Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee

A proposal

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

In cases of serious professional misconduct it is normal for a person to be suspended, without prejudice, during any hearing. I think the community would like to see admins against whom cases are accepted, suspended from using their tools during the period of the case. Whether this is enforced by flipping the bit or not is probably immaterial. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that all cases would require a complete suspension. If a prima facie case is presented that an administrator may have misused his tools in a particular area, I would not object to the ArbCom suspending (by motion, without prejudice) a suitably-scoped portion of that admin's tools. Actually flipping the bit would only be required if an admin failed to adhere to the terms of such an injunction; the injunction would automatically lapse at the close of the case. Obviously the ArbCom would retain its powers to carry out an emergency desysopping under the usual, limited set of conditions. Otherwise, we open ourselves to vexatious litigants being able to hamstring otherwise productive administrators for the weeks or months required to complete a full Arbitration. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Guy. DuncanHill (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a cost here, but it might be worth paying. We can have one of two norms: suspending as a matter of course, or only under some certain parameters. If you suspend as a matter of course, this skips a lot of wrangling, any appearance of prejudice or prejudgment, and theres a lot of room for face saving. It is of course, rather inflexible and prone to abuse. I think I'd rather see the matter of course route.--Tznkai (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, a suspension of all advanced permissions should be effectuated in any case where abuse or poor judgement has been alleged. Making this routine will prevent acrimonious debate in specific cases. This is in line with the professional atmosphere, as noted. — James Kalmar 23:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Automatic suspension is a widely understood and utilised practice in other areas. Yes, it may have a level of stigma, but the effect is the same for everyone, no-one is encouraged to rush to their support in terms of keeping the tools, and the disastrous effect of appearing to support certain persons by not suspending them then - sods law being what it is - having to permaban them when the sockfarm crawls out of the basket is avoided.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with this proposal. Automatic suspension of the tools would prevent bad things from happening because someone has the tools who shouldn't, would prevent others from being subject to innuendos just because they used the tools while an Arbcom case was in play, and would actually be the fairest option for those who didn't need to be in front of Arbcom in the first place - there's the least amount of stigma attached to something like this if it's just how we always do things without exception. If it reaches a point where continuing to withhold the tools becomes unjust because it's been ages and someone is still subject to an open case when everyone knows they shouldn't be, then there's an equal problem for everyone else in the case if Arbcom holds it open, so you should take such inclinations as a sign to hurry up and finish the damn case already. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If the ArbCom was accepting 50 cases a year that alleged admin misbehavior then suspending that many admins for months at a time would be a problem (not to mention the problem of getting that many complaints about admins). But only a few cases of this type are accepted every year, so the overall impact on the project should be manageable. However I don't think it should be entirely automatic. In some cases that have involved admins the allegations of administrative misconduct were without merit, perhaps added to make the case look more important. When the ArbCom accepts a case they should make a quick evaluation of whether the case appears to involve serious allegations of tool misuse. If that's the case then an administrative suspension is a logical step.   Will Beback  talk  10:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support automatic suspension, without prejudice, when a case is accepted, of all administrators who are listed as parties in the open case. This makes complete sense, is fair when its automatic without further conditions nor prejudice, and prevents the kind of drama we regularly see in such cases when an ANI discussion suddenly gets sidetracked by comments along the line of "X is currently at ArbCom for such and such conduct, how dare he take whatever action he took". MLauba (talk) 12:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Considering the number of frivolous complaints that are filed against admins, I would be opposed to any automatic suspension of tools. It would become just one more tactic that disruptive editors might use (especially in ArbCom enforcement areas, where there are some champion wikilawyers). However, ArbCom still has the authority when they accept a case, to issue a temporary motion on such a suspension. It should really be handled on a case by case basis. --Elonka 16:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• No. The vast majority of complaints against admins are without basis, this would allow the gaming of the system to neutralize admins at will. Arbcom already has the power to suspend admin privileges during an arbcom case if they have a good reason and they have done just that in the past, so I see not reason to automatically do this. Leave it up to the discretion of arbcom. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm only proposing it where the case is accepted and involves administrative conduct. Can you cite a frivolous or vexatious case against an admin which has been accepted? I suspect they would not even need to flip the bit, merely state that admins are not allowed to use tools while active cases of alleged misconduct against them are in process. I'm surprised anyone would see that as especially controversial. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• A good idea. As for the concerns over frivolous complaints: the committee are sensible enough to be able to recognise a vexatious litigant. AGK 17:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Somewhat oppose I am all for telling admins not to use their tools in areas they're in front of ArbCom for (again, that judgement thing), but this need to be refined, etcetera so it doesn't have loopholes. Define "case brought against them". DOes that mean if an admin has been trying to keep the peace in a contentious area, that if an arbcom is brought in that area, and that admin is brought in as an involved party (because they did their job), that they should either have their bits removed temporarily or be forced to the sidelines? No, I don't see that as a particularly good idea. I would just let it remain at what it's commonly known as being right now "You can still use them, but it's a really bad idea to continue to use them in the area you're involved in". If ArbCom needs to suspend/injunct against using the tools, they can. SirFozzie (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that it can't be mechanistic, but you are humans and have decent judgement - step one of a case of admin misconduct being a standard injunction on those who the committee feels have been credibly accused of abuse of tools, that should not really be hard to do should it? It is fairly standard practice in cases of people in positions of trust, I think. Guy (Help!) 22:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Weakly oppose, mostly per SirFozzie. Moreover: I am not convinced the current situation is broken. And I am afraid of new opportunities for gaming if there is a predictable, practically automatic response to mere accusations. Hans Adler 21:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose blanket removal - There are many reasons an admin may be involved in a case, a lot of which aren't due to abuse of the tools. Unless there is reason to believe an admin will continue poor behavior with the tools as alleged in the case or will not voluntarily avoid the locus of the case , tool removal isn't necessary. If something crops up during the case, a motion can remove the tools. Shell ^babelfish 15:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support in those instances proposed by Guy, as it's common practice in many law-enforcement organisations. I would say, however, that an Admin under the Arbcom spotlight is likely to conduct him/herself with due restraint. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as this could lead to gaming the system and a possible blot on the record of an Administrator who has done nothing wrong. If necessary, it should be done by ArbCom. Dougweller (talk) 09:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose because people are frequently falsely accused. Jehochman ^Brrr 19:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Better off waiting until the ruling by ArbCom as to whether the tools have been abused, and if action is needed is passed. In fact, allowing them to retain the tools opens ArbCom to newer facts about the matter. A desysop would block off those after case opening facts from being found. No need for a temporary desysop. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Oversighting of User:JPatrickBedell

I've started a discussion at this at Wikipedia_talk:Oversight#User:JPatrickBedell, but with no response addressing this case. This isn't a matter for arbitration, but seeing as oversight essentially seems to be under ArbCom control this seemed an appropriate location to ask for more input. So, please see the discussion page. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

So this is what "arbitration" has become?

There was a time when careful considerations were made for disputes and other issues on this site. Sometimes the process went slowly, but as anyone who has ever been upset knows, time is usually very good in allowing emotions to subside, among other benefits.

The Arbitration Committee is increasingly skirting its duties by relying on motions. A motion was attempted in the MZMcBride case, motions are being considered in the Trusilver and Durova cases, and a motion was used in the BLP fracas. And those are just the motions I can remember off-hand.

The harm and potential harm from these quickly drafted and enacted motions is clearly evident. The BLP-related motion is causing further problems. Undoubtedly the Trusilver and Durova motions, if passed, will similarly cause further problems.

Thoughtful deliberation and time are often much better than hasty politicking. Anyone who has ever dieted or been injured knows that the "quick fix" is usually the easiest way to ensure further complications down the road.

The Arbitration Committee will make its own bed and be forced to sleep in it. Just know that it absolves everyone from sympathizing with your complaints come morning. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

So you're basically suggesting that ArbCom has been taking the easy way out? I've noticed lately that motions have become more and more common, for reasons unknown. The fact that less cases have been opened and quite a bit more motions have been used to resolve the matter indicates either that ArbCom doesn't see a need for a case, or that they feel that they need to be as quick as possible and not consume extra time. I hold no positions on the sudden common use of motions. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The Committee uses motions when it feels that a full case would prolong the dispute unnecessarily and the facts of the dispute are clear and generally agreed on by all parties. In both of the current situations (Trusilver/Sandstein and Durova/SH), the facts are obvious: in Trusilver's case, the situation took place essentially on the Committee's doorstep, and in Durova's case, they are both making the same accusations of each other, and neither is disputing the fact that they'd much like to avoid each other from now on. In both of the current situations, prolonging the dispute would not be helpful: in Trusilver's case, the Committee is now aware that there are some problems with the way AE is run, and that would be best settled quickly to avoid future misunderstandings, and in Durova's case, a full case would waste everyone's time, especially when both parties are agreeing to a simple motion that can solve the situation in one blow. If one of the two conditions I mentioned in the first sentence really doesn't apply, then we will certainly open a case, as we have done six times so far this year. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Those who are unhappy with wiki arbitration are more than welcome to run in the next election, get elected, and fix everything to their liking. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Or we could simply abolish the Arbitration Committee altogether. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

And never, ever desysop anyone anymore. :) --Conti|✉ 20:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee may be like democracy ("the worst form of government until you consider all the other forms"), but I sincerely doubt it. In a lot of ways, its continued existence isn't the result of necessity, but inertia. And, after all, one look at the way it was started indicates what level of "consensus" the body as a whole has overall.

Even some of the powers delegated to it have been slowly wrenched from its claws (notably, the election of Oversighters and CheckUsers), with a lot of actual community support behind doing so. I think there's a pretty decent case for letting the Wikimedia Foundation deal with any actual legal issues and letting the Community deal with content disputes. When you look at how the vast majority of other wikis and even most other online communities function, I don't think you'll find a lot of bureaucratic institutions similar to the English Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee. I'd be interested in evidence to the contrary, though. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what you are saying above sounds like some sort of alternate reality. Arbcom was originally appointed to handle the "personnel problems" that administrators and the community couldn't or wouldn't deal with; after that point, there has always been election for candidates. The last time that candidates weren't selected in the order of highest percentage of support was before any of the current arbitrators were elected. Problematic behaviour on the part of community members remains the primary focus of the Committee. The election of oversighters and checkusers draws surprisingly little response from the community, with less than 10% of regularly active editors commenting. The community does retain responsibility for dealing with the content disputes; that's not our scope. Arbcom rarely deals with legal issues. You are correct, though, that few online communities have a similarly open process for dealing with problematic members; most of them are run by unelected moderators who simply ban those problem users without recourse, do the equivalent of checkusering people without anyone knowing who has access to those tools or how it is being used, and deletions are permanent and leave no particular traces. Of course, Wikipedia also has one other major difference compared to other online communities. That is the development of a broad swath of content over a vast array of subjects. Those who are not here to do that, or to carry out activities that support the development and improvement of the encyclopedia, will probably feel more at home on Twitter or Facebook or any number of other online communities. Risker (talk) 07:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Focusing a bit on the original post, about twelve hours following it, Cool Hand Luke introduced a more lenient motion that appears to now have a majority of support. From what I've been watching, it looks like the original motion was put forth in haste and, with a little time, perspective emerged and emotions subsided among the Arbitrators and they are now being more reasonable. Funny, that. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• "There was a time when careful considerations were made for disputes and other issues on this site." MZMcBride, please name this golden age of ArbCom. Cool Hand Luke 21:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• From memory, that was the Geriatic Sloth With Osteoporosis When Resolving Urgent Issues era ArbCom. Is it not acknowledged that every ArbCom is worse than the one before, until sufficient time has passed and what was the red mist when editing workshop pages has mellowed and settled upon ones glasses? Just think, in another few years this current membership will be looked back upon fondly (well, perhaps not in every instance - but certainly better regarded than presently.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions only goes back to about July 2008. This means that either motions in lieu of cases are a relatively new thing, or they're not well-documented. Perhaps Paul August or someone has a more complete index?

There's a balance to be struck, to be sure, between an incredibly slow Arbitration Committee and a hasty one. Perhaps this incarnation of the Arbitration Committee is simply overcompensating? Though, the point about this Trusilver motion still stands. I don't think it felt right to most people (a few hard-liner Arbitrators excluded) to de-admin a user for a single unblock. Perhaps I'm simply misinterpreting what's been happening, and if so, feel free to correct me or point me in the right direction.

It did occur to me that in some ways, this reminds me of the two de-admin→re-admin incidents with Jimbo Wales. In both cases, there was a hasty reaction (removing administrator rights) and a reversal shortly after, when "the fear of God" had been put into the administrators. Seems to fit the bill here with Trusilver, as well. Though, again, if I'm way off the mark, let me know. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

So the golden age was before the adoption of closed motions? The good ol' days when cases could open and close in less than a week? I don't think much has changed here; the main difference is that we have more established norms for running a case, which makes very fast cases with relatively uncontroversial facts impossible. For those, we now use motions. Cool Hand Luke 00:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that the ArbCom has made good progress on developing a process that allows them to expedite decisions on cases that aren't as convoluted as others. I don't see a problem. Cla68 (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Cla68. An expedited process is usually better than a drawn-out one, and I'm skeptical that the arbs pay much attention to the Workshop and Evidence pages anyway. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you both are pretty familiar with how Arbitration cases generally evolve. Do you think if a full case were opened, there would be very good odds that Trusilver would be de-adminned? It's not just about means here, I'm arguing that the ends are affected by this hastening, often negatively. If a full case were opened and this were the only evidence to present (a poor unblock), it would fall drastically below the typical level and standard of evidence needed to remove an administrator. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm even more familiar with how Arbitration works. There's been no movement on this motion, and it still passes. I do not think the result would be different in a full case. I think it's probably a disproportionate sanction, but the current ArbCom is fairly law and order. Cool Hand Luke 02:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration cases have a much higher profile and attract much more drama than they did in, say, 2007. Where the facts are well known it does make more sense to pass a motion than to permit the parties to engage in a months-long festival of bickering.

Remember that the committee's powers are derived from Jimbo's. Typically parties would come to him with a dispute on which no consensus was possible, and he would settle it. This is the nature of the powers wielded here. A long hearing is, or should be, the last resort for very complex cases. Tasty monster (=TS ) 00:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

MzMcbride, you seem to be ignoring ArbCom's remit when you say it should be dissolved and its powers returned to the community. ArbCom exists to resolve disputes that the community can't. If you were to return this duty to the community we'd never get anything done. Ironholds (talk) 04:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ironholds, I think the point here is that ARBCOM don't actually arbitrate in disputes, and yet we do need an arbitration committee that does arbitrate in disputes. The present ARBCOM do anything but arbitrate. Arbitration means identifying the opposing points of view in a dispute and discussing those points of view with the parties. It involves pushing each party to find out where the raw nerves are. It then involves proposing wordings which give priority to the reader, highlighting the controversies to the reader, while attempting to show some sensitivities to the extreme points of view on both sides. Recently I tried to arbitrate at Jerusalem. It wasn't easy. I concluded that the neutral American readers should have priority, and that the controversy should be weaved through the presentation of the facts in the introduction. I attempted to cater for the sensitivities on both the Palestinian side and the Israeli side. But the problem was that the extremists on the Israeli side didn't want to have the controversy reported alongside the status quo. An arbitration committee's job should be to continue pushing at both sides with a view to recommending a solution in which the neutral reader takes priority. But the present arbitration committee doesn't arbitrate. They merely ascertain which editors appear to be the most vulnerable numerically, and they then proceed to throw the book at them and send them off the pitch. That is the coward's way out of solving a problem. And ARBCOM have now realized that they can reach this same goal with a swift resolution, rather than going through all the unnecessary drama of a full drawn out case. ARBCOM in its present form needs to be swiftly abolished, since all it does is cause strife and discord. David Tombe (talk) 07:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Than that's a problem of linguistics, not jurisdiction. The initial description of arbitration you've given is completely unrelated to what you've recommended at the end. What you've described as "arbitration" is performed by the Mediation Committee; if you feel there's a dictionary problem there, put in a request for move :P. Ironholds (talk) 08:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

As an example of this; you seem to believe that the priority is the "neutral reader", i.e. the content. The Arbitration Committee does not get involved in content disputes - that's the Mediation Committee's job. I'd suggest looking at the organisations' initial goals and aims rather than Webster's.Ironholds (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there is a mediation committee. Who is on the mediation committee? And why was the argument at 'speed of light' sent to ARBCOM and not to the mediation committee? David Tombe (talk) 11:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

See WP:MEDCOM. If the issue is one of user behaviour, ArbCom deals with it. If it is one where the primary problem is a group at loggerheads over content, MedCom deal with it. In the "speed of light" case, while it initially started as a content dispute (and would have been perfectly valid as a MedCom case) the increasing user misbehaviour in it moved it closer to ArbCom's jurisdiction. After all, mediation only works if both parties are fine with compromise. Ironholds (talk) 11:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This is all news to me. I didn't know about WP:MEDCOM. It's existence clearly wasn't advertised when it was most needed, and I think that you have got some of your facts wrong regarding how the 'speed of light' case ended up at ARBCOM. I tried to mediate in the dispute just as I did at Jerusalem, and I saw exactly what happened. No attempt was ever made to invoke the official WP:MEDCOM. And I was not aware of any behavioural problems that warranted the involvement of ARBCOM. Now that I know that an official WP:MEDCOM does actually exist, I am more convinced than ever that ARBCOM serves no purpose beyond creating strife and discord, and that it should be abolished. Any disruption on wikipedia can easily be dealt with by ordinary administrators. What is really needed now is a mobile desysoping unit, contactable by e-mail, who can examine administrator abuse, unblock, and if necessary desysop. Division of power is the only way that harmony and progress can be restored on wikipedia. David Tombe (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You were sanctioned by ArbCom, and now you attack it and suggest abolishment. I'm not sure many people will be convinced by that argument. Jehochman ^Talk 12:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There have been many suggestions for community removal of adminship (see Wikipedia:RFDA). Many, many suggestions have been made but no consensus has arisen so far. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately Jehochman, most people who haven't been sanctioned by ARBCOM are unaware of how an ARBCOM case proceeds. I can testify on the basis of first hand knowledge. David Tombe (talk) 12:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

But some are! And yet the people we see campaigning for its dissolution are yourself and MzMcBride - both people who have been sanctioned - and nobody else. Curious, don't you think? Ironholds (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Your statement, by the way, that disputes can be dealt with by admins - have you spent any time hanging around ANI? Or read the administrator policy? Admin-enacted blocks aren't entirely binding, administrators don't always agree with each other and even when they do, the community doesn't always agree with them. Some people reach such a medium of community love and hate that it's impossible to get decent consensus on whacking them with the shovel, regardless of how much dramah they cause. There's a reason this was handled by Jimbo and then ArbCom in the first place - because letting the community deal with every single problem, even when ArbCom disputes are by definition those which the community has been unable to solve, doesn't work. Ironholds (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ironholds, I take it that you are trying to say that because I have been sanctioned by ARBCOM that my view on the matter is not impartial. Well of course there is never any shortage of people hanging around the ARBCOM noticeboard claiming that everything that ARBCOM does is correct, and so we need to balance those two factors out before coming to any premature conclusions. In answer to your question above, 'No. I don't spend any time hanging around AN/I apart from when I am participating in a thread.'

It seems to me that you are hanging around this notice board to uphold the party line, which of course means that you are naturally going to brush aside any suggestions that ARBCOM should be abolished. And you are mistaken in thinking that I actually came here expecting ARBCOM to take my views on board and to immediately rush through a resolution to abolish themselves. I was merely demonstrating a bit of solidarity with MzMcBride. That's all. I had never heard of MzMcBride before, but it seems that he has also seen the true nature of ARBCOM, and so he has my full sympathy. And by the way, I don't want the community to handle every single problem. I want to see a few 'ad hoc' mobile units created. David Tombe (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement blocks

I've said it on the noticeboard, where I haven't gotten a response, so I'll say it here again: The current arbitration enforcement system (any admin's discretion to block, no admin may undo of their own volition, Arbcom supervises) can work and can be the way of least drama, but *only* if Arbcom actually *does* supervise, and comments on controversial blocks even if they are already expired.

It is my opinion that a large part of why Trusilver decided to unblock out of principle is because he was convinced that the AE block would never be reviewed, following the close of the ANI discussion. In this particular case, the enforcement block was very much controversial in the community, but I have not seen any statement whether the block or block length was appropriate. SirFozzie gave some technical comment at the ANI discussion, but was not willing to comment on the actual block. In the motions, I see some opinions hinting that this block may not have been appropriate, but I haven't seen an arbcom statement so far whether it sees the block as correct and proportional - if I missed it, please point me towards it. If you require an official appeal, then I hereby request one, as a matter of principle (yes, one of those). A restarted community discussion would not, I believe, be fruitful in this case.

I am convinced that if you are unwilling to comment on AE blocks when they are controversial, even post facto, to give some kind of guidance for the future, and to give the assurance that "AE admining is not a license to kill", we will get into the same situation again. I'm not looking for consequences of any kind, still have no opinion myself, and I for one am thankful that Sandstein is doing this thankless job. Just a "yep, that's what we'd have done" or "that was over the top" will suffice - but I feel that some such a statement is absolutely required for future guidance, and most importantly to give admins in the same situation as Trusilver, who believe that an AE block was unfair in any way, assurance that it will not simply be ignored even if it's only a few more hours till the block expires.

Without such feedback, I'm certain that the system will break down again.

Amalthea 12:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't discussed this with my colleagues and am therefore speaking without my fez on, but probably the easiest and quickest way to get a formal endorsement or otherwise of individual adminstrator-imposed restrictions is via the Ban Appeals Sub-Committee.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Next election of Checkusers

As a sysop over the past 2-1/2 years, I've found that it would be extremely useful to have Checkuser functions, especially to avoid collateral damage when making blocks. As my block log shows, I've rarely blocked established users (the last was 11/25/09). I've actually avoided range blocks entirely, due to the risk of blocking a whole country and innocent noobs, and have almost never made 5-i indef blocks. Meanwhile, the vandalism on my user and talk pages has become frantic. I'm interested in acquiring checkuser functions. When is the next election, or can the ArbCom appoint me? Would going back to WP:RFA help? Bearian (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

mmh, yesterday you have blocked a German user for 3 months, because he had given you a note to his talksite. You have named that vandalism. Before you have tried to delete an article because the author had been blocked in the meantime. You reason was Notability questionable and was created by a now-banned user accused of sockpuppetry. As every student knows, being accused of something means nothing, especially when you are the accuser by yourself according to this edit. Might be interesting whether you will find someone to give you the checkuser-tools 78.55.203.154 (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)