about events that happened early in 2009. Hence the need for some time limit on how long we might be expected to open a case as, in effect, a continuation of the current request. In the meantime, it's up to Aitias to decide whether he wants to return, and whether he wants to continue as an administrator, so we should all let him take his time and decide what he wants to do. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

All the information that I read directly from Aitias (on site and by email to ArbCom) indicated that Aitias did not plan to participate in the case any time soon and likely never. I agree with Newyorkbrad that delaying this request for arbitration indefinately is not reasonable. Six months seems like a sensible amount of time to draw the line for when we would open this current case if he returned and wanted his tools returned. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Aitias_desyssop

Motions passed. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Motions Re: Aitias

Original announcement

New mail handling procedure

Original announcement

New ban appeals subcommittee and procedure

Original announcement

The first step in the procedure is:

1. The Coordinating Arbitrator or his deputy shall refer all appeals from banned or long-term blocked users received by the Committee to the Ban Appeals Subcommittee.

• Did the Committee have in mind what "long-term" means? It would be a simple matter to specify and might save later queries.
• I notice that the Coordinating Arbitrator is a "he", whereas "his or her" and the commonly used and now well-accepted singular they appears more than once elsewhere in the procedure. Could "his" be changed to "they" to make it grammatically consistent (and to adhere to modern language practice)? Tony (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The Coordinating Arbitrator is a "he" and so is the deputy, because of that the wording makes sense to me. I really don't think we need to change the wording for now since this is specific to our current Committee's way of organizing our work and is not binding on later Committees. And it is still early in the year, we may alter our methods and processes this year. :-) FloNight♥♥♥ 17:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't have a precise definition of long-term. Obviously, nothing less than ~2 weeks will be considered, simply because the block will have expired by the time we come to a decision; beyond that, it depends on the circumstances.

As far as the wording is concerned, please feel free to fix any obvious grammatical mistakes in the text. Kirill ^[pf] 03:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Stability in the community is aided by clear direction from ArbCom, so a wording such as "normally four weeks, although the Committee may on application consider appeals for shorter blocks" might be beneficial. There is no reason that a subsequent Committee might not use this process—even though it would not be "bound by pecedent"—especially if the process is transparently and clearly laid out, and has been demonstrated to work to the Committee's satisfaction.

FloNight, my point rested on the fact that the Coordinating Arbitrator might subsequently be a "she". Gender-neutral language, as used in the rest of the text, is typical usage in such circumstances.

Kirill, thanks, but it's well-written apart from the two points I made, and I'd be reluctant to change ArbCom text unless there were a significant need.

May I pass on that I was pleased at the Committee's establishment of this process, as I'm sure many other editors were. Thank you. Tony (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Notification of second injunction relating to RFAR/MZMcBride

Original announcement

Assuming good faith, MZMcBride deleted 352 articles in 8 minutes using tabs. He didn't edit all day (whereas he normally does), so this seems to be precisely what happened. Cool Hand Luke 23:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

He didn't delete 352 articles, he deleted via G8 the talk pages of 352 deleted articles and projectspace pages, almost all of which were speedy-deletes, junk pages, and pages in the wrong namespace. The problem here is ... ? Given the second injunction, though, ("There is no restriction against his proposing lists of pages to be deleted by other administrators, provided that the deleting administrator exercises his or her own judgment in determining that deletion is appropriate.") if anyone would like to undelete those pages, I'd be quite happy to delete them again. Black Kite 23:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom's apparent inability to provide a reasonable answer to either your question, or the similar variants that were posed at workshop and proposed decision talk pages, suggest that the following is accurate.

The problem here is simple. The wider community is either unaware that this is happening (when these motions were being voted on), or can't be bothered saying (or better yet, doing) something about it when they do find out, or have lost faith in certain arbitrators' ability to open their ears/eyes to common sense when they get it wrong. Certain arbitrators are therefore able to take advantage of this fact and do anything and everything they can to effectuate their personal views, regardless of if they do in fact conflict with the views of the wider community. Indeed, this also allows arbitrators to claim that the patience of the community and the Committee is being tested, when really, the issue solely rests with ArbCom, its delegates and of course, the grudge-holders; some users will obviously fall under more than one of these categories. Merely being elected by the community doesn't mean that your view = the community's, or that the community's patience has been exhausted merely because yours has.

Sometimes, the community gets the decisions it wants and ArbCom provide genuine reasons which are in line with what is expected in a decision. Other times, ArbCom provide other reasons that are divorced from the real reasons that they made a decision - they cover up those reasons because it is directly against what is expected from the community, and because it is the only way to save face over stupid decisions that were made based on personal reasons that should not have played a part in that decision.

Ironically, a lot of foolish and ill-considered decisions seem to be made whenever ArbCom perceives that its authority and willingness/ability to make good decisions is being questioned. But to summarise, the problem = the community's constant inadequate response and mechanisms to deal with ArbCom's foolish, ill-considered and/or poor decisions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)modified slightly

One of the issues in the case now ongoing is that MZMcBride may be acting harmfully by using an automated process to perform a large number of deletions, which may include some that are harmful. Because this issue had been raised, the committee placed a temporary injunction to instruct him not to perform large numbers of deletions by any automated or semi-automated process. The injunction was there to allow us (and also anyone who wished to present evidence in the case) to check his actions. By doing a large number of actions again, even if he managed to do them manually (which I should say I think is unlikely), he was again making it very difficult to check on the reasonableness individual actions. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with you, except that these were all G8 deletions - talk pages of already deleted articles/projectspace pages - which actually makes it very easy to check on them. I can think of practically no situation in which we do not delete the talkpages of deleted articles - most of these had merely been forgotten by the deleting admin. Black Kite 19:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The first injunction makes sense - the second does not. If the first injunction was to tackle the issue of numbers of deletions per minute rather than just deletions made using automated tools, then the blame rests with ArbCom for putting through an injunction that had such a clear loophole in it, and that failed to tackle the underlying issue. ArbCom should've then recognised its mistake and attempted to fix their fault (aka not MZM's fault) by modifying the original injunction to say: "MZM may only delete X number of pages every X minutes/hours". Clear and simple - if he violated that, he deserves to lose his tools wrt to deleting, and if he violated the subsequent one, then he should lose his tools. For ArbCom to instead to advance prevention to the point of punishing by 'banning from deleting except obvious' for something that is neither here nor there is poor form. Contrary to the note that they left at the end that it does not reflect prejudgement, it blatantly gives all appearances of prejudging. And to add even further insult to injury, what the community did establish quite clearly is that there are not enough admins - to outright prevent him from doing what he's expected to do is downright wrong. And finally, for any member of ArbCom to claim that community patience is exhausted over deletions that weren't established as problematic (or deletions that seem to lack having the ability of being problematic in the eyes of the community, per Black Kite) is downright wrong. 4 reasonably well supported reasons to demonstrate what sort of decision making has gone on here. It should be no surprise how I personally consider that there is a sense of deja vu in this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to echo the same clarification done by my colleague Sam Blacketer. I'd be glad to address the rest of the concerns in a better atmosphere if we refrain from using the term 'stupid' when criticizing. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree; the term stupid was not quite an accurate description of what was supposed to be meant. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ncmvocalist. Well, the second injunction's aim (the first one as well) is to let ArbCom review the already existing evidence and prepare the Proposed Decision with the minimum interference possible. ArbCom has not decided yet whether the deletions are legit or not but in order for it to make a fair decision questionable deletions have to stop. Otherwise, they are just complicating the case. As for the community and ArbCom patience, we must remember that the community referred the case to ArbCom because the community couldn't arrive to a decision. You not being impatient doesn't mean that others are happy with the last deletions. And since MZMcBride has an open ArbCom case, they could just ask ArbCom before doing anything questionable. X deletions per minute or hours is just Wikilawyering. Whatever limitation you'd put you'd have a bunch of people arguing against (i.e. no, 20 per minute. no, 70 per hour. no, 300 per second, etc...) It is about the essence. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

the community referred the case to ArbCom because the community couldn't arrive to a decision - This is not at all true. The RFAR started within 48 hours of the "secret pages" incident, maybe within 24, I'd have to check, but it basically killed the discussion on AN. It was ArbCom, not the community that decided to explicitly skip the normal route of requiring an RFC before starting a case. Mr.Z-man 23:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I would be surprised if you could find anyone who could raise a reasonable objection to the cleaning up of orphaned talkpages. Black Kite 23:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Guys, the case presentation and the evidence page suggest otherwise and ArbCom is reviewing everything in detail. And cleaning up of orphaned talkpages is not the whole story. ArbCom has nothing to do with 'content'. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you elaborate what you mean by "not the whole story"? If it's only regarding the sorts of pages that Black Kite brought up, then sorry, it does have something to do with ArbCom - yes, you should not look at it as a content consideration, but you are expected to look at a behavioural Wikipedia norm if that's what is being suggested by a member of the community. Such norms, have after all, been used and considered in previous ArbCom decisions. If there's something else beyond that when you say "not the whole story", I (among others) would appreciate a little bit more specificity - as you know, I cannot view what has been deleted to make sense of that part of your comment.

To respond to your previous comment, I don't agree that people would argue for 300 deletions per minute or 60 deletions per minute or that sort. To be frank, I also don't think MZM would've minded being restricted to a mere (but strict maximum of) 10 deletions per minute as it's an entirely reasonable expectation given the circumstances - did any of you attempt to discuss this possibility with him before imposing this second injunction? Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid you are asking me to elaborate on things before voting the final decision. Anyway —and refer to my last sentence below,— I'll try to address as many concerns as possible.

I must say... did MZMCbride make any attempt to seek advice or clarifications from the Committee or anyone before acting? He's the one before ArbCom; not the opposite. You would not expect anything different than that in the real and logical world. Take any scenario (someone already in trial goes acting questionably again without consulting) or example you like so that my example would not be labelled as cherry-picked.

Now, neither of us is a robot and our relationships here are based on human interactions; consulting with each other, listening, reaching consensus, etc... So these are "such norms". Now, you tell me again, did MZMCBride consult with you, me, ArbCom or anyone on earth before acting questionably for the-not-first-time? The ArbCom job is to look into evidences and though it sometimes extends its remit when it is necessary it should not extend it more than necessary. That said and still MZMCBride received the first batch of questions and had an arbitrator consulting with him off-wiki before the second injunction. ArbCom don't usually go beyond its primary functions though it did this time.

Wikipedia is an un-individualistic project and one should expect others to be impatient when repeated instances of questionable individuality comes to play. Impatience should also be expected from people who already look at and verify existing evidence when hit by a new wave of evidence —a situation which could have been easily avoided. If you want the "whole story", you must bring history (the big picture including prior cases) with you and look at it for facts. I'd really advice against a short-sighted Committee and I don't believe this needs more elaboration. Again, Wikipedia is an un-individualistic project. Remember that principle and go back to the Five pillars.

I'll be glad if you believe that it was quite a satisfying elaboration on what I had said. The rest (30, 20, 70 per minute) remains plain and mere Wikilawyering though it ceases to be wikilawyering when discussed with the community before acting (norms). Note that my stance may change depending on MZMcBride new answers and clarifications to the Committee's questions. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

MZM is indeed in front of ArbCom. However, I, an uninvolved user (who reads, words and helps with imposing numerous sanctions at community level), find that when an injunction unambiguously provides that one should "refrain from using automated tools (including bots and scripts) to delete pages or nominate them for deletion", then normal deletions that aren't assisted by bots or automated scripts may continue. A reasonable uninvolved person would interpret that questionable actions occurred (or may occur) while using bots, rather than when doing them individually (manually) one-by-one.

That is the essence of the injunction, and I would see no need for any further clarification, even if a user is on "trial". I expect someone (even you) to disagree with me on what I've just said, but I know for a fact that I'm looking at this in good faith (over looking at this foolishly). I myself consider that discussion would be necessary when it is too vague (at which time, onus would be on MZM to seek clarification/consenus/whatever from ArbCom before acting - I consider that this was not such a case).

I will slightly digress though. If I was on the receiving end of the injunction, I may have insisted on clarification because I am more than just a reasonable person; I would consider a very unusual interpretation - one that involves one of two other scenarios. (Scenario 1) where ArbCom, in implementing injunction 1, may have intended on preventing all deletions from occurring [imposing such an injunction, would of course at that point, be unjustified/unfair]. (Scenario 2) where ArbCom, in implementing injunction 1, may have intended trap me (in this case, MZM) into "appearing to" violate the injunction so as to make an easier case for desysop [that would of course be grossly inappropriate on so many levels].

How would either scenario work? A few deletions (individually) per minute, even if they are different numbers, would be enough for anyone (including grudge-holders) to make out a claim that the deletions are like a bot - many deletions per minute, even if they are different numbers like in this case, could also leave it open for anyone (including grudge-holders) to claim that the deletions are like a bot. Of course I concede that whether ArbCom in the end directly/indirectly endorsed/rejected such a claim is another story. But the nature of the lose-lose situation (of repeatedly hearing those claims for merely doing what was expected of you) is interesting - we're in the delicate stage of dispute resolution where this sort of hassle could drive a contributor away. That would be very convenient, particularly in the light of the suggestion that there are users (even arbitrators) who are growing impatient of MZM retaining his tools. I hope what I've said in these paragraphs makes sense; given the above, I hold very strong reservations about deeming that x deletions per y minutes is mere wikilawyering.

All that said, wrt to the whole story bit, I am relatively satisfied with your elaboration, and thank you. I note that should a full picture (and history) be taken into consideration, there is a dire need for this to be strongly reflected in the Fofs for disclosure. I also note my deliberate request prior to voting. While discussions like this one may do nothing to change prejudgements or upcoming decisions or injunctions or anything else similar, at least here is a written attempt of trying to avoid the need for criticism after the very final event(s), given that criticism has directly followed interim events. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I had a lengthy response prepared for Black Kite, but most of this has been subsumed into a series of new questions for MZMcBride (which I hope to post soon). For now: "There is no question of undeleting them. The question here is not whether the deletions were correct or not (I'm prepared to assume they were correct). However, if they were undeleted, and you [Black Kite] deleted them again, the onus is still on you to personally check all 352 of them, and not presume they are valid G8 deletions. i.e. An assumption of correctness is OK as far as not undeleting goes, but *re-deleting* requires a check." I'll give an example: deletion log, along with history, where the recreating editor says: "sorry, why wasn't this made into a redirect?". If you go through MZMcBride's deletions, you do find blue links, some of which don't impact the original deletion, but some that do. This underscores my point that if something has been recreated, you can't just automatically redelete it without checking. Some other examples: Talk:Red Dragon FM, Talk:Lodge Street Temple, The sovereign art foundation. Behind each of those is a story (and often some clean-up to do), but my point here is that if someone has undeleted or recreated, you need to find out what has happened. Carcharoth (talk) 08:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

One more point: "most of these had merely been forgotten by the deleting admin" - when did this culture of leaving the talk page deletions to a bot develop? Is there not a reminder in the system prompting admins to check and delete associated talk pages as well? Carcharoth (talk) 08:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It has been that way for sometime, I use a database query output and go through about once a week, and generally find about 50 or so such pages needing deleting. I know Fritzpoll and I once went through and deleted about 300 file talk pages left over from moves to commons that admins forgot to do. I suspect it is a symptom of our declining admin ranks and overall backlog of admin tasks. MBisanz ^talk 08:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Returning to a point above, what concerns me about the deletion of Least common denominator (which was a broken redirect at the time of deletion) is that there are links from article space using that title. Did those links exist at the time of deletion? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lowest common denominator (disambiguation) is what caused that broken redirect. It is a specific example of a type of broken redirect that needs dealing with by hand, not by bot deletion. I believe the approved bot (User:RedirectCleanupBot?), since retired, explicitly avoided deleting this type of 'in use' redirect for that reason (though such 'in use but broken' redirects do need fixing urgently, giving rise to the argument that automated deletion will prompt editors to fix the redlinks). Carcharoth (talk) 08:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC) This is getting beyond a discussion of the noticeboard announcement - could sometime redirect the discussion somewhere else?

OK, I was wrong. RedirectCleanupBot restricted itself by history - only broken redirects with one revision. It didn't concern itself with how many articles were linking to the redirect, which I should have realised. Carcharoth (talk) 08:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

Is the noticeboard proper going to undergo any sort of regular archiving?--Tznkai (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Kirill created Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 1 on January 17th, it might be nice to get some guidance as to how often to archive and how to coordinate archiving the Noticeboard and talk page jointly. MBisanz ^talk 22:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I would say that judgment is best applied on a case by case basis. I would expect that any superseded notice can be archived immediately, that notices which are no longer particularly relevant should be archived, and that a default lifetime of a month to six weeks sounds about right as a rule of thumb. — Coren ^(talk) 02:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Four to six weeks sounds good for a default archiving time, for both the notices and the associated discussions. Kirill ^[pf] 12:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Designated drafting arbitrators

Original announcement

• A very good idea and one which I support. One query I had was would the arbitration committee please expand on the phrase managing case workflow. What will that entail? Seddσn ^talk 19:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • We don't really have a formal definition, at this point. The idea is that they'll take the lead on drafting, interacting with the parties, and so forth; but I expect the exact parameters will be worked out in practice rather than being defined in advance. Kirill ^[pf] 05:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding User:Mitchazenia

Original announcement

I am still pretty new to Wikipedia so I don't know the backround of this. Is that available? I have looked at Mitchazenia's contributions and I am rather impressed. Basket of Puppies 19:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, just follow the motion link at the announcement and you get to the case. --Amalthea 20:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride

Original announcement

Should this read "Should MZMcBride request restoration of adminship privileges, he will be required to submit a request for adminship for approval of the Committee."? --NE2 00:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed - My bad. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Tiptoety ^talk 00:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so it's "submit a request for adminship or request approval of the Committee." Very different - or maybe not, given that if the committee wanted to torpedo an RFA they'd find a way --NE2 00:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, since the RFA has been withdrawn, I think it is safe to comment now. I will say that the filing of the RFA while the case was not yet closed did provoke discussion among arbitrators. I can't speak for others, but I personally said I wasn't going to go near the RFA unless gross misunderstandings were being stated and accepted without rebuttal. If you want to start a general discussion on when and under what circumstances it is appropriate to start an RFA following a resignation while a case is in progress (remembering to keep the discussion generalised), then I for one would be happy to take part in such a discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 04:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

That arb-com scope is expanding: MZMcBride and those working with him are commended for developing an innovative method to identify articles with potential BLP issues, but are strongly urged to consult and carefully consider whether the current location and nature of the listing of the output of the script represents the most appropriate means of addressing the issues raised. Hiding T 13:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

How so? You mean content versus conduct scope? Since the case is closed, can you think of a suitable venue to discuss the point you've raised here? Carcharoth (talk) 04:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy discussing it here if that's okay, the link I followed said to discuss the announcement here. I've been through the evidence page and there's no evidence presented regarding "blp", although I just ran a find over the page so I may have missed something. What bothers me initially is the language of the "finding of fact". Is this a finding of fact, or editorialising. There seems to be a disconnect between the evidence and the fact itself. I'm just not sure finding of facts are there for the arb-com to editorialise. I thought they were to establish the facts of the facts of the case, not the opinion of arb-com regarding those facts. It may be a fact that arb-com would like to urge or even strongly urge discussion, but in that sense, aren't the arb-com just another set of editors? My understanding of arb-com's scope is that it will not make editorial statements. That finding of fact reads like editorialising. According to the arb policy, findings of fact take the form "XXX has/has not engaged in YYY behavior [in violation of ZZZ rule]. (diff of incident 1) (diff of incident 2) (further diffs)". Now I'm having trouble fitting this into that form. The first part, where you commend MZMcBride, might loosely translate as MZMcBride has engaged in good faith efforts to build the encyclopedia, but the second part, where someone is strongly urging, looks like MZMcBride has failed to engage in consensus. But that's not reflected in the evidence, the language or anything else. Has the community strongly urged this? Where's this coming from, and how does it fit into arb-scope? Maybe you need to set up a separate section for commendations, although I personally would oppose such a thing, it's a little frivolous, and I think it misses the point of what arbitration and the committee is supposed to be. You're there to settle disputes. I can't see how that includes strongly urging further discussion of an editor's actions, or to carefully consider locations and such. I think there's a lo9t of issues with this finding of fact, and yes, I guess they relate to issues of content and behaviour and to editorialising and fact finding and to conflict of interest as well. How does an arbitrators opinion on what issues need discussion and where the best place to post a list have bearing on any case, and how are we supposed to work this out if the issues aren't discussed on wiki? The only discussion I can find is Wikipedia_talk:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Proposed decision#.22Commended and urged.22. That's the only place I can find discussion of the proposal, and Brad states "I don't believe the community has expressed any view on this point one way or the other". So to me this isn't within the scope of arb-com. There's no current dispute here. I don't think it's arb-com's place to be starting disputes, or telling the community what they need to think about. And going further, I'm now a little concerned with Brad's actions. He accepted this case a couple of days after starting discussion with MZMcBride on this very issue. Now I'm starting to put two and two together and come up with an answer that may be four and may be five, and I don't want to do that, but... I'm starting to have concerns here. Maybe this is a case Brad should have brought as a participant? I don't know, but like I say, I have concerns. This isn't, for me, what an arbitration committee is supposed to do. This is starting to become more like investigating committees and so on. For me, there are ramifications that need addressing. Hiding T 11:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, as I was one of two arbs to oppose that remedy, I may not be the best person to ask. You are probably best off asking Brad (who drafted the proposed decision) and others. You might also want to read the arb discussion that took place around the wording of principle 8. I will let Brad (and the other arbs) know about what you have posted here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Update: Brad has asked that the following be posted: that he has been "travelling the past few days with limited Internet access and that [he] will respond to this discussion when [he gets] home (tomorrow night or Monday)". Carcharoth (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I think I can add something to this discussion. When the Committee has elected to review the actions of an administrator, it has always historically been about the cumulative behaviour over time, and not restricted to one or two incidents. MZMcBride's case was not out of the ordinary in that respect at all, particularly as he had already been admonished previously. One of the issues that arose in this case was that of some of MZMcBride's userpages, one of which directly related to an issue within the purview of the Arbitration Committee (use of oversight and hiding of revisions). Many arbitrators, myself included, will look a little more deeply into the editing history of parties involved in an RFAR prior to making a decision whether or not to accept a case; remember that the submissions on the RFAR help us to determine whether or not there is a reason to accept a case, but do not strictly define the case itself. Many cases go in directions that would not be immediately apparent at the time of accepting the case, based on submitted and discovered evidence. Elsewhere, I have discussed the challenges the Committee faces in ensuring that important information is not overlooked simply because none of the parties have decided to submit it as evidence. When it comes to cases, Arbcom is not a court meting out justice, it's a dispute resolution body charged with finding the best solution for the encyclopedia as a whole. Therefore, where necessary, Committee members may well present evidence or review evidence that is not brought forward by an active or independent party.

This particular iteration of the Committee has been a little more flexible in recognising positive contributions made by the main party(s) of cases; after all, editors frequently look to Arbcom decisions for guidance in similar situations, so there is value in noting when someone is "caught doing something right". Generally speaking, the work that MZMcBride and others working with him have been doing on BLPs is notably positive for the encyclopedia: articles are being improved, references are being added, and material that does not meet our core editing policies is being removed. The cautionary note recognises two basic facts: a large aggregation of examples of articles with likely BLP infractions can be something of a minefield itself; and other of MZMcBride's userspace pages have raised some concerns. I don't think the Committee strayed in making this finding. Risker (talk) 04:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you've followed what I'm getting at really, but you do raise some interesting points for further discussion. I'm not sure how it is within the arbitration committee's scope to be judge, jury and executioner. I'm also a bit worried about evidence being considered which isn't posted publicly, especially when it is uncovered by acting arbitrators who are supposed to be arbitrating a case. I'm also concerned that arbitrators are apparently free to pursue personal agendas within a case. That you don't find that alarming is also alarming. I'm also alarmed that the arbitration commitee and individual members seem to have no problem with issuing decrees as to what the community must do. That too is alarming. You are supposed to be people who settle disputes for the community. You are not people who get to tell the community what to think about. From where I sit, you get to do that at a personal level, not as a sitting arb through arbitration findings of facts. I'm becoming rather unsettled at recent arbitration findings and the current new policy draft. Let me toss this question in the mix: is an arbitrator supposed to be neutral? Hiding T 14:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

An issue that is repeatedly identified as being a "Wikipedia problem" is the appropriation of terms to mean something different on Wikipedia than they do in real life. "Arbitration" doesn't mean the same thing here as it does outside the boundaries of the encyclopedia, nor does "neutral"; I can think of several other terms where the Wikipedia meaning is quite different. In the real world, "arbitration" is a process by which two parties are led to a mutually acceptable agreement. On Wikipedia, "arbitration" usually deals with multiple parties who have different agendas, but its primary party (the encyclopedia, and by extension the editing community at large) is formally represented only rarely. The Arbitration Committee's decisions need to be acceptable to the encyclopedia. While it would be preferable that all participants in a case some away feeling that the decisions made are "mutually acceptable", one must recognize that, for example, there aren't a lot of admins who think they should be desysopped, or editors who think they should be banned. The Committee has no coercive powers and cannot force people to provide evidence. I would like nothing better than for editors disinterested in the outcome of a case to dig up the objective evidence that would ultimately support a decision, but this is a volunteer project and if nobody volunteers to do that kind of work then it is up to the Committee to do it. Risker (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

We're getting off track, and for my part I apologise. To get things back to where I think they should be, let me ask, do you feel a finding of fact should recommend or urge something, or do you think a finding of fact should reflect that something is a gray area or unclear or something like? Hiding T 16:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at WT:BAG#BAG and bot policy with regards to names that is potentially related to remedy #4, specifically the clause that MZMcBride's bot accounts must be "clearly identified as bots". The question is whether the bots Basketrabbit and Whip, dip, and slide should be renamed to contain "bot" per Wikipedia:Bot policy#Bot accounts. Comments are welcome at WT:BAG. Anomie⚔ 01:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I will raise this with my colleagues. Personally, I don't think we need to do anything. It's BAG's job to sort that out. Carcharoth (talk) 04:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me, I just thought you should be aware of the possibly-related discussion. Anomie⚔ 10:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

My own two cents on the matter is that, as long as the bot is clearly identified as such (such as with the {{bot}} template), then the name is not that critical. I wouldn't be inclined to make a big deal out of this. — Coren ^(talk) 13:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm back from a few days of travelling and had promised to respond to Hiding's comments, although Risker has said much of what I would have said. One of the things she has said that I agree with is that when we take a case to deal with an editor's conduct and particularly an administrator's conduct, the committee will often evaluate the admin's overall record. This is particularly true when we conclude that the administrator has acted inappropriately in some or other fashion and must then turn to a decision on sanction. I think that every administrator has been in the position of looking at an editor who has misconducted himself or herself, and turned to a scan of the overall contributions to determine whether the violation appears to have been a completely isolated episode, or part of a lengthy series of transgressions, and whether it was a good-faith mistake by a newish user or something different from that. With appropriate modifications for the circumstances, that is similar to the calculus that arbitrators need to use in making sanction decision in admin-conduct cases. MZMcBride has said, in discussing this case (in his reconfirmation RfA, among other places) that the real question that should be asked is "is Wikipedia better off with or without [him] as an administrator?" That question can hardly be answered by looking at one isolated series of deletions and without at least some reference to the overall record.

Here, the finding and remedy relating to BLP were hardly central to the case, and omitting them would not have changed the general tone of the decision, or the principal remedy that a majority of the committee (not including myself) had settled on before MZMcBride resigned. Having said that, it bears emphasis that the BLP finding was, on balance, a positive rather than a negative one in evaluating MZMcBride's performance. Although some arbitrators questioned the language of my finding that improving the level of compliance with the BLP policy remains the most important ethical issue facing Wikipedia, I consider that this finding is not only true, but quite obvious (it bears emphasis that no one has ever suggested to me what might be a more important issue for us to address). So I was pleased that MZMcBride had come up with an innovative and useful means of making a bit of progress on the issue, even though I had concerns (as Risker has identified) concerning the precise means of implementing that means. I see no substantive basis for quarrel with this finding. In any event, as indicated, its presence did not change the ultimate result of the case.

I also see no basis for the expressed concern that I either relied upon non-public information or was pursuing an agenda of my own by including the BLP-related findings. Unlike a "real-world" court case, where the judge and members of the jury are expected to have no personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts (because if they do, it will generally be by coincidence, and there are any number of others who can substitute for them), in the bulk of Wikipedia arbitration cases, the vast majority of the evidence consists of edits to Wikipedia which any of us can read and experience for ourselves. We are not, as has been limited, to diffs that a particular party may have put on the evidence page, although we do have an obligation (which was satisfied in this case) to make sure that the parties are on notice of the types of evidence we are considering. Here, even apart from the fact that the concurrence of many other arbitrators was required to adopt any other proposal, the fact that the BLP-related page might be mentioned in the decision was apparent at least from the time I posted the proposed finding to the Workshop for comment.

Nor is concern about BLP some oddball idiosyncrasy of mine: The need to consider the effect of our articles on the living persons who are their subjects has been the focus of several previous decisions of this committee, including the Badlydrawnjeff case (decided before I was an arbitrator), and the Footnoted quotes case (decided while I was away from Wikipedia, though I have endorsed the BLP-related portion of the decision), as well as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war, which I drafted. I don't believe that at this late date, a passing observation, by the Arbitration Committee or anyone else, that BLP is important, could really be a matter of controversy.

I hope this is responsive to the points that were made above; if I have overlooked anything, please let me know. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• I hadn't wanted to focus on any particular arbitrator's conduct, my main concern was the language used in this finding of fact, as I restated to Risker. But obviously I wandered, and the debate has run away from me. I'm really worried by the above response. You see no basis for my expressed concerns. Basically my concerns are baseless? I'm just going to move on. This is one of those internet conversations where everyone is defending rather than discussing. They seem to be more and more prevalent on Wikipedia, more's the pity. If I was accusatory or adopting the wrong tone or approach to get my points considered, I apologise. It's one to learn from, for sure. Hiding T 09:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Agenda as of April 8

Original announcement

This committee agenda contains no less than twenty items, few of which pertain whatsoever to actually resolving disputes. We have such important problems as how to name arbitration pages, dedicating more time to how the committee should be handling its mail, and again attempting to come up with bureaucratic procedures for emergency rights removal, despite having been basically mocked by the community for wasting time on this barely two months ago.

The arbitration committee was created to resolve disputes. Yet this committee can find twenty other things to dedicate their time to than actually delving into the mire of cases and sorting them out. You can't even satirise this. Rebecca (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

And now we have clerks, as the representatives of the committee, deleting criticism of the committee from where it was originally posted, and reposting it in a much less widely read venue. The committees of previous years certainly had their failings, but trying to suppress criticism wasn't one of them. Rebecca (talk) 01:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

As I have already stated on my talk page: The announcement was made by Kirill on WP:AC/N, then later cross posted by Tiptoety on RfAr. WT:AC/N serves as a centralized discussion for arbitration related announcements, such as agendas. If you'll notice, Tiptoety's post had a "discuss this" link. I am not silencing your criticism, but in fact, putting it on the same board as all the other items are discussed. Check the timestamps. I understand your concern, but I assure you, you have it exactly backwards.--Tznkai (talk) 01:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

There had been a lengthy discussion on WT:RFAR about these very issues, which this merely served to illustrate. You then attempted to delete my post from there, and shift it to somewhere where there was no such discussion happening, and which I suspect most of the people involved in that discussion would not have on their watchlists. You did this in your capacity as a representative of the committee. How do you think I should take that? Rebecca (talk) 02:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

If by most people, you mean yourself, several arbitrators, Durova, NCMvocalist, and yellowmonkey, MBisanz, and myself, I think you don't have anything to worry about. And my explanation is the simplest one. I'm centralizing discussion to where it should go, back into the proper context. Now, I don't have any numbers on hand, but I think this page has approximately the same viewership as the previous one, and I think the previously mentioned people are aware of it, or shortly will be.--Tznkai (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

As Tznkai points out, the announcement was accompanied by a prominent link to a central location for discussion of it. WT:RFAR is for discussion of requests for arbitration, not a forum for everything related to the Committee. Kirill ^[pf] 02:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I only just noticed this. I would consider a criticism on time spent on cases compared to time spent on this 'agenda' to be relevant to requests for arbitration. I probably look at WT:RFArb more often, because the notes (even criticisms) there happen to interest me more than much of the other stuff here. A bit of consistency from the beginning could have avoided this unintended issue; whether all of us would have posted had the discussion been happening here is questionable. In any case...perhaps those posting announcements (whether it's arbitrators or its delegates) can consider using something similar to what is used on PD talk pages? I mean, if someone tries to fix which arbitrator is on the active list, they will be directed to the one central page...perhaps the same can be done for these announcement/announcement discussions? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee established

Original announcement

OK, I'll bite... oversight of Oversight? Mr Stephen (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

WT:Review Board has most of the community discussion on this. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 22:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• I found two things interesting about this. First, in the time that it takes for the Arbitration Committee to pick the initial three non-committee members, the community could hold its own elections. Is it really necessary to have ArbCom do the early appointments? Also, why are Arbitrators on this "subcommittee" at all? Wasn't the purpose of the Review Board to have independent auditors who have time to spend on this and who do not ordinarily perform Checkuser or Oversight functions (as the current arbitrators all do)? NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 22:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced that an election process could be set up and properly advertised (much less completed) by the time we appoint someone, particularly since we're still working out some of the details like term lengths and so forth. It's a fair point that the initial appointments may not actually get to consider any cases, depending on how rapid the turnaround is.
  • As far as the presence of arbitrators on the subcommittee is concerned, that's something that may wind up being an interim measure—a fully elected subcommittee was one of the options we considered. For the time being, we decided it would be easier to get things running with a few arbitrators in the mix, particularly since we don't have a good count of viable potential candidates. I would expect that we'll return to this question closer to the end of the year, once we have a better sense of how many subcommittees we need and how we can get them all to work smoothly.
  • (It's worth pointing out that a number of current arbitrators do not use their tools on a routine basis.) Kirill ^[pf] 23:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, it is unfortunate that the term "oversight" has been completely subverted in WP terms to mean something quite different from (a) its normal English meaning and (b) the meaning the developers intended it to have when it was introduced. Really, the "oversight" role does nothing more than that -- allow oversight of others' using HideRevision. But too late for that now.

Secondly, is it possible to further clarify the scope and remit of this of this body? (I say this obviously as an interested party in that I am both an oversighter (!) and a member of the cross-wiki body whose job is to look at breaches of the privacy policy, especially in relation to CheckUser.) I personally think that the constant elections the current Committee favours are irritating and unnecessary, but I understand that various newly-elected members see that as a central campaign promise... [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 23:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The remit of the subcommittee will essentially be to look at complaints about CU/OS use that currently go to the Committee (in the same way that the Ban Appeals Subcommittee looks at ban appeals). What exactly the subcommittee is going to do with these complaints will be covered by the procedures, but those won't be ready for another week or two. Is there something in particular you'd like to see described in detail?

As far as elections go, I'm hoping that we can coalesce all the various elections we're introducing into a single cycle next year, to avoid election burnout. Kirill ^[pf] 23:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm even less keen on the idea of consolidated elections -- but not enough to make a fuss about it. I can see it reducing general scrutiny, which is the major benefit of elections, by mere volume of candidates.

I would like it to be clarified what kinds of case the Subcommittee would look at (this is nebulously defined with the status quo ante, so it's not something missing from the proposal as something that needs clarification generally). Questions would include:

• Does the Subcommittee intend to investigate breaches of the privacy policy?
• If not, what will happen when a case involves, but is not limited to, a breach of the privacy policy?

The general question, therefore, is how the Subcommittee should act with regards to the Ombudsman Commission.

Thanks, as ever, for being willing and forthcoming in responding to questions/feedback, Kirill [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 00:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay; I'll make sure those points are covered in the procedures. Kirill ^[pf] 00:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I have one major concern, and one suggestion. The major concern is size of the subcommittee. During the review board/audit panel discussions, all of the discussion assumed either majority or unanimous votes, or some combination of the two. Even numbers are bad for majority votes, and groups larger than five, in my opinion, are bad for ever achieving unanimity. The suggestion is that the focus of the appointed group be on establishing internal procedures, standards of conduct, details, voting behaviors, and similar ground work, so when (the elections do come around, the community has a good idea what to elect for. This is somewhat analogous to a provisional government.--Tznkai (talk) 00:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

With regards to the size and votes, if the subcommittee is unable to decide, due to being even in number, the matter would likely be referred to the full committee. This is a feature rather than a bug ;-) One of the main task of the subcommittee will be to collate and assess evidence. Even if they dont make any decisions, they will be an enormous help if they only construct a well formulated body of evidence coupled with opinions for the Committee to review. I have also put forward an idea to have add an additional member to the sub-committee who only votes in a tie breaking situation. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It is worth giving some attention to how the subcommittee will operate, too -- even if the specifics are left until the subcommittee is formed. E.g. how will a request be made; is the investigation to be public; is the investigation to be publicly announced and privately decided; what "teeth" does the subcommittee have; etc. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 11:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, we're working on all of those (although many of the day-to-day details will probably be left to the subcommittee to determine themselves). Kirill ^[pf] 13:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Notification of injunction relating to West Bank - Judea and Samaria

Original announcement

User:Thekohser ban review?

Your opinions are noted, but this is not going in a helpful direction. Risker (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's hard to imagine it's anything but a big joke, and that's certainly how it's being discussed by him, but is ArbCom considering overturning a community ban on editing by User:Thekohser? If so, it was only today that he vandalized the Wikimedia New York City Meta page, and then tried to bully the editor (the President of WNYC, Inc.) who reverted his obviously inappropriate edit. The last time there was any discussion about unbanning Kohs, in August 2008, he remained a disruption that most people did not want to invite back. Any ArbCom notions of overturning the status quo would be a mistake. -->David Shankbone 22:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC) It's worth pointing out the above editor has a vested interest in the ban remaining. Should Kohs return and post constructively, it makes the off wiki vendetta conducted via his blog seem hopelessly one sided. The decision should be made solely upon the merits of any appeal, not the plea of somebody with an axe to grind. Minkythecat (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Thekohser has so many vendettas against so many Wikipedia editors, it's a little difficult to keep up with them all. Regardless, I've supplied some evidence of Kohs's inability to keep his personal crusades and antagonisms off Wiki. -->David Shankbone 14:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Maybe he has, maybe he hasn't. Regardless, should he appeal, Arbcom need to make the decision based upon any appeal, any supporting evidence to that appeal. I suspect any appeal will be turned down, regardless of the validity; if returning, I'm sure Kohs would also be targetted by some people who like poking a bear with a stick only to then whine when said bear bites their arm off. Political expediency would thus imply declining any appeal to be the political decision to make to avoid sanctioning prominent wikipedians. Minkythecat (talk) 14:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC) I'm sorry Minky, but your grammar is all over the place, so I wasn't clear on what you were trying to say; regardless, there's enough drama on-wiki without bringing off-wiki drama here; there's no community support to have him back; and he seems intent to troll on-wiki, such as with this account that trolled Jimmy Wales's talk page. -->David Shankbone 15:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC) One of us is confused as to who is bringing off-wiki drama to this section. Perhaps it is me: Could you clarify what the on-wiki reason for this section is? — the Sidhekin (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC) It's in the diffs. -->David Shankbone 15:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Relocation of arbitration pages

Original announcement

It looks a lot more confusing with all those redlinks... Many of the redlinks on the left-hand side are talk pages that either never existed or will be redirected on creation. Anyway, I want to raise three points here:

• (1) Centralisation of discussion (too much or just right?)
• (2) Merging clerks noticeboard into a talk page (differences between talk pages and noticeboards)
• (3) Moving Arbitration Enforcement from an administrators' noticeboard subpage to an Arbitration Committee subpage

I'll raise these in separate sections below for ease of discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 09:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Centralisation of discussion

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee (with active talk page)
• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks (with active talk page)
• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard (with active talk page)
• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests (with active talk page)

That is four active talk pages, probably more than enough to be going on with. There will still be the problem of people posting stuff to the arbitration noticeboard talk page that is off-topic. My view is that the scope of each of these four talk pages should be clearly defined, and clerks should help keep things in the right place. My other concern is that the amount of talk pages being redirected to WT:ARBCOM will overload that talk page. Currently, discussion of arbitration policy, discussion of arbitration enforcement, discussion of the guide to arbitration, discussion of arbitration procedures, and discussion of active sanctions, will all end up on WT:ARBCOM. It might be necessary to keep a close eye on WT:ARBCOM and archive the discussions thematically according to which 'page-that-has-a-talk-page-that-redirects-here' is being discussed, and to make sure things don't go too off-topic. Thoughts? Carcharoth (talk) 09:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Merging clerks noticeboard into a talk page

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Noticeboard merged to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks

The clerks noticeboard will get merged to the talk page of the clerks description page, thus making the talk page the noticeboard. This may be problematic, as talk pages and noticeboards are very different things. If this merge does take place, there should then be a notice directing people who want to talk about the general concept of clerks and what they should be doing, to another place - WT:ARBCOM? But in general, this may help tighten things up a bit. Do the clerks (and others) have strong opinions here? Carcharoth (talk) 09:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I would keep these separate for the sake of simplicity -- the noticeboard is for events, the talk page is for meta-discussion. While there is a benefit from having a single page to watch, I don't think it outweighs the need for a simple structure. WP:AC/CN is complex enough already. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 10:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the idea is a wholesale move. Directing discussion that would have been at the talk page of WP:AC/C elsewhere, and putting WP:AC/C/N on that talk page instead. If the noticeboard is kept, the talk page (Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Noticeboard) and its archives would likely be directed/moved elsewhere, to reduce the amount of side-discussion that gets missed. Another example of one of those obscure talk pages is Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks. Unless people are available to watch and follow disparate discussions, it becomes very fragmented. OK, I've been talking about centralisation of talk pages, not the proposed merger of the clerks noticeboard, but still, it seems sort of related. I agree that keeping WP:AC/C and WP:AC/C/N separate might be best (despite my support of the overall structural changes). The origins of the clerks noticeboard can be seen here, with an early version here (from January 2006). Carcharoth (talk) 11:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

As it stands, AC/CN has pretty much only the clerks activity on it, and its rather sparse at that. I think the move might be good so outside parties will find it easier to contact clerks and make requests.--Tznkai (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Moving Arbitration Enforcement

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement moved to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests/Enforcement

Someone needs to tell those active at Arbitration Enforcement that you are proposing to move that noticeboard across to a subpage of the Arbitration Committee, and a note at WP:AN would also be a good idea. I think the recent(-ish) RFC on arbitration enforcement did sort of say that this sort of thing might be a good idea, but this bit definitely needs wider discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 09:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless enforcement will primarily be by arbitrators and its delegates, I see no reason for a move - it is very much administrators who do the enforcement in most (though not all) cases. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Root Page?

It feels weird to me that Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee would be the root page. Surely the Committee descends from the Policy and not the other way around right? I'd suggest that a new page be created at Wikipedia:Arbitration (currently a redirect to ArbCom) to serve as both the root page and provide a high level overview / portal to the other pages. Dragons flight (talk) 03:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure that "descent" is a useful term here; the policy governs the activity of the Committee, but neither can really exist without the other. Of all the pages available, the main Committee page provides the most useful overview to what arbitration actually is and how it's conducted; I don't see the benefit of creating yet another (unmaintained) page merely to provide a different root.

We are, incidentally, working on a new navigation template for arbitration pages that will provide links to all of these items; that should eliminate the need for a dedicated portal, I think. Kirill ^[pf] 04:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) "... the main Committee page provides the most useful overview to what arbitration actually is and how it's conducted"? Personally, I don't think it actually is much good as an overview of arbitration or how it's conducted. By my count WP:ARBCOM has about 6 sentences explaining arbitration, before launching into Committee composition, history, and other functions. In my opinion, that intro is really too brief if it is to serve as the main introduction to the topic. I also don't see that page as a good navigational aid either, i.e. the traditional role of a root page in a complex hierarchy. More importantly, I don't think the Committee's page ought to have those roles. Arbitration is an important community process, and I'd argue that it ought to have its own plain language introduction page. Since you are reorganizing it also makes sense to make such a page be the root of your tree, but that isn't the only motivation. Dragons flight (talk) 04:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

So you are proposing, essentially:

• Wikipedia:Arbitration
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Committee
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

and so forth? Kirill ^[pf] 05:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. In general I'd put Case, Policy, Committee, Requests, etc. as subpages of Arbitration. One might argue that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Committee/Noticeboard is better than Wikipedia:Arbitration/Noticeboard or something like that in a couple cases, but as a general rule I'd think Arbitration makes a more logical root and place for introduction. Just my two cents, anyway. Dragons flight (talk) 05:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a neater solution than the one below, too. The Committee may have responsibilities beyond RFAR, but its role and duties are directly due to Arbitration Policy. Putting the committee on one root, and the policy that defines it as a subpage to a root that solely relates to RFAR cases, seems odd.

The alternatives seem to either be 3 roots (committee, policy, dispute cases) or one root (arbitration). Since all matters, RFAR and otherwise, are matters handled by the arbitration committee, grouping them under arbitration, even if not arbitration themselves, would have the advantage of simplicity. A user visiting a WP:ARB subpage would know beyond doubt this is the root for all matters to do with the arbitration committee, its cases, its other duties, its policy, and all things to do with the arbitration committee or arbitration generally. The root page would then outline these and provide pointers where to go for what. A visible "one stop shop" like this has distinct advantages over a multiple-root structure. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Another naming quirk (albeit a minor one) is that the Committee has responsibilities that extend beyond "arbitration" (such as appointing functionaries, etc.); so having everything under "arbitration" wouldn't really be accurate either. Kirill ^[pf] 04:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I do like this proposal. One added benefit is that it shortens the page names. We could retain "Arbitration Committee" as a separate root, under which other committee activities are placed. (e.g. the noticeboard) John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

So the final structure would be something like this:

• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee (with active talk page)
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks (with active talk page)
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard (with active talk page)
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures
• Wikipedia:Arbitration (with active talk page?)
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Active sanctions
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Case/CASENAME (multiple pages)
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index transcluding:
    1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases
    2. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests
    3. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions
    4. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests (with active talk page) transcluding:
    1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Appeal
    2. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case
    3. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification
    4. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

That could work, I suppose. The only drawback would be adding another talk page to watch (at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration); any way we could avoid that? Kirill ^[pf] 05:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

A protected redirect to a more suitable place for discussions would do the trick. — Coren ^(talk) 14:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It could be a feature to separate discussion about Arbitration from discussion about the committee. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. We'll need to put together a header template for the talk pages explaining what goes where. Kirill ^[pf] 03:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Motions

We also have two motions (Jack Merridew and SlimVirgin) to add into the restructure. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Motions should be located at whatever the spawning request is (appeal, clarification, etc.) in the future; I don't think we need to conform the new structure to everything that might have been done in the past. Kirill ^[pf] 14:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• I have no objections against moving such pages around for a solid naming convention, but care should be taken that existing links are pointed in the right direction and that existing Shortcuts are retained so old hands are not presented with an empty page when they try the shorthand they know. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Audit Subcommittee procedure, term lengths, and members

Original announcement

I might have missed it on an other noticeboard, but how will it articulate with Resolution:Access to nonpublic data? Will non-arbcom members get an unlimited access to the CU and OS logs, or will they have to request the relevant log snippets from the arbcom members (which would impede with their ability to broaden their investigation)? -- lucasbfr ^talk 07:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The non-arbcom members will need to be identified as part of their appointment, which will mean that they will have unrestricted access to review CU and OS information. The arbcom members may choose to withhold certain details that were sent to arbcom-l, but that would be a matter of discretion, IMO. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• When in doubt, create more bureaucracy. Sigh. Josephine Jellybean she has a bureaucracy machine. She can make anything spit red tape. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The pressing issue on wikipedia is how to create more elections. More elections means more politics, more politics means more drama. Drama is always to be encouraged. Don't be so boring.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

A major website built and operated by many thousands of people as this is, cannot avoid having questions from time to time about use of tools that aren't open to public review. A distinct review structure helps reaffirm scrutiny. We may not need it often, but it is needed, and it needs to include users who do not routinely use the tools (ie with a different perspective) to be more sure of being effective in that role. Above a certain size additional structure is needed - we could cut bureaucracy down by not having it, the cost would be that in various cases it might have helped, we don't have that capability readily to hand or users feel a doubt if their concern genuinely was examined; both are a rich source of problems and increase of drama. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• While an interesting analysis, it's worth noting that there's no effort anywhere on the project to reduce bureaucracy. Humans are very good at creating bureaucracy. We strongly seek what we perceive as order out of chaos. We do it in pattern matching with visual cues, for exmapel the ablitiy of the hmuan eye to raed txet that is spleled worng but bgeins and ends in the crorect lteter and has the same lnegth. When we see chaos, we attempt to add order to it. However, bureaucracy as a solution is but one possible way of managing solutions. In this particular case, we've developed a bloated bureaucracy to handle checkuser and oversight auditing. Yet, apparently no consideration has been given to other potential solutions to the problem. The question isn't how we handle an ever increasing number of checkusers, oversighters, checkuser and oversight actions and audits descending therefrom. The question is how do we develop a system whereby as the scale of the project increases the need for these actions remains constant, or failing that, minimal. If you answer that question, you do not need a bloated bureaucracy with elections, term limits, policies, procedures and God knows what else wrapped into it. Nobody's attempted to answer that question. Until some effort is made to answer that question, I would never accept (and neither should anyone else here!) a new bureaucracy here.
• Wikipedia is supposed to be lightweight. Anyone can edit. Introducing all manner of bureaucracy to manage this environment is a testament to the failure of the model, not the outcome of the model. Develop a better model.
• You defend the bureaucracy. I quote Laurence J. Peter, "Bureaucracy defends the status quo long past the time when the quo has lost its status". Also worth mentioning, and certainly more succinct then I have been, "The Bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the Expanding Bureaucracy".
• The system you have developed solves the problem of the system you have developed without fixing the system you have developed. Beer cans and bailing wire, but it will be defended to the last breath. Count on it. Bureaucracy serves itself. Within weeks, people will have cute little icons to stick in the upper right of their pages proudly showing that gosh gee willikers, they are part of the audit subcommittee! All tremble and bow before the almighty bureaucracy.
• Are we so entrapped by the enfeeblement of our minds that we can not imagine a solution that avoids bureaucracy? I challenge you to come up with a solution that doesn't create bureaucracy. You could at least try. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You had roughly 4 months to propose non-bureaucratic solutions to the question of how to review checkuser and oversight performance at Wikipedia talk:Review Board. Thatcher 18:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• And since I wasn't aware of the issue until now, I have no voice in the matter and am a non-person. Therefore, I'm just bitchin' and moanin' and can't do a damn thing about it. I understand. The opinions of people who aren't party to every shred of discussion on a debate do not matter. Blithely plod into the future! Onward Wikipedia soldiers... --Hammersoft (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
• You know, thinking about this for the last few minutes I really find the attitude above to be repulsive. It's like saying "You had the last five miles to help us avoid driving over the cliff". Wikipedia isn't some monolithic entity engaged in a hierarchical structure that is incapable of engaging in change without first running everything up to the highest power that be. I'm calling this bureaucracy a failed idea because, frankly, it is. My opinion has every bit as much weight as Jimbo Wales' opinion in this matter. I'm not suggesting you call a screeching halt to everything and consider what I have to say before moving forward. But, I do think it incredibly bad form to ignore perfectly valid opinions that could have a dramatic effect just because those opinions weren't expressed at a convenient time.
• Any bureaucracy that is created can be undone by the simple notion of not implementing it and choosing a different course. Don't be a slave to past decisions. Don't restrict yourself only to that which you know through conveniently timed discussions. You're better than that, and you know it. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I'm confused, Hammersoft. This is not a situation where the Arbitration Committee is creating bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. There have been concerns expressed about the use of restricted-access tools (checkuser and oversight) put forth by several Wikipedians. The Committee agrees that use of these tools needs greater review, because of the potential for improper use - review that requires committed time, a degree of knowledge, an above-average understanding of the policies involved. The Committee's decided to identify specific individuals and ask them to undertake this task. We think it is something that should remain in place once established. I realise that potential privacy violations aren't of equal concern to all users, but any that relate to the use of Checkuser or Oversight/revision hiding tools are on our plate to investigate. The logs of use of these tools are private by necessity (their public access would violate the WMF privacy policy), and so we cannot rely on the "many eyes" principle to ensure that everyone using the tools is doing so using best practices, or even consistent practices. Do you have an alternative solution that would help us ensure that best practices are being used by those who have access to privacy-related tools? Risker (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anyone is creating bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. Rather, bureaucracy is often the tool used by humans as we are good at creating it. Hammer, nail,...everything nail.

Ok, so there's concerns created about the use of the tools. Has there been any analysis of what those concerns are? If there's no analysis, then any answer designed to respond to those concerns has a decent chance of being a failure.

The committee agrees that greater review is needed. How did they achieve this agreement? Did they do it based on an analysis of the concerns voiced? If not, again, that agreement is potentially a failure.

Is there potential for improper use? Maybe. Has it happened? I don't know. Even if it has happened, maybe it's a one off event, unusual because of unrelated reasons. Everyone agrees that the New Madrid Seismic Zone is under very strong stress. We know for a fact that huge earthquakes have happened there in the past. Yet, are new buildings in metro areas within the zone required to adhere to earthquake survivability standards? No. If something has happened with abuse of the tools, there might be a better solution than creating a bureaucracy that will very likely feed itself. Create a review board, and guess what will happen? People will clamor for review.

You think it should remain in place once established. With all respect, this is naive. You have no idea of how it will work in practice. You have nothing to base that on. Yet, you've already decided this bureaucracy will remain in place permanently. Stunning.

Ever consider that the use of checkuser and oversight could be reduced by other means? There are other potential tools. Tools might even be developed that could potentially cap the need for checkuser and oversight. There are other solutions. Where is oversight used most? How is it used? What sorts of things have been removed by oversight? I realize this might be hard to tell, but some semblance of analysis of the problem must occur before you can begin to think of a solution. Is checkuser effective? How many socks has it uncovered vs. how often it is used? Is there maybe another way of detecting socks that can be done using other tools? What about detecting negative edits without having to checkuser? Perhaps the new abuse filters will have a dramatic impact on the number of checkusers even asked for. How many checkuser requests are misses? If nobody can point to any analysis of the problem, I have to call a spade a spade, and this bureaucracy is flawed reasoning.

What I'm seeing is an assumption that checkusering and oversight must be done at the rate it's happening, that there are no other tools, and since ArbCom is charged with reviewing their use that therefore they must review their use.

I have some ideas on how this could be handled. But any ideas I have are just as flimsily based as this notional bureaucracy is without the analysis of the problem being done. It's damned easy to create bureaucracy. It's not so easy to approach a problem with logical, reasoned decision making processes. Show me there is a real problem that can not be addressed without a bureaucracy. Right now, you can't because there's no problem analysis. After reading the archives of this page, it's no wonder most people disagree with this proposal. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You raise some interesting points here, but I don't think they weigh convincingly against the proposal. To answer your first few questions: that there has been abuse is an undeniable fact. There have been investigations by the Committee, both official and unofficial, and at least one resignation that I'm aware of. It is very important to remember that discussion an "analysis" of the sitaution is almost impossible except by those who have access to the necessary data to analyse, and the necessary fora in which to discuss without breaching the Foundation Privacy Policy. To expect to have seen a full and public copy of the discussion amongst the Committee that led to this conclusion is not realistic.

With regards your other points, I don't think any CU/OS would do anything but welcome anything that reduced the demand for CheckUser and Oversight activity. I remember, for instance, that a full third of all CheckUsers and Oversighters commented on the first FlaggedRevs poll, and that both groups were 100% in support in the final poll. I expect the result was similar for the more recent FlaggedRevs implementation. Equally, I am aware of close collaboration between Checkusers and Andrew Garrett, the lead developer of the AbuseFilter, to make that extension more effective at combatting vandalism that would otherwise require Checkuser intervention. Everyone wishes that that ideal world would come to pass where these two extensions are no longer required. I think most of us accept, however, that that utopia will never be found. Happy‑melon 22:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

There is also the issue that, as Risker notes, you have not in fact made any attempt to, in your own words, steer the car away from the cliff, only that the cliff is, in your opinion, there. To add my own slightly eccentric metaphor, we have come to the conclusion that we are being chased by some sort of mythical monster (the several recent, and legitimate, complaints over the use of CU/OS) from which we need to escape. Through a wide consultation with the community, it was concluded that the road we now travel is the best course of action. Is your contention that the problem/monster does not in fact exist, and that it is therefore not necessary for us to 'go' anywhere?? If so, I think you'll need to provide some powerful evidence for that assertion, as it flies in the face of recent events. If you accept that it is necessary to take action of some sort, then "just bitchin' and moanin'" about the action that is being taken is not the slightest bit of good to anyone. If you have a proposal for a road to travel that avoids both the monster and the cliff, then it is never too late to hear it, be it five miles or five metres from the 'edge'. But complaining that the proposed solution to a problem is not optimal, without providing a better solution (and thereby demonstrating its inferiority) is not particularly helpful. Happy‑melon 20:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The wide consultation with the community you speak of was several times referred to as rejecting this proposal. My contention is you haven't even looked at the rear view mirror or looked over your shoulder to try to figure out what the threat is. There's no analysis of this problem, and no other proposed solutions that I have seen except bureaucracy. I am not saying there is no problem. I am saying without an analysis of the problem you could just as well be running towards the monster as away from it. You've no idea which direction you're running in. And forgive me, but I will bitch and moan about a solution as much as I think productive when I find the basis on which that solution was made to be faulty, as appears to be the case here (unless of course you can point to some analysis of the problem that was performed that I'm unaware of). I do have potential proposals, but as I mentioned above, they are as equally invalid as this bureaucracy without any analysis of what the problem is. To continue the parable, a monster is noted, people run away, and the people running in the direction of bureaucracy are saying "Don't bitch! At least we're running!" My apologies for finding that to be hysterically irrational :) --Hammersoft (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

At least we are clear on one thing: RPGs are the solution to the world's communication problems :D I understand your position much more clearly with the application of a few judicious Final Fantasy characters :D I agree with you to a certain extent that we're not entirely sure which way we're running, but I would counter that the nature of the monster is that we don't know where it's coming from, and hence where we need to run to. By its very nature whatever audit process is instituted will not know in advance what tasks it will have to handle or whom it will be investigating, because if otherwise the abuses it is required to investigate wouldn't have happened.

However, in general terms there really isn't much flexibility in the nature of the process that needs to be created. It is a fact that abuses of the CU/OS permissions have occurred in the past that fell outside the remit of the Foundation Ombudsmen Commission, yet were severe enough to warrant investigation, and in some cases, resignation. It is a fact that the CU/OS process cannot be made any more publicly-viewable than it currently is. Therefore if you accept the premise that the current situation is unacceptable, then the only conclusion is that we must task some body, extant or new, with the duty of auditing the process on behalf of the wider community who cannot be allowed to audit the process themselves. Since the current situation includes the expectation that the CU/OS members will watch each other, and yet we have concluded that that situation is unacceptable, then there is no extant body that can fulfil that role, hence we require a new one. Everything henceforth is essentially semantics. This would seem to me to be the "analysis" you speak of. Or how is that argument flawed? Happy‑melon 21:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

On reading your response to Risker above, I'll accept that the argument above requires the additional premise that the legitimate use of CU/OS must continue essentially unaltered. I believe that this conclusion is valid, or at least that users without access to the CU/OS logs are in no position to make that judgement. Ironically, the Audit Committee itself would be best placed to investigate the veracity of this assumption. Happy‑melon 21:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a brief comment. Hammersoft is right to say that analysis is needed. I would suggest that this is one of the things the new body could do, or be asked to do. The potential of the abuse filter to change the way things are done is also true, but who watches those using the abuse filter? Carcharoth (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to respond to one element above. I hope I've seed planted, and really hope the conversation takes off in a great direction without more input from me. That might be wishful thinking in that I may have done a very poor job of expressing myself :) Anyways, the point I wish to address:

"the argument above requires the additional premise that the legitimate use of CU/OS must continue essentially unaltered. "

I don't accept that. I accept that certainly OS is needed, but maybe not as much as currently. I do not accept that CU is needed at all, if other tools are applied. Maybe we can come up with better solutions. Let's take one potential example. Let's say analysis shows that 95% of oversight happens on BLPs. A further analysis of this 95% shows that nearly 100% of the edits that need to be oversighted have been performed by accounts with under 100 edits. If that were the case, I could see things changing such that the abuse filter detects non-auto confirmed users (being moved to those with less than 100 edits and less than <timeframe>) attempting to edit an article in Category:Living people and stops the edit. Alternatively, since BLPs are highly problematic with regards to legal issues, I could see us changing protection of the BLPs so only administrators can edit them. We already proactively protect templates against vandalism from non-administrators. So, proactively protecting BLPs would not be unprecedented, and in this case there's even more motivation to do so. Vandalism is vandalism, but libel is serious. So, if this were the case the need for oversighters might fall off so much that it could be vested solely in the hands of the ArbCom. But, without analysis...we just don't know. As for the need for CU, I have high hopes for the abuse filters. If a vandal is a vandal, and is picked up by the abuse filters, does it matter it's a sock? I don't think so. Whether it's a mob of thousands of vandals or one vandal hitting thousands of times, the effect is the same; nothing. Blocking isn't the only tool in the quiver. CU really addresses easy cases. WP:SSP I think does a better job of detecting the hard cases. Plus, CU can readily get false positives. Plenty of people use Wikipedia from dynamic IP pools. Picking up all the accounts from a single IP and blocking them all isn't the best solution. The larger question in dealing with vandals isn't how to catch a *particular* vandal. It's how to go about reducing the opportunity to vandalize. The disease is the ability to vandalize. The symptom is vandals. Treat the disease, and the vandals (and therefore CU) become meaningless. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That's probably a discussion that should be somewhere else, but the problem with our preventive tools is the high amount of false positives. The community has a very low acceptance level for mistakes where users in good faith can't provide acceptable content (to take your example, say the subject of a BLP wants to remove libelous content). AbuseFilter is a step in the right direction to lower the need for CheckUser and OverSight. However there is a need to do post-mortem analysis of edits to detect abuse, and it needs a human eye (example). -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• A human eye doesn't require bureaucracy. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but having an outsider body being able to control OS and CU and try to put to rest concerns of abuse is a good thing (the ombudsmen can't deal with it). Whether this will succeed or not is an other matter, I think abuse conspiracy theories will never die. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• I still say analysis needs to be done, and before this bureaucracy is put in place. You could just as likely worsen the situation. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Appointments have been announced. If you have suggestions for analysis, you could talk directly to one or more of the appointed members and see what they think. They should, in theory, have more time to consider this than other arbs or editors following this thread. Carcharoth (talk) 02:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Another "We've already done this, so too late" response. Sigh. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Rather, "We have decided to do this after long internal and external discussion, and are not persuaded to halt the process by the last minute objections of someone who just heard about it, doesn't like it, and has already declared it a failure." I'm sure that if you have a better suggestion, people will listen. Thatcher 16:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• If an analysis was actually done regarding the problem, I might be able to provide a suggestion that was worth something. As is, EVERY suggestion, including the one being implemented, is worth as much as a wet pig foot. You don't have to drive over the cliff. It's a completely inadequate answer to say "Oh well. We're at warp speed now. We're making lots of progress, and I guess we'll just have to find out what happens when we drive off the cliff" You can't seriously believe that you're (ArbCom) that obtuse. No analysis = bad solution. You have an opportunity to correct this train wreck. The only time that train wreck can't be fixed is after it happens. I don't care how late in the process it is. That's an empty argument. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Once again, your argument would be highly convincing if it did not require us to make the blind assumption that the cliff of which you speak is actually there. We are not being obtuse, we are simply reluctant to pull an emergency stop and have to spend the next month getting up to speed again, merely because one person has made the apparently unsupported claim that there is imminent disaster in the direction we are headed. Happy‑melon 16:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree both with the assertion that no analysis is being done and that Thatcher is part of ArbCom. I seem to recall an essay, an election, and quite abit of discussion that included concerns about CU/OS oversight.--Tznkai (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me put it another way. You suggested above that we need to analyze the complaints more systematically. Fine, but how exactly do you go about doing that? Part of the problem is that checkuser occurs without an outside body looking over its shoulder. There is no one with the data, the time, and the mandate to do the analysis you suggest - until now. If AUSC had been, I dunno "working group the analyze the work of checkusers and oversighters, address concerns and to propose solutions" it would be exactly as bureaucratic.--Tznkai (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

One observation. Audit is not the same as "reviewing when complaints are made". It implies actively checking the work done, or sampling it in a periodic or methodical manner". No audit as such, is contemplated, if I understand the proposal? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The meaning of the word audit encompasses individual transactions as well as the broader review you describe. Since this is a delegation of Arbcom authority and is not exactly the same as the Review Board proposal, I suppose we should ask Arbcom if they have any opinions on scope. Personally, I am somewhat lazy by nature and don't foresee myself peering over the shoulders of the CU/OS team on a regular basis unless there was a very good reason to do so. Thatcher 16:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Some questions:

If some of these things haven't been contemplated (I'm sure most of them have been), what was the rationale behind announcing the subcommittee fait accompli and making it a permanent body? It often makes much more sense to put a time limit on new bureaucracy, a fixed point for review and reauthorization to discover if this new innovation makes sense or is performing to expectations. Nothing like that seems to have been implemented in this case, has it? Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 17:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The Ombudsman Commission is responsible to the WMF and has a very tight scope involving the privacy policy, and their scope involves multiple wikis. The Audit Subcommittee is limited to en-wiki, and has a larger scope involving local policies and standards.

As for the permanent subcommittee notion, remember that all of the ArbCom reforms, this one included are exactly as permanent as the committee wants them to be. The next formulation of the Committee could easily dispose of these structures by motion. I doubt they will, but its entirely possible. --Tznkai (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The Ombudsman Commission was not "reconceived and reconstituted" -- last year's members reached the end of their term and a new panel was appointed. Two more members were appointed this year in comparison to last year to avoid inactivity; that is the sole change. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 17:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Perhaps "reconstituted" is in a sense still correct, but I see that I was confused as to reconceived. My confusion comes from some comments by Michael Snow on the Foundation-l mailing list relating to reevaluating the commission and its effectiveness in response to concerns. I asked him if this might involve assigning the role to a WMF employee, and he acknowledged that this was a possible outcome among others. I'm not sure what has gone on with this behind the scenes (this exchange was in the first part of January), but I can see how it would be difficult to create a subcommittee that accomodated the future role of the commission if nothing more definitive has been determined. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 18:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if there have been such changes, I'm unaware of them. And, all in all, I hope I would be aware of them! [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 18:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

An attempt to answers some of Nathan's questions (subject to correction by others):

• The Audit subcommittee was instituted as an extension/delegation or ArbCom responsibility, and in that sense is different from the Review Board. Some of the feedback from the Review Board proposal was that we should take the bull by the horns and do something, as opposed to endless proposals, and that this was within our remit anyway. Hence this being a subcommittee, rather than a separate body.
• Extent of previous problems? I don't know. Possibly this new subcommittee will be able to help answer that.
• Membership selection: initially interim appointments and then by election (for the non-arbs); by volunteering (for the arbs).
• Arbs on the subcommittee have, as far as I know, agreed not to use the tools while they are on the subcommittee (6 months). I presume the same holds for non-arbs. Some of the details of this may still need to be worked out, as if no-one else is around to do oversight, use of that tool may be needed, followed by immediate review (for transparency). The revision suppression tool is reversible, so less problematic. Checkuser, actually running a check is something I think all have agreed not to do. All members of the subcommittee do, however, need to use the tools to view logs of oversight and checkuser actions and to verify what actions were taken. Also, arbs and non-arbs should have experience of using CU and OS. I believe Tznkai is the only current member who doesn't have direct experience (though that perspective is needed as well). Some arbs (including me) declined to volunteer precisely because they have little or no experience using the CU and OS tools.
• Permanent body because throwing together an ad-hoc body each time takes time. Also, a permanent body can be tasked with ongoing monitoring and auditing, if analysis of the activities suggest that is needed. One of the things urgently needed, for example, is a way to monitor how swiftly oversight requests are being dealt with, and to get more oversight people working the queue of requests, if that is needed.

Hope that answers some of the questions (again, subject to correction from others). Carcharoth (talk) 05:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Carcharoth for the responses. Nathan ^{T (formerly Avruch)} 14:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Notification of injunction relating to Macedonia 2

Original announcement

I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaimakchalan due to this injunction. After the arbcom case closes the AfD needs to be reopened, as my closure did nothing to resolve the problem it discusses. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Um... surely one should redirect to the other? That should have been a speedy keep no matter what, but I'm not sure what ArbCom wishes with respect to mergers like this. --NE2 11:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That article should never have been taken to AfD. It's a simple merger, nothing more. The only question is what title the content should reside at. Speaking personally, I would say merge to the title that was created first (conveniently the one that is claimed to be the correct transliteration), leave a redirect in the other location, and defer the decision as to which is the correct spelling until after the case. I'm also not entirely sure whether disputes over diacritics in titles is really part of this case. The ROM/FYROM/M dispute is about names, not spellings. Carcharoth (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

<sigh> Battle of Kajmakcalan uses yet another spelling. Carcharoth (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

A comment from the nominator later in the AfD makes clear that he/she was also not sure whether this should be part of the case, and wanted to be safe rather than just going ahead with the merge and being thought in violation. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I have merged the two under Kajmakčalan. This is not a politically disputed naming choice, has nothing to do with the country naming issue or any other conflict related to the Macedonia naming dispute, and should in no way be understood to be covered by the injunction. Okay, if there was a wiki-political issue of choosing between a Greek or Macedonian name form, it might be different, but that's not what the two name forms were. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you to the users for taking the appropriate actions. PMK1 (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Prem Rawat 2

Original announcement

"Dates" case and temporary injunction: likely timing?

I'm sorry to post an unusual request here, but the circumstances are unusual:

• the case is one of the largest ever (if not the largest), is prominent in the community, and involves a great number of editors as parties and associates; it comprises more than 150 thousand words (plus more than 50 thousand words of deleted and associated talk-page text) and has cost many thousands of hours of editorial time;
• the case has lasted for almost three and a half months, and relevant activity on the case pages petered out long ago;
• the temporary injunction against the unlinking of chronological items has lasted for almost three and a half months;
• the whole of MOSLINK remains locked;
• parts of MOSNUM are still locked.

Yet the process solutions (probably the long and the short of the behavioural solutions that concern the ArbCom case) are widely regarded to be at hand: the associated RFC has produced results that enable the community to move forward.

• In the case of date-fragments (years and month-days), the Clerk has inserted the two texts that gained landslide endorsements.
• In the case of date autoformatting, it is widely accepted that the next move is to run a bot to remove the remaining old coding (which piggybacks on the wikilinking system).

This way forward is frozen until ArbCom lifts the temporary injunction. Many editors are expressing their frustration that it is still in force more than a week after the extended RFC process, involving more than 500 editors.

I wonder whether the community can be given some kind of idea of when it should expect (1) the injunction to be lifted, and (2) the judgement of the case to come out. We look forward to a return to normal life on WP. Tony (talk) 09:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not closely involved with this case and can speak neither for the drafting arbitrator nor ArbCom but I imagine the delay is in assembling the applicable findings of fact. As you know, ArbCom's role in this is not to decide the merits of linking versus delinking but to examine the behaviour of individual editors during this longstanding dispute and put in place appropriate remedies. In a large case, this is a long and laborious task.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. However, we are left wondering why the injunction cannot be lifted. It is no longer applicable or useful in the light of community opinion, as expressed at the RfC. Tony (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Equally, the injunction only applies to automated delinking and there doesn't seem to any particularly pressing reason why this needs to be urgently resumed.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Tony, the drafting is complete, except for a few recent events that I am catching up on, and I'm reviewing it to ensure there are no further FoF that can be found. btw, the injunction should not affect normal editing. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your assumption of the "way forward" regarding date auto formatting. The community has not rejected the system, but rather come to a "no consensus" conclusion. That does not mean you demolish the existing system, it means you continue discussion to try and find something people can reach consensus on. You haven't done that. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, although I will delink articles if the community decides it is appropriate to let this issue die for now, I think just the high volume of interest due to the extremely wide ramifications this change represents should clearly represent a no consnsus vote. Just the fact that the vast majority of articles will need to be edited should cause us hesitation.--Kumioko (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Or…, the ArbCom can use this latest RfC as a showcase and paradigm to better define “consensus” so Wikipedia no longer suffers from paralysis of our own making and unending bickering. The concept of giving 0.03% of our readership (the very ones most keen on the issue of date formats no less) a special view of article content (autoformatting of dates) that the vast majority of our readership can’t see hadn’t been thought through well at all. I’d hazard a guess that the decision to do so was imposed upon Wikipedia by a developer over a very short period with little to no input from the community.

  This is similar to what happened with our most-unfortunate adoption of the use of “mebibyte (MiB)” and “kibibyte (KiB)” in computer-related articles. No other computer manufacturer or computer-related publication on this entire pale blue dot used such terminology when communicating to a general-interest audience. Even Wikipedia’s own edit summaries displaying the file size of our articles ignored the practice and continued to use the conventional terminology (e.g. “This page is 35 kilobytes long”).

  The decision that Wikipedia would adopt a proposal by a standards body (the IEC) that hadn’t yet been embraced by anyone else on this planet was based upon a 20:6:1 vote conducted over five days on WT:MOSNUM and was pushed through by a lead-proponent administrator without his ever posting RfC notices on our computer-related article talk pages that such a move was being contemplated. That admin admitted that no consensus had been achieved in that initial vote. Yet he and his cohorts demanded that a clear, overwhelming consensus was required to undo the practice. So it took three years and 16 “Binary” archives to undo that ill‑considered move.

  As we all know, our readership suffered for three long years. Our readership was horribly confused by reading “The XYX-9000 computer came stock with 512 mebibytes (MiB) of RAM…” and made Wikipedia look like it’s computer-related articles had been hijacked by a propeller-beanie crowd trying to get Wikipedia ready to join the United Federation of Planets.

  Now we’re here again, facing the same sort of arguments: “It was sooooo fun and sooooo easy to implement, but now it takes a really high hurdle to undo it.” We don’t have to submit to such logic. It appears there was no overwhelmingly large, well discussed, widely advertised series of RfCs and group discussion where hundreds of editors with diverse backgrounds and points of view arrived at a consensus to do autoformatting in the first place. Where is this discussion where someone said “coding [[2005-08-04]] is a great idea because—even though 99.97% of our readership (I.P. users) will see leading‑zero, all‑hyphen crud like 2005-08-04—bickering editors who come to Wikipedia all tall, wide, and handsome and Want It Their Way™®© will see *pretty* dates like 4 August 2005? Where is this widely discussed consensus that it is OK to give a privileged few pretty results and everyone else (the very people we’re really writing for) sees junk?

  We have now had an RfC that 1) had been fairly shepherded with arbitration oversight to ensure a lack of bias, 2) had been very widely advertised to solicit a wide diversity of expert input, and 3) there had been a large degree of input from the community. Whenever this three‑criteria test exists, a clear majority one way or another should be considered as sufficient to implement or unimplement something. Otherwise, issues can drag on (literally) forever. It’s time to add some specificity to the definition of “consensus” on Wikipedia so editors can get on with life for God’s sake. Greg L (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: With regards to this matter, can the Committee please ensure that if any automated removal of linked dates is proposed, the automated procedure is explicitly limited to perform only that task? In the past, the Lightmouse scripts used for removing date links have also been used concurrently to strip away links from other text, such as geographic and religious other terms. There is disagreement as to the second matter, and no consensus as to what constitutes a "common" term. As such, and given that the recent RfC was exclusively about dates, other operations should not be part of what would be a massive automated operation affecting most articles. (FYI, this comment is not in any way an endorsement of said removal.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Ckatz. You write There is disagreement [with regard to delinking geographic and religious terms]. Unless the practice is to make gold dust pour out of readers’ USB ports, there is always “disagreement” on practices. The litmus test for bot activity is whether it is properly implementing MOS and MOSNUM guidelines. I would imagine that the MOS guidelines regarding geographic and religious terms were properly drafted after the normal amount of discussion. Once again, perhaps it is time to slap a {disputed} tag on the portions of MOS with which you disagree. But it is unfortunate to see poor bot operators hung by their petards and ANIs filed against them every single time an editor somewhere feels righteous indignation about what a bot is doing.

  If, however, Lighmouse’s bot is performing edits that are contrary to MOS or are not addressed by MOS, then I agree with you. Greg L (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Response to CKatz: Lightbot has never removed geographical or religious terms. Nobody has ever proposed such a thing. Lightbot doesn't have authority to do that. I don't believe Lightmouse wants to do it. The monobook script has the option to remove multiple geographical terms if a human editor decides that is what they want to do. It is not Lightmouse's responsibility. The monobook script does not remove religious terms. Perhaps we are seeing an urban legend starting. Tony (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you Tony. I didn’t have the expertise to evaluate the truth of Ckatz’s allegation and operated on the assumption that it was based on fact. What I do have is a sense that we need to tweak many of our processes (conducting RfCs, interpreting RfCs, directing disaffected editors to the equivalent of WP:Sucks to be you. Deal with it in order to expediently get them out of the way, and conducting ArbComs) so fewer man‑centuries of editors’ time is spent bickering and more is spent on editing. Greg L (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Greg, it's not an "allegation" - and Tony1 really (really really) needs to read posts thoroughly before responding to them. I clearly stated " strip away links from other text", not "remove terms". ("Religious" was an honest error, but it does not change the point one bit.) The script Lightmouse (not Lightbot) created last year removes links from so-called "common" terms (currently, geographical and professional terms) in addition to the date delinking. The RfC dealt explicitly with the issue of dates, and as such any bot activity to mass-delink dates should only do that - nothing else. (As for the "common terms" section of the MoS, which was an undiscussed reversal of the MoS to begin with, there has been some discussion over the past while, but it has obviously taken a back seat to the dates matter. Again, my point is that any script addressing the Dates RfC should only deal with dates.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ckatz, I share your concerns and also ask that going forward from here any script used to address DA should be limited to only deal with dates. Bleakcomb (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, I agree with you, to a certain extent, Ckatz. During the ramp-up, where Lightmouse may be tweaking his bot, I agree we should consider restricting it to just date delinking—after Lightmouse has been closely consulted on the matter to ensure we’ve got a solid understanding of all the ramifications of doing so, including the workload on the guy. It is surprising just how sure some editors can be about what should and shouldn’t be done when they don’t really have a clear understanding of all the technical intricacies.

  I can see the virtue where it would leave articles in a better and less confusing state if editors can just hit the [undo] link and undo only date‑delinking actions. After the tweaking process and he’s ready to roll up his sleeves, Lightmouse shouldn’t have to come to Ckatz or Locke Cole to see if they are at peace with what his bot does—Locke may never be at peace with it. Lightmouse should merely have to look to MOS, MOSNUM, and their related pages for guidance on what his bot should be tackling (plus the regular venues on Wikipedia where bot activity is overseen).

  If our guideline as to what “common”’ items in What generally should be linked is in error or is unsuitably vague, please address the shortcomings there, Ckatz.

  I’m, uhh… touchy on this subject of bot‑operator-bashing because Locke used Wikilawyering to do an end‑run on the community’s will and halt the only practical mechanism to implement the MOSNUM guideline on delinking dates. Lightmouse, like the rest of us, is a volunteer and his services are valuable and greatly appreciated on Wikipedia. From what I’ve seen, he needs no help or counseling on how to listen to legitimate editor feedback when his bot dicks up; he quickly tweaks his bot and goes back to work. Where Lightmouse does need help is when he gets dragged kicking & screaming into ANI’s and ArbComs, with jewel-like proposals such as “Lightmouse is barred for six months from constructing, designing, or advocating bots to enforce any portion of WP:MOS or its subpages.” Seeing that sort of crap even suggested about a valued and prolific editor really pissed me off. If I’m tired of seeing all the attempted gang rapes of Lightmouse in the showers, he must be sick to death of them. Greg L (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Well, there's no "bot-operator-bashing" on my part; Lightmouse is mentioned only because it's his script, and that's how everyone refers to it. The point remains, however, that any script-based implementation of an ArbCom decision should only address that decision; any other changes should be kept completely separate. That way, ArbCom-sanctioned edits are isolated from other edits, which helps to reduce disputes and reverts. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with many of the above that the injunction needs to be lifted ASAP. We've got a lot of work to do removing links from this list in preparation for turning off dynamic dates. At present, that's the only thing that will be done using a bot. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Ryan, the community rejected date links, but not date auto formatting. Removing the one removes the other, so really, now is not the time to lift the injunction or begin automated removal of the markup around dates. I've proposed a better alternative on your talk page and will now do so here: ask the devs to turn off links to date articles when marked up. This is simpler; it leaves the auto formatting (which has not been rejected) and removes the date links without the need for bots to clutter editors watchlists with unnecessary edits. Further, if auto formatting can be fixed, I'd hate to have to run through the articles again to re-markup dates. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Well… you are just all over the place with your “I object to the verdict” message, aren’t you Locke? Ryan’s answer to your duplicate post is here. The verdict is that the community certainly did to reject autoformatting. But you aren’t going to accept that verdict, are you? Your suggestion otherwise amounts to “the clear majority doesn’t want autoformatting but since the majority isn’t great enough to satisfy me, the logical next step is to ask the community what kind of autoformatting it ought to have that it doesn’t want.” (*sound of game-show “wrong answer” buzzer)*

  As to your if auto formatting can be fixed-comment, save your keyboard the wear. The community rejected the entire broad principle of autoformatting (the “generalities”—as you wanted it); there is nothing to fix. For God’s sake, give it up. Greg L (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• There's been no "verdict". There is no consensus on the matter of date auto formatting, and taking a "throw the baby out with the bathwater" view is unhelpful to reaching a consensus. From WP:CON; Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and their (strict) logic may outweigh the "logic" (point of view) of the majority. New users who are not yet familiar with consensus should realize that polls (if held) are often more likely to be the start of a discussion rather than the end of one. Editors decide outcomes during discussion.. Read that carefully and maybe you'll start to understand that a majority supporting a poor argument doesn't a consensus make. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• I see. It’s not strictly numbers. Silly me. Indeed, as we had been saying during the dispute over the IEC prefixes (mebibyte v.s. megabyte), the logic of arguments is every bit as important as shear numbers when determining consensus. I agree. A thousand pardons. Golly then… you should make the arbitrators and Ryan aware of this as they seem clueless on this news. Well then… I guess it is now incumbent upon you to prove to the arbitrators how your arguments have an inescapable logic or Universal Truth™®© that trumps the silly, silly, illogical arguments of the majority who think that even registered editors should see precisely the same content that we make I.P. users see and that date formats just isn’t worth all the damned fuss. I’ll sit back and watch as you pull that one off. (*sound of popcorn being munched*) Greg L (talk) 02:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Greg, and everyone else pushing for their "solution", go discuss this elsewhere; better yet, go do something else like fix BLPs. This noticeboard is for discussing notices from the committee. If you must discuss this, please do it on the talk page of the proposed decision. Thank you. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• Sure. Fine. What are BLPs? Biographies of living persons. Not my area of expertise (but I get your point nevertheless). Greg L (talk) 03:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:UBLP - no experience reqd. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ryan, the proposed decision affects the people already involved in this dispute, and covers any users who might wish to become involved in implementing the "solution". We will be expecting high standards from anyone who wants to be involved in this issue going forward, and the injunction wont be lifted until those remedies, and enforcement, is decided upon. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

May I ask how long that will take to be decided? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Refer to my earlier comment in this thread. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I saw that, but there was no associated timeframe. Is it safe to assume 7–10 days? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

That will be a reasonable timeframe for the proposed decision to be published; it may take longer for the arbs to decide. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Has there been any movement on this? – Quadell ^(talk) 20:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Case milestones on the agenda

Original announcement

While commitment to deadlines is to be admired, especially after the delays of last year, might this not put a strain on the Committee to rush things in certain cases? Are you going to give yourselves leeway when new information comes to light in the late stages of cases? Skomorokh 02:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes; the milestones on the agenda can be (and regularly are) changed if new circumstances arise. We'll try to stick with the listed dates in the absence of a good reason to slip them, though. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That seems prudent, thanks for the swift response. Skomorokh 02:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Procedure for temporary removal of permissions

Original announcement

Since it doesn't forbid individual users from asking a steward, this is mostly a moot point, but isn't the "Level I" procedure pretty much the same thing that the community registered a rather clear disapproval of a couple months ago? Mr.Z-man 01:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

More or less, although there are a number of other changes we made based on feedback there (i.e. mandating that a case be opened if we don't return the permissions automatically). Much of the disapproval was, I think, due to the perception that we were interfering with the stewards and their handling of emergencies; we've tried to make it clear, here, that this procedure is merely a description of how the Committee will decide on authorizing something, and has no impact on anything outside our internal communications. Kirill ^[pf] 01:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I remember suggesting back then that mere cosmetic alterations would resolve objections to that section. No one disapproved of that idea at the time, even when I repeated it. I don't think the clear disapproval was quite what Mr Z-man thinks it was. Personally I think the announcement resolves several of the original objections raised and shows Arbcom incorporating feedback from the community.--BirgitteSB 02:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Interim appointments to the Audit Subcommittee

Original announcement

(While I honestly understand that we do, but still...) - Do we really need to have elections in this case? Those three look great to me. - jc37 01:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This team will only be the initial team. At least one of the non-arb members have said they only wish to be a member of this interim committee. It is up to the community to decide when to hold elections, but I expect the community will let the current team get it off the ground before replacing them. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. You actually explained some things I might've wondered, if I had given it more thought : )

My initial post was mostly a case of: "(Picks my teeth/jaw up off the floor) - We get those as a team for, well, really, for anything? Wow." : ) - jc37 01:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

For now, I have agreed to serve on the interim committee but I probably won't stand for election. That may change, of course, but for now I feel more comfortable with a limited role. Thatcher 02:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, speaking at least for myself, I'm glad you're offering to help in whatever way you feel confortable. Thanks : )

As an aside (to no one in particular), I suppose I should mention that my comments were mostly about the first two. Though only because I'm not sure I remember ever seeing User:Tznkai. - jc37 02:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like progress is being made on a previously unaddressed (or not adequately addressed) issue. Good work, again, Committee. Cla68 (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent choices, in my opinion. I agree with Jc37 above, actually - I wouldn't mind them being longer term. Just my opinion. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic choices for a supervisory and policing role of this nature. rootology (C)(T) 03:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Great choices, just remember to pick a snappy name for your mailing list and a good acronym for requests pages, WP:AUSC sounds too Australian. MBisanz ^talk 03:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This is no reflection or reference to anyone anywhere (obviously), but when I saw that acronym, I thought immediately of Auschwitz... - jc37 03:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest something a bit easier to get at first glance, WP:AUDSUB? -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 12:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I presume the Arbitration Committee intends to have Tznkai identify to the Foundation before he can assume any practical role as a member of this subcommittee. Daniel (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent appointments. Thanks for volunteering, Mackensen, Thatcher and Tznkai, and good luck! [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 07:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I fully support the selection, but can I ask how it was made? How did the committee come to find those three volunteers? Happy‑melon 16:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

They know us and trust us so they asked us. The appointments are only until elections are held. Thatcher 18:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll add that all three had expressed an interest in this area; Mackensen is a former WMF ombudsman, Thatcher has written on the subject and participated in discussion of the earlier proposal, and Tznkai had been active in the discussion of the earlier proposal as well. Risker (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Revised plan for relocating arbitration pages

Original announcement

• For WP:RFAR and Index pages, might I suggest not moving the pages to the new title and just redirecting the page to preserve the history? I think RFAR has about 50,000 edits and moving them to a new title would probably break a good number of history links both on and off wiki. MBisanz ^talk 02:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • AFAIK, any link which uses revision numbers (which should be the overwhelming majority of diff and history links) continues to work properly even if the underlying page is moved, so I don't think this will be a significant problem in practice. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 02:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Hmm, ok, that should be fine, but there are about 40 redirects to each of the main Arb pages, so those should be targeted to prevent double redirects. MBisanz ^talk 03:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• Active sanctions - what is meant by this? Regardless, paperwork at WP:Editing restrictions and WP:General sanctions will need to be filled out - so if it's a mere duplicate, I don't consider it useful. This is especially so with regards to a central location for all sanctions being listed - inclusive of community measures. I would find it inappropriate to attempt to make the community list its sanctions in an arbitration location, or, for these community and arb measures to be listed distinctly (it's the one place that has an absolute need to be central, so any administrator can check if any given sanction is active or not). Superseding items, etc. will no doubt be missed. I'd seen comments regarding WP:AE and its relevant proposal in more than one venue, but I have seen little or no community discussion on this - can someone please link me to it? Thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Given the lack of any other comments on the matter since we've put the original plan up for discussion, I would have to say that your concern about community sanctions being listed on an "arbitration" page isn't widely shared.

Having said that, if you have some reasonable alternative location in mind (e.g. Wikipedia:Active sanctions), please suggest it. The precise location of that page isn't the driving factor behind the move; the main intent is to combine the three pages currently tracking sanctions into a single page. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 14:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I think inviting community input on this particular issue would be helpful in determining if your conclusion was actually in line with others views....

I've only specified 2 pages; what was the third page you are referring to in terms of the proposed merge? WP:Active sanctions would've been my suggestion for that end; though if I can find a better name, will suggest it in due course. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposals_on_logging_active_sanctions for community views. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The third page is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested; it's the most useless of the three, since it's redundant to both the sanction lists and the normal closure announcements. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 04:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that page is more like AE though (except it's Committee requests rather than community requests) - I've never thought of it as falling in the same category as the other two pages. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser usage statistics

Announcement

• Just a note, glancing at the numbers. 1 log item != 1 investigation, a typical sockpuppetry case takes between 2 and 20 checks (I average at 6 checks per investigation). -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Ireland Collaboration: Stepping down as moderator

I am sorry to inform you that I will resign as a moderator of WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. I have failed to provide any usefull contributions as such, and find myself unable to assign any more time and effort. The two main reason being that 1) I have no experience in such a big mediation, and accepting the task has been a mistake. 2) I have been involved in a dispute of my own that is consuming all my attention, making it impossible for me to focus on any other task that requires a long-span attention. — Edokter • Talk • 22:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I've also resigned. Consequently, 3 new moderators are required. PhilKnight (talk) 22:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Updated procedure for handling incoming mail

Original announcement

Access to CheckUser and Oversight

Motion

Who does this affect? I see that there are only five users who have no Checkuser activity in the last six months; two of whom are devs. Are the devs included in this motion? What are the parallel results for Oversight? Is the new RevDeleted method considered equivalent to old-style HideRevision? More detail needed, please. Happy‑melon 12:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The developers are beyond the scope of the Arbitration Committee, so I dont think they were implied in this motion. For oversight, RevDeleted actions in response to requests to oversight-l would definitely count, especially if those actions had "Suppress data from administrators as well as others" enabled. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC) minor update. 13:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• FYI. The users who had no Checkuser and no Oversight activity were notified of the this new policy and given the option of voluntarily requesting that their OS and CU bit be removed instead of having it revoked by this policy. We are in the process of forming a list of people with oversight access alone that need to be contacted because they have no or very limited use of the tool for the past year. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

For checkuser, the affected users are The Epopt, Redux, and UninvitedCompany. Oversight stats are being compiled. Thatcher 14:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for comments on content dispute resolution

Original announcement

West Bank - Judea and Samaria

Original announcement

I'd like a clarification of the scope of the "any Arab-Israeli conflict-related article/talk page". Specifically, would it apply to articles such as Talk:The Independent, where within hours of the topic ban going into effect, one of the banned parties has jumped into a Talk page discussion about a front page of the paper which has become controversial in the context of the Arab/Israeli conflict. NoCal100 (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

An analogy is the way that the biographies of living persons policy applies to articles. That policy can apply to an article that is directly about a living person, but it also applies to those parts of other articles that are about a living person or people (though not the rest of the article). --bainer (talk) 14:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Given that ArbCom has specified that the remedies will be enforced by blocks, I'd appreciate a straight answer that addresses my specific question , rather than a vague "it can apply". NoCal100 (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment:

I think the question is in regards to Nickhh who's ignoring his recent sanction[1] while making bad faith suggestions.[2] The discussion is about content where The Independent libeled Israel of using "Secret Uranium weapons" and failed to make a retraction once it were clear - even among anti-Israel circles -- that they got the story wrong. As to the value of the content in the article, Nickhh has been sanctioned to no longer discuss Israel-related matters and this issue fits that bill.

Cordially, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The area of conflict includes. "as well as any edits on the subject of the Palestine/Israel dispute on any other article or talk page, or any other page throughout the project." Basically, the sanctioned people need to find something else to do and stay the hell away from I-P matters wherever they may appear. I'm going to warn him, report further problems to WP:AE.Thatcher 16:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

He should be warned, the warning noted, and then blocked if it happens again--the same for all the sanctioned parties. I left Nick a warning. rootology (C)(T)

To make the counterpoint, is there a place on Wikipedia where one should be allowed to be disruptive by continuing this dispute? To attempt to push this off on articles which are not specifically part of the Arab/Israeli sphere seems like gaming the system to me... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the question, I don't think. My reading of the sanctions is they can't even discuss/participate in the topic area broadly construed in any form anywhere on-wiki. Be it Talk:Main Page, or anywhere else, short of this page, Arbitration Enforcement, or WP:RFAR and it's sub pages. They're all persona non grata in anything else under threat of ban. rootology (C)(T) 16:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The sanctioned editors can't write about the I-P conflict anywhere on Wikipedia, period. For example, they are free to write about pop music stars, but if they want to mention that the pop start participated in a protest about the I-P conflict, that is a violation of the topic ban. It is, as far as I can tell, a total topic ban in every meaningful sense of the word. Thatcher 16:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about a British newspaper. The topic of the more specific issue I was commenting on was a front page in that newspaper, regarding the 2006 war in Lebanon. I was engaged in that discussion for over a month, as can be seen from this section here. Following that comment I built up the entire section about the newspaper's front pages with this series of edits. Contrary to NoCal100's assertion here, I did not "jump in" within hours of the ArbCom decision. As for the words that have been quoted on my talk page, and to note a similar precedent -

• The Independent page is quite clearly not, of itself, part of "the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles"
• Nor was the specific topic within that page "on the subject of the Palestine/Israel dispute"
• When I was involved in a similar content dispute on Reactions to the September 11 attacks, relating to the use of a Palestinian cartoon on that page that supposedly celebrated the attacks, I was specifically told by User:Elonka that this was not an issue covered by WP:ARBPIA, which is being used of course as the template for how far the issue is viewed as reaching.

I long took every I-P page proper off my watchlist (way before the ArbCom ruling). And you know, I did think about this before making the latest in a series of comments there, and was pretty confident, per the above that there was not a problem. On top of that, in order to avoid taking on another edit war anyway, I simply posted a comment, repeating an earlier request for an explanation. Are we seriously now saying that editors - one of whom btw way was a "semi-involved party" to the ArbCom case - can effectively shunt me or anyone else named in that case off any page, if they start filling it with wholly irrelevant content that might in turn vaguely be said to have some connection to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? And do you really think that it was a coincidence that Jaakobou, having waited a week, returned within hours of the ArbCom ruling to revert the page back to his preferred version? I'm not "pushing this [dispute] off" onto other pages, I was trying to do precisely the opposite - as I have been on this page for some time - and make sure that the page wasn't taken over by material relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Which it shouldn't be. I'm not sure I'm the one exploiting or gaming an ArbCom ruling here. --Nickhh (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom have defined an "area of conflict", as including "any edits on the subject of the Palestine/Israel dispute... on any page throughout the project". ArbCom have issued a binding remedy that "Nickhh... is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict, commenting on any talk page attached to such an article, or participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles." Are ArbCom saying that you are shut out of any page or discussion that might "vaguely be said to have some connection to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict"?? Yes, they are. No, this is not fair. Life is not fair. If you had not put yourself in the position of invoking an ArbCom ruling against you, there would be nothing for anyone to exploit. Happy‑melon 21:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The issue on the Independent page is nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as I noted above. And the ArbCom ruling is draconian enough as it is in terms of the way it pretty much scooped up anyone who had ever reverted more than about four times in four months on one or two pages, without it also being enforced in areas it doesn't even mention. I'm not complaining about "life" being "unfair". Nor am I three years old, thank you. --Nickhh (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the issue is that the ban does not focus on the locus of the comments but on the nature of the comments. You are not banned from using the talk pages of specific articles, you are banned from discussing certain topics ANYWHERE at Wikipedia, as evident from the text of the decision, cited at the top of this thread, where it states that you "are prohibited from editing any Arab-Israeli conflict-related article/talk page or discussing on the dispute anywhere else on the project." (emphasis mine). The actual arbcom case also states "For the purposes of editing restrictions in this case, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as it was defined in the Palestine-Israel articles case, encompassing the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted, as well as any edits on the subject of the Palestine/Israel dispute on any other article or talk page, or any other page throughout the project." (emphasis mine). It is clear that the restrictions are not placed on certain articles, but rather on discussing certain topics. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly correct. You cannot discuss the topics anywhere on WP, which includes commenting on any page related to the topic. But FYI: "the 'area of conflict' shall be defined as it was defined in the Palestine-Israel articles case" (from here). hmwithτ 04:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yup, and the precise wording at 1.1 is "the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted, as well as any edits on the subject of the Palestine/Israel dispute on any other article or talk page, or any other page throughout the project." Now, as I keep pointing out, the issue at hand on the Independent page is not about "the Palestine/Israel dispute". It's arguably not even substantively about Lebanon (and hence the Arab-Israeli dispute more generally) per se, it's about what the Independent put on its front page one day in 2006 and whether that is significant enough for that front page to be splashed across the article, with full commentary on it from marginal, fringe partisan groups. As I have also pointed out, previously and in respect of WP:ARBPIA, topics more generally were not necessarily included under that umbrella simply because they were happened to involve Palestinians or Israel. If someone on ArbCom wants to change or reverse either of those points respectively, could they perhaps redraft the decision, or whatever exciting pseudo-legal procedure would be required? Thank you. --Nickhh (talk) 08:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Or, you can edit in areas where you think the restrictions do not apply and accept that you might be banned because you got it wrong. You have had several people advise you that you are in violation of the restriction, yet you seem to wish to argue that it is a newspaper headline that is the subject of conversation - yet what does that headline proclaim? That Israel used "secret uranium weapons" in the 2006 Lebanon war - which were later found to be not the case. How much closer do you wish to go on the question of whether Israel has or has not acted illegally in regard to the question of its presence on the West Bank, than to question how the state has been treated in the alleged illegal use of weapons in a related matter? It is obvious to an outside viewer, such as me, that "broadly construed" is a terminology that address any matter that may be considered as being relational to the subject of the ban, and that a subject like one newspapers disputed use of a headline regarding had Israel used illegal weapons in its wars will attract precisely the same pov groupings as are subject to these restrictions. I should think the fact that there is this discussion is proof enough. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Nickhh, Consensus interpretation appears that your edits on the Independent page violate the ban. If you want to clarify it, please open a motion for clarification, but to put it even simply: the wording in the RFAR as all of us--but not you--appear to be taking it is that the restricted parties are unwelcome at this time editing anything even vaguely related to the conflict, such as this circumstance. No back doors will be allowed. For example, you could drive a synagogue or mosque article to FA status--but if one section of the article touches on the I/P conflict, you could not edit that section or even comment on it. You could edit an article about the global financial crisis, but not in any way related (even by allusion) the I/P conflict. In short, once you brush up against I/P even vaguely, you're up against the topic ban. The ultimate meaning of it appears to be that the community who were not participants in the conflict and the committee are tired of the fighting, so all the sanctioned editors have lost the priviledge of making such edits. I'm leaving my warning up on you, as there appears to be support for it. rootology (C)(T) 13:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I.e. Nickhh, as User:Tundrabuggy argued in pursuit of User:ChrisO toPersian history, things like the Cyrus Cylinder refer to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, because his edict just may have influenced the rebuilding of Jerusalem which is a bone of contention in the I/P area. By this logic, if you have mathematical interests, keep away from editing anywhere near Robert Aumann, or the many articles on theories his work touches on; if you have musical interests, steer clear of Zubin Mehta or Daniel Barenboim, who has a Palestinian passport, or Richard Wagner, who was an antisemite; if you love archeology don't be tempted to deal with the Middle East or Biblical history, after all Israel Finkelstein's interpretation of excavation data could be said to have political reflexes in interpreting settler ideology, and the status of Jerusalem's City of David; if you are classically minded, stay away from Plato, because Moses Hadas said his thought influenced Rabbinical Judaism, which in turn influences some West Bank settlers, according to Israel Shahak; and keep off Aristotle because he influenced Moses Maimonides who in turn influenced settler interpretations of halakha; don’t edit anything on Christianity or Jesus-related articles. If you have an interest in physics, stay clear of the Einstein page, because he criticized Begin; if psychoanalysis is a minor hobby, don't edit Freud, for he wrote a negative note on Zionism to Dr. Chaim Koffler. If literature is your love, stay off authors like Philip Roth , because his Operation Shylock deals with the conflict. Better not edit any articles dealing with the press, because the press often carries articles on the conflict. However you may edit The Times, The Washington Post, Le Monde, Toronto Star, El País, Mainichi Shimbun, Die Zeit, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and the Los Angeles Times but not The Guardian, The Sun nor The New York Times. If you are interested in politics you may edit the Margaret Thatcher page but not the Tony Blair page, or in the US case, you may edit the Gerald Ford page, and the John Fitzgerald Kennedy page, but must not touch the pages dealing with Harry S.Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama. Charles de Gaulle is off limits, as is Nicolas Sarkozy and Jacques Chirac but you may edit François Mitterand. I suggest you stick to the ex-Soviet area: Mikhail Gorbachev, Vladimir Putin and Boris Yeltsin look like they are free of suspicion.

I suggest therefore you look around to innocent areas, say Ornithology, and, no, hang on, even there you'd better be careful, on second thought. Well, stay off editing the article on the Bearded Vulture. It is called Peres in Hebrew.Nishidani (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

nope - putin is out. he says hamas isn't a terrorist organization [3], a fact which is being edit warred out as apologia by several pov pushers on the hamas page. or is he a "true friend of Israel" as Sharon said? either way, he has mentioned israel and/or hamas before, so he's out-of-bounds. this is almost farcical. untwirl(talk) 15:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is. When editors prove incapable of working within sensible bounds, insensible bounds are introduced. No one is claiming that these restrictions are fair, only that they are necessary. Happy‑melon 15:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

'Insensible' means 'imperceptible', 'unintelligible', 'unconscious', 'indifferent', 'callous, apathetic', 'destitute of sense'. In calling (and approving of) Arbcom's new bounds 'insensible', which of these several senses, attested by the OED, are you referring to?Nishidani (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"callous, apathetic" sounds the most appropriate; "indifferent" to the extent that they disregard the effect of the restrictions on the sanctioned users. Happy‑melon 17:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

(A general comment) As I mentioned earlier: "Topic bans have the unfortunate tendency of pushing banned writers to the fringe of the topic, where they are editing articles with lower visibility. Expect edits on Arab/Israeli activists, fictional characters, politicians who've taken money from particular lobby, obscure historical articles if they are not topic banned. No matter how broad the topic ban, articles that have some sort of ancillary relation will be targeted, often as some sort of taunting measure. This is part of the importance of keeping the topic broad, and to all edits, not articles." As Happy mellon said, it sucks. Live with it.--Tznkai (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The Independent article section that Nickhh and NoCal talk about is a pretty clear fit, to my way of thinking. But Nishidani posted some articles that I think most people would agree are rather far fetched-ly connected to the IP topic ban. But some people might not. I support it being broad. But I hope this topic ban is applied evenly... no, I will be among those watching to see that it is applied evenly. ++Lar: t/c 16:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Lar. I've left, so you won't have problems with me but I would just like to remind those implementing these decisions that 'commonsense' was a part of a resolution. Who would have cared, or noticed, what Nickhh argued on the Independent page, a page in itself that has nothing to do with the I/P area? (Are all wiki articles newspapers now open to edits by nationalists to plunk in their version of the 'Israel' factor (the Serb (Kosovo misrepresented), Russian, Chinese, Arab, innumerable claims of misrepresentation in newspapers are made, many of them true)? The sooner that bedevilled country is 'normalized' instead of being endlessly dragged into everything, the better for everyone, especially Israelis. Are the banned editors, and their allies, now cordially invited to snoop about daily through their adversaries contribs., and denounce them? It would be wise to caution, in these incidents, not only those who may be breaching the rulings, but anyone who consistently runs about checking logs to grass on those whom they appear to consider adversaries. Are idiots going to hunt Jayjg if he works on synagogues, updating say Beth Elohim, a splendid page he wrote, with the information that its rabbi invited Rashid Khalidi to speak there? I think the only intelligent thing here is to leave wiki, and see if things improve. I strongly dislike the finicky scalp-hunting game apparently underway in trifles like this. Regards Nishidani (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Untwirl. I'm only dealing with wiki pages.Nishidani (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Picking up on various points ..

• No one has yet explained how a front page about Lebanon can be said to be an issue that falls under the heading "Israeli-Palestinian conflict", other than simply to assert that it's kind of related, maybe, somehow (which it is - that doesn't though mean that it is the same thing). The Arb in ArbCom refers to Arbitration, I thought, not to Arbitrary
• Beyond that, the issue is not as well whether the report was true, whether it would be an outrage if such weapons had been used etc. It was about whether singling this report out (it could have been, as Nishidani suggests, some report or other on the Sri Lanka-LTTE war, or even on scientology) is appropriate for the Independent page
• I'm not sure about accusations that I am "incapable of working within sensible bounds", seems a bit of a broad and unfounded accusation.
• The suggestion that I am "targeting" the article as some kind of "taunt", or in a bid to carry on some kind of meaningless broader fight, but hoping to do it under the radar, is totally out of order. If, again, you actually followed the reasoning and diffs provided, you would have seen that I had been involved on this page, and on this particular issue for a while, some time after I ditched I-P editing pretty much altogether. That's because I don't see it as being part of the I-P debate, but do see it as pretty shoddy content for an so-called encyclopedia. Plus see the point below
• Since being warned, and since the assertions referred to above have piled up (with some dissenting voices, thank you for those), I haven't touched the page, since I have actually taken on board what has been said. I think those of you claiming it is covered have utterly failed to prove it logically or rationally, but it's hardly a debate I'm going to win in this Lord of the Flies world

Finally, can I make the point that those expressing outrage at my presumption to interpret a "ruling" through the medium of the actual words contained in it, are all just a bunch of guys and girls with laptops, playing around on an increasingly risible and compromised website. And those of you directly involved in ArbCom are not the Supreme Court of the United States or the International Criminal Court, which is further evidenced by the fact that you've made a pig's ear of protecting this place from nationalist and ideological editing (have a look round the editors who weren't scooped up in this ruling, and what they're up to now), and furthermore can't even draft an accurate and clear form of words to express what you are now claiming is the real intent, as vaguely asserted, of that ruling. Get over yourselves. --Nickhh (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Whether or not Israel used "secret uranium" in the war in Lebanon with Hezbollah is pretty clearly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you win a prize. Now, read again what the decision said, as I've already noted above (people really don't read anything anymore, do they?) - the precise wording at 1.1 is "the entire set of Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted, as well as any edits on the subject of the Palestine/Israel dispute on any other article or talk page, or any other page throughout the project." I also note that you have followed your recent talk page claims that a Jewish academic is a holocaust denier with edit-warring on The Independent page against three editors now. You are just the sort of editor this place needs, now people like me have thankfully been pulled out of the way. At least you haven't labelled any random Palestinian civilians as terrorists in the middle of a talk page debate for a while, we should be grateful for that. --Nickhh (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Ad hominems aside, I don't think I misinterpret "Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles, broadly interpreted".

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Try again; Nickhh is 'forbidden to edit any article blah, blah, ' '"...substantially concerned..." You are Wikilawyering if you are representing that you are discussing the substantive matter of The Independent not correcting a headline which was later proven to be false/mistaken (though you called it libel)(edit note:Nickhh did not mention libel - that was another editor and I apologise for my carelessness. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)) when the headline refers to the alleged use of illegal weapons by Israel. Under what circumstances would Israel (not) use illegal weapons if not as part of the Israeli-Arab conflict? The matter is substantially about the conflict, via the the representation of the participants through various media. It thus falls under the sanctions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Where on earth did I mention "libel"? It's someone else who runs around soapboxing on talk pages talking about alleged blood libels and holocaust denial when it's nothing to do with the issue at hand. "Arab-Israeli conflict-related articles" of course included a wide range of articles, which it would indeed be wiki-lawyering to claim did not include, say the articles on Israel itself, on the Six Day War, on the Nakba, on the Declaration of Israeli independence, on the West Bank, on the Sinai, on the Oslo accords, on leading Israeli, Palestinian or Lebanese/Syrian/Egyptian military and political figures etc etc. Per the actual wording of the decision, I and others are not allowed to edit those articles, their talk pages or any discussion "substantially concerned with such articles" (note how you left out the italicised part). However it surely does not include the Independent page per se. Where that page would be caught, to quote the decision for the fourth f#cking time, would be when that "other article or talk page" [ie, here, the Independent page] is dealing with "the subject of the Palestine/Israel dispute [ie one specific aspect of the broader Arab-Israeli conflict]". Now, Lebanon is not Palestine, does not border the Palestinian territories and Palestinians were not involved in this Lebanon war. I know the PLO were in Lebanon a while ago, but that was indeed a while ago. This is not wikilawyering, this is just understanding words, international affairs and concepts. My secondary point was that - on top of that - it is debatable that the issue here is substantively even about the Lebanon-Israeli war of 2006. It's hardly my fault if ArbCom can't even draft one of their important "judgements" so that it actually says what they and others now want it to mean, and actually covers the much broader content space that they now claim it was always meant to, despite that broader content never having been at issue in the original case, which was about a very specific point of naming areas in the West Bank. The bureaucratic and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitudes on display here, and the basic failures to read or attribute things properly, are what, unfortunately, makes this place so frustrating to do anything in. --Nickhh (talk) 10:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right, in fact. We have stopped listening. After hearing this dispute drag on for months and years without any resolution, most of us no longer care who is speaking or what they are saying. So the Community has gone to ArbCom, and ArbCom has told the parties to Shut Up. The approach being taken is not bureaucratic; far from it: to say "oh damn, the ruling doesn't actually explicitly cover situation X, so I guess you can get away with it" would be the bureaucratic and wikilawyering approach. ArbCom has made a ruling; the body of Administrators commenting here seem to be of one voice as to what that ruling means. That you disagree with it is, to be honest, largely irrelevant: if you did not object to it, there would be no need for it in the first place. I'm sorry to be so unsympathetic, but once again: no, it's not fair, but no, it's not supposed to be. Happy‑melon 10:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. This dispute plainly falls under the spirit and intention of the motion. It is pure sophistry to pretend otherwise. Searching for loopholes in ArbCom decisions isn't going to work. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 11:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Couple of points of fact -

• The "community" did not go to ArbCom, the case was filed by an editor involved in a dispute about what to call parts of the West Bank, who thought (totally correctly in my view) that they were trying to edit objectively per WP:NPOV etc - not from a minority/nationalist viewpoint, but against one. At that point any edit warring on the precise issue in question (which had not, also, been "going on for years") had ceased some months previously. ArbCom nonetheless topic-banned everyone, including the filing editor and all those editors who had supported going to ArbCom in a bid to enforce policy.
• I am not looking for a "loophole" or trying to "get away" with anything, nor can I see any other party doing that anywhere at the moment. I am just saying that an issue regarding the content of a British newspaper, which I took to be a totally separate issue from the moment I first asked another editor questions about it roughly a month ago (which remain unanswered FWIW), is not in my view covered by the restrictions. Most of my article edits are not and have never been on Arab-Israeli pages, and I have no great desire to return to them even if I could, filled as they are with nationalist POV-pushers and point-scorers, and remarkably bereft of disinterested, reasonably objective, international editors.
• Nor frankly, is it "pure sophistry" to say that the 2006 Lebanon war was not part of the Israeli/Palestine conflict. It wasn't. If ArbCom wanted to ban any discussion that might somehow be in part related to the wider Arab-Israeli dispute, even on an unrelated page, it would have been very simple to make that explicit. The wording used does not do that. There may have been a genuine intention to draft the wording that way, to allow more latitude on non-conflict pages, in which case I am totally entitled to take it as I find it. If instead, they meant something else, then incompetence is at work. How is anyone meant to second guess that?

I have also pointed out I will not edit on that topic on that page, given the comments above, however misguided I think most of the arguments are, and however much many of them seem to reveal lack of research into the issues at hand, and the history of the case. But I would appreciate if, per WP:AGF, I was not accused of wikilawyering, sophistry or looking for loopholes. --Nickhh (talk) 12:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that the Committee meant to leave a loophole that says "you may not edit any article concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict, or any part of an article concerning the Israel-Palestine conflict, but you may edit sections of articles concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict if they don't concern the Israel-Palestine conflict." That is rather fantastic. I'm perfectly willing to believe that you think that's what they meant (and the rather casual wording of the remedy doesn't exactly help, I agree), but it should be demonstrably clear from the above thread, involving multiple administrators and a member of the Committee, that that is not the case. I certainly withdraw the word "sophistry" for the sake of conviviality (I could debate about its precise meaning, but let's not); let me assure you that it was not meant as an accusation of bad faith on your part. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 20:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, my interpretation of the ruling genuinely was - "you may not edit or comment at any article about the Arab-Israeli conflict, or its talk page; in respect of other pages, not immediately relevant to the Arab-Israeli conflict, you may not edit or comment there in so far as they cover the [more specifically defined] Palestinian-Israeli dispute". As I say, this a) is what the wording that was "voted" on does actually say, paraphrased; and b) is not in fact that odd or unlikely a formula (as in, "you were involved briefly in an editing fracas about tigers - you are therefore barred from editing articles about big cats generally, and also from editing other, unrelated, articles where tigers specifically come up as a topic"). I will happily be accused of literalism, but an accusation of sophistry - which, however you wish to define it exactly, is usually used in a pejorative sense of course - seems a little too much. Thank you for withdrawing it. --Nickhh (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

What about this Pedrito edit?

What about this edit, by Pedrito? Where does this stand in the sanctions? Opinions from uninvolved editors and Arbs? rootology (C)(T) 13:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

/me kindly points at WP:AE :) MBisanz ^talk 13:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, yes, I guess the WP:IPCOLL noticeboard does fall under the sanctions, despite being a collaborative effort thing. Still adjusting to the ban, sorry.

Cheers, pedrito - talk - 14:14 14.05.2009

For next time

• Judgment of Solomon. Ceedjee (talk) 09:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

But what could they have done that would threaten both parties' positions equally? Happy‑melon 10:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete every article in the Israeli/Arab conflict, including the articles on all the countries, cities, settlements, villages, wars, seas, . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.237.80.167 (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

That happened.. Both sides elected to split the baby.--Tznkai (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me that Wikipedia’s “Solomon” has an infanticide or five to answer for here, then.... :-( Olve Utne (talk) 00:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion

Seeing as there is a high potential for WP:SOCKs in the area, would it be a good idea to automatically check (i.e. check without filing a request) all old and new accounts making a significant amount of edits in the area against all editors banned from the area?

This may seem a bit draconian and maybe even paranoid, but the arbitration committee seems to have acknowledged that anything related to the I/P-conflict is indeed a problem that has no obvious resolution and cases such as Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs) show that WP:SOCKs (i.e. banned editors returning) are a part of the problem.

As for privacy concerns, if new accounts are only checked against banned editors (and not against all others), the anonymity of any bona-fide new editor or editors not willing to tarnish their names and reputations in other areas, is preserved.

Any thoughts? Cheers, pedrito - talk - 10:53 15.05.2009

Does seem a bit hardcore, but I agree that there is likely to be a problem with that sort of thing that will need to be addressed somehow, at some point. --Nickhh (talk) 12:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It does fit in well with Wikipedia's core policy of assuming bad faith and with the general checkuser philosophy of checkuser is best used for fishing. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasm works poorly on the internet.--Tznkai (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

For some. Others of us have pretty good reading and comprehension skills. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Clarification required

As said, I have no intention of editing Wiki, as per the decision. While cleaning up files I noticed however that I still had some notes I had reserved for the essay on my page, which I had intended to include before things got complicated. Since it clearly deals with the 'Judea and Samaria' problem, I presume that my adding notes to the essay, even if it is only on my page, would violate the ruling. Am I correct in this, and should I just leave that essay as it is, or might I be allowed an hour or two to incorporate those footnotes (if there is anything objectionable, anything I might add could be immediately cancelled by an admin, were the latter permissible). Thanks Nishidani (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

While I would recommend against it, I would also recommend against any of my fellow administrators from acting on your last hurrah so to speak. If however, you continue to make several "final gestures" and snippy English-use lectures, you start looking like a pretty standard sort of troublemaker. For you, the worst case scenario is that you write your essay, you get a block to editing the website you have adamantly stated you no longer intend to edit, so don't worry about it. If you're really concerned, file a request for clarification on this page and I'm certain the Arbitration Committee will get to you in due time.--Tznkai (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I'll leave it as it is. Nishidani (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

If you just don't want the information you gathered lost to posterity, and you're really concerned you might get blocked over it, maybe put it somewhere else... get a blog account, or put it on MyWikiBiz, (or any of a hundred other wikis that are not WMF) or something, and then give a link to it.... then it won't be lost. ++Lar: t/c 21:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. No I wasn't worried about 'posterity' (had I thought of that, I would have just really got to work and fixed it for publication), or being blocked, since I am anyway. I thought it would be useful for future reference, and therefore better done comprehensively. Still, on reflection, asking for permission on this looks very much like an attempt to jigger the rules and judgement, and just unnecessarily complicates what was a relatively clear decision. The gist is there. I'll leave it at that. Regards Nishidani (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Choice of words for expressing removal of privileges

I think that years ago, RfAs were regularly close as "failed", but then the practice developed of using other equally accurate but nicer phrases such as "did not succeed" or "not promoting". We also say "desysopped" rather than "deadminned", for somewhat similar reasons. There haven't been many removals of functionary privileges, so the wording hasn't had as much time to evolve. However, I think choice of words is even more important when removing privileges than for RfAs that don't succeed, because the potential for disappointment and other hard feelings is greater. I think the wording "stripped of" has an unnecessary level of negative connotations and imagery, and I hope that in future cases (if any removals of privileges from anyone should be found necessary) that the Arbitration Committee will find ways of expressing it which, although accurate and meaningful, are likely to be easier on the person. The choice of words may be, for some individuals, as important as or even more important than the decision itself, since I think the main disadvantage of removal of privileges is the subjective experience of the individual involved. Adding thanks is a nice touch, but doesn't remove the problematic wording "stripped of". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this simple description [4] would do. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This conversation touches on some of the same points. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 12:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

This seems overly-sensitive and silly. Let's face it, in this case, the admin in question was found guilty of unacceptable editing: "repeated and extensive edit-warring", and reprimanded (not for the fist time). It was serious enough that arbcom took the rare step of banning him whole screed of articles - a sanction used for the worst editors and POV-pushers. Thus he's lost his tools for "engaging in conduct unbecoming [his] position". Frankly, in such circumstances, "stripped" seems pretty tame. We might easily say "dishonourably discharged" or "fired for cause", that would be merited if a little unnecessary. Let's call a spade a spade.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I do have to agree with Scott; I think the balance of the resolution was correct. To be honest, the most applicable process would be to describe this as an impeachment; one in which Jayjg was found guilty. "Stripped" is probably an understatement. Happy‑melon 13:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not recall anyone ever adequately explaining what correlation there is between his so-called editing offenses, and the "privileges" of which he was"stripped", and I doubt if any member of the Arbitration Committee who voted for this nonsensical act can give a rational explanation. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm Schosa accuses believes most editors critical of Israel to be antisemitic - "probably over 90% of anti-Zionists, (including WP anti-Zonists) are in that category [antisemitic]".[5] (11th Apr 2009) This in the context of discussions of an ArbComm motion that "Accusing or implying that another editor is bigoted or prejudiced against any ethnic group without clear evidence is a violation of WP:NPA." The user appears to believe there is no need for evidence and has repeatedly failed to provide any whatsoever.

And this is not an isolated breach, he'd already been blocked for 24 hours for doing it on this very same page. And he'd already been warned "if you contribute in the manner you have been doing, you will receiver longer blocks, soon quite likely indefinite. IO won;t hesitate to do it myself."[6](23 Jan 2009).

But that's not going to stop him - "I should add that I am speaking of low level (garden variety) antisemitism, which is very common."[7] (2nd May 2009) and "If I was going to back down on the issue, I would have before now."[8] (2nd May 2009)

We cannot blame this user, since this has been going on for ever (eg on this very topic, a year ago, here, there was no action taken and daring to mention it, even as a random example, invites yet another unpunished blistering personal attack [9]).

And of course, Malcolm got this habit from Jayjg, who poisoned the atmostphere at I-P articles for half a decade before even this feeble level of action was taken against him. 81.156.223.72 (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I asked for a rational explanation of what the correlation was between Jayjg's so-called "offenses" and the removal of some of his "privileges." Instead, I got an ad hominem, which is an irrational logical fallacy by definition. (I did give an explanation of my thoughts on the relationship between anti-Zionism and Antisemitism, which I am willing to expand upon, but this noticeboard does not seem the right place to continue that discussion.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm, any person here to "defend" their nations, religion, or peoples are here for the wrong reasons. If they edit war or act aggressive while they are about that task, that's even more indefensible. It would appear that the Committee found that Jay did these things. It would appear that the Committee has also decided--since it's within their rights--that any user above admin level has to be held to an even higher standard. If another Functionary does the things that Jay did they will also be removed of their extra rights, up to and included Arbiters. Are you against the fact that Jay was stripped of his rights, the fact that the Committee put down the hammer on dedicated long-term POV pushing, or that they did it to both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli editors, or some combination of the two? Both sides in some cases have been all but rampaging through these articles, and to be frank, I suspect many of us, up to and including the Arbs, are sick and tired of the real-life battles being imported here and having to deal with immature editors who can't leave their IRL baggage at the door per our rules. Any editing on this website is a pure priviledge, which no one is entitled to nor has a right to.

These decisions cleaned out the "major" warriors on the I/P topics. Future Arbitrations will be even easier now to clear out future or other warriors, now, and in turn any users coming back as socks wil be easily targeted and those users as people permanently removed from this site. This area is so littered with so much nonsense, such as that CAMERA group coming in here to orchestrate propoganda, that there was really no other way this was all going to end but with a virtual firewall vs. users who were here for any reason but our encyclopediac purposes. We neither need pro-Palestinian warriors, nor Zioniost warriors, and never will.

And for the record, anti-zionism and anti-semetism are totally separate beasts, regardless of what any far-right Jewish scholars or fringe politicians think. I sincerely hope by bringing that up you're not even vaguely alluding that this decision was either, because if you start down that false road you're going to end up not editing at all. rootology (C)(T)

The topic banning of editors for participating in a difficult editing situation was also, in my view, irrational. Moreover, it will change nothing more than the users involved. Your view that "anti-zionism and anti-semetism are totally separate beasts, regardless of what any far-right Jewish scholars or fringe politicians think" is a fantasy. There are WP:RS that support the relation, and denying it is nothing better than one more PC effort at thought control. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Call it thought control, if you'd like, but do not even allude that the AC decision was either, as it's not. If other users--yourself, anyone else--picks up where these users have forcibly left off, the same fate will await them as well. To be frank, I'd be glad of a general hard-edged crackdown, if for no other reason that I'm sick to death of the constant and endless bad faith reports, arbitrations, RFCs, attempted arbitrations, and Lord knows what else that's floated by over the years. If people can't work well together on a topic, forcing them to not work on that topic is good for the rest of us. If that's bad for the affected people... I say, too bad. They had their chance. rootology (C)(T) 16:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I asked for a rational explanation of the correlation between Jayjg's so-called "offenses" and the removal of some of his "privileges." So far all I have only gotten some rants on other stuff. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I answered your question, but if you want me to be even more explicit: Jay repeatedly edit-warred on IP topics and conducted himself inappropriately and has had arbitration findings against him in the past four times over the years, plus again in this decision. Apparently, the Arbs felt that a Checkuser/Oversighter with this kind of history was not needed. The Checkuser/Oversight are not and have never been lifetime appointments--they serve at the pleasure of the editing community only. Do you have a problem with a Functionary with this history losing his tools, or specifically with Jay losing the tools due to his history? rootology (C)(T) 16:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Well to quote directly from the resolution, the Committee found that Jayjg's "behaviour [was] inconsistent with [his] position of high trust". There is no causal link, there doesn't need to be. Jayjg has, in the opinion of the Committee, acted in a fashion unbecoming a senior Functionary of this site, and brought the project into disrepute; he is, in the Committee's opinion, not suitable to be held up as a role model for other editors, which is a necessity for the positions of Oversight, Checkuser, and the like. As such, the group responsible for granting him that status, has taken the status away from him. It is clear from your choice of phrase "'so called'" that you do not agree with the Committee that Jayjg is guilty of these actions; as such, it is unsurprising that you therefore do not agree with the remedies imposed. That you do not agree with them does not mean they are not valid. Happy‑melon 16:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

And I might suggest that the growing harping by both those directly affected by the closed Arbitration or their partisan supporters on various talk pages is unhelpful, and poisoning of the well against everyone that was involved in this decision. That sort of nonsense, which was rampant on the IP pages, will not be tolerated. If there are genuine concerns about the decision, write up the evidence demonstrating it, and file an appeal or an RFC if you feel you can't get a fair shake from the Arbcom. The Arbcom has only limited and very specific power over us--and we elected them, regardless of what any people might infer when they say "Jimmy". The Arbcom and Jimmy have their clout at our pleasure, and we ultimately decided that Jay and these editors on both sides were out. If some disagree, take it to RFC or another case, and if it was a "bullshit" call, it will get undone.

Just one note, though, in case some reading this discussion weren't aware... Jay wouldn't have been able to use Oversight or Checkuser in regards to the I/P conflict or pages, in any event--those whole non-involved guidelines we have. Just in case, you know, some are unhappy or even vaguely feel that they lost a 'functionary in the pocket' or some such nonsense (if Jay had been using the tools ever on those pages, many people would have called for his head on a pike validly, let alone taking the buttons). rootology (C)(T) 17:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

This statement is implying that Jayjg has misused Oversight and Checkuser. If there is any truth to that, no one ever supplied anything to support it, so this statement by Rootology amounts to a violation of WP:NPA.

You are saying, if I understand you correctly, that the action against Jayjg was an irrational application of punishments. That is not an impressive answer. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Consider yourself officially warned (I am uninvolved admin in the I/P topics and this arbitration) that if you again violate WP:AGF or attempt to poison the well as you just did in your answer, you can be blocked up to 24 hours--I will link to this diff as well on your talk([10]). If this continues beyond that, I will seek a motion to have you barred from commenting on this case. Remember: all editing here is a priviledge. This behavior is simply unacceptable and exactly the sort of nonsense dealt with in this arbitration. The answer to your question is in this bit of the arbitration. Did you read that? rootology (C)(T) 17:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You are involved, and are in a disagreement with me. But if you think you have grounds, and that blocking me will make your life better, that is up to you. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked Malcolm for personal attacks on his talk page, and posted it here for review. I don't consider myself involved in a dispute, from attempting to clarify the arb decision, and warning him to not ABF. Per the AN thread any uninvolved admin can overturn. rootology (C)(T) 17:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Rootology, the Committee did not "put down the hammer on dedicated long-term POV pushing". Despite the fact that the editor who brought the case asserted that it is "a somewhat extreme case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, edit-warring over several articles, WP:POV-pushing and Wiki-Lawyering against consensus, sources and Wikipedia policies", the Committee chose utterly to ignore the POV-related charges in its published decision. No editor was sanctioned for POV-pushing. The committee concerned itself solely with edit-warring and declined the opportunity to set the precedent that you appear to believe now exists. --MoreThings (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Salve, compagni. It seems that my input has not been entirely welcome. But, nevertheless, to sum up what I have said previously, I feel that there was no rational reason to remove any of Jayjg's "privileges" because there is nothing that has established that he misused any of them. There is no need to repeat that, so I will not. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is claiming that he did misuse his Functionary status. The point is that the position, so ArbCom has ruled, requires a level of editorial integrity and general 'model editor' public image that they no longer consider Jaygj able to demonstrate. Happy‑melon 22:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a particular word in your edit, "integrity", which worries me. WP has rules which exist no place but WP. Longtime users sometimes loose sight of that, and come to think of infractions of WP rules, such as Jayjg's supposed infractions, as failures in integrity, and of a degraded ethical status. I can understand the insistence that WP users play by WP rules, but it must be remembered that infractions of rules does not necessarily indicate a lesser level of morality.

Moreover, as I understand it, the arbcom decision did not remove Jayjg's administrator status, and the fact that they did not makes it seem likely that his integrity was really not the issue. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Integrity: "consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations and outcomes..." Editorial integrity would therefore be continued practice of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, etc, consistent with the editorial policy of this encyclopedia. Of course the distinction between 'on-wiki' and 'off-wiki' activity (and behaviour) exists and must be remembered, that does not change the substance of this problem or its resolution. Jaygj may be, I'm sure he is, as decent, moral and ethical a person as any you could meet. That has no bearing on his editorial integrity on this project (equally, it has no bearing on his editorial integrity on other projects).

You seem absolutely determined that there is an alternative reason for this resolution. What do you think it is? Happy‑melon 14:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Happy-melon wrote "You seem absolutely determined that there is an alternative reason for this resolution. What do you think it is?"

I thought I had made that pretty clear. I think it was just intended as a punishment, and because of that somewhat lacking in rational explanation. (I have no conspiracy theory, if that is what you are implying.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I gathered that much. A punishment for what?? That's not a sarcastic question, I'm genuinely curious. Happy‑melon 16:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that some have decided to read more into this particular section of the recent decision than is really there. Access to advanced-level tools (checkuser and oversight, specifically) is not a reward, and removing access to them is not punishment. This iteration of the Arbitration Committee is making serious efforts to ensure that those with access to these tools are active in their use and that they are users in good standing within the community, and we do expect those with access to these tools to be held to a higher standard of editorial behaviour. The removal of access in this case is part of a bigger picture, in which the Committee is re-evaluating the use of these privacy-related tools in a more general sense. I can understand the points about the use of the term "stripped" as it wouldn't be my preference either (I likely would have used "revoked"), but as the intent was clear, the proposal was accepted. There was no lack of rationality in the decision, but it shouldn't be read as a position that is only applicable to this case. Risker (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be easier to see the logic of your argument if checkuser and oversight had been revoked separately from the decision of this particular case. Under the circumstances, you might understand my perception that it was intended as a punishment, in the sense of a public humiliation of a particular user. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Notification of motion relating to Baronets naming dispute

Original announcement

Draft consensus statement on date delinking by the Bot Approvals Group

Greeting, Arbiters. The "Date delinking" case prominently mentions the Bot Approvals Group in it proposed decision. In order to assist the Arbcom, we at BAG have put together Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/Draft consensus statement on date delinking. Once a majority of active BAGgers sign off on it, it will become "approved" and not "draft". I hope this is useful to you. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 12:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Aitias

Original announcement

I don't mean to be impatient, just asking: Is anyone also going to request the return of my sysop flag? Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 17:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd assume that you're entitled to do that yourself, since you have an ArbCom ruling stating that you should have it returned... ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay then, thanks for the reply.  Done ([11]). Regards, — Aitias // discussion 17:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in this -- I asked the Committee for guidance on how this should be handled and was about to post to your talk with an answer -- glad to see this is already sorted. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 17:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem; thanks for the help. :) — Aitias // discussion 17:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Abd and JzG

Original announcement

I want to thank the Committee for their work in expeditiously handling this case. While there are various unresolved aspects of the situation, I'm confident that the community will be able to handle them with ordinary process. --Abd (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Standard operating procedure: CheckUser and Oversight

Original announcement

Well done. When does the timer start on people with the tools today? From today? Or from the last time they used the tools? Is there any plans for a minimum threshold of uses in a given time frame? Or if I'm a CU, can I keep it indefinitely with one check per 365 days? rootology (C)(T) 00:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Do we really want to be doing all we can to get rid of as many CUs as possible? For my part, I'd like to know what the method for recovering the permissions is. I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be "on request", barring exceptional circumstances. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 07:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No, we don't want to get rid of CUs to get rid of CUs, but no "rank" on Wikipedia, from +Rollbacker up to +ChairoftheWMFBoard or +ExecutiveDirector(the people really in charge) are permanent. Any of the technical ranks can be removed from any user at any time if the community deems it required to be removed: Abuse Filter editors, Account creators, Administrators, Bots, Bureaucrats, Checkusers, Founder, IP block exempt, Imports, Oversighters, Rollbackers, Stewards, Transwiki importers, Uploaders.

Since we are currently requiring for the community to vet and validate anyone with access to the AC, CU, or OS capabilities, I would imagine any user who has not previously been vetted in public by the community would be--that's what the AC said previously, at any rate. I wanted to confirm and to make sure the system couldn't be easily be gamed by a random (even if needed) CU every 300+ days or something similar. rootology (C)(T) 13:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If CUs are "gaming" this system, we have bigger problems than inactivity.

I remain unconvinced by the argument that elections are worthwhile, particularly for people who have previously been trusted and considered competent before, unless circumstances have changed dramatically.

One more question for the Committee: is the functionaries-en mailing list included in this measure?

[[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 16:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Some of the people with CU or OS access rarely used them. These people don't need the tools. We don't need lurkers on Funct-l, CU-l, and OS-l, so the people not using tools or commenting in discussions will be removed from the lists. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. The categories listed at Wikipedia:AC#functionaries-en are "Arbitration Committee members and former members, CheckUser and Oversight operators, and selected other editors". Are we to presume this has changed? Are you going to remove these guys from the list? Are we to assume, then, that functionaries-en is no longer considered by the Committee to be an advisory group and that it solely exists for the purpose of co-ordination among users with the CU and OS permissions? [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 17:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Just speaking as an outsider, but I've been getting the vibe since last year's AC that the general trend is heading toward the sitting, elected-by-the-community making decisions, or wanting to, without all the prior arbs weighing in on everything... and that the sitting arbs would go to them when they want feedback. Which makes sense, since so many of the new Arbs the past two years came in with demands from the community to fix what many perceived as a failing, archaic system, and reinvent aspects of it. Which they're definitely doing. rootology (C)(T) 17:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Then say so, do it publicly and be done with it. I for one would absolutely respect that. If I was on the Committee, I might well even vote for it. I am less impressed by the gradual creeping move to remove the ancien régime under the pretence of inactivity. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 17:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, they seem to want to baby-step it along, which I can respect as well, since we know that everyone here reacts so well to sudden change. ;) In fact, I wish they (the sitting committee) would go all out at once and announce that future AC elections would be ratified solely by the community (there is an exceedingly simple and fair method for that here) and then limit all the core lists to people who need to be on them. Appointment to the AC directly from the Community, control of the AC from the Community, no offense to Jimbo--the AC can keep him on the list if they want, since it's their list--but if you did this and added in shorter terms (2 years) and term limits (2 terms), you'd have a constantly evolving and vibrant AC year over year that answers to no one but Wikipedia itself. But imagine if they did that all at once--people would be berserk. rootology (C)(T) 17:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that these points tend not to have been phrased in this way but in (rather incredible) terms of inactivity, and done in a little-by-little way rather than up-front and openly. If the members of the current Committee want to remove former members from the list (and I think they do), then let's hear that. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 17:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the people that have access as former arbs will remain on the funct-l IIRC, ArbCom-l was pruned periodically in the past to remove people that were no longer active. Similarly, we will likely prune the Funct-l of people that do not comment in order to keep the membership of the list to active users that are engaged in the discussions. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No, arbcom-l was not pruned. And what on earth is the rationale for "keeping the membership of the list to active users that are engaged in the discussions"? Confidentiality? Again, we have bigger problems if you don't trust the members of the list to keep things private. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 17:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There have been leaks before from all of the lists. rootology (C)(T) 17:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I need to check the archives to make sure, but I do think that it was pruned to remove people that were no longer active. The issue is more complex that saying that we don't trust users to keep issues private. We know that in some situations issues have been leaked from private lists. The leaks happen for a variety of reasons. But in each instance decreasing the number of people with access decreases the risk of accidental or deliberate leaks. The leaks are of great concern to the Committee. We want to give people greater confidence in the Committee and Committee related lists, so removing lurkers seems prudent. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The confidentiality argument is a reasonable one, although I'm sceptical it will have any impact whatsoever. What will you do if a list member removed for inactivity comes back and asks to be let back on the list? [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 17:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

FloNight is correct about past pruning. Paul August ☎ 17:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

My mistake then. I confess to being surprised -- could you give me a name or a date? (Privately, obviously.) [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 17:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sam, you participated in the discussion last March (2008) when we removed 5 former arbs. :-) FloNight♥♥♥ 18:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

How embarrassing! [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 18:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Resignation

• Sam Blacketer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Fys (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Dbiv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Original announcement

Thank you for all of your work on the Committee. It's a thankless job and you've served admirably. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the hard work, Sam. I have three questions for the Committee, and Jimbo, that both require answers for the community.

1. Was your history as Fys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) known to Jimbo and AC before your election and appointment?
2. Were they aware edits between your two accounts overlapped?[12][13]
3. Are you being replaced with the next runner-up from the last election?

Thanks. rootology/equality 17:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

1. No, the current Committee was not aware of the past history here. We're still looking into whether anyone else may have been informed, however.
2. See #1.
3. Given that the Committee is currently well ahead of where we traditionally have been in terms of both size and level of activity, there aren't any current plans to call up additional members until the next regularly scheduled election. That may change as we move forward through the year, though.

Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 17:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• I was not aware and my informal checking with other former members has not revealed that other arbs or former arbs knew. I thank Sam for promptly addressing our questions over the last 24 hours so we could move forward. I agree with Kirill that we do not need to replace him now. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't know about Sam's alternate accounts, and as far as I know no one else knew either. Paul August ☎ 19:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

After the facts become clearer, I think a motion from the Committee with a brief background and timeline would be appropriate. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and thanks Kirill and Flo. Sam-- you were a fine Arb during your time. Thank you. rootology/equality 18:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Fys (talk · contribs) was renamed from Dbiv (talk · contribs) [14] CHU.

In 2005 Fys was elected an admin (RfA) and ran for Arbcom in 2006 (ACE), he was desysopped in 2006 (RFAR) for extensive abuse of admin tools.

In 2008 Sam accepted and voted in the RFAR on William M. Connolley and George RFAR, among other things restricting WMC's admin abilites. In 2006 Fys filed an RFC against WMC [15] who had blocked him [16][17].

In 2006 Tango (talk · contribs) blocked Fys [18] and in 2008 Sam made extensive comments about Tango at his RFAR. I wonder if the arbs can indicate what type offwiki (Mailing list) comments were made in regard to this case after Sam recused.

I've identified another account that is related to Sam/Fys, however it is his real life name and not otherwise linked these accounts. Is there any knowledge of this account to ArbCom?

I agree with MZMcBride that further comment/motions from ArbCom will be required.MBisanz ^talk 18:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record, Sam Blacketer has made the current Committee aware of the other account you refer to here. Risker (talk)18:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. I believe Sam should also be desysopped in light of the passed deysop motion against Fys. Utterly disgraceful. Abusing the trust of this community and misusing your admin tools and your judgment as an Arbitrator. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait, what? What past desysop motion?? I just saw Nishkid's diff. I agree, and at the least any access to AC tools, CU, OS, etc., need to be immediately removed today. rootology/equality 18:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's slow down a bit. If there isn't serious misconduct as Sam Blacketer, and he created the new account to make a clean start and move past his problematic history, then immediate tar and feathering can wait until a full account has been developed. Nathan ^T 19:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Fys desysopped. He abandoned Fys/Dbiv, returned as Sam Blacketer, gained adminship and membership into the Arbitration Committee, and participated in cases against individuals who he had clashed with (WMC, Tango, etc.). I see serious misconduct all over this one. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

And as I noted above, he overlapped both accounts. This is very bad, on the same wavelength of the games that Poetlister pulled on Wikiquote. rootology/equality 19:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that such participation is wrong, but I still think it behooves us to approach this situation more carefully and with a full understanding of the facts. His participation in the WMC case did not effect the outcome, and he recused from the Tango case after a single paragraph of comments which did not effect the outcome. Yes, such behavior is wrong; but it absolutely does not rise to the Poetlister level, and even that outcome waited on a complete investigation. Nathan ^T 19:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

<-I tend to agree with Nathan here. Sam is a prime example of someone who learned from his earlier mistakes and made a fresh start. While, in hindsight, it has the appearance of impropriety, I don't believe it was done in bad faith. I also don't believe that an investigation of Sam's conduct toward those involved in Fys's desysoping & blocks (the investigation does need to happen) will turn up any bad faith actions. --Versageek 19:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Everyone take three steps back, make a nice cup of tea, and allow the full facts of this situation to unfold, before jumping to any rash conclusions. We've already driven one editor away from Wikipedia this week for past actions that were blown way out of proportion. Let's not make it two. Happy‑melon 19:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Versageek, how is deceiving the community about their past not an action of bad faith? If he honestly felt he had a good track record as Sam Blacketer, why didn't he appeal his previous desysopping to the Arbitration Committee? Why did he feel the need to continue covering up his past, if he didn't believe that his past would cloud his chances of political ambition on Wikipedia? What does this say about the Arbitration Committee if Arbitrators are willing to overlook the fact that he was formally desysopped in 2006? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Steady, you're doing it already. It only "says [anything] about the Arbitration Committee" if they were aware of the coverup and wilfully took no action; you have absolutely no evidence that that was the case. Equally, you have no idea what actions were or were not taken and why. Unfounded speculation is the source of 99% of on-wiki drama, in my opinion. Happy‑melon 19:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and at this point there is no evidence that either present or former AC members knew anything about this. As I said above I didn't know and I have no knowledge that any others did either. Paul August ☎ 19:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I was actually talking directly to Versageek. I mistakenly thought Versageek was on the Arbitration Committee, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Sorry for the confusion. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I've finished my researching and only found a couple more noteworthy points:

Fys showed he was deeply involved against JzG (talk · contribs) at JzG resignation, insulting JzG, more JzG insults (among many other places), after JzG had blocked him [19]. Sam voted on the JzG findings at a past RFAR and is currently voting on JzG findings at a current RFAR.

Sam commented extensively on Everyking's appeals at RFAR talk and voted on at least one of the motions that dealt with Everyking and Phil Sandifer. Fys endorsed Phil Sandifer's response at RFC.

Fys was blocked by Viridae [20]. Sam voted to admonish Viridae at RFAR.

Fys supported SlimVirgin's position at RFC. Sam voted not to desysop SlimVirgin link. MBisanz ^talk 19:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just blind, but where did Fys support anything at the SlimVirgin RFC? --Conti|✉ 20:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC) Nevermind, found it, he was User:Dbiv at that time. --Conti|✉ 20:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Concern - There was previously this thread calling for Sam to be outed. I am concerned with the participation by certain people above here and in that community. I think that their level of conduct is particularly unbecoming, especially their status as an admin, and their pursuit of this issue is to create drama and disruption, and not about the integrity of this community. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • That's a link to a Wikipedia Review thread, for those who care about such things. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 19:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

To Sam: thank you for your service and by doing the right thing and resigning from the Committee. This comes as quite a surprise, so let's not rush to judgment. Would like to see a full explanation, preferably by Sam himself. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 19:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

For people reviewing, it is probably worth noting there are 2 block logs, one for Fys and one for Dbiv since block logs were not transferred in old renames. MBisanz ^talk 20:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I take it that the committee did not find out about these other accounts of Sam's back in February when he indicated his intention to resign? It would be good if an approximate timescale of when the committee found about them was provided. Davewild (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

They found out roughly 24 hours ago. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Based on correspondence from an arb, on the functionaries list, I believe that Sam informed the rest of the committee last night. Paul August ☎ 20:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both. Davewild (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Given MBisanz's findings, case updates?

Can someone please review the cases that Fys/Sam/whomever voted on, and if he was inappropriately voting there, see if any of the fixed decisions would have been altered 1) without his vote, 2) with the majority having been changed? I am absolutely against any such findings, decisions, or remedies (if any) standing, and they need to be undone if his vote decided them. If any have lapsed, but were thus affected, I'd like to ask the AC to issue official apologies to the affected individuals. rootology/equality 19:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go on the record here to state, without hesitation, that no such thing should take place. While Sam definitely should have made this disclosure earlier, and that it is almost certain that his probabilities of having been elected would have been significantly affected if that information was known before he had a seat, those votes were made while he was an arbitrator in good standing. There are a number of things Sam should have done, but there is no suggestion that he has not acted as an arbitrator with diligence and neutrality during his tenure— or that his votes have suddenly retroactively become invalid.

This new information means that his continued presence on the committee is not appropriate— not that he has become an unperson and that every trace of the past two years need to be "undone".

If anything, Sam is an illustration that it is possible to turn over a new leaf from a bad start on Wikipedia to become a respected and productive member of the community. I agree that he went about it the wrong way, but not that his past behavior is suddenly false. — Coren ^(talk) 20:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm somebody who had a bad start and turned over a new leaf, using the same account, not a new one. If Sam had recused from the cases where he should have, your logic would be sound. Any case where he should have recused but didn't should be subject to review upon appeal by any party. It's not fair to have an adversary participating in the deliberations. Jehochman ^Talk 20:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Just echoing what Jehochman said. I don't want the entire AC history reviewed and 'overturned' back to his appointment, just a review of the cases he was required to be recused on (which MBisanz has been citing extensively already). rootology/equality 20:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, recusal is usually determined by the arbitrator themselves. Unless the community considers the rest of ArbCom uninvolved on matters relating to Sam Blacketer (which if it did, would be riddled with problems of its own), the options available are limited and time-consuming. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a problem all around, since Arb recusal should be enforceable in some way. The "doomsday" situation of an Archtransit or Poetlister reaching the AC has happened, here. Something needs to be done to make sure everything Sam touched was clean. rootology/equality 20:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

There was not evidence that Sam was indefinitely blocked on another name. This verifies that his account was not indef blocked. He also did not operate on an outside website and manipulate many admin here to helping him get around his indef block. As such, your comments are highly inflammatory and a gross breach of Civil. Sam is still a member in good standing regardless if he lied or not about who he is. He already resigned, so any of the above claims are purely punitive and damaging. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This leads to a more general question, tho: When should an arbitrator recuse? Should an arb recuse himself when he signed a view on an RFC about a party to a case three years ago? That doesn't seem very practical to me. --Conti|✉ 20:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

That's actually a very good question, and not one that's trivially answered. Most of us use a fairly simple standard ("Can I be impartial, and will I be perceived as such?"); and many of use interpret even that fairly liberally— I will usually recuse on request when the case is marginal. But I agree with you that "Has interacted at some point in the (distant) past" rarely justifies recusal. — Coren ^(talk) 21:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the issue here is what should qualify for recusal?, but are there facts that are relevant?. The participants in these cases were unable decide if they should ask Sam to recuse because they were unable to connect his prior actions. Admin and Arb actions should be trackable, even if it is through userpage redirects, rename logs, etc. Otherwise it obscures transparency. MBisanz ^talk 21:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we can ask the question, Would a reasonable arbitrator have recused in this situation? If somebody had blocked Fys, no way should Sam have been in on those deliberations. The Committee would not have permitted it. Jehochman ^Talk 20:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Strongly agreeing with Coren here. — Aitias // discussion 20:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)