Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Original announcement

I'd like to thank the Committee for considering and approving this amendment. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Original announcement

• Sad to see her go. I may not have always agreed with Iridescent, but she is without a doubt one of the smartest Wikipedians I've ever come across. Master&Expert (Talk) 10:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Shame, Iridescent was espically insightful. Can only hope there are good reasons for her absence. Ceoil (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
• We've certainly missed Iridescent's voice in the past few months. We understand that real life circumstances have to take priority, but that doesn't mean we stopped valuing Iridescent's opinions. I for one wish Iridescent well in all future endeavours. Risker (talk) 02:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
• I am really, really sorry to hear this. She(?) was one arb who never lost the plot. The good news is that her(?) priorities are well-ordered; real life takes precedence. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
• Could someone with a better memory than I tell me if Chase Me's asbsence was as long as Iridescent's? I'm not saying that Chase Me should have been kicked, quite the opposite, I think that Iridescent only got kicked because the elections are in progress. It irks me, even though I can marginally rationalize it. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
• On the one hand the length of Iridescent's absence is on the short end of what I would normally consider removable inactivity, but on the other an opportunity to replace arbs only comes once a year. Assuming that she was given a reasonable chance to respond to queries, a week or so and not just a couple of days, this is the right thing to do. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
• To be honest, I don't think that arbs who are currently up for re-election should have been allowed to vote on this resolution. Jenks24 (talk) 06:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• To answer a few questions related to this, the arbitration policy that included (for the first time) provisions for removing arbitrators for various reasons was ratified effective 13 June 2011. The policy went through many drafts, and consideration of including such a provision was in many of these drafts, dating all the way back to late 2008. Chase Me was absent for an extended period in early 2011, but returned to active participation about two weeks after the policy was ratified; thus, there was no motion to remove him from the Committee for inactivity. In Iridescent's case, despite a few edits to their user talk page, they have been essentially inactive in arbitration matters onwiki since June. Multiple efforts to contact Iridescent using every means that fellow committee members had at their disposal did not receive a response.

  As noted, the arbitration policy provides a means for removing an arbitrator who cannot "[p]articipate conscientiously in the Committee's activities and deliberations", but it requires a "Committee resolution supported by two-thirds of arbitrators". Note that there is no built-in opportunity for committee members to recuse or claim "inactive status" for such a vote. An oversight, perhaps. Nonetheless, the vote was in accord with existing and recently ratified policy. Risker (talk) 06:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• Considering that the decision was near unanimous, any idea that it was tactical is fanciful. My first reaction was, "eh? ye've removed an elected member ", but when I saw some of the names that voted in favour I was reassured. I know that there was unhappiness about inactive arbs a few years ago, and this is a factet of the reforms we have all been asking for for so long. Such a shame that it's Iridescent though, given she is so widely respected and so well endowed with clue. We are loosing good people all the time and it can be hard to take. Ceoil (talk) 14:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, I can certainly assure everyone that Iridescent's performance as an arb was certainly appreciated, and that it's with regret we felt the need to make certain the seat was available before the elections rather than leave a committee that is already reduced with an empty seat.

    I don't think I breach any confidence when I assure everyone that Iri's inactivity was not entirely unforeseen and a consequence of other (positive) aspects of their life taking priority. — Coren ^(talk) 21:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) As will be seen from the vote, I concurred in the action that was taken; I don't think I will surprise anyone, though, in saying that I and the other arbitrators all hated to do it. Despite some disagreements between us (anyone interested can look at Iridescent's and my candidate questions pages last year for the background), I have the highest regard for Iridescent's level of cluefulness and insight into how Wikipedia works and how it should work. The quality of Iridescent's contributions to the Committee's discussions, when he was able to make them, was consistently superior.

Unfortunately, Iridescent's real-world commitments were such that his opportunities to make these contributions was minimal. In addition to the recent several months of inactivity, Iridescent was largely inactive for the first few months of the year as well; and although I haven't gone back and checked, I believe he only voted on two or three of the Committee's final decisions all year. I happen to believe that Iridescent himself would be the first to admit that this is not what he had in mind when he ran to be an arbitrator last year.

I hope that Iridescent will soon be able to return to editing Wikipedia, on whatever time schedule and at whatever level of commitment is right for him given his other commitments and responsibilities.

With regard to whether the arbitrators who are or may be candidates for reelection should have voted on this matter, I understand the theoretical concern that has been raised, but I do not believe their recusal was required or warranted. No reasonable observer would believe that these arbitrators, in deciding to declare this vacancy, were motivated by self-interest rather than regard for the best interests of the Committee, the community, and the encyclopedia.

Also, for the record—this is not the first time an elected arbitrator was removed from the Committee for inactivity; I believe previous examples include Flcelloguy and Filiocht. The current policy permits removal by vote of the Committee; the previous removals were simply directed by Jimbo Wales, although neither was controversial given the level of inactivity. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I really don't understand why it is that ArbCom finds it acceptable to treat the rest of us like idiots. The timing of Iridescent's disappearance stinks. 22:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malleus Fatuorum (talk • contribs)

The recent RfC reduced the maximum number of arbitrators to 15, and this announcement came just before nominations opened for this year's elections; is it not entirely plausible that the Committee wanted to ensure that it started the new year at full strength rather than have diminished numbers compounded by inactivity that did not look like being ameliorated any time soon? Mind you, this wouldn't be the first time Wikipedians peculiar cognitive bias against humdrum or nonconspiratorial explanations manifested itself. Skomorokh 22:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You're talking about something else; I'm talking about the timing of Iridescent's disappearance. Try to keep up. Malleus Fatuorum 22:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I am quite sure I speak for the entire committee when I say that we would all have rather had Iridescent back active than need to have exercised the removal option. Jclemens (talk) 03:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Wait hold on Malleus. What are you complaining about? Iridescent's "disappearance?" The Committee's response? Is it to fast, or too slow? Too big or too small? Not transparent enough, or too overwrought in explanation? What exactly is it that you're complaining about in particular, or are you just complaining? Inquiring minds want to know.--Tznkai (talk) 04:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

This discussion might clarify what Malleus is saying. Looie496 (talk) 07:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Malleus let me be blunt - I believe you are well and truly barking up the wrong tree. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

To echo, Cas, Malleus: there's no reason for the timing except the obvious. We had been trying to contact Iri off and on for a long period; the elections simply forced us to act a little bit quicker, per reasons Skomorokh highlights. This isn't related to the leaks, or anything else other than simple activity levels. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

It's really quite nice to see that it is possible to turn any arbcom announcement into a conspiracy theory about something else. --Conti|✉ 14:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

We haven't buried Iridescent under the patio, honest.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

On the one hand, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And I think this is one of those times. On the other hand, there's plenty of past experience (e.g., the Purloined Letters) showing that statements by arbitrators may require a certain discount from face value. So I can see the basis for Malleus's skepticism, though I believe he has pressed the point far enough. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Returning to the point about other arbs being inactive for long periods of time, what are the criteria used by the active arbitrators to initiate a removal motion? It would be useful when judging arbitrators on their records (including any standing for re-election) whether they had to be contacted about activity levels. At the least, I would expect any arbs standing for re-election to explain periods of absence and whether they were organised enough to inform their colleagues of such absences, or whether they went AWOL and had to be chased up by other arbs and politely asked when they intended to return to activity. I know from when I was on the committee that the latter happened far too often (the returns would be accompanied by profuse apologies, but the same thing would happen again the next time). Has that changed or not? Essentially, I'm looking for a way to judge arbitrators on their internal responsiveness, not just their public voting record. Carcharoth (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Short of releasing confidential correspondence (which we can't really do), I think the best bet is by asking parties directly. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Question Why is Iridescent being described in the singular "they"? Surely Iridescent has identified him/herself as thus his/her gender is not in question. using the singular "they" makes me raise an eyebrow and want to know why it is being used. 134.241.58.240 (talk) 02:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Feel free to link to where Iridescent has identified Iridescent's gender on-wiki, and we can use one or the other, but I fear your assumption is unfounded, to the best of my knowledge. Jclemens (talk) 02:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I imagine it's because Iridescent was only obliged to reveal his identity to the foundation, not publicly to any Tom, Dick or Harry. Hence his ex-colleagues are simply protecting his privacy. Malleus Fatuorum 02:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Exactly. — Coren ^(talk) 21:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Original announcement

• Umm, is anyone able to explain to me how an editor whose first edits upon returning are to state that the behavior that got him banned wasn't against policy and that he has no interest in editing Wikipedia anyway had a successful ban appeal? Did anyone on BASC speak to WalkerThrough? Were you under the impression that he did understand what he'd done wrong, and this new "claiming that he never did anything wrong" is now coming out of left field for you, or did you knowingly unban someone who believes that his previous POV pushing wasn't POV pushing and thus is fine to continue? Did he claim that he wished to return to active editing, and suddenly changed his mind between the time he spoke to the committee and the time he was unblocked, or did you for some reason unblock someone who didn't wish to rejoin Wikipedia? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• See Alford plea. –xeno^talk 18:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• That doesn't really answer my question, Xeno. An Alford plea deals with a situation where a defendant chooses to argue that they did not commit a crime, but that the preponderance of evidence would convince a judge/jury that they did, and they won't fight that. That is, the claimant does not contest the existence of the case; they merely choose not to fight it. Here, we're dealing with a situation where the user appears to be contesting the very existence of the case - a user who POV pushed, claiming that POV pushing did not happen. Given that the user does not appear to understand that POV pushing occurred, how can we expect that he will be able to avoid POV pushing in the future?

  It's not required for returning users to grovel, but it is - or at least I thought it was - required that they understand where they went wrong. If Walker doesn't believe that his POV pushing was POV pushing, then there is no way for him to recognize it occurring if he slips back into it in the future, no matter how strongly he may promise that he intends to avoid POV pushing. Based on the public information here - the BASC notice and Walker's notes on his talk page - it would appear that the committee has seen fit to unblock someone who is unable or unwilling to comprehend how to not disrupt. I'm asking for assurance that that appearance is false, and that there's some evidence, somewhere, that Walker has obtained clue. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• I didn't work on this appeal, and I'm not going to breach confidentiality by talking about the discussions between this editor and BASC. The editor has agreed not to insert POV into articles - I don't particularly care if they want to make an Alford-style denial that they've done so in the past, especially if they don't intend to edit Wikipedia going forward anyway (as if this is the case, they necessarily won't be inserting [further] POV into articles). I don't see a huge issue here. –xeno^talk 19:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

In his discussions with the BASC that lasted over the past few weeks, he stated (during discussion of terms of being unblocked) that he would no longer insert advocacy statements in articles, and that he would seek consensus for disputed edits (which is what he was blocked for). While I'm not going to go into detail, his response (to accepting these terms) did worry us, and we figured we would find out very quickly if he would live up to the terms of his unblock. Unfortunately, it looks like he's very quickly going down the same path that led to him being blocked the first time. Needless to say, he's throwing away the second chance he was given, and I would doubt he would get a third chance if he doesn't straighten up and quickly. SirFozzie (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Annnnnnddd.. I have now re-indefblocked him for breaking the terms of his unblock and personal attacks against others. SirFozzie (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

... and for a third offence that made me laugh. Hans Adler 22:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about (but if I did, it is something that he has done) *grins*. SirFozzie (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

• When considering an appeal, we would look into the actions and issues that led to the block. If the appellant actually proposes something that we think that would address the issues that led to the block and has no history of editing issues outside the troublesome area (topic bans are a common example), we allow a conditional unblock. As with parole boards in real-life I fully understand that there is nothing to stop people from turning their backs the moment their chains are off, so personally I would also go out to test the sincerity of the appellants, and this appeal took 7 weeks of emails back and forth. - Mailer Diablo 22:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Well that was an interesting few hours! Thank you for clarifying and continuing to follow up, guys. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Mailer diablo, what is the procedure to follow when an editor is unbanned but it turns out that something was overlooked and the issue needs to be revisited a few months later? Where does one raise the issue? ScottyBerg (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Not an arb, but I imagine that e-mailing the BASC through Arbcom-l with the information would be how to handle such a situation. If I were in the place of an editor submitting such overlooked information, I would ask in the e-mail for a follow-up or to be notified of the outcome of the subcommittee's deliberation on the new information. AGK [•] 23:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as per AGK. We will look into it. - Mailer Diablo 00:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Original announcement

I know this is an absolutely awful time to be resigning, and complicates things significantly. For that I can only apologise; but the longer I keep hold of my seat, the more complicated things will get. The last thing I want to do is announce my decision to leave the committee after the elections are decided, and leave only 14 arbitrators to run things, rather than the 15 that the community decided it should be at. My personal preference is that another candidate, elected in the ongoing elections, will take up the vacant seat on 1 January, but I will defer to the community as to whether or not this would be appropriate. The Cavalry (Message me) 15:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you ever so much for your service, and best of luck in the new gig, Chase me. Your consideration towards the elections is also most appreciated. Regards, Skomorokh 15:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Damn shame, but congratulations on the job. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Skomorokh & HJ Mitchell - and Tom Morris for leaving the nice message on my talk page. I'm not happy about stepping down - I'd much rather stay on full my full term - but it's not appropriate for me to be able to see all the UK member/donor data and ArbCom data at the same time. It is simply too many hats for one head. The Cavalry (Message me) 15:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

*A related discussion is underway at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011#Decision needed. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Original announcement

Hat's off to the committee for the result of this discussion. I was suprised by the lack of a remedy with "Steven Zhang is kicked in the ass for bringing such a tough dispute to ArbCom" but I am not complaining :-). I will be interested to see how this structured discussion is framed. For reference, I've proposed something that we could implement in future, to address the "ZOMG arbcom can't deal with content" issue while bringing some closure to discussions like this one and Senkaku Islands. It's located at Wikipedia:Binding RFCs. Comments welcome. Kudos to the arbs, though. I know it wasn't an easy case. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 04:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, now comes the finicky bit of setting up a structured page.....so something which lays out all permutations for evidence etc. In a hurry now. Will ruminate. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

A binding vote? What happened to "voting is evil"?  :-( 67.117.144.140 (talk) 09:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It's "polls are evil" and it's a guideline. To take a walk down memory lane this was originally an essay written in the early days of Wikipedia to combat the growing phenomenon of taking polls and counting votes instead of reaching consensus through having a substantive discussion. The former is easier, but the latter is much more informative; in a conversation, people often find that they agree about things they thought they disagreed about, for example. But this has nothing to do with the operational procedures of ArbCom or how it reaches its decisions as a body, and it is not a policy that binds anyone. We sometimes do polls where it is appropriate, but we avoid polls where discussion is better (as it is most of the time). Hope that helps. causa sui (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Kudos agreed for grasping the nettle per MastCell's quote of Adam Gopnik. Remedy 5.1 is indeed unusual, but not without precedent. WP:ARBDATE remedy 3.1 was satisfied relatively cleanly by a large, binding RfC/poll at WP:DATEPOLL (i.e. a vote) and that has stuck for well over two years now. I'd recommend the format of having one volunteer in charge (as Ryan Postlethwaite did for DATEPOLL) - perhaps an ArbCom clerk again? The layout of the questions to be voted on may also serve as a model for the present Remedy. --RexxS (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Original announcement

You used a hyphen? --MZMcBride (talk) 00:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed :) AGK [•] 10:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

You know guys, I'm kinda comforted by the fact that I have no idea why this is a big deal. ;-) Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

To some elements of the community, dashes are a Really Big Deal™. AGK [•] 14:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I figured it wouldn't really matter on a non-article page. I was wrong... :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Just as long as we don't have to retitle the Christmas song,, "en-dashing/hyphening through the snow.. on a one horse open sleigh.." *grins and ducks* SirFozzie (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

SF: Oh dear... AGK [•] 17:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there a public log of the editors who are unbanned/unblocked through this process? It would be helpful to admins. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The BASC seems to only publish statistics of the appeals it has heard, but doesn't keep a public log of the editors whose blocks or bans it has reversed. I don't think this is wholly helpful: the arbitration case pages are difficult enough to navigate as it is, with its disjointed plethora of logs of blocks, bans, and sanctions. Searching the archive of this noticeboard with the terms BASC: or appeal[1][2] can be helpful, but is hardly an ideal solution and probably doesn't catch everything. AGK [•] 14:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of this until Nick raised it, but I agree it would be helpful to have some sort of public log for BASC unblockings/unbannings, because a lot of the editors allowed back by BASC were previously under in(de)finite or long-term bans which are usually meted out for serious misconduct. I'm sure BASC exercise due diligence and seek sufficient assurances before they unban a user, but some of these users might need to be carefully watched (at least for the first few weeks after their return) to make sure they're sticking to the straight an narrow. That's where a public log might come in handy. Perhaps we could try to start one next time BASC allow somebody's return, and flesh it out by searching the noticeboard archives?

On a related note, it is interesting to see what BASC is doing, so it's nice to see these statistics posted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Original announcement

I find this motion quite confusing (not to mention unnecessary, but that's a different argument); does it mean that the pages may only be protected (under this proviso) during a three-year period commencing tomorrow? Or does it mean that they may be protected for a period of three years from 7 December? If it's the latter (as I suspect), does that mean that the protection time will be calculated on each occasion - ie if something is protected on 8th December, would it be for 3 years minus one day, and if it were next June, would it be for 2.5 years? As regards logging...of course administrators might otherwise protect pages, without referencing this motion; would those protections not be logged, or is there a need for admins to somehow remember to log all protection of pages within the topic area?  Chzz  ►  19:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• I wish GovCom would realise that the overwhelming majority of admins are far more sensible than the committee gives them credit for and that duplicating the protection policy (yes, we have one of those!) with an added layer of bureaucracy is not helpful. There are times when motions authorising specific actions (such as discretionary sanctions) can be helpful, but there are times when admins just need the committee to let them get on with their work and stop trying to micro-manage them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, actually, it is (a) correcting the terminology of the decision in this case so that it cannot be misinterpreted to mean that every article/page in the topic area must be semi-protected, and (b) considerably extends the normal period by which articles/pages in this specific topic area may be semi-protected. Therefore, it's not a duplication of the protection policy, but a supplement to it, lowering the threshold for action and duration. The fact of the matter is that administrators appear to have asked for assistance/direction in dealing with longterm, pervasive disruption from IP editors (often banned users editing logged out from dynamic IPs). This way, when an admin semi-protects Abortion for 3 years, s/he won't be abused by those whose personal perspective is to use any form of protection for only minimal periods (hours to days) rather than extended periods, and the administrator's use of an Arbcom remedy (if specified in their summary) means the semi-protection cannot be undone without a clear and significant consensus to do so. Risker (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. Another layer of bureaucracy. There was nothing to stop admins from protecting articles for extended or even indefinite periods of time before this motion and the botched remedy it amends and no admin in their right mind is going to reduce a long-term semi-protection on an article as controversial as that to a few hours or days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

In fact, looking at the protection log for that article, it seems that somebody has decided that this motion trumps the existing, indefinite semi-protection on that article. What was achieved there exactly? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

HJ, it doesn't just apply to the Abortion article (protection log); it applies to all articles in the category tree (which I understand is around 1500). I'm not taking any credit (or blame) for this particular motion or decision, as I am recused on both; I was just explaining its rationale. I'm reassured that you have such faith in your fellow administrators. Risker (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Of which the overwhelming majority will be mostly uncontroversial and the rest can (or could have) been dealt with through existing processes. I have the utmost respect for, and faith in, my fellow administrators—we have a difficult enough job even without a so-called "dispute resolution" body's repeated attempts to tie admins' hands behind their backs. The more of these motions I see, the more I'm convinced that the current committee has no clue what goes on on Wikipedia on a day-to-day basis. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Err, no. I have been involved discussing the protection policy over the years, and had differences of opinion over the threshold to apply semi-protection in the past. There are issues with this particular set of articles that indicate it needs to be lower, and cementing that in is a Very Good Idea to avoid further debates in the future. Discussing these issues on wiki is not appropriate and better done by email HJ.Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

With the greatest respect, discussing an ArbCom motion on the talk page of that committee's noticeboard is perfectly appropriate, and I will not move the discussion to a private mailing list where a committee can bitch about me behind my back. I'm well aware of the sorts of issues faced in these sorts of topic areas and of the need for semi-protection. I have yet to see why GovCom insists on curbing admins' ability to think for themselves at every opportunity it gets. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

HJ do you know what private issues I am talking about? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Given the number of concerns from administrators that the Arbitration Committee doesn't give them the support they feel is needed to make and stand by difficult administrative decisions in areas of high contention, I fail to see how this is "curbing admins' ability to think for themselves". Nobody's making them take any action, and they should only act as they see fit; what administrators now know definitively is that if they take a hard-line decision in this area, they've got backing to do so, and a couple of complainers on ANI or RFUP won't be getting their considered decisions overturned any time soon. While I certainly am not going to pretend I know what's going on in every corner of the wikiverse, I think most of the committee members have a pretty good idea of the concerns and issues of administrators workin in controversial areas (including arbitration enforcement), and it is those administrators for whom this provision (and similar ones, including discretionary sanctions) are enacted. Risker (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: The semi-protection policy currently constrains administrators from using semi-protection as a pre-emptive measure and suggests that they should protect talk pages only 'sparingly'. So this remedy is actually untying hands. –xeno^talk 17:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC) (Note: I was recused on this case)

I think I understand where HJ is coming from, though I'm not quite as hot about it in this case. In general I tried to keep a lot of language that appears to "authorize" sysop action out of the discretionary policies like blocking and protection, because these remedies, by authorizing use of sysop tools, would create the false impression that anything not authorized in the policy is forbidden -- or that explicit prior authorization in policy is required before using sysop tools at all. Analogously, to have the Arbitration Committee posting these kinds of authorizations may create the impression that Arbcom are telling us that we couldn't do it without your say-so. Based on your (Risker) statements above, it's easier to understand that that is not what you're trying to communicate; rather, you seem to be saying that the amendment only means that administrators who protect pages for extreme periods of time have ArbCom's backing, not that this couldn't have been done by the community.

Politically, that's significant in two respects. Knowing that ArbCom is behind me makes me feel much more secure when taking a stand on controversial issues, provided that the stand I'm taking is the one they want me to, or that it's taken in the way they want me to take it. But that takes power away from the community, because the only time ArbCom's support matters is in a case where the community (or an ad-hoc firing squad on AN/I) thinks I should be sanctioned for making a difficult decision, and ArbCom doesn't. In this case, for your amendment to have any clout, it means you (Arbcom) would have to actively overrule community will in the event that a sysop who protects a page for 3 years finds himself blocked after community review. A lot of people are going to be threatened by that - so the result is that the heat is not really dissipated, but instead transferred from the admins making hard decisions in particular cases to ArbCom for influencing political affairs in a way that is undemocratic, albeit (maybe) ultimately beneficial. causa sui (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I do not consider the protection of articles to be a political decision; if it is, then we might as well all pack it up and go home. Essentially, what you're saying is that any sanction or administrative option approved by Arbcom is undemocratic; to that I reply, since when is Wikipedia a democracy? This project is about quality, well-sourced, neutral content, and anyone who feels it is to press a certain political position should not be made welcome here. Arbcom sanctions have always been about one of two things: either a specific and direct sanction on a particular editor, or a lowering of the threshold for administrators to apply sanctions at their discretion to editors or articles/pages/edits within a specific scope, which can be narrowly or broadly defined.

The majority of administrator actions are done on an individual basis, not by the "community"; in fact, only rarely is the community involved in deciding what administrator actions are appropriate when it comes to page protections and unprotections, or blocks and unblocks. I do not think it unreasonable to set a higher standard for undoing actions that an administrator has taken in response to a dispute that has historically required the attention of the Arbitration Committee, which is the project's highest dispute resolution body, and for which the arbitrators, as representatives of the community selected by that very community, have established a sanction protocol. I would also hold the same standard for sanctions that have been determined in a large scale community discussion, as apparently does the community, which does not generally think it acceptable for a single administrator to overturn a community ban or other sanction without a consensus discussion. Risker (talk) 03:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Talking about these goings-on using political language is distasteful to Wikipedians. That said, I don't think you're quite reading me right. The amendment you passed is undemocratic, but I am not concluding that that itself makes it wrong; only that some people are going to be bothered by it. And what bothers them isn't that it goes against an abstract political ideology, but that it concretely and directly diminishes their power and influence. When ArbCom steps into making decisions in areas where the community (or, in HJ's words, "administrators") are used to being in charge, they will resent it for no other reason than that their decision making power is reduced. That says nothing to who is actually better at making these kinds of decisions and in what cases. I have no generalized opinion on that, at least not to give you today - but I was hoping the perspective would help connect you with HJ.

Likewise, I wouldn't be surprised if Arbitrators resented the implication, for the opposite reason. It's somewhat funny really, because it seems like these arguments keep taking place because everyone is so sure that they and the body to which they think they belong (be it a "community of administrators" or an "Arbitration Committee") are best qualified to solve these problems. By not taking a side, I seem to be offending both sides. :o) causa sui (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I couldn't be less interested in who exactly wields "the power" so long as the result is correct. I'm more than happy to keep to the sidelines as an arbitrator and only step in when the rest of the community can't reach a resolution; I'm actually pleased when the community manages to step in and solve a problem that would have gotten to arbitration two years ago without our intervention.

In this particular case, I'm a little confused because what we did here is give the admins a bigger stick rather than wield it ourselves. — Coren ^(talk) 17:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Late Comment: Without community intervention? Sure. Topic banning community members that were either neutral or moderates on one side and trying to keep the balance, discourages other editors who could collaboratively edit/discuss from getting involved. If those editors were becoming a little annoyed and it was starting to show, maybe that was due to an increasing perception of POV from a couple of Admins creeping in. And whether political language is "distasteful" or not, Arbcom (whether it is or not) has by backing topic bans on particular editors, made itself look highly partisan! Is that how Arbcom wishes to appear? And I don't quite see the distinction between giving Admins a bigger stick and not wielding it yourselves, if you have the big stick first before you give it to them? I had no interest in taking the matter to Arbcom myself, or going on the attack once the gauntlet was thrown down by a few participants, hence my general dis-interest in the proceedings after I was made aware of them half way through. Funny how I ended up topic banned though, isn't it! I defend myself at an AN/I and it goes against me twice, I say practically nothing in my own defence at the abortion arb. (thinking that arbiters will have some common-sense), and limit myself to the citing of some evidence, and I end up...guess what? Topic banned again! I try to defend a consensus on a contentious article against spurious and inarticulate reasoning and what? I get topic banned. Please keep standing on the sidelines Arbcom! What happened at the Abortion article was this: A non-consensus change to the lede was pushed on a preposterous argument, then reasons to support it were desperately sought, from sources that were largely silent on the matter in question and gave no support for the initial assertion made for changing the lede, even while the earlier consensus version was sourced and factual. That is what took place plain and simple. Is that the approach Arbcom wishes to encourage?DMSBel (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC) [re-factored comment 11 Dec.]

And if you can discuss the amendment of this remedy that clearly wasn't thought through, that calls into question what wisdom was exercised in most of the other remedies too. And amendments for those also should be up for discussion. This is largely the fault of those member's of Arbcom who did not speak up and say this is too long, and a ridiculous degree of over-kill in terms of page protection I've never witnessed, and taking out with sanctions pretty much most of the community intervention that there was. DMSBel (talk) 02:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC) [re-factored comment 11 Dec.]

For anyone following and because I have inserted a comment inbetween others, the next comment was made before mine above and is not a reply to it. DMSBel (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I hear you, and I don't think there's any basis to doubt the good faith of Arbcom here. What you're doing and your rationale for it are, at the very least, a plausible strategy for finding the shortest distance between where we are and a resolution. But to run with your analogy, and in my arrogance to continue to speak for HJ (hey, dude, am I getting this right?), I think he and others might resent that you think it's your stick to give. Historically, when Jimbo ruled by fiat and ArbCom was seen as an extension of his royal authority, that was clearly the case. Apparently, not everyone sees it that way today. causa sui (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

A few thoughts for consideration:

1. Looking at the actual decision passed (principles, findings, and remedies) it is clear that an unusual step was taken in relation to semi-protection but it is unclear (at least to me) why this was done. Risker's recent post to HJ's talk page provides a lot more insight than does the decision, and really such clarification shouldn't need to be spelled out for the reasoning of the Committee to be clear.
2. Following on from this, the concerns expressed by HJ and others are reasonable. Reading into ArbCom reasoning is (in my view) difficult, and I suggest that some concerns could be allayed and the views of ArbCom improved if communication were improved.
3. I realise that the motion passed will not be modified now, but I would still like to suggest an alternative wording that might have addressed some of the concerns whilst also making the Committee's intent clearer:
   • Both public and deleted / oversighted evidence shows substantial IP edits in gross violation of site policies, including edits which might put lives at risk. For this reason, the Committee is hereby authorising relaxation of the usual criteria for imposing semi-protection and encourages the use of very extended protection periods as appropriate. Specifically, from 7 December 2011, any uninvolved administrator may exercise his or her discretion to semi-protect articles relating to topic of abortion (broadly construed) and their corresponding talk pages for periods of up to three years. Further, administrators are encouraged to be vigilant and aggressive in using the semi-protection to prevent anonymous editors from causing harm to individuals or to the encyclopedia. Pages semi-protected under this provision, beyond what might have been already authorised under the protection policy, are to be logged.
   Such a wording (which I am sure could be improved) would convey both the seriousness of the issues at stack and that the Committee is contemplating something beyond what would usually be authorised under the protection policy - in other words, the remedy clearly and deliberately extends administrator discretion in this topic area rather than having a different effect.
4. On another issue raised above, the reality of the administrator corps is that it is inherently political. Whilst some admins are non-political, others are partisan and political (at least at times) and for that reason every admin action is capable of politicisation. Protection shouldn't be political but just this week at AN/I (to take one example) an admin closed a (lame) debate about the spelling yog*urt (* may or may not = h) but in doing so expressed a personal view, declared by fiat that no further discussion would be permitted for 6 months, and then fully protected the article talk page. This was certainly not a dispassionate, uninvolved and apolitical handling of what became a protection issue through the misapplication of the protection policy. Politics is nearly impossible to keep out of human activities, and whilst the encyclopedia is edited by humans that is something that everyone will simply have to accept. EdChem (talk) 04:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. It looks like an Unintended Consequence has sneaked in. This motion was to supplement not replace semi-protection. If someone would like to request an amendment, I'll post something along the following lines (heavily borrowing from EdChem's draft) for voting:

• "Articles and associated talk pages within the Abortion topic have been used by IP editors, in gross violation of site policies, in ways that put lives at risk. In response, the committee hereby authorises a temporary relaxation of the usual semi-protection criteria to enable administrators to act quickly and effectively. Specifically, any uninvolved administrator may pre-emptively semi-protect articles relating to Abortion and associated talk pages, at his or her discretion, for a period of up to three years from 7 December 2011. Pages semi-protected under this provision are to be described as "Per ArbCom remedy: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion]]" in the edit summary; be logged on the case page; and are subject to the "Reversal of enforcement actions" proecedures. Nothing in this provision prevents or restricts administrators from applying semi-protection under existing policy in the normal way."

In the meantime, it's probably best if existing indefs are left alone. Thoughts?  Roger Davies ^talk 09:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I think these sorts of remedies and motions should be kept as short and sweet—the more we try to cram into one statement, the less clearly we communicate our meaning. A simple "administrators are encouraged to apply a lower threshold for protection on articles within the scope of this case than they might on other articles, and to consider longer durations for those protections, citing this remedy if necessary" makes the point nicely in my opinion. It might also be worth including a clause about pre-emptive protections (per Roger) if that's necessary. That (I feel) makes it much clearer that this remedy is intended as a supplement to the protection policy and admin judgement rather than an attempt to over-ride it (if my understanding of arbs' posts is correct). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that exactly what the amended motion does? It doesn't supersede anything, it simply gives an extra mechanism by which some pages may be semiprotected in addition to the general methods laid out in policy. You want a normal semiprotection for run-of-the-mill vandalism? Just do as usual. — Coren ^(talk) 18:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I have had my attention drawn to this, but don't wish to breach restrictions placed at the arbcom on what I can discuss. I hope that by briefly commenting here I won't be doing so. I am in favor of making available a mechanism for discretionary semi-protection by un-involved admins. But I am unsure for what, if not for vandalism, it would it would be enacted to protect the page from? Edit-warring? Sock-puppets? Can the page not already be semi-protected in the event of that occuring? I think what needs to be made clearer is what uninvolved means. I don't think an admin. who is involved can become un-involved at the drop of a hat, even if they go through the official hoops required. This may be seen to be calling into question admin integrity and I don't mean to do that, but I would prefer that un-involved is understood to mean just that - an admin who has not edited the page, or at least one who has not edited it for a period time - at least a month, rather than days. If I have misunderstood what the amendment is about I apologise. I certainly think a blanket semi-protection for 3 years is over-kill. I believe that any extended semi-protection, for a period longer than 3 months, should only be enacted after a discussion at the AN and with a minimum of two un-involved admin. in agreeance on the duration. That of course does not rule out shorter periods of semi-protection, but I'd prefer nothing longer than 1 month put into effect by only one admin. Sorry but my view is that admins are servants to the project and other editors, never masters. A fly swat is better for stinging insects than a bazooka. Miss with the bazooka and... Or to use another analogy, perhaps more suited, closing a window keeps unwanted pests out of a room, closing every window in the house is rarely necessary, and if kept closed for a long time the air gets stale. DMSBel (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Roger, I agree that existing indef semiprotections should remain indef. To the rest of the conversation, I wish these issues had been brought up when I workshopped the proposal a couple of months ago, or even when it was posted on the proposed decision page. The lack of people participating in the decision before it was made has directly led to the tardiness of this discussion, and there's no good reason all of this couldn't have been brought up and hashed out earlier. Jclemens (talk) 05:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Roger, I appreciate you taking my comments seriously. I will request an amendment if you want me to, I think the clarified statement is a much clearer communication of what was apparently ArbCom's intent.
• Coren, maybe think of this as an example where the ArbCom perspective of what was meant is not translating well when interpreted from the perspective of non-ArbCom members. We all know that written communications are easily misinterpreted; perhaps it would be helpful for ArbCom to look at future statements and ask yourselves "how might this read from others' perspectives?" rather than just whether it makes sense to ArbCom as the drafters.
• JClemens, I can understand why you wish things had been brought up earlier, but I suggest there are several reasons why nothing might have been said until after the case closed:

1. Perhaps it was not evident that the remedy would impact 1500+ pages until an admin went to begin implementation
2. Perhaps editors / readers were distracted by more controversial aspects of the case - to judge from the criticism you have faced in election guides, there was substantial disquiet over the handling of other parts of the case
3. Perhaps editors / readers felt their concerns would not generate any response or action, and were encouraged to comment by the fact that the remedy was amended after the case closed - speaking personally, I have been discouraged in the past by what I have felt was disinterest in anything I might have had to say
4. Again in my case, I was inactive while the case was open, so I was not in a position to comment earlier
5. Perhaps admins who find ArbCom an irritation only speak up when they see a concerning decision, and don't follow cases that produce those decisions

Short version... there are at least some possible reasons for the "tardiness" with which comments are being made. EdChem (talk) 10:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• The community has minimal exposure to the arbitration process until a decision is draftedpassed, which seems to be a wider issue and may explain why we are perpetually surprised at many of the decisions—and can only express that surprise on this noticeboard page. Proposed decisions may require their own announcement, so that the community know a decision is pending and has been written. AGK [•] 11:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC) Edited: I meant passed (and the case closed), not drafted and published as "proposed decision". AGK [•] 14:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Good idea, except that my observations are that change at the PD stage is rare, even in cases where strong comment is made. If ArbCom were more flexible and responsive at the PD stage (perhaps particularly to comment from editors not already seen as partisan in the case) might make this a really welcome change. EdChem (talk) 12:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• It's not a systemic "ArbCom" thing. Some arbitrators are already very community-facing and responsive to comment, others much less so. Anyhow, if you'd like to file a formal request either for amendment or for clarification, we can get the ball rolling on this one.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I am still unclear as to in what regard currently available mechanisms for protection (that were in effect before Abortion Arb) are insufficient, and on what grounds this topic is deemed to need special measures? DMSBel (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Another question, how exactly are admins hands tied at present? I appreciate most admins do not abuse privileges. However in regard to the topic of abortion, might it not be the case that more severe remedies are being applied now because uninvolved admin were standing on the sidelines a lot of the time and were not using lesser facilatative (rather than protective, or pre-emptive) measures to help discussion, and calming the editing environment before it became toxic. Apologies in advance for another analogy - meltdowns often only occur when routine maintainence and inspection are missing. If you are facing a meltdown on a topic (I don't personally see it as serious as that) maybe you ought to first check what lesser measures were not taken first. On the abortion article I am aware of only one admin [RoyBoy] who actually tries fairly regularly to facilitate discussion, by using most of the tools at his disposal, before considering sanctions. I am concerned that other admin have become obsessed with quickly refuting sourcing, that seems a higher priority quite often than taking a NPOV on sourcing, and allowing discussion to take place. Are admin aware that they can and must be around to do more than just protect pages, and filter sources in accord with their own preferences? It should rarely get to the point of protection with proper facilitation of discussion. DMSBel (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Also we have at least one Admin. on the article who doesn't indicate anywhere he is an Admin. He is concerned it might be thought by others a badge of honour, or merit or something. I don't see what other people think of it has to do with it, how he views it himself is what matters. To indicate one is an admin. is simply functional. I don't view those who say so on their talk page as parading any superiority, as the position only grants privileges not superiority. If one acts in a condescending manner, that is an indication of a feeling of superiority, simply indicating oneself is an Admin is not. Put it somewhere less conspicuous than the top of the page if you still think it looks like you are bragging about it. DMSBel (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Except when discussion (or actually taking) one of the limited number of actions restricted to administrators on Wikipedia, it shouldn't matter whether or not someone is an administrator. There's no reason to wave a "treat me differently!" flag around in advance. (Why is conspicuous disclosure of their admin status important to you, if not so that you can treat them differently than you would another editor?) It might be helpful if you could offer some specific examples of situations where the project has been harmed because an editor did not explicitly disclose their adminship to you. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

And I would like would be grateful for some feedback here on what I have just said, even if to disagree, as Arbcom invited me to comment. EdChem IMO is right in what he says above, there is a little bit of apathy amongst grass-roots editors that if they comment they will not be given due attention. It's true we don't know all issues that arbcom has to deal with, but it is also equally true that Arbcom are not quite in touch what is going on at times on article talk pages. Could Arbcom turn its attention a little more outward?DMSBel (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Ten of all Trades: Not sure I understand your reply, or if you understood my comment. My point was that indicating somewhere on one's userpage that one is an administrator is simply helpful. It doesn't mean "treat me differently" and I am fairly sure that most Wikipedians who have displayed on their userpage that they have been an Admin for N years are not saying they want to be "treated differently" or flying it as a flag. You seem to be saying that is the only reason for putting it up, as a badge of pride - well I have no problem with that. Most Admins. who display it are not making a big thing of it. I'd like to know simply who is an Admin and who isn't. Do I need another reason?DMSBel (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

This is not the venue for forcing an administrator to put something on his or her userpage. If you want to find out the status of an editor, type their name into this tool. Binksternet (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou for the link, but I don't think you are spokesperson for Arbcom. If the committee think this is not the venue for discussion of this they should say so. They haven't as yet, so I'll await their comments. The discussion, and I would not have joined without invitation, is about extending admin privileges, the point I make is relevant to that. Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. DMSBel (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I interpreted your statement as meaning that you believed administrators should identify themselves as such whenever they arrived on a talk page. It seems that your position is a little less strict than that, in that you think that admins should be required to identify themselves as administrators on their user pages, and you seem to be shopping for an ArbCom declaration in support of that position. I think that my question is still valid and relevant, and I would like you to answer it as best you can. If an administrator is acting as a regular editor (that is, if they are not considering or applying an administrator-only action), why is it important that they be readily identifiable as an administrator? In what way is the project harmed if they interact with other editors as fellow editors (as they should), without being conspicuously identifiable as administrators? What gets broken if other editors don't know they have an admin bit, or what gets better when other admins know that they do? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes perhaps it was possible to mis-interpret what I said, I maybe could have said it a bit clearer. But I don't quite understand your question still. It is for the benefit of editors to know who Admin. are as much as for other Admin. If you wish to press me, it all comes down to the matter of involvement, I simply don't think the following areas of involvement: editing, presenting sources, ruling out other sources etc. are Admin. tasks, and it seems like it presents too much scope for a conflict of interest when involved Admin. can also protect pages. Bad-faith on my part? No. Just wanting to make sure there are some checks in place. We are not always aware of our blind spots. If Admin are free to both edit and protect, there is little point in talking about un-involved admin anymore. But seeing as in fact we do consider non-involvement very important I think at the very least we should be able to see at a glance (ie. on a userpage) who is an Admin and who isn't. I guess what I am saying and I apologise, if I have not thought it through well enough, is either be an Editor or be an Admin. or at least maintain a semblance of un-involvement and not take sides.DMSBel (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree that administrators shouldn't get involved in using their tools (page protection, deletion, or blocking) on pages where they are also involved as editors in a content dispute—but I'm not sure how identifying themselves as administrators on their userpages would somehow prevent this from occurring. I just don't see how the two issues are related. I mean, once an administrator actually takes an administrative action (appropriately or not), their status is immediately obvious, regardless of what does or does not appear on their user page. Similarly, if an administrator doesn't take an administrative action relating to a dispute, their privileges as an administrator are irrelevant. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:41, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Not at all, it is not always clear who has taken Admin action. The point of making it plain on a userpage is so editors can see how involved in editing an Admin is. Sorry I know to some this seems like bad-faith but to me its just a proper check, keeps the few who might try it from flying under radar. As I said earlier, one don't go from being involved to uninvolved at the drop of a hat. Given the one-sidedness of the abortion arb. my good-faith is weakened. DMSBel (talk) 06:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, I'm not sure how editors with admin privileges declaring that status on their user pages would help in the situation that you described. (Knowing that I am an admin, and knowing that I have previously edited a page which is now protected, doesn't mean that you should conclude that I was the admin who protected the page.)

If you want to identify the admin who protected a page (or who took any other administrative action) it is logged at Special:Logs. More importantly for the situation that you seem to be describing – and I'm not familiar with whatever circumstances you might be alluding to related to the abortion arbitration case – when a page is protected by an admin that action appears as a separate entry in the page's history and will appear on the watchlists of that page's editors. Additionally, if an editor tries to edit the protected page, a link to the relevant entries in the protection log is provided in the message that appears above the page source. There is no ambiguity or confusion possible about which administrator protected the page. Having an admin badge on every admin's userpage wouldn't seem to help you to identify who protected a page, whereas a quick glance at the page history or the page protection log would. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

From your comments on MastCell's page you say you support this, even though for different reasons to myself. I think I have done my best to explain my thinking on this in my last post. DMSBel (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

My comments on MastCell's talk were rather tongue-in-cheek, and I explicitly pointed out my use of irony for those who might have missed it. I don't think I'm asking a difficult question here—how does an admin self-identifying on their userpage prevent them from taking admin action while involved, or make it easier to determine that they protected a given page? I honestly can't see any answer beyond "it doesn't". Either an admin doesn't use their tools in a situation where they're involved in a dispute – in which case their status as an admin is irrelevant – or they do use their tools, in which case it's obvious that they are an admin because they were able to use their tools. Can you spell out for me (in very small words, like I were an idiot) exactly what transpired that made it difficult for you to determine who had protected a page, and how that problem would have been avoided if they had indicated that they were an admin on their userpage? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Well "tongue in cheek" (is that the same as irony?) is not always easy to tell online, so subtle as it was, it passed (to me at least, though with some puzzlement as why you were questioning me here) as agreeance but for other reasons. Sorry. Still I assumed you were perhaps just trying to get a better handle on my own thinking though while in agreeance with different reasons. When it comes to "treatment" of Editors or Admin I believe there is no difference warranted in dispute resolution, but Admin (having been given privileges) should be acting in such a way as to not generate suspicion that they are partisan in disputes. Without actually looking at IP userpages, seeing a blunt message at times that they had been blocked, I still did not know whether an Editor was simply giving notice (like a clerk) or it was an Admin actually blocking, as with several IPs (thought to be one editor) - there didn't appear to be any AN/I or anything first. So the issue that I have is primarily one of behaviour, you can't if you see another user taking sides in a discussion or making partisan comments (making comments like "obscure organisation", "partisan lobbying group" that come across to be poisoning discussion on sources in advance / frequently "hanging out" on talkpages with other editors who are seen to be partisan.) know that they are an Admin without using one of the tools if they don't indicate so on their userpage somewhere. AGF simply is not possible all the time with everyone, much as one tries to. But we can talk about treatment from say other Admins. and treatment from other Editors. From editors a degree of respect and decorum goes a long way, and from Admin too.DMSBel (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

While I probably disagree with DMSBel on just about everything else of any consequence whatsoever, I think he has a point here. There are lots of reasons why it's helpful to know if someone is an admin. It's possible to figure it out eventually for those of us reasonably familiar with Wikipedia's maze of project pages but it shouldn't be so hard. There's no need for a big in-your-face notice: a simple "Category:Wikipedia administrators" at the bottom of each admin's user page would be enough. A lot of admins have this -- but quite a few don't. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, one person agreeing with me on one thing (even if they think I am off my rocker on everything else) once per year is a big plus for me. It's probably why I stay. After all who wants to be agreed with all the time!DMSBel (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• for anybody who might be interested, I've submitted a request for clarification. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

That thread just got archived [3] to here. But... it drifted totally away from the actual question I'd asked, at the start. As far as I can see, nobody answered it. So I'll copy the question back, below; hoping to get an answer. It's really quite a simple question;  Chzz  ►  12:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

does it mean that the pages may only be protected (under this proviso) during a three-year period commencing tomorrow? Or does it mean that they may be protected for a period of three years from 7 December? If it's the latter (as I suspect), does that mean that the protection time will be calculated on each occasion - ie if something is protected on 8th December, would it be for 3 years minus one day, and if it were next June, would it be for 2.5 years? As regards logging...of course administrators might otherwise protect pages, without referencing this motion; would those protections not be logged, or is there a need for admins to somehow remember to log all protection of pages within the topic area?  Chzz  ►  19:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It's three years from december 7th, but no calculation is needed: you can simply put the expiration date on the protection form rather than a length of time. — Coren ^(talk) 15:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and no – protections not made as arbitration enforcement need not be logged, only those made specifically as arbitration involvement. — Coren ^(talk) 15:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the appropriate venue to ask this question, but oh well. If an editor who was unblocked by the Ban Appeals Subcommittee is violating the terms of their unblock, where would I request enforcement? AE? Somewhere else? Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 15:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Technically, any administrator is perfectly allowed to reblock under those conditions; though the committee would appreciate being notified to make sure any future appeal takes the breach into account. — Coren ^(talk) 15:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I'm not an administrator. Should I take up the issue on my favorite admin's talk page, should I request arbitration enforcement, or should I engage the committee as a whole with a request for clarification/amendment? Skinwalker (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

An amendment or clarification is unnecessary, because block and ban appeal matters are not handled through the arbitration requests process (ie WP:A/R). As with any matter that requires administrator attention, you should submit a request at WP:ANI, though you could directly ask an administrator to block the user. The request could also be submitted at the enforcement noticeboard (ie. WP:A/R/E); this would be atypical but sensible. With respect to notifying the committee, such a thing is usually done by e-mail (as at the top of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee). AGK [•] 23:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. Skinwalker (talk) 13:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Original announcement

Why is the block not indefinite? There's no way one gets to be an admin without knowing that this kind of socking is completely unacceptable. Therefore there is not one good reason why the block should be anything less than indefinite, and frankly it should be a permanent "goodbye, you're done." → ROUX ₪ 11:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Conventionally, first-time sockers are not blocked indefinitely; Malcolm made an inexcusable mistake, but isn't a long-term sock-master. However, the community is able to levy additional sanctions if it sees fit. AGK [•] 11:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a stupid convention, particularly because he was an admin. And you lot wonder why the community at large thinks that admins are untouchable. What's that line? "With great power comes great responsibility"? There is no way he didn't know what he was doing was specifically forbidden, and a 2 week block for an admin engaging in abusive sockpuppetry is, frankly, complete bullshit. → ROUX ₪ 14:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Roux, the "usual" block for an experienced user who is a first-time socker is one week; in this case, on consultation with other checkusers, we believed two weeks was appropriate because of (1) the nature and severity of the socking and (2) the fact that he was an administrator. In other words, this "first time socking" block was longer than is typically used in part because Malcolm was an administrator. The block was made by me personally and not by the Arbitration Committee because I as a checkuser believe that a block is an important deterrent to future socking; the community can consider whether or not a longer block would be appropriate, as has happened in the past under similar circumstances. Risker (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think an administrator caught maliciously socking and vandalizing should be treated the same way as a non-administrator doing the same thing. The admin sockmaster is guilty of a greater crime in that he abused the trust of the community. Malcolm should be banned. Binksternet (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

If you think it's "complete bullshit" and he "should be banned", do something about it: propose a community ban. AGK [•] 14:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I think a 2-week block and desysopping (likely to be permanent) is a reasonable punishment under the circumstances. The ban to a single account means that he can't edit under an other account even in accordence with WP:SOCK. I see no need to give him a permanent site ban/block at this point. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Does this have anything to do with MuZemike (talk · contribs)? In particular, this caught my attention. HurricaneFan25 — 15:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, MuZemike had nothing to do with Malcolm's socking. He was the checkuser who first identified it, though. Risker (talk) 15:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Bucking the trend here, I'd like to commend the arbitration committee for their prompt action here, and for leaving the matter of further sanctions (if any) for the community to decide. Carcharoth (talk) 00:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree with you, Carcharoth... If I understand the situation correctly, it was only due to an investigation of one of the socks that it it was realized that the puppeteer was an admin, so ArbCom basically stumbled upon this hornet's nest. The fact that they were able to so quickly and decicivley desysop him and that the original CU who found this backed him as part of the role of a CU... Well this reaffirms for me that the processes do work correctly, and that admins can be held accountable for their actions (in contrast to much of the arguing at RfA). Good work by all involved. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 01:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I also agree. This was a sensible decision made promptly and handled in a drama-free fashion. Nick-D (talk) 07:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a helpful note to say there is a discussion on whether to ban or otherwise sanction Malcolm in progress at the Administrators' Noticeboard. Egg Centric 19:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Original announcement

Congratulations and good luck! MBisanz ^talk 02:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Original announcement

No-one's said anything here yet? Best wishes and welcome to the new arbitrators. I see you've already had the chance to deal with a desysop. Hope all goes well with settling into the role and dealing with the current and future cases. For the outgoing arbs, many thanks for your work on the committee - let's hope the cases carrying over don't drag out for too long! Carcharoth (talk) 05:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll just (somewhat belatedly) second Carcharoth here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Original announcement

• This is intended to replace the non-arbitrator positions of User:Courcelles and User:AGK, who now sit on the committee proper. It is expected that User:Keegan will at least complete the remainder of his 2011 term (meaning there could be four voting non-arbitrator members for a couple months). –xeno^talk 18:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Original announcement

Congratulations, and good luck to the new clerks! UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Original announcement

This list has now been set up and is operational.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, we have identified some technical problems with the "new" mailing list so please send any requests to the usual email address until further notice. It remains the Committee's intention to have block/ban appeals sent to a separate address as soon as these technical problems are resolved. Risker (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I was travelling for a few days when this matter was being discussed. Noting here that I had I voted, I would have supported this motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Original announcement

Original announcement

Original announcement

Mlpearc closed the Muhammad case at 04:33 and John Vandenberg voted at 04:41-05:34. JV's vote changed the result of remedy 6.1 (which actually should not have passed), so it's probably important to unwind this.—Kww(talk) 16:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Mlpearc started to close at 04:33, but had not completed it at 05:57 when I came online to help, per his request by email. Mlpearc having begun to post the final decision on the case page, our attention was drawn to a number discrepancies, due in part to votes coming in from John Vandenberg before the case was officially closed by the clerk, which could at the earliest be considered at 06:29 but as far as I am concerned, at 08:34, when I finally ensured that the final decision posted corresponded to the Arbitrators' votes. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• This was AGK's first case and I think he did a good job. Mathsci (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • One would think so, given that you will likely not have to deal with me again in the future, nor with Ludwigs2 in the next 12 months. Absolutely fantastic editor retention work. Hans Adler 22:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
    • If that is indeed the case, Wikpedia is very much better off. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed, Mathsci. It was my first arb case too, and I think AGK did a fine job keeping it focused and moving forward. Hopefully the core issue itself can now move forward, whatever forward may be. Resolute 23:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Editors who are highly invested emotionally in a case lashing out at ArbCom when they disagree with the outcome is probably nothing new. I agree that the case was moderately successful in its outcome, and surely above average in completion speed, offset slightly by minor infelicities in wording. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
    • What does 'infelicities' mean? 140.247.141.165 (talk) 19:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Have you heard of google? → ROUX ₪ 19:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
        • How does that answer the question of "What does 'infelicities' mean"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.141.165 (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Some people here a simply useless - sorry about that- Let me help.Moxy (talk) 02:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

1. . the state or quality of being unhappy or unfortunate
2. . an instance of bad luck or mischance; misfortune
3. . something, esp a remark or expression, that is inapt or inappropriate

• Are arbitrators and everyone else aware of Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/11_February_2012/Muhammad-images? --JN466 04:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I have not commented on that initiative yet because it's not clear what its goals are. If the goal is to draft the neutral RfC demanded in the ArbCom decision, then I support some uninvolved oversight. On the other hand, if the mediation is intended to be a solution for the images problem produced by a narrow circle of editors (named in the mediation request) with no outside input, then it is contrary to the ArbCom decision. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm pretty sure the intentions of the mediator at MedCab is to help the parties draft the RFC. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 10:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
      • I do feel kind of abandoned here. During the arbitration case, it was said that those who were named parties in the case should take a backseat. In fact, parts of the mediation page look like a re-hash of the arbitration workshop, with exactly the same people involved. --JN466 14:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
        • I've pretty much bowed out, but it does make sense for these parties to be in mediation over how best to formulate an RFC question. As to the RFC itself, I would suggest that any of us who were involved in the arb case leave our opinion and walk away. Resolute 18:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Original announcement

There's a proposal on VPP to disallow sanctions based on off-wiki behavior in Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Should_editors_be_blocked_for_legitimate_postings_on_other_wikis.3F. Give that some recent cases hinged on that, I though the committee should be made aware of this potential change in policy. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Original announcement

• A point - one which I would have noted had I been active when the case commenced or in the early days; the community had indeed resolved the Betacommand issue, where BC was indefinitely blocked following repeated violations of the community agreed restriction. BC unsuccessfully appealed the indef block several times, and ultimately appealed to the ArbCom to lift the sanctions. This the ArbCom did. Only after the subsequent year long probation ended did BC again start exhibiting those behaviours that had lead to the earlier community derived indef/ban. Those who do not (care to) remember their history are indeed compelled to repeat it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • It shows that you still address him as 'BC' .. And how does the presented evidence show that Δ was now so badly breaking the restrictions (seen in perspective of the total) that a ban would be the only solution. Over the last half a year, 99.95% of the time within speed restrictions (and I think >99.9% of the time overall), no excessive breaking of pages (an occasional error, nothing in comparison to the total), way within the speed restriction on average (0.5 edits per 10 minutes), one recorded case of incivility, not a single violation of the NFCC ban. The only way that you would have come to a different conclusion is perfection - something that no human would ever achieve, which would have to mean that Δ is editing like a bot - which would be a reason to ban him as well. I remember the history, but I also look at the now, and put it in perspective - you remember the history, and ask for perfection, an utopia that will never be achieved, and everything lacking that utopia is worth a ban. And next time? After this Δ is not allowed to make one single error, because, apparently, 99.95% is not good enough. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
    • 25% is good enough for ArbCom clerks though. Look how many blocks it took clerk Guerillero to finally get the Δ block right: [4]. This isn't isolated either: [5][6]. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
      • LOL. By that standard I should have been banned a long time ago because I almost always go back and tweak my prior edits. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Well, that's the standard Δ is held to. Mind you, I'm not suggesting Guerillero did anything wrong. Nobody is expected to be perfect. Well, almost nobody. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
          • Poor, poor innocent Betacommand, struck down in his prime by the wrath of Arbcom. /sarcasm If he had more self-control then this wouldn't have happened. Jtrainor (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
            • Good to see that your sarcasm is also pulling comments out of perspective, but: 'more self control', Jtrainor? 99.95% within speed limits, no violations of NFCC, one case of incivility in total, etc. More self-control, that is indeed exactly what we are talking about here, the self control you expect would make him perfect, or a bot! We now we start banning editors who are not perfect. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Despite Dirk and Hammersoft's managing to obfuscate the issue during the arb case through wikilawyering, Δ's restriction

"Before undertaking any pattern of edits (such as a single task carried out on multiple pages) that affects more than 25 pages, Betacommand must propose the task on WP:VPR and wait at least 24 hours for community discussion. If there is any opposition, Betacommand must wait for a consensus supporting the request before he may begin."

actually meant something. For example, I wasn't able to find a VPR discussion for this group of 42 edits from December 26, 2011, which were obviously a single task, so it looks like a restriction vio much more recent than October (in fact it happened while the arb case was in progress, talk about "mooning the jury"). You can see how it messed up an archived discussion page[7] causing disruption.[8] As another apparently-wrong edit in that group, this changed a picture from a logo (old article revision) to a mountain range (revision after edit), reverted next day by another editor.[9] That is an error Δ should have noticed if he was actually reviewing his edits. The rewrites in general look unnecessary per WP:NOTBROKEN since the filenames that I tried seem to have working redirects. There was another group without working redirects (those with percent signs, rewritten to work around a software bug) but a technical move like that should also have had prior discussion, on-wiki or in the bug tracker.

Looking at the VPR archive[10] it seems to me that Hammersoft and Dirk were on completely the wrong track, and probably worsened the situation. If they had any influence on Δ's editing, it IMHO would have been better for them to urge Δ to edit fully manually for a while, instead of looking for vehicles for him to use more automation. I hope Δ and his supporters can consider that approach if and when Δ wants to appeal the ban. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 04:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Awful, isn't it. All those errors, all those bad things. Yes, 67.117.145.9, you have also been very helpful in ripping everything out of perspective. Whole 30 violations of the speed limit, yeah, that is indeed 'often' if you don't see that in the perspective of the > 99.9% of the time in the speed limit. And you managed to find a whole set of errors, well 'The rewrites in general look unnecessary per WP:NOTBROKEN since the filenames that I tried seem to have working redirects' (my emphasis) certainly puts in perspective why you think that banning is certainly the right punishment for such excessive ignorance. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Just my opinion here, but the Betacommand/Delta situation has been one of those very divisive issues which has, over the years, rubbed the community raw. May I suggest that re-fighting the issue yet again in this forum is extremely counter-productive and unlikely to change anything. ArbCom has made its decision, for better or worse, and Beta/Delta will have the opportunity to ask to be reinstated in a year. Nothing that is said here, by either side, is going to change that at this time, so why not, as the saying goes, just let it go? Surely everyone is ready for a one year respite. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

'ArbCom has made its decision, for better or worse' - so that is it, Beyond My Ken? Whatever the ArbCom decides, that is what we all have to abide by, even if the ArbCom would make the wrong decision? Just ignore and move on? If an admin would make a wrong block, the whole community complains, if a bureaucrat would close an RfA against any odds and promotes the editor to Admin, the whole community would complain, but if the arbs make a wrong decision, no-one should complain, because that is deemed counter-productive, it is unlikely to change anything, and we should just move on. That is the whole problem, Beyond My Ken, there is no scrutiny over ArbCom, their will is law, and they can do whatever they want. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

There always has to be someone who makes the final decision. If you disagree, don't vote for the current arbitrators if and when they stand for office again, or vote for arbitrator-candidates who share your philosophy, or stand for the position yourself. This is what we call "civil society". Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but "civil society" also allows for the opposition to say their word. If I believe that the last word was the wrong last word, then that should be said, we do not stop the discussion because it is futile, or because it is counter productive. I'm sure that if a bureaucrat decides to just promote someone to admin, then you are also going to say 'there always has to be someone who makes the final decision', so be it, that person now is an admin. And voting for the next ArbCom is not going to change this situation, this ArbCom is responsible for this decision. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Good decision by ArbCom in my view. No-one can deny that Betacommand/Delta wasn't given lots of chances, so the end result of this case was always fairly predictable. Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The result was indeed predictable, Δ actually did that prediction already before the case. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

@Dirk: The ethos of Wikipedia is such that you get to keep complaining until such time as you cross over the line and someone decides that you're disruptive and blocks you, but please allow me to appeal for a moment to your better insticts. I could well be wrong, but my understanding is that we are all of us here to help to create an encycylopedia for the masses, a repository of information available to anybody who wishes to access it, without fee or hinderance. If that's that case, I ask you to reconsider your continued proselytizing on Betacommand/Delta's behalf, since I do not see where it benefits the enyclopedia to do so. We, collectively, have a job to do here, please try to look beyond the cause you have taken up to the utlimate purpose behind it. I'm hoping you will see that the larger cause, which we all share, is so much more important than what happens to one editor that the continued focus on that editor is, essentially, counter-productive to the project. Instead, le us al work together to improve the project in ways that we can all agree on, and a year from now, Betacommand/Delta can join us in that work. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is what we are doing, and that is what aim I do, and actually, that is also the aim of Δ (despite all the disbelieve to that effect). We have our fair processes behind that, trying to keep it streamlined. I am also appealing to you. You say 'until such a time as you cross over the line ...'. Do realise, that also an ArbCom at a certain point can cross over such a line. If the processes behind the system become such that they are not a benefit to the encyclopedia anymore, because assumptive evidence presented as if it was fact is making the decisions, and not objective decisions, then that also hinders Wikipedia in its progress. You say it is 'just' Δ, no, it is the whole community. Now, I had the sincere hope that ArbCom would stand above that community, would stand above such subjectivity, would stand above the use assumptive evidence, would put evidence in a full perspective - but if even ArbCom is not able to do that, then I do believe that ArbCom itself is starting to hinder progress on Wikipedia. And I have been arguing such things for a long time, the sweeping principles and FoF's in previous cases sometimes have more effect on editors who do their best to protect a certain corner of Wikipedia, and when assumptive evidence and pulling information out of perspective is part of an ArbCom decision making process, then that will also be adopted, and probably stronger, by the community. It is a slippery slope, it has always been, and ArbCom sliding down it with the community.

Anywayz Ken, it is not the case that if ArbCom has decided, that no-one is allowed to complain about that decision anymore. I stand by the point that ArbCom here has failed to examine the evidence in a proper perspective and has lost objectivity, and that the applied restriction is first of all not a solution to the problem, it is incomplete (due to the lack of perspective), and the severity of the punishment is in no relation to the evidence. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Just as a note, if this is the way the community thinks and behaves, and if this is the way ArbCom is 'solving' things - then no, Δ will not be able to join us back in a year. The only way that Δ can come back is to guarantee perfection, and to upkeep perfection, because if 99.95% is not good enough, then 99.995% is not good enough either .. one single mistake, one slip, and he is out again. Due to this very decision, Δ is out forever. As you say "the Betacommand/Delta situation has been one of those very divisive issues which has, over the years, rubbed the community raw" - that is indeed the perspective of the community on this, and the community will rip everything out of perspective, and the ArbCom is just taking it - one wrong edit in 10, or one wrong edit in 10 million - it is one wrong edit, and hence the ArbCom will ban again because the assumptive evidence and ripping things out of perspective is so prevalent in the community, that this is the result, and the community will just keep that institution alive. And I hope you realise that with such an institution standing, we are not getting much further in building an encyclopedia. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) Ken, maybe you're right; I wrote the above because Dirk and HS had been complaining on the proposed decision talkpage that not enough recent disruption had been shown, so I documented an incident from December. I was going to write it up in the case itself, but the case closed while I was away for the weekend. However, I don't share your optimism that we'll have a year's respite from this sort of drama; that IMHO personalizes the issue too much about Δ. There's tons more incidents of disruptive high-speed editing by others (including one on ANI right now), and the editing community and arbcom have been (again IMHO) terrible at dealing with them. I hope a sharper approach to such problems can be developed in the not too distant future. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 07:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive high-speed editing .. Yes, Δ is a clear example of that, 0.5 edits per 10 minute period .. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI, WP:AN contains an example of how others think that the others also think that 'There was as well a lot of assumptive evidence being presented as if it was fact which can be typical on Wikipedia' (in another case). It is unfortunate to see that ArbCom also uses assumptive evidence which is presented as if it was fact. How did you say it again, 67.117.145.9, oh, 'The rewrites in general look unnecessary per WP:NOTBROKEN since the filenames that I tried seem to have working redirects'. But, as Beyond My Ken suggests, it does not matter, we should all move on, so these practices can continue. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It's actually worse than that. Had ArbCom merely come to an incorrect or too extreme decision, then that is a common outcome of all decision making processes about complex human behaviour. But in this case they seem to have behaved in a manner verging on ultra-vires, and acting so as to be seen to act. In addition to the options they were unable to agree on, they could have returned "no consensus" or asked for more information. Rich Farmbrough, 13:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC).

Just to ask for clarification, what does "0.5 edits per 10 minute period" actually mean? That, all throughout his edit history (from the first edit until he was banned), Delta made 0.5 edits per 10 minutes? --Conti|✉ 15:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I must confess that I made a rather rough count (20,000 edits in a year), but here we go for a bit more precise - it is difficult to get it really precise, one would have to do with finding the moment the speed restriction ban was enacted, minus times that Delta was blocked, etc. Lets do it for the whole period of editing:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allusers&aufrom=Δ&aulimit=1&auprop=editcount&format=xml
• This says '35154' edits on this account.
• Delta has a first edit at 12 July 2010, last edit at 6 Februari 2012 - that is 19+31+30+31+30+31+365+31+6 days of editing, is 574 days
• Roughly, &Delta has been blocked for 25 days in that period, making it 549 days.
• That * 24 = 13176 hours, that time 6 periods of 10 minutes per hour = 79056 periods of 10 minutes.
• I'll ignore the edits in the 30 10-minute blocks where the edit speed was higher, it will bring the average, obviously, further down.
• Lets say that Δ is active for 2/3rds of a day .. that means that he is active for 52704 periods of 10 minutes
• 35154 / 52704 is 0.67 edit per 10 minute period.

Looking at it in a different way:

• 30 10-minute blocks of violation is 30 / 52704 is a fraction of 0.000569 ..

In other words, 99.943% of the time Δ was not violating the speed restrictions.

Yet another way of looking at this:

• Δ made 30 speed violations.
• We have 52704 blocks of 10 minutes .. in other words, 1 block of 10 minutes in 1756.8 blocks of 10 minutes is a speed violation.

IIRC, the ban was enacted later, and the editing stopped earlier, so this figure would need to be adapted. One would have to substract the edits done before the ban was enacted, etc. But, lets set up another figure:

• To be continuously skirting the edit ban, Delta would need to be editing continuously at 39 edits per 10 minutes.
• To make 35154 edits at 39 edits per 10 minutes, one needs 906 periods of 10 minutes
• Say, Delta is active for 2/3 of a day: 906 / 6 / 16 is 9.38 days of editing. However, &Delta edited 549 days.

To be continuously skirting the speed restriction ban (a vague term for which I have not yet seen any proper definition, it must be someone who has a cruise control on a highway who sets it to 79 Mph where they is allowed to drive 80 Mph across a continent I guess), and which one then might see as a violation if that was indeed continuously performed (I don't know how), Delta would have to perform those edits in less than 10 days (and still having time to sleep for 8 hours a day).

I am not saying that it is good that Δ actually went over the speed limit, that certainly should not have happened. I'm not saying that &Delta was never over the speed limit, that is obviously clear. But all other terms that are used to describe that ~30 violations (see evidence by the IP): 'often', 'continuously skirting' are massive exaggerations. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

There have been no speed violations since September. It were 3 in September (I'll take the word of the IP for that) - So since the 1st of September we have 3 violations in 5 months, or 180 days or 19440 blocks of 10 minutes. That is one violation every 6480 blocks (and it was 1757 overall). If we go since the 1st of October, we have 0 violations in 12960 blocks. I'll leave the rest of the math to you guys, but think in terms of 'wikt:improvement'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I just realised that I did not take into account the deleted user contributions of Δ, which amount to a bit less than 1000. So the total becomes 36150 edits or 0.69 edit per 10 minute block over the total time, and for the 39 edits per minute limit it becomes 9.66 days. Sorry for the confusion. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Just one more figure .. if Δ would have skirted the speed restriction continuously at 39 edits per 10 minutes, he would have performed a whopping 2 million edits in those 550 days, Δ just did only a fraction, 0.00177, of that amount. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

So if I do nothing for 4 years, then write a script that deletes all fair use rationales from all of Wikipedia within one second, that would be acceptable, since "on average" I was only making one edit every five minutes? TotientDragooned (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Delta was not doing nothing for 4 years, but I see your point. One would here have to calculate in how many 10 minute blocks Δ was active, and then calculate these numbers. But you are not going to convince me that Delta was even getting remotely close to having his edits in concentrated in a period of 9000 minutes. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I was going to make a similar point as TotientDragooned. It seems odd to point out the 99% within-speed-limit rate and the argument that, on average, the edits were within the speed limit. I keep imagining someone who repeatedly gets over the speed limit on the road and tries to argue with the officer that, on average, he did not violate the speed limit at all. :) The entire point of a restriction is that you don't violate it, not that you don't violate it most of the time. --Conti|✉ 18:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, like the last 4 months. No evidence presented in the case of any violations, it does show that Δ can follow the restrictions. You are not looking for improvements, you are looking for perfection. So much for perspective. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This was Betacommand 3, the third arbitration for this user. This user had their own department at AN/I. There had been five years of blocks, bans, and other actions. At some point, somebody had to say "enough". ArbCom did. Can we do something else now? --John Nagle (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Why Mr. Doe, you realize this is the third time you've appeared before this court? I think you're guilty just on that alone. Afterall, we wouldn't be here if you didn't have at least some guilt in being arrested for a third time, right? I don't see that we have any choice. I'm going to send you to prison, on summary judgment, even though your record over the last six months has been rather remarkably clean. Since we found evidence from nine months ago of you violating civility, that's plenty enough to find against you. Thank you, good day, sorry no chance of appeal. Guards? Please take him away." --The Good and Righteous Judge (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I am doing something else as well. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Dirk is apparently unwilling to accept my appeal to drop this and move on, and wishes to re-litigate the case on this page. Others can help, however, in choosing not to respond to him, which I suggest is the best course of action. I'm going to take this page off my watchlist for a while. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• It is certainly within your purview to remove this page from your watchlist. However, Dirk is rather far from alone in feeling that there was a miscarriage performed in this case. Debate, as I recall, is permitted. Until such time as ArbCom shuts down this board to outside input, editing it is permitted. If you believe a stance in opposition to ArbCom on this case is without merit, there should be no fear whatsoever about what is posted here, I should think. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Dirk is apparently suffering from hearing loss. He seems to think Δ's 40 edit/10 minute restriction was the only one that meant anything. There was also the requirement for Δ's to carefully review all his automated edits before saving them, and the requirement to get tasks preapproved at VPR. I showed above how Δ ignored both of those as recently as late December. The NOTBROKEN thing, if there is any unclarity to it, is another example of something that should have been discussed at VPR before the fact. The idea of the VPR requirement was that we had already spent too much time on post-facto examination of Δ's broken operations and that future ones had to be discussed before they happened, not after. And most WP editors can, in fact, guarantee zero errors from their unapproved bot edits, because they don't run any bots at all, much less unapproved ones. I don't see why Δ should get special favorable treatment in that regard. Nobody would have gotten upset (at the level of calling for a site ban) if Δ's SPI bot had made occasional errors, since that was an approved bot, so responsibility for it falls partly on BAG and the surrounding community for having approved it.

Dirk: it looks to me like 2643 of Δ's 34230 edits (about 7.7%) took place within 10-minute stretches of editing that contained more than 40 edits. About 18% were in 10-minute stretches with more than 30 edits, 32% with more than 20 edits, and 54% with more than 10 edits, so we're clearly looking at some pretty fast editing throughout. FWIW, although I supported a further speed restriction instead of a total ban, I think the outcome of this arb case is perfectly justified and I don't have any problems with it. Per BMK, I'm also going to try to bow out of this. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• And now the anon-IP is offering up personal insults to Dirk. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• It's wonderful what you can do with math, dear IP. If I use your numbers, it is still a small amount of the time that Δ was over the speed limit. And for the last 5 months, that figure will be smaller, and for the last 4 months, it is nihil.
• And no, I was not ignoring the other restrictions. I've noticed the one case of incivility, I have noticed the 'errors' in the edits (which still does not mean that the edits were not reviewed .. that is assumptive evidence). And I don't think that I've said that there were not other violations, I did say that there should be perspective. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Since everyone is offering opinions here.. IMO - ArbCom had no choice here. If the sanctions had been ArbCom applied - they might have had some room to assume good faith on Δ's part.. but given that the sanctions were community applied - any other decision by them in this case would have undermined the whole concept of community applied sanctions. The moral of the story is: If you find yourself on the wrong end of a community sanction - don't agree to any condition you aren't 100% certain you can meet. Sorry Beta, even you knew what the outcome of this case would be before it started.. I hope you can find some other WMF project that appreciates your skills and drive. --Versageek 23:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• That's what I realize as well, and what I have being saying to Δ a long time ago. And I think that Δ realised that a long time ago as well. Still not sure if it was the only choice that the ArbCom had. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm possibly just raving here, but given the abrupt turn that voting took, I think something horrible happened during private negotiations between Δ and ArbCom members. The BAG-tasks-only restriction had most support and then suddenly one ArbCom member plainly accused Δ of lying on IRC (this was said on the proposed decision talk page). Something like that was probably the last straw, particularly because Δ blacked his user page while the outcome on the ArbCom page still looked like a BAG-tasks-only restriction would pass. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

In reading Dirk's arguments against the BC decision, I confess to being puzzled as to how his statistical analysis is relevant. Dirk, if I shoot a gun into the air 100 times, and only kill someone one time, then my actions have been 99% harmless. Nevertheless, I did kill someone. Being mostly correct isn't the point, especially if its only "most" of an enormous number of actions (as it is in this case). Nathan ^T 20:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this thing. Yes, if someone would make 1000 articles, and 10 are, knowingly, CopyVios, then that is indeed reason to ban someone. If the editor is making 1000's of blocks, and she once, knowingly, blocks an admin, that may indeed be reason to desysop her. Here, the 10 (actually, less than 10) cases are at the very worst cases where a page 'breaks' (and that, mostly while the page was 'broken' beforehand). Your comparison would hold if the errors made were massive errors. But to go with your comparison: if I shoot a gun into the air 100 times, and only break a twig of a tree once, then my actions have been 99% harmless. Nevertheless, you will be convicted to death row. - And why, ArbCom either suffers of loss of perspective - breaking one single twig is an inherently bad thing (tm) - or from using assumptive evidence - the bullet that broke the twig did not kill anyone, but we are sure that is going to happen - or from loss of objectivity - it is Δ, no matter whether he does not break a twig (no violations in evidence in the last 4 months), whether he breaks one twig, or copies copyvio, it does not matter, it is Δ, we first ban, and then we see whether we can find something to ban him for (though it does not matter, if we don't find anything we will just ban him). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• • • If that's the case, then ArbCom is possibly acting outside of its boundaries. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Admissibility_of_evidence asks for prior consent of the committee and exceptional circumstances. I see no discussion by arbitrators anywhere on the admissibility of this lying evidence, or its relevance to this case, much less any indication of "prior consent". In fact, I find Jclemens noting that ArbCom did not give prior consent to its inclusion [11], yet it influenced his decision. In effect, unless Δ apologized for supposedly lying to him on IRC, he wasn't going to change his mind on the case. Yet, the evidence was not specifically permitted to be included by ArbCom. Whoops. This wouldn't be the first time ArbCom has gone off the reservation [12]. All the more reason that the basis of this case is highly questionable. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Hammersoft, how does our decision regarding Racepacket relate to Betacommand, and why do you criticise that decision? (I've no idea what is the meaning of gone off the reservation, and this sort of generalised ArbCom-bashing is probably why few arbitrators are willing to participate in discussions on this page.) AGK [•] 14:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
        • I see nothing wrong nor sanctionable in questioning the behavior of a committee that works at the behest of the community, of which I am part of. If questioning (and I am not "bashing"; I am questioning) ArbCom is somehow wrong by ArbCom's standards, then I submit that it is ArbCom that it is in the wrong.
        • At Racepacket's interaction ban, the Committee decided to ban Racepacket from commenting on LauraHale on any WMF project. Yet, ArbCom has no jurisdiction over "Wikimedia projects other than the English Wikipedia" (ArbCom policy). When the ban, which is not permissible under ArbCom policy, was violated by Racepacket this month, ArbCom continued to believe it held jurisdiction over conduct on other WMF projects. As a result, ArbCom decided 10-0 with 1 abstention to ban Racepacket from Wikipedia for his actions. On 14 June 2011. the community in a vote of 134-20 overwhelmingly supported the new ArbCom policy which, among other things, added the Jurisdiction section before the Racepacket case closed. I could see where ArbCom might make a misstep in the case in June of 2011, as voting for the interaction ban was happening while voting on the new policy was happening. It was still in error to put it into effect on 19 June 2011 when the policy had been passed and applied by 14 June 2011. But, far more serious is ArbCom believing, 8 months later, they still held sway over conduct on other WMF projects. I call this going off the reservation. The initial interaction ban was in violation of ArbCom policy, and the subsequent project ban was also in violation of ArbCom policy.
        • In the Δ case, Jclemens continued to allow evidence that was considered to be inadmissible to not only influence his decision, but prevent his decision from being changed unless Δ apologized for it. In the real world, if a jury considered evidence the court had declared inadmissible, and it became known they did so, there would be a mistrial. That is not, by any means, the only case of ArbCom misconduct in this case.
        • ArbCom is not required to participate on this page. If ArbCom members decide not to post here, that is perfectly fine. Similarly, the community is not forbidden from posting here, nor is the community forbidden to question ArbCom's decisions. "This page is for discussion of formal announcements by the Committee". Am I somehow in the wrong for discussing here? If so, please enlighten me. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hammersoft: You are wildly mistaken on many issues. The Committee has always taken evidence of good behavior or bad behavior on other WMF projects in account to making our decisions here. So much so, that we routinely tell indefblocked users (or banned users) that evidence of working well on other Wikipedia sites will be factored in on any decision to offer an unblock/unban. Conversely, when misbehavior is done elsewhere, we note that too. The Arbitration Committee in the Racepacket decision noted the corrosive nature of the accusations made by Racepacket, past the point of acceptability. We have no control over simple.WP.. and we took no action on simple.WP when they made those recent comments that strayed far beyond the bounds of decency and acceptability. No nudges from ArbCom were needed, wanted, or applied, they independently determined that Racepacket had made statements inconsistent with them staying on Simple.

In En.WP's case, however, this was evidence that continued a pattern which included an attempt to contact another Wikipedian's employer in a blatant violation of WP:Harassment, the Committee put in the no-interaction remedy to try to resolve these issues, and when Racepacket violated them, it was a realization that no matter how long the ban lasted, that the behavior would not improve (and indeed that they were going further with their statements then they had previously!) that letting Racepacket back on en.wp without evidence that they had A) Realized that they had got it horribly horribly wrong with their behavior, and B) Improved their behavior significantly would be profoundly foolish.

As for Δ, while I had decided while reviewing evidence/workshop that a ban was not only "on the table" but a more than likely consequence of having so many issues (so much so that I felt like it would be the same thing over and over and over (with new issues each time, for example, the unhelpful edit summary on thousands and thousands of edits), others were hopeful that there could be a managed set of circumstances that would keep Δ editing.. I can say there was no "negotiations" so to speak, at least in the way most people think of the term negotiations.

Instead there was an attempt by a party to the case to influence a recused arbitrator via IRC into becoming a advocate for a party in private arbitration discussions.. This discussion, (which the arbitrator in question felt profoundly uncomfortable with discussing this with the party, and shut down the conversation due to the unacceptable nature of the conversation. When this party tried to sway another arbitrator in private discussions, they were asked up front if they had contacted any other arbitrators in an attempt to sway their minds on this case, and they had said they had not done so (in effect, blatantly lying to the second arbitrator about contacting the first one).

I would also submit however, that more then the character issues shown in this case, that it was more that we could not find a simple set of restrictions that would both prevent further issues, and allow Δ to continue to edit in the way he felt most comfortable. Remember, the reason that we accepted this request to go over Δ's restrictions was that it was felt that the community-imposed restrictions had too many grey areas and areas open to (vociferous) debate on whether it applied to certain edits or not. That was not possible unfortunately, as we could find no set of restrictions that were both concise and workable. Remember the old saw that "A camel is a mouse designed by coommittee"? When we tried to answer the questions at hand (how to prevent further issues, and cover anything that might reasonably pop up.. several Committee members might have looked at the situation and decided that rather then replace one set of unworkable, loophole filled, ambiguous restrictions with another set of overly worded, loophole filled restrictions, that a ban was a simpler and more reasonable action to be taken. SirFozzie (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• SirFozzie, thank you for your response. Simple questions:

1. The ArbCom policy states "The Committee has no jurisdiction over: ... (ii) Wikimedia projects other than the English Wikipedia; or (iii) conduct outside the English Wikipedia.". Is this true or false?
2. This policy was put in place on 14 June 2011 [13]. Is this true or false?
3. On 19 June 2011, ArbCom enacted an interaction ban prohibiting LauraHale and Racepacket from "commenting about each other directly or indirectly in any forum related directly or indirectly with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation. This includes mailing lists, IRC channels that use the word "wikipedia" or "wikimedia" in their name, or any WMF-hosted project." (ban implementation). Is this true or false?

• If you answered true to all three of these, then ArbCom violated policy. ArbCom does NOT have jurisdiction over Simple Wikipedia, or indeed any other WMF-hosted project.
• I don't dispute that ArbCom can take into account off-wiki evidence. That's not my point. My point is that you prohibited either party from commenting on the other on any WMF-hosted project when policy clearly states you do not have the jurisdiction to do so. Subsequently, this month ArbCom decided to acknowledge that said ban had been violated, tacitly acknowledging that ArbCom still believed it held jurisdiction over conduct at Simple Wikipedia. ArbCom can consider off wiki evidence. This is codified at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Admissibility_of_evidence. But, ArbCom can not ban someone from commenting on someone else outside of en.wikipedia. This is equally codified at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Jurisdiction. Yet, this is precisely what ArbCom did and subsequently sanctioned Racepacket for violating that policy violating prohibition.
• Please note; I am not agreeing with or disagreeing with Racepacket's actions, nor am I commenting in any way on his actions. I am questioning ArbCom's behavior in that case.
• As to the Δ case, I agree ArbCom took the simple route out. In fact, ArbCom was already voting to ban within three hours of the PD page being created; long before there was any consensus by the committee on what was actually the problem. So, voting on banning Δ began even before the committee had publicly decided what the problem was. I noted this problem the same day it was created [14], yet ArbCom went ahead anyway. It is a logical failure to be deciding on remedies to fix a determined problem when the actual problems have yet to be determined.
• "Hello, Car Repair, Inc. Can I help you?", "Yes, my car has a problem", "It's probably the transmission. We'll replace it for you for $2000", "Wait a minute, I didn't even tell you what the symptoms of the problem are!", "Oh, well, ok we'll replace the transmission and then you can tell us what the symptoms are. That'll be an extra $100". --Hammersoft (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Just commenting on your remarks about Racepacket, which seem to misunderstand/misinterpret both policy and the interaction restriction. Although the Committee has no jurisdiction over other projects, we are explicitly authorised to "take notice of conduct outside its jurisdiction when making decisions about conduct on the English Wikipedia if such outside conduct impacts or has the potential to impact adversely upon the English Wikipedia or its editors." What's more, the interaction ban explicitly instructed the restricted parties "to immediately cease commenting about each other directly or indirectly in any forum related directly or indirectly with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation".  Roger Davies ^talk 09:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Roger, that is exactly the point, "The Committee has no jurisdiction over: (i) official actions of the Wikimedia Foundation or its staff; (ii) Wikimedia projects other than the English Wikipedia; or (iii) conduct outside the English Wikipedia." - Yet the ban notice says "cease commenting about each other directly or indirectly in any forum related directly or indirectly with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation. This includes mailing lists, IRC channels that use the word "wikipedia" or "wikimedia" in their name, or any WMF-hosted project." (my emphasis throughout). You have the right to use such evidence in a case, but you have no right to express a ban prohibiting such behaviour. The furthest you can go is a warning, which is already dangerous per WP:BEANS. Moreover, using parts of these as evidence for expanding or enforcing ban restrictions is dangerous: 'mailing lists' - Email spoofing. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Since your questions are slanted in a "Have you stopped beating your wife" kind of method: I would invite you to show what action we, the en-WP Committee took on Simple, or ANY OTHER Wiki other than en-WP, but we both know there's none. The only actions we took were to ban Racepacket, direct him that if he wanted to return to en-WP, to not comment directly or indirectly on LauraHale (and direct LauraHale not to comment directly or indirectly on Racepacket). Later when, he made those comments, we made the ban indefinite on En-WP. I would submit that this is not truly about concern about policy or whatever, this is an attempt to browbeat the Committee and its members because we made a decision you disagree with greatly, similar to when you were insistent that the Signpost report this as a "Controversial" action on Lord Roem's talk page. SirFozzie (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for the accusations that I am using Loaded questions. I am not. I stated the three questions above in simple true/false terms. You are welcome to disagree with them, but they are statements of fact, backed by solid evidence. The same can not be said for the use of assumptive evidence on the Δ case.
• ArbCom didn't take any actions on Simple Wikipedia. You will of course note that I never said ArbCom did. ArbCom has jurisdiction to ban those two editors from commenting on each other here, on en.wikipedia alone. There have been plenty of interaction bans placed here on this project in the past with regards to editors' interacting with each other on this project. ArbCom does not have authority to prohibit anyone from commenting on anyone outside of en.wikipedia, yet this is precisely what ArbCom did. You ARE welcome to consider evidence of their interaction on Simple Wikipedia in deciding what actions to take here. You are NOT authorized to prohibit that interaction. Since ArbCom based the decision to extend his ban here on a violation of a ban that was against policy, the decision is invalid.
• Thank you for your characterization of my comments here as an attempt to browbeat the Committee. This is of course not the case, but you are most welcome to your opinion. I have zero expectation that ArbCom will overturn their decision, no matter the comments made here. That is not my purpose. With regards to the Racepacket case, my purpose is to highlight the violation of policy and see what ArbCom has to say in their defense. With regards to the Δ case, it is to highlight what I believe to be misconduct on the case. Am I allowed to do so on this page?
• As to my comments to Lord Roem's talk page (see discussion); I was not "insistent". I would ask for your leave to assume proper action on my part. As I stated there, I am not a frequent contributor to ArbCom. My familiarity with ArbCom and its actions is not extensive. That is now changing, in part thanks to Lord Roem's comments there. The only characterization that should be derived from my comments on his talk page is summed by my last response there.
• I thought the amount of controversy generated by this case was extraordinary. Apparently I was mistaken; significant controversy over a case is the norm. I find Beetstra's comments in this line to be interesting, and I will watch to see how that evolves. Thanks for your time, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

An arbitration decision is not usually universally praised, if it was that cut and dried, it would never have reached the Committee, being resolved well beforehand. I once said "An arbitration decision is lucky if it only enrages half the people following the case." but that comes with being the final step on the dispute resolution chain. I would suggest you would find yourself in a vast minority on declaring the Racepacket remedies "invalid", however, I am by no means infallible, and I do note that the RFC on ArbCom is still open and you can always seek support there if you wish. SirFozzie (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• With regards to the invalidity of the Racepacket decision, "What is right is not always popular. What is popular, is not always right". Thanks for the information about the RfC. I was not aware of it. I'll have a look. Thanks again for your time, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

AGK, I hope you don't mind me returning a question. You say that 'generalised ArbCom-bashing is probably why few arbitrators are willing to participate in discussions on this page'. You know that ArbCom decisions are often met with resistance - do you think that, if the ArbCom would manage to build up the case in a proper way, and lay out proper reasons for their decision, in stead of making decisions without obvious, clear, transparent findings for that (or even, making decisions while there is no on-wiki FoF supporting the decisions - like happened in this case before the voting on the last FoF), and then at the end put down the reasons, that then the public would not have reason to question your decisions (or at least less).

Let me give an example here, on the Proposed decision talkpage, I was pointed to the Recidivism Principle. I think that that is a good principle, and it is certainly of interest to this case. However, there is no Finding of Fact stating that directly states that recidivism is a problem here, while it obviously has a major effect in this case (see the number of people who say 'there must be something wrong, this is the third(!) case'). It even seems that parts of the decision to ban is (partially) based on the Recidivism Principle (see e.g. diff by Jclemens). It would greatly help, even if it is blatantly obvious in some cases, that there would be a FoF voted upon, where it is worded out, with linked evidence, that Recidivism with Δ is a problem. That can then be used to choose a proper Remedy. It may in some cases be blatantly clear, but it would increase the transparency of the decision.

So first vote on Principles and Findings of Fact, and when there is a base, craft Remedies that are in line with those Principles and those Findings of Fact, and then vote on Remedies. (Note: Principles or Findings of Fact based on off-wiki / personal information can still be voted upon using appropriate wording - at least it is clear that the Arbs agree that something off-wiki is bad enough for them to decide a strong Remedy - here e.g. 'Δ was lying in response to a direct question from Jclemens on IRC' - as that is apparently what happened). I know that that will prolong the case (though Remedies can already be made in the Workshop, but not on the Proposed decision), but it avoids at least the massive feeling of impropriety that quite a number of members of the 'public' now have about this case, and the strong feeling that some of us have that the remedies are utterly not supported by the FoF's (especially at the moment that the ban was fully voted on, but before the passing of the last, overnight FoF). I am sure that that will result in less 'ArbCom-bashing'. It also allows the public to more participate in the situation - if Arbs are totally deciding a case on something that happened off-wiki and which is bad enough to have one of the strongest possible punishments that ArbCom can hand out, then a workshop phase can turn into an utterly futile exercise - something that seems to be the case here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Separate question to Jclemens. Can you indicate whether the moment that you discussed the IRC-discussion between you and Δ mentioned here with the Committee was before the ban-proposal already passed, or after that moment? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The conversation between Betacommand and myself, initiated by Betacommand, happened on January 4th, 2012, and was communicated to the entire Arbitration Committee via the mailing list later that evening. FWIW, feel free to ping me on my talk page if you have specific questions for me, because I would regret not noticing them in a timely manner. Jclemens (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see this ban suspended in lieu of a practical set of sanctions and intense mentoring to be actually incorporated. I see no reason to proffer the request unless there was some indication from staunch advocates of the ban that such a compromise was even possible. Jclemens, would you agree to hear such a Motion? My76Strat (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

What would be the basis for such restrictions? Betacommand has had restrictions, and not followed them. He's repeatedly taken either an "I'm ArbFucked(tm)" approach or attempted to persuade individual arbitrators instead of addressing us as a group. Asking on behalf of someone else demonstrates your courteousness, My76Strat, but nothing about Betacommand's willingness to engage in the process. Looking at his contributions to the case, it's clear there is no basis on which to see him doing anything other than blaming other people for his own choices and the consequences of those choices. Editors who admit their mistakes are almost never banned by the committee. We've not arrived at this point through anything other than a series of dreadful failures of Betacommand to act in an appropriate manner. For what it's worth, I did an analysis of some of his automated edits back in the NFCC time frame, where I graded each A/B/C/F (I couldn't think what a "D" would be). In my own analysis, he had no "F" edits, that clearly contravened policy, but I evaluated his overall grade point average to be about 2.7: Most of his NFCC edits would have been done better by an editor of average skill taking the time to analyze and solve the problems. Ultimately, there are plenty of other programmers, and Wikipedians can and should rise to the occasion and fill whatever void Betacommand leaves with programmers who don't have his problems. Jclemens (talk) 02:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that thoughtful response. Sir the only basis of my concern is propriety. Much more to the spirit of propriety than anything written. My perspective derives completely from the fact that an indefinite block would completely satisfy every concern you legitimately raise. It's the social disconnect associated with a ban that I believe egresses propriety. And the imposition of a 1 year period where mitigation will not be heard. I agree there are statements Δ should genuinely make. And that certain sanctions should be in place. I understand there should be clear authority to impose a block for even a slight concern, to work it out. For example I think it would be reasonable if any arbitrator asked Δ to cease editing until an issue is discussed that he should cease editing upon that request, excluding the talk page where the issue was being discussed. And I think it should be as simple as a net three votes to vacate the suspension so repercussions are swiftly possible if the worst assumptions come to fruition. I honestly believe Δ could benefit from intense mentoring. If either of the named mentors from the previous suspension enunciated to me that they honestly tried, I'd reassess that belief, but my understanding, and what I have seen asserted is that it was in name only and truthfully nothing was ever done in that regard. You asked once if we should extend rehabilitation X^N+1 times to an editor. I say no, unless N = -1, which is how I feel this case appears. My76Strat (talk) 04:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Jclemens, I will address the questions and the discussions here, but will poke you on your talkpage. I noted from above that apparently Arbs don't follow the discussions on this page, since the consistent ArbCom-bashing that is taking place is a reason for them to avoid it, I did not consider that Arbs might miss the discussion (maybe as a result of that). My apologies for that.

Follow up question. This is a private communication, and it would need both of your permissions to be published online. Did the ArbCom consider to ask permission from Δ whether the discussion could be published on-wiki, and similarly, did you consider to give permission to publish that discussion on-wiki. And related, could we see if the logs can be published after this case, and further, could the Commission consider that, when off-wiki evidence is being used, that a serious attempt is made to get such evidence on-wiki? I have full respect for the cases where that is not going to work, but I do think that it in some cases would help the transparency of the cases. Thank you for your answers. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Not to speak for Jclemens or anyone else, but I think the issue of the IRC communications may be drawing disproportionate attention. There may be disagreement about whether the matter should have been mentioned at all, but I doubt very much that it changed many, if any, arbitrators' overall views of the case or what the sanction should be. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I asked the committee if it would be worthwhile to mention it onwiki, and there were some in support and some opposed for various good reasons, including NYB's above sentiment that it wouldn't really have changed much. As I've said elsewhere, all it did for me is erode my willingness to consider non-block measures: since he lied to me in response to a direct question, and refused to either admit or apologize for that, my mind is made up until such time as that changes. At any rate, there was never any offer on Betacommand's part to publish, nor any such request from me or the committee, since the evaluation of the merits of the communication was that it wasn't worth the trouble. Ultimately, I may be the only one who was at all swayed by the IRC communication, and that, only to the extent that it removed my willingness to pursue lesser sanctions which relied on Betacommand's compliance: if he's going to lie to me, it's not worth my time to postulate sanctions that rely on his honesty and forthrightness. Jclemens (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I already answered in part to this below. It already seemed to be the case that even without this off-wiki evidence, there was going to be a decision of banning Δ. It still leaves the question, whether the on-wiki evidence in itself is severe enough to allow for such a remedy. I, for one (and you can find others dispersed here on this page, and on &Delta's talkpage, and maybe in the counter votes on the ban-proposal), am not convinced that the presented evidence is so severe as to allow for such a remedy. But worse, since the ban decision was effectively taken way before the passing of any FoF severe enough to support that, it give the feeling of impropriety that even the on-wiki evidence was not influencing the outcome of the vote. That raises serious questions as to the objectivity of this decision, Jclemens. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, you're not convinced. You are entitled to run for the committee next year, and make the perceived injustices of this case part of your platform. As is, I witnessed any number of lesser alternatives fail to gain support and a few committee members who had been most earnestly seeking such alternatives throw in the towel and accede to a site ban. As is, I'm not sure that there's anything further to discuss here: the committee ultimately has the responsibility for deciding based on what we believe is the best outcome for the encyclopedia as a whole, and the arbitration process is explanatory--it serves to explain to the community how and why the decision was reached and why remedies are selected--rather than judicial: the lack of what some consider to be sufficient findings of fact was indeed an issue for some, but not all, arbitrators. What this decision lacked in committee cohesiveness, it made up for in the elongated on-wiki considerations of multiple alternatives. Jclemens (talk) 06:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Whether I run or not for the Committee next year is not the question, Jclemens - I am sure that your job here is not an easy one. The problem is not that we disagree - you may very well have made the right decision - the problem is that you did not convince me, I think it is a serious shortcoming that you did not convince me, and many others here. It raises, maybe wrongly, concerns that evidence is not seen in a proper perspective (which is difficult anyway - but when that it raises questions whether the remedy really solves the problem, if it really eradicated the root of the problem), but also that remedies are based on assumptive evidence, or even subjectivity - and the latter two are serious concerns. And those concerns are strengthened here by the fact that the ban decision was taken before any serious FoF was passing that could support such a ban. I here, seriously, question in this case the way this case is handled, and I can all but hope that it is just this case where those concerns are so strong. I am afraid that such concerns can seriously affect the credibility of the ArbCom as a whole, having a major impact on the decisions of past cases, even when they were pretty clear cut. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, Newyorkbrad. That may be true. If you think that the decision would not have changed when the IRC discussion would not have taken place (which I am indeed convinced of that it would not have), then we are back at square one for my questions during the final stages of the case. There was at that point a 10 - 6 voting in favour of banning, without even anything close enough to support such a severe decision. Even after the final FoF, one that at least puts blame on Δ that something is wrong, there is, IMHO, not enough evidence to support such a severe decision. Above there is the example, if someone shoots a gun 100 times in the air, and breaks one twig, does they then deserve death row. If that is the case, it is either using the evidence out of perspective (it is a capital punishment to break a twig), it is using assumptive evidence (if he shoots 1000 times, he may kill someone), or there is a lack of objectivity (it is Δ, ban him anyway and move on). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with you 100% in your assessment of the evidence, and I know that those who voted for a siteban agreed even less. But since in the vote on the ban I was one of the 6 rather than one of the 10, I should probably leave your points to be responded to by colleagues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, Newyorkbrad, it may very well be that there is enough in the evidence (but the strong voicing of the select few who actually consider that there may be a problem, both here and on Δ's talkpage - you know that the general public does stay out of the dramah, but I do recall that the last unban discussion on AN was more of a no-consensus discussion then to significantly tipping towards either end - and the community is not even outright dismissing the idea of letting an editor who got banned for copyright violations back into their corps of editors), as well as the fact that you, rightfully, say that 6 of the 16 arbitrators who voted did not support the ban does give me the feeling that that evidence there is certainly not so strong as to support a site ban (but I may be wrong). Whether my assessment is right or not, or whether it is assessed out of its perspective, or whether it is assessed with WP:CRYSTAL assumptions, or just plainly assessed subjectively is not the question - I even doubt if this, in hindsight, would make any difference - but the fact that ArbCom allows for such questions to be made allows for the ArbCom bashing that is here now currently going on. And I am afraid that that seriously undermines the credibility of the decisions that ArbCom is making, even if those decisions are right. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I've followed the discussion here and understand that some editors agree and some editors disagree with the decision. I don't propose to post-mortem the outcome here. Everything that has gone on, including my unsuccessful attempt to resolve related issues in the decision I drafted in Betacommand 2, I find the decision reached by the majority to be understandable. On the other hand, I had hoped we could agree on a remedy short of banning Delta from all participation in the project, and I did my best to craft a more narrowly tailored sanction, which failed to pass.

I don't propose to post-mortem the Racepacket case or motion either, not least because I am recused in that case. However, responding in general terms to Hammersoft's jurisdictional point, I believe he may have overlooked the very next paragraph in the Arbitration Policy after the one he has quoted. That paragraph states: The Committee may take notice of conduct outside its jurisdiction when making decisions about conduct on the English Wikipedia if such outside conduct impacts or has the potential to impact adversely upon the English Wikipedia or its editors. Typically, the Committee does this only in extreme situations; this jurisdiction must not be misused to interfere with legitimate discussion, which may include fairly harsh criticism and name-calling, of Wikipedia and Wikipedians on other sites, be they Wikimedia sites or unaffiliated. But certain types of off-wiki behavior are over the line, and it must be the case that the Committee or the community have the ability to address them by banning a serious offender from the English Wikipedia. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for taking the time to respond Brad. Unfortunately, no I did not overlook that paragraph. I've attempted to make my point several times above, and have failed. I'll do so again here. The point I was making is that the original interaction ban between LauraHale and Racepacket forbid either party from commenting on each other on projects beyond en.wikipedia, or indeed on any IRC channel related to WMF. ArbCom is explicitly forbidden from doing this. I am not suggesting that you don't have the authority to consider either party's off en.wikipedia actions. I am stating, as does policy, that you don't have the right to forbid such actions. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the clarification. However, I don't see why the one wouldn't be the extension of the other. In a way, it's almost more fair to give a user who is teetering on thin ice the benefit of guidance on what to avoid doing to stay out of trouble. Let's say the Committee is thinking "A has harassed B. If A harasses B one more time, even on another website, we're going to ban A from En-WP." Doesn't it actually benefit A to warn him of that fact, rather than surprise him with it post facto? At most, you are saying that the original decision should have said "A is warned that he will be banned from English Wikipedia if he mentions B elsewhere" as opposed to "A must not mention B elsewhere," but since we all know (and the policy repeats) that we couldn't ban someone from another site anyway, it seems to me that the distinction you are making is largely a semantic one. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Not at all. What ArbCom did was a clear violation of policy. It's not question of semantics. However, I do think there's quite a serious problem right now with how ArbCom conducts its business (and I'm not referring to any one or group of someones), in so far as how things are supposed to be done. What I am seeing, with the more that I learn, is a rather large disparity between more professional arrangements one would expect in the real world and how things have been arranged here. ArbCom has evolved, to be sure, but I find the practices here astonishingly disconnected from real world professional practices. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Brad's answer seems fine to me. His alternate phrasing "A is warned..." is perhaps a more precise way of saying what the decision meant, but that reading of the original text was obvious all along. The very well established and vigorously enforced WP policy WP:NLT is worded about the same way as Brad's alternate phrasing. NLT explicitly says that WP can't stop you from filing a real-world lawsuit against another editor (WP has no authority over the courts), but if you do so, you are not allowed to edit Wikipedia. That shows Wikipedia has a longstanding practice of reacting very firmly to certain types of off-wiki conduct by editors. The Racepacket ban worked about the same way. Arbcom should be doing that type of thing more, rather than less. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 04:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• • • (ec)Newyorkbrad, in the end it turns out to be a question of semantics, but it is an initial break of your own policies. The warning might have been good, but you may even get into severe problems actually using such off-wiki evidence. Here on en.wikipedia you have access to the checkuser utility, something that you would not have outside of that. So some creative use of a new IP range (maybe wait three months until primary checkuser data is gone ..) trying to imply you are party A on en.wikipedia, then claim an account here on en.wikipedia making that a likely sock of party A and make sure it gets blocked as a sock, and then go to xx.wikipedia, using that SUL account and insult party B. That decision severely steps over the bounds, it is very dangerous to even give the warning, let alone put it in such strong words, which is just a plain invitation to do so (note that I am here now intentionally breaking WP:BEANS for this reason). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, you lament an "unsuccessful attempt to resolve related issues in the decision I drafted in Betacommand 2" The inability rest not in the words you formed, which were efficient to accomplish your intent; it rests entirely with the manner of implementation. The failure to enforce the required mentoring is a very large mitigating factor. You have expressed many reasonable assertions throughout this case as well. I hope you would also consider it worth the extra effort to continue advocating while options are available. According to policy: "Any editor may ask the Committee to reconsider or amend a ruling". I certainly want it understood that I am approaching things with that hope at core. My76Strat (talk) 05:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to get heavily involved in this except to say that I support arbcom making decisions it feels it has to solve situations, and to point out that when I participated in earlier discussions on Betacommand/Delta with the same vigour that some users are here, I had all kinds of insults and personal attacks hurled at me from those supporting him. the lengths that some will go to above to try and excuse his behaviour is just laughable and really should tell Arbcom all they need to know. There are those for whom Delta can do no wrong. To use some of the far reaching analogies above, even if they watched him run someone over and roll back and forth over the victim there would be at least a dozen reasons why it wasn't really his fault. This is the same song and dance that has been going on since this started 4, 5 or however many years ago it was at this point and I commend arbcom for hopefully finally putting it to bed.--Crossmr (talk) 10:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

And there are those for whom Δ can do no good. Crossmr, I think we can agree to disagree on this, and I think that we both agree that Δ did things which are wrong. I can also agree that if there is a properly built case with proper evaluation of evidence and all, that this may be the only outcome. But I (start to) have serious doubts about those processes - evaluation of evidence, assumptive evidence, or even plain subjectivity - which are extremely evident in this case. This time it is someone with quite some on-wiki enemies who gets banned .. next time it is a good friend of the majority of the ArbCom who gets a slight slap on the wrist? You can't tell me that that is the type of 'justice' that we want prevalent on Wikipedia? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Crossmr you make some valid points in your comment. Never lose sight of the following quote: "I believe that discussion is necessary for growth of Wikipedia. Discussion isn't leaving an opinion and walking away. It requires putting forth that opinion and discussing its place in the greater scheme of things. That means people may not agree with you, and you may not agree with them. The key is to stick to the matter at hand and discuss that." For it is just as insightful. My76Strat (talk) 11:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

So, we go on discussing this until we die then? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I agree with your insinuation here ASCIIn2Bme. My76Strat (talk) 12:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Certainly, and in the past I've debated this subject to no end, and I've constantly had that discussion slammed in my face by his supporters via insults, premature closes, personal attacks, and various other stalling and obfuscating techniques all serving to derail any discussion on the matter.--Crossmr (talk) 11:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I've commended Delta on his behaviour on more than one occasion when he actually showed improvement. Delta did do things which were wrong, yes you tried to reduce them to trivially insignificant percentages, but the fact remains he was under restrictions, he violated them and it's time he paid the piper. The time was far too long and the degree of improvement not enough--Crossmr (talk) 11:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that this and other cases (e.g the CC Arbcom case, the case involving Cirt, etc.) illustrate clearly the main flaw in the current ArbCom system. ArbCom now functions as a mini community, just like a small group of editors could discuss issues at AN/I. This then leads to similar divisions among Arbitrators as exist in the community, so in the end the problems are not fundamentally resolved, except that there is now a binding ruling. This dynamic leads to editors being banned/restricted in sometimes illogical ways, because other solutions require more work to put together and the lack of consensus make such solutions not get enough votes. But ArbCom can't afford to pass nothing, so that's why you end up with climate scientists being banned from editing articles on climate science, an Admin who'se Admin work was excellent being desysopped because of complaints about an infinitesimal fraction of his contribution to articles etc. etc.

ArbCom should fundamentally change the way it goes about its business. There should be a few Arbitrators who study all the relevant facts of the case, they should write up a report about the issues at hand. The entire group of Arbitrators should then discuss primarily from that report, it should not be like it is at present where every individual Arbitrator looks at the raw facts him/herself. What happens now is that most Arbitrators have an incomplete view of the entirety of the relevant issues, and each of them then tend to focus on those issues that they individually feel most strongly about. Count Iblis (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

There's certainly some merit to that sort of approach. Ideally, that is what drafting arbitrators are empowered to do, but we are somewhat hit-and-miss on that--that is essentially what has happened in Civility, but not so much with Betacommand 3. It's my hope that TimidGuy likewise has the events and issues entirely clarified before the decision is posted in a day or so. Jclemens (talk) 07:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is not completely clear to me. Do you mean that in 'Civility' the ArbCom did use such an approach, and in 'Betacommand 3' they did not, or the other way around? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The former. Jclemens (talk) 08:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the base opinion anyway, having been a drafter for several cases, I do not want my fellow arbitrators to just "rubber stamp" my opinion. When I write up (or collaborate with my fellow drafters to write) the drafted decision, while I fully intend to explain how and where I got from point a (the evidence) to B (what I think the decision should entail in principles, findings, and remedies)... but I would certainly hope that if my fellow arbitrators disagree with where I ended up, they would speak up and just as importantly, correct things if they feel other findings or remedies are required. Arbitrators are elected for, in part their ability and good judgement. Let them exercise it.

In this case, we had some communication issues (not the least of which was that I had severe health issues during the case, so much so that I missed three weeks of work in real life along with missing out on things here, which is why I've been inactive for several weeks now as I recover). What Jonathan is referring to is that a lot of arbitrators like to post a framework proposed decision on the private arbitration wiki during the workshop phase, and make sure to keep it updated as more evidence/workshop proposals come in (and make sure that all of us are fully aware of what is going on). SirFozzie (talk) 08:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I am very concerned that efforts to get from A to B are seriously curtailed if we must go thru C to get there. I wish to be very clear that I wouldn't support a finding that required a measure of bad faith to be consequential. I do believe there are sufficient grounds to request an amended ruling. And I have high confidence ArbCom will do what is right. That may relegate me to the dissenting view, but my dissent is conjoined with my respect. I'd like to see a bit more of that, even when it might be due unto me. I entered this case being called a "devils advocate". I expressed disdain at that time, because I did not wish to be presumed to be advocating a position I did not actually believe. I do feel my own involvement was practically ignored and I consider part of that to be a systemic failure of the arbitration body. It is entirely possible that my expectations are unreasonably high, but I'd honestly hope they are not. My76Strat (talk) 06:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting thought. You weren't a named party to the case. The arbitration process doesn't recognize advocates for parties (I remember running across a failed proposal to do just that at one point, but can't find it now), nor does it have any formal method to accept friend of the court briefs. So I can see where you're coming from that you might feel left out of the process, but I'm not seeing how that is a failure, let alone a systemic failure. You submitted evidence, along with 16 other people. Much of that evidence included opinions on how the committee should interpret events, much of that opinion at variance with others' opinion--thus, as close to friend of the court briefs as we have in arbitration. A lawyer can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think courts usually take the time to address the points made in every amicus--those accepted are incorporated, and those not accepted are simply not mentioned in the decision, yes? So, having said all that... what do you think the committee should have done differently? Jclemens (talk) 08:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes sir, I understand your reservations. I did my best to anticipate, and mitigate these concerns and did motion to be added as a party. This is one of too many ignored requests. I am a "friend of the Court" in that I have respect and confidence in the body. But I am a participant to this case with an involved perspective. I had stated I only knew Δ for about 5 months, but that most recent 5 month period contains a plethora of information relevant to the antecedent to the case and genuine conduct that refutes the propriety of a ban. My76Strat (talk) 08:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

To the second part of your comment: If I could only change one single thing, it would be an absolute requirement that respect and decorum be unequivocally maintained. We truly have a poor track record at communicating with each other, and it has such a detrimental effect on ability, and potential. My76Strat (talk) 08:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

My76Strat: You disagree with the Committee's decision to ban Δ, that's clear. However, that doesn't make the decision invalid, nor would it if you had been named as a party. The Committee and its members DO carefully read all the information posted (trust me, it's a source of considerable eye strain for me) by parties and non-parties alike. We may disagree with the conclusions that members have drawn, because we are charged to be the final stop on the dispute resolution chain. We are charged with doing what is necessary to resolve situations. Was BC-fatigue a problem? Probably. I even mentioned that in some of my workshop proposals that A) it is unusual for someone to be the focus of three separate cases (over five years), and that B) The committee had already stepped in once previously to.. well.. not overrule the community (in relaxing the community ban that Δ was under at the time),more like allow a path back to editing.. and unfortunately, the Committee had to step in and remove him from the NFCC area, and then there was further issues.. so yes, fatigue might be an issue. But to think that the decision would have been any different if you had been a party or not is not reasonable. SirFozzie (talk) 08:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you sir, I appreciate your comments. I genuinely wish I could share the surplus of my energy to invigorate anyone overly fatigued. I would so much rather see things answered, than otherwise circumvented. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Format of decisions requires "Where the meaning of any provision is unclear to any arbitrator, the parties, or other interested editors, it will be clarified upon request." and that hardly leaves room to ignore a direct request, fatigued or otherwise. My76Strat (talk) 09:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstand how I use fatigue. The Committee (and the Community) had bent over backwards to find ways for Δ to edit. By fatigue, I mean that we had tried just about everything possible to keep them editing (so much so that the Committee held a community ban in abeyance to let him return!).. the fact that we voted to ban him is not saying that all his edits are bad, or that even he is a bad person, just that after a long case (and the aforementioned years of issues), that we could not find a way to retain the positives of his editing without the issues rising up. So more than "I'm tried of seeing his name, let's ban him!" it's "We've tried everything under the sun and unfortunately, this is the next logical step." SirFozzie (talk) 09:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

As one that would normally side with Δ on points, I do find the ban action as probably a controversial but otherwise appropriate route per the issue of minimizing disruption and fatigue. There are actions I can't defend Δ for doing in light of sanctions and other warnings, and that's his burden to bear. So I don't think ArbCom is wrong in enacting this aspect. But my concern, as I noted in my uninvolved cased statement, is that while this is primarily Δ's problem to fix, there is a small enough impact of editors that are entrenched against his return to the work that should have been addressed. Editors under sanction are certainly to be under scrutiny, but at the same time, we have to be aware that those under sanctions are human. Application of sanctions have to be made with common sense and common courtesy, especially when the edits are non-disruptive. A tap on the shoulder for a small failing does a lot more good than trying to shut them down completely. How Δ then responds to these is critical. --MASEM (t) (eta: 23:10, 2012 February 20)

I absolutely agree with your comments, with very minor extenuation I'm saying, "hell yes". By craftsmanship, you have posted the "timeless message" of this case; and were astute to omit the (UTC). Sincerely - My76Strat (talk) 23:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Oops, didn't mean to omit that. --MASEM (t) 00:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd like to share a link written in the same real time that Masem was writing the above. For they significantly regard the plight of Δ as well. [15] - My76Strat (talk) 00:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you mean this and if anyone cares, it's about a proposal to modify the wiki software use the template system to insert new, unsourced info into 1000's of articles around the clock, an unsound suggestion as the VP discussion shows. As for human failings, Δ is human but his robots were not. There were some workshop proposals designed to keep the human but ban the robots (i.e. limit Δ to editing at human-like speeds) and those proposals got considerable traction, but Δ's supporters opposed all of them. Perhaps if they'd gotten on board, Δ wouldn't have been banned. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 05:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting my link to your satisfaction. I disagree with the synopsis you portend of the link. I did take liberty and remove the belligerent portions of your post. If you require such attacking prose, you may reinsert the text and I'll not again correct it for you. I disagree with the premise of your bot editing assertions. I do agree that opportunities at compromise were missed. - My76Strat (talk) 06:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It was not my intention to attack anyone (it's clear I was criticizing the VP proposal itself, not its author) but I modified the description and toned down the editorialization per your change. (Obviously the description is intended to present the main objection, not capture the nuances. People wanting the details can click the link.) That someone posted a not-so-good idea on VP and had it shot down is fine--we all have our moments of unwisdom. Δ's "plight" (as you put it) is more like if the person had the idea and instead of posting to VP, had simply deployed a bot to implement it without prior discussion, and did similar things over and over even after being put under a restriction (like Δ's) to post to VP ahead of time. I would say that firm intervention (up to and including a site ban) would be more than justified in a situation like that. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 07:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Added: the original version is here and I think your edit obscured the snarkiness of the original description, so I think people would have been unlikely to be confused by it. I'm not going to make a fuss about it but I think it's really best to not edit other people's talk page posts unless they're blatantly over the top, which this wasn't. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 07:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I do agree to a certain degree with that, 67.117.145.9. But I'd like to make the point, that most of Δ's ideas were not new ideas. There are some which are controversial in themselves, everybody is doing them (or even, everybody 'should' be doing them). Some of those tasks are extremely tedious, and would be better by either bot or user-supervised script. And I am even going to argue that we should allow for errors being made there. Right, Δ should (have) ask(ed) permission for such scripts, per restrictions, and that was not done. And that should have, and has had, his effect in the form of blocks. It is merely a difference in nuance to the whole thing, but I do think that some of the ideas, or maybe even all, were shot down because Δ did/suggested them, not because they are a bad idea in themselves. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I point to the large thread that Hammersoft started to try to get each task that Δ claimed he was doing approved by the community, and the numerous replies "Well, a bot can do the same job, so oppose this task". It clearly wasn't the task was inappropriate but the person doing them. And that, to me, shows that editors are not considering the behavior, and only the editor involved, in their decisions. Yes, Δ's under sanctions, of course people will care about the net result of his edits, but this type of outright dismissal is part of the problem I mentioned above that isn't addressed by Arbcom at this time. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course they cared about who was doing them. That was the entire problem. The problem was the way Delta goes about doing things, which is why people opposed him being involved in them. There was no need to involve Delta's baggage in tasks that could have otherwise been handled by a bot with far less drama. That entire list came about during a giant dramafest over Delta, so you can't really use that as your standard. As pointed out below, Delta proposed stuff all the time and didn't get jumped all over.--Crossmr (talk) 09:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly, quite some of these tasks would be downright dismissed if done by a bot. A lot of the individual tasks were cosmetic changes - doing cosmetic changes alone is something that should not be done by a bot, as bots can not detect that a task is purely cosmetic (or would have a darn-difficult time doing it). However, if the cosmetic part is part of a larger edit, where there are also changes which are not cosmetic, then those cosmetic changes are allowed. A human editor would see whether the final change in the page would be purely cosmetic (and could then dismiss that change) or whether there were also proper changes to a page (and hit save). Such edits are hence not possible to do by bot, they need to be done either by hand (VERY tedious), or script assisted. As such, it would be a great task for Δ - he needed to check every single edit whether the changes were correct, whether the changes were not purely cosmetic, before saving the page. And that is part of what you all want Δ to do, doing considered edits. He has been doing many of such edits, and there is the odd mistake, but nothing seriously (still, he should have noticed that as well - he could be more considerate in his edits, but he certainly showed that he was not not considering what the edit did). Except that he did not have approval for those edits. And when approval was requested, quite a number of the individual tasks were downright dismissed. He did not edit according to the restrictions, he was blocked because we want Δ to edit according to the restrictions, but no permission was granted to show that he could actually edit according to the restrictions. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

If it's a purely cosmetic change (e.g. to wikicode formatting) then it shouldn't be done at all, whether by human or bot. If a human succumbs to the urge here or there (and by that I mean an occasional single edit) it's not a big deal, but it should certainly never be done systematically even by a manual process. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

No all "purely cosmetic changes" are to be avoided by human or bot, as long as the change is recommended by MOS or other practice. Using AWB will introduce such changes, for example, alongside other edits (this list is here). So no, this statement is incorrect. --MASEM (t) 06:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That is what I said, 67.117.145.9. However, cosmetic changes are beneficial, since they often improve the editing experience, make editing easier (how of I am annoyed by impossible to read templates ..), so when there are substantial non-cosmetic changes to a document, editors are free to perform them (within 'Cosmetic changes ... should only be applied when there is a substantial change to make at the same time.' WP:COSMETICBOT). There is hence no reason to oppose cosmetic changes done by Δ solely on the fact that they are cosmetic changes - as long as Δ makes substantial other changes to the document (which would mean that he needs to evaluate the edit, and that is exactly what we want). The excuse that cosmetic changes should be done by a bot is just plainly in contradiction to our bot-policy. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I've seen a couple of people claim that Δ's proposals and ideas are shot down just because of who he is and so I searched throught the Village Pump to find examples of such. I came accross theree proposals by Δ:

• Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_83#User:.CE.94.2FTypos
• Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_73#Heads_up
• Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_68#Missing_media_bot

Perhaps I'm missing all the instances where Δ came to the Village Pump to post his proposals and was attacked? There is Hammersoft's October 2011 request, but that included 20 tasks, was not started by Δ, and came on October 2011. Surely there must have been other instances before that which led Δ ignoring his sanctions? 69.149.248.81 (talk) 06:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I looked at Hammersoft's list and thought all the rejected proposals were rejected for good reasons, as the proposals mostly seemed to be solutions in search of problems. I also felt that Hammersoft's presentations probably did Δ's cause more harm than good, though that's an untestable theory. I think Δ did do some work on scanning database dumps for typos. Note that making the corrections with a bot is inappropriate per WP:SPELLBOT--the corrections are all supposed to be done by humans (I don't know what was actually done). For the "Heads up" one, it looks like he got approval, there was reasonable discussion going on, so what's the problem? (I don't understand the situation with those image renames that didn't leave redirects, which seems bad because it breaks any off-wiki links pointing at the old names. I think it would have been better to make redirects than have a bot rewrite links, per NOTBROKEN). The "missing media bot" idea looks like it wasn't pursued (no big deal). I probably would have opposed it because of all the bot noise it would have spewed onto talk pages, but it could be fine as a (say) a toolserver app.

As for people believing Δ is the wrong person to do a particular automation task due to his past history, I don't see a problem with that (though I'm not persuaded it was much of an issue in the above). If I stand for RFA because I want to block vandals, the RFA participants are going to consider my whole history when considering whether to give me a sysop bit so I can do the blocks. They might very well decide not to give it to me, if I've made too many errors without an subsequent period of solidly good editing. Running bots isn't (or shouldn't be) any different, it's a position of trust and not something people are entitled to seize for themselves. If/when Δ is unbanned, I'd hope for him to do a fairly long mentorship focusing on traditional editing skills before he starts working with any sort of automation again. I think that's the best way for him regain any credibility. And as I indicated in the arb case, if he does want to pursue that approach I'll be happy to assist and support him any way I can (assuming he wants my help--I can understand if he doesn't). 67.117.145.9 (talk) 09:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not so much the exact outcome of that October thread, but the attitudes within it that speak for themselves, when you add in previous discussions and some of the comments at ArbCom. (eg: being blocked for going 43 edits in 10 minutes, exceeding the "40 edits in 10 minute" throttle, being blocked for questionable activity on the presumption that he wouldn't communicate if told about the questionable aspects; being blocked for talking about NFCC activity performed off en.wiki) Δ is far from being the victim here - again, the reason we were here is pretty much all on his shoulders. But there's that tiny bit about people that basically act as if Δ should be a persona non grata despite the community's general acceptance that Δ would be welcome as long as he follow expected behaviors; the lack of any discussion of this in this outcome is a bit of concern because as soon as Δ requests to be unblocked in a year+, those same people are going to reappear and make it difficult for Δ. If/when Δ, those people need to temper their dislike of him. Monitor him like a hawk, sure. Run to ANI at the first moment of trouble, no. Common sense and common courtesy need to be demanded here, particularly if any part of Δ's return involves civility aspects. It is very hard to remain civil when people are trying to get you evicted from the project.

Again, Δ's the one that has the lion's share of work to prove himself trustworthy, civil, and otherwise acting as consensus expects for any other editor. But, there's a sliver here that lies on the rest of the community to at least give him that opportunity following the ban period instead of fighting against that. That part I do hope is addressed when we return here to discuss Δ's unblock after a year. --MASEM (t) 14:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Gee, that's a lovely assumption of bad faith, but not the worst to come from his supporters. I really love this whole half-concession approach, "oh sure, Delta does make mistakes, but it's all your guys fault for holding him so accountable". uhuh. He's watched like a hawk because he constantly screws up and has been doing so for years. years. years. years. I'm repeating that because it seems some people fail to grasp that. The attitude taken by his tireless defenders often comes across as expecting other users to treat Delta as if he has zero history, as if every interaction with him was a brand new interaction with a brand new user who had zero knowledge about our policies, guidelines and our "mysterious ways". In that situation we'd be more lenient of the behaviour, but that is very far from Delta's situation. Delta doesn't get to start over at square 1 every single time he violates his restrictions or causes some other problem. The fact that we've already been to square 1 several times is the reason he's under those restrictions. The entire point was he violates them, he's done. Nothing else works with him. People have been talking to him for over 5 years and he still doesn't get it. So yes, Delta does get to play by different rules and held to a higher standard and rightfully so, no other user has ever been in the position that he is in now.--Crossmr (talk) 10:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you and I have a different understanding of "constantly". In fact I would readily concede that you are correct if you could substantiate something remotely close to constantly. My76Strat (talk) 10:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, but I clearly don't think Δ was only partially responsible for this situation - it was all on him to improve. The problem is that the attitude of his detractors did not help towards helping him improve. Because of WP's nature (non-democratic etc.) we should be viewing things like sanctions and the like - when the edits are otherwise non-disruptive - as aids to getting said person to work better towards the community's perceived expectations, instead of hard-fast penalites that must be applied immediately. Particular when the sanctions include vagueness that could be read different ways, and at least should be discussed before a novel interpretation is applied.

Or the shorter answer: if people that were watching Δ intensely dropped a warning that he was doing something that they felt was against a sanction, turning to ANI if he appeared to completely ignore that warning, as opposed to running to ANI the instant they occur calling for the block, he might have actually adjusted his editing means to avoid the ANI stage, or engaged in discussion how he didn't feel he was breaking a sanction in the case of "broad" terms. Instead, because some editors want Δ banished forever, they saw any little infraction an immediate need to run to ANI to enforce. To some extent I can see why Δ would edit like he did - because he knew that he would end up at ANI for pretty much any mis-action he took, so there was no point in being careful about it. That cycle is a no-win for everyone. As you mentioned, we can't wipe his history, but that means we have to recognize he knows how to write bots and do automated tasks well, all benefits to the work, in addition to the problems with communication and jumping ahead on mass edits without affirming consensus. He was not like an SPA, or a troll, or a vandal, where their only contributions were disruptive. It should be every editor's goal to bring him back into the fold, correcting the problem behavior while enhancing the benefits. Rushing to ANI to ask for a block on the slightest deviation is not helpful to that end.

Again, I support ArbCom's decision to block BCD. He needs to think about how to best approach his work at en.wiki knowing that he has a large group of detractors that will keep in under a microscope. But I certainly hope that on his return, those detractors willingly - or if necessary by decree of ArbCom - give him appropriate benefits of the doubts and caution warnings before throwing the book at him. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

And again we're back to "blame the victims". If only we'd warned him more. The 3 dozen warnings he'd previously received were insufficient, but one more would have been the one that caused him to behave appropriately. The entire point was that he was supposed to adjust his behaviour before, not after someone called him out on it. He'd already been told. he'd already been told. he'd already been told. Many many many times, by many many many people. He'd already exhausted the community's patience years ago. So supporting blocks or indicating that blocks were necessary was entirely appropriate. The repercussions for behavioural issues are supposed to escalate over time, and Delta is far beyond the warning stage at this point. He's been beyond it for a very long time. The weeks long saga we had over the summer should have provided him with all the warning he needed, but he ignored it. Those were all his choices. Not one single detractor flew to his house and forced him to edit as such with a gun to his head. It should be clear at this point that it doesn't matter what anyone else does or says to Delta because he will do whatever he wants. Were the opposite true, he may have gotten it after the 500th person told him his behaviour wasn't okay. I hope, if he returns, that some of those supporting him will take a long hard look at their own conduct, because the last time around I found it to be rather disturbing. When there were just no more excuses left for his behaviour, it just became one long personal attack after another, mixed with a generous amount of obfuscation as they desperately tried to make the discussion about anything except Delta. It is for that reason I hope he never returns, because he seems to bring out the worst in certain people.--Crossmr (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that while there were repeated warnings, the stuff that went to ANI without a warning were for new behavior that people found questionable, aka the "novel interpretation" aspects I discussed. No, these novel interpretation were later affirmed by the community, but until that point, the discussion should have started on Δ's page, "Hey, I don't think this falls inside the sanctions". If he didn't respond at all and kept going without heeding that advice, sure, block him. But if he did respond and stated he didn't think they were, then a better discussion to achieve clarity would have ensued, and hopefully he wouldn't have been blocked. Note, this requires Δ to respond, thus the ball would have still be in his court come around, so it's not a pity-play for him. But what the community basically did would be like going the posted speed limit but getting a ticket because they hadn't bothered yet to put up signed for the newly enforced lower speed limit. Communication has to work both ways; Delta is very lax in his, but at the same time, so was the community, or at least those determined to vilify Δ even more. --MASEM (t) 00:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

There was nothing novel about the vast majority of the ones I saw that went to AN/I. Was there anything novel about this? nearly 3x the edit rate that at that point in time was shown to be a chronic problem for him. He'd basically spent a good part of the spring editing however he wanted regardless of the restrictions. Exactly what would further warnings have done at that point? How many times would we need to explain to him that 115 is more than 40? What was really novel was after there was evidence that Delta had been thumbing his nose at the community for some time his supporters turned around and then tried to propose that all his sanctions be removed. That was about the most novel thing I saw out of that mess. What really lead to a mess there was things like you claiming the blocking admin had taken certain incidents into account during his first block, but when I checked directly with the blocking admin he hadn't been aware of them. What further blew up the issue was the repeated WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on the part of his supporters who constantly tried to make the discussion about NFCC when the discussion was about Delta's behaviour. When that didn't work the slings and mud came out. That was really novel because I don't recall ever seeing a group of editors bend over quite so far backwards to try and pull someone out of the fire before. If his supports didn't fly off the hyperbole handle every time someone took a Delta issue to AN/I, he might not have actually have been banned right now. his supporters will defend him at the drop of a hat, but they don't really ever seem to do anything to help curb the issue. Last time around we had someone insisting that if Delta got blocked, he would pick up the torch and keep going just like Delta was and in the same manner. But it seems a lot of people were using Delta has some kind of proxy for NFCC and any attack on him was an attack on NFCC. "Delta is being a jerk." "You hate NFCC!" Yes, that's a fairly novel interpretation right there. Instead if someone said "Oh yes, 115 is more than 40, he's obviously not following his restrictions properly, give him his escalating block and a little time to think about it/I'll have a chat with him about the importance of working with the community", it might never have came to this point.--Crossmr (talk) 05:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the edit rates ones. He got blocked multiple times for that, warned multiple times, and that was his own watch to make sure he didn't go over, and he didn't several times. I've no pity there.

I'm talking about at least two times that I documented for this case (see [16]) : one, the discussion that lead to the "pattern of edits" massive thread which never even ventured to drop a warning on his talk page, and the second, when Delta discussed a cataloging NFCC Bot operating at toolserver on his en.wiki talk page again without discussion until after the block was in place. How was he to know? Ok, yes, broad terms, grey area, and under monitoring, I might have even steered completely away from those areas were I under such restrictions, but that's me. Irregardless, we have no idea that if in both cases, if Delta was approached first to warn him about a possible violation, if he would have changed his behavior.

All I'm trying to stress here is that there is a facet of the community's response to Delta in assuming bad faith off the bat and not helping to come to clear understanding of what the sanctions were bounded at before apply blocks that is a very small but notable contribution to the larger problem. This is especially in the case when we're talking edits to bring pages to MOS and other consistent guidelines - in general, not trying to disrupt and harm the work. The onus is on Delta to make all of the improvements in his behavior if/when he returns. But the community needs to respond better on his return, so that Delta can show those improvements. If editor refuse to give Delta any benefit the doubt, and ArbCom doesn't outline this in the returning sanctions, Delta may as well not return at all. --MASEM (t) 06:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

For many of the reasons you have highlighted above, a thought occurred to me. What precludes and RfC from commencing now to establish what the conditions will be for Δ's return? If we start sooner opposed to later, at least we will have taken the maximum advantage of time. And I think it is reasonable that if we could reach a true compromise that all sides were comfortable with, we could ask arbcom to amend the ban accordingly and perhaps facilitate his return prior to the completion of a full year. If we wait until he requests to return a year from now to start the discussion, it might take another year to sort it out. I'd like to see this discussion started right away.— Preceding unsigned comment added by My76Strat (talk • contribs)

I wasn't involved in the toolserver one, so I can't comment on that. As far as people assuming bad faith of delta, good faith is not a never-ending well, and after the 5-6 year point we've reached, people are not required to continually and unendingly treat a user with kid gloves and extend further chances. I'd recommend you go back and read one of the discussions from 2008. I did earlier, and found it to be incredibly enlightening. Because it shows that in 2008 we were already having this discussion. 4 years later and we're having nearly the exact same discussion. If delta didn't make mistakes and act as he does, what would anyone have to hold him account for? But again, Hammersoft made that whole proposal deal during an extremely drama filled time over Delta, and it was over the top. As for the pattern of edits thread, again, Delta had been previously told about it. It was on his restrictions list, there were additional concerns about him doing (semi)automated edits without consensus. There is nothing novel about that interpretation. He ran a script on over 25 pages, it violated his restrictions, he was blocked. The problem is that you and others seem to think that if Delta hasn't been held accountable for something because someone missed it, that must mean it's okay and he should continue. As if the community is responsible for opting out of everything. There is a reason we don't accept that for mailing lists and a reason we don't accept it for Delta, at this point in time everything is opt in. Delta should have been well aware of that after all these years, and he has a history of repeatedly pushing the boundaries trying to see if anyone catches him or lets it go. But then we get the double standard yet again from the Delta supporters. If anyone watches his edits to catch him right away they're accused of stalking him. If people don't notice his problem edits right away because they weren't watching him like a hawk, they're questioned why, if it took so long to hold him accountable, even just a few hours in the case of the "pattern of edits, why is it such a big deal? As I pointed out in that thread, it had been previously mentioned to Delta, but he plugged ahead and continued to make those edits, and he got blocked. Now I'm sure the previous discussion about it was insufficient for you, and one more warning probably would have been the one that made it stick. The only ambiguity in that entire discussion was the poor attempts by his defenders to try and tell us what the definition of "is" is. And as Lexein pointed out in the discussion in at least one edit of that series Delta had introduced errors into an article. Delta was notified in so much that he was blocked and the admin took it to the noticeboard for discussion. This whole wonkery over "omg did you notify him??" is funny coming from people who want to be so loosey goosey over his restrictions but hold people accountable for something trivial like not putting a notification on someone's page who has never been late for any AN/I thread that I've seen on him, even the ones where he supposedly isn't notified immediately.--Crossmr (talk) 11:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not so much the notification of being discussed at ANI, its the notification that "hey, something in your edits seems highly questionable, you may want to stop it and let's discuss it to see if it's within the bounds of the restrictions" type notifications that didn't happen. The ones that may have avoided the larger problem if, at minimum, Delta responded promptly to stop and discuss the matters, and in a civil manner towards those complaining about it. Instead, when this immediately goes to ANI, it's extremely offputting. That's not helped by bad-faith attitudes, like "he has a history of repeatedly pushing the boundaries trying to see if anyone catches him or lets it go" (yes, an apparent conclusion, but without any comment from Delta, otherwise a supposition), or what John Nagel posted below about "trash". No one is asking you to like the guy, but it is completely fair to give some benefit of a doubt and a chance to explain, or even acknowledge he screwed up. Nor is it that we expect 100% AGF to Delta's actions; again, we know he has a communication problem (tending to remain silent than answering) so that we generally have to take silence as a sign of refusal to cooperate, but you're more likely to get a civil and rational response by a friendly warning, rather that immediately say "ok, you're at ANI for that, discuss it there." The stalking stuff, that's not the issue - he's under sanctions, he should be closely monitored - but its the racing off to ANI at any hint of trouble instead of resolving hiccups first that is the problem here.

My only point here is this: whether the community does it themselves, or ArbCom has to spell it out, if/when Delta returns and new sanctions are in place, I would rather see as initial steps in upholding those sanctions done as friendly warnings or cautions to Delta that his edits are out of place, to give him the chance to fix or stop whatever the problem is, instead of immediately posting to ANI. (This, assuming it is a brand new problem that no previous action had been done on before) If Delta refuses to communicate and continues to engage in those types of edits, then your point is validated, his ways have not changed, and an indef block is the answer. If he comes back later and repeats problems he was warned about before, then ANI is the right answer, again validating your point. But he has to be given that chance before enforcing the sanctions in full. Remember, this is someone who's edits are generally of some benefit to the work, not someone like a vandal or troll that we simply don't want here at all. Our goal for any sanctions should be to impress on Delta what his expected behavior is to be in both editing and discussion, and while we can anticipate some of that with sanctions, we have to be open that that's a nebulous goal until time has past to know how that is to be taken. Hence giving a fair warning instead of an immediate block on the first sign of trouble. --MASEM (t) 13:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

My only point is that the vast majority of anything he got blocked for an in trouble for had previously been discussed with him, I'll again point out from that discussion: I noted that in the discussion prior people had discussed his clean-up edits with him and raised those. it didn't stop him. He continued to run the script and got blocked for it. What more would you like? Should someone go over and hold his hand? A reasonable conclusion is not a bad faith assumption, and your attempts to paint them as such are what have contributed to the situation we find ourselves in, in fact it's that kind of characterization itself which is done in bad faith. There is ample evidence across multiple discussions for years that Delta has continually pushed the boundaries of his editing restrictions, and if someone doesn't catch him on it, it's then brought up by him or his supporters as evidence that the edits were fine and should be allowed. This was demonstrated repeatedly last summer as numerous users claimed his clean blocklog of a few months meant that he hadn't done anything wrong. There is no other way to describe that. Despite further investigation revealing countless violations of his restrictions. As far as stalking goes, when Delta was first allowed back into the project, I very quickly caught him violating his restrictions and was immediately accused of stalking him for doing so. So no, your assurance doesn't hold water. That claim is made directly on the behaviour of his supporters. Delta's chance will be being allowed back in. That's it. The restrictions and conditions will be spelled out, and that is the chance right there. As a community after 6 years of this, we don't have to keep hammering them into him. He can be told, and he can either follow them or be shown the door. In the case of Delta there are no minor hiccups. We are so far beyond minor hiccups it's not even funny. That's the way super duper ultra mega no take backs last chances work. The vast majority of delta's problems right now surround: (semi)automated editing, his edit rate, careful editing, civility and communication (including biting new editors), edit warring (justly or not), and doing bot-like tasks without first talking it through with the community. That pretty much encompasses all of it and that has all, except for perhaps the patterned editing, I'd have to check when that was introduced, been discussed with him for years. There are very few "new" problems with Delta, unless you're trying to claim that this particular set of circumstances dependent on the position of the moon and stars and the color pants he's wearing constitutes a new problem. They are all continuations of very old behaviour that we've been trying to reign in for years while certain people have been excusing it and enabling it for years, which was another point that was made several times even 4 years ago. Basically nothing has changed in 4 years which is a serious black mark on Wikipedia.--Crossmr (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec)And regarding the speed restriction, Δ did get warned for it - in not to be misunderstood wording. And that behaviour did improve over time. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand_3/Evidence#Editing speeds and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Betacommand_3/Evidence#List of speed limit violations (which seem to contradict each other at the least, but that is besides the point) shows that there is 1, maybe 2 violations in September. No, you violated it, you got blocked for it, but you still violated it so now you go down. And when you then do edit for months without speed violation .. none of your opponents will consider that maybe that restriction could be lifted. And asking for lifting it yourself .. well, you violated it 4 months ago, what leads us to believe that you will not violate it next week if we leave it there.

Masem, ArbCom's are a gliding scale. When you get an ArbCom over you, you are tainted. If you come into trouble again, it is the second ArbCom. Obviously the problems of the first ArbCom did not resolve, so we incorporate that into our next decision, which inevitably needs to be more stringent - long ban and community restrictions. Even if those restrictions would be lifted (an idea the community actually entertained and did not outright dismiss as ridiculous), editors will still put you under scrutiny for every step you take, and tell you on every wrong step you take that you should improve - way beyond the expectation that one would have for any editor who has never seen ArbCom. You've been in problems before, the community has (understandably) less patience with you, you're just likely to go down the road again. And then you get your third ArbCom. One could hope that ArbCom then objectively looks at the evidence, sees significant improvement in many areas, but still they do see that this is the third time you are here [17] [18] (hence: you do not, and will not receive an objective decision).

What Masem says, Δ may as well not return at all. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The comment shown was an exchange between Jclemens and me. I made a follow-on where I closed a post saying: "You asked once if we should extend rehabilitation X^N+1 times to an editor. I say no, unless N = -1, which is how I feel this case appears." I was keen to see a reply, which was not forthcoming. I am still interested to know how many chances a person is given if the given chance has no chance at success. My76Strat (talk) 07:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, Crossmr you never did comment regarding your misuse of the word constantly? Why is it so necessary to embellish the facts against Δ? I suppose it would make one believe a ban was appropriate, if they were at least able to convince themselves. My76Strat (talk) 07:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Because it wasn't worth responding to. [19] #3 regularly recurrent, fill your boots.--Crossmr (talk) 11:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Guys, is this really helpful? You both feel strongly on this, but I get the feeling that neither side will budge on their beliefs in this case no matter how much discussion there is and that the sides are talking past each other and not to each other. SirFozzie (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

After five years of headaches with Δ, three trips though arbitration, and an entire department of AN/I devoted to one editor, this cannot be seen as premature or excessive. Yes, Δ has his defenders. This editor is not malicious, merely inept. Most problems on Wikipedia involve either malice or point of view issues. Here, the combination of ineptitude and overuse of power tools created too many headaches. So Δ has been voted off the island. ArbCom's job is to take out the trash, and they did. It's over. --John Nagle (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my points above. This type of attitude (dismissing any editor as "trash") is a no-win scenario for everyone involved. --MASEM (t) 17:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

very very strongly agree with Masem here. While delta/beta may not have employed a buddy-buddy style of communication in regards to people skills, he is an extremely knowledgeable and capable person in the computer field that had much to offer our project. I think that referring to other people as "trash" is far more detrimental to the project than any "bot" or lack of communication skills could ever be. — Ched :  ?  18:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

What you say here is a perfect example of the opposite of how editors should behave, John Nagle. I hope that other editors will not take an example in you. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Beetstra that even an indirect reference to Δ as "trash" is not the type of behavior I condone. The decision to ban BC was not taken lightly or in any way invalidates the positive things he *HAS* done for the encyclopedia. SirFozzie (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Ditto! Why not adopt the old tradition, practiced even by politicians, of giving a generous tribute to a departing challenger?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You have to have moral fiber and strength of character to honor tradition. My76Strat (talk) 00:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You really aren't helping his defence.--Crossmr (talk) 10:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Challenger would imply that we are battling, and wikipedia is not a battleground.--Crossmr (talk) 10:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

My brain-thesaurus failed to provide a better word. Nonetheless, my point was clear. Please write to the point and avoid blue-linked cliches.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps departing colleague would be better? I do however believe your word choice is not the true crux. My76Strat (talk) 10:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Quite right. :)

(The worthy departing colleague should not be confused with another recently indefinitely blocked departing editor, for whom "colleague" would have been a stretch.)

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Not wanting to piss on Δ any more than has already happened, but 1) the digs at Nagle aren't so appropriate either, and 2) beatific eulogies aren't called for when the person is presumably still alive and will probably find his way back to Wikipedia sooner or later. It's like those people who called Child of Midnight a great content contributor because he'd made some edits that weren't actually blockworthy, and spewed his retarded internet memes onto Wikipedia's main page through DYK. It just didn't reflect the reality of the situation.

While it's observable that Δ had working knowledge of some programming languages and bot frameworks, and while he did some things on WP that were arguably useful, going from that to "extremely knowledgeable and capable person in the computer field that had much to offer our project" is quite a leap. I'd say John Nagle is such a person (see here for example--I hope that doesn't embarass John too much since he does link it from his user page), Pascal.Tesson (from Δ's sanction committee) was such a person (he is a computer science professor), and CBM (math professor) is such a person though not directly in the computer field, but I don't know of comparable evidence for Δ. I've never seen anything Δ did that I'd call technically impressive the way I'd say Cobi's bots are impressive, etc. All of Δ's stuff that I know of was at a technical level that I'd consider unremarkable if done by a high-school student interested in computers. I think if someone like Nagle starts giving assessments of Δ's conduct as a programmer, he's speaking from a hell of a lot of experience and the rest of us should be listening. Someone who (like Δ) brazenly contravened mandatory release processes to deploy inappropriate code on a live server would surely have been fired from any serious real-world software project around the second or third incident if not the first, and certainly long before the number reached dozens (the size of β/Δ's block log).

I think the above may be the source of Nagle's unsympathy, as he's coming from that professional developer perspective. I understand (per SirFozzie) that arbcom agonized long and hard on this case, but I can also respect the viewpoint that the agony was simply unnecessary dithering and that arbcom should have just reinstated the community ban by motion when the case request first went up, or even that it shouldn't have lifted the ban in the first place.

Of course Δ like most of us was contributing scattered bits of volunteer time to Wikipedia rather than more sustained stretches, so it's quite possible and understandable if the stuff he did at WP wasn't at the level of whatever he does professionally, and therefore any shortcomings in his WP contributions shouldn't be viewed as limitations in his real-life capabilities. It's also possible that Δ did some difficult stuff on WP that I didn't notice. However, Jclemens is absolutely right that there's no current shortage of competent coders on Wikipedia, so we'll be fine without Δ working in that area. This is an encyclopedia, not a programmers' playground, and if anything we should have fewer bots rather than more. Sorry to rain on the parade but I felt somebody had to. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 10:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Others objected to John's wordchoice "trash". "Inept" might have been phrased as "his bot contributions have not been up to standards, unfortunately". I think that his other comments commanded assent, and the project is lucky to have John's expertise.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Just two remarks:

• Δ is just as valuable as any other editor on Wikipedia.
• Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, edit-warring, personal attacks, lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, offensive language (including rude, offensive, derogatory, and insulting terms—whether in English, a language other than English, or using invented terms), trolling, harassment, gaming the system, and failure to assume good faith are all inconsistent with Wikipedia etiquette.¹ - whether the subject is Δ .. or not. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Δ was doing harm which needed to be stopped. Nothing else worked and so this was needed and arbcom did it. Thank you arbcom. This should be focused on rather than good or bad characterizations of the individual. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

What harm, North8000? As you put it now, it is a rather sweeping statement with about just as much defined specific problems as the ArbCom was able to find. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw Nagle's opening comment in this section a week ago. Referring to Δ as trash is a personal attack. There's no wiggle room on that. Just one day before this blatant personal attack, ArbCom closed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement. When Nagle made his personal attack, I predicted that nothing would come of it, that Nagle would never actually be warned about this. A week later, and my prediction remains true. I don't blame Nagle per se. It's the culture here. ArbCom attempted to change the culture with their civility case. Result? Nothing. It's not like Nagle didn't know about the civility case. His insulting post was made after the announcement of the civility case was made, and in fact just a bit above where that announcement was made. Nagle's been here six years. It's not like he doesn't know about the WP:NPA policy. The problem is nobody really cares about the policy because they know it is highly unlikely they would ever be blocked for it. You know how many civility/personal attack blocks on non-IPs there have been in the last 5000 blocks? 10. That's it. 0.2% of all blocks. You know what the average edit count of those accounts was? 92. It is very rare for established editors to get blocked for personal attacks. This of course is well known, so most established editors with a tendency towards personal attacks know the policy is ineffectual and effectively ignore it. Even in the civility enforcement case, Hawkeye7 was found to have levied a personal attack but even ArbCom did nothing about it. They didn't even propose a remedy to address it! Instead, they desysopped him for wheel warring. None of the remedies addressed the FoF of a personal attack. Even ArbCom doesn't want to enforce WP:NPA.

The depressing thing is this is not isolated. In abstract, there's a disturbing pattern:

• Even though we have a WP:COI guideline, warning editors about it is controversial 1, 2
• Even though we have a WP:NFCC policy, enforcing it is controversial
• Even though we have a WP:NPA policy, it is rarely enforced against established editors

ArbCom has limited ability to deal with these issues, and what ability they have is wholly ineffectual. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Nagle's comment was called out almost immediately as inappropriate, which is often the best way of dealing with personal attacks. I note that you didn't comment or redact the comment or warn them yourself. I say not this not as the attack/jibe it reads as (sorry), but to emphasis that we, the community, cannot expect ArbCom or the admin subset of the community to make Wikipedia civil unless we all commit to helping make it that way ourselves. NPA exists and editors use it as a guide and refer to it in discussion; the number of blocks which cite it is not the most important metric. In my Internet youth I participated in an alt usenet community, so I know what no holds barred incivil is, and Wikipedia, while far from perfect, is not that.Nobody Ent 18:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Hawkeye7, the final decision statement was desysopped for wheel warring and conduct unbecoming of an administrator. Nobody Ent 18:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• You will note of course that the proposed remedy did not mention personal attack, and only one arbitrator even mentioned personal attack in their vote. The conduct had to do with prior admonitions (see FoF 9), not the personal attack. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I suppose I have to say something. WP:NPA prohibits "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." Here, there was evidence, an arbitration, a long discussion, and an ArbCom decision to ban. I consider that decision correct, commend ArbCom for taking it, and think it's time to stop complaining about it. As for the "taking out the trash" line, see WP:MOP, on admins as janitors.

The most relevant comment above is "Someone who (like Δ) brazenly contravened mandatory release processes to deploy inappropriate code on a live server would surely have been fired from any serious real-world software project around the second or third incident if not the first." Exactly. --John Nagle (talk) 19:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• So it's ok then to levy invective against a banned editor? Really? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It was definitely a personal attack: Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions is a personal attack, regardless of the manner in which it is done. There's nothing wrong with separating an editor from Wikipedia but it should be done in a polite, respectful manner. The admin "mop" motif is supposed to indicate the admins are not a higher caste, just someone who cleans up messes. The mess refers to the disruption editors do, not the editors themselves. Nobody Ent 20:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

You are talking about a rare case of somebody (other than a newbie) making a clear-cut personal attack violation of wp:npa. The normal attacks are far more clever than that and do not directly violate wp:npa. In fact, most cleverly (mis)use policies/guidelines to make the attack. North8000 (talk) 22:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 01:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• If you believe that personal attacks like this from experienced editors are rare, would you mind hearing my pitch about a bridge I'd like to sell you? :) Seriously, some attacks might be slightly more nuanced, but I've seen some horrendous attacks by experienced editors that result in nothing, not even a warning. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right, I was unclear, I edited my comment a bit. Wikipedia is a mean place despite best efforts. My main point was that the most personal attacks are clever enough to avoid being direct violations of wp:NPA and thus not be considered wp:personal attacks. But I think that you are right. Two other contributing factors are that the most experienced/prominent wikipedians have posse's that rush to protect them and attack their opponents. Also, the main remedy (a block) is a much bigger thing to an experienced editor than it is to a newbie, and so folks may may be rightly be more hesitant to impose it. North8000 (talk) 01:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think there should be any 'rightly' about it. I don't see why an experienced editor should get deference that an IP editor does not. I see in Nagle's comments attempts at justification for the insult. I fail to see why if anyone calls an editor "trash" it should be any different regardless of their status, be it beginning, blocked, banned, or years of experience. Either WP:NPA has meaning or it doesn't. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

In this case I think you are right. If there is any validity to my "rightly", it would be to say that the level of punishment should be equal, and that "equal" is context sensitive, and such might require creation/more common use of a sanction that is one level down from block. North8000 (talk) 12:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Most things in the world are not binary and that includes npa. It can and does have meaning despite well documented inconsistencies in enforcement. I understand that it's frustrating but I've never seen any human society that doesn't have similar imperfections. Nobody Ent 12:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Original announcement

•  Bureaucrat note: I have desysopped Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) pursuant to this case decision. MBisanz ^talk 02:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• I regret that the Committee did not effectively address through remedies the underlying issues of policy that have generated this dispute and many previous ones like it, namely, the issue of the first or second mover advantage in policy enforcement, the general problem of widely differring expectations concerning the undoing of admin actions or the conduct of veteran editors, the resulting apparent unenforceability of the civility policy and the issue of how and when to block or unblock during or after the regular ANI screaming matches among friends or detractors of problematic but established editors. I appreciate that the Committee does not want to resolve these policy matters by fiat, and it shouldn't, but it should have provided for and managed a framework for a broad community-based process to arrive at a set of clear and enforceable rules to resolve this set of problems. It is the lack of such rules that is the core problem, and not the conduct of the individuals involved in this particular conflict. As long as we don't have broadly accepted rules concerning these issues, these conflicts will continue to reappear.  Sandstein  16:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Right now on ANI there are two or three threads on similar issues Wikipedia:ANI#Personal_attacks_by_User:SMcCandlish, Wikipedia:ANI#On-wiki_harrassment.2C_POV_editing.2C_and_off-wiki_attacks, Wikipedia:ANI#New_user_problems_-_NPA.3B_copyright_violations. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• I suppose that how those of use who label ourselves as "admins willing to make difficult blocks" are treated as we move forward becomes important. If the community hands us our asses afterwards, then the project is going to rapidly go downhill on the civility scale. IMHO, we've had a lot more responsibility put on us when others are unwilling to block. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• It's rather a vicious cycle for "difficult blocks". Difficult blocks are difficult because they're likely to result in screaming. The more they result in screaming, the fewer people are willing to subject themselves to that screaming by doing the blocks, and the more those blocks don't stick because the screaming is taken as proof that the block was invalid. And a case like this one, that shows that blockers are likely to be treated as harshly - or even more harshly, as in this case - by arbcom as blockees are, well, that makes the situation worse for those willing to make those blocks. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• The way I read it, there are specific things that Thumperward could have done to avoid an admonishment. It's not that he made the block that was the problem, it's how he made the block, and how he dealt with the aftermath. It's still perfectly acceptable for an administrator to post an indefinite block on an established user. But it's not acceptable to post a block like that with just a simple drive-by comment.[20] If Thumperward would have posted a full rationale at the time of his block, the block might well have stuck, and the entire ArbCom case might have been avoided. Thumperward's next error was being pretty much unavailable to the arbitrators. When the situation escalated to the point of an ArbCom case, Thumperward should have been prominent in that case. But he didn't even post a statement at the beginning, only posted two comments to the Workshop page, and, after some prodding, some comments at the Proposed decision talkpage. What he should have done instead was to post a clear statement at the beginning of the case, explaining his point of view to the arbitrators. The when the case was opened, he should have posted a detailed evidence section explaining why he felt that an indefinite block of an established contributor was appropriate. By not doing those things, it put the burden onto everyone else to build the case, and weakened the justification for the original block. Lessons that admins should take away from this are: If you're going to block an established editor, you'd better have a rationale ready beforehand, and be prepared to explain your actions in detail, and repeatedly, after. You can't just block and run. --Elonka 17:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "If Thumperward would have posted a full rationale at the time of his block, the block might well have stuck, and the entire ArbCom case might have been avoided." Ha, ha, seriously? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Depending on how Thumperward wrote the rationale, yes. It wasn't an "infinite" block, it was an "indefinite" block. So if it would have been written like, "If you promise to try and be more civil in the future, any administrator can unblock," that would have been much more reasonable and supportable. All Malleus would have had to do would be to say, "Okay, I'll ratchet it back a notch," and then the block could have been lifted, and life would go on. Discussions would continue in a more civil manner, and there'd be no admonishments, no topic ban, no de-sysopping, and no need for an ArbCom case to waste hundreds of hours of everyone's time. --Elonka 19:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

      Which is to miss the point really. There is no consensus that the initial comment to which Thumperward reacted was anything other than a strongly worded observation on a subset of administrators, with which no rationale person could really disagree. Your definition of incivility is clearly at odds with mine, as is your definition of "indefinite block", as I would never have apologised for a comment I did not and do not regard as uncivil. Malleus Fatuorum 21:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

      Thumperward's block was a country mile away from sensible inasmuch as it was designed to 'correct' your civility, but otherwise Elonka has not missed the point at all. AGK [•] 21:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

      Thumperward's block was designed to do no such thing, and it seems like you have missed the point just as comprehensively as Elonka has. Malleus Fatuorum 22:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

      Malleus, if you want to believe that your language is civil, that's fine, that's up to you. However, the point here is that you are participating in a community, Wikipedia, where many other members find your language uncivil. Those in authority in this community (ArbCom) have agreed that your language is uncivil. So the choice now is yours. If you wish to stay in the community, you must either adapt to the community's norms, or eventually you will be asked to leave and go find some other community whose norms may be more to your liking. --Elonka 03:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

      I see no such conclusion, and no reason why I should not continue to try and bring this so-called community to its senses as regards "civility". Malleus Fatuorum 03:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

      Perhaps you missed the bit in Finding 3 that says "More frequently, his comments are derisive and belittling". If you need help finding it, it's followed by a series of seven diffs. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

      How derisive and belittling is your last sentence, Hersfold? Or do you really believe Malleus hasn't read the Findings on himself and isn't capable of using a simple search function for the part you provided in quotation marks? ---Sluzzelin talk 04:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

      But of course Hersfold doesn't see that as incivil, which demonstrates the problem very nicely. Malleus Fatuorum 04:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

      Uncivil, sanctimonious, hypocritical, particularly coming from the Arbitrator whose draconian proposals were laughed at by other arbs.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

      I'm simply pointing out that your statement was inaccurate. I concede it could have been less snarky, however that was also part of my point. Malleus seems incapable of recognizing when his own comments are incivil, when we were able to cite seven examples (out of many provided) in a Finding. "I didn't hear that" type behavior - general refusal to admit one is part of the problem - can be just as disruptive as the conduct itself. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

      Do you really believe that it's appropriate for an arbitrator who has just passed judgement on an arbitration case to make such snarky comments, especially with an apparent justification of "well, you started it"? Malleus Fatuorum 04:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

      (after edit conflict) No, this has nothing to do with I didn't hear that. He has heard it all, many times, and there is no consensus whatsoever, neither within ArbCom nor the wider community, that anything Malleus has done is disruptive enough to have him banned from the project, as you believe he should be, according to your vote. ---Sluzzelin talk 04:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

      One wishes that Hersfold "could have been" honest with himself and us, but an Arb who misuses "disruptive" out of its WP policy meaning raises little warrant for wishful thinking. Of course, Hersfold should have been polite, if he were not so hell-bent on displaying hypocrisy, amid his blue-linked clichés.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• And so a case with such a broad title ends with a very narrow decision. So much disagreement between the Arbs on the proposed decisions too, even some of the passing ones. I think thats pretty much a sign that civility problems will never end. --81.98.17.144 (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• Sandstein, you frequently voice your general concern about the ease with which sysop actions are reversed. I have agreed with these concerns in the past, and so have my colleagues. However, I must disagree with your interpretation of these events, and I urge you to familiarise yourself with the the facts of this dispute. Following Thumperward's first block, John unblocked during a discussion relating to the unblock; although no clear consensus had emerged, the unblock was not a flagrant reversal because it was preceded by some community discussion. For not waiting until a clear consensus emerged, John was admonished by this committee, and in my view, it would have been disproportionate to desysop. In Hawkeye's unilateral reversal later that day, there was no such mitigating factor (and he had a history of misusing his permissions), and we therefore desysopped. It is therefore unclear to me how we did not dispose of this specific incident with an appropriate degree of intolerance for wheel war-type behaviour. As for the more general issue of administrator action reversal, you have of course acknowledged that our ability to make policy by dictum is severely limited.

  On the more general issue of dealing with difficult blocks, one issue strikes me that was not mentioned in the final decision (probably because a diplomatic articulation would be impossible). Simply put, difficult blocks are usually followed by a community discussion on ANI or a similar noticeboard, but this discussion is ubiquitously dominated by supporters of the blockee (doubtless a by-product of the "TPS culture"). If we required a longer period of discussion after blocking, the views of the uninvolved community would then emerge over the views of involved supporters of the blockee - and contentious decisions could then be confirmed or reversed by another administrator with significantly less drama. Very few situations are true emergencies that cannot wait some hours before being reversed, and indeed in this situation Malleus had not even appealed his block. As in all online communities, we are too rash - and if this issue were resolved, perhaps the enforcement of civility standards would become simpler. AGK [•] 20:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Which is to miss the point that Thumperward's block was completely contrary to policy, and therefore ought not to have required any discussion at all to reverse. The real problem here is that too many administrators are too quick to block, not too quick to unblock. And if you'd taken any trouble at all to investigate you'd have seen that I've never appealed any block, and have said repeatedly that I never would. Malleus Fatuorum 21:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• That Thumperward's block was unnecessary could additionally be why John was only admonished, but the associated issue - your civility - was not resolved. (In that respect, I was in the minority among the committee, so take that point especially as only representative of my view.) About appeals: I'm well aware that you refuse to appeal a block, but I don't see why the community shouldn't take that at anything other than face value. Was the community to know that the absence of an appeal was because you have some general objection to appeals, rather than that it meant you do not disagree with the block, or did not want to be unblocked? Hardly. AGK [•] 21:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

  Which community is this? One that demands apologies for things not done before being allowed back into the factory? That might just work for a paid workforce, but not for volunteers. The distinction between indefinite and infinite is mere wordplay as far as I and I'm sure a great many others are concerned. Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

AGK, I agree with your assessment. ANI suffers from a "whoever screams the loudest and fastest wins" syndrome, which together with the arrogant and disruptive attitude of some administrators that of course they are automatically more right than their colleagues and are therefore entitled to countermand them, makes it practically useless as a consensus-finding forum in disputes involving established editors. What we would need, in such situations, is some sort of enforceable, rules-based process to moderate the tendency to rashness that you describe, similar to AfD or DRV with their clear structure and timeframes, rather than a free-for-all that rewards the itchiest block and (eventually, unavoidably) unblock finger. It is a framework for establishing this sort of process that I would have expected from the Committee in this case; however, given that the Committee is incapable of giving effective weight to even its own rule of not unilaterally overturning AE blocks, I can't say that I am very surprised. As to the specifics of editor and admin conduct in the instant conflict, I have not examined them because I am not particularly interested in them. The problem the Committee should have concentrated on addressing, in my view, is the continued lack of procedures which practically ensures the regular occurrence of such conflicts, rather than the specifics of this one.  Sandstein  23:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

@Sandstein,

Your projection of "arrogant and disruptive attitude of some administrators that of course they are automatically more right than their colleagues" onto others must be partly denial. You ran for ArbCom, and you lost. You should begin to understand how limited support your pontifications have in the real Wikipedia community.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a shame that a lot of editors fail to understand how limited their support is in the community as a whole when they pontificate on a range of subjects. Why, even in this very section we have someone telling us that they aim to bring the community to its senses as far as civility is concerned. That's a lesson I'll not be taking, thanks. Leaky Caldron 14:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

And that is where your views and mine diverge, Sandstein. As I've said in two previous arbitration cases, it's perfectly reasonable to make the second mover jump through hoops to ensure orderly reversal of blocks where reversal is warranted, so long as the first mover has to jump through the same number of hoops to place the blocks. Shoddy unblocks very often result from shoddy blocks, and the latter is as great-an-issue as the former. However, eliminate the shoddy blocks, and we can realistically prohibit shoddy unblocks. That might even manage to pleas both of us at the same time! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying that no admin can be trusted to act on their own? All must be done by committee? I think the focus should be on having a quality block rationale, but more importantly on allowing the review to develop beyonf the fist 5 comments, inevitably from people screaming wrong-wrong-wrong. It's the race to be the unblocking hero which is damaging. If the initial block is bad, it will still be reversed after proper discussion, and if the same admin shows a track record of bad blocks, they can be dealt with. Franamax (talk) 04:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what HJ is saying (I won't speak for him).. but speaking for me (as an editor and I guess as an Arbitrator as well), while I think the second mover advantage is concerning and perhaps needs to be toned down, what I think needs to happen more then anything is a no-mover advantage. By that I mean, before people take actions that they KNOW is going to call down the heavens, that a little discussion beforehand cannot hurt. (that's one of my two bugaboos when looking things over recently, the other is people taking administrative actions when involved.. I have to resist myself from charging off and chastising admins who take actions with "Well, gee, I know I'm involved, but what's the harm.."... especially with controversial blocks and unblocks. If we're being quite blunt, it annoys the hell out of me, and if the Arbitrator's role was the all-powerful status that everyone thinks it is, I'd start attempting to collect mops for it :P SirFozzie (talk) 04:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Fozzie has it about right in my view. If a block is obviously going to be controversial or the grounds for it are shaky, then the discussion should take place beforehand, so that an admin can't just say "right, I've blocked him; you can sort it out at AN, but I'm off to bed". That way, it's clearly improper for another admin to unblock without consensus. I've always found it odd that some would argue that a user who has been improperly blocked should stay blocked while we argue over the nuances of the unblocking and wheel-warring policies. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

No, that's a mistake. With whom should an administrator with solid judgment discuss the matter beforehand? Those who flock to AN/I within minutes of a dispute to weigh in? That's like the cops outside a bar waiting for the chair-throwers to stumble out for a vote on whose fault it is. Declaring consensus on administrative action within minutes on AN/I, or worse, beforehand, encourages all manner of mischief and hardly ensures that policy enforcement reflects the will of the community. A small group of regulars obstructing process at AN/I does not make a policy controversial. As a regular uninvolved editor myself, one of the bar patrons if you will, I'm bewildered and dismayed that attention is on everything but keeping the place functioning. The outcome of this case is as dysfunctional as anything I've seen on Wikiepdia lately. The bottom line here and on any respectable site is that you can't call people cunts on Wikipedia. That's the only reasonable outcome, plus if we can help it, encouraging the reluctant ones to respect community norms before they're banished. Somehow that underlying point has gotten lost here in a sea of technicalities and meta-concerns, to the point where the person who has been calling people cunts perceives a complete vindication and is apparently vowing to continue. Meanwhile, those trying to do deal with it are admonished and punished. We've got a strange system here that seems to be spinning farther and farther away from the rest of the world's experience in how disputes may be resolved constructively. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I used to feel that way, myself Wikidemon, but I've seen too many situations that go down a certain path. If you'll forgive a tortured analogy, it's like one of the old standoffs in the movies, where everyone is pointing guns at each other. Things are tense, but there's still hope.. Then someone fires (takes an administrative action), and things quickly degenerate, possibly with other administrators weighing in with the tools as well (the second mover advantage), and usually, that's when discussion loses any chance of finding consensus and instead becomes two groups of entrenched editors talking past each other. SirFozzie (talk) 05:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

No, SirFozzie. These situations, whatever the input, will grow into that. If the incivility is borderline, then yes, but there are sometimes clear-cut cases of incivility, and when you hand out blocks you will still get a subset of the community on your head. There is no reason to early on say that someone is a cunt, there is no reason to early on say that someone is rude, I sincerely hope we have WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL for a reason (but I honestly doubt it). You use the analogy "it's like one of the old standoffs in the movies, where everyone is pointing guns at each other" - No, a better analogy would be that there are many situations that start by a cowboy coming into a bar, asking for a beer, and the bartender explaining that he can't have a beer, because they are out of beer. The cowboy does not think, the first thing that the cowboy does is pull out his gun, pointing it at the bartender, and demanding a beer (and there are situations where the cowboy rides into a new town, gets of his horse, steps in the bar, pulls out his gun, and demands a beer ..). If then a sheriff comes in, and shoots the cowboy, the whole city turns against the sheriff because 'what is wrong, he only wanted a beer!'. I blocked someone once for (long) a string of edits with personal attacks and incivility and bad faith remarks, including 'that lazy & rude <username>', and "Your infinite capacity to act in bad faith" (new section on talkpage), warnings were met with "And if you continue to be rude, arrogant and act in bad faith, so will you", and "... continued bad faith behaviour is not conducive of a harmonious editing environment. Please solve that problem before whinging here.". Etc. Etc. I blocked the editor for 2 weeks, since the longest block in the record (for incivility, nonetheless!) was 72 hours. I had 2-3 people on my talkpage complaining that that was a wrong block, it was way too long, there was nothing wrong with the remarks, and even 'I blocked someone once for a string of edits with personal attacks, including 'that lazy & rude <username>', and "Your infinite capacity to act in bad faith" (new section on talkpage), warnings were met with "And if you continue to be rude, arrogant and act in bad faith, so will you", and to someone warning the editor "continued bad faith behaviour is not conducive of a harmonious editing environment. Please solve that problem before whinging here.". Etc. Etc. I blocked the editor for 2 weeks since the longest block in the record (for incivility, nonetheless!) was 72 hours. I had 2-3 people on my talkpage complaining that that was a wrong block. It should be clear, crystal clear, to users that they should refrain even from the initial attack. It should be clear, crystal clear, to users that they should refrain even from the initial attack. Yes, some situations come to a Mexican standoff, and if thát happens, it is ripe for AN/I, but many situations are not like that, there often is only one party yelling, because if you yell loud enough, the situation is likely that the community will turn also against the editor being yelled at. And many admins will not block, even when independent of the dispute, because it is likely that they will be yelled at in return, and people will excuse the initial yelling. Result: admins do not block for incivility - hence, yelling works. Incivility is unwarranted, not when you start, it is not even warranted when you 'return the favour'. And that is the message that should be brought to the people, especially by an ArbCom. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been amusing myself imagining a system where

• The wiki software is modified so that an "I'm sure" check box is added to the block button. If a blocking admin checks this box, it means the software won't let anybody (including the original blocking admin) lift the block during the first 4 hours (allows consensus to develop--4 hours is usually enough to tell which way the wind is blowing). (Or a wimpier alternative to this might let the original blocking admin undo the block earlier than 4 hours, but still no one else). If the blocking admin doesn't check the box, that gives implicit permission to other admins to lift the block without it being considered wheel warring.
• A tradition would develop where if the blocking admin checks the 4-hour box and solid consensus develops within less than 4 hours that the block was wrong, the blocked person would get the right to impose a 4 hour "payback" block on the original blocking admin. At a time of the blocked person's choosing, up to a maximum of 2 weeks after the incorrect block, they'd post to ANI "ok, do it now" (with a pointer back to the unblock discussion) and it would be the duty of whatever admin saw it first to place a 4-hour no-reverse block against the admin who had screwed up.
• The presumption is that the wronged party would spring the payback block at a time when the original admin is actively editing, since it would be meaningless to do while the admin was offline. The now-blocked admin could then commiserate on his/her talk page about what an annoying experience this was, and how similarly annoying it must have been for the person who got wrongly blocked, and this could develop into an art form over time.
• Also as part of this tradition, if the blocked person chooses to exercise the payback option, that would be considered to completely settle the score between them and the errant admin. They would have to accept this both in terms of future dispute resolution and in their own heart (if necessary they'd be expected to tell their friends that they were now satisfied and to call off the hounds). After the counterblock runs out, the two parties would ideally become best of buddies or whatever (beer summit). Well, maybe not quite that, but they should try to get along.

It's probably a bogus fantasy that wouldn't play out anything like the way I described, but at least in the "movie" version it might avoid bogus drama like this arb case. That said, at least from a distance, I think the arbs did pretty well. 67.117.145.9 (talk) 08:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

While I'm not big on the payback idea, I actually like the idea that a block can't be undone for at least 4 hours, except in some special circumstances, maybe wiki staff, or other higher than/lateral from admins could undo them. One of the biggest issues I see are admins who unilaterally walk in and claim some non-existent or very controversial consensus and take some kind of action. What I would prefer to see would be much more dire consequences for doing so. Currently, of the situations I do see coming up where an admin has lost their head and done something silly is for someone to come in, claim it's a big joke recommend "Trouts" for everyone and call the situation done. While some long time users may accept that situation, any of those involving a new user is likely to cause some user retention issues. I don't know if we need a noticeboard, or a more accessible arbcom for users to air admin complaints, but RfC really doesn't work. It's a wasteland of uselessness. Nothing is binding, it drags on for a long time, and it's only point is to say "yes we did it" because the user doesn't even have to participate in it. It almost seems like half the people who claim things should be sent to RfC are passing the buck because they just don't want to deal with something that might take more than a couple minutes to handle. As far as I can see it, the entire process of admins and handling the dirty work of wikipedia is completely broken.--Crossmr (talk) 09:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Please continue this discussion at WT:BLOCK, where similar proposal have been made pursuant to ArbCom's suggestion in this case. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, all. I see this case was all wrapped up a while ago. Sorry to be so belated with this comment, but I was unavoidably prevented by health issues from following the end of it. (Appeal to pity, one of the classic red herring fallacies.)

Re Fluffernutter's comment above: ".. Difficult blocks are difficult because they're likely to result in screaming. The more they result in screaming, the fewer people are willing to subject themselves to that screaming by doing the blocks, and the more those blocks don't stick because the screaming is taken as proof that the block was invalid." [21] Please don't keep using "screaming" as a summary of arguments you don't like, Fluff. (You use the word too, Sandstein.) It's disrespectful, provocative, and contemptuous. It dismisses "the other side" — anybody who has a different view than yourself on civility, or civility blocks — as a dehumanised howling mob, a many-headed monster with only one tongue between them. I quote from the "Etiquette" principle in the final decision on this case: "..lack of respect for other editors .. etc etc .. and failure to assume good faith are all inconsistent with Wikipedia etiquette".[22] The passive "the screaming is taken as proof" is especially unfortunate. Taken as proof by whom? By nobody in particular, just another undifferentiated mass of stupid..? Please give other people credit for commenting in accordance with sincerely held convictions, just as you do yourself, and discuss collegially with them. Incidentally, to toot my own horn, I'm willing to make difficult blocks too, [23] or I was when I was an admin, and may do again. One high-profile block I made three years ago (not connected with civility), which I'm still quite proud of, may possibly have been more difficult than any you've made yourself.[24]. If you intend to make a difficult block that you believe strongly in, you really need to consider possible consequences in advance, including heated opposition and/or arbcom outrage,[25] and determine to deal with them without losing your cool and demonizing the "screaming" other side.

P.S. I hope to be back shortly with a comment on the quite interesting issue of arbitrator civility (or, in the case of one of them, incivility) in pronouncements made during this case — ideally a template of model behaviour for us all to emulate if we can. Regards, Bishonen | talk 21:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC).

Hm. I'm sorry you find "screaming" to be an uncivil turn of phrase. I had no intention of insulting the intelligence or humanity of any editor by using it. Basically what I was trying to communicate is that discussion of difficult blocks usually results in much anger and disagreement, often in strident terms involving name calling on one or both sides and sometimes threats against the blocker ("if you won't undo this, I'm going to see about making sure you can never do this again" and the like) or the blockee's supporters ("oh, so-and-so is unblockable now? do we need an arbcom case to keep you from interfering?"). Often the blocking admin feels attacked, especially by commentors who support the blocked editor and rush in to do their best to force undoing of the sanction. Often the discussion that results from a "difficult" block resolves nothing and only ends in both sides feeling more entrenched - the blocking admin having their belief that disruption will ensue if the blockee isn't forced to take a break vindicated by the angry behavior of supporters, and the blocked editor having their belief that admins are abusive and block on a whim vindicated by the comments by other editors supporting the block, which tend to detail perceived problems in the behavior (and sometimes, personality) of the blockee (often perceived as personal attacks or admins "closing ranks" to protect one another). All this accomplishes is setting the stage for the next clash over the same issue.

So that's what I was attempting to shorthand with the word "screaming" - not a reference to an angry, unintelligent mob, but a reference to a mob scene, a free-for-all where perceived "sides" of the dispute clash over much ideology but few specifics. It's a suboptimal way to do things, rarely resolves anything, and I was hoping that if arbcom came down on one side or the other of this "contentious block" issue, the cycle could be short-circuited in the future. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Clearly that was a forlorn hope. But the issue you have failed to address is that you used the pejorative term "screaming" (and there's no way it can be considered anything other than pejorative) only in reference to one side of the debate. Malleus Fatuorum 23:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't read "screaming" as pejorative. Screaming can be justified, or unjustified. Not saying that it might not have been worded better, but I initially interpreted the comment in the same manner in which Fluffernutter just explained it. Jclemens (talk) 04:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You know, there are so many different subcultures in the world who use/interpret words in different ways that if you're going to have a big "You shouldn't use this word! It has negative implications!" argument, you will reach a stage where you cannot post any adjectives or verbs at all. Seriously. --81.98.54.56 (talk) 10:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

This is interesting; whatever you think about the merits of either side of the debate, it's an odd juxtaposition to find Malleus and Bish arguing that the other side is being uncivil ;-) If nothing else, it shows that neither position has clarity and consistency on its side. Nathan ^T 15:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, dear. Am I another poster child for incivility, to the point where it's "interesting" and "odd" to find me calling somebody out for being uncivil? I've always supposed I might be a little notorious for temerity (RFAR'ing Jimbo! Speaking to him without genuflecting! Oh that quirky Bishonen!) But I wasn't aware of being one of the icons of incivility around here. Always eye-opening "to see oursels as ithers see us" ("To a Louse"). Thank you, Nathan, for your Olympic distribution of clarity and consistency between the "sides". Now if you could just please explain what "sides" those are, because I'm all at sea. Bishonen | talk 16:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC).

I'm with Nathan, I found it very intriguing that some who would argue that "dishonest cunts" is civil, are also arguing that "screaming" is not. --Elonka 16:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm with those who have the intelligence to realise that civility is in the eye of the beholder, that two wrongs do not make a right, and that we should model the behaviour that we hope for in others. --John (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

A poster child for incivility? Not at all. Obviously my own comment wasn't a model of clarity either. I suppose a distinction can and should be marked between pointing out incivility and asking for a policy against incivility to be enforced; nonetheless, the mere identification of what is and what isn't civil has bedeviled this area of argument from the beginning. Determining the difference isn't an an exercise in applying objective criteria - the identity of the speaker, our relationship with them and our reading of their presumed intent form an integral part of our judgment. This gives rise to a lot of inconsistency - what we may judge fine from our friends become offensive when said by our opponents. This inconsistency is perfectly normal and human, but is no small part of why it's so hard to resolve disputes on this subject. Nathan ^T 17:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) If you think that's an adequate reply to me, Nathan, I have no more to say to you.

@Elonka: Oh, Elonka! With regard to what you say there, I'm not so much at sea, as agog: just to please me, do tell where you saw me argue that "d.c." is civil, or argue anything about it or about any comparable expression, or indeed saw me post any commentary in the civility case whatever, saw me discuss the civility or otherwise of Malleus Fatuorum's editing, saw me ever use that unpleasant word you quote in any context (I'm sorry for the circumlocutions, I'm not usually mealy-mouthed, buI have a strong prejudice against that word), whether as a mere quotation or otherwise, etc, etc. Or, I have an idea; when you say I "would" argue that "dishonest you-know-whats" is civil, did you perhaps not mean that I'd actually argued that, but merely that you can imagine, in your head, that it's something I would like to argue? Or, I've got another one: even though I was the one who brought up the "screaming" business, did you merely mean to refer to Malleus (who chimed in afterwards) arguing that "dishonest whatnots" is civil? (If he has argued that; excuse me, Malleus, but I have perforce researched it a little hastily, since I spent the past couple of weeks, while the case was being wound up, chained to a drip in a hospital, with the trusty MacBook out of reach, and only got home a few days ago.) In such a case, Elonka, your "some", which the uninformed might assume referred primarily to me, was merely there to.. well.. flesh it out, sort of. But I know better than to expect you to withdraw a baseless accusation merely because it never happened. Perhaps you're too busy to look for diffs today? It's true that I've edited so little these past few months that I don't reckon it would take much more than ten minutes to survey the whole shooting-match. But sometimes ten minutes can be more than a person can spare. Bishonen | talk 17:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC).

I was in the midst of posting further to your talkpage, as it happens. Nathan ^T 17:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bish, sorry to hear about the medical issues, and you truly have my best wishes for a speedy recovery. Regarding the civility case, it's rather lengthy (I believe it has the record for the most statements in any Arb case, ever), so here are a few diffs to help bring you up to speed: [26][27][28][29][30][31] --Elonka 18:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You ought also to be aware that Elonka is on a woman on a mission,[32] despite having not infrequently been called out for dishonesty and incivility herself. Malleus Fatuorum 18:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, yes. Do please shut up for just a moment, Malleus. Elonka, I don't understand. I ask you urgently to please post the diffs on which you base your nasty implications against me — I tell you I'm agog for them — and you respond by posting a whole pile of diffs about something completely different? I'm sorry if my post was tl;dr, but could you please read it again, more slowly, and take note of what sorts of diffs I'm actually asking for: diffs where *I* am seen arguing that "d.c." is civil, or where I argue anything remotely relevant to such expressions, or where I post any commentary in the civility case whatever, or where I discuss the civility or otherwise of Malleus Fatuorum's editing, and so on. You responded directly to me, falling in with Nathan's equally baseless sneer (at least he had the courage to mention my name, while you chose to follow up with the classic weasel "some"), and you pointed straight at me, since I'm the one who brought up Fluffernutter's use of "screaming" and attempted to analyse the particularly offensive context into which he put it. (Boy, was that ever a waste of effort, incidentally, once Jclemens, an arbitrator, had set the trend of preferentially holding up one word at a time and making foolish remarks about how "screaming can be justified, or unjustified". Analysis, what's that?) So I ask you for diffs to support your claim that I "would argue that "dishonest cunts" is civil". ("Would.."?)

Let me try to be clearer, if I can. I realise you can't produce the diffs I ask for, because they don't exist, because I never argued or even discussed, hinted at, or waved in the direction of, any of those things. (To be precise, this small edit, destined to be removed by Salvio Giuliani as a personal attack, is the entire extent of my input on the civility case.) That was my point, you know. Since there are no such diffs you you don't get to imply that I have said such things. As I've already stated, I didn't expect you to withdraw anything, because that's not.. the kind of thing you do. (In my experience.) I was quite curious to see what you would do instead, and now I know: you have ignored all my requests and solicitously posted quite other diffs, apparently meant to in some way enhance my convenience in researching the case (I didn't mean I'd done it quite that superficially). Please don't wriggle. It's unbecoming. Thank you for your concern for my health. Bishonen | talk 23:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC).

Fuck it then. This whole farce was only ever about me, nothing to do with "civility enforcement" anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 00:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Wait a second. ArbCom let you off with a slap on the wrist and here you are repeating the same problematic behavior? I'm sure that I wasn't the only one to predict that this was going to happen. Granted, I've been out of the loop the last couple weeks, but I don't understand why you are upset. You thumbed your nose at ArbCom, indeed, the entire community, and you got a way with it. You should be celebrating your victory, not complaining about it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

"... should be celebrating your victory .. "?? Although it would be great if we would all get together and sit somewhere, drink some champagne (I prefer spumante, but neither is available in this country :-( ), I think that 'celebrating victory' gets to close to suggesting that someone won the battle with ArbCom. ArbCom is here to solve problems that the community can not solve, they're not here to conquer, fight and try come out victorious. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

But they didn't solve problem, did they?[33] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Now that is exactly the point I was hoping for that someone would make, A Quest For Knowledge. They may take out one of the symptoms, they may not even do that (just a slap on the writs), but solving the problem is certainly not something that they do. Here, the problem is that editors start using uncivil language, start using personal attacks. There may indeed be a couple of people who are strong examples of it, but taking away those examples, those symptoms is NOT solving the problem. Malleus Fatuorum tells it exactly: 'This whole farce [has] .... nothing to do with "civility enforcement" anyway.' --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Arbcom is not some holy grail of the Internet. They are a collection of individuals who have put themselves forward in the hope of improving "en.wikipedia.org". Expecting a group of individual human beings to collectively solve all the ills of a website is absurd. Many have come and gone, and in the end we have what we have to work with. It's very easy to cast stones from afar, and I admit that I have on occasion been critical of both the collective group, and a few individuals. There are only so many hours that one can click links, review diffs, research the "big picture" - and NOBODY can claim to have "seen it all". I learned one really important thing once I started editing WP - "AGF" .. ok, maybe it's been my downfall in many respects, but it's something that I took out into the real world of my life. I don't regret that. I am absolutely amazed to see some threads that claim things like "friends" are a bad thing. Unreal. I don't even know how to respond to that. There have been people cast aside here that actually cared about this project that I couldn't even begin to list them. (Ottava, Mattisse, Rlevse, the_undertow, Jennevica, Bish, TechOutsider, BarkingMoon, Giano, Malleus, Betacommand, and countless others). The project demands that an editor "conform" to our standards .. and yet as a collective group we are so freakin disfunctional - I have no idea what that conformity is. We've got 20 year old-something kids that get drunk and think it's cool to block some 50 year old researcher/historian/professional for typing a "naughty" word ... because it's "cool"??? We put these little grade-school tags on accounts that say "This user is banned" .. "This user is a sock puppet of so-and-so" ... And ya want the real world to take our project seriously? Good grief. — Ched :  ?  07:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Whether we like it or not, by its nature, Wikipedia combines Usenet with an encyclopedia. As far as I know most newsgroups forums etc. don't have a supreme court, so I guess that's an evolution of cybersocial structures, and a pretty predictable one as well. Irrespective of the merits of the particular dispute involving KimvdLinde, it's hard to disagree with the social interaction problems she identified here. (The solutions she proposed are untested in the context of a wiki [or encyclopedia], so nobody knows if they'd work or not until someone implements them, almost certainly on a site other than Wikipedia. Social structures and people supporting them tend to co-evolve [and self-select], so it's highly doubtful Wikipedia at 10 can any see any dramatic changes originating within its community. Of course, WP:You don't own Wikipedia, but they need the obsessive dedicated volunteers. The problem with this built-in criteria for selecting volunteers is that their dedication may quickly turn into long-term feuds when they disagree on whatever. So there, I've just insulted almost everyone on this page. Nighty-night. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC))

Very true, Ched. Maybe it is already time for the 4th RfC on the ArbCom, with serious suggestions on how to reform the ArbCom and what we do expect from the ArbCom in stead of bashing some symptoms around, and considering to get those people who actually care about the project back in the project in stead of banning and blocking them? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

About Arbcom

• The case was a swing and a miss by ArbCom. I was hopefully optimistic near the beginning of the process, but as discussion became speech-making and time dragged on it was clear nothing useful would come out of it with regards to Wikipedia as a whole.
• ArbCom or a subset thereof knew going in was a crap case, but given the number of comments felt compelled to take it.
• It's not their fault: we talk about community & consensus as if it was real. It's an ideal -- Wikipedia is a set of overlapping communities, a significant factor in the inconsistency. Too big for any individual or group to monitor of all, coupled with everyone's own background, expecting consistency isn't realistic.
• If we can't change a single phrase on WP:V changing ArbCom is unlikely.

About Malleus Fatoruom

• Malleus is unblockable for incivility because he isn't that incivil that often - he's in the gray. Does he "get away with" more gray than others because of his contributions, mini-community, and rhetorical savvy? Yep. Does he get more attention and criticism for a given comment because of the all the editors he's pissed off along the way. Yep. It is what it is.
• Repeatedly raising the general issue about Malleus's incivility escalates, rather than deescalates the problem.
• On the other hand, for someone who claims "that offence is one of those things that can't be given, it can only be taken", Malleus has pattern of self-referential injustice meme contributions. These are best ignored.
• I made things worse. The comment redaction someone other than Malleus, rather than quenching the brewing storm, just muddled things up more. Sorry, seemed like a good idea at the time.

The best we can do

• Model what we want to see in others by our own edits. (I've seen way too much incivility "in defense of" incivility in my wikitime.)
• Deal with the obvious and blatant incivility.
• Politely but firmly call each other out we start to slip.
• The case is closed. The chronic mudslinging isn't solving anything and it's getting really boring. I'd encourage all you contributor types to go back to what you do best and I'll go back and do my 10W-40 thing. Or maybe even real life for awhile. Nobody Ent 15:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Ya'll should consider me as a poster-child for civility. I've been on this project for over 6yrs & never been blocked for breaching WP:CIVIL. One need only to refrain from posting foul language, to start with. GoodDay (talk) 06:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I would find this a very good Principle, GoodDay. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

[34] Discuss!! Seriously, you (collectively) have got nothing better to do to than write essays like the above on a single pejorative word?! ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)