Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Discussion of agenda

Agenda

Discussion of announcements

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science amended

Original announcement.

Temporary injunction on delinking

A temporary injunction about delinking dates was issued back in January 2009. A poll about the topic was conducted from March 30, 2009 and April 13, 2009. The poll closed and the results were overwhelmingly in favor of what the MOS already says.... dates "should not be linked unless they contain information that is germane and topical to the subject matter." 208 editors voted for that. The other 3 options combined only got 84 votes. This is about as open and shut as I've ever seen a vote on here. Why is this injuction still in effect over a month after the body made its feelings known in a very strong manner? This matter seems like it should be closed and the injunction removed. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Injunctions typically remain in place until the case is formally closed. Given the difficulty Arbcom seems to be having in closing this case, adding something else for them to vote on might not be such a terribly good idea. Thatcher 04:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Maybe I'm missing it. Why would this be difficult to close? The body opined overwhelmingly in favor of the current policy. This should be a no-brainer. This injunction has sat for 5 months with no action. What is really left to debate? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
    • A large part of the reason why this ended up at Arbcom was because of automated editing — bots and scripts — to remove the date links. A lifting of the injunction might well result in many of those automated processes restarting. Even accepting the "germane and topical" result, and I do, there are many who will quite reasonably ask how a bot or a poorly-monitored script is able to determine whether or not any date link is germane and topical. I for one hope that the community will be given a chance to figure out how to best move this forward in an orderly, responsible, and centralized manner without the inevitable cycle of edit, revert, revert, etc. to which we'd likely return sans injunction. Mlaffs (talk) 05:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
• Then make the injunction about using bots. I delink by hand on articles I happen to be reading. I don't go searching them out. Last night I got messages from an editor and an administrator about the injunction and my delinking. My delinking by hand couldn't possibly be considered mass delinking (which the injunction talks about) and was obviously done by hand and not by a bot/script. But I was threatened with a block by the ArbCom for violating the injuntion and pointed to an example of where an editor had been blocked for doing exactly what I was doing. This matter is sitting idle and delinking by hand shouldn't even be an issue. The MOS has not been changed and I shouldn't be threatened with a block for making a change in an article to have it conform to the MOS. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd actually say this matter is far from idle at the moment. Voting by the committee members is well underway, and there are a number of possible remedies regarding how date delinking might be handled in the future, including some that propose leaving the injunction in place for a specified period following the case being closed. As a result, I think it's highly unlikely there'd be any traction on the idea of lifting the temporary injunction at this point. For what it's worth, I'd read Erik9's post to you as a heads-up about the injunction and Ckatz's post to you as a friendly piece of advice to be careful, rather than either of them being a threat to block, but I'm a big fan of nuance, so your mileage may vary. Regardless, I wouldn't presume to speak for Arbcom, but I'd hope that the occasional delink as just one component of a larger copy edit of an article wouldn't be a problem. However, if every time you see a linked date, you're removing the link, and if that's regularly the only substantive change you're making as a result of that edit? I don't think it would be unreasonable to interpret that as "mass delinking". Again, though, that's just my two cents. Mlaffs (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
• I saw the threat of a block. I responded to Erik9 that as I read the injunction, it was about mass delinking (scripts/bots) and that I didn't see doing it by hand as violating it. That's when Ckatz came in and said that I should read it again and implied that I would be blocked. I make plenty of other contributions, but when I see an improperly linked date and remove it, that may be the only contribution I make in that article. It's not as if I went looking for it, but if I see and fix it, that shouldn't be interpreted as "mass delinking", no different than seeing a piece of litter and picking it up. This is precisely why I posted this prod and would like to know why the issue hasn't been resolved. Enjoining editors from using bots is one thing, but changes by hand are another. Over the course of 5 months, the "temporary" injunction begins to take the form of policy and the MOS hasn't been changed, nor should it be changed arbitrarily. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • It appears to be a calming measure, like most preliminary injunctions, to keep the temperature down while the Arbitration case is sorted out. Rome wasn't built in a day, and Wikipedia doesn't have to be "fixed" overnight. The injunction hasn't changed the MOS. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The restriction is against "mass delinking" (apparently interpreted broadly), whether done by a bot or not. It's a bit odd, but if you edit one or two articles and you delink non-topical dates, you are editing according to consensus and the Manual of Style and you should be thanked for it. But if you do so on a hundred articles, then it's "mass delinking" and you should be blocked for it. Happily, this is only a temporary situation. The ArbCom case is moving at a good clip now, and it shouldn't be more than a week or two (I'd guess) before the case is decided. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• As I said, I only do it in articles I happen to be reading, but sometimes that is the only edit I make in them. As Quadell said, it is within the MOS and shouldn't be something you should have to be concerned bout being blocked over. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Niteshift, there was no "threat", implied or otherwise; please take it only as a suggestion to seek a clear answer from ArbCom. As I said in my post on your talk page, violating the injunction could result in a block from ArbCom, and my intention was solely to prevent you from inadvertently encountering such a situation. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
• I didn't say you personally were threatening me, but I took the warning (friendly as it was) as a threat from the Arbcom. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Editing too many articles to remove date linking can result in a block. This is true even if you make other edits at the same time, even if the edits are done by hand, even if done according to consensus and the MoS. That's due to the temporary injunction. Relax, it's just temporary; just in the past week or so the arbcom has approved 16 "principals", 43 "findings of fact", 23 "remedies", and 1 "enforcement", with several others only a single vote away. Be patient. Fix other formatting problems for now instead. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
• "Temporary" has been 5 months now. I guess they define temporary as broadly as they define "mass delinking". Niteshift36 (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Katz is hardly an uninvolved Admin in this matter. Never mind it was not a direct threat of a block, he should have let another admin handle it. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    • There was nothing to handle, nor any administrator action taken or even implied. Did you read the note Ckatz left on Niteshift36's page? Please read through this, Niteshift36. It would be best to avoid running afoul of the injunction, as that can lead to a block from ArbComm. (Whether or not you feel it needs to be resolved, the simple fact is that it exists, and deliberate delinking as you are doing is not permitted.) Please ask if you have questions about this. Thanks in advance. I could just have easily left that note, and I'm not an admin. It's one user who's familiar with the situation giving another user a bit of advice, a friendly suggestion, as happens hundreds of times a day all over this site. That Niteshift36 took it as a threat is unfortunate, but Ckatz did nothing wrong here. Mlaffs (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
• I'm sorry, I believe Erik9 and Ckatz are both wrong. That which is subject to an injunction is "mass-delinking", which regrettably has been ill-defined. Having said the above, the enforcement of what constitutes "mass-delinking" has also been regrettably patchy and very inconsistent depending on the propensity if the nearest admin to the case to mete out blocks. I know it is frustrating - it has been for many people. The fact now is, whether you like it or not, Niteshift36 has been "warned", meaning that indiscriminate punishment by such an admin is now within the realms of the possible.

  However, in mitigation, I would say admins should look at the whole context of Niteshift36's edits, most of which appear to involved other copyedits in the course of his browsing and it is plain obvious that there is nothing semi-automated about his work. The editor should be thanked for edits like this, and this, which include vandal fighting as well as removing low value links. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Let me be perfectly clear. I'm not saying Ckatz did anything wrong or that anything needs handled......except for this ridiculous injunction to be put to rest and the overwhelming consensus of the community, which is to not link dates, be recognized and followed. Ckatz said he didn't mean it as a threat and I have no problem taking his word for that. The injunction was uncalled for in the first place, poorly worded when it was written and has not been followed up with due dilligence. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Wonder if the whole Scientology issue is going to make this simple issue drag on longer. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Another week passes and this issue remains unresolved. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Midnight Syndicate

Original post

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand

Original post

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria

Original post

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology

Original post

Hmm, isn't the vote count in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Church of Scientology IP addresses blocked wrong? At Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Proposed decision#Church of Scientology IP addresses blocked I see no abstention and one oppose vote by Newyorkbrad instead, so it's (10/1/0) and not (10/0/1). --Conti|✉ 09:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I updated the numbering, thank you for letting us know. MBisanz ^talk 15:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have two questions for the Committee; had you anticipated the media attention for this case, and to a certain extent, the political nature of the final decisions ? ; and had you discussed this with the wmf prior to the closure of the case ? I am curious because similar situations may occur again in the future. Thanks, Cenarium (talk) 16:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

We may have anticipated the media attention somehow since it has been obvious to everyone familiar with the case that the Scientology media coverage has been significant outside the scope of the encyclopedia. However, ArbCom has been aware that WMF has little to do with the case. Let's not forget that this is a community case. It should also be noted that ArbCom has not received any note from WMF on how to handle this case. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course, I don't see why it would have differed from other cases in this regard. I rather thought of an information note from Arbcom to the wmf that the closure may attract media attention, and so they should be ready for activities of public relationship. Cenarium (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Press reporting on Scientology case

The Register article is being picked up by mainstream media:

• http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/29/wikipedia_bans_scientology/
• http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/0,1518,627591,00.html (Der Spiegel)
• http://www.telegraaf.nl/digitaal/4037966/__Wikipedia-ban_voor_Church_of_Scientology__.html (De Telegraaf)
• http://derstandard.at/?url=/?id=1242316997497 (Der Standard)
• http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,28348,25556094-5014239,00.html

Content is more or less a shortened version of the Register article. Headline typically "Wikipedia bans Church of Scientology from site". JN466 12:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia bans Scientologists in propaganda row, The Guardian ("However, whatever your feelings towards the world of Scientology, Wikipedia's decision to enact a blanket ban appears to be unprecedented. That comes despite extensive information that a large number of other groups have edited Wikipedia in the past to improve their public image or erase criticism of them ...")
• Wikipedia Bans Scientology From Site, The Huffington Post JN466 17:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Wikipedia Bans Scientology From Site on the CNN SciTech blog. Though that one is more editorial than news reporting. — Coren ^(talk) 21:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,523238,00.html It made its way to Google news portal for Sci/Tech. Cenarium (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we add a {{pressmulti}} to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Scientology, or is this improper proceeding ? Cenarium (talk) 23:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not an article and I very much doubt bringing additional attention would be wise; we're not in the business of making decision a publicized affair. Jay Walsh, the WMF communication officer, handles that side of thing. I do think it's the first time an ArbCom decision featured in an ABC article, though. — Coren ^(talk) 00:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No, don't tag the page. Arbcom cases are a regrettable but necessary part of the project, but we are an encyclopedia first and the focus should be on the articles. Thatcher 00:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It does, however, make this case a notable event to put into both the Wikipedia and Scientology articles... :D Happy‑melon 09:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Surely this warrants an article "Scientology and Wikipedia". jellybeans, anyone? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

There's probably a stub in it. Where are the beans, John? Happy‑melon 09:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a section on this in the article on Scientology, marked by undue weight as typical in those cases. Press mentions are not only noted for articles though, see WT:PROD for example. Cenarium (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is undue weight; if anything it should be a one liner in Scientology and the Internet. IIRC, there is already a one line mention in there from a previous engagement between Scientology and Wikipedia. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Scientology Church Banned From Wikipedia Edits As Website Intervenes In Online Row Sky News, includes Church of Scientology response by Karin Pouw
• Wikipedia blocks Scientology from altering entries Agence France Presse, features Church of Scientology response by Karin Pouw
• Wikipedia shuts down Scientology editors St. Petersburg Times/Detroit News, includes Church of Scientology response by Tommy Davis JN466 09:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• New York Times article, including interviews with some of the arbitrators involved: The Wars of Words on Wikipedia’s Outskirts JN466 10:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Ban Appeal Sub Committee - amending procedure

Announcement

More press reporting on arbcom matters

On Sam Blacketer: [1] Of course, The Independent still repeats The Register's meretricious soundbite that Sam Blacketer changed Tory leader David Cameron's picture to one "not carrying saintly overtones" ... when in fact, Sam only reverted vandalism: [2]. How fair is that?

I am reminded that content disputes, including arbitration matters, have often hinged upon editors' views of the accuracy and potential bias of media reporting. Those editors who have argued that even quality media are at times unreliable have been derided or accused of undermining the Wikipedia system. We are currently in the fortunate position of having some first-hand experience of how accurate the reporting of reliable media sources is.

Here is another example: a couple of days ago, the LA Times, reporting on the Scientology case, wrote in reference to the "40 registered users from both sides of the debate" who had been topic-banned that "all but one of the banned users have successfully petitioned Wikipedia to have their editing privileges reinstated, Rosenthal said. The Church of Scientology has not." Here is Dan Rosenthal's comment on that: [3].

Many media articles did not even report that Scientology critics were topic-banned as well, focusing, as the Signpost article pointed out, on the ban of the CoS IP addresses. Another fact that none of the media reported is the number of editor accounts coming in via the CoS IP addresses, or the number of edits they made. The impression one gains from reading the articles is that there were hundreds of editors, making tens of thousands of edits. In fact, we were talking about a half-dozen accounts, most of whom had made less than 500 edits. [4].

Yet according to our sourcing rules, pointing out that none of the critics' topic-bans were in fact overturned, pointing to Dan Rosenthal's post saying the LA Times made their stuff up, or pointing out that Sam only reverted vandalism and added a humorous edit summary, is WP:OR. Our articles on these arbitration matters, if we had any, would have to report, dutifully, that all but one of the topic-banned non-CoS editors had their editing rights reinstated after they petitioned Wikipedia (citing no lesser source than the LA Times), and that Sam Blacketer, according to multiple sources (!), changed Cameron's picture in his bio because he thought the other one made Cameron "look too saintly."

There is no ready solution to this problem, and I am just musing. But next time there is an arbitration case where an editor is attacked because they queried the accuracy of news reporting, please remember these news reports on the arbitration committee and consider that the media may not be without fault.

And give me a good scholar, who's invested a few weeks of first-hand research in his book or paper, over a journalist's two-hour concoction any day. JN466 18:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sam_Blacketer_controversy JN466 22:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Once scholars have written about this case then using them will be an option. However for countless topics in this encyclopedia mainstream press reports are the best sources available. FWIW, Sam Blacketer did write, "Revert choice of picture to one not carrying saintly overtones."[5] The press reports did not get that wrong, though those of us "in the know" can guess the tone of that comment. The reporteres were presumably correct too when they reported Sam Blacketer's explanation that his sock puppetry was an "innocent mistake", an astonishing assertion that I hope he will either explain or deny. If we look at what scholars have written about Wikipedia I'm afraid we'd find nearly as many mistakes as contained in the Register or the New York Times. We're all just stuck with finding the best sources that we can. So long as we keep using the neutral point of view we'll be OK.   Will Beback  talk  01:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, this argument would be better made to the community than here. The boundary between reliable and unreliable sourcing is a content decision--one of the most far-reaching ones--and ArbCom's remit is conduct rather than content. If there were something to be discussed at this page regarding that general idea, then this set of examples places the arbitrators in an awkward position. It could appear self-serving for an arbitrator to post agreement within the context where a recently resigned colleague is the news subject. Durova^Charge! 02:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Still, this train wreck of reporting illustrates what happens when a saleable frame, or meme, has entered the journalistic arena. It acquires a life of its own, one that is divorced from the facts. Here is an Italian news article, in its Babelfish translation. The Italian publication actually shows the picture that Sam Blacketer restored, but says in the text that he is the one accused of trying to replace it with an "anything but thrilling image". All courtesy of Cade Metz. And btw, Sam's use of other account names dates back to 2007 – before he was an arbitrator. Another thing that Metz conveniently forgot to mention. JN466 11:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The press isn't getting the half of it

Not only do we have an Arbcom member/ leftist politician violating conflict of interest policies and sock puppeteering, but now we also have admins working aggressively to delete the article about this politician that was KEPT in 2005 [6]. I guess Notability does expire? Like right after there's a controversy and Wikicensors want to hide the goods?

And let's not forget that this former Arbcom's buddies are still on the committee and working aggressively to put editing restrictions on good faith editors who have tried to address the imbalance and NPOV violations in our Obama coverage. That's right, after meeting with a wall of incivility and aggressive policy violating POV pushing that would try anyone's patience, the editors trying to get help from Arbcom are the ones getting hit with restrictions, while the worst policy violators such as Wikidemon get a proverbial slap on the wrist. It's disgusting to see this kind of censorship and bias being aided and abetted at the highest levels of Wikipedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

To be fair notability standards have risen rather considerably since 2005. It has been 4 years after all. Prodego ^talk 00:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

That is correct. ChildofMidnight, do you have some point you'd like to make here in a civil manner, or should I treat your comment as the trolling rant it appears to be? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have a point. Bias and censorship from Admins and Arbcom are totally unacceptable. It is highly inappropriate that this aritcle is now being deleted when there is very substantial coverage (and more to come).

This is an ugly story, but we have an opportunity to take a proper and appropriate stand against this kind of abuse and to root it out. In other words, we need to do the right thing. Instead we are going to look very bad when it's exposed that we try to cover this kind of thing up when it happens. He didn't object to having an article before, apparently, but now we should delete it because he was caught cheating? Tsk tsk.

Don't attack me, I'm not the one using sock puppets to hide my identity and COI edits, and I'm not the one trying to delete articles that are unfavorable after getting caught breaking the rules. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to write a userspace essay about it. I don't believe anyone is saying that Wikipedia should internally ignore what happened, only that we're here to write an encyclopedia (not argue with eachother about internal shenanigans) and we shouldn't let our imperfections as a community seep into actual article content. The simple fact is that the incident, and the subject, don't meet our requirements for inclusion. While you can debate this based on your own interpretation of the inclusion policies, I don't see how folks making this argument are "covering up" for Sam - nothing in the Wikipedia namespace is being deleted. Who are we hiding it from? The teensy number of people who will search for "Sam Blacketer" on Google, flip through dozens of non-articlespace pages, and finally come to the article that says "The Sam Blacketer controversy"? And he did object to having an article before - you should read up on the history before you make statements like that. Nathan ^T 01:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

@ChildofMidnight: Ok, next question - what is ArbCom supposed to be doing, exactly? You seem to be accusing ArbCom of "censoring" this article, but I don't see that they are remotely involved (aside from the fact that the subject was recently an Arbitrator); only one arbitrator commented in the AfD, and in their capacity as an editor, not an Arb. As you know, ArbCom does not involve itself in editorial matters, and I don't see that this is being treated any differently. What are you expecting to be done? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

What did they know? When did they know it? What did they do about it? I looked through Sam's contribution history briefly just now and I found lots of troubling "contributions". Has Sam been asked for a complete disclosure of any and all sock puppets he's used? Have the articles he edited been investigated? He worked on MANY political subjects, and given his party membership that certainly warrants scrutiny. Despite the bogus claims of those saying he's non-notable, I found lots of coverage on google news including stories discussing his political activities before his indiscretions (some of them anyway) were disclosed. We need full disclosure now. We need an accounting of the problem. We need to deal with the problem of bias and POV pushing head on and to make sure we enforce NPOV and move campers and POV pushers off articles where they are disrupting. There's lots of work to be done, and none of it involves sweeping the problem under the rug or pretending that this kind of thing wasn't (or isn't) a big deal. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, we issued a statement within 24 hours of the facts coming out, explaining what we knew (didn't know) until when. It's discussed on this page, actually. And the arbitrators qua arbitrators have no opinion on whether this article should be kept or not (and I, at least, have expressed no opinion at all). Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Based on the press coverage, it would appear that the worst thing Sam did was to substitute one picture of David Cameron with another. That hardly seems to equate to a covert leftist takeover of Wikipedia. Actually, though, even if he was a one-man POV-pushing behemoth, that would have no bearing on whether or not Wikipedia should maintain a biographical article on him. Biographies and notability aren't a form of punishment. We're not seriously suggesting that a negative biographical article be maintained on someone as a means of enforcing "accountability"? MastCell ^Talk 17:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Guido den Broeder banned

I am looking for the discussion and reasoning for this ban. Can anyone give me a relevant link. SunCreator (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Links are on the June 2 revision of his user page see [7]. R. Baley (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope, those links found in that historical page neither show an Arbcon discussion or reasoning. SunCreator (talk) 00:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if arbcom necessarily needs to give its reasoning; GDB's unblock was championed by a single arb member. Guido went on to piss off enough other editors, including the one arbcom member who was willing to sponsor an unblock, that the community ban was reinstated. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It was a Committee decision to unban Guido. CHL proposed it but there was agreement to go forward with it. We put editing restrictions on Guido. After the unblock, he broke the topic ban, was warned and continued to argue about it. That aspect of the situation was non-negotiable. That was the reason that we quickly banned him again instead of tweaking the restriction or giving him some leeway. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine

Original post

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2

Original post

"Single-purpose accounts are strongly advised to edit in accordance with WP:SPA and other Wikipedia policies." - It's hard not to read that as implying that WP:SPA is a policy but I'm absolutely certain that the arbitrators are aware that it isn't. If this is part of a campaign to promote it then aren't there more appropriate ways of doing that? 87.254.70.250 (talk) 22:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That is sort of unusual wording; has ArbCom cited FT2's essay as guidance or implied it has policy status in the past? Nathan ^T 22:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

They linked to it in the Scientology case, which seemed to imply approval. Maybe elsewhere too. I'd seriously look at that definition in the first sentence before calling it a guideline or anything 'official'. Are you an SPA under that? It seems to hinge on whether you maintain a consistent 'manner' - but I'm not sure why it does. 87.254.70.250 (talk) 22:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Why shouldn't people edit in accordance with an essay, if that essay describes existing best practices? MastCell ^Talk 00:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't suggested that people shouldn't edit in accordance with the essay... I'm not sure where you got that from. I've questioned the implication that it's a policy. If you can't see that talking about "WP:SPA and other Wikipedia policies" implies that WP:SPA is a policy, then I'm not sure how to make it clear to you. If I refer to "Mastcell and other philatelists" then would you recognise that I am implicitly stating that you are a philatelist (replace 'philatelist' with a suitable term of commendation or condemnation if it makes the example more vivid for you)? 87.254.70.250 (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• 3 months desysop for Future Perfect? Could the ArbCom inform us which Arbs are going to replace FPAS in policing nationalist disuputes in this area whilst he is de-opped? Or is it just going to pretend that area doesn't need any admin intervention? Or is it just generally clueless? I couldn't possibly say. Black Kite 00:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
  • <Puts finger on nose> Looks like you get the job! MastCell ^Talk 00:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I too would like to know who is going to stick their face in this particular blender. Bonus points for someone with the depth and breadth of expert knowledge in the area that FPaS has. //roux   00:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not exactly pleased, but it's a hell of a lot better than it was four days ago. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Second that. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

FPaS shouldn't have been sanctioned, but as another illustrious Wikipedia admin would put it, 3 months is better than a permanent desysop "in the same way that a slap round the ear with a wet kipper is to be preferred to a poke in the eye with a sharp stick". We don't have that many active admins, and there are only a few admins capable of the work users like FPaS and ChrisO can do. We do have to ask: after these radical Arbs have ridden Wikipedia of this kind of admin, what are they gonna do to fill the gap? I tell you, the dream they have of a bunch of content-shy robots monopolizing adminship is not gonna be one many true encyclopedists will enjoy living. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused about something. Remedy 25.3 in the proposed decision reads in part: "Upon regaining his administrator access, Future Perfect at Sunrise will not be allowed to use administrative tools in topical areas relating to Greece and Macedonia, or in relation to editors involved in that topical area. Should Future Perfect at Sunrise violate this restriction, the Arbitration Committee may remove his administrator access (either temporarily or permanently), or alter the restriction." This paragraph doesn't appear in the final decision, but I don't see any discussion why. Am I missing something? --Akhilleus (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Simple clerical error; it looks at though the paragraph was accidentally omitted during transcription. Fixed. — Coren ^(talk) 02:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thought experiment question, not advocating any action: is it within the community's ability to re-sysop FPaS via an RfA for or during the three months in question? After all, an editor permanently desysopped by ArbCom can theoretically be resysopped a week later by RfA, so can a temporary desysopping be similarly overturned by the community within the period of temporary restriction? (Note: having recently read over the case but not having commented, I concur with those commenting that the temporary suspension of tools with automatic return after three months is a very much improved outcome than the one contemplated only days ago, and I am glad to see that ArbCom did reconsider its actions in the light of community concerns.) EdChem (talk) 02:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I would, in general, say not. In fact, some arbitrators favored outright desysop because then the community sets the timeline; whereas a fixed duration desysop is exactly that: of fixed duration.

On the other hand, it has historically been more difficult for an RfA to pass after ArbCom sanctions, so temporary desysops with automatic return of the bit are generally viewed as "lighter". — Coren ^(talk) 05:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, there were so many soppy people making procedural opposes at LHvU's reconfirmation RfA a couple of weeks ago (oppose because this isn't the right place, even though you're a great admin) there'd be sure to be absurd numbers of people opposing specifically due to the 3-month period still being in place. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 07:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

While not exactly the same situation, Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/MZMcBride_2 was withdrawn at a stage that it was likely to fail. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree that an RfA for FPaS would likely fail due to procedural opposes (ArbCom's 3 month sentence shouldn't be altered), Scarlet Letter opposes (has been ArbCom sanctioned, therefore should be treated like a persistant vandal, plague carrier, etc), and opposes from editors FPaS has sanctioned / upset. For this reason, I also see the temporary desysop as a lighter punishment because the ArbCom Scarlet Letter essentially prevents a successful RfA. I described my question as a thought experiment partly because I recognise that the possibility is remote. However, suppose that an RfA was held and consensus was to resysop... would that community consensus carry the day, or would the ArbCom ruling prevent any Bureaucrat from promoting? Coren seems to me to indicate the latter, and I am curious as to other views. EdChem (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. I'm sure all those arbitrators in favour of Future Perfect's desysopping will now step into the breach and take over his role dealing with the endless Balkan wars on Wikipedia as promised. It's not like they're the Wikipedia equivalent of REMFs...--Folantin (talk) 08:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we need WP:Request for Arbitrator Intervention for requesting admin action in areas where ArbCom intervention has made admins unwilling to act? EdChem (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As an administrator who frequently staffs arbitration enforcement, I would disagree with any suggestion that complaints posted to that noticeboard would be left untouched. Those who enforce arbitration decisions on that noticeboard are pro-active and efficient in executing their duties. I don't imagine that there would be any situation where the administrators there would be unwilling to act. AGK 15:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

And what happens as soon as something falls outside the enforcement guidelines (I assure you, the Balkan editors will game any ArbCom remedy as much as they can) now that ArbCom have prevented one of the very few admins that actually understands the conflict from acting? I'm sure an Arb will be along in a minute to tell us, though. Black Kite 19:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's what will happen. One or more of the AR admins will try to help from time to time, quickly find themselves overwhelmed by the mess of it all, and unable to make heads or tails of anything, they will grow disinterested and leave. This will happen periodically with little more to show than a general decline in the quality of articles. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• On the bright side, I just came across one group that just doesn't seem to care any longer: Free Dacians. Unsourced and stubbed since 2005! Perhaps we can recruit a few of these guys to act as one of those "uninvolved" truth commissions... :-) Hiberniantears (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Free Dacians: the Dacians anybody can edit. --Folantin (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

practical exercise

Rather than theorizing about what's going to happen in this topic area, perhaps people can turn their attention to a current problem: Illyrians and Talk:Illyrians. This may not obviously require admin attention, because there's not edit-warring going on at the moment, but if you read through the talk page, perhaps starting at Talk:Illyrians#.22Albanians.22 and you'll see examples of the wondrous "discussion" that takes place on Balkans articles. See also User_talk:Kwamikagami#No_Genetics_plz, Wikipedia:Ani#Can_a_Admin_call_a_user_a_asshole.3F, and Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Can_a_Admin_call_a_user_a_asshole.3F. In my opinion, the latter verges on vexatious litigation, but perhaps my attitudes are out of step with the wider community's.

So, what action, if any, is needed here? (Please note that I have done a little bit here, at User_talk:Aigest#WP:ARBMAC_notification (related discussion is on my talkpage). --Akhilleus (talk) 01:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty

Original post

Well done - ArbCom has handled this matter sensibly, with the final findings and remedies being appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 03:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sam Blacketer RFA/David Boothroyd article inquiry - Arbcom pressure?

Does anyone know what this sprang from? I received an email from User:JoshuaZ indicated pressure from more than one AC member in regards to this article's resolution before Sam's RFA in 3 days time:

Can you clarify here on the record what you mean? You sent me an email requesting my help for sourcing, indicating, and I paraphrase, that there has been "pressure" from "some" Arbcom members to resolve this article before User:Sam Blacketer's reconfirmation RFA opens on June 15, 2009. I will post a link back to here on the main RFA talk page. I am curious as to what "pressure" this is, and "who" on the Arbcom would do so, since it seems... inappropriate on the surface.

I asked Sam here, but he has no idea what I am talking about. I am concerned if any AC members are doing anything in even a semi-official capacity, or to be frank--any capacity--which can affect this RFA in any way. The mess is already tainted enough. Who are the AC members and what was said/asked that is this "pressure"?

I know that the AC sometimes works at a slow pace due to behind the scenes discussions, time zone difference, and it's general pace but this is now a matter on a fixed timeline, if Sam/Fys is going to proceed with the mandatory reconfirmation RFA on June 15. I ask on behalf of all of us that this information be disclosed prior to the start of the RFA in full. rootology (C)(T) 13:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No idea. After seeing your question, I sent an email to the Committee asking for information about it. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm baffled that anyone thought it was a good idea to pull me into some illicit anything, given I so strongly dislike such things, and that's never been any level of secret...! rootology (C)(T) 14:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

hmmm... Thinking about your comment, maybe this is indicative of poorly communicated remarks rather an "illicit" plan to influence either discussion. You seem an unlikely co-conspirator for a plan to swing the outcome of the anything related to Sam. :-) FloNight♥♥♥ 15:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, here it is. I believe this is short enough to be squarely within fair use, outside of copyright concerns, and fully within the public interest. It was sent via WP's e-mail system from JoshuaZ to me, and here in it's entirety:

"There's pressure from ArbCom members to resolve the Boothroyd article before his RfA starts on the 15th. Any assistance in tracking down sources or cleaning up the article would be appreciated."

I ask that no one get overzealous and try to redact this e-mail. This kind of thing needs to be on the record. That is what I got at 8:25PM PST last night; the Subject was the default "Wikipedia e-mail" one. My concern is that it appears (given this is touching on real-world politics in the UK, our internal politics here, a pending RFA, a defrocked AC member, etc.) that any kind of push on the content here is at a minimum in terrible taste, possibly against WP:COI, or just an outright tainting of, well, several things. I can see why I was asked, given I'm good at digging up sources and I indicated curiosity on the talk page about building it as an example of how to do such a thing "the right way", but then I lost interest just as quickly. I agree that I'm about the worst person to pull into anything "bad". ;) rootology (C)(T) 15:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• My sense is that nothing was improper here (based upon the scant information available). I myself have received "strong suggestions" from ArbCom members about one thing or another. I usually take what I consider to be good faith advice, but in the end, we are all equal. Just because an ArbCom member makes a strong suggestion, if you are abiding by policy and guideline it is your election to take the advice or not. Usually--not always--strong suggestions by ArbCom members (who often have a wider view and more complete information about a situation) are efforts to address multiple concerns without making it a huge public to-do. Nothing wrong with that. Where problems may arise is if "strong suggestions" about policy-compliant conduct turn into behind-the-scenes wrangling and/or sanctions of editor(s). That would be a problem. -->David Shankbone 15:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

For me, I find the creation of Sam Blacketer controversy and David Boothroyd to be fairly despicable behavior. It is either petty revenge-seeking, or uncontrolled navel-gazing. While I realize LexisNexis may have a US bias in its news sources, the only thing I can find about DB on LexisNexis is that he writes lots of letters to the editor of UK newspapers. Wikipedia does not need these articles and badly does need adult leadership. If some arbitrator contacted Joshua and asked him to reconsider the article and grow up, I consider that good advice, though doubtless it will go unheeded. Thatcher 15:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't Joshua sanctioned after sockpuppeting (which cost him his admin bit) to do BLP issues with Brandt, where he was barred from participating in either certain BLP issues or deletion-related issues? rootology (C)(T) 16:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Not, at least, expressly pursuant to that case; in response to an April 2008 AN/I request that he be topic-banned and an RfAr that sought a similar end, though, Joshua did accede to a voluntary ban from seeking the restoration of deleted Brandt-related content, after which there was no consensus, it is my understanding, for further sanction. I do know that at least one editor subsequently sought to ban JoshuaZ from editing BLPs—apparently being consistently a moderate voice on BLP is a bad thing—but I do not understand that the community ever formally considered, much less adopted, the proposal (I was largely inactive in project space across the latter half of 2008 and the beginning of 2009, so my knowledge is incomplete, but I have little doubt that I'm not too far off on this one). Joe 16:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

My memory of the Daniel Brandt related topic ban discussion matches Joe's statement. JoshuaZ avoided a Committee vote for a sanction by voluntarily agreeing to a topic ban. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That's more or less accurate. In any event, this seems to be getting a bit out of hand. The email I sent off to Rootology was based on a possible misunderstandings on my part. Apparently there are people on the ArbCom who are concerned that if a new DRV for the Boothroyd article runs prior to or during Sam's new RfA that could result in increased levels of drama and could also possibly make the ArbCom even more unhappy with me. I may have misinterpreted pragmatic advice as an attempt at pressure. Also, to clarify my request to Rootology was not intended to be illicit. He had expressed interest in the article before and I was hoping that he might be willing to help out with it. If enough eyes look at the matter before the RfA then we might have an unambiguous result for the article either as clearly notable or as clearly not thus possibly reducing the need for further discussion. I sent this by email for attempt to minimize the already high level of drama and since multiple editors have already expressed concern about editing the draft. The desire was primarily because Rootology is good at tracking down sources and I don't have library access this week). I'll go back into my tea kettle now. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little teapot: short and stout.

You live in a tea kettle???? MickMacNee (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Joshua, why do you have an article like this in your userspace? Cla68 (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, he wanted to fix it up and take it to DRV. Hopefully where it would remain deleted, but that's just my opinion. Thatcher 20:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

JoshuaZ: Also, to clarify my request to Rootology was intended to be illicit. Since illicit means not permitted for lawful, moral, or ethical reasons, did you really mean to say your request was illicit and intended to be so? If so, why would you imagine an illicit request to Rootology was acceptable in this case? If not, perhaps you might strike that comment and clarify your intent. EdChem (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I read Joshua's comment to mean "discreet", as in the opposite of "explicit". I don't think devolving this further into parsing semantics will decrease the drama. -->David Shankbone 20:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "discreet" seems to be what he was aiming at. Thatcher 20:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Er, see edit summary of this edit. Somehow the word "not" got dropped. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine, thanks for clarifying and adding in the missing 'not'. EdChem (talk) 00:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Joshua, I'd like to ask again which AC members are the ones even delving into anything to do with issue which if handled poorly or with even the specter of anything off will be like us handing a loaded gun to the press? rootology (C)(T) 20:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Since my earlier comment to you was based in a large part on a misunderstanding of their concerns I don't think further discussion of this matter is really helpful. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well as that may be, I'm still asking for the Arbs to name themselves just the same in the matter of transparency, since our entire modus operandi of backdoor channels and dealings in general aren't acceptable, and anything of the nature--even vague, or innocent--on the types of nonsense Sam has caused here are patently unhelpful. The minute Sam left the AC as a body or in actions alone "back door" should have avoided the matter of his BLP as Boothroyd or his pending RFA like the plague to avoid even the downwind scent of impropriety, cover, or favoritism. I'm asking them to say what was said simply so that their standing isn't any more screwed up than Sam made it with his acts. This doesn't have anything to do with you, Josh. It's got to do with this being the sort of mess that should be 101% visible and transparent. If anything, you and the as yet unnamed Arbs may have screwed up his RFA by doing all this, including the BLP article in your userspace and the pointless DRV fights. rootology (C)(T) 20:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, the suggestion was simply that I finish editing the article before the RfA since it would a) minimize drama and b) it would minimize focus on me, given my own (somewhat precarious) position. I attempted to quietly get people to help out on the article so it would be either an unambiguous keep or an unambiguous delete. You really are blowing this out of proportion. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Given the history of impropriety from behind closed doors on this site, and my noted personal distaste for anything like that, are you honestly surprised I'd aim a floodlight at it all given the wording of the e-mail that you sent me, and that I'm now asking for a bit of finality and the Arbs in question to man up so everything is again 100% above board before the RFA? Sending me something that sounds like some sort of cover up is like throwing a bag of coke to a drug sniffing dog and then wondering why it reacted negatively. rootology (C)(T) 21:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, it could be that the only thing inside the 'bag of coke' was three cans of Coca-Cola and one of them burst and made a mess on the floor. Having turned in my own mop a couple of years ago, will leave a bucket at the door and wish others well with the cleanup. Sets up a Piso mojado sign before anyone slips and gets hurt. Durova^Charge! 21:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As background, I have been considering the possibility of an appeal/review of the JoshuaZ desysop, as enough water had gone under the bridge and all that jazz. Yesterday he inquired how it was going, and I told him that his involvement in the BLP for David Boothroyd was giving me reason to pause. JoshuaZ can explain his own motivations regarding the content, but for my part I want nothing to do with that article, or the controversy article, or anything to do with this, as it doesnt fit within my reading of WP:BLP1E or WP:NOTNEWS.

The date of the Sam Blacketer RFA did come up in the discussion, and I strongly recommended that JoshuaZ worked out his own position on this BLP prior to that date, in order to let the content side of things settle down before the community RfA commences. At no time did I try to tell him what the content should look like, and I was extremely clear that I was acting in my own capacity and not that of Arbcom - I explicitly said that, and also that Arbcom were not aware of my position. My own feeling is that if someone cant be proven to be notable within a day of research, they are very likely to be not notable, and should be given the benefit of the doubt. As a result, I am annoyed that despite Sam Blacketer putting off his recall RfA to allow the dust to settle a little, some community members have dragged this out for weeks now.

In summary, there was pressure from me, and nobody else, for JoshuaZ to hurry up. Sorry for the delay in fessing up. I was asleep. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd say you're pretty involved now. You indicated to him that his work on that article in his userspace would jeopardize the appeal and review of his desysop? You don't see a problem with that? And based on what would it jeapordize his review? What did he do wrong? Are you assuming bad faith? Why would his openly working on that article subject (that existed for four years) be cause for you to hold that over his head and threaten him? He's asked for input and help from anyone interested.

And this is on top of the fact that any Arbcom member with a scintilla of good judgment would steer clear of the issue entirely since it involves a fellow Arbcom member who stepped down over COI issues and subterfuge in a cloud that has already stirred questions about what his fellow Arbcom members knew. And we have Jimbo weighing in and then saying he doesn't want to be involved. You guys don't realize that when you offer up your take and give input that you are already involved and that it only makes you more involved? I find your behavior to be outrageous. And your suggestion that "some community members have dragged this out for weeks now," only adds to the problem. How dare you.

Who exactly in the community are you accusing of impropriety? Should we cut AfDs short and delete out of process, as was done with this subject's article that existed here for 4 years, when there was news that wasn't favorable? Are you not aware that the out of process deletion of the original article is already a source of controversy? Are you suggesting that Wikipedia should immediately censor article content of any high profile editor that is involved in controversy?

You owe the community one heck of an explanation (apology?). I don't see how someone exercising such incredibly poor judgment is fit to serve on our highest decision making body. This seems to be an epidemic of incredibly poor judgment. Are you guys serious? Do you really not get it that you can't go around threatening and pushing for a cover-up of controversial material that involves a body you're closely involved with? It's unbelievable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight, I don't think an arbitrator giving advice to a user about the general attitude of the ArbCom is a reason that they should recuse themselves. If that were the case then we'd almost never get anything done I'm not sure that Vandenberg even would if it came down to a vote support any form of appeal in any event. As far as I can tell, he's simply interested in the matter getting dealt with in a fair fashion. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

My role was to assist JoshuaZ in an appeal, and if you understood the circumstances of his original desysop you would recognise that his involvement in the "David Boothroyd" article is a legitimate concern that the committee might have. My concern was for JoshuaZ rather than Sam Blacketer. JoshuaZ is still free to appeal the desysop without my assistance, and I would recuse unless he expressly asked me not to.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Fair enough. But please be sensitive to the fact that having Arbcoms weigh in heavily on this particular issue is a very sensitive matter. You've said, "he's simply interested in the matter getting dealt with in a fair fashion." And I'm not sure if you're referring to Wikipedia's coverage of Boothroyd or another editor's desysop appeal. But in either event, you've still made some assertions as far as members of the community trying to "draw things out" and suggested that Arbcom doesn't look favorably on involvement in this article subject. That's troubling.

Our guidelines and policies should apply to article subjects whether they are friends or strangers. How many times have we blocked noobs trying to fix an article about themselves? Yet here it takes all these heavyweights to act unilaterally to get rid of this minor article and coverage of a notable, but not enormously significant event. The issues involved with Sam Blacketer are distressing in their own right, but the ongoing efforts to sweep it under the rug make the whole affair stink much worse in my view. And I say that as someone who can relate to an editor wanting their block log and past history to go away. But it's mighty strange that those with power and positions of authority seem unable to relate to the concerns of those who don't hold those positions and don't have the tech savvy to set up multiple accounts or the connections to make things "work out" and to make problems go away. That said, I appreciate your prompt reply. Have a great weekend. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

John has explained this perfectly, and I don't see any evidence of the AC sweeping anything under the rug about Blacketer/Fys/Boothroyd. John cautioned and advised JoshuaZ to wrap this up, which is good advice, and a lot of people have given him similar advice. JoshuaZ has a history of disruptive actions related to WP:BLP subjects, to the point that as an Admin he sockpuppetted to influence AFDs and DRV about Daniel Brandt. This is nothing by the AC sweeping anything away. Look at Sam's user rights. He's down to just Admin status, and that is going to be decided in 48 hours at a mandatory RFA. There is pretty much zero likelihood of Sam ever getting back Oversight, Checkuser, or Arbcom status, and his deliberate actions have been swept all over the rug by international news media. David Boothroyd was nominated for deletion by me, and deleted. JoshuaZ has (I believe) 48 hours before multiple people have said the userpage version will go up on WP:MFD, unless he deletes it himself.

There's nothing here about the AC hiding anything, or I can assure you I would have been one among the lines of people clamoring for explanations. John's answer to this e-mail situation is to me crystal clear, and I have no problem with anyone on the AC here in any way. Do I still wish they'd been more open and upfront about Sam immediately? Sure, but they waited 3-4 days. Big deal. "Justice" as such has been served I'm sure to everyone's satisfaction. What are we going to go after--a pound of flesh? There's nothing else to do to Sam except block him, which I don't want to see happen. Once the RFA is over, this is all a moot point anyway. rootology (C)(T) 02:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand where you get to 3-4 days, Rootology. There was, if I recall correctly, less than 24h between the moment ArbCom found out about Sam's previous identities and the time he stepped down. Given the timezones involved and email roundtrips, this is about as fast as is possible. It then took a number of extra hours (again, less than 24) for ArbCom to agree on a statement, which was then posted. — Coren ^(talk) 02:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it's worth asking here given where this thread is going: what happens if Sam doesn't do the RFA? Loses his bit under the usual cloud? rootology (C)(T) 02:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Just thinking aloud here. When I get random Wikipedia e-mail, I usually read and file it, or I delete it. Is any part of this nonsense above necessary or helpful? Sam Blacketer used a number of alternate accounts. He'll stand for RFA on June 15. What the hell else is there to discuss and who cares? --MZMcBride (talk) 02:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If you're not interested don't discuss it. I'm very concerned about the integrity of Wikipedia's highest administrative body and about Wikipedia in general. The issue raises a lot of interesting and important questions, not the least of which is what process exists and is appropriate for users who want to turn over a new leaf. There's also the question of what constitutes a COI, what needs to be disclosed, and what editing limitations should be imposed in cases like this, if any.

As far as Sam's RfA, I for one haven't made up my mind. My biggest is concern is that Sam hasn't explained himself or answered questions (including mine). And as far as things being swept under the rug, there isn't any question that when an arbcom member became embroiled in a controversy his article was immediately and aggressively deleted. This action, even after quite substantial news coverage, was carried out and supported by the current and former Arbcoms in a way that deviates from usual practice and procedure for determining community consensus. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

"...there isn't any question that when an arbcom member became embroiled in a controversy his article was immediately and aggressively deleted."

I nominated it for deletion, and another admin deleted Boothroyd, separate from the Arbcom. Did you look at AFD #2? He's non-notable. I hammered the point that whether he's Arbcom or the first editor we ever had here doesn't matter. No favorites; so he was deleted. Are you saying he should have stayed for a flogging in spite of WP:N? If you know anything about my history, I'm among the furthest from being a booster of "bad admin" behavior as this site has ever had. Or are you implying that I'm now a part of The Big Conspiracy? rootology (C)(T) 02:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh wait, I am defending the Arbcom! Please block me now, I'm apparently an imposter that has taken control of User:Rootology! rootology (C)(T) 02:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Subsection: Episode VI Ewoks Fight Back

I'm creating a section break because that was a long thread. The AfD was opened at 19:34 and closed at 20:50 the same day (someone skilled in math can determine how many minutes it was actually open) by Jehochman who is if I'm not mistaken a former Arbcom who served with Sam? I'm sure I'll have to strike and correct some of this, but no need to yell. Anyway, it certainly didn't get the usual 7 day hearing.

I've moved the article to my userspace per the above discussion and the consent of the former hosting party. I'm going to adjust it. What would be the ideal route after that? As it will be new with sources I would like to create it in article space with at least semi-protection, and full protection if anyone is willing to be so proactive. If it's put to AfD I would like to see it run the full 7 days (unless it's a true snow close at some point which seems unlikely). Unfortunately, the timing is a bit complicated by the RfA thing. And I don't know if the powers that be will demand a DRV? Given that it was deleted out of process (per my understanding of the consensus at ANI) I think a full and fair hearing at AfD would be most appropriate, but I'm willing to listen to other ideas. Those are my thoughts. I'm going to work on it and check back in now and again. My main question is what timing and process would be best to follow. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Episode VII: The Empire Strikes Out

Jehochman was never an arbitrator. Discussion has been open at ANI for days. Please turn down the temperature. Durova^Charge! 03:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration motions regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names

Original post

Is this announcement (which was posted on Ireland) going to be posted on Republic of Ireland as well? thats the article where there has been alot of trouble and people seeking to change the article title. Also is it possible for a template message to be placed at the top of the related articles talk pages advising people not to discuss it on the talk page and linking to the correct place for debate? otherwise these messages could simply get lost in talk page debate if the dispute isnt resolved in the next few weeks or months. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Motion allowing parties currently banned from I/P articles to comment on naming guidelines for I/P articles

Original post

Ok, but... this is incomprehensible, what is this all about ? What is I/P ? And there's no link to the motion (if this was decided off-wiki, please say so). Why would a failed motion be announced here anyway ? Cenarium (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Err, in order: "Israel/Palestine", decided off-wiki, and because it was a response to an editor request and thus needed an answer. — Coren ^(talk) 00:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Cenarium (talk) 00:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines for placenames in Israel/Palestine articles are being developed at Placename guidelines and it would be helpful to have more editors comment in the polls on the talk page on the clauses that appear on the project page and a number of other proposed clauses. By the way, the motion was related to this remedy. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)