Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests

cs interwiki request

Please remove cs interwiki cs:Wikipedie:Arbitrážní výbor from the header for WP:RFARB subpage to not connect Wikipedie:Arbitrážní výbor with WP:RFARB here.

There is mess in interwikis in between languages - they are not matching procedural steps in arbitration. Not just english wikipedia has different pages and subpages for individual procedural steps.

This particular header Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Header implements interwikis for request subpage. There is request subpage counterpart in czech Wikipedia (see), but this header (and so the WP:Arbitration/Requests page display it) is now containing interwiki for the main arbitration site (czech counterpart of WP:Arbitration). The interwiki for czech request arbitration page would be suitable here (cs:Wikipedie:Žádost o arbitráž) , however that interwiki is already present at the end of page body of WP:RFARB. It results in two different cs: interwikis being generated in the interwikis list in WP:Arbitration/Requests. From those two iws, the one in header (here) is the wrong one.

Sumed: I ask to remove cs:Wikipedie:Arbitrážní výbor interwiki from here. Or optionally to replace it here with cs:Wikipedie:Žádost o arbitráž (and clean then the ":cs:Wikipedie:Žádost o arbitráž" from WP:RFARB)

Note: It seems to me that the another interwikis here have the same problem, for they all go to the main arbitration sites of respective wikis, but I am not familiar with their overall procedural structure there (they may or may not discriminate between WP:RFARB and WP:ARB like cs and en wikis do). --Reo ⁺ 10:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done, your latter option. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank You Martin. So I did follow You and did remove the remaining cs:Wikipedie:Žádost o arbitráž interwiki from WP:RFARB body.

Now I am sure that the :es: interwikis are in the same situation like the cs interwikis were. Here in the header is interwiki pointing to WP:ARB, at the same time the correct one for WP:RFARB is simultaneously at the bottom of the WP:RFARB.

Moreover there are two more iws, the azerbaijany and Russian iw's. They should be here in the header as well. Sorry for bothering again. And thank You. (I just came to solve the cs, but, seeing this, it's better fix all)

So the es: should be replaced here, and other two moved from WP:RFARB to WP:RFARB/Header --Reo ⁺ 14:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You're confusing me. There is already an ru interwiki in the header. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Ha, ha, ha, yes, it is confusing ;) But now it is still much better then before, thank you. Basically the confusion is why we are here. There was quite a mess. The only remaining part, where I can navigate are those two :ru: interwikis. Of those two - the [[ru:Википедия:Арбитражный комитет]] does not belong here, it belongs to WP:ARB.

After some time, it will need some update, becouse we will see what the interwiki robots will do with it on the other sites (as it was this way, there was bot confusion cross-languages, confusion between wp:ARB and wp:RFARB in all languages) Reo ⁺ 18:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I've lowered the protection so you should be able to maintain these interwikis yourself now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I will do just few languages per day. It is quite difficult. Going through googletranslate (with and without translations) and I need to follow rather more links coming fromthose pages to verify that I interpreted the meaning of those pages pretty well.

• One note to slowenian case. It seems that they had one before, but due to their internal processes they modified it to mediation process - they renamed the page and deleted the link. Google translation of the deletion log. Reo ⁺ 11:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Disclosure

This disclosure is related to the SlimVirgin case.

Cases dealing with serious misuse of admin tools, especially at arbitration, may well be met by a very quick response, up to and including summary desysopping in egregious cases. Even at RFAR these have historically tended to be treated with above average urgency.

In such cases, arbitrators may have to balance two roles - as members of the community who may well have commented, discussed and the like, and as arbitrators deciding whether a line has been crossed and if so what remedy is appropriate.

In this case any prior interaction with SlimVirgin is tenuous. We have spoken amicably, not enough to be close, and she has reversed a block of mine enacted to enforce a prior arbitration ruling. That is roughly, the sum total of all involvement. It's truly trivial.

The view that "there is a case needed" is not due to bias, involvement, or past history. Indeed there were a number of complaints of the action, there is history of poor judgement, and at least one other user had drafted a Request for Arbitration beforehand that I was unaware of. Arbitrators are not expected to be free of all history - that would be impractical. They are expected to be free of history that would affect their neutrality. The question I am considering is, would I be able to hear SlimVirgin's statement and that of others, and decide fairly.

I am fairly sure I would, if the evidence is there. I have considered my neutrality in multiple cases - indeed more than any other arbitrator I have been mindful of disclosure even when not strictly needed. This included the original IRC case, and Mantanmoreland. In the latter I was the only arbitrator to express a view in the prior RFC, and yet at RFAR I discounted that and took note only of the evidence presented. I am therefore considering whether I would be neutral here, and my initial view is I would be.

However it is also extremely important to consider other users' perceptions. That also goes without saying. Hence my comment that I would like to consider this, and will do so. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• "Perceptions" or no, you would not be neutral here, as the very fact that you brought this strange motion demonstrates. You had a block overturned. That's not reason to request removal of the overturning admin's tools. If you are going to press forward with the motion, the least you could do is recuse. The best course of action would be swift withdrawal of the motion. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 20:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The motion isn't at all strange. SlimVirgin is very familiar with Arbitration Enforcement, and knows what exactly the criteria are. Ultimately ArbCom enforces its own rulings. Arbitration Enforcement is a venue where that happens, and as its header says, it is not part of dispute resolution. It is there to answer just one question in a matter. The block isn't personal. Every admin and arbitrator has probably had blocks overturned when others disagree with the block. This block enforces arbitration ruling. The requirements to overturn in such a case are stricter, and very clearly stated. Several times it says the same point. Most administrators involved in this incident probably know it already or read it at the time. Nothing strange about it at all. Oddly enough my initial view was to recuse. The reason for hesitation is to avoid assuming without a moments thought - I have proposed or considered recusing in other cases "for safety", in which the community stated it was not necessary. You may have assumed differently. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• FT2, this is simply ridiculous. You took an admin action (and yes, it was yours, personally, not the committee's, as Brad has reminded us all); a fellow admin overturned your action; you are taking the fellow admin before the committee. Of course you are a party here. Of course you must recuse. That you can doubt even for a minute makes me very seriously doubt the soundness of your judgment. (And mind you, I'm not expressing an opinion on the justification of either your initial action or SV's.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

See above edit conflict - you may have misassumed a bit, here, though understandably. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I cannot follow you at all. This is an absolutely clear-cut case. You are a party, period. It makes absolutely no difference whether your action was Arbcom enforcement or a "normal" block. (That may well make a difference for how to judge SV's action, but it changes not one iota of your role as a party.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I've argued in more than one previous case, that recusal was needed, and been told I was probably taking it too strictly (communal consensus agreed with those views at the times). This was a brief "I'm considering and will come back on this" post (exact wording: "On principle, I will be considering the level to which I am involved or otherwise... and whether recusal is appropriate"). As with many issues, when I make a definite stance, then I'm fine if anyone criticizes it, and I will explain or discuss. You've seen that, I'm sure. I'm not averse to speaking my mind. I'm probably one of the most "open" users out there, in terms of willingness to give explanations and discuss if asked. Today I decided to wait briefly, check others' views (as I usually do if there may be a question of what's best) and come back to it as I've done. That's carefulness; credit it as such. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not something on which consideration was needed. The right course was completely obvious. I'm sorry, but if you don't see this, it casts serious doubt on your suitability as an arbiter. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• FT2, this is simply ridiculous. You took an admin action (and yes, it was yours, personally, not the committee's, as Brad has reminded us all); a fellow admin overturned your action; you are taking the fellow admin before the committee. Of course you are a party here. Of course you must recuse. That you can doubt even for a minute makes me very seriously doubt the soundness of your judgment. (And mind you, I'm not expressing an opinion on the justification of either your initial action or SV's.) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)(borrowed from above to reinforce the point)

Thanks for clearing that up. This being Wikipedia, its best not to get into copying the comments of others without attribution, even if you believe you are making a rhetorical point of some sort. Avruch ^T 15:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This entire conversation is moot, as FT2 is recused. Further commentary should be taken to relevant user talk.--Tznkai (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Ryūlóng and Haines

How is this not a ridiculous, petty, thuggish action by Ryūlóng in preventing Haines from editing his own page and extending block because he "removed comments left by adminstrators" (quoting Ryūlóng's stated rationale, note Vandenberg's view of this in this thread)? The later claim that this was because Haines was attempting to "skew" discussion is entirely spurious. John Vandenberg drew Ryūlóng's attention to his response to this action: Ryūlóng's response in full: "Okay". This is simply waving status and tools in the face of the blocked user.

Coupled with the involved status of the original blocker, our first reaction to a block log should be that it is probably evidence of nothing so much as the capriciousness of sections of the admin corps. And of course it is made extremely difficult for any administrator to undo another's action, so these things stick. And administrators practically have tenure. Is this healthy? I think, no. 86.44.25.191 (talk) 02:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Alastair, are you pretending that this isn't you? Ilkali (talk) 13:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ilkali, this shows once again that you let your actions moved by all your past records with Alastair and you are doing nothing but blaming him for anything. A simple IP trace on this post shows that it comes from Eircom.net: an Irish internet provider. Unless Alastair is taking his Wiki-holiday all the way from Australia to Ireland in 24 hours or so, what proof do you have? Miguel.mateo (talk) 13:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

As you know, a comment from an Irish IP does not have to originate from someone in Ireland. The writing style, the attitude expressed and the tone (one of seething indignation) all closely match Alastair's. And, of course, who else would be posting anonymously here? Let's see if anyone claims responsibility. Ilkali (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

"Alastair is bad reputation for Wikipedia, he is always fighting and entroverting himself in any article I contribute. He should be blocked from Wikipedia for life." ... does that sound like you from Japan now? Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it sounds nothing like me. Ilkali (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! Miguel.mateo (talk) 15:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

[unindent]No one asked me my opinion, but I don't think that's Alastair. For one thing, he's back from block- I would think if he was going to go anon and post stuff like this, it would not be a few hours before his block expired. Secondly, socking has never, that we know of, been part of his MO. And thirdly, if he was Alastair, an experienced user familiar with the community- he would know that "Ryūlóng"s username is actually Ryulong, the diacritical marks are merely part of his signature. L'Aquatique[talk] 22:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see you think that way: wannabe a cheerleader? We're hiring ... ;) Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating how people love to play these stupid games instead of commenting on the substance of the post (or not commenting at all). 86.44.28.122 (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There's not much point responding to the "substance" here, since we'll shortly see all the same material appearing in your statement on the main page. Ilkali (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

IP user, I encourage you to create an account and give your opinion in the main article, not here in the talk page. IT is just an advice though, it is up to you at the very end ... regards, Miguel.mateo (talk) 03:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I should mention that, should that IP create an account and comment on the main page, it is almost certain that his/her comments would be disregarded. The assumption would be- not without merit I should mention- that (s)he is a sock of either Alastair or one of his so-called cheerleaders. L'Aquatique[talk] 22:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

In Heavens name, tell me why you should mention your assumption and phrase it to imply it would be everyones assumption. Granted their comments may be disregarded but to assume deceit is your determination. Alastair and his "cheerleaders" have ALL proven themselves trustworthy. To "feel" otherwise and then state fiction as fact does harm to the Community...especially in your role as an administrator. --Buster7 (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm telling you how it works. Most newcomers start working in article space, then move to userspace and talk pages... it usually takes a month or two for a truly new user to find out about administrative projects, no less arbcom. A brand new account commenting in administrative areas indicates, 99% of the time- that they're really not a new user at all. Now, I am not assuming deceit- I said above that I didn't think the IP was Alastair. I'm just being realistic here. L'Aquatique[talk] 00:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I know how it works, thank you. I know you (above) claimed that Alastair and his minions would create sock-puppets to falsify testimony. AGF. I also know that new administrators are admonished to start slowly and build experience. Also, that administrative tools are to be used with good judgement. And, that misusing the tools of an administrator is considered a serious issue. More serious that an inadvertant revert by a long standing quality editor.--Buster7 (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

"I know you (above) claimed that Alastair and his minions would create sock-puppets to falsify testimony". Wow. Alastair must be really regretting involving you in this. Ilkali (talk) 00:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a good opportunity to note that although I'm going to spare ArbCom members the TIME and embarassment of having to defend unsupportable process and conclusions in our case, due to my respect for the difficulties of their situation, this does not extend to allowing administrators, who are only users like everyone else, to get away with personal attacks, bullying, edit-warring and deceiving ArbCom.

There is clear evidence, obvious to the community, that certain admins are gaming the system by taking advantage of the courtesy other administrators will show by not reversing blocks and so on. There are important Wiki ideals at stake here: the equality of all users, admins and others, yet a wisdom in admin solidarity that can occasionally lead to a "them-and-us" situation.

Administrators are not licensed to make rules, they are entrusted with the task of exemplifying them. Past good behaviour is never an excuse for present bad behaviour. Edit warring is edit warring even when administrators collude to do it. There is much more that can be said. What source does an administrator have to warrant enforcing removal of cited material from an article? What consensus does said administrator demonstrate having obtained or observed to do so? Administrators are not above the rules and bring fear, uncertainty and doubt when they "buck the system" to pursue personal crusades. However big their cheer-squad, it is the difference to the text of the encyclopedia—improving and maintaining it—that is the ultimate key performance indicator.

It is simply demonstrable childishness for administrators to abuse their tools to "have the last word". It is scandalous personal attack to twist user's words to appear to be bad faith, in order to make Wiki legal threats and try to silence fair criticism.

Wikipedia is an unbelievably good place because of overworked ArbCom members and thousands of generous administrators and editors. It is sad that this perspective can easily be lost, if in the narrow world of an individual editor or article one administrator, perhaps with a friend or two distorts the basic principles that encourage improvement and maintenance.

Others will have noticed how there is a tendency for admins to be held up as superior to sources, and ArbCom as superior to Wikipedia policy. I'm naive enough to believe that ArbCom and admins will lead the charge to remedy this situation. For Wiki's sake I hope I'm not wrong.

I've said enough. Others can see these things. I'll let them work it out. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I would love to see a diff where I accuse anyone involved in this case of socking. L'Aquatique[talk] 00:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. If your intent isn't to have ArbCom members investigate L'Aquatique, why did you post this here? And if it is, why did you post this here instead of on the main page? Ilkali (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

As requested by L'Aquatique...[[1]] or you could just refer to your recent pejorative comment just above.--Buster7 (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ilkali, unlike other people (apparently), I want to invest my time in making edits that improve and maintain Wikipedia. In fact, I have made so many of these that people have noticed and want me to continue. Indeed I shall. But what I will not do is actually initiate any action that can lead to enforcement on other users. That is not how I understand Wikipedia, enforcement undermines reliability, because it can be used to silence sources, it also undermines good faith, which is essential for co-operative effort. I did not initiate the ArbCom, and I condemn the restrictions on you and others. I also do not want to see enforcement taken on L'Aquatique or Ruylong, the latter having an edit history I am simply in awe of. I have said many times that I am as easy to satisfy as an apologies as public as false accusations made against me. Any other injuries I simply overlook, but I am concerned that people who have been deceived are freed from false notions they should never have been asked to entertain. I am no longer going to comment in this thread. Best wishes all. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I see no answer to my question. Your actions contradict your stated intentions. Ilkali (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Buster- where in that diff do I say that I believed Alastair was socking? I said people uninvolved in this case would assume that he was if a new account showed up in his favor with a similar style of speech. Ask any administrator what their first assumption in that case would be and I guarantee they would say "sock" because we see it happen all the time. If you read the comment before and all the ones afterward, I said I didn't believe Alastair was socking. If you stopped trying to treat me as the enemy and look at the situation neutrally you might see that what I'm saying actually makes sense. L'Aquatique[talk] 01:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Bonkers! Similar Style of Speech??? Not even close.......

people uninvolved in the case???...where did you say that before?....

in that case....is not the case we are talking about.

If you stop treating Mr Haines as if HE is the enemy...I'll do the same for you!--Buster7 (talk) 02:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

All right, as much fun as this is, you are obviously not getting it. I've got better things to do than waste my time going in circles with you. If you really want to believe I'm the bad guy here- which you obviously do- then fine. It's your loss. L'Aquatique[talk] 02:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

L'Aquatique: we are sorry to tell you that after a lot of discussions we have decided to revoke your application for cheerleading. Respectfully, the cheerleading committee. Miguel.mateo (talk) 02:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Bugger! They told me the same thing in high school. L'Aquatique[talk] 03:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Gender of God ... solved at last!

I'm breaking my silence because the best way to save everyone time is to solve the problem.

After one week, it appears that no one has actually even looked at the content involved in the dispute.

Any reasonable member of the community can see the sense of the following if they bother to look.

The Oxford is written for anyone and is reliable. Regarding the gender of God it says the following about the Gothic language usage from which the English is derived:

"...the words always follow the neuter declension, though when used in the Christian sense they are syntactically masc[uline]. ...the adoption of the masculine concord being presumably due to the Christian use of the word."

In other words, the Oxford claims religious understanding of the actual gender of God, led to usage that was inconsistent in grammatical gender.

Ilkali and Abtract present themselves as credible judges of the relevance of this sourced, and long-standing part of the article. They claim it is "irrelevant" and "Haines" to be pushing himself or his POV by restoring it (or any number of other irrelevant criticisms of the text). However, they have a vested interest in deleting it, because it shows other things they've said and done to be out of line with this source. Hence, that Alastair was representing the interests of readers, Wikipedia and sources, not his alleged own interests (whatever those are supposed to be). In other words, it exposes them for precisely the vandals that they are willing to be. Ultimately, Alastair doesn't care what is said about him, but remove quality text from Wiki and you can strike at his heart. Ilkali and Abtract have only got away with this because nice people have trusted them when asked to believe disputed text is "Haines" text. Text is text, it belongs to no-one ... and it can be read! (If one has time.)

They are not alone in having a vested interest in removing the text I am restoring today, and directing attention at Alastair rather than at the real issue. Alastair asked for help when Ilkali and Abtract started their attacks. This is an element that makes the case difficult. A now adminstrator was once a mediator, who answered Alastair's request for help. In the mediation, she failed to correct personal attacks or engage with reliable sources, and sided with Ilkali and Abtract, as subsequent events have proved beyond doubt. The facts haven't changed, they are simply much easier for more people to see now. Alastair closed the mediation when it was clear it was making things worse not better. The mediators were unhappy with this criticism of their voluntary service. Perfectly understandable.

Abtract's claims that Alastair is a bully are beyond credibility, but sadly some people believe there is a question mark about Alastair because others, they are presuming to be reliable sources, have "said so". This is successful defamation. It is remedied by public retraction. It was motivated by resentment, resentment expressed on this very page. I urge strongly that it not be punished by sanctions. How can people demonstrate change if not given the opportunity to do so? Would sanctions reduce resentment?

Dismiss this case as petty and unworthy of attention in the first place. The content issues can be seen to be obviously in line with what Alastair has claimed about them all along, as anyone who bothered to inspect them would find. The error was allowing personal attacks to be mistaken for serious criticism, without the content issues being inspected first. Am I the only one here who actually reads Wikipedia, rather than other editors, and with unfriendly eyes at that! Of course not.

Dismiss the restrictions on Ilkali, impose none on Abtract! Retain mine by all means, they do not "restrict" my editing at all, they describe a lower standard than the 20,000 edits of my history. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Alastair, this rant is highly inappropriate. You are also sinking to making personal attacks, by calling Ilkali and Abtract both vandals, and continue to attack an administrator who tried to help mediate. Surely from your understanding of the difficulty here, you can understand why the mediation failed, and you could cut her some slack.

If there is one reason you are now faced with editing restrictions, it is because of your comments rather than your content work.

In regards to why nobody has done anything about Gender of God in the last week, you volunteered to put this into other peoples care, and now I feel like you have gone back on your word to me about that. I have not focused on that article yet for good reasons, including it being the focus of the motion here, and I have also been busy stopping the new fire at Virginity that was sparked by Abtract. And now you've fanned the flames of the Gender of God content dispute; is it really so important? --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

John, please withdraw the term rant, whatever it means, and keep interacting with what is said.

It is a careful presentation of facts, which you are welcome to dispute, if you can find something that can be disputed.

Are you suggesting removal of the text above was not vandalism? Yes or no.

Vandalism is vandalism. It's not a personal attack to identify it.

Even the restrictions encouraged me to revert "vandalism" by name. It is ArbCom's word, not mine.

If such a claim as mine is a personal attack, then you automatically grant that many, many, many more have been made against me and that these have not yet been addressed. With that I certainly agree.

Check the mediation John, I did cut the mediators a lot of slack for exactly the reasons you mention.

I am not "attacking" that mediator, I wouldn't ever have seen her again unless she'd continued to come looking for me.

Even passers by have commented at how obviously bad it looks, that on at least three occasions she's intervened to inhibit my editing.

Where has she answered, as publically as she's asked me to answer, for her part in the GoG mediation?

It is not acceptable to impose restrictions to force me to seek help, without addressing where help has actually failed me.

In my post above I deliberately did not spell out these things. I know they are awkward.

But it is not right to smooth the awkwardness by suggesting that it is me that is "attacking".

It deflects attention away from facts, questions that need answering, and issues that need addressing.

I did not start any of this, and I keep walking away. It is a handful of others that keep making a big deal of nothing.

Is Gender of God a content dispute? Then why is it here?

I've gone back on nothing, I still want someone to get involved at Gender of God, you or anyone.

I certainly don't hold it against you, John, that while you're busy satisfying Abtract in one place, you don't have time to maintain things in another.

The only reason I post now is that I'll be offline soon for some time and don't know if I'll remember to fix things when I get back.

As I said, I think things are solved. Some things are easier to see now and help us drop it and move on. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Alastair, I used the term rant because your post boils down to "this can be solved by me doing a revert because removing this content was vandalism." If only it was that simple. Abtract has now reverted it, which many bystanders could have predicted. I didnt restore this text because it was still unresolved, and Abtract would have reverted me if I had tried. There is a much deeper problem here, and it is up to the Arbitrators to determine the best solution.

The removal of this text is not vandalism as it was accompanied by an explanation at Talk:Gender of God#Removing "Clarify Terms" section, to which you responded, and other editors have resisted your attempt to restore it. The removal may be inappropriate, against consensus, "stone walling" or even gaming the system, but it is not vandalism. You may find Wikipedia:Vandalism helpful to determine whether an edit can be called vandalism, but the rule of thumb is to assume good faith.

Here is the history of this section, with three other editors removing it, and you are the only one restoring it:

Alynna Kasmira - 23:49, 20 November 2008

Alastair - 00:39, 21 November 2008

Ilkali - 02:31, 21 November 2008

Alastair - 05:54, 21 November 2008

Abtract - 07:25, 21 November 2008

Alastair - 03:52, 22 November 2008

Abtract - 09:52, 22 November 2008

Alastair - 01:37, 29 November 2008

Abtract - 09:39, 29 November 2008

This is what we call an edit war - it is a content dispute, and there are three other editors involved, though it is mainly your self and Abtract who are prolonging each dispute that starts. Abtract non-involvement in the talk page is a major part of the problem in my opinion (i.e. Abtract is stonewalling in this case), and that is why I have proposed that he also be "restricted" in the same manner as yourself :- the simple requirement to discuss any revert (this is something most editors do). However it would be really helpful if you could accept that these battles are not helpful, and they all need to be put on hold until the deeper issues are resolved. A proper solution can't be achieved while the skirmishes continue. It is up to Arbcom to now decide if they can pass any motions that they believe will further improve the editing environment.

p.s. Arbs, an anon has recently vandalised this section twice; maybe that is related.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

"Solved at last"? With a title like that, people expect to see some brilliant compromise that satisfies all parties, but all it really amounts to is "if everyone agrees that I'm right, the problems go away!". That's what you've been touting from day one, Alastair. Don't dress it up as a breakthrough. Ilkali (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom math

There are twelve active arbitrators (excluding one who is recused), so seven votes are a majority.

I do disagree with three of the four proposals in question and do not want to help them pass more easily than they should, but I couldn't help noticing this: Twelve minus one is eleven, and six of eleven are a clear majority as no more than five could oppose. Could somebody (clerks perhaps) please clarify this now rather than after it becomes obvious which proposals would be affected? Thanks. — CharlotteWebb 14:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the recused arbitrator in this case is inactive in general, so there are twelve non-recused active arbitrators on the motion, not eleven. FlyingPenguin1 (talk) 14:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Flyingpenguin1 is right. There are 12 arbitrators currently active, excluding FT2 who is recused on these motions (and has put himself on the "inactive" list for a few weeks to focus on some other stuff, although I see little evidence of actual inactivity :) ). For anyone ever wishing to verify numbers, a list of the currently active arbitrators can be found at WP:AC. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I remember looking at the sentence and thinking "huh?" at first; then realised what had happened after checking that very list. Was confused for a moment myself. :) The edit summary in the history [2] was also helpful. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well crap, maybe I was stuck in a jury-trial mindset (I guess you can have the Henry Fonda role, Brad), plus thirteen is unlucky and I totally forgot YellowMonkey was still a member. Maybe the standard wording should be changed to:

"There are currently [X] arbitrators, of which [Y] is/are inactive and/or recused, leaving [X minus Y]. Thus [(X - Y) / 2, rounded down, + 1] votes are a majority.

Would this be less confusing or more so? You could set up a template for it if that helps . — CharlotteWebb 17:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That was more-or-less the standard wording until about a year ago, when it was changed to be less confusing. The view at the time was "if they are recused or inactive, why are we talking about them?", plus it sounded silly to have to write "of whom none are recused." You can't win.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No, but I can lose with the best of them (see the main RFAR page if you doubt). A template could of course omit the number of inactive/recused arbcommies if they are zero. Of course if there is a reluctance to mention them at all we could say something like "There are twelve arbitrators participating in this case, so seven votes are a majority.", but this could become confusing for who are inactive and/or recused as arbitrator but still participating in some other capacity. As a last resort we say "There are twelve arbitrators arbitrating this case" but that is tautological, sounds like part of a christmas carol, and still doesn't address those unrecused and listed as "active" but still unexpected to participate. — CharlotteWebb 19:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

How about "There are X eligible arbitrators (excluding Y that are inactive and X that are recused), so ceiling(X/2) votes are a majority."? (Yes, there is still an issue when a supposedly inactive arb recuses, but it's not a serious problem - just pick a category and put them in it, hopefully it won't be too confusing.) --Tango (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You want floor-plus-one otherwise it's a stalemate with an even number. Plus "recused" supersedes "inactive" in theory because (for better or worse) one must actively say "I recuse" to be considered so. — CharlotteWebb 19:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

True, floor+1 is a better definition of majority. It depends on your definition of "inactive". If "inactive" means "not active" then you are absolutely right. If "inactive" means "on the inactive list" then it's a little more confusing. --Tango (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

"Rounded upwards to the nearest whole number" may be an alternative path to pursue in the pursuit of perfect wording. In practice we do, however, seem to have very little problem with calculating the majority by the arithmetic guideline's current incarnation. AGK 22:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed motions in Motion: re SlimVirgin

I've added the following two motions to the SlimVirgin/Giano/FT2 motion. They have been removed by User: Thatcher with a remark "only arbitrators may propose motions, this is not a workshop". I don't agree with this comment at all - at least I found no such statement on the page, and I see no compelling reason for this restriction. However, I'll put them up for discussion here. I'll also add at least one other motion below. Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

He's right this is not a workshop sub-page. Summary arbcom motions decided on the main page generally take the shape of remedies which issued without citing principles or findings of fact, which is what your proposals appear to be (however I do agree with them). Wikipedia:Arbitration policy has some salient information about the process, but a bit of noise too. It would be nice if the useful parts could probably be cooked down to companion glossary of arbcom jargon (plus the obscure Latin which surfaces periodically), as a more effective crash course for newcomers and as an alternative to studying actual cases. — CharlotteWebb 20:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Clarification on arbitration procedures and norms, especially for those not hooked into the constant day to day would be a good idea. I think after the new appointments go through, I'll see if the Clerk's can put something together in our role as communication facilitators--Tznkai (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration guide does that job already, doesn't it? Admittedly, it could always be improved, and it has largely been written by sitting arbitrators (which is both good and bad), but I've always found it helpful. Carcharoth (talk) 20:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but who actually reads that? Oh sure, we'd hope everyone would, but something shorter and to the point might be a good idea.--Tznkai (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Arb Guide Lite? The five pillars of arbitration? Arbitration for Dummies? Carcharoth (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The Complete Idiot's Guide to Arbitration perhaps? ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 21:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Way to obvious. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• I for one concur that a mechanism needs to be built in to the structure used for Requests for Amendments on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration that allows non-Committee members to suggest proposals (much in the spirit of the /Workshop page of full Arbitration cases). I suspect it would have little practical effect on the outcome of a thread but it may satisfy those who wish for their views to be given broadcasting space. "Free speech," and all that. AGK 21:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Equal respect

• ) All Wikipedia editors should be treated respectfully. However, no special deference should be expected just because an editor is an administrator or a member of ArbCom. Being either is no big deal.

There are twelve active arbitrators (excluding one who is recused), so seven votes are a majority. As at 09:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC).

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comment: As long as we're going to re-iterate the point that all editors deserve equal respect and do not deserve any special deference, it seems reasonable to extend this equality to the whole concept of vested contributors. I would love to see policy equally applied to all Wikipedians-- but if you are going to asking Arbs to give up an expectation of deference, surely we also must also expect "vested contributors" to relinquish any expectation of special treatment as well. --Alecmconroy (talk) 02:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You aren't going to legislate "amount of respect", and also WP:DEAL is already part of WP:ADMIN already. For arbitrators I think the point is, these are already selected because they have very high respect from the community (ie arb elections), hence telling people "don't have a high level of respect" may not be a message that gets heard. While most times it's a pain (I have to stay silent on dozens of issues so my words don't get taken with weight I don't wish them to carry, nowadays), there are cases where it seems the only way a matter gets settled well is for an arbitrator to give their view - even "just as an admin" this can help. So clearly it can go both ways. Probably not legislatable anyway. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration is not proclamation

• ) The purpose of the Arbitration committee is to actively work with Wikipedia users to help them to find mutually acceptable solutions. Sanctions are only the last possibility and should be backed by consensus not only of the committee, but also the community at large. ArbCom deliberation should, as far as possible, happen in the open, on Wikipedia, and interacting with the community. Proclamations of decisions reached without active community involvement and using back channels undermine the trust and respect users place in the committee.

There are twelve active arbitrators (excluding one who is recused), so seven votes are a majority. As at 09:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC).

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comment:

Moot. 1/ Remedies are developed with the community - we enact (other than in truly exceptional matters) well within communally existing norms; we routinely restate the same simple policies the community has adopted, often for years; we note the evidence the community has developed; we routinely take part in developing ideas on the workshop pages. 2/ Matters only come to Arbcom because the community isn't handling them and one or more users presents a good reason why a definitive decision by this means is now needed. Hence sanctions are common. People bring cases to Arbcom usually expecting sanctions due to unrelenting issues, and have had their initial request reviewed and then accepted, so it's to be expected in many cases that the conclusion will be sanctions are needed. We've taken the "only as a last resort" line often enough, if it may help, that's nothing new. 3/ While discussion of the evidence and issues may well take place in private, in most cases any proposals considered are proposed and discussed on-wiki. As can routinely be seen, this includes the full remit and by no means any "rubber stamping" - it includes proposals others disagree on, refinement, "minority of one", and so on are common in almost every case. 4/ In complex cases we tend to consider a broad overview in private, to ensure our early views will not be misused by those seeking grudges or to smear parties in future on-wiki, for example (sadly that's common behavior in some cases), or for privacy reasons, or just to assess in a high profile case which has potential for harm if misconstrued. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Further motions

Proper community involvement and discussion

• ) The length and intensity of the discussion in this case, with multiple back-and-forth comments between the proponent and several members of the community, shows that this issue cannot be adequately solved without proper community input, e.g. via a full ArbCom case with a proper Workshop page.

There are twelve active arbitrators (excluding one who is recused), so seven votes are a majority. As at 09:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC).

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comment:

1. Agree with this last one, at least. If that many people have something to say, it's probably not a topic for summary judgment or simple clarification. Coming after the last miserable arbcom fiasco, this looks like a short-cut way for disgruntled arbs to get SlimVirgin, without even pretending to look at evidence or crafting objective findings of fact. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No. In this case it shows four main things: 1/ That the matter was complex. I don't think anyone contests this. 2/ That SlimVirgin declined to present her formal statement of evidence until the very last minute and then some. She was asked in July, and by mid August was being told "we may decide without it". She promised at worst by end August, but actual formal evidence still only came in many weeks later and as the case moved towards close even more claims kept being produced. 3/ That a number of Arbitrators were otherwise occupied (Poetlister in August/September, anyone remember?) 4/ That the parties decided to pursue their own perceptions of the case via "mass appeal" (or forum shopping). Since the whole problem has been marked by appeal to unhelpful venue (mailing lists early on, in preference to dispute resolution? Come on.....) the presence of yet more "appeal to as many people as possible" speaks more of poor choices by the user(s) rather than problems in the case.

It was not the world's easiest case, and I'd highlight three specific reasons: 1/ a lot was based on private matters and off-wiki that needed estimations and interpretations, and 2/ one "side" held out their evidence in a most unhelpful manner, relied more than acceptable on demagogy (or demagoguery? if that's the word) and lengthy essays much of which was not to the point, and refused to countenance a view that others might or could have different impressions than their own, or less certainty than they did, and still be acting and opining reasonably. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Note to Clerks: This section can please be archived on the talkpage of the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal of case

I posted a case that the clerks received anonymously regarding the conduct of ScienceApologist. Per the comments of some of the arbitrators, I've taken the case down now and I'm going to tell the anonymous user to either submit the evidence via their account on the cold fusion case, or email it to the arbitrators directly. Just to keep everyone in the loop. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Subpage

Clerks, the lengthy motion and discussion have pushed the associated project page over 500k. This tends to disenfranchise reduce access by, discourage commenting by, and decrease transparency for members of the community on slower connections. Can a subpage be created? Jehochman ^Talk 13:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks good idea, but better speaking of a "denial of access" rather than disenfranchisement? Not a vote, and all that.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I just nudged the arbs to see if we can get more voting on this so we can close it. Three motions are passing and one is close. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I subpaged the SlimVirgin motion. Whatever rationale you use, it's a good idea.--chaser - t 17:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't a clerk have done this, if at all? --Conti|✉ 17:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I was adding a statement at the very moment the page was being subpaged, and got an edit conflict. I have now added my statement to the subpage instead. ElinorD (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue of a clerk doing it asisde, you also should have left a note at RFAR that is was subpaged, with a link. But it's rather moot as I've received a note from the arbs to close it. Since 3A passes, whether 2/2A pass is rather moot. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we revert the subpaging before archiving, then? Having a subpage without any edit history doesn't seem to be useful to me. Not to mention the confusion with an actual arbitration case. --Conti|✉ 18:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the main page is for active requests. Whether it's a permalink or a subpage doesn't make much difference, as long as people can link to it when and if they have to. A subpage is pretty useful for that purpose.--chaser - t 19:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how a subpage with no edit history is more useful than a permalink, but I suppose this is all moot now, anyhow. --Conti|✉ 21:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

A note, Rlevse? Like this one?--chaser - t 19:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops, missed it. Sorry, chaser. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Meh, I removed my comments from the thread, and would invite others to do the same. There's far too much noise there, most of it predictable and partisan - and I doubt anyone is listening. It seems to me arbcom is doing just fine without all our squealing. Indeed they'd be advised to ignore all the score settling and axe grinding that's been posted on every side. We chose them to handle this stuff, and although they are not doing it quite the way I'd like them too, they've managed to be decisive for once. They were going to take stick whatever they did - so kudos for their willingness to face it down. Well done folks.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The SlimVirgin case

The SlimVirgin case has been closed quite quickly, and it has been moved to a subpage, so, but there are very important questions left unanswered, so, in the hope that they won't be missed, I want to draw attention to this section of the talk page of the subpage. Thank you. ElinorD (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

How common are good findings about editors?

I wonder how common are findings along the lines "editor X is a valuable member of this project, edits in good faiths, etc.", and in what cases are they made? I am pretty sure I saw some in some past cases, but they are certainly not seen in all of them. What factors determine whether they are seen in a given case? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, in at least one case, personal bias They may be less common or nonexistent after that. --NE2 07:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Two that I recently commented on:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova#!! encouraged

Here is one; Oddly enough, it was courtesy blanked, so here is a quick link.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Also see:

RFAR/NSLE

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano#Kelly_Martin_thanked

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Betacommand_2#Betacommand_instructed

MBisanz ^talk 07:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick and informative reply! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The result of extending thanks to Kelly Martin might have discouraged future efforts. Durova^Charge! 21:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The nature of an Arbitration case is sadly such that the Committee rarely has grounds to find positively. Where it does, it is often reluctant to do so: there is no presumption of guilt built into the Committee's operations, and therefore parties that are not explicitly named as having practised conduct unbecoming are automatically presumed to be editors in good standing. (This fundamental practice is derived from the spirit of Wikipedia:Assume good faith, which was something of gospel in the days the Committee was founded.)

The Committee has found in a few occasions in the favour of an editor, and—where it has been necessary to do so—explicitly stated that an editor is not (usually, contrary to a mistaken assumption amongst some or all of the Community) guilty of poor conduct or of otherwise unacceptable behaviour. The most recent applicable precedent is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar: #Lar's conduct ("the Committee finds that the checks run by Lar in March 2008 fell within the acceptable range of CheckUser discretion") and #Mackensen's conduct ("The Committee has examined Mackensen's conduct in relation to this matter, and sees no reason for concern, nor any reason why anyone should doubt his integrity").

AGK 22:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Jack Merridew motions

I am pleased to see progress being made on the Jack Merridew motions. There appears to be division in the opinions of the Arbitrators on the importance of on-Wiki clarifications about the terms of the unbanning. On one hand—the most heavily supported hand, it seems—there is assent for amending official Committee documentation on Jack's ban to clarify the terms the Committee are lifting it under: specifically, that Jack is to maintain a safe distance from White_Cat in editing and in comment. The rationale there is to maintain full clarity on the terms of the unbanning and to prevent gaming. On the other, there is dissent against those amendments, with a preference to relying on strong communications between the Committee and Jack to ensure the unban does not open the door to JM returning to his old habits. The rationale there is that excessive terms and conditions simply add unnecessary layers of information to an unban—a process that benefits from as little drama as possible, to avoid repercussions and "revenge attacks" on the ex-banee; and, that excessive terms increase the potential for wikilawyering.

For what it's worth, I agree with the Arbitrators who are striving for documenting what's happening on-Wiki. Unbanning is already, as it stands, a very secretive process; on some levels, necessarily-and ergo rightfully—so. The Community must at least know the terms on which Jack is being unbanned: the Committee cannot be everywhere at once—it knows this well—and the Community ought therefore to be blessed with as much information as possible to ensure the unban goes smoothly. Furthermore, secretive, off-Wiki communications are precisely what has been going wrong with the ArbCom of late. In this case there is no need for confidentiality; I would therefore discourage the refusal to be transparent in all matters. Why must we rely on ArbCom-l to set the terms of the unban? Why not update ArbCom pages to keep full transparency in this matter...? On the argument of potential wikilawyering: I view that as an argument we don't need to worry excessively about. Gaming is more of a problem, I'd say, than wikilaywering; we've plenty of incisive administrators to whack the sanity hammer around if Jack or any other party to this matter attempts to wikilaywer.

Proposals 2) and 3) are important in this unban, and are most strongly substantiated. Please allow them to pass.

AGK 22:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Does proposal 2 have to do with documenting something on site? It deals with the Committee having the ability to step in over the head of the Community. Even if there is complete agreement at AE, this proposal says that the Committee must review the situation. I'm opposed to the Committee wading into situations without the Community asking us to act. With proposal 3, it actual weakens the restrictions on Merridew. The original idea was to keep Merridew completely away from White Cat. No editing the same page, the new wording allows Merridew to edit the same page if he can justify it. I see massive problems with this approach as it will permit Merridew to comment on pages where White Cat might edit. The problem with trying to write wording that anticipates every situation is that it introduces ambiguity. Using the mentors to enforce the strictest interpretation of the restrictions will give a better outcome since they can make decisions based on real situations that we can not anticipate. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I've stricken "proposal 2)" from my comment. I didn't intend to include it: as you say, it doesn't pertain to on-Wiki documentation of the unban.

Would you not agree proposal 3) presents a much more elegant and less paralysing approach to segregating White_Cat and Jack? By using off-Wiki terms and conditions the Committee is preventing Jack from editing any page that White_Cat has touched; as a veteran editor, that's a huge number of pages already deemed "untouchable" to JM. (That's not a huge problem, in fairness: Jack can select from the remaining millions of articles to contribute to at his leisure. I am unsure to what extent Jack and Cat's editing interests overlap; if they do extensively—and have always done so—then this may have to be loosened.) However, by using the on-Wiki proposal, we are resorting to less crude methods of segregating the two users. That, coupled with the improved transparency, is my main rationale for suggesting going with proposal 3) rather than an off-Wiki talking to. I don't think we need to worry about Jack gaming the ability being extended to him to edit a page WC has edited so long as it isn't done maliciously: if he starts to violate the spirit of his restriction, I am very confident he'll be pulled up for it rather promptly. The Jack Merridew-White Cat situation's publicity levels are such that the community has assigned enough "eyes" to the case to make Jack gaming his restriction near-impossible in practice.

All in all, the on-Wiki proposal seems to be the better method to use here. AGK 00:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't. I feel that it opens the door for Merridew to edit on pages that the administrators that talked to Merridew did not intent for him to edit, at least on his return to editing. Other uninvolved editors now can show up and argue that Merridew can edit on pages where White Cat edits if Merridew can justify it. Given the past way that Merriew harassed White Cat, I feel that this type of discussion is harmful to White Cat. I've spoken to White Cat several times about Merridew's return to editing and I think that I understand his actual concerns fairly well.

Before these administrators were willing to speak up for his return they talked to Merridew for weeks and well as watched his edits on other wikis. Although it did not happen on Wikipedia English, I think that it was a very valuable part of the process. And since Merridew was a banned user, I don't see any other way that it could happen. I have no problem with the mentors writing up their expectation and putting in Merridew user space for other users to see. But I also think that behind the scene words of support, and advise, are appropriate for both Merridew and White Cat. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

How would you feel, Flo, about a proposal whereby the on-Wiki case pages were created, as is being proposed by FT2, but instead incorporated a blanket ban on Jack editing any page edited by White_Cat (within reason)? Would it be possible for you to propose that, if you indeed assent to the sentiment? AGK 02:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: behind-the-scenes advice is often exceptionally valuable. I concur with you on that point. (Eg., it played an essential role in resolving the Steve Crossin matter with as little on-Wiki fuss as possible.) I think it's bad practice, however, to rely exclusively on private communications to facilitate Committee actions when the matter in question is not confidential in nature. The ArbCom has of late been extensively criticised for operating "in secret" far too often. Situations like this one provide an excellent opportunity to shake off this image, and—as cases that have little in the way of material unsuitable for on-Wiki release are so hard to come by—I think we should seize it. AGK 02:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where this discussion about on-wiki and off-wiki documentation comes from. The whole terms of the proposed unban are right there in the first motion. The disagreement is as to wording, whether it is preferable to be as specific as possible, or else more general with a view to a broad interpretation. --bainer (talk) 11:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Mhrm, yes, that's more what I'm looking for. Thanks for pointing that out, Bainer.

Jack has requested via email that the following comment be posted for the public record:

I know what this means, I think… but this needs more clarity. Rhetorical questions: Am I allowed to edit my talk page? White Cat has; and he's edited my user page, too. How about other user talk pages? (no, I don't mean his.) I'm fine with not editing articles listed here (WC intersections with JM) (exception; A Midsummer Night's DreamJM WC) and probably most of the other intersections with my prior accounts; however, in this (WC intersections with Davenbelle), I see some likely exceptions: Padangbai, John Logan (writer)diff — and more; The Loss of the Ship "Essex" Sunk by a Whale and the Ordeal of the Crew in Open Boats (currently a redirect)diff. Other intersections; Moby Dick and Diyarbakir There are other common pages; FT2 mentions ANI, but there are many others that are in the same boat. My view is that on ANI I should not start a thread about him and should not chip-in on sections about him or that he starts or is significantly involved in. There may be threads that we both comment in, but I would be most careful and would seek advice first; and mostly not! An obvious case would be a thread about me that he comments on; surely that would not preclude my replying to the original poster. This is where mentors should step in. The core question to consider in any future intersection of editing is intent; I believe myself able to exercise good judgment and to listen to wise counsel. AGK is right that I'll catch it quickly if I violate the spirit of this. I won't. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

AGK 14:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

FT2

I note that FT2 is still active on cases. Is this right and proper as it now seems his fair and legitimate election to the Arbcom is in doubt. Giano (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Who cares? This really is pointless shit stirring. Giano, this is becoming boring now. If you really want to measure community support for this crusade opening an RFC would be helpful. Absent that why don't you just do something useful instead of instigating further tiresome drama? Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to RFC about. It happened - fact. I and many others want to know what the result is going to be. Or are all elections to the Arbcom going to be tampered with by pet check-users with oversight rights? FT2, Gerard and the Arbcom have had long enought to decide what they want to say in a statement about this. They can be very speedy when it suits them. This is not going to go away.Giano (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, Giano, let it go. Your conspiracy-mongering about the elections being rigged by "pet checkusers with oversight rights" is baseless, tendentious, and ludicrous. By now, we all know that you cannot stand the concept of the Arbitration committee, and unless you were able to personally pick every member of the committee you would consider them illegitimate. That's not going to happen, so let it go. Horologium (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The "conspiracy" has been confirmed: David Gerard oversighted diffs, in violation of the oversight policy, that were being used as a reason to oppose FT2's candidacy. Now, whether that actually had an effect on the outcome is unknown, but it's more than "pointless shit-stirring" or "conspiracy-mongering". --NE2 21:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

If this had been an issue during the election, it wouldn't have taken a year for it to become an item for discussion, and as FT2 had a net positive of 231 votes in support, it doesn't appear that it makes much of a difference. (Only NYB had a higher net positive, by a large margin.) As for the confirmation of diffs being oversighted, could you provide me with a link to such a statement? (Not snark, but I have seen accusations, but no confirmation; however, since I don't spend a lot of time at Drama Central, I might well have missed such a confirmation.) Horologium (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It probably would have come "out in the open" earlier had it not been forcibly hidden. If I remember correctly, several people were blocked or banned for bringing it up, creating a chilling effect. --NE2 00:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Look Giano, why don't we just cut to the chase. Say I volunteer for some offensive comments from you (make them funny enough and I'll put them in a userbox), then you can feel vindicated and we can all do something useful. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Spartaz, a person's edit record is all we have to go on when choosing an arbcom candidate. FT2's edit record was falsified, during an election to aid his candidacy. And you say; "Who cares?". I certainly do. What the hell do we even have elections for if this crap is allowed to stand? --Duk 23:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Then open an RFC and get concensus from the community about the matter. What does this thread achieve? Nothing. A definitiave view from the community would clearly resolve this either way - total condemnation than FT2 resigns, total support then they are safe. And, shhh, you are ruining my chance of a memorable userbox. Giano's insults are to be treasured. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, an RFC is the way to go. Complaining on here, while I can understand the reasoning, isn't getting anyone anywhere. – How do you turn this on (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

An RFC would absolutely be appropriate. In any case, Giano is using the talk page to air grievances (instead of the RFAr page), a tactic which was rather strongly discouraged in a recent arbitration case. Follow the proper procedures to address abuse of power, rather than abuse process by flinging accusations in non-relevant fora. Horologium (talk) 23:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

How can you have an RFC where the evidence has all been censored from the site, and where the person responsible for bringing it to light, an editor with five years of good work on Wikipedia, is currently banned for his efforts to to address this. Horologium, Spartaz, do you two actually have any idea what's going on here? Asking for an RFC is just another delay tactic. --Duk 01:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

<--I'm looking for accountability in the use of oversight. That means acknowledging that there is a problem and applying the appropriate remedy. I do not advocate David Gerard losing his oversight permission over a single mistake, that is for Arbcom to decide. Arbcom hands out oversight permission and only Arbcom can determine what sorts of mistakes, if any, warrant its removal. As long as they grant the power, they must accept responsibility to oversee the use of the power. (If Arbcom really wants an RFC to determine community sentiment about oversight, they should really just make granting and revoking oversight subject to a public vote and take themselves out of it entirely.) Damian's block is complicated but it has nothing to do with his efforts to expose the oversighted edits. Thatcher 02:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there should be accountability concerning the oversight tool. I'd like to see the ArbCom release a statement saying that they've looked into the allegation that Gerard misused the oversight tool and either clear Gerard of wrongdoing or take appropriate action. Perhaps someone needs to open a formal request? Cla68 (talk) 02:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Cla, I agree with you, and Thatcher partially. But I'd like to add, if this isn't a case for action then what is? The delay tactics are only making it worse. Thatcher, you say I do not advocate David Gerard losing his oversight permission over a single mistake. Why not? What's the big deal (besides giving the community a reason to believe in the arbcom)? Will losing oversight prevent Gerard from earning a living and supporting his family. Really, Thatcher, what's the big deal? Oversight isn't a status symbol, it's not a merit badge, it isn't a toy - if there's a problem then take it away. As far as a single mistake, I don't know that that is accurate. Do you, Thatcher? This is an admin who's behaved poorly in a great many ways for a long time. Also FT2 should be asked to run again this time around. I think it's very important for the community to see some responsible leadership and a just outcome here. --Duk 02:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to involve myself in the debate over what action should be taken. I know I would hate to lose my checkuser permission over a single mistake, but I also know that even a single mistake can be serious enough to warrant removal. And I don't know what other factors (if any) may be involved. It is up to Arbcom to decide what to do, and to explain it to the community. Thatcher 03:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec x 2!) Agree with Cla68 - having this floating around is bad for morale and all round feeling - it needs to get properly addressed, and RfC I think is the first port of call (as neutral). somewhere, as some sort of organised discussion and exoneration (or otherwise) of conduct is needed. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

An RfC would help get things going if the ArbCom isn't willing or able to address it right now. Cla68 (talk) 02:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this matter should be addressed promptly, but I don't see how an RfC can deal with non-public information. Would the oversighted edits be restored and the logs published? It seems like a decision is needed that no confidential or harmful personal information would be exposed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the community does not control oversight permission, I don't think an RFC will accomplish anything but ratchet up the drama level even further. Arbcom is already in possession of all the relevant facts, and if they are not, they know whom to talk to to get them. Thatcher 03:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, RfC's do often come off as free-for-alls, where anyone and everyone with an opinion is free to shout it out. An RfC, however, allows the community to provide formal input on an issue that goes into "the record". If ArbCom is willing and able to make an announcement in a reasonable amount of time on what their findings are in the inquiry they're presumably busy undertaking right now, then perhaps an RfC won't be necessary. Cla68 (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The thing is... there's nothing personally harmful in the edits, unless I (and many others) have been completely duped as to their content. I don't know if oversighters are allowed to even confirm the content without getting "fired", but at least that can be confirmed by someone trustworthy with an old database dump. As for the oversight summaries... that confirmation would have to come from an oversighter. --NE2 03:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

One cannot have an RFC when the whole topic is banned and the oversights remain in situ. That the oversight took place has been confirmed and is not in doubt. What is in doubt is how many more people ould have opposed FT2's candidcacy. Would he have been elected if the oversights had not taken place? We cannot know - so FT2 needs to resign. Gerard's actions may have altered the results of an election - he too needs to go. An election has to be sancrosanct. Giano (talk) 07:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

...but not so sacrosanct that one can't run a good-hand sockpuppet in the election? Giano, please, you're asserting a moral high ground here that you clearly do not occupy at the moment.

You made your point - the community is aware of the edits, the oversight, both people involved in that. Playing the martyr and demanding action is not morally consistent behavior here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for making that point for me, how quickly David Gerard can act when he choses in elections is interesting isn't it - and always to get a result that suits him. Giano (talk) 08:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

FT2 has replied to the accusations. There are more comments upcoming (from Jimbo for one, and more from FT2), but those throwing around accusations on talk pages everywhere already have some thinking to do. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Slimvirgin-Lar

A few weeks back I pointed out out that a case had been reported as closed with a sanction passing when there didn't seem to be enough supporting votes for that sanction to have passed. I expect this has been resolved one way or another but I'm a little concerned that the findings in that case seem to have been used as contributory factors in remedies in a later case. Does anyone know whether this situation was properly resolved? Thanks 92.39.200.36 (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks incorrect to me. Thatcher 19:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, Matthew Brown and Jpgordon don't seem to have bothered to have shown up at all even though they were listed as "active", so in reality the "active" number should probably be 9. There probably needs to be a better way to determine who's "inactive" and "active", though. 96.15.121.254 (talk) 19:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The arbitrators have a responsibility to declare if they intend to have nothing to do with a particular case. There is no precedent for the clerks to declare non-voting arbs as "inactive" or "recused" after X number of days of non-voting. Thatcher 19:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not suggesting a new standard be applied retroactively, but that going forward a better system might be more appropriate. It seems paradoxical to require some action to be be deemed "inactive" and no action to be deemed "active". Would the reverse not be better? Perhaps the arbitrators could demonstrate their active status by actually being active. As a first approximation those who vote to accept/decline a case, participate in workshop and/or vote could be deemed active, and the rest inactive. 96.15.121.254 (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

In response to Thatcher's comment that it "looks incorrect", almost everything about the case was "incorrect". It needs to be heard again, in the open this time.

Evidence was presented (and should be presented again in public)

1. that SlimVirgin went through private channels to no avail before the issue came to the mailing list, and that it wasn't she who brought it to the mailing list in the first place;[3]
2. that Lar received an email from me saying that I couldn't see how the check was justified (and none saying that it was), but then went ahead and posted on the private CU mailing list that I had admitted to him that it was justified;[4]
3. that Lar justified his passing on of my personal information to his wife by claiming that his wife had had a history of communication with me and a role of offering me advice and counsel, based on statements I had made to both of them,[5] when in fact I had had ZERO encounter with her and had never sent her a message or received one from her.

They cannot abuse the "need for privacy" by pretending that this evidence did not exist. They have forced me to out myself, by ignoring my private requests for clarification, and by using my privacy as a pretext for not dealing with the case on-wiki. Okay. I have outed myself. Sometimes doing the right thing is more important keeping safe. There's no longer any pretext to hush it up. Let's have the truth! ElinorD (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I feel in an awkward position here. On the one hand, I want to take the desysopping on the chin, because doing otherwise is somewhat cheesy. On the other hand, if this had happened to anyone else, I'd be speaking up for them.

My concern is basically that the Lar case was a real mess. Evidence was heard in private and was kept back even from the parties so that none of us knew what was being said. We couldn't check that other evidence submitted was accurate, and no "cross examination" could take place. Then FT2 posted a decision about me that was factually incorrect. My recollection is he said I hadn't taken any dispute-resolution steps other than to write to the mailing list — but I had and I also hadn't started the mailing list thread. I wrote to him correcting it. He didn't respond, and so far as I know didn't correct the finding. I tried to post a defence of myself on the talk page, but it was removed, as were comments from other editors who'd expressed concern, and the talk page was protected.

I gave up, because my faith in ArbCom was at an all-time low, and I decided just to let the findings stand and try to ignore the whole thing. I didn't even look to see whether it had been closed properly; I'm now concerned to read above that it wasn't.

Because FT2 used that case a few weeks later as the backdrop to his arguments to desysop me, and because he himself wrote the inaccurate finding, I'm starting to think it ought to be reheard in public. I don't think anyone who saw all the evidence would agree that it was handled fairly or appropriately. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 21:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

There are too many flaws in how this was handled for any result to be recognized as legitimate. Direct questions were never answered; some of the arbs misused the result in the recent de-sysop; and now the closing was done improperly? Sorry, not a huge surprise. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin - as stated, your logic here is incorrect. When considering a case, the question "was warning given to change, and that warning apparently ignored" is relevant. It was - in a remarkable and highly unusual four separate arbcom cases. It is not necessary to re-open the cases, and re-open the decision-making in them, to ascertain "was the user told formally that their conduct was seriously substandard and needed improvement". You have been told this on 4 occasions now. The conclusion is, telling alone was insufficient. Apparently the sitting committee felt that too, since they decided upon the remedies they did. You've had this concept explained several times; I'm happy to keep on explaining it if you cannot fathom the idea yet.

As for interpretation of what is likely, possible, probably, and appropriate going forward in the SV-Lar case, as I think I've said, we may need to agree to differ. If problems recur, we would of course reassess with this case in mind, but if they don't, it's more likely historical. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me which sentence from which email (you've seen them all) from me to Lar admitted that the CU was justified. Not only did I not say that, but I said the opposite. And he didn't post just that he believed I accepted the check, but he said specifically that I had admitted to him that it was justified. If you refuse to point out the relevant sentence, please admit that you and the other arbs know that Lar's claims (on the private CU list which he knew I couldn't access) were untruthful, and that you don't have a problem leaving untruthful people in a position of access to extremely confidential and sensitive information.

When you have answered that, please state whether or not SlimVirgin submitted evidence that she had tried private resolution to no avail before going public (and that in any case it was David Katz, not she, who brought it to the mailing list), and whether, in that case, the public findings that state or imply the contrary are inaccurate and unjust.

Those two questions are so simple. Can you answer them? ElinorD (talk) 12:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think a lot of people are happy to be rid of that case. I didn't follow it but I think it ran for a long time. If so, why didn't you present your evidence then? --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The case was to be heard "in private". So I presented my evidence in private, to the committee. I couldn't have known that they were going to ignore it. When I tried publicly requesting explanations for Lar's false statements, finally realising that the committee intended to pass over them, I got criticised for doing so when Lar couldn't answer because he was protecting my privacy. (He could have answered by private email, which I had originally requested.) Then I waived my privacy, as did the other two affected editors. There were still no answers. The case closed, and I wrote to the committee asking that since they had chosen not to address the issues of Lar's false statements, they would please inform me of which parts of the evidence had made them satisfied that the statements were not false. I got a reply back from James Forrester, saying that they were still discussing it and that hopefully I'd get a reply within a day or two. That was a month ago, and I have heard nothing since. ElinorD (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

If there was a clerical mistake, then clearly it should be corrected. Otherwise, I would simply ask the committee to settle these claims, which continue to be brought across multiple forums. I assume that the committee did not ignore ElinorD's contentions, but heard them and considered whether they warranted a finding. All the same, it seems that something is needed to clarify whether editors should continue to argue these points, or if in fact the claims have now exhausted Wikipedia's final stage of dispute resolution. Until that happens, I will note that the merits of these claims were most recently discussed here. Mackan79 (talk) 08:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

On what grounds do you assume that the committee "did not ignore [my] contentions". Do you really think that I would be raising it in public like this if they had answered my e-mails. Before I went public as Wikitumnus, I wrote and begged them not to put me in the position of attracting unwanted attention, but pointed out that the findings were inaccurate and unjust and that I would be obliged to come forward if they left them to stand. I got no answer. I've been forced to out myself, but I went into this with my eyes open, so perhaps people could now stop claiming that answers can't be given because they're "protecting [my] privacy" - as if they couldn't have answered in private, which was what I originally requested. ElinorD (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought the response for most of this, as before, was "asked and answered" [6]. Cla68 (talk) 08:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Policy question: Undoing Arb blocks

This question is directed specifically at sitting and former arbs.

So, ARE actions by individual arbs supposed to carry some +1 authority? If so, it needs to be approved by everyone, or else we'll see more people desysopped for this sort of thing, or have motions brought against them? See here. This is a serious question I'm asking--if they (Arbs) don't say they're acting for the Committee, are they one of the thousands of admins or are they admin+1 with a protected class of admin actions? rootology (C)(T) 00:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

They are no more protected than any other admin action by any procedure or policy. That having been said, undoing such a block invites drama, controversy under many, if not most circumstances. The fine application of common sense suggests that we pause before clicking the save, or unblock buttons, and possibly gather some consensus to do so first. This is essentially the same principle for undoing any action: if you know its going to be controversial, make your case to the community first unless you have compelling reason to do otherwise.--Tznkai (talk) 00:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but that does not answer my question. I'm asking a binary question, not one with shades of gray, as this topic keeps popping up the past weeks. Are they regular admins when not wearing their arb hat? rootology (C)(T) 00:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Regular editors, unless they specify that other functions apply. Onus is on them. Some animals ain't more equal than others around here. And if they try, we'll add an amendment to policy and make bacon. Durova^Charge! 00:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe they have the same privileges and lack thereof as any other administrator, but also believe that is not actually the question that cuts to the core of undoing an Arbiter's block.--Tznkai (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that is the exact core of my question: Are their admin actions when they are not expressly working FOR Committee business of any special value, more than any other admin? For example, Danny Wool, who used to be the main WMF Office guy, was also an admin here--but his admin actions if memory serves were no more special or important than any other admin when he wasn't saying, "This is for OFFICE.". Conversely, you are just a regular admin--you don't have any magic +1 on anything you do, and you Tznkai are one of many with no extra value or power than any other admin in our machine. So, say I was an admin too. We'd be the same. You undoing me, and my undoing you, for one-off actions, are even. But what if we undo an FT2 action that isn't expressly AC business? Or Kirill? Or Flo? The same principle applies here, for my question, and I'd like Arbs to answer that so that it's encoded to some degree and people don't dumbly fumble around. rootology (C)(T) 00:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I would think that any Arb using admin function on behalf of the committee would need to say so in the action summary ("You are blocked for 55 hours for violating ArbCom remedy such-and-such; on behalf of the Committee"). If the committee then later found that the Arb had acted improperly, they can reverse the action, apologize, and sanction the Arb member who did it. Cla68 (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Funnily enough, that thing with Danny never worked out that way. He often used his regular account (as opposed to the User:Dannyisme account which he created to segregate his office duties) to perform above-admin actions. He also desysopped Geni for reversing one of these actions, when Geni had no way of knowing that it was done on this special authority. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, if I take an administrator action and I don't say that the action is being taken as an arbitrator, I expect that it should carry the same weight as any other administrator's action. (I mean, it's okay to think that the action might come with a presumption of Clue given that I managed to do enough things right once upon a time so that I got elected to the ArbCom, but that's all— it doesn't mean it's exempt from being criticized or if necessary overturned.) That goes for both routine types of actions (if I see a repeat vandal or a bad username I'll block the account just like anyone else would) as well as any higher-profile ones. In fact, although there are times I choose to stay out of contentious noticeboard discussions to minimize potential recusal situations if issues come to ArbCom (this is referred to by me as the "Miltopia effect", after the user who predicted it would happen), there have been at least two occasions when I've made a comment on ANI and been upset that this triggered argument about whether this meant the ArbCom had ruled on the issue under discussion. If in any discussion I meant that I would say so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec x2) Yup, Rootology. That's a point I made at the talk page of the SLRubenstein RFC during dialog with Charles Matthews: Cary Bass specifies when his Office role comes into play. And when he doesn't he's just another editor. The site runs more smoothly that way. We have enough tasks to fill the energies of volunteers without sitting on our thumbs waiting for this or that person to reply after the fact whether special functions came into play on any action they did. People get those extra functions because they're responsible and proactive; the community deserves responsible and proactive communication. Durova^Charge! 00:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should add that to policy somewhere. Charles Matthews seemed to feel (at least, that's how it appeared to me) that his block as an Arb carried more weight; hence the RfC. I suspect FT2 recently felt the same. If clarified in policy, that might help other Arbs in future not to make the same mistake. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 00:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Can we not write policy based on our conjecture on the motivations of others? It doesn't work on Wikipedia well or in meatspace for that matter.--Tznkai (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

No one has suggested doing that. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 01:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

There are two types of blocks that can be confused:

• Blocks that arbitrators make independent of any actions of the arbitration committee. These are certainly subject to the same rules as blocks by any other users.
• Blocks made by any admin to enforce an arbitration remedy. These are not subject to the ordinary blocking policy, since the consensus that they are appropriate was already formed in the arbitration proceedings. This assumes that the block does agree with the wording of the arbcom remedy it claims to enforce. Such blocks should only be lifted if the blocking admin has actually misinterpreted the wording of the remedy (and its amendments, if any). If an arbitrator makes a block to enforce an arbitration remedy, there's a natural expectation that the arbitrator has correctly interpreted the arbcom remedy, and so unlhaterally lifting such a block is inappropriate.

— Carl (CBM · talk) 02:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts are as follows: Administrator actions done by an arbitrator have no EXTRA weight UNLESS it is done SPECIFICALLY as an act of the Committee as a whole and stated up front as such. However, (and here's something that should surprise no one, considering it's my pet cause) no one should be undoing the administrator actions of another administrator WITHOUT DISCUSSION OR CONSENSUS unless there's a clear and obvious error in rule (like, as it turns out, there was in the Giano block, where there was a statement from the Committee that Giano was not to be civility-blocked without the express written consensus of the ArbCom). SirFozzie (talk) 02:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

That practice would be fine with me. And everyone seems to agree the most recent block was an obvious error. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Very close to my thinking, and not different enough to quibble. Durova^Charge! 03:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is making sure that policy reflects this. I would support discussing modifying WP:WHEEL to simplify this, per the above discussion to state something like Wheel-warring is undoing another administrator's action, without discussing it with the original administrator or getting the consensus that the action was misguided amongst uninvolved editors/administrators. SirFozzie (talk) 03:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Done [7]. Cla68 (talk) 03:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, as has been discussed in several ArbCom decisions both before and while I've been an arbitrator, and was also the subject of heavy questioning of the candidates in last year's election (see e.g. my candidate page), the definition of "Wheel Warring" has always been disputed precisely on the question of "is a single reversal of another admin's action a wheel war." My conclusion for the past year has been that the term is not helpful to discussion and I have rarely used it; the more probative question is "under what circumstances is one administrator permitted to reverse another admin's action?" And on this, there are nuances that the simplified definition here overlooks. (Example: Administrator A sees a justified request for page-protection on RFPP and protects the page for a month. The following day, the edit-war that required the protection is settled through talkpage discussion, and peace reigns over the article. A week later, someone comes back to RFPP and requests unprotection, and Administrator B sees that the dispute is settled and unprotects. Query (1) should Admin B be required to go back to Admin A in this scenario, and query (2) even if the best practice says that B should have consulted with A, would B be guilty of "wheel warring" for failing to do so?) Related questions could be asked about procedure for block reviews and the like. I am not taking a position here, just pointing out it's a little more complicated than the definition above might suggest. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The new wording is too categorical - what we're really looking here is for admins to exercise their best judgment: don't unblock if you think its going to piss off a lot of relevant people. Don't unblock if its going to cause needless controversy. Submit your judgment to that of the community. Don't invite, cause, or make more likely wheel wars. The details are less important than those goals.--Tznkai (talk) 04:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

And fitting in the same vein, don't block for the same reasons, or do any admin action under such circumstances--you meant to say that, right? rootology (C)(T) 06:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of it, since we were talking about unblocks specifically, but yes, reblocking a user under the above circumstances would most certainly be wheel warring by any useful test.--Tznkai (talk) 07:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Umm...How about nobody go about changing the wording of a subpolicy of a major policy used on a daily basis by hundreds of users and admins without discussing it extensively on the talk page of the policy? And I don't mean just for 12 hours or something. What is the urgency that it needs to be changed this minute? Risker (talk) 04:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for caselaw index

I hate to do this to Arbcom, but...

The current structure of how Arbcom is a) ruling and b) recording its rulings is not optimal for admins trying to understand what the state of current "case law" is on Wikipedia, as it were. I had to jump around a bunch now to find out where the links were to the SlimVirgin motion with the "Thou shalt not block Giano without Arbcom written permission" motion, though I knew it was being voted on etc.

Cases with just case-specific findings are easy enough to locate in the archives as is. But we're seeing general widespread policy being set and rulings which aren't easy to find anywhere indexed by user.

So... Putting it out there to the community and Arbcom... we (community) and you (arbcom) need to come up with another indexing mechanism / filing mechanism, with a centralized list of all general or wide applicability motions in settled Arbcom cases. At least going forwards, but someone ought to do it back through the archives as well.

Thanks... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

There are several relevant pages around, some of which you have seen and some of which you probably haven't, and many of which are to varying degrees out of date. I will ask the Arbitration Clerks to put together a list of what is out there and what seems to them realistic in terms of keeping track of things. Perhaps we can assign updating and maintenance responsibility to whoever finishes 8th through 25th in the election? Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ideally the result will have no more than three primary indexes... by case, by participant, and a central general list of general purpose (not case specific) decisions.

I've probably seen most of what's out there at some point, but having too many places to look is no more useful than having too few. I can't practically keep an index of index pages ;-P Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

As currently the clerks office is understaffed due to the elections, I'm afraid your perfectly reasonable request is going to be denied until I get my donuts, some more help, or peace and quiet out of the RFAR page. (Seriously, I'm putting it on my rapidly growing list of "things that the clerks should probably do" that I'll submit to the new slate of arbiters come January)--Tznkai (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It's sort of important that things like generally applicable policy and specific stuff like Giano blocking be well visible to admins... I know everyone's busy, but I've been around for years, and if it took me a while to find the final enacted motion...

It irritates me enough to consider being bold, but I'm not sure if that would step on clerk's toes, arbcom toes, etc., and I have a conference next week and an all-day webex session this week to prep for, so my brain hurts at the moment too. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Its a good idea, and you're welcome to step all over our toes - but I think the easiest thing to do is to wait for the new year. Hopefully no one will cause TOO much ruckus till then.--Tznkai (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

There is certainly a "backlog" now: both of useful reports by case, and of cross-indexation of topics. It would be a worthwhile task to render what we have more accessible. In a sense this should be a separate wiki, not just more lists ... it looks like a multiperson task, needing updates. An open ArbCom wiki, in fact. This could work as a solution. The closed ArbCom wiki, which I had set up by devs, was supposed to have such material which could I suppose then be exported. I hoped for more of that, but "pressure of work". :-( So, how much interest in a special wiki that all could read and some people could edit? Charles Matthews (talk) 13:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)