Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

Questions for the Arbitration Committee

In the recently dismissed application of "Linguistic/Cultural Bias Towards United States in the article "Hacker", I specifically asked three questions be answered with regard to how English Wikipedia is governed and policy is enforced by people such as the Arbitration Committee. Seeing as the entire post has been deleted, I repeat the three questions here:

1) In terms of content, is English Wikipedia considered to be a vehicle for documenting the United States, or for documenting the entire English-speaking world?

2) Does the removal of a {{globalize}} with the reason of "spam", or non-US editors being told to "fuck off" when voicing their opinions just because they don't conform to the majority of the US editors already present, constitute a content problem?

3) How does Wikipedia guarantee that the content of other English-speaking countries, and non-IT people who don't edit on this system, makes it into articles when those kinds of editors are not present in the system in nearly as heavy numbers as the United States IT/Academia-related editors? Who actually enforces policies like Naming Conventions, Neutrality, and "Not a Democracy"?

Question (1) was not answered. Question (2) was directly answered as "Yes, we do think it's a content problem" as all ArbCom members who commented stated the same thing unanimously (as opposed to there being a problem of prejudice, racism, or intimidation, as claimed by me the filing party). Question (3) was not answered.

This is an important issue and requires a formal statement. Should ArbCom be made up of (and this seems exceptionally likely) people predominantly from the United States, how do the hundreds of millions of native non-US English readers actually know that their articles are monitored by people who know their culture and therefore are able to neutrally determine that bias is, or is not, actually occurring?

So, again, I am politely asking for anwers to questions (1) and (3).

Many Thanks in advance,

Andrew81446 (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Response by Sam and WAS 4.250

By my reckoning six out of the 15 arbitrators are British, and two of the remainder are not Americans, so only a minority are from the US. However, please be aware that the Arbitration committee does a very specific job and it does not include decisions about content. They are handled by the whole community collectively, under the 'five pillars' fundamental policies. As an observation, not everyone seems to have accepted that your interpretation about British usage of the word 'hacker' is a fair representation of the actual usage and interpretation. Guidance on the form of English to be used in articles is given in Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. Some disputes over British vs. American spellings have ended up in the list of lamest edit wars. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

1. is English Wikipedia considered to be a vehicle for documenting the United States, or for documenting the entire English-speaking world? The English language Wikipedia aims to have useful claims backed by reliable sources on as many topics as we can manage.
2. Does the removal of a {{globalize}} with the reason of "spam", or non-US editors being told to "fuck off" when voicing their opinions just because they don't conform to the majority of the US editors already present, constitute a content problem? Sometimes.
3. How does Wikipedia guarantee that the content of other English-speaking countries, and non-IT people who don't edit on this system, makes it into articles when those kinds of editors are not present in the system in nearly as heavy numbers as the United States IT/Academia-related editors? Who actually enforces policies like Naming Conventions, Neutrality, and "Not a Democracy"? There is no guarantee. Anyone who wishes to try to enforce our policies and guidelines, or change them, is allowed to try. It is useful to gain consensus, find allies, give convincing arguments, and contribute to Wikipedia in other ways if you intend to be successful in doing this; because just as anyone can make an edit, anyone can revert. You don't have to be an admin. You do have to work well with others.
4. Should ArbCom be made up of (and this seems exceptionally likely) people predominantly from the United States No.
5. how do the hundreds of millions of native non-US English readers actually know that their articles are monitored by people who know their culture and therefore are able to neutrally determine that bias is, or is not, actually occurring? They can't know, anymore than they can know that is true of the New York Times or Britannica. WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Andrew81446 responds

Thanks for your responses. I must stress that when I asked these questions I wasn't asking about whether there is a "British contingent" on the committee or not; they were general questions aimed at establishing how Wikipedia can justify maintaining its highly respected international reputation for neutrality and self-governance. My observations are as follows:

1. "There is no guarantee. Anyone who wishes to try to enforce our policies and guidelines, or change them, is allowed to try."
   Given that there is no guarantee that the policies within the system are actually enforced by anybody, it is down to the editors themselves to adhere to the policy out of their own sense of obligation. Therefore, whether you can work well with others or not, should the majority of editors on a single article all not share that obligation, then consensus may be used to enforce any kind of content, regardless of what is actually going on in the world. Furthermore, there are no safeguards (over and above more editors from opposing viewpoints joining the system) for making sure that this situation doesn't happen.
2. "The English language Wikipedia aims to have useful claims backed by reliable sources on as many topics as we can manage.".
   It appears to me that Wikipedia is now unable to manage the neutrality of its English language content any more, and so should maybe change its name from "English" Wikipedia to something else. I can say this because no system that can manage its content would force a person to give up four months of their life (longer, actually, as ArbCom said that editors should return to lower-level mediation) to argue about something which, in their own country, is widely accepted. Requiring people to go through that kind of upheaval for the sake of documenting something which they don't have to argue about in their own country is a serious failing of the system.
3. "it is useful to gain consensus, find allies, give convincing arguments, and contribute to Wikipedia in other ways if you intend to be successful in doing this.". The most important part of that response for me is that consensus, and allies, should be found from among the majority of people currently outside of the system. The more people from outside the system who know how the system works, the more there will be who can potentially join, and the more editors there will be to ensure the neutrality of the system.
4. "They can't know, anymore than they can know that is true of the New York Times or Britannica."
   The New York Times is a US publication so people from all over the world know it is is a US-only publication so they know to caution all content within as being US-biased. This is of course correct, but question (3) wasn't about whether a publication with a specific national audience has to be neutral with respect to other countries. The question was about how Wikipedia, a service which specifically reaches out to an international audience, makes sure it actually is a neutral repository of information from the entire English-speaking world. Whether the predominantly IT-based people within Wikipedia think an interpretation is "fair" or not is not really the issue; the issue is about the fact that when it comes to documenting information, everything is what it is. It's that simple. Question (3) was about whether Wikipedia's administrators have the ability to apply the "everything is what it is" mentality over and above their own beliefs regardless of which country or industrial sector they are from. For example, Oxford University Press in the UK, Mirriam-Webster in the US, make it their business to make sure that their publications document what is and what isn't from the view of everybody (not an IT-based minority) within whichever region is being documented, which is why they are the most solidly verifiable sources in existence. It appears in some casees that documentation of "it is what it is" has all but been forgotten.

Wikipedia's biggest intended (and actual) audience is non-IT people who make up the majority of the English speaking world and teachers and local governments around the world are clammering to use it. As Wikpedia editors, though, all these people are effectively eunuchs as they don't know how to login to a computer system, mark-up a page, use a version control system, and effectively argue against professionals who spend their entire waking lives doing just that in chatrooms, bulletin boards and on academic networks. Ordinary people may not have the time to contribute, or employment/other local restrictions may prevent it. However, every single one of those people is a contributor to their communities and their culture, and so guarantees must exist to ensure that everybody can be documented neutrally within the system should Wikipedia actually be aspiring to be such a service in the first place. I (and indeed, everyone in the world) assumes that Wikipedia is aspiring to be such a service, and that these guarantees already exist, but your statements say that they do not and this misunderstanding ought to be corrected within the community at large outside of the system.

Any kind of system that relies on consensus is a democracy. Consensus and Democracy go hand in hand; you can't have one without the other. If Wikipedia is not a democracy then it should be possible for a single editor to still (with appropriate sources) override the majority simply because that editor is documenting "it is what it is". Being able to "convince" has virtually nothing to do with a single person's reasoning skills and virtually everything to do with whether the people listening want to accept what is being said. People can ignore anything they like, even if it's right, is actually happening, and is documented and believed as such by hundreds of millions of people. Therefore, being able to "convince" is a fairly ineffective and difficult tool to use given the ease with which a big stick like "consensus" can be wielded. This leads me to conclude that, given the deliberate omission of overall control in the system, Wikipedia's core policies are contradicting each other and it is affecting actual content correctness. I don't have enough time on this earth to be checking (and possibly arguing about) the 2,000,000 or so articles currently in English Wikipedia and devoting up to four months of my life fixing each article. That would take up to 700,000 years. But then one person shouldn't have to do the work that a system expects an entire nation to be doing. A system that claims to be aimed at everybody should not be prohibitively difficult to edit (and therefore inaccessible) to the majority of its own audience. However, if that is the reality, then such a system should have enforceable controls in place to make sure that the entire system can be fixed at least within the lifetime of most human beings.

This concludes my observations, and my questions with regard to this thread. I thank you all for your time.

Andrew81446 (talk) 12:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Response by Avruch

Wikipedia is not dominated by IT people. I'm not sure what caused you to come to this conclusion, but as far as I am aware there is no data or anecdotal evidence to suggest that most contributors come from an IT background. Wikipedia is not difficult to edit. It requires a basic familiarity with web browsing, and not too much more beyond that. That would be why many millions of contributors have edited - far more, I suspect, than you will find in the IT community of the English speaking world.

There are no guarantees on content, nor could there be while still maintaining the principle of an "encyclopedia anyone can edit." If you find that there is a problem with an article, then engage in fixing it. You may run into opposition. Since your opinions do not dominate, it is incumbent upon you to convince others to adopt your point of view. If you fail to do so, it does not point up an inherent problem in the concept of "convincing" (though there may be many). It simply means that there are those who disagree with your view of "what is is." If you can't see that content is more complex than "it is what it is" then you are missing more than anyone here can explain to you. No one required you to spend four months fruitlessly arguing that "Hacker" should be used in a particular manner, or based on a particular definition with which you are familiar. You complain that you should not have to convince others of a fact which is simply accepted in your country, and yet this mindset is ironically exactly what you seem to rail against.

Finally, while we appreciate your contributions you must know that while Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone is free to edit, it is also the encyclopedia anyone is free to not edit. It is not uncommon for editors to take issues of WIkipedia content far more seriously than is perhaps advisable. This seems to be the case here, and perhaps you should take some time away and return to Wikipedia with a new perspective. We recognize that there is an issue of system bias, and that the prevalence of editors from a small number of cultures can introduce problems of perspective in our content. You are welcome to join us in combating this problem, but its existence is human nature and a product of reality and not our great failure. Avruch ^T 00:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Andrew81446 responds

1. "Wikipedia is not dominated by IT people"
   According to the Systemic Bias project within Wikipedia, which was based on actual research, "The average Wikipedian on English Wikipedia is (1) a man, (2) technically inclined...". Seeing as this is a computer system, and not (1) a mechanical based system involving gears, pulleys, or any kind of automotive component, or (2) a biochemical system containing elements such as gasses or liquids or any geneticly-derived material, the phrase "technically inclined" can be reasonably asserted to mean "those with technical knowledge about, or connected with, computers", or more simply put, IT-familiar or IT-industry related people.
2. While Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone is free to edit, it is also the encyclopedia anyone is free to not edit
   That is perfectly true, providing that the equal and opposite message is actively promoted amongst its readers. That is, that readers are free to accept or not to accept information that appears due to the fact that editors may all come from one region and so can bias or influence any and all information that appears on it. Readers cannot make a proper choice to ignore content on Wikipedia if they are not made aware of the choice in the first place. And seeing as I see no such cautionary note on the front page of Wikipedia it can be reasonably argued that the desperate situation that exists with a lack of editors is not being transmitted to the readers. As Wikipedia actively promotes itself into schools and local government, children around the world are allowed (or are actively promoted) to use Wikipedia instead of consulting local works. If you already have children, or choose to have children in the future, I am sure one of your primary concerns is making sure that what they learn at school is in line with what you, as a parent, think is best for your child. Teachers who implicitly trust Wikipedia are using it to teach our children something that really could have no bearing on what goes on in the area of the world where we live simply because of the bias created by editors of the system, and the system itself supporting such bias. While you as a parent have a choice then you can always correct anything your child learns once you have an opportunity. However, should usage of information on Wikipedia become government educational policy (e.g. exam moderators being allowed to consult Wikipedia to check "university entrance" exam responses), your right to teach your child whatever you like will effectively disappear as they will have to answer questions on exam papers in a way that corresponds to what appears on Wikipedia. And you will then have to implicitly trust that Wikipedia delivers the neutrality and balanced information that its policies were designed to deliver, regardless of what you actually want to teach your children about the environment in which they are raised and grow up in. Within this context, do you think that anybody is free "not to edit"?

You may think that the information on Wikipedia may reflect your particular environment, and reflects the culture that you wish to instil into your children, but are you really sure? The only way to be sure is to check all 2,200,000 articles which would take up to 700,000 years (as I said). Of course, you don't have to check them all, but then you only have yourself (and human nature) to blame if United States educational policy (for example) advocates use of Wikipedia and your child is being force-fed (for example) United Kingdom culture because the bias in certain articles wasn't able to be fixed.

This is why I said that Wikipedia has potentially already become a system that cannot control itself. However, it isn't necessary to control the system if readers are armed with choice, and are made aware of having that choice in the first place. If my efforts within the system to simply document what goes on in my country are meeting with such opposition from other editors within the system, then perhaps I should take a break and devote my time to making readers in my country aware of how content is constructed, thus empowering them with the choice of whether to accept information regarding things that they generally turned to Wikipedia in the first place to find out about. Seeing as such people would be coming from my community, I wouldn't have nearly as much trouble relating my thoughts due to the "lack of skill" in being able to "convince" people that has been remarked upon in my dealings with other editors within the system.

Andrew81446 (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Response by Avruch

I don't know any teachers, and haven't heard of any, who "implicitly trust Wikipedia." Quite the opposite, in fact. I think we are far, far away from the point where entrance exams are based on or checked against Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't gospel - its words are not revelatory, and anyone is free to ignore anything on any article. You are making the argument that because some people won't think to take something written on the encyclopedia anyone can edit with a grain of salt, we should post giant disclaimers on every page saying "CAREFUL, AMERICANS MAY HAVE WRITTEN THIS!" Sorry, no - this is a free to edit website. Parsing it further, it is (a) free, (b) editable by anyone and (c) a website. Any one of these three things by themselves typically clue folks in regarding reliability. That you or others lack this clue perhaps points out a problem with your pre-Wikipedia education system, not Wikipedia. Coming from my biased, American and IT-related background perhaps I have an advantage in this area - but nothing on or related to Wikipedia has anything to do with the "culture I want instilled in my children" - except, perhaps, the principle of freedom that you are implicitly arguing against.

Regarding technically inclined and my dispute of your assertion that Wikipedians are generally or universally members of the IT-community - the research you refer to is a single survey from 3 years ago on the German Wikipedia. Attempting to apply broad conclusions from this research to English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project, 3 years later, is doomed to fail. Arguments for controls and sweeping changes to inculcate some sort of objective truth should be based on an accurate reading of the research you cite.

You don't address my point specific to your complaint (the Hacker article). You say that you shouldn't have to spend 4 months arguing to have an article reflect what is commonly accepted in your country, and I am telling you that this point of view is exactly why you have lost that crusade. Further, you appear to be criticizing that position and taking it at the same time.

Take a look at WP:DEADLINE. The policies here aren't "designed to deliver" Wikipedia as if it were a finished product on an assembly line. They are ad-hoc (but well thought out) attempts to add to and improve upon our content over time, a task that will not result in a perfect product anytime soon if ever. Feel free to read Britannica or some other reference in the mean time, only Wikipedia is subject to the biases we've identified here. Avruch ^T 15:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Response by Coppertwig

Not a member of the arbcom, but I would like to comment on this question: "In terms of content, is English Wikipedia considered to be a vehicle for documenting the United States, or for documenting the entire English-speaking world?" My answer: No. English Wikipedia is for documenting everything that is notable. It is not restricted to topics in the English-speaking world nor to topics supported by English-language sources, and certainly not restricted to topics in the United States. The English language is merely the medium in which the documentation is expressed, not an indication of what topics will be covered. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Response by Andrew81446

Response to Avruch: I have some things here that will help you understand the world of teaching that you openly confess - rather shockingly, given the weight which you give your subsequence points - not to know anything about: see this history teacher in a UK school. You'll notice he asks a very pertinent question in fact:

I don't know how they deal with differing interpretations though - it will be interesting to find out.

Well, I personally shall be emailing him to tell him exactly how Wikipedia deals with differing interpretations: by being shouted down, intimidated, and generally being worn out to the point (in most cases) of being forced to give up by a very vociferous predomimantly US-based community who exercise consensus to get what they want. You think my analsys of my experience is unfair? Have you read the entire archived history on the Hacker (computing) article? By the way, he also makes a reference to the article Hutton Inquiry. Such UK-only institutions of course are not going to invite a lot of outside contributions. However, even given that, the (I assume) predominantly United Kingdom contributors made sure that the article was disambiguated from the start, to prevent all readers from outside of the United Kingdom, English-speaking and non-English-speaking, from thinking that there is a Hutton Inquiry in every English-speaking country. It begs the question why is it that United States contributors cannot do the same thing with regards to their articles.

Incidentally, if you think that my appraisal of "glossy" and "wholesome" is incorrect then maybe you should read this (BBC, 7th December, 2007) from Mr. Wikipedia himself, Jimmy Wales. Of course, not everybody agrees with him and Wikipedia's Co-Founder Larry Sanger actually criticised the United Kingdom Education Minister (United Kingdom: The Times, April 11th, 2007) for encouraging national education policy to accept Wikipedia given the bias that is known to exist within it. People outside of the UK (e.g. the United States) may not know about these events that happened just mid- to late last year but then, as I have been advocating on the "Hacker" article talk pages, people rarely talk about, or care about, things that don't concern them. However, that itself does not mean such things do not exist or are wrong. Read the two articles as they are very important.

Wikipedia's Founder openly derides teachers, in a country which he doesn't live in or contribute to, who actually teach your "take it with a grain of salt" principle to the students. If there was ever an attitude of arrogance and disrespect for another country's culture then that was it. And coming from the very top of the Wikipedia instution. It seems that even though he has officially delegated respsonibilities to ArbCOM, his arrogance appears to be living on within the system through its editors. So yes, the effects of protagonists like Jimmy Wales require exceptional solutions and your idea that a warning that "CAREFUL, AMERICANS MAY HAVE WRITTEN THIS!" is actually a very good, if not a little extreme, as that would be documenting the current situation with regards to the ratio's of editors. However, that is not actually necessary as simple disambiguations in well positioned places within the articles (like that in the article Hutton Inquiry) would make all the difference. You can see for yourself what I am talking about by comparing the opening paragraphs of this (disambiguations inserted) with this (no disambiguations).

From my experience, the only thing that all Wikipedia editors have in common is that they are afraid to actually document "as it is". You, as an editor, may have the right approach, but I can dig up thousands of teachers like the one quoted above who implicitly just trust that it correctly governs itself. Unfortunately, it takes an exremist to bring light to a problem which, as I found out, can often damage credibility. However, readers of Wikipedia are not currently aware of the real situation, nor of the real "grain of salt" thinking some (yes, some, not all) of Wikipedia's editors, and that is a fact that needs to be addressed. People inside Wikipedia may not like to believe it, but the situation I talk of is already happening and is much closer than you think and people have a right to know.

As I said before, this situation could, and probably will apply to other countries as well. In the future, for example, should any United States student refer to soccer instead of Football they could be marked down in an exam. I can't speculate about how normal, everyday United States citizens, who don't use computers and don't know much about editing Wikipedia, may feel about having their traditional game renamed because of a Wikipedia article, but it is an example of the kind of anger and sentiment that such a progression will inevitably lead to should English Wikipedia not fix its deep-rooted problems now.

Andrew81446 (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The above is a long comment that doesn't actually address what I've written, so I wouldn't really call it a response. I have no intention at this point of engaging further in this rather fruitless debate. Avruch ^T 15:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Response by User:Orderinchaos

I guess I see this as addressing a few issues. First of all, the question of regional bias. I'm an active Australian editor and spend a large amount of my time on Wikipedia writing or editing articles on Australian topics using Australian sources. Our "bit" of Wikipedia, with about 44,000 articles and about 2% of Wikipedia's total content (see WP:AUS), functions almost like its own entity at times, with some even going to the extent of criticising us as being a cabal. Most of our problems (where they exist) come from local editors and local differences of opinion, rather than any sort of systemic anti-Australian bias. More recently, we've been working with smaller nearby nations with little or no representation on Wikipedia (and often with relatively poor access to the Internet and technology) to enhance their coverage. (Most of these things apply equally to most regional projects - Canada, New Zealand and India all come to mind.) While on general topics, due simply to the weight of American editors, one may find some level of undue weighting (not so much bias, as in general the articles in question are fairly neutral but lack scope), this should be addressed by more people editing them. As for ArbCom, the current mix has one North African, several Americans, several Brits and I believe two Australians at the present.

Secondly, to the IT/technical bias. While I plead guilty as charged as an IT-literate person, graduate and former IT worker, many of my fellow editors are subject editors and relatively non-technical, including people with several Featured Articles, the "pinnacle" of Wikipedia achievement. Obviously through use, one acquires a level of comprehension and familiarity, but anyone who can master APA or some other citation system for academic work can master our citation system, and it's pretty much the only complex issue one will ever come across. Wikipedia is packed full of people eager to teach others, run workshops, and of course there's all the links from the typical (and ever more colourful) welcome messages for new editors. Once one knows the basic policies (WP:5), that [[ is an internal link, [ is an external link, the heading levels, bold/italic, that {{ means the page is in the template namespace, how to plant an image, interwiki links and the citation templates, one could write a featured article with those alone and it may not even be necessary to learn more.

And finally, as an educator myself, to the reliability of Wikipedia - I think most educators acknowledge that Wikipedia is a tertiary source and can be unreliable. It is useful as a general guide and pointer, but many topics are not covered, some are inadequately, others have what we might call issues of various characters, while others are excellent, are written by subject experts from good sources and could be regarded as reasonably reliable. On many major and especially historical and scientific topics I generally find the latter case predominates - the only problem can sometimes be that the level of the article is pitched way above the processing level of my students! I am studying Politics at university and our unit guide has a clear warning about using Wikipedia as a source. Orderinchaos 15:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Inactive Arb removal process

Around the last election, Jimbo encouraged the community (IIRC) to develop a method for removing inactive Arbitrators between elections. I don't know if this has been discussed and resolved already, if it has can someone point me to where? If it is still unresolved, it seems like now is the perfect time to bring this problem to a close. All Arbitrators are currently active, and any decision on future inactive Arbitrators will not be seen as directed at a particular member of the Committee. Additionally, of course, any decision that requires the assent of the Committee on its own constitution will have the benefit of a majority of the entire panel rather than a subset of those who are active. Thanks, Avruch ^T 00:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This was being discussed internally by the committee, and I had circulated a draft proposal, but no conclusion has been reached. I agree that the matter should be discussed now when it is hypothetical, rather than later on in the context of a specific arbitrator who encounters availability problems. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you be willing to publicize this proposal? And for clarification on how to proceed, would you say that this issue will be decided by a consensus of the Committee or a consensus of the community, including the Committee members as individuals? I'm not too bothered by it as no action has been taken, but I'm not sure a private discussion about a community policy is necessarily the best choice. Avruch ^T 00:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It was part of Jimbo's instruction when appointing the new arbitrators that we formulate such a policy. If I remember correctly it was the arbitrators who were instructed to come up with something workable; remember that the Arbitration Policy is not under the control of the community. The new arbitrators needed to settle in and there were some very intense and difficult discussions which have taken a great deal of time. I personally feel that a simple process is the best. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for the clarification. I've been peripherally involved in both intensely difficult cases, so I can understand the delay. I agree, too, that the process should be as simple and straightforward as possible. Avruch ^T 01:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing inherently confidential about the inactivity policy (though there could conceivably be a private reason for temporary inactivity of a particular arbitrator), so I'd have no problem posting a proposal here, subject to what my colleages have to say about the matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Any progress on publicizing this draft, or progress as far as consensus on the draft itself? Avruch ^T 15:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Mikkalai

Re this change to "accept" by Newyorkbrad: I hope it's not out of line for me to comment on this here, and I make no comment on whether you accept the case nor on whether you consider Mikkalai's behaviour to be acceptable, but your comment "no indication that Mikkalai is willing to consider modifying his behavior at this time" does not seem to me to accurately reflect the edit by Mikkalai which came a few hours after the edit you referred to but before your post, so I wonder whether you hadn't seen this edit, or perhaps you didn't understand what I think Mikkalai meant by it. By (almost completely) blanking his talk page, Mikkalai was making a move towards conforming with the requests being made of him. When I saw that, I thought that you had been wise to wait. But I was disappointed that in your response you gave no indication of recognizing this gesture from Mikkalai. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed it and I hope that the fact that Mikka has reacted negatively to my reluctant accept comment won't undo any progress that has been made. I don't want to lose the services of any editor or administrator, so long as he or she is willing to maintain a reasonable level of civility and adhere to basic elements of policy. If there can be a drama reduction and avoidance of the need for a case right now I am all for it. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, the edit that Coppertwig refers to looks quite different in isolation than it does in the context of the previous several edits Mikkalai made to that page. Following the notification of the ArbCom case, he made a succession of quick edits to his pledge of muteness, refining the text. Then a couple of hours later he blanked the page. Some eight hours after that, he restored the page, adding a comment at the bottom that attacked Newyorkbrad specifically. An hour later the page was blanked again (this is Coppertwig's link). These actions, plus the comment in his subsequent edit don't suggest to me that any of this is reflective of someone "conforming with the requests being made of him", as Coppertwig suggests. Quite the contrary, in fact. -- Hux (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I apologize -- I linked to the wrong diff by mistake. I'm not sure whether it makes any difference, but I meant this diff, where Mikkalai "simplif[ied]" his talk page, which is the edit which came, as I said above, before the post by Newyorkbrad that I referred to above.

What Hux refers to as the "comment at the bottom that attacked Newyorkbrad specifically" appears to have been in response to Newyorkbrad's post that I mentioned above, which seemed to ignore Mikkalai's action of erasing. It mirrored Newyorkbrad's language ("bizarre"), and was deleted less than an hour afterwards, presumably as a regretful retraction of the comment. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

When Mikka talks about "witch-hunting", "[]loaded question" and "cornered wolf", he seems to be telling us that he feels he's being put in situations where he has no viable options. I don't know the whole situation and I don't know why he feels this way, but I feel his desperation. Everybody, I think it's time for A nice cup of tea and a sit down. (See March 2008.) --Coppertwig (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ignore all rules

The original version of Ignore all rules was, "If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the Wiki, then ignore them and go about your business." (Lee Daniel Crocker, April 17, 2002)

Apparently rules bother Mikkalai; or the mechanisms for enforcing rules bother him. In the spirit of Ignore all rules, the primary Wikipedian policy, I think perhaps it is incumbent on us to use our powers of creative thinking to try to come up with some way, consistent with the goals of the project and the comfort level of other users, to allow our cornered wolf Mikkalai to edit without being bothered by a lot of rule-enforcing actions. Mikkalai is helping with this by raising his level of civility and by inviting others to revert his actions, which he says he will not dispute.

I invite everyone to do some brainstorming and try to come up with solutions or with partial solutions which can be fit together like the pieces of a puzzle to make a full solution.

As soon as I thought about posting this call for creative thinking a few hours ago, an idea occurred to me, and I present it here as my proposal. I had mentioned a few days ago that I had been thinking about it, and just realized a few hours ago that, given the current state of Mikkalai's talk page, which still discourages communication but is more civil, that this idea is both necessary and relatively acceptable.

Proposal: that a banner be posted on Mikkalai's talk page inviting people with questions or complaints about Mikkalai's admin actions to post their comments on my talk page. I will then try to explain the reasoning behind Mikkalai's actions, or if I am unable to do so to my satisfaction, then I will try to find someone to either explain or revert the action. People with complaints about ordinary editing by Mikkalai can simply revert the edits, since Mikkalai has invited them to do so. I hereby offer to take this on as an ongoing responsibility, reserving the right to resign at any time.

I would post such a banner now, (example), except that I'm not sure whether Mikkalai would perceive it to be a grave disrespect. I'm now posting a notice on my talk page stating that questions and complaints about Mikkalai's admin actions are welcome there. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I am Russian, that is I was born in Russia but grew up all over the world. That helps me understand where Michaeli is coming from and what he is trying to say. Rules are not made of stone! We need to be flexable and consider human feeling and not just go by the book. We should think of the spirit of the project not the letter. How do good editors who are familiar with a aprticular are come to the project and stay here, if at their first visit we bite them call them Trolls, Spammers, vandals, and etc. If anyone protests we invoke civil and call them disrupt. We wave a flag of COI if any one has any relationship to a give n topic. Should we have donuts backers write abour Medieval history? Rules are great and necessary but IGNORE is just important and needs to be respected. Igor Berger (talk) 02:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Igor: I have a lot of respect for your argument that the spirit of Wikipedia's policies is more important than the letter. The trouble is that it overlooks the fact that Mikkalai is all too happy to ignore policy one minute, in order to justify his own actions, and then throw the rulebook at someone the next, in order to justify the wrongness of theirs. I also think that it's been made plain that he's done a number of things that ignore both the spirit and the letter of "the law". Imo, nobody should be allowed to hide behind IAR and then accuse people of being "wikilawyers" whenever they point out that the editor is acting far outside the spirit of Wikipedia. -- Hux (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I just think he needs some time to cool down and blow off his discontent. It's like he is on strike for too many things that went wrong or too many chalanges to his POV. I say give him some breathing room and he will be back to his own Michaeli, whatever that is..:) IMO, just starting this ArbCom request may not have been such a good idea because that is what he expected us to do and we are proving him right. When someone puts your back to the wall, what do you do if not fight back for your own survival. Time heals all wounds! Igor Berger (talk) 05:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Think of him as a big Grizzly bear on whom you have stumbled on while walking in the woods. The bear gets on his hind paws and is formidable. You are scared and start screaming at the bear but the bear gets very angry and launches at you. Why? Because the bear feels threatened by you, and Michaeli feels threatened by the system. Now if you would be quiet and just stand still for a while the bear would come back down on all his paws sniff a bit at you turn around and walk away. Hence, when attacked by a bear play dead! Same here, if we leave Michaeli alone he will back down and see us as wikilove people not like someone who questions his authority and his rights to exist. Do not wrestle with a Russian Grizzly bear! Igor Berger (talk) 05:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, good. Mikkalai has posted instructions on his talk page which (arguably) make my proposal above unnecessary. (Thanks, Mikka!!) I think he has managed to design his talk page so that everything can be worked out comfortably without conflict and without needing communication from him. Inviting people to revert and stating that he won't dispute the reverts is a key element of that.

I think our goal here is de-escalation. I think we need to agree on an arrangement which, while possibly not 100% satisfactory in all ways, is nevertheless sufficiently satisfactory that we can close down the arbitration request, stop having AN/I threads (unless something serious arises) and leave Mikkalai in peace. Then after a period of time maybe Mikkalai will feel comfortable and resume "normal service" and we can, I hope, arrive eventually at a completely satisfactory solution.

Is it now sufficiently satisfactory? People could argue that we don't want a lot of admins doing the same thing. Never mind -- that's one of these OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments. And possibly it would be fine if other people do the same thing, including the part about inviting reverts and not disputing them. People could argue that it adds more work for the people monitoring the noticeboards Mikkalai is directing his complainants to. Maybe the amount of work will be small; maybe the people won't mind. Maybe it will only be for a short time. People could argue that one problem with this system is that Mikkalai won't get feedback to prevent him from making similar mistakes many times. I argue that Mikkalai can choose to get feedback by looking to see whether his actions were reverted; this may feel more comfortable than actively getting involved in conflicts. I also argue that since Mikkalai is said to have had "years of excellent work as an editor and as an admin" that little or no feedback is necessary; that he already knows what's acceptable, what's mildly annoying, what's out of line etc. and can continue for a period of time without feedback, especially if given space to calm down. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that in general, admins should follow high standards, communicate etc. I'm asking for special consideration in this case out of compassion because it seems to be needed. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply to statement by MBisanz

Admins are allowed to make (a small number of) mistakes. One of the four issues you raise is a page deletion which Mikkalai subsequently undeleted after it was brought up at AN/I. Resolved; no need to bring this up at arbitration. For the other three, you give no indication that they were mentioned either on Mikkalai's talk page or at AN/I. It seems inappropriate to me to bring them up here without discussing them at one of those places first. For all four of these problems, I think Mikkalai's current system would work to allow such actions, if inappropriate, to be reverted. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've changed my vote on the main RfAr page to declining the case for now because it seems that some progress is being made, and in light of the factors mentioned by a number of users. If the problems recur or continue, then a new request for arbitration can be filed, but I truly hope this will not become necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That was why I elaborated what I felt the issues were. Since the arbs were saying they were basing accepting on the allegations of admin abuse, and someone had pointed out that the blocking feature already provides a form of notification, I figured I should list what I believed were the improper actions, so no one would claim I exaggerated to get the case accepted. MBisanz ^talk 21:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Issues with BetacommandBot - ArbCom case?

I think everyone in ArbCom knows about the issues with BetacommandBot.

BetacommandBot was blocked many times because of bugs and other things. Many users complained about BetacommandBot. You can see many AN/I threads about BetacommandBot. Last time, there was a page for discussion about BetacommandBot, but it got deleted as an "attack page".

Suggestions to improve BetacommandBot, like making the bot "open source", got ignored by Betacommand. Last time, there was a case about Betacommand and ArbCom found that he abused bots and desysopped him. He still abuses bots. For example, he used BetacommandBot to spam a user's talk page and make 5000 edits to the Main Page so it cannot be deleted. Also, he is incivil and attacks people who complain about BetacommandBot.

It is quite clear that Betacommand will not fix his bot. When anyone complains about Betacommand or his bot, there is a group of users who will always defend him and accuse them of a lot of things, like incivility, harassing and trying to destroy the fair use policy.

There is a huge mess. I hope ArbCom can help with the mess. I want to file a case, but I am not sure whether ArbCom thinks there is enough "content issue" and "conduct issue" to look into. So I want to ask ArbCom for some feedback here, before I file a case. If ArbCom says "go ahead and file a case", I will file a case. I can find a lot of evidence for all the things I say above.

Maybe ArbCom can also clarify what (issues with BetacommandBot, Betacommand's conduct and other's conduct) they think is "conduct issue" that they will look into and what is "content issue" that they will not look into. The group of users who defend BetacommandBot, I must say to you, if there is an ArbCom case, I think ArbCom will also look into your accusings of incivility and harassing and if those who complained about BetacommandBot really did that, they will also be punished.

--Kaypoh (talk) 15:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not Arbitration is to be filed is immaterial, but I just feel that there isn't a real problem with BetacommandBot. There's also my concern that filing an Arbitration case would prevent BetacommandBot from meeting the deadline. I feel there is a lack of communication from both "sides" if you will and nobody is clear about what BetacommandBot is planning (other than phases). I feel people are still mostly concerned with the fact that the deadline is pretty much solely being dictated by BetacommandBot and that BetacommandBot and the operator tend to draw a lot of problems - some for good reason, some for bad reason.

That said, if there is to be a case, then I think an RfC would be filed first. And if there is to be a case, I hope that the case is done quickly because there is a deadline to meet. x42bn6 Talk Mess 15:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

x42bn6, I welcome an ArbCom case, it might finally mean that I can get concrete proof that BCBot is correct and is enforcing policy. This would allow me to point to the case and stop the harrasment and constant request for me/BCBot to be blocked and or banned. and I can get back to doing what I do best, improving Wikipedia. β^_command 20:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be more correct to say that BCBot is enforcing policy for a small subsets of images where failure to conform to a specific part of the policy can be detected by a bot. This is valuable work, but by no means enough. For true, Wikipedia-wide enforcement of non-free image policy, much more is needed. Summarising that as "BCBot is enforcing policy" is, in many contexts, misleading as people (wrongly) take that to mean that BCBot is enforcing the entire policy for all images. Betacommand, if you feel that people are harassing you, would you consider filing an arbitration case against them? Carcharoth (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

x42bn6 - regarding meeting the deadline (23 March 2008), Betacommand has said that most of the tagging of older images is now complete. The only thing that would be affected by an arbitration case would be the checking and tagging of current uploads. That doesn't require as large a volume of edits, so could be done by another bot. For the record, I don't think any arbitration case is needed, but am also on the record as saying that it is still, in my opinion, an open question as to whether BetacommandBot's tagging of images under NFCC#10c has overall improved Wikipedia. On balance, I think it has, but only just. And I am currently trying to document what happened and what the impact was, though that sort of thing is difficult, if not impossible, to quantify. Carcharoth (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think someone from ArbCom should say something. --Kaypoh (talk) 05:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The question that must be considered in this matter is: would asking the Arbitration Committee to examine this case benefit the project as a whole? For the most part, I would agree with that question: whilst the often intense nature of Arbitration would make it difficult to notice an immediate improvement in the situation, I believe, out with the short-term, a ruling on the case would help—either, if abuse of the bot has taken place, to take down a troublesome bot (that word choice used as a hypothetical for a ruling against BC), or, if abuse of the bot has been deemed not to have taken place, then, as Betacommand states above, to resolve the situation once and for all, and to allow him to return to running his Bot.

As to whether the Committee will/(in my opinion) should accept this case, then I would also suggest that they should—whilst this is only my humble opinion, the Community has been divided on the matter of this Bot for some time now, and prior dispute resolution has been all but exhausted. This dispute is very much reaching its last legs, and is now reaching the point where an Arbitration case is prudent. AGK (contact) 07:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

And as I've said before, I think the question is moot. The big tagging runs of 10,000+ images are over, and it is only current uploads that are being tagged. Most of the problems were from legacy images, and that is mostly a done deal, and there is not much point going back over that. However, if Betacommand came up with another way to find and tag images, and he continued to run his bot in the same way with the same problems (sporadic large-scale runs without notifications of the runs, and the same standard of explanations and communications) then there may be a case to answer. His phase 4, for example, where he proposes using the bot to remove images that "have a rationale" in one or more other article from any articles for which they "lack a rationale" (where, of course, "lack a rationale" refers to images that fail mention one or more of the articles they are used in - which is only a subset of those images lacking rationales). Or his proposal (based on a suggestion of mine, though it is not a new idea) to find images that don't use rationale templates, and get humans to check those to see if the rationale is OK. I would hope that whatever non-free image work BetacommandBot does next, over-and-above the normal 10c tagging, gets discussed and properly implemented this time. Doing a full analysis of the numbers first, using more informative and less aggressive tagging, doing things at a slow enough pace to avoid backlogs building up, and working with and finding humans to help do the work needed. What I think is really needed is a way for people to indicate that an image has been checked and its rationale deemed OK. There needs to be stability at some point. Carcharoth (talk) 09:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Okey, NFCC 10c was over, several days ago in fact, in fact, its now split off into a separate bot function. That question is moot. But now the issue of cat changing has come up. Per this diff, if admins are forcing a user to violate the BLP policy (I'm still trying to figure out how, given that Bot policy specifically prohibits bots from editing categories relating to people), that seems like something Arbcom would be very interested in. Also, I'm beginning to wonder why this same bot keeps causing these real and unrelated issues (NFCC spamming, mainpage run-up, catting and not fixing it till blockd again). Once is a mistake, twice is explainable, but by the Xth time, I really have trouble understanding. MBisanz ^talk 20:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone else already filed an ArbCom case about BetacommandBot. --Kaypoh (talk) 07:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

A proposal - Matthew Hoffman solution

Seeing as the Arbitration Committee has decided to abandon the Highways case (a shame, really) would they be open to suspending the case for 30 days so that a formal mediation can take place? If the mediation fails, then the case can be resumed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I would not hold up Matthew Hoffman as a case worthy of emulation. It was a mess from start to finish. Jehochman ^Talk 01:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Some editors disagree. I think that case was handled very well under the circumstances. —Whig (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It was messier than it should have needed to be. I think Vanished User missed several chances to keep it relatively neat. Heck, we didn't even need a case, IMO, but Vanished User also managed to make it sound as though there was still a dispute between admins before the case was even filed. Had he not done that, there would never have been a case. GRBerry 02:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the case, in my opinion. Vanished User set the pace of the proceeding and the result. —Whig (talk) 02:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm only suggesting a case suspension and a formal mediation. Not anything else from that case. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Could the committee please respond? --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I preface this statement by noting that I have zero knowledge of the Highways case, but plenty of knowledge of Matthew Hoffman. If the Committee were to allow a suspension for mediation (or anything else), Rschen7754, you should ask for some sort of undertaking that they will the slightest bit of attention to the results. After all, the MH precedent is allow the community time to put forward a view and if it shows that the community believes that the case is going in completely the wrong direction, then ignore them and keep going. EdChem (talk) 09:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It also shows that failure to work with the Arbitration Committee, and failure to accept the best of a bad situation, doesn't really help. There is a danger here that a myth will be started that Arbcom were completely in the wrong in the MatthewHoffman case, when in fact they did several things to try and fix or improve the situation, and several reasonable solutions were offered, but for various reasons things spiralled out of control. That arbitration case going out of control was due to many factors, not all of which were under the control of the Arbcom or the community. That's my reading of what happened there. Carcharoth (talk) 10:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Out of respect for Newyorkbrad, I'm not going to comment further on the MH case here. EdChem (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I was planning to take a close look at the Highways case (which has indeed dragged on too long) this weekend and make some proposals. If editors feel that mediation wouild be as or more likely to bring about progress, then a proposal to that effect on workshop with widespread support would lead me to a motion to that effect instead. Let's not post-mortem the Matthew Hoffman case, which was a very different type of case, in this largely unrelated context. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer for the Arbitration Committee to review the case instead. However, as the motion for dismissal is gaining support, I figured that the mediation would be a better alternative to the case being dismissed. Thank you for your willingness to continually update us as to the progress of the case. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Trusted Users

I see the phrase bandied about (now in the Betacommand RfArb) but I can't find any reference to what it means, except for a failed proposal WP:Trusted Users that doesn't seem to have meant how the term is used anyhow. Is there a reference to who these people are? Jd2718 (talk) 13:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The phrase has no special meaning here beyond its ordinary English meaning. --bainer (talk) 13:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

In proper context, a "Trusted user" is someone that I am will to trust enough to give my bot code to. β^_command 15:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see why standards of trust are being set for this Bot; granted, it can be misued—but surely anybody with intentions malicious enough to facilitate their disruption of Wikipedia with bot code would have enough determination to go out and author code themselves? AGK (contact) 15:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I dont like handing code that can edit at 700 edits a minute to very vandal who wants it. β^_command 16:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• BC, you know as well as I do that speed of editing is simply a number entered in the code. Your code isn't top-secret for that reason, it's top-secret because you want it to be for some reason. And that's fine, apparently, as no one with the authority to do so is forcing you to open it up to community improvement. Bellwether ^B_C 23:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The connection between BC's "trusted users" and any other policy or convention is irrelevant, its simply the personal standard under which he'll release his code. I don't believe he can be forced to do that, so debating his standards seems to be not worth the time. Avruch ^T 16:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

So maybe the better phrase than "trusted users" would be "users I trust"? Franamax (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrators, please tidy up

The rather-inexplicable Episodes 2 case has had a majority on all its passing items for some time. Yet the case lingers open like a festering wound. For some reason, even the most recent two arbitrators to vote have neglected to vote thence to close. Since the injunction is already out of the jurisdiction of the committee (you are not invited, imo, to inject yourselves sweepingly into consensual processes), has been hanging around for ages and continues to bite unsuspecting editors who probably aren't aware of the speakings of the committee, please would someone get this thing tidied up? Splash - tk 22:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that there might be further findings or remedies presently being discussed amongst the arbitrators, and that is why even the voters may not have yet chosen to vote to close. Currently, there are three net votes to close (the opposition comes from an arbitrator that specifically asked to be given more time to consider further possible evidence). The case should close fairly soon, you'll probably just need a bit more patience. — Coren ^(talk) 23:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

A couple of us have been discussing whether any more proposals should be made. Editors on the case have expressed the view that the committee has not done enough to address the issues, and we want to make sure that we have done all we can, without crossing the line into making content rulings (please see the comments I left last week on the talkpage of proposed decision). I will withdraw my opposition to closing and put the case into closing immediately unless an arbitrator offers some substantial new proposals in a day or so. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If you do decide that further items are going to be considered, please simultaneously consider fixing the injunction which is causing actual problems on AfD and DRV, where it is questionable if the committee may even speak (they are consensual content venues). Poor decisions cannot be reversed, and good ones cannot be made; housekeeping cannot proceed and debates around the questions are stifled. Most of us have never misbehaved wrt to 'episodes and characters' and to summarily injunct every editor is rather extraordinary. This has been raised a number of times on the proposed decision's talk page by several different editors and admins, but not so far dealt with. I fear the injunction is approaching, or already past, its sell-by date, and is likely to find itself disposed of by being ignored by most of us before very much longer. Allow the case to linger if you must, but please either dispense with the injunction, or scope it to the parties to the case. Splash - tk 23:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair point. If the case isn't closed tomorrow, I'll make an appropriate motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's been closed now. Daniel (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Comments by Locke Cole (BetacommandBot RfArb)

Threaded discussion removed to talk page from here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you should read WP:SOCK, that's an interesting page. His secondary account is a legitimate use of a secondary account.He is definitely not using his second account to give a false sense of greater support of his views, or stir up controversy. -- lucasbfr ^talk 23:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

His actions are a direct violation of WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY. Special:Contributions becomes unusable when you have an editor partaking in identical discussions from multiple accounts. See also User:Betacommand2, where he suggests ("this is my Test & VandalProof account") this doppelgänger account is only for test purposes (but a quick perusal of the contributions indicates otherwise). —Locke Cole • t • c 23:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia:SOCK#SCRUTINY states clearly that "Using alternative puppet accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors cannot detect patterns in your contributions." I've been confused more than once by this, and though I now know to look out for whether he is editing using Betacommand or Betacommand2, it is probable that others have been confused by this as well. Carcharoth (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You are both overlooking Wikipedia:SOCK#Segregation_and_security, account security is a good reason for using an alternate account. That's the reason why many admins have an alternate account (javascript issues, as I think is the case here, would be an other valid explanation). Perhaps you should ask Betacommand to update his user page instead of assuming he is doing so in order to escape scrutinity. -- lucasbfr ^talk 00:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't stated that the account is being used for segregation and security; as per the user page, it is for "testing and vandalproof". Again, this is a clear cut violation of WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY; his contributions are being split between two accounts without even an attempt at a valid reason for doing so. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I've asked Betacommand here. This threaded conversation really should stop here and now, as such threaded conversation is frowned upon. If neither of you two objects, I will move this to the RFARB talk page (and link to it from here). Carcharoth (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

End quote. Further discussion should be added below. Carcharoth (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Come on Locke will your trolling never end? how am I deceive anyone I redirected the talkpage to my main account. that is anything from deceptive. I have never denied that I use the alt account. WP:SOCK#LEGIT covers it fairly well there are tech reasons that I dont use my main account at times, and a little bit of the security also. β^_command 00:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Three points. (1) Locke is not trolling. (2) People are being confused by this - they are looking for edits they remember you making, but are looking under the wrong account. (3) You should update User:Betacommand2 to state that there are technical and security reasons that you sometimes contribute to discussions using this account (ie. it is more than just a test and VandalProof account). There is no way to avoid (2) if you have security or technical reasons for using the alternate account, but it would be good if you could minimise the use of the alternate account and thus minimise any confusion it causes (eg. someone trying to find some diff where you stated something about some phase 4 stuff, but forgetting to look under the Betacommand2 account). Carcharoth (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Further incivility (referring to my concerns as "trolling") noted at my RFArb comments. At any rate, posting from a sockpuppet account in the manner you have been (alternating back and forth) makes using Special:Contributions nearly worthless when trying to find when you said something. I also wonder if there really are legitimate reasons for using a 2nd account in this manner, as it really only leads to confusion by other editors/the community. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• This seems unnecessary and not really appropriate for this page (although mea culpa, I got the same pointer above). If the case is accepted, which it seems like it might not be, you can snipe at eachother where the sniping is usually done - WP:RfAr/BetacommandBot/Workshop. There is a reason RfAr is structured the way it is, without threaded discussion between parties - the point where something will be resolved by further arguing has been passed, according to those advocating the case's acceptance. Unless you for some reason think the back and forth is going to be constructive, you should leave off and let the process work itself out. Avruch ^T 01:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for moving it, I apologize for starting the discussion, Locke's assertion just seemed too crazy at first glance. I understand his concerns better now (even if I strongly disagree with him). -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion regarding the appeal of community sanctions

Editors who are subject to a community sanction established by a discussion at WP:AN are entitled to appeal to the Arbitration Committee. It seems overly bureaucratic to start a case for a simple appeal. I think it would be better if any editor in that situation could file an appeal at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Clarifications and other requests. This would allow for an expedited review that would either 1/ endorse the community decision, 2/ overturn the decision, or 3/ establish the need for a full blown arbitration case. If this makes sense, can this process be recorded in the section header, and perhaps also at Wikipedia:Community sanction. Jehochman ^Talk 01:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jehochman that a low-bureaucracy approach is desirable, but suggest that the present proposal needs some careful consideration. For example, is the function of this review to consider whether the community decision was made appropriately (consensus reached, etc), or to review of all the evidence? If the latter, will this review take in only the evidence cited in the community decision, or also the evidence that editors contributing to that discussion would have submitted had a full ArbCom case been necessary? If the 'appeal' can be decided with an overturn decision, but there is no prospect of the sanction being increased (as would be possible in a full case, and is arguably justified in the case which prompts Jehochman's question), isn't there a risk that every community sanction will be appealled? The Committee's present direction in MM seems likely to be followed by community sanctions of some sort shortly after its closure; there is argument around that case about whether community action should be taken in place of ArbCom proceedings. That being the case, the provisions implemented could well be seen as encouraging or discouraging community sanctions being imposed. It is also worth considering whether the endorsement or overturning of a community sanction in this way would prejudice a full case being requested by dissatisfied editors. I am unsure how these issues should be resolved, but do believe that there are issues here requiring some careful consideration of procedure and (more importantly) potential outcomes going forward. Jay*Jay (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think expedited review would involve reading the community discussion thread and making a determination as to whether the process was fair, and whether the decision accurately reflected the consensus, in which case the appeal can be rejected. If process was not fair or if there was no proper consensus, the sanction can be overturned, and then it is up to the community to either redo the discussion properly, or file a request for arbitration. Jehochman ^Talk 02:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a high disruption cost to a process whereby an editor that was of concern enough to be community banned, having the ban overturned by Arbcom in order that the community may then debate whether to refile for an extended duration arbitration case against the unbanned-but-doubtful user instead.

It would be much better that Arbcom would determine either the ban was incorrect or unlikely to be reasonable, and remit it to the community to reconsider, or that it was likely to be well founded, or that a full case would be needed to fairly evaluate it. In each case, given the community performed the ban, unless it is manifestly unfair in the view of the committee, my preference would be some approach involving a decision, that was in most cases (if a basis of concern existed) then remitted back to the community to discuss what next. If Arbcom say "the ban is a concern for reasons XYZ", I'd much rather the community debated it, and I would normally trust them to do so taking the extra views into account, given that the "heat" will have significantly dissipated in many cases. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. Shall we try a test case, or do you want to discuss this amongst yourselves for a while? Jehochman ^Talk 02:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

What's needed is something in between the very quick and rough "justice" of an ANI discussion and the formal involvement of ArbComm. Mediation? I started to follow a recent case and was disturbed to see what was far from a sober consideration of the issues. ANI is "hot." Most who follow it have little patience for a detailed exploration of the situation, and so snap judgments can be made. Charges and countercharges fly, and are never examined in detail and resolved, so, for example, we don't know of sanctions are resulting from false charges. I think we need to treat these incidents somewhat as we might an article. A case page should be built and should follow NPOV standards. Opinions should be stated as attributed opinions. There should be "findings" that have consensus. Talk for this page would be where editors can rave, within normal rules of civility and AGF, but the project page would summarize it and focus it and find consensus, if it can be found, or report the varieties of opinion, if consensus can't be found. In some cases, ArbComm might be able to take such a page and simply bless it. Or tweak it. The difference between this and ANI is that ANI is over very quickly, and may establish what ArbComm considers "temporary injunctions." I.e., bans or blocks can be imposed, pending further process, if any. The difference with ArbComm is that ArbComm is binding, by precedent, not all cases are accepted, and there is a formal body making decisions by vote. This intermediate process would be similar to article or project process. So many times I have seen editors make claims, say, on ANI, that they would immediately recognize as POV with an article, imputations of bad faith without clear evidence, unsourced and unsubstantiated opinion. And redundant. There is a basic rule of parliamentary procedure that ArbComm follows, but the rest of Wikipedia decision process does not: voting on a question doesn't take place until the question is clear and settled. Voting doesn't start until the evidence -- form all involved parties -- has been presented. With so many processes, a nominator makes a proposal, and then editors comment with their !votes, and at the same time present new evidence, etc. It's backwards. Yes, it starts with a "motion" (and really there should be a second, someone willing to stand up and support dispute resolution for the case at hand, taking responsibility for not supporting a frivolous appeal), and then collection and presentation of evidence, and it is this part which should be NPOV. At any time, the proposed action can be amended, and, if necessary, polling would take place on the amendment; in the end, though, it should be a single proposed outcome that is voted on. As with all Wikipedia process short of ArbComm, votes aren't binding.... In what I'm suggesting here, though, they would indeed be votes. The argument part preceded them, so what is left at the end is pure vote. It still doesn't bind, but measures consensus, at least among the community of those participating. --Abd (talk) 03:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

We have a variety of methods available for hearing requests, from full cases to reviews by email correspondence, and we can select whichever method best suits the situation. A full case may be immediately useful to allow for maximal input from the community, for example. --bainer (talk) 08:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Enforcement requests

Input requested from arbitrators and arbitration enforcement regulars on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Enforcement requests. I have no idea why this case and only this case has set up a special enforcement page out of site of the usual mechanism; it appears to be largely a walled garden where the same participants yell at each other some more. I'm thinking it should be merged into WP:AE and enforcement reports handled via the normal routine mechanism. Comments to Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. Thatcher 14:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As the person who initiated the arbcom case I strongly agree with Thatcher and think it is essential that it is the arbcom enforcers who deal with the case rather than admins who have been involved in the Troubles squabbles since way back when. Thanks, SqueakBox

If you do, get ready for a flood of neverending AE cases. It was set up because we were the only folks willing to give a damn to try to keep this thing in bounds and because the usual suspects were running to us anyway. If AE wants to take it off our hands, well, not quite "good riddance to bad rubbish", but I'm glad someone else will be dealing with them. SirFozzie 128.222.37.20 (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me emphasize that it is not my intent to "take things off your hands" but to put these requests in the same place with the rest so they will attract a wider admin attention. Any admin uninvolved in the case is still welcome to patrol WP:AE and act on these and/or any other enforcement matters. I have been the most active admin at WP:AE (up to a month ago maybe, and boy do I appreciate the help) and do not recall any Troubles related requests that were made there and ignored, and I certainly never knew about this subpage before. (If previous requests were ignored, I apologize.) Second, there is no particular reason to tolerate extensive argument on enforcement matters. (See the page header there.) The case is decided; reports can be evaluated with reasonable input from the complaining editor and the subject of the complaint, and then acted on. We (I at least) try to treat it a bit more matter-of-fact like WP:3RR, no need or desire to refight the entire arb case again. In any event, past efforts are most appreciated, and please drop by WP:AE if you want to help out. Thatcher 22:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Merge complete. Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Enforcement requests move to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive16, and two active disputes copied to the main WP:AE page. I think the stray redirects are mostly fixed. Thatcher 22:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The Troubles

Reading through Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles, the remedies appear unnecessarily complicated. Reckon we'd be better off with jolly old discretionary sanctions a la ARBMAC? The conflicts here don't seem to have slowed down so much as to make discretionary sanctions redundant. This is a disinterested suggestion: being English, I make it a personal policy to avoid the Irish-British dogfights as much as possible. Moreschi (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

A threaded discussion on the Mantanmoreland blocking controversy

I'm assuming a threaded response is allowed here as it's not an RfAr. SirFozzie, I count 30 people in favor of the block and 18 against. By what definition is that a consensus in favour? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, the number keeps climbing, Slim. "I hold in my hands..13.. no 16.. no 18 people who disagree with this decision". SirFozzie (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Is that your answer? Please provide evidence of concensus. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The block, not the ban, was supported 12 to 5. For any other editor, that would be a consensus to block. There are some editors who would support a block but oppose a ban. Jehochman ^Talk 14:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you counting the arbcom members who chose not block him in their decision that hasn't even been formally closed yet? I'd like to see how an editor can support a block but not a ban for someone who is about to be told by the AC that he can edit using only one account. How would that work? We are not saying that you cannot edit here but we are saying that we will prevent you from doing so by blocking your account? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

In what other situation has there ever been a lack of consensus to ban, a block (the technical implementation of one) imposed anyway, an unblock due to said lack of consensus, and then an argument that the "block" had consensus? What you are talking about is revoking the editing privileges of the person, not the account, so refusing t call it a ban is making a distinction without a difference. Calling it something else doesn't mean lower standards of consensus apply. Dmcdevit·t 15:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Might I just politely draw your attention to here, where editing of each other's sections (and thus threaded discussions) are prohibited. (And I'm invoking WP:IAR for my violation of this prohibition - I judge that stopping the threaded discussion to be in the interests of keeping the heat from growing at an even faster rate.) Jay*Jay (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Dmcdevit, blocks and bans are two different things with two different standards. Let me turn your logic around. Has any repeat puppetmaster ever before, when confronted with so much evidence, been allowed to continue editing? There is a lot of uniqueness in this situation. Jehochman ^Talk 15:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, certainly that has happened before. Not all cases of sockpuppetry result in bans (or indefinite blocks). Some of them result in other resolutions. For example, an arbcom limitation to one account and a parole, much like this case. Much like this case, except that was a case where the sockpupetry was affirmed by ArbCom. Dmcdevit·t 15:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have better things to do than search the archives for cases where an account was blocked, a ban was requested, and failed, yet the account remained blocked. However, I think multiple such cases exist. There is nothing that says blocks must be lifted if a ban proposal fails. Jehochman ^Talk 15:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it there were some mitigating factors in that case, so that it is not necessarily a good precedent to use here or elsewhere. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) I made a full count and listed names (see my statement on the main RfArb page) - I counted 31 in favour, 12 against, and 4 "others". I don't think I missed anyone. Based on that, I don't think that there was sufficient consensus exhibited for an indefinite community ban, although there was a strong majority in favour. 31 to 3 or 4, maybe, but not 31 to 12 (or 16, depending how you count the "others"). If the discussion had lasted longer, that may or may not have changed. If a community ban falls through, then the ArbCom should step in. As they have already shifted this onto the community, we're at an impasse. A significant majority of the community want (the user behind?) Mantanmoreland banned, but a vocal and not insignificant minority do not. What happens then? Presumably, no block, and Mantanmoreland is free to resume editing. Neıl ☎ 16:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Which is an utter mockery of Wikipedia's rules, mind you. The obstructionists win. Victory by argumentum ad nauseum SirFozzie (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

We have to have agreement before we take big decisions. Where, precisely, is the mockery of Wikipedia's rules? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"The obstructionists win. Victory by argumentum ad nauseum" - this works both ways. I've sometimes seen cases where a few people object to a block on valid grounds, but they get shouted down or stonewalled and the block stays in place. This tends to be those admins who ask the blocking admin first, and then are left hanging in the breeze when the blocking admin politely (and sometimes not so politely) says "no" to the suggestion that they unblock. Carcharoth (talk) 16:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Fozzie, if you dislike the convention that "community bans do not hold if there is sufficient dissent that a single administrator is willing to perform an unblock", then get it changed - I'd support such a change. I want Mantanmoreland blocked, too, but I recognise that there's a small cadre of veteran admins who do not, for whatever reason, and under the current community norms, they have succesfully derailed such a block. Sam Korn, there is an agreement - just not a strong enough one to block Mantanmoreland indefinitely. 31:12 - to delete an article, yes, to promote a user to admin, maybe, to indefinitely block a user, no. Neıl ☎ 16:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that's what I said :-) Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Make a decision, please. Durova^Charge! 16:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the count of 31 - 12 is wrong. For a start, I am not in the 31, but should be. Then there is the fact that the 12 includes several people massively involved with the case, and at least one who changed views later in the discussion.

Secondly, since when has 'no one willing to unblock' been the standard for fixed-term bans imposed by consensus?

Thirdly, on trying to change the WP:BAN policy, maybe joining the discussion at WT:Community sanction would be an idea?

Fourthly, several of the obstructionists should be ignored for their refusal to look at the evidence and present any vaguely plausible explanation for the evidence. Stating that the evidence isn't convincing over-and-over-and-over is stonewalling.

Finally, this isn't just about abuse of community trust through sock puppetry, it's also about admin protection (which continues - look at today's block of Mackan79), and tendentious or disruptive editing. Would someone please explain to me why having to watch every single post made by an editor who has been deceiving the community for years is better for the encyclopedia or the community than would be just getting rid of them? Jay*Jay (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If #2 was a serious question, the answer is "the beginning of time", or as near as makes no difference. That has always been policy. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland has no history of tendentious and disruptive editing. Apart from deceptive socking, there is no known issue with his editing. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Now I KNOW you're taking the mickey, Tony. What do you call WP:OWNing a section of articles on finance? Or importing an off-WP controversy on to Wikipedia? SirFozzie (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Decorum, please. Thatcher 17:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  Indeed. There were accusations of ownership, but having examined the articles in question I find no credible evidence of inappropriate editing. At most, he might be accused of over-eagerness to revert the pov-pushers and trolls who at one time paid attention to those pages, rather than call an admin to protect them. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Does a billionaire's blog count as a reputable source?[1] Durova^Charge! 17:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Durova, did you know they have a name for people who take short positions in a company and then trash talk it? We have evidence here that somebody wanting to make trouble for Mantanmoreland and Gary Weiss claimed that they were the same person and were editing Mark Cuban's bio. We also see that Mantanmoreland stated, correctly, that Cuban had been criticised for taking actions that look very much like a bear raid. Cuban has justified his position by pointing out that he's disclosing his interests fully. Which is legal, but still rather controversial (I'm sure Cuban would agree on the latter too). If Weiss is Mantanmoreland, it's at most a little odd to be editing Cuban's bio, but if the edits were as Cuban describes them there is no issue. Those edits are perfectly fine. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• In case it matters, the 18 opposes I counted were 16 admins (Sam Korn, Random832, Guy, Doc Glasgow, WjBscribe, Dmcdevit, Blueboy96, Kingturtle, David Gerard, Mastcell, Addhoc, Carcharoch, AGK, Georgewilliamherbert, Fayssal, Theresa Knott) and two very experienced editors (IronDuke, Anticipation of a Lover's Arrival, The). The only one of these that I wasn't sure whether to count was Fayssal, whose oppose wasn't completely clear, but he did say he wished people had stuck to the ArbCom decision, or had waited for it to close, or words to that effect. The other 17 opposes seemed clear to me.

SirFozzie, I know it's not a vote and that numbers aren't all-important, but when you have 18 established editors opposing a block or ban, there really can't be said to be consensus. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

And it's been proven on the main page, that your numbers are so much hokum misleading. SirFozzie (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

In what way are they hokum? I've given the names. Look them up for yourself. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

From Neil.

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Proposed_community_ban_of_Mantanmoreland_and_Samiharris.

   * Clear:
         o 31 firmly in favour of ban (Lar, Lawrence Cohen, SirFozzie, Jehochman, Naerii, Durova, Alanyst, Amerique, 82.19.1.139, R. Baley, Wizardman, WAS 4.250, Rocksanddirt, Krimpet, Mackan79, GRBerry, JoshuaZ, Sceptre, Hmwith, Noroton, Daveh4h, Achromatic, LessHeard vanU, MPerel, Crotalus horridus, Neil, Eleland, Pascal Tesson, Bigtimepeace, Cla68, Viridae)
         o 12 against (Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, Sam Korn, Theresa Knott, David Gerard, Doc Glasgow, JzG, IronDuke, AGK, Dmcdevit, Blueboy96, Wjscribe, Addhoc)
   * Others (7):
         o 1 comment that block may not solve issue (Kingturtle)
         o 2 prefer topic ban (Random832, MastCell)
         o 1 "wait and see" (Carcharoth)

SirFozzie (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Blueboy96: "Having read Coren's statement that he does not intend for this to be a ban at present, I endorse the indef on Mantanmoreland as well" - that's an "oppose" statement, SV? Jay*Jay (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not a vote. You can stop counting now. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 17:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Tell SlimVirgin, who is not only counting votes, but adding in bonus points for "respectfulness". daveh4h 17:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the latter actually counts more than numbers, which is what's meant by saying it's not a vote. Where you have a significant number of established editors saying no to a block or ban, then it really ought not to go ahead. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Jay, not that it matters, but it was this comment of Blueboy's I saw. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

SV, you miss the point I am making, which was that the count has problems: "For a start, I am not in the 31, but should be. Then there is the fact that the 12 includes several people massively involved with the case, and at least one who changed views later in the discussion." It also ignores what comments would have been added had the block and unblock not occurred. Anyway, perhaps you can help me to understand by answering the question I posed above, which was: Would someone please explain to me why having to watch every single post made by an editor who has been deceiving the community for years is better for the encyclopedia or the community than would be just getting rid of them? Jay*Jay (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This is fascinating! It would be interesting to see "support and opposition" by year that the editor joined wikipedia. I have this feeling that there's something up with that. (no, I don't really intend to dive into this, I'm busy enough as it is ^^;;) Just wanting to point out that this is setting off my spidey sense ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Feedback on draft requested - User:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft, requested cross-posting

It was requested that I cross-post this feedback request here.

Hi, if you have a moment, would you mind reviewing User:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft? I'm just beginning to draft this, but given the recent situations I think this could be valuable to see what community mandates if any exist for changes the Arbitration Committee could be required to accept. My intention was to keep the RFC format exceptionally simple, with a very limited number of "top level" sections that were fairly precise. Please leave any feedback on User talk:Lawrence Cohen/Arbitration RFC draft. Note: This is very much a draft and still probably several weeks I'd guess from being "live", so feedback is requested on the formatting, nature, and structure of the RFC. I do very much intend to put it live, but I want it to be as near to correct and balanced as possible before that. Thanks. Lawrence § t/e 17:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The "final stage" in dispute resolution

Leaving aside the specifics of the case in hand, I think we need to clarify how we make decisions on "user conduct issues". My understanding had been as follows.

1. Any admin can block, as per the blocking policy. In most case (vandalism - obvious disruption etc) the action will be uncontroversial and the debate ends here.
2. If there is disagreement after the fact, or anticipated by an admin beforehand, then there is admin/community discussion. This is generally (although not necessarily) on WP:AN. Admins reach some form of consensus, and that is generally accepted.
3. There can't be a direct decision to ban, a "community ban" happens only when no-one will unblock - it is a verdict that's only shown by time.
4. Although admins should not unblock without discussion. The default position for a user while discussion continues is generally "unblocked", unless disruption is ongoing.
5. If admins cannot agree, then the case goes to arbcom. Arbcom are the final stage in dispute resolution and should only accept a case if all other avenues are exhausted, and the community is unable or unlikely to agree. Their word is final, with only a theoretical appeal to Jimbo.
6. If arbcom cannot reach an agreement on a sanction, then there is no sanction. It does not go back to the community, as if the dispute /could/ be resolved by the community, arbcom should not have accepted it in the first place.

Am I wrong?--Doc^g 17:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Proposed_decision/Archive1#Community_ban.3F_.2F_specific_factual_findings. Durova^Charge! 17:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)