Hi. A quick question. In listing "involved parties" in an arbcom about an editor's behavior at an AfD and related matters, is it sufficient to contact all the editors who discussed his behavior with him? Where there was also a follow-up AN/I, is it sufficient to copy the closer of the AN/I (or should I leave word of the arb case at the AN/I? Or are the commenters at the AN/I who were not involved with his behavior also considered "invloved parties" requiring contact?) Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

For a totally non-official answer, here's one: involved ("named") parties are you (if you're filing the case) and those editors who have a dispute involving behavioural issues for which other resolution avenues have proved impossible. For these people, you need to show evidence of direct involvement and prior efforts at dispute resolution. Generally, an ANI thread is not dispute resolution in and of itself. An ANI thread is often seen as dispute escalation in fact. Named parties are generally expected to respond to the proposed case, since there is a presumption they have something to actually answer for.

As far as notification, for the "named" parties, it is mandatory. For other editors who you think may be able to comment on the case request, you could look at WP:CANVASS. You are expected to not just recruit "supporters" to your cause, you should inform either none or all of the interested observers whether or not they might support your views. Do one or the other. Franamax (talk) 04:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Tx. So far, I've essentially limited myself to the first part, in that I have named those editors who complained about the particular editor's misbehavior that is the subject of the arb and who have been identified in the arb request. All of the editors have tried -- at minimum -- to address these behavioral issues with the editor, and I've provided diffs for all (some have gone further). I also added the closer to the AN/I (an apparent mistake on my part; he had no view before or since, but I mistakenly thought it appropriate as a courtesy), and another editor named as being involved in an unrevealed COI situation that is part of the asserted misbehavior.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I have noted for some time that the Committee requests page has a somewhat out-of-control Table of Contents. I believe greater clarity would be achieved with the Template:TOC limit, which forces the table to list only level 2 and 3 subheadings. This will really help navigation. I am going to WP:BOLD and insert it, but if anyone is opposed, feel free to revert. —Finn Casey * * * 01:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

To locate and edit a section now, one has to scroll through the entire page; if a toc limit is needed, perhaps this is not deep enough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can understand that concern. Perhaps a modification to toc-limit-4 would be in order. That would be less chaotic than the previous situation with fifth and sixth level headers appearing on the table. I will implement it, let me know what you think. —Finn Casey * * * 02:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

As a minimum, that would help; each participant needs to get to their own section without having to scroll the entire page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Per the above comment, perhaps the first modification was excessive. The Template:TOC limit can be modified to suppress only certain level headings. I will implement the next level of permissiveness, TOC-4. To summarize our options:

1. Original unmodified - all headings are listed in table of contents. (to view this, erase the {{TOC limit|4}} from the project page, and click "show preview")
2. Most restrictive TOC level suppressor - only level two and above headings are displayed. (to view this, erase the |4 from the TOC limit template on the project page, and click "show preview")
3. Current Compromise Modification - only level three and above headings are displayed. (current form)

The goal is to balance the ability to find specific sections with the need for concise clarity (that is, after all, the purpose of a table of contents). The more detail that is included, the harder it becomes to wade through all the sub-sub-sub headings to find the right one. Opinions regarding the preferred method are welcome. —Finn Casey * * * 02:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it may be helpful to keep the point of sub-sections of this page in mind: each editor edits only their own section. We need to be able to get to at least those, and probably the next level. It's a matter of functionality of the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• The TOC level restriction currently in use seems fine to me, so I guess option three has my support. AGK 18:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I attempted to use the template for filing an arbcom enforcement request, but it doesn't format. Can someone explain how to do it correctly? Thanks. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 09:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Already fixed, and explained at your talkpage Fritzpoll (talk) 09:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

To elaborate on this suggestion, one of the most troublesome things to deal with as a mentor are occasions when the mentoree ventures out on their own and takes action that is provocative and objectionable but probably sub-blockable. I wish you had come to me first is a conversation I've had many times with most of my mentorees, and probably Mattisse's mentors have had with her too. No mentor likes to engage in damage control because the action is usually right on the edge. So unless the mentor's criticism is both stern and public the mentor is liable to get accused of enabling bad behavior; often the situation isn't quite black and white.

Earlier this year certain members of the Committee tried to initiate a version of "empowered" mentorship that was basically reactive. That model was unworkable. Mentorship itself as an arbitration remedy seldom succeeds. After the ADD case and this one, perhaps the reason is becoming more clear. It puts the cart before the horse to say that mentorship exists to avoid sanctions. Mentorship actually exists to render sanctions unnecessary. The more visible and politicized a mentorship becomes, the harder it is for that mentorship to succeed.

The screener alternative is not mentorship. Mainly a screener function is to sift wheat from chaff and prevent "drama" before it starts. Instead of I wish you would come to me before you post that the situation becomes You must come to me before you post that. If the screener feels like incorporating mentorship into that model they're free to do so. Principally it saves the the effort of putting out fires, which is a primary cause of mentor burnout.

The main obstacle to be anticipated is the "under the radar" post: subtle context-driven snarks that slip through the screening process. A fair and reasonable solution could probably deal with that, along with provisions for what would follow if evidence mounts that the screening process is being gamed. Durova³⁶³ 20:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The screener function you describe is pretty much what I was trying to suggest back then (although it is clear in retrospect that naming it "mentorship" — or indeed even using the name while discussing it — was the source of much confusion). That function of screening needs to be empowered with the ability to enforce to be usable, hence the necessity to allow the screener to apply sanctions liberally at discretion. — Coren ^(talk) 22:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Similar vein, broadly speaking. Instead of a red light/green light for an entire page or subject, this functions post by post. So instead of the screener getting kicked around as the political football of both sides for a "big" approval, the screener makes a series of little decisions quietly. More work at the front end, but overall less stressful because it allows for better time management: fewer forest fires. Durova³⁶³ 05:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Awful lot of hard work for the screener though but I suppose they could do it in shifts. Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the right place but I have blocked User:Mccready who currently has a request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#McCready_edit_warring_topic_ban]] following this sequence. The discussion follows from prior attempts from other admins at dealing with the topic ban at issue and so the prior conduct may be relevant. The block is for one week, but if it affects the Arbitration request in any way, I will (or anyone else can) unblock him to allow him to speak. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, noted, also you can copy his statement from his talk page to the arb page if you desire that in place of unblocking. MBisanz ^talk 05:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

In the case concerning the Audit Subcomittee I notice that a couple of arbitrators have recused "as a formal matter". What does that mean? Is this typical language when recusing that I've just never picked up on before or does it denote some special characteristic of the recusal? 80.65.247.36 (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Special: Risker and Newyorkbrad sit on the Audit Subcommittee. Mackensen (talk) 03:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate I'm a nobody and I apologise if this has already been addressed elsewhere but I can't help noticing recent parallels to the current Giano case. Another arbitrator recently threatened Giano with a block over issues so closely related that... let's face it, it's the same topic and same concerns exactly. In relation to John Vandenberg's comments about arbitrators appearing to act in an official capacity, it's perhaps worth noticing that that arbitrator was acting on behalf of a group (referred to as "us") that at least might reasonably have been taken to mean the committee. "If you continue with this sort of behaviour, the only thing you are likely to force us to do is block or ban you for your behaviour."

Some questions:

• Was Carcharoth acting on behalf of the committee? If so then would best practice have been to give details of a committee motion supporting his threats?
• Was Carcharoth acting on behalf of some other group when he mentioned "us" - if so then did that group include Coren?
• If Carcharoth wasn't acting on behalf of the committee then did his choice of words wittingly or unwittingly give the impression that he was, and would it be advisable to be more careful in creating such impressions?
• Having threatened Giano with a block for pretty much the same issues, can Carcharoth really justify non-recusal in a case over just such a block being applied and reversed?

217.28.2.130 (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You might find it surprising what can be justified by Carcharoth. UA 20:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but in the past he's struck me as a pretty decent sort of guy. I suspect his non-recusal here arises more from not thinking it through than any deception (of others or of self) 217.28.2.130 (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I was aware of that post I had made to Giano's talk page (though some of my subsequent comments may only be in the page history because Giano removed some of my subsequent posts there). I was, in fact, surprised that Giano hadn't pointed out that I had warned him about this. Anyway, earlier today, during discussions on the secondary arbitration mailing list (set up for discussions about this request), I pointed out two things: (1) That I had earlier warned Giano (in the post you link to); and (2) That there was another point where I was involved in what happened here (I participated in the oversight-l mailing list thread about the incident that prompted the AUSC report). I said that I would disclose both these points when I next commented on the request. I am now going to read the request and see where it has got to, and post some more thoughts on all this (based mostly on what was discussed today), including a response to what you have said here about possible recusal. Carcharoth (talk) 02:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC) I seem to have ended up answering the recusal question in a response elsewhere - see here for why I think this prior warning is not grounds for recusal. Carcharoth (talk) 04:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Community review and input is requested here. Durova³⁸⁶ 23:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Per some discussion I found at arb-related pages, I have proposed a modest new policy with regards to how arbitrators should conduct administrators actions. UA 21:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

From his comments and relief, I think Coren may be under the impression that Carcharoth's assurance that no "binding precedent" will be created by this ruling is in some way different to the assurances that no binding precedents are created by any of the other ArbCom rulings either. 217.28.2.130 (talk) 09:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps either Coren or Carcharoth, or even better both of them, would like to comment on that. DuncanHill (talk) 10:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Given that I've supported the motion to close, this is moot. In general, ArbCom rulings do not set binding precedents, though contrary to what is said, they can set precedents in the sense that they can inform later discussions and rulings (the most common being re-using principles from previous cases). But equally, previous decisions can be overturned and previous principles torn down and rewritten (the guiding principle is to look at what current Wikipedia policies and guidelines say). In this case, if admonishments had been proposed (and though I still think they were warranted, merely that they were possible is enough), then they wouldn't have set any sort of precedent at all. The reassurance Coren wanted, which I was happy to give, is that the general 'arbitrators taking admin actions' issue will be discussed by the new committee, and not decided here and now. Carcharoth (talk) 06:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Carcharoth is correct; every decision by the committee sets precedent, even if it's not binding, because past decisions inform future ones (we try to be consistent if nothing else). My issue was only about the iffyness of deciding the general issue by a fraction of the committee, but it is clear in retrospect that the unrecused arbitrators also noticed and considered that problem and planned accordingly. — Coren ^(talk) 12:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

And Wikipedia is clearly going to benefit from the precedents set by this whole extended incident.</sarcasm> The motion to close establishes the precedent that misuse of administrator tools by arbitrators will not face sanction - and worse, that the Committee will not even investigate such misuse. On the ARBADMIN talk page I noted that the Committee faces a no win situation in investigating such cases. I am dismayed, however, to learn that in the case of Coren's egregious block of Giano that the non-recused arbitrators lack the collective wisdom to recognise that their actions are tantamount to a declaration that any and all use of administrator tools by arbitrators will be tolerated. Choosing to pretend that the AUSC "report" actually addresses the issues raised by the Randy oversighting and that everything is peachy is taking a do-nothing action that will do enormous damage to ArbCom as an institution. As far as I can see, there is only one path forward that allows the committee to avoid choosing from the dreadful options available... I sure hope you are privately lobbying for it to happen. EdChem (talk) 13:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

We don't use arbitration to investigate alleged single incidents of abuse. Any two editors who've attempted and failed to resolve a dispute with an arbitrator have the option of starting an WP:RFC/U. In that regard arbitrators are reviewable and can be compelled to resign by the community. Jehochman ^{Make my day} 14:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This "single incident of abuse" includes an accusation of outing by an arbitrator, an AUSC statement (for it certainly does not deserve the descriptor "report") that ignores major issues, and a misuse of the admin tools so egregious that virtually no non-arbitrator was willing to endorse it. There is vastly more than sufficient basis for an ArbCom case here - and that's without including peripheral issues like the absurdly short ban discussion at ANI that preceeded the inappropriate oversight. Unfortunately, ArbCom have decided to pretend nothing much happened and to adopt a position of blanket immunity for arbitrator's administrative actions, akin to the sovereign immunity enjoyed by heads of state. I think that the precedent that has been set is both appallingly foolish and incredibly dangerous. It has undermined the legitimacy of ArbCom as an institution and simultaneously tarnished the reputation of every Arbitrator who was a party to it.

Jehochman, I am aware you are trying to kill off the discussion about community-initiated admin recall in favour of pretending that RfC/U can somehow compel resignations. I believe that you believe you are pushing for the best outcome that is possible, but I also believe that your approach is doomed. RfC/U cannot force a resignation any more than it can force any other binding outcome. Certainly it would be a high effort-low reward approach for dealing with Arbitrator misconduct. What is needed is a binding Arbitrator Recall mechanism so that the question of whether an Arbitrator retains the trust of the community can be tested... but who knows if we'll ever get one. The 2009 Committee promised one (and did achieve some useful reforms early in its term) so maybe it will happen some day. If we are fortunate, such a recall mechanism could be adapted to administrator recall. At the moment, however, there is no method of forced accountability for arbitrators and only a tenuous one for administrators. And the present ArbCom have justed acted to undermine the notion of administrator accountability. What a notable achievement for the end of the year... the incoming arbitrators must be so grateful to be starting out with the foolish actions of their predecessors and colleagues hanging over their heads. EdChem (talk) 16:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as one of the presumed Arbitrators elected, I could not disagree with you more re: Recall. Administrators and ESPECIALLY arbitrators are there to make the tough decisions. They will not make everyone happy. In fact, if they only anger half of the people with every decision they make, then they're lucky. I do support Requests for administrator recall (There've been two semi-frivolous attempts to recall me, but I still stand for administrative recall, because I do agree with you that it's a good check.. for me. But only for me. If people do not wish to place themselves under the same terms, I can't force them, nor should I.) Is it a factor when and if someone runs for admin? Sure, if people want it to be.

But ANY community mandated "De-admin" process will have these issues where they will be gamed by partisans in the worst areas, and that is why I will oppose any such system that does not solve that issue. I invite your attention to the recently closed EEML case.. if community mandated recall of administrators was an option there, don't you think they would have used it? (This is just my opinion, I have only read what is public in the discussions, and nothing from ArbCom's discussion, as since I am only presumptive and not formally elected yet, I do not have access to the archives). I do think that a RfC/RfArb chain (or RfRecall if they are open to it) is the best method to fairly and honestly present issues with individual administrators and their actions. SirFozzie (talk) 16:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact, if [arbitrators] only anger half of the people with every decision they make, then they're lucky. I couldn't disagree more... if arbitrators are making decisions that anger more than half of the community on a regular basis then they are incompetent. Angering more than half the parties to a case - like the recent EEML case - is to be expected from time to time, but when most of the people watching on and commenting are angered then there is good reason to stop and rethink. Take the travesty that was the Matthew Hoffman case, another situation that involved inappropriate and unethical behaviour by ArbCom members... many watchers of that case criticised it and were angered, and after numerous appeals the 2009 Committee finally had the decency to undo the actions of the earlier committee. Another case that leaps to mind is Mantanmoreland, where there was community outrage at the decision and where the odd behaviour of the then-Committee remains unexplained. Fortunately, widespread anger with Committee decisions has been the exception rather than the rule.

I invite your attention to the recently closed EEML case.. if community mandated recall of administrators was an option there, don't you think they would have used it? Yes, I do think a recall process would likely have occurred in the EEML case; fortunately, none was needed as ArbCom emergency de-sysopped Piotrus. If you meaant to suggest that the EEML participants might have attempted arbitrator recall had a mechanism existed, perhaps they would have - but I don't believe that in any appropriately designed recall system they would have garnered sufficient community support for any recall to occur. Designing in safeguards to avoid frivilous and vexatious recall attempts is necessary, but potential for misuse of recall processes or gaming by partisans are not reasons for not developing any recall process in the first place. Recall mechanisms are about accountability for egregious misbehaviour, and about testing whether an individual retains the confidence of the community. They are a necessary safeguard in a balanced and just system. In the recent Law/Undertow issue, for example, the Committee would have benefitted from an extant recall mechanism. In the absence of one, the Committee decided to act on its own in making a determination about confidence. It was unfortunate that they erred in pretending they could stand in the place of the community in determining confidence; they should have explicitly stated they were considering whether various administrators retained the confidence of ArbCom and acted on that basis, rather than behaving as if the community should or would have the same confidence in those individuals as did ArbCom.

But ANY community mandated "De-admin" process will have these issues where they will be gamed by partisans in the worst areas, and that is why I will oppose any such system that does not solve that issue. ... I do think that a RfC/RfArb chain (or RfRecall if they are open to it) is the best method to fairly and honestly present issues with individual administrators and their actions. These statements highlight the source of the fundamental difference in our perspectives. RfC/RfAr retains all the power with the "governing class" (for want of a better term) and away from the community. Your blanket refusal for any de-admin process unless it is un-gameable suggests a similar lack of trust in the wisdom of the community as a whole. For me, the starting point is that the power of admins and arbitrators is derived ultimately from their endorsement by the community, and the inviolable ability of the community to remove that endorsement is a natural consequence. As a result, from my perspective there can be no reasonable de-adminship process unless it is decided by the will of the community - and so requiring ArbCom involvement is not acceptable. ArbCom has certainly been empowered to de-sysop but a refusal to act by ArbCom cannot reasonably prevent the community acting on its own authority. Community initiated actions would hopefully be rare, but from time to time they will be necessary. Your statements suggest to me that you are more concerned with preserving the power held within existing structures, even at the cost of disempowering the community. I agree with you to the extent that the integrity of power structures is worthy of protection, in this case from misuse and gaming of recall procedures, and that the collection of powers into administrator and arbitrator corps is necessary. However, I cannot agree to place the importance of those structures above the right of the community to exercise its authority to determine which of its members are elevated into those positions of power. EdChem (talk) 19:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

As an addendum to your "No method of forced accountability for arbitrators", there is a tried-and-true methods that's worked on politicians ever since the US was formed. It's called "Vote da bums out!". With 1-2 year terms, any misstep by an arbitrator will be remembered long enough that it will likely sink any chance at re-election. Besides, considering the many seperate ArbCom resignations over the last eighteen months , I'd say that arbitrator accountability is alive and well. It may not be enough to settle your instant reactions, but it is there. SirFozzie (talk) 18:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrators aren't supposed to perform a governing function, nor act like politicians. But, if you really want a US political analogy, try impeachment - a mechanism included in the US Constitution because no one should be above the law. Regarding the resignations, some might have proceded by the arbitrator initiating a recall process had such an option been available - similar to the way Casliber acted, for instance. It is unfortunate that we lost some good arbitrators to resignations in situations where I believe no recall procedure would have passed because they retained the confidence of the community - but of course they had the right to resign if that was their decision. The point of forced accountability, however, is for when an individual decides to keep his or her head down and tries to weather the storm. EdChem (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, impeachment doesn't work for your example. Did "The Community" (ie America) vote on the impeachment of Bill Clinton? No, they didn't. The procedure set up meant the house filed the impeachment charges, and the senate tried the case. That's similar to the RfC (House) and RfArb (Senate). SirFozzie (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but my analogy was not about the procedure involved in the process, it was about the existence of the process itself. In other words, it wasn't about the "how" of impeachment but rather about the "what" - that an impeachment process exists. EdChem (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

(de-indenting for Sanity :)) And I say that the current proceedure (RfC/RfArb) IS an impeachment process. I would assume any arbitrator who screwed up that bad to require a RfC/RfArb would resign as well, so it can be said to exist already. SirFozzie (talk) 20:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley has been accused of a conflict of interest for global warming and of creating systematic bias in Wikipedia to the effect of minimizing the Medieval Warm Period to further an environmental agenda. Where should this be addressed? - RoyBoy 23:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

In the first instance, his talk page, then WP:COIN if difficulties remain. --TS 23:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

As the article asserts 5,000+ articles effected, we may want to be pro-active. I will begin on WP:COIN. - RoyBoy 00:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

As WMC has only edited that many articles in total, you can rest assured that most of them are irrelevant to any environmental agenda. Dougweller (talk) 07:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This is an attempt at swiftboating, pure and simple. It has no place here. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yet any attempt on WP to prevent free discourse on such matters is likely to result in far worse long-term consequences regarding public attitudes towards WP. We are far better off discussing what may be meritless topics impacting WP, than to be perceived as sweeping all controversy under a large rug. Collect (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Brews ohare is getting out of hand. I ask that an administrator take control of the discussion.

The only questions to be decided at AE, based on Brews ohare's arbitration sanctions, are:

1. Is the article that Brews edited (indeed, created) physics-related, and therefore within his topic ban? (This is the only question that the request for enforcement raised.)
2. Was Brews' editing of the article and talk page discussion disruptive or tendentious? (Brews' detractors added this issue after the answer to the first question became so clear.)

The answer to both questions is, No. However, discussion has spiraled off in other directions. There is now a debate between pure mathematicians and applied mathematicians (those who use the math, such engineers and physicists) about the article's approach; the mathematicians actually disdain the use of sources, among other differences. And this has degenerated into name-calling and questioning one another's good faith and motives. David Tombe's arguments in Brews' support are not helping Brews or the process: Tombe was sanctioned in the same arbitration as Brews (which diminishes his credibility) and his manner is combative. Could an administrator please step in to take control of this melee? Thank you.—Finell 05:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You are asking in the wrong place (as you can see by the lateness of this reply, not many people follow this talk page). If you want an admin to take control of the situation, post at the enforcement thread. If you want arbitrators to clarify the situation, you can post a request for clarification, but that will take far longer than the AE thread. Hopefully, the AE thread has already been resolved. Carcharoth (talk) 10:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Indeed, I see it has been archived already.

Are outside views possible or how does one go about adding additional parties? While the arbitration case has been opened it only includes his latest dispute and this is in fact a long term issue that has gone on with this editor and involved dozens of other editors. I wouldn't want arbcom to get the wrong impression that the issue is only with the most recent behaviour, so I'd like to add a statement about my interaction with him a year ago to provide context if at all possible.--Crossmr (talk) 06:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Any user may post a view in the same format as is indicated on the page and any reasonably related editor can add themselves (and only themselves) to the list. If you aren't sure if you are related enough to be a party, you can ask a clerk if you should be added or just make an uninvolved comment. MBisanz ^talk 06:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Daniel removed some of my statement with edit summary "Remove table per instructions of arbitrators as 'clearly inappropriate'."[1] Am I to understand that an arbitrator requested this be removed; or was Daniel interpreting a general remit? Would anyone care to explain to me what makes this "clearly inappropriate"? Hesperian 11:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I asked Daniel to remove it. The table was clearly inappropriate because it has no evidential value and serves only to place undue weight to your statement.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If we're to stick to presenting evidence, don't you think you guys ought to stick to reading and digesting it? Conversely, when you guys decide you've seen enough evidence to start making and endorsing summary motions, oughtn't we be permitted to move on to critiquing those motions? You can't have it both ways, Roger. You don't get to move on from the evidence phase yourselves, and at the same demand that everyone else restrict themselves to presenting evidence that you don't plan on reading. From where I sit t feels like you've trotted out some procedural loophole in order to stifle legitimate criticism. Hesperian 11:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

We're probably talking at crosspurposes. The objection is purely to the use of a table. Feel free to cover the same ground in normal text format.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people --MZMcBride (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The motion now apparently to be approved says that the deletions in question were "reasonable exercise of administrative discretion", that "the administrators who carried out these actions are commended for their efforts to enforce policy and uphold the quality of the encyclopedia, but are urged to conduct future activities in a less chaotic manner." and that "The administrators who interfered with these actions are reminded that the enforcement of the policy on biographies of living people takes precedence over mere procedural concerns." It also recommends that an RfC or similar discussion determine "the most efficient way to proceed with the effective enforcement of the policy".

Many editors, on both sides of the issue, are reading this to say that continuation of mass deletions, without discussion, is perfectly acceptable, indeed laudable, and that interfering with such deletions is not acceptable, and possibly subject to sanction. This view seems supported by the statement (in voting reasons section) by Coren (talk · contribs) that "Unless the articles are individually demonstrated to be both neutral and verified (and not merely hypothetically verifiable), then deleting them is not only permissible, but obligatory." This view seems opposed by Coren's statement that "the chosen language, "commended [...] but urged" is intended to mean something along the lines of "You did something of positive value but in a poorly chosen manner"; it is by no mean an unconditional endorsement of the manner in which the deletion[s] have taken place." and by the statement of Shell Kinney (talk · contribs) (with which two othe arbitrators have indicated agreement) that "as Coren mentioned, this is not a suggestion that mass deletion (or any deletion) is the way forward nor a carte blanche to act (deletion or otherwise) before the community has a chance to sort this out."

I note that Scott MacDonald (talk · contribs) seems to have continued multiple undiscussed deletions up at least 13:12, 21 January 2010, which, unless I'm being fooled by a timezone error, is after the 5th vote for the motion was posted. Although of course the motions has not yet been officially adopted, with nine votes in favor it looks, well, rather likely at the moment. Based on this, and on the history of the issue, and the statements of various admins, it seems to me likely that such deletions will continue as things now stand.

If the ArbCom really wants to have future deletions occur only via some yet to be determined mechanism with consensus support (whether a variant of WP:PROD, a new WP:CSD, a variant of Incubation or some other mechanism) than I think it would be wise to amend its motions, or pass a further motion, to explicitly say that future mass deletions are not acceptable, or under what if any circumstances they would be subject to future sanction. If this is not done, any admin who wishes to continue such deletions can cite the "commended" language and the warning against interference, and argue that in the absence of future interference, deletions will not be "chaotic". In the face of this motion, It would be hard to block for such actions.

I ask the ArbCom hypothetically, if such deletions continue and some admin does block the deletors and that block is brought here as a violation of this ruling, how will you handle the matter?

I ask the ArbCom to at least consider a temporary injunction against future mass deletions, pending community discussion and adoption of some mechanism for handling unsourced BLPs. Such an injunction could include a time limit by which, if no such process is adopted, the floodgates will open, or should I say the drains.

In the absence of any explicit comment by the ArbCom on future deletions, there is IMO less incentive for those favoring deletion to work on a mechanism that balances the competing interests at stake here, and even if adopted, more chance that such a mechanism will fail if any admin feels free to avoid it by unilateral deletion. DES ^(talk) 22:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

In one-and-a-half years on Wikipedia, this is the only time I've seen something to which my reaction could accurately be described as outrage. I do not think it is acceptable to summarily delete unsourced BLPs out of process; I do not think it is acceptable for administrators to say "screw the community" and "screw consensus" when taking administrative actions; and I especially do not think it is acceptable for ArbCom to commend such actions and such administrators. ArbCom has given a green light to actions that ignore community consensus and community-established policies and processes. Our policy on BLPs does not in any way, shape, or form give administrators free license to delete BLPs that do not contain copyright violations, libellous text, or otherwise contentious material. Our policy on BLPs does not in any way, shape, or form give administrators free license to delete unreferenced BLPs summarily simply because they are unreferenced, not without going through our long-established deletion processes. Our policy on BLPs does not in any way, shape, or form condone administrators deciding to hold community consensus in contempt and taking unilateral actions that are highly contentious. Moreover, our policy on administrators tells us that admins are no different from other editors, save access to a few buttons. But you know what? If actions like these can be taken – if admins can wipe out countless editors' non-contentious work on a biography simply because it has yet to be referenced – if admins can drastically reduce this encyclopedia's coverage and make it difficult for users to restore that coverage – then the aforementioned policy is complete B.S. If ArbCom endorses – nay, commends – "enforcing" a policy by trampling and ignoring others, then ArbCom is seriously misguided.

It is not the place of ArbCom to settle good-faith content disputes, nor is it the place of ArbCom to make policy. Both are the community's responsibility. In this motion, by commending the admins in question rather than desysopping them, and by warning other admins against interfering with such summary deletions, ArbCom has created a new de facto criterion for speedy deletion. This is not acceptable, and it is a major overreach on ArbCom's part. The committee must not dictate policy by fiat in this way, nor should they invoke the "ignore all rules" policy in such controversial circumstances. No criteria should be added to the CSD without establishing consensus for the criterion at WT:CSD first. As such, I do not consider much of this motion to be a valid exercise of ArbCom's power, and I urge administrators not to invoke this motion in order to summarily delete unreferenced BLPs. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. But if the motion is "not valid", what action should you or another admin take should some admin ignore your urging and continue unilateral deletions of unreferenced but uncontentious BLPs? (a hypothetical i think likely to be realized) DES ^(talk) 22:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not an admin, so there's nothing I personally can do. That said, I think admins can avoid violating WP:WHEEL by (a) selectively restoring unreferenced BLPs that may meet WP:N, WP:V, etc. and do not contain contentious material, and immediately adding references themselves or sending to PROD or AfD; (b) selectively restoring unreferenced BLPs flagged as being under the scope of certain WikiProjects to subpages of those WikiProjects, tagged with {{noindex}}; or (c) selectively restoring unreferenced BLPs to the article incubator. Merely reverting a deletion on the basis that the ArbCom motion is invalid would surely be considered wheel-warring; however, I believe Jimbo described such deletions as an application of WP:BOLD. The next step, then, is logically to revert and discuss. I think an AfD and a move to a WikiProject or the Incubator are both valid applications of the "discuss" part of BRD. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

One of the problems is that even with a list of the deleted articles, the categories are missing. I'd be happy to take on any Australian politics ones and pass them around to my fellow editors, but there's no way from a big list to tell which ones were in our maintenance categories. Also note there is a confirmed MediaWiki problem with watchlist where articles are known to disappear ... I replenish my watchlist every few months off the same base list and usually find around 100 or more have disappeared from the watchlist. Orderinchaos 03:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Normally I'm a big fan of WP:DEADLINE... but maybe not this time. How about ArbCom tacks on a clarifier, to wit, "the community needs to put a process (fitting certain parms specified as follows??) in place that gets the job done satisfactorily by date X. Admins are not to do any additional summary deletions until after X. If by X, the process is in place, that is what they will use. If it is not in place by then, the community is reminded that they were required to create one, and the summary deletions may then resume". Make X something reasonable. (2 weeks? a month at the most). Then, having boldly led, get out of the way and let the community organise one that is satisfactory to all concerned. ++Lar: t/c 23:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Lar here. As long as we don't then get people prodding this way by the thousands this might be an ok way forward. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

To be blunt, I don't trust ArbCom in the slightest to set any such deadlines. It is useful for petty disputes, but this is so far beyond a 17 man panel it isn't funny. Also, such a deadline would only encourage those in favour of mass unilateral deletions to obstruct the discussions and proposals since their attempts at rewriting policy would come into effect by default once that time limit expired. Lets not compound ArbCom's mistake with that motion by giving it a back door to rewriting policy. That is the the job of the community and the Foundation. Resolute 23:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, accept that it is clear that a large minority of the community is likely going to do whatever they want without intervention. This at least has the potential of resulting in them using a set process rather than continuing a borderline civil war. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The RfC is generating numerous ideas already. Lets not hasten the start of that civil war by giving ArbCom the authority to tell one side when it can begin the massacre. There is no need at this point for any kind of deadline. I will accept, however that that may change into the future if the current discussion falters without a consensus. Resolute 00:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The lesson out of this is: if trying to change policy, abuse Wikipedia cornerstone policies to your heart's content, abuse anyone who gets in the way, get enough people on your side, and ArbCom will back you all the way. The decision taken is cowardly and compromised in the extreme and we will see another case, with sanctions, here in a couple of months as the two sides are entrenched. Orderinchaos 03:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Is it time for another RfC on Arbcom? Their support for admins who have openly declared contempt for the community as part of their justifications for their actions suggests to me that the time is getting close. DuncanHill (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Placed here so as to not clutter the voting sections even more.

@Cyclopia: My statement means exactly what it says, your confusion stems for mistaking the objective ("build a free encyclopedia") with the means ("the community"). Building this encyclopedia bears a number of ethical responsibilities which the community cannot override. The committee's responsibility is to the project, not the contributors — even though they generally align.

@Balloonman: "[...] but then you support a proposal that praises them for doing so." One does not preclude the other; it's possible to do a good thing the wrong way; it means that a better way needs to be found, not that what was done becomes bad.

— Coren ^(talk) 00:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

So to be clear, in your view if an admin goes back on another deletion spree say right now what happens? JoshuaZ (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

My personal opinion there should be clear enough: a new deletion spree at this time would be met with a high-velocity trout. The original deletions were bold and defensible; attempting to circumvent genuine attempts to solve the problem now would amount to raising shit needlessly. (In particular, there is an RfC where discussion is taking place, and which may yet end up solving the problem). — Coren ^(talk) 01:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you want a very good interpretation of my position, the Interpretation by Scott MacDonald hits the nail square on the head as far as I'm concerned. — Coren ^(talk) 01:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Good to know. That moves this from the "I think you're crazy" category to the "I disagree with you but understand where you're coming from" category. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to post this, so hopefully this will reach the ArbCom's attention.

I'd like to request a temporary injunction against User:JBsupreme. Over the past day, even after being added to this case, he has been tagging dozens of BLPs with {{prod}}, along with an insistence that the prod not be removed (example). This is contrary to prod's purpose, and is about the nearest thing to "rogue deletions" that a non-admin can do. This is just pouring that much more gasoline on the flames of this case, and I see no sign that he will stop unless someone of authority steps in and tells him to.

Thanks.--Father Goose (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, before Cyclopia and others edit-warred and got the page stuck on the proverbial "wrong version", that is precisely how the prod tag should be used on this atrocious articles. Tarc (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the particular tag in the example because the article appeared accurate, sourceable, and uncontroversial - but I'll leave the job for someone else to fix this article and remove the other tags. I've already done more than my share today by fixing three or four articles today. It's a real concern that diligent editors who actually care about the content being lost shouldn't be forced to do make-up work at a schedule dictated by whim. JBsupreme's tagging seems aggressive and indiscriminate - they've tagged articles good and bad, and a number of articles that had sources. It would be a good idea if people calmed down and stopped escalating the matter with provocative steps like this while there's an Arbcom case on and many proposals afoot to deal with the matter in a more orderly fashion. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

What Tarc conveniently omits is that the warring over PROD started when several people tried to add the new language "Prods on BLPs may not be removed" earlier today, and several others objected. The whole point is to stop warring at this point and let ArbCom sort it out. Capisce? Good.--Father Goose (talk) 05:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer to stop warring and let the community figure it out. JBsupreme, however, does not get to unilaterally re-write policy. We don't need an injunction to stop him from inappropriately trying to force his own viewpoint on the issue. Remove the PROD tags as per normal and tell him to take the articles to AfD if he has an issue. Resolute 05:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to edit-war with him across dozens of pages -- that would just make me an involved party. The committee needs to step in and say, "okay, you've made your point, stop now."

If I brought the matter up at ANI at this moment, he would probably be blocked then unblocked by various parties to this fight. ArbCom needs to step in.--Father Goose (talk) 09:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

My $0.02, post it to ANI if it continues. Literally, by acronym definition of PROD, it's not a "mark for delete" nor can it be. The editor named is also not an admin, so though that by itself doesn't matter it at least means any violation of the "do not remove" is an empty threat since it would basically require going to ANI (either way) just to get enforced. If it starts an edit war or disaster at ANI, hold those persons responsible and maybe someone will actually notice the gigantic mess and comment on the policy looting since yesterday. Hell, I'd even say lock all deletion-related policy pages to the versions before the encouraged "lone admin" deletions started so no one has to worry about those articles and people can actually go back to editing. Since ArbCom tries to make clear it doesn't deal with policy they need to account for people interpreting their decisions as such when motions have contentious wording they won't clarify. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 13:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I endorse Father Goose's reasonable call here. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm recused as a clerk, but I can provide the advice that this probably will not be acted on unless filed as a formal request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests_for_amendment. MBisanz ^talk 19:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Strongly endorse Father Goose's injunction.

I guess JBsupreme is under sanctions?

I don't think any editor should have to put up with this repeated bullying, especially from veteran editors who are supposed to know better, who know the rules which were built on years of community consensus, are reminded of the rules again, and yet still persist to threaten good faith editors with blocks who abide by those rules. Ikip ^{Frank Andersson (45 revisions restored):}_{an olympic medallist for f**k's sake} 19:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

His edit summaries while edit-warring are way too over the top as well: "UGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH PEOPLE WHEN WILL YOU LEARN??? PLEASE, FLAGGED REVISIONS, WHERE THE HELL ARE YOU?," "holy crap I cannot believe User:Jheald restored text," etc." Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If you read FG's comment, it says he is asking arbcom to enact an injunction to put JBsupreme under sanction. Arbcom hasn't acted on the request yet, probably since it was not formally made on the proper page. MBisanz ^talk 19:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It's moot now. ArbCom has effectively greenlighted summary deletion of unsourced BLPs by passing the motion: [2]. But I have to think this matter will be back before Arbcom in a very, very short time. Quality punt, fellas.--Father Goose (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Daniel removed some of my statement with edit summary "Remove table per instructions of arbitrators as 'clearly inappropriate'."[3] Am I to understand that an arbitrator requested this be removed; or was Daniel interpreting a general remit? Would anyone care to explain to me what makes this "clearly inappropriate"? Hesperian 11:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I asked Daniel to remove it. The table was clearly inappropriate because it has no evidential value and serves only to place undue weight to your statement.  Roger Davies ^talk 11:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If we're to stick to presenting evidence, don't you think you guys ought to stick to reading and digesting it? Conversely, when you guys decide you've seen enough evidence to start making and endorsing summary motions, oughtn't we be permitted to move on to critiquing those motions? You can't have it both ways, Roger. You don't get to move on from the evidence phase yourselves, and at the same demand that everyone else restrict themselves to presenting evidence that you don't plan on reading. From where I sit t feels like you've trotted out some procedural loophole in order to stifle legitimate criticism. Hesperian 11:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

We're probably talking at crosspurposes. The objection is purely to the use of a table. Feel free to cover the same ground in normal text format.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people --MZMcBride (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The motion now apparently to be approved says that the deletions in question were "reasonable exercise of administrative discretion", that "the administrators who carried out these actions are commended for their efforts to enforce policy and uphold the quality of the encyclopedia, but are urged to conduct future activities in a less chaotic manner." and that "The administrators who interfered with these actions are reminded that the enforcement of the policy on biographies of living people takes precedence over mere procedural concerns." It also recommends that an RfC or similar discussion determine "the most efficient way to proceed with the effective enforcement of the policy".

Many editors, on both sides of the issue, are reading this to say that continuation of mass deletions, without discussion, is perfectly acceptable, indeed laudable, and that interfering with such deletions is not acceptable, and possibly subject to sanction. This view seems supported by the statement (in voting reasons section) by Coren (talk · contribs) that "Unless the articles are individually demonstrated to be both neutral and verified (and not merely hypothetically verifiable), then deleting them is not only permissible, but obligatory." This view seems opposed by Coren's statement that "the chosen language, "commended [...] but urged" is intended to mean something along the lines of "You did something of positive value but in a poorly chosen manner"; it is by no mean an unconditional endorsement of the manner in which the deletion[s] have taken place." and by the statement of Shell Kinney (talk · contribs) (with which two othe arbitrators have indicated agreement) that "as Coren mentioned, this is not a suggestion that mass deletion (or any deletion) is the way forward nor a carte blanche to act (deletion or otherwise) before the community has a chance to sort this out."

I note that Scott MacDonald (talk · contribs) seems to have continued multiple undiscussed deletions up at least 13:12, 21 January 2010, which, unless I'm being fooled by a timezone error, is after the 5th vote for the motion was posted. Although of course the motions has not yet been officially adopted, with nine votes in favor it looks, well, rather likely at the moment. Based on this, and on the history of the issue, and the statements of various admins, it seems to me likely that such deletions will continue as things now stand.

If the ArbCom really wants to have future deletions occur only via some yet to be determined mechanism with consensus support (whether a variant of WP:PROD, a new WP:CSD, a variant of Incubation or some other mechanism) than I think it would be wise to amend its motions, or pass a further motion, to explicitly say that future mass deletions are not acceptable, or under what if any circumstances they would be subject to future sanction. If this is not done, any admin who wishes to continue such deletions can cite the "commended" language and the warning against interference, and argue that in the absence of future interference, deletions will not be "chaotic". In the face of this motion, It would be hard to block for such actions.

I ask the ArbCom hypothetically, if such deletions continue and some admin does block the deletors and that block is brought here as a violation of this ruling, how will you handle the matter?

I ask the ArbCom to at least consider a temporary injunction against future mass deletions, pending community discussion and adoption of some mechanism for handling unsourced BLPs. Such an injunction could include a time limit by which, if no such process is adopted, the floodgates will open, or should I say the drains.

In the absence of any explicit comment by the ArbCom on future deletions, there is IMO less incentive for those favoring deletion to work on a mechanism that balances the competing interests at stake here, and even if adopted, more chance that such a mechanism will fail if any admin feels free to avoid it by unilateral deletion. DES ^(talk) 22:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

In one-and-a-half years on Wikipedia, this is the only time I've seen something to which my reaction could accurately be described as outrage. I do not think it is acceptable to summarily delete unsourced BLPs out of process; I do not think it is acceptable for administrators to say "screw the community" and "screw consensus" when taking administrative actions; and I especially do not think it is acceptable for ArbCom to commend such actions and such administrators. ArbCom has given a green light to actions that ignore community consensus and community-established policies and processes. Our policy on BLPs does not in any way, shape, or form give administrators free license to delete BLPs that do not contain copyright violations, libellous text, or otherwise contentious material. Our policy on BLPs does not in any way, shape, or form give administrators free license to delete unreferenced BLPs summarily simply because they are unreferenced, not without going through our long-established deletion processes. Our policy on BLPs does not in any way, shape, or form condone administrators deciding to hold community consensus in contempt and taking unilateral actions that are highly contentious. Moreover, our policy on administrators tells us that admins are no different from other editors, save access to a few buttons. But you know what? If actions like these can be taken – if admins can wipe out countless editors' non-contentious work on a biography simply because it has yet to be referenced – if admins can drastically reduce this encyclopedia's coverage and make it difficult for users to restore that coverage – then the aforementioned policy is complete B.S. If ArbCom endorses – nay, commends – "enforcing" a policy by trampling and ignoring others, then ArbCom is seriously misguided.

It is not the place of ArbCom to settle good-faith content disputes, nor is it the place of ArbCom to make policy. Both are the community's responsibility. In this motion, by commending the admins in question rather than desysopping them, and by warning other admins against interfering with such summary deletions, ArbCom has created a new de facto criterion for speedy deletion. This is not acceptable, and it is a major overreach on ArbCom's part. The committee must not dictate policy by fiat in this way, nor should they invoke the "ignore all rules" policy in such controversial circumstances. No criteria should be added to the CSD without establishing consensus for the criterion at WT:CSD first. As such, I do not consider much of this motion to be a valid exercise of ArbCom's power, and I urge administrators not to invoke this motion in order to summarily delete unreferenced BLPs. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. But if the motion is "not valid", what action should you or another admin take should some admin ignore your urging and continue unilateral deletions of unreferenced but uncontentious BLPs? (a hypothetical i think likely to be realized) DES ^(talk) 22:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not an admin, so there's nothing I personally can do. That said, I think admins can avoid violating WP:WHEEL by (a) selectively restoring unreferenced BLPs that may meet WP:N, WP:V, etc. and do not contain contentious material, and immediately adding references themselves or sending to PROD or AfD; (b) selectively restoring unreferenced BLPs flagged as being under the scope of certain WikiProjects to subpages of those WikiProjects, tagged with {{noindex}}; or (c) selectively restoring unreferenced BLPs to the article incubator. Merely reverting a deletion on the basis that the ArbCom motion is invalid would surely be considered wheel-warring; however, I believe Jimbo described such deletions as an application of WP:BOLD. The next step, then, is logically to revert and discuss. I think an AfD and a move to a WikiProject or the Incubator are both valid applications of the "discuss" part of BRD. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

One of the problems is that even with a list of the deleted articles, the categories are missing. I'd be happy to take on any Australian politics ones and pass them around to my fellow editors, but there's no way from a big list to tell which ones were in our maintenance categories. Also note there is a confirmed MediaWiki problem with watchlist where articles are known to disappear ... I replenish my watchlist every few months off the same base list and usually find around 100 or more have disappeared from the watchlist. Orderinchaos 03:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Normally I'm a big fan of WP:DEADLINE... but maybe not this time. How about ArbCom tacks on a clarifier, to wit, "the community needs to put a process (fitting certain parms specified as follows??) in place that gets the job done satisfactorily by date X. Admins are not to do any additional summary deletions until after X. If by X, the process is in place, that is what they will use. If it is not in place by then, the community is reminded that they were required to create one, and the summary deletions may then resume". Make X something reasonable. (2 weeks? a month at the most). Then, having boldly led, get out of the way and let the community organise one that is satisfactory to all concerned. ++Lar: t/c 23:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Lar here. As long as we don't then get people prodding this way by the thousands this might be an ok way forward. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

To be blunt, I don't trust ArbCom in the slightest to set any such deadlines. It is useful for petty disputes, but this is so far beyond a 17 man panel it isn't funny. Also, such a deadline would only encourage those in favour of mass unilateral deletions to obstruct the discussions and proposals since their attempts at rewriting policy would come into effect by default once that time limit expired. Lets not compound ArbCom's mistake with that motion by giving it a back door to rewriting policy. That is the the job of the community and the Foundation. Resolute 23:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, accept that it is clear that a large minority of the community is likely going to do whatever they want without intervention. This at least has the potential of resulting in them using a set process rather than continuing a borderline civil war. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The RfC is generating numerous ideas already. Lets not hasten the start of that civil war by giving ArbCom the authority to tell one side when it can begin the massacre. There is no need at this point for any kind of deadline. I will accept, however that that may change into the future if the current discussion falters without a consensus. Resolute 00:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The lesson out of this is: if trying to change policy, abuse Wikipedia cornerstone policies to your heart's content, abuse anyone who gets in the way, get enough people on your side, and ArbCom will back you all the way. The decision taken is cowardly and compromised in the extreme and we will see another case, with sanctions, here in a couple of months as the two sides are entrenched. Orderinchaos 03:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• Is it time for another RfC on Arbcom? Their support for admins who have openly declared contempt for the community as part of their justifications for their actions suggests to me that the time is getting close. DuncanHill (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to post this, so hopefully this will reach the ArbCom's attention.

I'd like to request a temporary injunction against User:JBsupreme. Over the past day, even after being added to this case, he has been tagging dozens of BLPs with {{prod}}, along with an insistence that the prod not be removed (example). This is contrary to prod's purpose, and is about the nearest thing to "rogue deletions" that a non-admin can do. This is just pouring that much more gasoline on the flames of this case, and I see no sign that he will stop unless someone of authority steps in and tells him to.

Thanks.--Father Goose (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, before Cyclopia and others edit-warred and got the page stuck on the proverbial "wrong version", that is precisely how the prod tag should be used on this atrocious articles. Tarc (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the particular tag in the example because the article appeared accurate, sourceable, and uncontroversial - but I'll leave the job for someone else to fix this article and remove the other tags. I've already done more than my share today by fixing three or four articles today. It's a real concern that diligent editors who actually care about the content being lost shouldn't be forced to do make-up work at a schedule dictated by whim. JBsupreme's tagging seems aggressive and indiscriminate - they've tagged articles good and bad, and a number of articles that had sources. It would be a good idea if people calmed down and stopped escalating the matter with provocative steps like this while there's an Arbcom case on and many proposals afoot to deal with the matter in a more orderly fashion. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

What Tarc conveniently omits is that the warring over PROD started when several people tried to add the new language "Prods on BLPs may not be removed" earlier today, and several others objected. The whole point is to stop warring at this point and let ArbCom sort it out. Capisce? Good.--Father Goose (talk) 05:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer to stop warring and let the community figure it out. JBsupreme, however, does not get to unilaterally re-write policy. We don't need an injunction to stop him from inappropriately trying to force his own viewpoint on the issue. Remove the PROD tags as per normal and tell him to take the articles to AfD if he has an issue. Resolute 05:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to edit-war with him across dozens of pages -- that would just make me an involved party. The committee needs to step in and say, "okay, you've made your point, stop now."

If I brought the matter up at ANI at this moment, he would probably be blocked then unblocked by various parties to this fight. ArbCom needs to step in.--Father Goose (talk) 09:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

My $0.02, post it to ANI if it continues. Literally, by acronym definition of PROD, it's not a "mark for delete" nor can it be. The editor named is also not an admin, so though that by itself doesn't matter it at least means any violation of the "do not remove" is an empty threat since it would basically require going to ANI (either way) just to get enforced. If it starts an edit war or disaster at ANI, hold those persons responsible and maybe someone will actually notice the gigantic mess and comment on the policy looting since yesterday. Hell, I'd even say lock all deletion-related policy pages to the versions before the encouraged "lone admin" deletions started so no one has to worry about those articles and people can actually go back to editing. Since ArbCom tries to make clear it doesn't deal with policy they need to account for people interpreting their decisions as such when motions have contentious wording they won't clarify. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 13:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I endorse Father Goose's reasonable call here. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm recused as a clerk, but I can provide the advice that this probably will not be acted on unless filed as a formal request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests_for_amendment. MBisanz ^talk 19:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Strongly endorse Father Goose's injunction.

I guess JBsupreme is under sanctions?

I don't think any editor should have to put up with this repeated bullying, especially from veteran editors who are supposed to know better, who know the rules which were built on years of community consensus, are reminded of the rules again, and yet still persist to threaten good faith editors with blocks who abide by those rules. Ikip ^{Frank Andersson (45 revisions restored):}_{an olympic medallist for f**k's sake} 19:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

His edit summaries while edit-warring are way too over the top as well: "UGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH PEOPLE WHEN WILL YOU LEARN??? PLEASE, FLAGGED REVISIONS, WHERE THE HELL ARE YOU?," "holy crap I cannot believe User:Jheald restored text," etc." Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If you read FG's comment, it says he is asking arbcom to enact an injunction to put JBsupreme under sanction. Arbcom hasn't acted on the request yet, probably since it was not formally made on the proper page. MBisanz ^talk 19:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It's moot now. ArbCom has effectively greenlighted summary deletion of unsourced BLPs by passing the motion: [4]. But I have to think this matter will be back before Arbcom in a very, very short time. Quality punt, fellas.--Father Goose (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Placed here so as to not clutter the voting sections even more.

@Cyclopia: My statement means exactly what it says, your confusion stems for mistaking the objective ("build a free encyclopedia") with the means ("the community"). Building this encyclopedia bears a number of ethical responsibilities which the community cannot override. The committee's responsibility is to the project, not the contributors — even though they generally align.

@Balloonman: "[...] but then you support a proposal that praises them for doing so." One does not preclude the other; it's possible to do a good thing the wrong way; it means that a better way needs to be found, not that what was done becomes bad.

— Coren ^(talk) 00:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

So to be clear, in your view if an admin goes back on another deletion spree say right now what happens? JoshuaZ (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

My personal opinion there should be clear enough: a new deletion spree at this time would be met with a high-velocity trout. The original deletions were bold and defensible; attempting to circumvent genuine attempts to solve the problem now would amount to raising shit needlessly. (In particular, there is an RfC where discussion is taking place, and which may yet end up solving the problem). — Coren ^(talk) 01:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you want a very good interpretation of my position, the Interpretation by Scott MacDonald hits the nail square on the head as far as I'm concerned. — Coren ^(talk) 01:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Good to know. That moves this from the "I think you're crazy" category to the "I disagree with you but understand where you're coming from" category. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, on the contrary, the committee's responsibility is to the community and not to the project. The committee is elected by the community, your mandate comes from the community, you're part of the community (and not beyond or above it in any way), hence your responsibility. You also have a responsibility to all users because you hold advanced permissions which give you some access to their privacy, though all CUs and OSs have them (and they're elected, too). You have no responsibility to this project however, only the wmf (and employees), have one. I suspect the WMF would agree with me, considering an incident which happened in December of last year. Cenarium (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It's been discussed a bit, but that BLP motion is something that arbcom should look at (even if arbcom made the motion). What kind of process do we have to look into it? Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Should we have a block template customized to blocks that are placed as a result of arbitration enforcement, and that links to the special conditions under which such a block can be overturned ? Right now an admin responding to an unblock request may not realize, (a) that the block was a result of AE unless they see the block edit-summary, (2) that the block should not be overturned simply on their own discretion. Of course, these wouldn't be an issue, if the admin followed good practice and consulted with the blocking admin, but we should at least attempt to make the applicable policies as accessible as possible. Thoughts ? Abecedare (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. I have been, as you write this, in the process of drafting such a template, at {{uw-aeblock}}. I'd be interested to hear your opinion once it's done.  Sandstein  19:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. Very good idea. Durova⁴¹² 19:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Should be done now, complete with instructions. I'll note it on the case page and would appreciate a review from people who can code templates better than I whether the syntax is OK.  Sandstein  19:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That was quick! Can it also be added to twinkle menu, which many admins (I assume) use to place such templated notices. I'll leave that and tweaking of the language to editors more conversant with the process. I had intended to start this thread at the talk page of Wikipedia:AE; didn't realize it redirected here. Anyway, no harm done. Abecedare (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That'll help. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that this is a terrible idea, you should be concerned with getting this absurd restriction on administrative peer-review overturned. It is not proper to allow unilateral action without review--- ArbCom is not real review. The template needs to be put off until the actual decision is reviewed by the community, and hopefully roundly rejected.Likebox (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

As noted on my talk page, ArbCom decisions are not subject to community review. (But you are still free to try and start one.)  Sandstein  21:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The text of the template should focus on guidance on how to start a discussion on a block that an admin finds questionable, not primarily on potential disciplinary actions against administrators.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the template links to the WP:AEBLOCK section of WP:GAB, which provides such guidance. But the concern expressed by some was that unblocking admins might not be well enough aware of the special rules governing AE block.  Sandstein  21:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This needs another link to WP:AEBLOCK at the end of the notice to administrators, since this is the part directed to them. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

To prevent people from incorrectly filing cases at this page, as happened recently, I created an editnotice here. Feel free to improve it. Ucucha 00:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Ban has expired.  Sandstein  20:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

After having a brief discussion with Sandstein [5], I would like to ask: Could Russavia file his request in light of his editing restriction: [6]? Thank you.Biophys (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

My "topic ban" expired a week or so ago. The editing restriction mentioned by Biophys above was a partial lifting of the topic ban (which has now expired). Cheers, --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 20:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Noted. I made some suggestions and left notices. Sandstein, could you please allow an extra day or so for discussion prior to making any administrative decisions? Thanks, Biophys (talk) 13:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe there is nothing here beyond a few content disputes, and I suggested a constructive approach to improve the situation: the judgment of content issues by any responsible administrator who is on Russavia side. This is not going to enforce my personal position in any articles. If this is not enough, tell me what else I should do.Biophys (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that at least two administrators should look at this case very carefully if you are going to issue any sanctions. Of course some Arbcom members, and especially FayssalF are familiar with the case. But let's not waste their time. Yes, I fully understand the sentiment of FPS who simply does not want to waste his time. No one wants. Me too. It was not me who started this AE case.Biophys (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of unsupported and unrelated accusations here from Jzg and Quiggin, many of which do not involve me in any way, shape, or form. None of Quiggin's "supporting refs" are my edits.

I'm accused of posting "aggressive" messages on Jimbo's talk page. Let's first recognize that Jimbo is a user quite capable of regulating his own personal talk page - then let's note that Jimbo found my concerns had merit and were on topic related to a discussion of BLP abuse which was then taking place on his user page.[7][8]

Jzg then makes an accusation that, "It became apparent to me that IP99 has been carrying out a personal campaign against at least Lambert, e.g. [5] - Special:Contributions/99.141.252.167 is almost all about Lambert or removing references to him from mainspace - something he failed to mention under his later IPs." This is patent nonsense. Not only did I directly link to that IP, and edits, in the very last direct conversation I had with Jzg prior to his filing here[9], it is also clearly found creating the discussion from which this is derived[10] - and can be found here where I make clear notice of my ip changing.[11] I have been asking Jzg now for weeks to make clear his concerns and link supporting ref's. It would seem there is a reason he speaks in general terms about unspecified things and doesn't link to supporting ref's. Personally, I'd prefer not to be sold off by an auctioneer taking phantom bids from the chandelier while creating the impression of drama where none exists.

As to the application of jet fuel drama from the AGW jerry can, my only edits to AGW related articles has been in support of using the term "climategate" on Wikipedia. I supported community members efforts and introduced links showing neutral use of the term from Mother Jones, Factcheck.org, Newsweek, etc, I then introduced supporting references from peer-reviewed academic journals which studied or discussed the cultural and political phenom.[12]. To the argument that Wikipedia had a prohibition against the term -gate, I introduced supporting ref's to demonstrate that neither community consensus, practice or policy prohibit the term. [13]

My editorial position on the subject was limited strictly to support the recognition[14][15] of the term noted above to describe the political and cultural moments that arose from the confluence of events started by the CRU email incident coming so close to the Copenhagen conference and the resulting environment encompassed by what is referred to as climategate. The one thing it I argued it would not be: a review of climate science.[16] Participation is not de-facto partisanship. In no way do my positions or civil engagement in well supported, referenced and reasonable discussion give a foundation to any of the general, un-specified and un-supported AGW mud that Jzg and Quiggin have sought to throw on me here in this new venue.

I was unaware that Quiggin & Lambert were even users here until well into a discussion at the Reliable Source Noticeboard.[17] My criticism of Lambert[18] & Quiggin[19] has been well supported and factual. COI harms the project whether done to harm ones enemies or to promote and bolster ones personal projects - as in these examples in which Quiggin has created entire articles, and supported them, for his close co-workers at "Crooked Timber".[20] [21][22] There is no grey area there either. One doesn't join a business and then create promotional advertisements for ones fellow website members here at Wikipedia. Rules regarding COI are important, fundamentally important. I have had *zero* content interaction with the users and no direct disagreements beyond impeaching Lambert's blog as a WP:RS regarding the Reliable Source status of "The Times" of London and the associated talk. Unsupported "claims" to the contrary do nothing to change this.

Lambert & Quiggin continue even now to display poor and biased judgement with regards to the BLP subjects noted throughout these discussions. In Lambert's very last exchange here at Wikipedia he states that the Lott article has seen a number of "favorable" edits from "Lott supporters (e.g James Purtilo, who got Lott a position in the Maryland Computer Science Department" [[23]] Lambert makes a number of serious charges there against a non-wikipedian he paints a puppet master. Think about this. An undergraduate student said, "Who knows why we decided to pick him up, but I imagine it has something to do with his friend Jim Purtilo" in a screed largely devoted to criticizing the BB coach. Which Tim Lambert then regurgitated and misquoted as unequivocal fact on Wikipedia as, "...strong Lott supporters (e.g James Purtilo, who got Lott a position in the Maryland Computer Science Department" - while notably labeling a civilian, university department chair, non-project participant as a Wikipedia sock-master. This is precisely the method, and the problem, when one spends ones days engaged in character assassination and ones nights writing your target's BLP's. It's the problem here.

Quiggin, also in his very last edit at Wikipedia, has also apparently decided to not even wait until the proceedings finish to completely break his assurances made directly to Jimbo, Jzg and the community not to edit the mainpage of his enemies on Wikipedia.[24] Lindzen is named often, and prominently throughout these discussions, Jzg even listed that specific BLP in his original complaint against Quiggin.

I have not discussed nor suggested any action, I simply made my concerns known. This started from my defending The Times as a reliable source and has been made into Drama by Jzg, unnecessarily. I've tackled a tough subject involving an editor with close associations here, but my conduct has been civil, reasonable and well supported. That shooting the messenger has progressed to this level is unsettling. 99.135.173.194 (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to underscore how egregious Quiggin's latest action is, contrast his statement here in this very section at ArbCom in which he back-peddles on his earlier 'promise' not to edit his enemies BLP's - "So, for the moment, at least, I'm leaving WP:BLP articles alone or raising suggestions in the talk page, rather than editing directly." - with his very next edit[25] on a BLP subject specifically named by Jzg in the complaint against Quiggin being discussed here. The contempt and disrespect found in such insincere promises and blatant violations is at the heart of the COI abuse.99.135.173.194 (talk) 19:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I have copied this over for you mark nutley (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to ping my talk page if you need this done again btw mark nutley (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Administrators involved in Arbitration Enforcement, or interested in participating, are encouraged to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement to better streamline and coordinate enforcement actions. NW (Talk) 20:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Is the wikiproject admin only? DuncanHill (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

As currently envisaged, yes (i.e., pages are fully protected), because only admins can actually do arbitration enforcement. I am aware that non-admins who are interested in this activity are just as able to usefully contribute to discussions etc., but on balance it is maybe preferable to limit formal participation to admins because this also has the beneficial side effect of excluding most involved editors and thereby preventing project discussions from turning into ANI-type dramafests.  Sandstein  20:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Was this actually proposed and discussed anywhere other than two lines buried at the end of this interminable thread, or is this just an attempt to create ACPD by the back door and present it as a fait accompli? It's mysteriously missing from Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. – iridescent 20:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

No, this has nothing to do with ACPD, which I strongly opposed. This is just a discussion and coordination framework for WP:AE, which has so far been lacking. I was not aware that projects needed permission by some council.  Sandstein  20:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I have proposed the project for deletion, but because it is protected I am unable to tag the page. DuncanHill (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I was blocked for 24 hours for violating an interaction ban I was part is. The issue is that I didn't violate it and I want to appeal for this blocked to be removed from my log of blocks. I don't exactly sure where and how I should do it. I already contacted ArbCom via e-mail during my blocked(about few hours ago, yet didn't get any response-so I guess it is possible to post it here instead). I have all diffs and etc ready-jusy need help in filling the request.

Thanks--Gilisa (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Can closed cases have their probations reactivated? Or the same restrictions re-applied even if the case has closed? Or can an admin simply enforce them without re-opening the case? User in question is doing it again. SGGH ^ping! 14:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Caution...speaking out of turn. The remedies from a case only become active after a case is closed. A case isn't reopened in order to enforce those remedies; but the log at the bottom of the case does need to be updated to reflect such enforcement. Unless the probation remedy specifies the duration for which it applies, that probation is usually considered indefinite - meaning it is still in effect. Even if a page ban is lifted, it can be reimposed where problems recur. Therefore, any uninvolved admin should be able to invoke the probation, notify the user of any page bans applicable, log it in the appropriate section of the case, and that should be that. If the page ban is violated, then follow the enforcement part of the decision and also log the block action. Hope that helps. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Rvcx has cherry picked anti-Mathsci dispute resolution steps, and has omitted other important steps that have been taken, such as

• [26]
• [27]
• [28]
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive605#Incivility_by_User:TechnoFaye *Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive606#Problem_on_Race_and_Intelligence_mediation *Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive608#Failed_mediation_on_Race_and_intelligence

I think that omitting other important steps is not the best way to start an arbitration process. I would suggest listing them in chronological order. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any real dispute or issue with anyone regarding the Kosovo article. That said, before I unintentionally stir up a hornets nest, what are the reasonable parameters in which we may develop the lead section of the Kosovo article as it relates to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia, which superseded the earlier Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo? I ask, because earlier today I made this edit, which I don't think is controversial (although I did employ some poor proof reading...). The edit was pretty quickly rolled back, but because of the combination of the ArbCom rulings as well as the generally anti-encyclopedic editors who dominate all such articles, I can't tell if it is even worth trying to make an attempt at building the content. Thoughts? There's not a lot of room to do any meaningful work, and as someone who was initially drawn to Wikipedia years ago because of my amateur interest in history, I must admit that it's frustrating to see Wikipedia 2010 in such a creatively stagnant straight jacket. The very fact that something can be deemed a "controversial" edit purely on grounds of opinion is a little demoralizing. Am I really way off target here? Hiberniantears (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

See WP:ARBMAC2 also, newer than the first Macedonia case. Admin FPAS is very knowledgeable in this area too. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a dispute between neutrality (which I have been trying to maintain in the article) and succinctness (which I think User:Hiberniantears is trying to introduce). Unfortunately the political status of Kosovo is very divisive, and so to maintain NPOV the article's introduction is necessarily woolly (and it took a lot of wrangling to get where it is). Perhaps clarity should trump balance, but I suspect not. For further background, see threads on Talk:Kosovo and my talk page. Note that Hiberniantears has also made presumably good-faith, but non-neutral edits to Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which basically amount to the same argument.Bazonka (talk) 10:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Hiberniantears - I am not sure if you are genuinely surprised that your edit got that reaction but I will assume good faith. Your edit was very much biased (i.e. it largely disregarded the fact that Kosovo is disputed and simply asserted that Kosovo is the "Republic of Kosovo"....All the best. I agree with you about political editors ....just see the discussion (ongoing) at the Template: Kosovo-note page where Bazonka and other editors are insisting that only non-UN member states that recognise Kosovo should be mentioned in that note!!! Neutrality? In our dreams! 84.203.72.8 (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes Mr IP-User, you mean the discussion where everybody (including some with pro-Serb and some with pro-Albanian opinions) disagrees with you. Bazonka (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

No I am not alone - Read the discussion page, others agree with me....but enough of that here. 84.203.72.8 (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Bazonka - Could you please explain why only non-UN member states that recognise Kosovo are counted in the Template? Seems pretty biased to me! Surely all non-UN member states should be counted or none at all?84.203.72.8 (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

As clarification, I would like to point out that as an editor, one's bias should be entirely suppressed. This may sound slightly blunt, but the very point of Wikipedia is that it is supposed to be an exercise in objectivity, but this is often conflated with being an exercise in balancing one side's "truth" against another's. That's ultimately what I'm inquiring about. What are the parameters in which we can pursue objectivity at the expense of balance? As it stands now, we have abandoned entire subject areas with vast potential to some sort of intellectual Green Line. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The Template-note is intended as an NPOV status description for inclusion in all Kosovo-related articles. It describes the level of international recognition/non-recongition of Kosovo-statehood internationally. There is an argument about whether or how states that are not UN members should be counted in the Template. User Bazonka and others argue that only those non-UN member states that recognise Kosovo should be counted. I and others disagree and say that surely all non-UN member states should be counted or none at all? The help of arbitrators would be appreciated. A link to the current vote is above and the discussion page generally is above. Thanks for taking some time to look into this. 84.203.72.8 (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

PS - I am an 'IP editor' and don't seem to be able to edit the actual project page and thereby request arbitration so if you can help with listing this there (you can put me down as the person making the request if that matters), that would be appreciated too! 84.203.72.8 (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This template is already going through an RFC. No need for arbitration as well. Bazonka (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that each of the subheadings parenthetically include the name of the case. Otherwise, it is unclear on our watchlists and in the page history which case is being discussed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay then, I'll plan on making this change tomorrow if there are no objections.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't strike me as a particularly good tradeoff, given the increased burden on people adding statements (and on the clerks, who will inevitably have to clean up when people forget), the resulting poor readability of the TOC, and the fact that, at the request stage, case "names" are not yet approved by the Committee, and may be inappropriate for widespread use. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, never mind. Thanks for the reply.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

With regard to my editing restriction, can I comment about users like here or edit old Russian history like here? I had this talk with Carcharoth and he suggested to ask at WP:AE if needed. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I hope it's okay if before I respond I can get clarification. Will wrote this: "The recent ArbCom case noted several principles, including findings COI and the use of sources. It directed editors to review those findings and avoid recurring problems." It doesn't seem clear to me, and I believe that it would suggest to a reader that there was a formal finding of fact regarding conflict of interest. I have long acknowledged having a conflict of interest, and Arbcom did articulate a principle regarding COI that advises caution (while also noting that stating the a principle doesn't mean there was a finding of fact), but I don't see there was any actual finding of fact in that regard. Could this sentence be clarified? Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, Will says this: "ArbCom finding that COI has been a problem with this topic (as well as findings on sourcing and neutrality), the editor does not seem to be able to separate his role in the movement from his role as a Wikipedia editor." I don't see those things in the findings of fact. TimidGuy (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The ArbCom would not have included sections on COI and sourcing unless they had been issues with this topic. In my opinion, the recent events show that you have not acted with caution, and a situation arose where a source was manipulated in the middle of an edit dispute.   Will Beback  talk  20:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it would help the process if WBB were to specify which aspect(s) of the ArbCom Decision TG is alleged to have violated. There were no findings against TG and all aspects were carefully worded to apply to all those involved in the ArbCom including WBB, TG, Fladrif, Docjames, myself and others. The section on Neutrality and COI says: "advocacy for any particular view is prohibited". -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement, the "Principles" include sections on:

• Neutral point of view and verifiability
• Neutrality and conflicts of interest
• Neutrality, verifiability and appropriate weight
• Neutrality and sources
• Accuracy of sourcing

Then the "Remedies" includes this item:

• All parties instructed: All editors who are party to this case are instructed to read the principles outlined above, to review their own past conduct in the light of them, and if necessary to modify their future conduct to ensure full compliance with them.

It is my belief that TimidGuy has not conducted himself in full compliance with those principles. Another remedy is:

• Discretionary sanctions: Any uninvolved administrator may, in his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor editing Transcendental meditation or other articles concerning Transcendental meditation and related biographies of living people, broadly defined, if, after a warning, that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles.

I consider this a sufficiently serious violation of the editorial process to merit a formal warning.   Will Beback  talk  22:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that TG is saying that the sentence below, included in your complaint, is inaccurate and misleading, since it states that there were "findings COI", when if fact there were no such "findings", only general principles which applied to all parties, as you have made clear in your post above. Perhaps you might consider rectifying this error.

• "The recent ArbCom case noted several principles, including findings COI and the use of sources. It directed editors to review those findings and avoid recurring problems."-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a minor point, but OK. I changed "finding" to "principles".

I'm sorry you've chosen to ignore my request to explain your part in the disputed edit.   Will Beback  talk  02:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Give the acrimonious turn this took, and given Everyking's pretty unreserved undertaking going forward, I have withdrawn this as moot. Can I suggest everyone would be served best were it to be speedy closed, and let the record show that happily Everyking is "released on his own parole".--Scott Mac 15:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

See my comment and those of the other arbitrators; I think that is exactly where this is heading, and that it will be archived soon. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with the AE enforcement process so I apologize if I am asking questions that are too basic. Are there any standing editing restrictions, such as perhaps general one-revert restrictions or something like that, related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? If yes, is there some appropriate tag that could be placed at the talk page of affected articles? I just came across this particular article, Temple Mount and Eretz Yisrael Faithful Movement, which seems to have been the subject of edit warring in the past, and where one of the editors involved in that edit warring User:GeneralChoomin (who also had vandalized the article back in April[29] and was blocked for disruption back then), has returned and CSD tagged the article[30]. I declined the speedy and added a couple of refs. I am not particularly interested in the subject of the article, but if there are any standing arbitration rulings relevant there, they probably need to be mentioned at the article's talk page in some way. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 05:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there some existing ArbCom ruling with instructions or advise to the effect that one administrators' noticeboard should not overrule a decision taken and recorded on another administrators' noticeboard, without consulting the later board? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Not that I know of. There are admonishments to not undo another administrator's actions with the tools unilaterally (especially so in sanctions discussions), but there is no such thing as you ask. Do you have an example? (I'm sure you do, or you wouldn't be posting here, but...) SirFozzie (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, but the Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts noticeboard is now an administrators' noticeboard – a decision taken to give it more prominence. I answered a request for help here: Proposed renaming of Occupation of Albania (1912–1913)‎ to Albania during the Balkan Wars, discussed the issue with the parties, listened to both sides and closed an overdue move request with a compromise solution meeting the grievances expressed by both sides. I then recorded my decision on the ECCN board.

My actions were reported to WP:AN/I by someone who was not quite pleased with only half the cake. The move was overruled based on the technicality, that I had expressed my opinion in the move discussion and was therefore not WP:INVOLVED. The ECCN board was never consulted. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The Community reviews a variety of its binding decisions at AN or ANI. Where certain types of disputes seem to be large in number and can be resolved without the full community looking through every single incident, the Community pushes that type of dispute to a section of its own. But where something, in the opinion of the Community, was not done to its satisfaction, it will, either explicitly or implicitly, modify or overturn that decision, irrespective of who made the decision. Perhaps fortunately, much of this happens at AN or ANI where the full Community is looking, and only after someone asks for a situation to be reviewed. The ECCN board remains useable and the Community will certainly try to raise more awareness of its existence; troubles would only begin if the board is frequently not doing things up to scratch. That is, in your case, it's only the quality of that particular decision (based on when & how it was made) that resulted in it being modified; rather than planting oneself in a philosophy that one has misunderstood, it may be time to review feedback, heed it, and then move on. Long story short: there is a very deliberate reason why noticeboards like the ECCN can have its decisions reviewed in that particular fashion and the Community isn't going to change for those very reasons. Also, in case it wasn't clear (at least from the number of times that the word 'community' appeared in this comment), this was a Community matter rather than an Arbitration matter. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sidenote: This website is definitely getting more complicated than any one person can keep track of. I am not sure whether I find it amusing or alarming that I am one of the arbitrators, have been an administrator for three and one-half years, and it now turns out that there's an entire noticeboard (albeit a relatively new one) that I never even heard of before. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

ECCN has 159 watchers. AN/I? 4,500. An/i trumps ECCN in case of dispute.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. A noticeboard with more watchers trumps a noticeboard with fewer, as long as the decisions made by the former are made with due regard to the sensitivies and expertise of the latter. --TS 20:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

And who decides that? Perhaps Wikipedia:Administrators Noticeboard/Noticeboard Conflicts Noticeboard? I see an infinite regress setting in if we're not careful.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

No need. I'll be referee. --TS 20:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Jokes aside, the number of watchers isn't the only factor - it's also what the noticeboard deals with and how it is handling those types of disputes, be it in a particular case, or in general. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we need any rules on that. It's just anarchy, and overall it has been working quite well so far. Most editors have a good idea of what kind of consensus in what place has a chance of being overruled where, even though it's hard to make this explicit. If you take a dispute that has been decided at A to B, then the two most common reactions are that practically everybody agrees that it's an instance of forum shopping, or that everybody agrees the case should be revisited at either B or yet another place C. The ultimate arbiter is the crowd: Consensus can change, and if the crowd at ANI decides that the ECCN consensus needs to be changed, nobody can keep them from going there and changing it in place. So why not let them change it at ANI itself?

Petri Krohn has misjudged the situation. Although it's surprisingly rare, this can happen even to experienced editors. I certainly understand how it happened in this particular case. I think the obvious solution is this:

• Nobody should assume that a consensus at ECCN is justification for shortcutting other community processes (or that it can't be overruled by AN/ANI).
• Everybody who is interested in national conflicts should watch ECCN so as not to miss anything crucial and to make sure that as a general rule, any ECCN consensus is sufficiently sound that it will not be overruled elsewhere.
• Occasionally disputes should be referred from ANI to ECCN to remind everybody of its existence.
• In the unlikely event that these measures don't help, we should reconsider ECCN's continued existence. Hans Adler 11:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I moved this here from my user talk page [31] because I think the discussion may be of more general interest. --TS 18:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello TS. I saw your recent filing at AE. Neither of these editors has been officially warned about discretionary sanctions yet. Per this old version of your Notices page I see that you used to be the main person leaving CC notices. The only notice for a person I have seen anyone leave since the CC case was closed is this one for Ed Poor. That notice comes across as indicating misbehavior. Is there no way to provide a 'neutral' notice? In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change#Remedies I see there is still a notice requirement. Your old wording for the notices you left was fairly non-judgmental, and I hope a new notice can be developed in a similar vein. Are you willing to propose any wording for this? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The discretionary sanctions system has its own distinct methodology, and that means nobody gets a notice until there is problem behavior, and then the notice must be delivered by an uninvolved admin.

I did get involved in plastering notices all over during the probation, but even though the notices were fairly neutral the act of delivering the notice to an editor was quite Intimidating especially for new editors, so I stopped doing it. In retrospect I think it was an error. Tasty monster (=TS ) 07:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

In a recent AE case that I worked on several editors complained about getting Digwuren notices, even though they received no actual sanction. (They felt they had been tagged for something without any advance warning. The logical next step is a warning that you might get a warning..) I think it is a mistake to make these notices bear the double burden of (a) telling the person there is an Arbcom restriction, (b) warning them they could have done something wrong. I would prefer that the notices limit themselves to purpose (a). If there is any interest in changing the notice system, the beginning of a new sanction regime could be the opportunity to do so. (Then trying to get Arbcom to agree via WP:A/R/A I suppose). EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I do think it's better not to use any formal notices at all until there is problem behavior, and then to leave the task to a neutral admin. For the purpose of notification, I'm currently in the process of replacing all the old probation notices on article talk pages with equivalent general sanctions notices that point to the wording of the remedy in the arbitration final decision. For an example, check out the one at talk:global warming.

Now some editors have even complained that notices on article talk pages are intimidating, but I think they're necessary. If an editor seems to be acting in an overly aggressive way or is otherwise making it hard for other editors, a polite informal word or two can be left on his user talk page informing him of the sanctions and pointing at the talk page notice, and hopefully he won't take it amiss. Tasty monster (=TS ) 17:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for being willing to discuss this. But since I'm here, your post at WP:AE#Newcomers Rendahl and Poznan edit warring on climate change articles was actually at the enforcement page. Are you requesting an enforcement, and if so, what action do you suggest? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess I've dealt with your actual request, since I've notified them of the discretionary sanctions, and invited them to respond at AE. EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

A template warning for this also exists. For Climate Change, it would be {{subst:uw-sanctions|cc}}. NW (Talk) 19:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I am just curious, what's the time after which amendment/clarification requests are archived due to inactivity? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no specific time limit; generally, the requests are archived either after action is taken, or when it's become clear that no action is going to be taken. Also, when arbitrators or other editors make useful comments, we want to keep the discussion posted for a long enough period of time that anyone interested is going to see the comments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Preamble: This post is NOT about WMC, his case simply provides the example; this post is about AE block appeals in general. I post this preamble to answer in advance why (a) I didn't post to user talk:WGFinley (though I will post a link to here from there) and (b) this is not appealing (or whatever) on WMC's behalf. PLEASE can we keep this discussion on-topic, and not divert into a discussion of WMC. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 02:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I note the closure of the WMC appeal and the subsequent post from WGFinley to WMC's talk page: "There being no consensus of uninvolved administrators to overturn your block I have closed your AE appeal accordingly". I further note the relevant ArbCom motion which states that "a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI)" is required for reversing an AE block. I am wondering whether standard AE practice of having an uninvolved administrators section is effectively devaluing the input of uninvolved non-administrator editors in the consideration of appeals. Is evaluation of appeals regularly considering primarily or only the input of administraors? Further, the ArbCom motion specifically nominates WP:AN and WP:ANI as appropriate community discussion noticeboards for appeal of AE blocks, so is it appropriate that such block appeals tend to be re-directed to AE? Should the location of a block appeal be the choice of the blocked editor? Arbitrator comments on the 2010 motion (and earlier comment, IIRC) has been appreciative of the efforts of the administrators who work in AE, but has also noted that much of the community at large stays away from AE - consequently, I wonder whether the wording chosen in the motion indicates the desirability of having appeals brought before a wider audience than just the AE regulars. Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 02:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Also not commenting on the WMC appeal (to which the following doesn't wholly apply anyway) and thinking more of ARBPIA and ARBMAC appeals that I have seen -- there is a pattern for appeals by particular editors such that the same predictable groups of editors will offer opinions at appeals, condemning or condoning the appeal or sanction in partisan/nationalistic/ideological/whatever groups. The reason that comments in the uninvolved administrators' section appear to have greater weight has as much to do with the requirement that they are uninvolved as that they are administrators. A corollary of that is that comments by highly involved editors in other sections tend to be weighed with great caution. CIreland (talk) 02:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I saw in the WMC case an arbitrator move an uninvolved editor's comment out of the uninvolved administrator section. This is (of course) justifiable given the section heading, but could also be discounting that uninvolved editor's input. Perhaps appeals should have a section reserved for comment by uninvolved editors rather than uninvolved administrators, just for a start. By the way, I agree that in any appeal the comments / cheering from the involved of both sides should be weighted accordingly, and that uninvolved / non-partisan perspectives should be valued more highly. EdChem (talk) 03:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to revdel a repeated addition of personal information and am getting a permission denied / already applied error. When I check from my account (administrator) it shows as there, not revdel'ed. When I check as an IP there are no visible page history versions newer than August.

Am I confused, did I do something horribly wrong, ??

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I sent an email last week, when do you think I should start hearing something back? 96.50.86.207 (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

We try to respond to e-mails promptly. Since we only have your IP address above, I can't check whether your message was received or what its status is. I suggest that you send it again, noting that you already wrote once before. (Please do not give your username or real name here as this would compromise your privacy). Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I have added another user to the AE request on Littleolive oil with further difs. Is it okay in this format or should another AE be opened? Had ask here [32] prior. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not knowing exactly where to place this on the main page itself. Anyway, as per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava Rima restrictions#Ottava Rima - Conditions for return to editing, the editor in question would be allowed to return to editing upon completion of the one year ban and upon resolution of what restrictions, if any, the editor would be placed under subsequent to the end of the ban. It was indicated there that there might be some input from the community, and I would favor the possibility of such community input, if such is acceptable to the members of the ArbCom. John Carter (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The next chance for OR to appeal is about a month from now. The new committee will be reviewing any appeal and opening up discussion with the community as needed. SirFozzie (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I created this

• {{Arbcom clarification notice}}

It will be useful! All best! --WhiteWriter ^speaks 19:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

re: Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification

NB; this is now an *undo* request; see comment below; Jack Merridew 21:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Please note this is here via (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement)

Template talk:Sanction enforcement request#Admin only discussion section has ongoing discussion regarding the appropriateness of admin-only sections. Currently there is not wide engagment with the broader editting community. (I.e. I'm getting killed in the debate.) I'm placing this notice here to ensure that micro-local consensus reflects broader consensus, and to stimulate further discussion.
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I can search the archives of this talk page using the handy field at the top. I'd like to search the actual "Arbitration Requests for amendment". Can somebody implement a similar function please? Lightmouse (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I would just like to clarify that in my understanding pasting the {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}} to the previous section concerned with enforcement will produce all the relevant entries now seen in appeals headed by
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Koakhtzvigad, i.e.

Appealing user

User:Koakhtzvigad

Sanction being appealed In accordance with WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions, I am hereby banning you etc.

Administrator imposing the sanction

User:Sandstein? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 06:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is the right place for this observation, and it may have been discussed elsewhere before, but what this is not is a request for action or enforcement at the article I'm going to use as an example, as it appears that the edit war there may have ceased for the time being and the disputants may be at least somewhat open to WP:DR.

I want to question the wisdom of using 1RR for everyone editing at an article or in a subject matter such as has been done at WP:ARBPIA, at least not without an addition which says that what is really restricted is edit warring, broadly construed. That is, for example, I think the first and third bullet point of {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}} ought to read:

• All articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed are under a no–edit–warring and WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period) restriction. Edit warring is prohibited even if the 1RR restriction is not violated. When in doubt, assume it is related.

• Editors who violate the no edit warring or 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

It appears to me, on admittedly scant evidence, is that the 1RR restriction on an entire article merely encourages tit–for–tat edit warring with reverts, in effect, 24 hours and 1 second apart. (I don't think the same is necessarily true when individual editors are restricted, though I can see it happening in some cases there, too.) For an example see Refaat Al-Gammal. With the restrictions written the way they are, edit warring of this nature can only be taken to the usual edit warring channels, rather than be immediately sanctioned.

FWIW and best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I now see that the problem, at least as far as WP:ARBPIA is concerned, isn't with the sanction but with the {{Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement}}, which I have now amended. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding arbitration case "Noleander": should I add a statement now? Or is the case in an "accept or not" phase, and I should wait until it is formally accepted? I read the arbitration instructions, and it sounds like there will be an Evidence subpage created, and maybe I should wait for that to get created and put my statement there? (Apologies if this is a bone-headed question, but I've never participated in an arbitration before). --Noleander (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak for the arbs, of course, but I think you basically got it right: this is currently just an "accept or not" phase; it's now clearly headed towards acceptance, so unless you wish to make a last-minute plea that they shouldn't open a case at all, there's no pressing need to make a statement right now. Your statements and evidence on the merits of the case itself will have a place once the case gets opened. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I'll just wait then. Thanks! --Noleander (talk) 22:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Barring objections in the AN thread today, tonight I am going to place an additional Obama-related discretionary sanction on an editor, which among other things limits his appeals of his existing topic ban to one per year (due to repeated near-identical "IDIDNTHEARTHAT" appeals at AN every few months). To avoid a Catch-22, I guess there should probably be a route for him to appeal the limitation on his ability to appeal, at least once. Where should I direct him if he chooses to do that (which I am fairly certain he will)? AE? BASC? or is that only for site-wide bans? I'm assuming lack of objection at an AN thread doesn't give me the power to silence someone with no recourse... --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

He can always appeal directly to the Committee; while rarely used, that option always remains available for anything stemming from discretionary sanctions. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, Kirill's got it. Usually anything done under discretionary sanctions can be appealed first to AE and then through a Request for Amendment at ArbCom. Shell ^babelfish 15:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thirded. Appeal to ArbCom remains always open unless specifically limited by the committee itself — and even then we only limit the rate at which appeals can be made or repeated. — Coren ^(talk) 16:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Since (IMHO) the AN thread is equivalent to an AE thread, I'll skip AE and point him toward Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment to contest the limitation on unban requests. Unless, while you're here, any of you think such a limitation imposed as a discretionary sanction by an admin is inherently a bad idea, in which case I'll save a step and not do it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it is (a bad idea). Relitigating the same thing over and over is a drain on resources and time, and can be disruptive. As long as it's not overused and that the interval is reasonable. — Coren ^(talk) 16:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe I have violated 1RR at Allar, Jerusalem by moving the page back to its original title twice in 24 hours. Should I undo my last page move? Advice would be appreciated. Tiamut^talk 08:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The first move took place on 8:07 12 April and the second on 8:12 the 13th. So it looks to me as if it isn't a 1RR violation. Gatoclass (talk) 11:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Face palm. Let's say I had violated 1RR ... would it be best to move it back to where it was immediately? Or is a page move somehow different (in terms of the mess it makes)? i just wanted to minimize mess. Tiamut^talk 17:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I would probably move it back because there are people who will take advantage of any mistake. The alternative would be to apologize on the article talk page, and explain why you haven't self-reverted. That at least would make it harder to sanction you since you had already acknowledged your error - but then some admins might think that is not enough. Gatoclass (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. If I should find myself in the same situation in the future, I will immediately move the page back. Take care, Tiamut^talk 06:13, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

On and off in my spare time I've been attempting to draft a new "lightweight" dispute resolution process for contentious topic areas designed in part to help relieve the burden on AE admins and on DR processes in general. Right now, almost every process we have is like a sledgehammer to crack a nut, with endless reams of discussion being generated for what is often no more than a disputed diff or two. I think the project is in desperate need of a simpler method of dealing with day-to-day problems that arise in contentious topic areas.

Because it's obviously difficult to see possible flaws in one's own ideas, I am at this point inviting comment on my draft proposal in hopes of getting some useful feedback. I'm particularly interested in feedback from current or former admins active at AE, of course, but anyone is welcome to leave a comment.

The draft process can be read here, and comments can be left at the associated talk page, here. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I have a question about procedure: according to arbitration policy, four net accept votes, or accept votes from an "absolute majority" of arbitrators, are required to open a case. What does "absolute majority" mean here (the linked article isn't clear):

Majority of all arbs, active and inactive? (currently 10 votes needed)

Majority of all active arbs? (currently 8 votes needed)

Majority of all active arbs that aren't recused on that particular case?

Something else?

Thanks, TotientDragooned (talk) 22:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Door number 3. (Majority of all active arbs that aren't recused on that particular case) — Coren ^(talk) 00:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:AC/PR#Calculation of votes. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree that that wording could be clearer, though; in most voting contexts "absolute majority" does mean "50% of those qualified to participate", not "50% of the turnout". – iridescent 00:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I was looking at "Arbitration Policy" and didn't think to check "Rules and Procedures." TotientDragooned (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, just to clarify: to open a case, there must be 4 net accept votes, not an absolute majority. See Wikipedia:AC/PR#Opening_of_proceedings. Risker (talk) 03:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Wait... Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Requests specifically lists "absolute majority" as an alternative to 4 net accept votes. Has it been superceded? TotientDragooned (talk) 04:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as the link I provided was approved and posted just over a month ago. Risker (talk) 04:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

(I am not sure if this is the right place to ask this - point me in the right direction if not) All articles in the Palestine-Israel conflict space are currently under a 1-revert per day restriction. There's an article - The Sergeants affair - that deals with events in 1947 (hanging of 2 British mandate soldiers by Irgun) which to me is obviously within the scope of the restriction. An editor has claimed that because Israel only declared independence in 1948, that article is not subject to the restriction (and by implication, neither do any articles that deal with events prior to May 1948). I think that can't be right, but perhaps I'm mistaken, so I think some clarification is needed. Red Stone Arsenal (talk) 15:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I actually stated that it happened before Israel was founded and it was between the Jews and the British, it had nothing to do with any Arabs. Owain the 1st (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Noting for the record that I privately referred the user to a more appropriate forum, which is Wikipedia:AE. AGK [•] 11:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I have posted a request here to Shell Kinney to recuse from the Political activism RfAr filed by Coren, including from any discussion on the ArbCom mailing list as to whether it should be accepted. Could a Committee member advise whether there is a procedure I ought to follow to request recusal? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This is covered by the freshly ratified Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Recusal of arbitrators. –xeno^talk 19:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that's helpful. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• Having reviewed the thread in question, Shell was engaged specifically as a member of the Arbitration Committee; and per Wikipedia:AP#Recusal of arbitrators, "Previous ... arbitrator interactions are not usually grounds for recusal."

  Further, from my read of the forwarded email thread, it does not appear to me that Shell was acting "in support of Cirt and not as a neutral party"; she seemed to be merely seeking substantiations or clarifications on particular claims put forth in the emails. This is not unreasonable, and is something a neutral party ought to do to assist the parties in clearly communicating and elucidating their concerns, to ensure they are understood; and further, to try and guide the communication towards a mutually-agreeable resolution. Quite the opposite, a party would not be neutral if they accepted the claims or one side as accomplished fact without asking them to back them up with well-delineated examples. In this case, Shell prompted both parties to provide evidence for their claims.

  SlimVirgin has asked Shell Kinney to recuse, as suggested by the section of the arbitration policy linked above. As Shell has declined to recuse, SlimVirgin may now "refer the request to the Committee for a ruling" if she desires. –xeno^talk 17:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC) (cross-posted from User talk:Shell Kinney)

I'm posting below something I posted on Shell's talk page, in response to Xeno saying he had read the email exchange and found nothing that would require Shell to recuse.

When this email exchange with Shell occurred, I assumed the situation was attributable to an uninformed Committee member who weighed in aggressively without having read the evidence or emails carefully. That happens to the best of us, so I was willing to be privately disgusted then drop it.

But if the ArbCom as a whole is saying the exchange presents no grounds for Shell's recusal, and insufficient concern about Cirt's editing to proceed with a case (two separate issues), then I'm almost speechless. Both Shell and I forwarded copies of the correspondence to the Committee. In my version, I summarized the key issues at the top. If that summary didn't sink in, we have a serious problem here.

What I would ask now is for someone from the Commitee to explain to me, by email, why this issue is not regarded as (a) important enough to proceed with the case; and (b) important enough to require Shell's recusal from it. If they can persuade me that my view of this is wrong, and I am open to persuasion, I'll drop it. Otherwise, I would like a sanity check from uninvolved people. I would like to find an appeals mechanism, perhaps using stewards from another wiki who would agree to read the exchange, so that any appeal does not involve current Committee members. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

In the past, appeals of ArbCom decisions have gone to Jimmy Wales. I know he's stepped back from some responsibilities, but it looks like he still has some involvement in appeals. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Appeal_of_decisions   Will Beback  talk  22:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

My statement should not be taken as the opinion of the committee "as a whole", as it is just the opinion of one arbitrator. As I stated above, you are free to request a ruling from the committee en banc. (I have not taken a position on the matter of Cirt's editing.) –xeno^talk 22:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It would have been better for you not to make a public statement about the correspondence. Shell and I discussed it onwiki, then sent it privately to ArbCom for further review. That was the end of the comments in public, as I understood it.

For individual ArbCom members to come out now with statements about it means that further responses rebutting those statements will prove necessary, because in my view what you have said is quite false; in fact, ridiculous. So it's not a good road to go down, and it's becoming clear that uninvolved sanity checks would be helpful. The question is how to obtain them. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

So you are suggesting that your claims made in public about Shell's participation in the email thread should be allowed to stand without being addressed publicly?

You cannot seek official participation of arbitrators and then later claim that same official participation makes them 'involved' and then suggest they can no longer act as arbitrators on the matter. –xeno^talk 23:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Shell and I discussed it onwiki, and we each expressed a view. The last thing that's needed is for a second Arb to chime in, when I'm unable to explain what I think the key issue is, as you well know.

Also, as you know, I did not seek official participation of arbitrators. On June 6, six days before the RfAr was filed by someone else, I asked Cirt to discuss my concerns. I asked Cirt to choose a third party, either an Arb or a functionary, as a witness to avoid misunderstandings. Cirt chose Shell.

Nothing else happened, Shell was not around, Cirt said his family members were in surgery (as he also said onwiki), and I stopped replying on June 6, that same day. It was over as far as I was concerned. Coren filed an RfAr on June 12. Shell then revived the dead email correspondence that day, within one hour of declining the case.

I have emailed the ArbCom to request Shell's recusal, and I ended that email by asking that Arbs not continue to discuss this email exchange in public. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Gacurr has entitled their statement section "Statement by (mostly uninvolved) Gacurr". Aside from questioning another user about their name, their entire edit history is related to this one article. They appear to have created the account on 6 June 2011 solely for the purpose of editing the article and participating in discussions about the article. The section heading seems misleading and inappropriate. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I am of the view that nothing is acceptable in a section header on RFAR except 'Statement by Foo' or 'Comment by Foo'. Permitting users to name their sections whatever they want results in confusion (and ugliness). AGK [•] 10:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I have see a small benefit in everyone using "party", "involved", and "uninvolved", but not everyone does this so the result is useless. I agree that it can be confusing and ugly, so would support removing them altogether. Another approach would be to have three sub-sections: statements by parties, comments by others involved, and comments by uninvolved people. Or just two: parties and others involved, and uninvolved. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I am mostly uninvolved with the matter that Coren notified the template and talk pages about. Gacurr (talk) 14:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe I am correct. You can read the notices yourself. Gacurr (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I knew this was a can of worms, but I hadn't realized this was the Bottomless Can of Atomic Worms (of DOOM!) Sorry to plop this on your laps. — Coren ^(talk) 02:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Considering that the former Senator intends to be a candidate in the quickly approaching election year, and the volume of text already at hand, I suspect it would have found it's way here sooner or later. :) — Ched :  ?  02:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding WP:DIGWUREN (Wikipedia:General_sanctions), would it be applicable to an editor who at a policy page (applicable to EE articles but also others) makes bad faith / incivil remarks regarding EE editors (for example, discussing the bias of "Slavic editors", identifying votes of editors as "X comes from a Slavic country", linking expired ARBCOM cases to back the claim that "many Slavic editors are biased, as the XYZ case proves", and so on. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

RE: The Nabla request; In Part "A" of the Alternate Motion, I noticed the wording as: "While administrators are not expected to be perfect, severe or repeated violations of policies and community norms may lead to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping". It caught my eye due to Risker's sage advice that all admin's make note of it. What I was wondering was, and note that I was strongly in favor of not desysop in this case, .. the question comes to mind that "block" would be stronger than "desysop". That is to say:

• While administrators are not expected to be perfect, severe or repeated violations of policies and community norms may lead to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping and/or blocking.

I only say this because I recall that on a very rare occasion or two, an administrator's account was found to be compromised. I believe someone other than the original editor came into the knowledge of how to log on as that admin. I know it's really, really nit-picking ... but hey, how often does anyone get a chance to point out a possible better wording up here. :) .. cheers and best to all. — Ched :  ?  04:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the and/or. In this case a block now would be punitive rather than preventative, and I don't think anyone is arguing for a block. I'm fairly sure that everyone would be happy for Nabla to continue editing, ideally logged in, it's just that some editors would rather that Nabla lost the mop. However there have been other occasions when admin accounts have needed to be blocked, but we would be happy to have them continue as admins once the reason for the block is resolved. ϢereSpielChequers 15:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Yea, I guess it's all a matter of perspective on the comparison. I was thinking in the strictest sense of editing, where you can still edit w/o the bit, ... although I can understand the "power" behind a desysop too. It was just a passing thought, and too good to pass up. :) — Ched :  ?  21:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Is John Vandenberg accepting Cults, or conditionally accepting a different arbitration? His is counted as an 'accept' in the heading, but is that clearly what he is saying? Jd2718 (talk) 02:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a general question - if there is a better place to post this I'd be happy to move it.

While the ArbCom naturally takes a flexible approach to such issues, it's my impression that evidence more than one year old is considered stale. The committee is concerned with resolving ongoing, current problems rather than older transgressions. Further, evidence that has already been presented in previous ArbCom cases has probably been considered and addressed, and so is not necessary to review again. Of course, extraordinary issues can require IAR approaches, but is this roughly correct as a guide for editors assembling evidence?   Will Beback  talk  21:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Roughly. I wouldn't say it's not useful in all cases (for example, it would be useful in showing a repeated pattern of behavior), but the evidence has to be somehow related to current events SirFozzie (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe the arbitrators are intelligent enough to decide which evidence is relevant and which isn't, within the scope they define for the case. If an editor has been active for years in a certain topic area and there are questions around that editor's treatment of that topic area, then I think it would be helpful to show the entire history of the editor's related behavior. Cla68 (talk) 01:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It sounds then like past findings of inability to work with other editors, POV pushing, and topic bans could be relevant to cases where similar problems are alleged. And that behavior on topics editors have spent the majority of their time as starting editors could be relevant to explain behaviors and POVs on related articles.   Will Beback  talk  01:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Evidence more than a certain time old (whether it be a few months or a year or whatever) is generally too stale for us to act on (just as it would be too stale for, say, a community discussion on AN to act on) unless the problems revealed in the evidence are exceptionally severe, or unless the evidence ties into more recent problems. For example, evidence that User:A engaged in Bad Behavior X two years ago would usually be unimportant if User:A has behaved well since then; on the other hand, if there is an allegation that User:A did X yesterday, evidence that he has been doing the same thing for a long time could well make a difference. This is more or less handled on a common-sense basis. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Born2cycle (talk · contribs) quotes a phrase out of the Article titles policy that he added about 18 hours before he quoted his addition in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Born2cycle.27s_response_to_Newyorkbrad. I saw the change at the time and thought it a little odd, but I don't feel strongly about it one way or another (and thus have not reverted it). However, it is IMO not the best practice to make a significant change to a policy and then quote it as if it had always been part of the policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow... that looks like a very dodgy practice to me, given that it's a cornerstone of Born2cycle's argument. It did not follow any discussion on the policy talkpage about "not compromising", so it was clearly his own doing. This looks like an attempt to misdirect ARBCOM.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but I would never do that. Please identify the phrase you believe I quoted that came from the edit I made earlier. Also note that the edit I made simply made notice in that spot about something said elsewhere in the policy. That is, it was a clarifying edit, not a changing edit. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, if you ever have an issue with what someone did, you might want to bring it up on their talk page first to make sure you're not overlooking or misunderstanding something. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The only phrase I quoted out of the Articles policy was "do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view". That came straight from the WP:TITLECHANGES section and I had nothing to do with inserting, and have no idea how long it has been in there, except that it is in this version from May 2010. The section I edited (for clarification) was WP:NDESC. I can see why WhatamIdoing misunderstood, because the phrase I added echoed, with a slight rewording due to sentence/paragraph structure differences, that statement from WP:TITLECHANGES. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:NDESC has been cited in the mediation, and the ARBCOM ruling to which Stephen Zhang refers relates to NDESC. WP:AT is one of the policies at the heart of this discussion and you quite simply should have left it untouched while you were in a dispute over its interpretation. You announced your change neither on the talkpage there, nor here, nor to anyone, despite having several discussion with regard to WP:AT. It's pretty shoddy.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I copy-paraphrased a statement from one section into another - it was a clarification, not a change. I did not quote it. When I make edits that are clarifications but might even just appear to be changes, my practice is to bring them up on the talk page first. But no, I don't make notifications about every clarifying minor change I make, and I don't know of anyone who does. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

B2c, jumping to conclusions (not to mention ABFing) is the only exercise some people get; so let sonofarabbit Krolikov get his exercise. --Kenatipo ^speak! 05:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what is "shoddy" about what I did. I mean, if I had quoted something I just put in the previous day, that would definitely be bad (not to mention stupid). But I didn't do that. I just made a minor edit. We have the complete history of the policy. We can easily get to any version we want, we can easily see who made what changes. There are no secrets. What's the concern? That someone might sneak a change in WP:AT that nobody will notice, and will affect the outcome of the ongoing case? WP:AT? Really? What's shoddy? --Born2cycle (talk) 06:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It is clear from the policy talkpage that other editors in the discussions there are also not happy with what you have done ("not an OK tactic", "unacceptable"). It is not a matter of the policy text changing - it is you changing it when it is the subject of a dispute, particularly when in that dispute reference is made to an ARBCOM decision that interpreted the meaning of NDESC in a different way. You could and should have asked someone else to make the changes for you.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't get it. I mean, I get that others are unhappy. But I don't know what they mean by "not an OK tactic". What tactic? what is "unacceptable"? Tactic means something planned to achieve a specific end. I did nothing like that, at least nothing with respect to any disputes I'm currently involved in (of course there was a specific end - to improve the encyclopedia).

If you can't explain what is substantively wrong or "unacceptable" or "not an OK tactic" with the specific changes I made, then you must be talking about appearances, and I couldn't care less about that. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

copied from B2c's talk page:

Born2cycle, the timing of your work on "Article Titles" is bad (yes, the reason you give for it is valid), and the appearance it gives is bad, especially to those who are unwilling to AGF or even review it to understand your edit. Would it help if you "admitted" at least that much? I understand your edit was only a clarification and that you only quoted from the prior version of the policy, but others will not assume good faith. --Kenatipo ^speak! 14:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

VsevolodKrolikov, a quick look at the history of the Article Titles policy shows that Born2cycle has been editing it literally for YEARS (August 13, 2006) (that explains why he knows a lot more about it than you or I). I think you are showing a failure to AGF here. --Kenatipo ^speak! 15:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Born2cycle is one of the most active editors at AT. I thought about mentioning that, because IMO this sort of thing is somewhat less objectionable in the people most active in improving a policy (at least when the stakes are smaller). We sort of expect such people to take the lead in fixing problems—although it's still IMO poor form when dealing with something as significant as an ArbCom case.

However, I decided not to, primarily because it's my (unproven) impression that Born2cycle is likely to be the most-reverted editor at AT. A person who is reverted as often as Born2cycle should probably be more cautious about making undiscussed changes that are even tangentially related to an ArbCom request, not less. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Than you for your advice to me. Now here's mine to you: WP:AGF.

I accept that I'm controversial - I believe this is because I pursue (mostly, by far, by trying to persuade others in discussion) what I believe best improves the encyclopedia, often with little regard to the popularity of whatever it is I'm advocating. For an active example see Talk:Climategate. As a result, I'm perhaps not as well liked as I might be if I wasn't so. C'est la vie. Another ramification of may approach is that when I do make edits, they are probably scrutinized more critically than they would be otherwise, and I'm reverted more often than I would be otherwise.

If you look at the recent reverts of my edits at WP:AT you'll see something very typical. I made an edit, someone reverts because, as far as I can tell, it was me that made the edit, I request for an explanation on the talk page, and there is none. Another example is when I propose a change on the talk page, someone objects to the proposed change with an objection to existing wording that isn't affected by the proposal, rather than to the wording I'm proposing to change [33]. When I point this out do they retract their objection to the proposal since their supposed reason to object is irrelevant? Of course not. So, yeah, I too would not be surprised to learn that I'm the most reverted editor at WP:AT. But if you want to hold that against me too, whatever. I do what I can. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not a matter of assuming that you are acting in good faith: I have never seen you do anything, on any page, that you did not appear to sincerely believe was an important improvement. Good faith isn't enough. When you know that your changes are commonly disputed, and you are commenting on an issue before ArbCom, then making disputable, related changes without discussion causes more problems than it could possibly solve. Since I assume in good faith that you're not trying to cause any problems, then I encourage you to stop the behavior that is causing needless problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

This change was also made, which might have had an impact on people's reading of NPOV.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

If we had to stop editing any policy which could influence some case under review, we'd hardly ever be able to edit any policy. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a case that you are directly involved in, and it's a part of that policy that is being examined here and was considered in the mediation - namely the appropriateness of having neutral descriptions for articles in place of a name, and it was an edit that clearly favoured your interpretation of policy. It also followed no discussion on the talkpage. I understand, despite various editors explaining to you why they see it is problematic, that you don't accept that it is in any way a problem. I am stating the problem for others to read and make up their own minds.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

In Sir Fozzie's statement about considering the case, xe asks "to see statements about how much of this dispute is conduct, and how much of the dispute is content." I'm already right near 500 words in my statement; would it be appropriate to answer that question here, instead? Also, Sir Fozzie, are you looking for a few well chosen diffs? Or sections of talk page? My temptation, of course is to say, "Look at Talk:Senkaku Islands and Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute and related archives", but I presume you'd like something more compact that that, at least at this point. A possible starting point is the links in the fourth paragraph of my statement, though those, of course, show isolated instances rather than a broad pattern. I just want a feel for how much info you want now versus during the actual (if accepted) case. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It should be fine (and probably ideal) to answer (or ask for clarifications about the) question in your section as the case talk page even if you've already at your limit for your initial statement. –xeno^talk 06:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression that any transgression of the rules defined by Wikipedia's principles and guidelines at an ARBPIA page is by definition an ARBPIA violation. But even more minimally: I/P-banned editors are allowed to edit I/P articles as long as their edits don't involve the conflict in any way, correct? In other words, an I/P-banned editor wouldn't be allowed to remove content from an I/P BLP where that content has implications vis-a-vis the conflict; and similarly, an I/P-banned editor wouldn't be allowed to reference an anti-Zionist advocacy site, because anti-Zionism is a feature of the I/P conflict. I'm only inquiring as to the scope of the discretionary sanctions, not soliciting comment on any of the specific incidents currently being debated at AE.—Biosketch (talk) 07:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't even bother, BS. The ratio at AE of ARBPIA v other topics is silly. Don't try to see any precedent. To try to see any consistency. WP:ARBPIA AE should be its own page. It isn't. The same admins making the same mistakes and the same editors spouting off. ARBPIA3 is the only solution, and if admins really are sick of it (they aren't since they enjoy the drama) then we will see sweeping topic bans. Instead we see people coming back. Instead we see it getting even more entrenched. My advice: Don't ever file an AE. Let people like me do it since we are already blacklisted. And if you want some more advise (I assume you don't but feel like venting): Go write an essay (WP:VIDEOLINK gets some decent traffic) or edit an article that is completely unrelated (SOUNDERS!!!). Do it now so that you can be an admin someday without having to juggle IPs. Cptnono (talk) 03:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You just love calling me BS, don't you. Seriously, though, ARBPIA3 is a capital idea. Getting rid of all the ax-grinding SPAs who do nothing but disrupt the topic area should be the first order of business. Then confront the editors whose User pages read like political activists' blogs.

I don't know if it's fair to expect more from the Admins here than what they're doing now – fact is, AE does get the job done better than ANI or the other Noticeboards, which have no teeth and are indeed more about generating drama than anything else. WP:VIDEOLINK – yeah, I actually referred someone to that essay a while back and was impressed to see you were the persona behind it. One essay that would be particularly useful would be WP:LEADFOREIGN, to try and establish a universal formula for the inclusion and order of foreign names in the lead. Other than that, though, becoming an Admin? Why would any sane person want that burden on top of everything else there is to deal with here?—Biosketch (talk) 07:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Late edit: strikeout.—Biosketch (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, these may be slightly ignorant but at least to me they make sense, so some help would be appreciated:

1. Why does the talk page of WP:AE redirect to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests? Arb Enforcement and Arb Requests are 2 different things and so shouldn't they have their own talk pages?
2. I remember seeing it before, but where exactly is the WP:AE file-a-report template? Does it have its own talk page or does it also redirect here?
3. While I'm perfectly fine with this [36] can someone point me to where either the ArbCom or the community (or, hell, Jimbo) mandates a separate section for "cool kids only" (i.e. admins)? There's no such thing at any similar board. No such thing at ANI where both administrators and regular users get to discuss things together. No separate section for admins at AfD. No separate section for admins at ArbCom Case/Evidence or ArbCom Case/Workshop pages. Actually I can't think of any other place on Wikipedia which sets up these little separate ghettos for the patricians and plebs. Here it just looks like an attempt to marginalize non-admin opinions. Of course, at the end of the day, only admins can implement sanctions/blocks/bans, but I've never seen anything anywhere which backs this kind of segregation up. Never seen an RfC or any kind of discussion about it either. Looks like "admin power grab" + "tyranny of status quo".

Cheers. Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the best person to answer these questions, since arbitrators aren't usually very active on AE, but maybe I'm the first one to see to some of them, so—:

(1) The talkpage of WP:AE redirects here because the pages were reorganized awhile ago so that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarifications, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendments, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions, and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, were all compiled together as the master page Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests, which superseded Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. (Relative old-timers like me still type in WP:RfAr when we want to check in on what's going on on the main arbitration page.) In one way, it fits that enforcement appears on the same page as the main arbitration requests page; in another way, it doesn't fit at all, since requests for cases, etc. are addressed to the arbitrators and requests for enforcement aren't. In any event, the reason the enforcement talkpage redirects to the requests talkpage is that the former is currently a subpage of the latter.

(3) I don't recall exactly who made that decision and when (it wasn't the arbitrators, I don't believe), but I recall that the change in formatting was discussed at the time, and I believe it grew out of a perception that comments from involved parties were making it difficult for administrators to have a useful discussion on each request and arrive at a conclusion. Query whether an AE discussion is more akin to an AN/ANI discussion (in which non-admins are welcome to participate), or an arbitration decision (in which there is plenty of opportunity for non-arbitrators to comment in various places, but the final discussion on /Proposed decision is limited to the arbs).

Thanks for your interest—and thanks again for your voter guide, which was definitely a highlight of the last election. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks (though I actually would like to hear from AE admin regulars on this). Also, I've been plotting a new one... unfortunately it's hard to tell the same joke twice.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I look forward to that, as well as to your continued serious input on the arbitration and arbitration enforcement processes. As for the AE admins, hopefully most of them have this page watchlisted, in spite of the issue raised by your question 1; if you don't get an answer from them in a few days, we can try to figure out where else you might raise your questions so they will see them (and I guess the fact of them not seeing them will also help prove your point). Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

(2) Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/preload

• As an FYI, we've redirected most of the pages in the Wikipedia talk:Arbitration space here, to funnel discussions and improve response time. Because it is actually the moved WT:RfAr page Brad mentions above, it has the most watchers out of any of the other pages and was the obvious choice for the target (some of the other venues were watched in very low numbers). The other main venues are WT:AC and WT:ACN. –xeno^talk 02:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

".../preload"? Jeepers, that's, um, a non-obvious name. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Not to techies =). It's the technical term for what it does (preload the edit box for you): en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&section=new&preload=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/preload&action=edit

This is dated to April of this year [37], but the template predates that by a long time, and in fact, there were some discussions about it previously that I'd like to look over. What was it at before then? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems to silicon date to March 2009. Compare to AE on 28 Feb 2009. There are previous discussion on this subject at Template talk:Sanction enforcement request, but that page is watched by less than 30 people and it would be better if any discussion occurred here. –xeno^talk 03:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, that's what I was looking for.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've looked at this some more and I am still confused. The template for filing AE request is supposedly here: [38]. I made some changes there. Best as I can tell, this has had no effect what so ever on what actually appears at the AE page. Is it this page that needs to be changed? Why are there two of them? Which one is the "real" page? Why is half of the /preload page unavailable for editing (and where is the part that is nonavailable?) What is going on here? Where are the talk pages for these things? This seems to be all over place and nobody has a clue what's going on.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)