Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Original announcement

"This is a reminder that the nominations phase of the December 2009 elections to select new members of the Arbitration Committee, as well as the Request for Comment|Request for Comment on the conditions for the elections and the 2010 Committee, will close on November 24, in one day's time." It closes at the end of November 24, correct, making it almost two days' time? Steve Smith (talk) 01:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Err, not really: 00:00 on the 24th is the first minute of the day; the nominations thus close at the days rolls over from the 23rd. At least that's what I always understood it mean. — Coren ^(talk) 02:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:ACE2009 says they close "23:59 UTC on 24 November 2009". Steve Smith (talk) 02:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The RfC declares "This discussion is scheduled to close on November 24, 2009 at 00:00 UTC". While this may be ambiguous, in effect the discussion will close once the designated closer gets around to it, which will be sometime during November 24. Rest assured, actual election cutoff times will be strictly and unambiguously set.  Skomorokh, barbarian  02:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

candidacy window shuts at nov 24, 23:59. We can always just move the RFC close date. a day for uniformity.--Tznkai (talk) 02:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If you want to change the dates to something exact and uniform, and are willing to go through everywhere they're mentioned to guarantee consistency, then I won't object in the slightest, but this really isn't something demanding rigidity; the time of closing of nominations or normal RfCs is not a bright line.  Skomorokh, barbarian  02:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It isn't, but the day long gap might be causing some confusion, especially with your message implying they're ending at the same time.--Tznkai (talk) 02:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I have closed this Request for Comment. My detailed review of the issues and the results of that discussion may be found here. To summarize, I found that consensus exists as follows:

• The Arbitration Committee shall consist of 18 Members elected to 2 Year Terms.
• Arbitrators will be elected by Secret Ballot using the Securepoll extension.
• Ballots will invite editors to Support or Oppose candidates.
• Voters must have 150 mainspace edits before the election cycle to vote (Status Quo)

Questions or comments may be posted at The RFC's Talk Page. Thank you to all who participated. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This close has been disputed - see the comments at the RfC's talk page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not that any kind of decision can be made around here nowadays that won't be disputed.. --Conti|✉ 21:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

True, but it becomes less likely when it follows precedent. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

With one or two minor exceptions, the agenda does not seem to have been updated since the departure of arbitrator Kirill Lokshin in July (history). It would be helpful to note in the case that the agenda has intentionally been permanently discontinued. If it has not, it would be good to revisit the status of the items (particularly those with expired deadlines), even if only to mark them all as indefinitely on the back burner. Unrealistic targets are in no-one's interest. Respectfully,  Skomorokh  09:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I've suspended (commented out) the agenda/calendar pending the seating of ArbCom 2010, when this will be revisited.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Roger, that seems sensible. For the record, I think a public agenda is a great idea, provided you can keep it current and realistic.  Skomorokh  02:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Original announcement

• For some reason, I had expected the oppose/neutral/support options to be in reversed order, and was about to case my vote exactly in reverse as well. Is that really just me, or has it changed since the Audit Subcommittee election? Support/Neutral/Oppose seems much far more natural to me, and seems to be the way they've always been ordered, not least in WP:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/October 2009 election/SecurePoll feedback and workshop#What order should the voting buttons be in?. I'd expect I'm not the only one who will intuitively get it wrong, some might not notice at all. Amalthea 00:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
  • It was supposed to have been changed. Quite apart from anything else, it will greatly inflate the proportion of oppose votes.  Roger Davies ^talk 00:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Not sure if it was just changed, but my ballot has the options in S/N/O order. KnightLago (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Huh, for me too, now. I assume someone just changed it: I went to the SecurePoll page a couple of times before posting the above. Amalthea 00:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
    • (ec) Why? I'd expect more opposes if oppose were selected by default. Just swapping oppose and support is merely confusing. Amalthea 00:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
      • It's just the way people work. If you put the negative options first in an opinion poll you get more people supporting them than if you put them last.  Roger Davies ^talk 00:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Some may be interested in this discussion: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee#Recent use of RevisionDelete related to David Gerard (it's a bit off the beaten path, so posting here and some other places). --MZMcBride (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for posting, as I have been wondering what is going on. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Original announcement

• Resignation not accepted. Oh for pete's sake, utterly unnecessary. You guys deal with enough crap, we can't have arbs resigning every time they phrase something a little roughly. This resignation is unhelpful to the community and simply make the WMF intervention look sinister. Not accepted, I trust others will agree. How many subjectsof arbcom cases object to statements of fact arbcom makes? In how many of those cases does the WMF legal counsel "broker" a deal leading to a resignation. If you got a fact wrong, retract and apologise. Unless there is gross negligence or an accusation of malice, it ends there. David Gerard is NOT a special case. --Scott Mac (Doc) 14:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• No. Get back in the saddle. Jack Merridew 14:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

  moar; Special:Block/David Gerard per WP:NLT.^{defamation allegation oversighted} — Jack Merridew 18:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Couple of comments.

1. Even if you formulated the original wording, it was approved by a majority of Arbitrators. If there is now an agreement that the original wording was inadequate or flawed in some way, the more reasonable response is for Arbcom as a whole to correct the wording and apologize if necessary.
2. This continues a pattern of resignations of Arbitrators who make errors in good faith. The end result will be an Arbitration committee composed of those who are too meek to take strong action that might result in error, and those who are convinced that they are incapable of error. Not a good result.

Thatcher 15:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thatcher - to your first comment - append "unless it wasn't" after the first sentence. Yet again the "transparent" arbcom does something behind closed doors, then catches flack, then undoes it, and stabs someone on their way out. This is a hint - if you have the debate in public, this happens less. Disnfectant and all. Hipocrite (talk) 15:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Before it was vanished, the original statement was approved 10-0 with 1 recused, 1 not voting and 1 inactive. That's about as transparent as it gets. Thatcher 15:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No. It could indeed be more transparent if the statement, or the voting thereon, wasn't vanished William M. Connolley (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Sunlight also causes skin cancer. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• I think there was a list of arbs who approved the statement when it was posted and at least one later changed their non-vote to a support. The identities of those who supported are not in doubt, so there is no need for that qualifier. MBisanz ^talk 15:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• I can't remember the exact fuck-up before, but once an arb wrote a statement that they felt reflected the mailing-list vote but didn't. They gave a vote total also. Hipocrite (talk) 15:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Could be, but I don't think so in this case, for reasons I can't discuss further. Thatcher 15:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with everything Thatcher said. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• John, you made a mistake, and the Committee got in trouble with a functionary and the foundation as a result. Fine; take responsibility, apologise. But the English Wikipedia has disputes that need arbitrating and with all due respect to the candidates in the current election, we can't afford to lose our best arbitrators every time a mistake is made. Please reconsider. You have my confidence.  Skomorokh  15:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the oversighting of the original motion removes the evidence that others as well as John supported it. That lends the defamatory impression he has sole responsibility for the alleged libel. John, can I suggest you seek the intervention of some "broker" to clear your name?--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Why do so many people on this silly site insist on either (a) refusing to admit even the possibility that they've made a mistake in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, or (b) admitting they made a mistake, but then resign from ArbCom / return the admin bit / retire from editing / etc. ? Whatever happened to "Oops, sorry for the mess, I'll clean it up, learn from it and move on"? I make mistakes at work, and in life, all the bloody time, as does everyone else I know. We don't quit, or ask to be fired. We apologize, fix the mistake, and move on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• Reject resignation for all of the good reasons presented above. And any good ones that follow. And the good ones no-one thinks of. And any bad ones. --Dweller (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• I cannot see how blame, if blame there is to be, falls solely on John. Even if this were a resigning matter, the statement was given on behalf of 10 Arbs, so surely 10 resignations would be needed. The Committee can't offer a sacrificial lamb everytime it errs. WJBscribe (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Of course it can. That's why we have elections. ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Sadly, I think it errs more than 18 times per year... WJBscribe (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• For eff sake, John is one of the good arbs that gave me hope, and there aren't enough good candidates in the new elections that #9 will likely be an adequate replacement. I'm tired of this kind of thing ... good arbs resigning on relatively frivolous grounds. Very sad ... reject resignation for all it's worth. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• Rejected I must add my admittedly small voice to those refusing to accept your resignation. I would like to see the arbcom as a whole standing up for its statement, and I don't remember the community giving it a mandate to broker deals such as this. Brilliantine (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Reasons an arbitrator should resign: sleeping with Jimbo and not divulging a conflict of interest, selling MediaWiki software to Al Qaeda, hiding one's radioactive superpowers and siding with Mothra against Godzilla. No, a serious breach of ethics, folks. Socking, lying about serious stuff, making Wikipedia out to look like a confederacy of idiots to the press, a pattern of insult and humiliating discourse with editors. Not a terse word when frustrated. These resignations frustrate me. Come on, people. Do your jobs and quit the confessions. --Moni3 (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• While we can't reject a resignation and force arbitrators to serve, I also believe that this resignation is a very bad and disappointing decision, and urge John to reconsider it. We did't elect you to step down at the drop of a hat, especially if the responsibility for this incident (whatever it was) appears to be shared by an unanimous Committee.  Sandstein  15:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, and why does the history of User talk:John Vandenberg seem to have been oversighted, all zillion revisions of it?  Sandstein  15:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• It was archived by page move. Steve Smith (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Request Denied Get back to your arb seat and get the rest of arbcom to release a statement on this. I dont want to be eating sacrificial lamb today. Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 15:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm with Thatcher and the others; if good arbitrators resign every time they make a mistake, and all arbitrators are human, then we'll be stuck with arbitrators who don't care if they screw up or are convinced they never do. This cycle of "Oops, I made an error, I hereby resign effective immediately" needs to be terminated, and this is as good a time as any. Arbitrators should understand that the community expects high quality work, but also that we expect arbitrators to be human. The acknowledgment of an error doesn't always need to be accompanied by a severed head on a platter. Nathan ^T 16:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• For what it's worth I would also refuse to accept this resignation. This is a minor communication failure which is put right by a revised statement. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• I respect John's decision to do what he thought was right, but as I have told him, I do not believe this action is necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Resignation rejected 100% per Thatcher. Arbcom is allowed to err, and ArbCom is allowed to err in how they fixed their original error. If anything, we need people who have experience in just how difficult handling ArbCom cases and situations are, and who know first hand the results of not taking due diligence. Use this experience to IMPROVE arbcom, not leave it in an even more tenuous position! This is not feudal Japan and we do not fall on swords; it's bad for your career and ruins the sword. --- Avi (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oh for gooodness sake. John, what it boils down to is a bit of clumsiness that caused a couple days of drama and discomfort. If you'd done something like summarily issued an alleged ArbCom decision without actually having the support of the committee, that would be one thing. Rather, you misphrased something. The right thing to do is apologize and move on to the next crisis; this indicates strength and confidence, not weakness and vacillation (something I've never seen you guilty of.) The incoming ArbCom, dog have mercy on their souls, will need the help you can provide. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You meant "Dog have ycrem on their slous," I think. -- Avi (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Guys, its comments like these which really so much inspire some of us to run like hell away from the barest possibility of ever considering being part of ArbCom, particularly considering one of you was there before. You two make being the guest of honor at a public hanging sound more fun. John Carter (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You can only be hanged once. Thatcher 17:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Does this statement insist that John is the only one at fault, and no arbs that approved the "dastardly" statement 10-0 have any intention of at least sharing one iota of the blame? Vodello (talk) 04:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• Resignation rejected John, we really can't afford to lose you. Avraham & Jpgordon (among others) are absolutely correct. You're needed now and you'll be needed even more with the incoming Arbcom. Dougweller (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Unless there is more information coming, I don't really see anything that can be construed as a problem or a concern. If anything, I think that the other party should have been banned for what appears to be a fundamental break from our policies and WMF set requirements for the information. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• I tend to agree with almost everybody else, and especially with Thatcher's analysis ("The end result will be an Arbitration committee composed of those who are too meek to take strong action that might result in error, and those who are convinced that they are incapable of error.") of the problem. Obviously we all don't know what has gone on in the background, and ultimately we should leave it to the rest of Arbcom (who presumably have the full information) to decide whether this resignation makes sense or not. But an admission that an error has been made, together with a credible assertion that you try not to repeat it seems to be all that anyone expects at the moment. There was a time when even that seemed too much to hope for. Erring in the other direction is better, but still not optimal. Hans Adler 16:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• You don't need to resign. There is no way to reject your resignation, but I wish you would reconsider. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• This is ridiculous. The Arbcom approved the statement, they should now all have the guts to back John up or all of them resign. Something very sinister and odd is afoot (that's a firm fact, by the way) I don't buy this story for a moment and neither should any of you. I tried to talk John out of resigning earlier today, so I know further pursuasion will be futile. So we (the commuity) need to get to the bottom of this, we vote for an Arbcom, not a lot of sinister shadows in the background. Let this pass, and it will be the thing edge of a very smelly wedge.  Giano  16:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Great, I log on to check my talk page and I find that yet another good arb has resigned. This isn't a cabinet government, people. You guys/gals don't need to resign after any minor mistake you make. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 16:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• If the arbcom approved the statement, the whole committee should offer their resignation. Hanging John out to dry is not acceptable, and his resignation is not accepted. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 17:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Come on John, let it go. Clearly you are needed to continue as an important voice on Arbcom...Modernist (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know which makes me more nauseous -- top editors who fluff up a simple statement under workload stress but then can't put it right with a simple commonsense correction and half the functionaries team in unison, or the ignorant crowd who know something complex is up, instantly claim bad faith, conspiracies and how "someone must lose the bits", then post cynically how much they shouldn't go, when the very arbs they were slamming do fall on their swords.

  Lesson here. Big box because I don't think some people got it last dozen times. Read my lips.

Every year our best users go into Arcom to try and keep extreme problems from disrupting editing. You vote them in as good people, then curse, spit at them, magnify everything they do wrong into bad faith and conspiracy, lambast them for everything possible, expect them to reach consensus in minutes and disclose everything however non-public, and expect perfection under all circumstances. The same people now objecting to resignation were the very ones who caused it. MZMcBride, you posted this this. Are you happy that you got a resignation from the drama you stirred? Perfection isn't going to happen. Not here, not anywhere. Arbcom will make a major mispost, misruling, or poor action, a few times a year. It will take time to sort out. Deal with it. Try this strategy next time: Assume good faith. There are 50 functionaries, we're fiercely independent of Arbcom, and part of our job is to catch Arbcom mistakes when they happen, and discuss them. Forcefully at times. We do that job thoroughly. Wait, and quietly ask for information. Arbcom is not your emergency response team. They work as a Committee, and can easily take a day or two to reach a decision just because they have to round up a majority and get agreement. Do not assume. Do not assume bad faith. Do not call for heads and stir conspiracy theories. Thank you.

All said.

John, get back to work. Others who didn't assume good faith, learn from it.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

FT2, I think you missed Skomorokh's point. Thatcher 17:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't miss that he was one of those in the door with a statement that was readable as bad faith. But on review it wasn't and I've removed it. Forgive me at being pretty sickened by these events. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No, he was replying to a suggestion that Arbcom should have posted an explanation of the removal in advance, by noting that would have immediately called further attention to the allegedly damaging statement that was slated for removal. Thatcher 17:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me respond since I have been called out specifically here. ("Skomorokh, you posted bad faith and implied worse. Now you got your wish, you now post your regrets about John resigning."). My comment "If they had done so, we would have all rushed to familiarize ourselves with the information that they wanted no-one to be familiar with", was an explanation to Coffee of the drawback to pre-announcing the hiding of the material regarding David Gerard; namely that it would have publicised it. My comment took no position as to whether or not the end – hiding the information – was worthy or not, just that that means would have been ineffective. It contained no bad faith or implication thereof on the part of the Committee, unless one thinks of Oversight as innately wrong. I agree with the thrust of your post, FT2, which is why I was very surprised to see you jump in with unwarranted assumptions regarding my character and intentions. Sincerely,  Skomorokh  20:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I replied to FT2 here. Apologies for not using bold font and black boxes—I suppose the substance of my post will have to stand on its own. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• I see not much fault of John in this affair, and no reason for him to resign. Unless he ordered the oversighting, of course. — Kusma ^talk 17:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not going to pretend I can force John to take up his oar again, but I want to be one more voice ponding on thatcher's principle above - if making one mistake means leaving the committee, everyone left on the committee will be either timid ("We can't act if it might be seen as a mistake") or arrogant ("We don't make mistakes"). It's better to have people who realize that mistakes happen (hey, it happened to you) and act to avoid making them (which is best done by people who have experience in the consequences of not doing so). The sacrificial lamb routine doesn't benefit the community or the Committee. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• John, come back, as has been said many many times already, this is not all on your shoulders. Don't act like it is. I think this is the first time I've ever seen actual unanimous consent about something on this site. Please respect that. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• Resignation not accpeted. It is not the job of the ArbCom to forsee what the community will like or be happy with, and act in accordance with that. Neither is it the job of ArbCom to forsee what the community will dislike, and go along with that. It is the job of the ArbCom to make the hard decisions the community is incapabale of making, without regard for the general acceptance of that decision. Screwing something up once does not make you a bad person, who must resign. FT2's summary is excellent. Now get back to work arbitating cases. --Jayron32 17:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• Please don't? I'm too pressed for time lately to write anything terribly eloquent, especially when others have made the points so well... but your resignation seems entirely unnecessary (barring some huge RL reason, of course). Kafka Liz (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• Again a small voice but sheesh. I'll agree with FT2 that people attack the committee to an extreme that can lend itself to this but it still doesn't explain it. People make mistakes, there is not a single person who could be on the committee and not end up making mistakes that are regrettable in the end. Even the most careful will likely end up being to careful and causing issues elsewhere, it's inevitable. To have someone resigning after every mistake like this? All it does is make it appear that everyone who spouts their mouth off about the absurdity of arbcom is right. Is everything done perfect? No, can it improve tremendously still? Of course, but it's an important and needed group that at least I think is getting better and I'm sure others agree even when they think it has big things to fix still. While I'm not sure how easy it IS to reverse your decision (especially since I know you already resigned OS/CU since thats what brought me here) but if it is possible I implore you to rethink. We have 8 spots open already in the arbcom elections and at least in my opinion we desperately need SOME experience and continuity on the board as we move. So yea otherwise and to try and avoid more of the lecture I want to write here, per thatcher and a bunch of people above me. Jamesofur (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• Resignation not accepted I've got to pile on here to the clear consensus. Nobody thinks this was your fault, and admitting your mistake with a good faith attempt to not do it again is all that should be required. Nobody wants you to go. The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• Very, very unfortunate that it ended up this way, but I'm not surprised by the outcome. I would prefer John to stay on, he has done a great job as an arbitrator and functionary. - Mailer Diablo 19:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• John: look above, and see that your decision is not a decision that is supported by the community (sigh...). Get back in the saddle, or, if you really have doubts about whether you still have community trust, put your name in the election in the next couple of seconds, so you can see what the community really thinks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? Resigning because you wrote a draft that pretty much all the other active Arbs agreed with? I can't imagine anyone thinking that this is necessary (obviously none of the posters here do) so I must suspect this is part of the back-door-deal brokered by Godwin (who, as noted, was not acting in his professional capacity....). I'm highly disgusted with certain WMF members. Karanacs (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

At no point did Mike call for the resignation of anyone. Please don't lay the blame on him for this. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. By your own admission, you took an action that was "less than ideal." That is not at all the stuff ArbCom resignations are made of, and quite frankly to resign under these circumstances (or at least what I understand of them) sets a rather crappy precedent. If you simply want to resign simply because you want to that's okay (though not remotely desirable—from what I've seen you've done well and we could really use your continued service), but then say that's why you are resigning, rather than linking your resignation to this episode that literally no one thinks it is worth resigning over. If this were an AfD I was closing I would ignore your resignation rationale as poorly thought out and not based in policy, meaning you'd be stuck with this Arb job unless you come up with a better excuse to get out of it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• I appologize for not falling in lockstep, but have I missed something? Calling for anyones head without facts is inappropriate. At the same time how can we grant absolution without facts? FT2's post says: Wait, and quietly ask for information. Speaking for myself that's where I am. Awaiting for a clear and honest answer as to what has gone on here.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Really, we should be talking at this point about all of the arbitrators resigning - they all signed off on this fiasco, as Karanacs points out - but I think John deserves praise for taking responsibility. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Seeing as how December appears to be "Drama Month" at WP, I guess I'll go ahead and post my thoughts here just so I'm not left out. First and foremost - @ John V. Hey, we are often woefully short on intelligent, mindful, respectful, and mature folks willing to tolerate some pretty foolish things here and try to make a positive impact. I'd ask you to please reconsider, and perhaps after a bit of a break from it all to please continue doing the good work that you do. If you have simply had enough of the BS, and wish to walk away from it all - I can't say that I'd blame you, but I hope that's not the case; and perhaps a bit of down-time to recharge would allow you the determination to return. In regards to the David G. matter: my perception is that a high level wikipedian posted some info off-site that is assumed to have been acquired through a privileged tool (CU). If this is the case, then it's likely best that David give up that tool for the time being. Now, ... we elect a small group of folks to oversee various problems here at WP (ArbCom), and we chose those people because we trust them to have a high degree of integrity, dedication, and clue. When something comes to light - we scream "tell us, tell us NOW, TELL US NOW!" Ummm .. ok, well, I guess we need to decide if we want "NOW" or if we want "Right". Sometimes getting it right takes a bit of time. Research and all - ya know? Hey, I'd rather wait a bit and get the "right" information, than to have "Paparazzi" type rumors as the de facto "position". From my perspective this all seems to be filled with sound and fury ... (you know the rest), and I'd be just pleased as a kitten at feeding time if we've reached the conclusion of this little melodrama.

AC is more often than not in uncharted waters, as such, I'm happy to watch the whole thing mature, and grow. It seems to me that they've come a long way - and working without a net (and on the fly) at that. To be honest, I'm rather impressed. I appreciate the work, dedication, and willingness to "take one for the team" efforts put forth by these folks willing to volunteer their time here. Volunteer? ... umm .. oh, yea - that's right huh? They didn't get that big pay raise this year did they? Oh well, I'm sure it will all evolve in the fashion that it should - so I'll just close by offering my very best holiday wishes to each and every one of my fellow Wikipedians here. Time on this planet is short folks - enjoy what you have today, because it may be gone tomorrow. Best regards to all. — Ched :  ?  20:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Two days into the month and it's Drama Month already? Hoo boy... bibliomaniac15 21:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I didn't mean this particular issue - just that I've heard (and read) that December in past years tends to go that direction. I'm always open to being pointed to links that might offer me some better insight. To be honest - this whole thing seems a bit OTT, but far be it for me to judge. I mean really - a blog? an announcement of tool removal gets deleted so it can be reworded? And we get all this attention? Wow - just seems so excessive to me. To me this whole thing seems like a "Mountain - meet molehill" type of deal. Just IMHO. — Ched :  ?  21:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• No. But if you do, see below. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• Not accepted. Mistakes happen. Preventable mistakes happen. That's life. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 22:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• How about No: Neither putting out a notice that the subject objected to, nor using a finangle to get the mess temporarily under the rug, nor taking the lawyer's advice when a plea settlement was proposed, was such a serious error as to warrant resignation. They're just your average fuck up at the top level in an organisation. Thatcher put it well, we need people who will stay and learn.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• So you fucked up a bit. This is clearly a temporary condition not chronic. As much as I like arbs admitting when they have made a mistake, I don't think they should resign at the drop of a hat. Viridae^Talk 00:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
• I fully understand why you would want out of ArbCom. It's a pretty thankless job. That being said, you're a good arbitrator and if you were on the ballot this year, you'd likely be elected again. I hope you change your mind, but understand if you don't. Do what's right for you, what we want doesn't really matter. AniMate 01:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• Accepted with regret. Sometimes when you make a mistake with major consequences, stepping away from the situation can be the best way to reduce primary or secondary harm or drama to yourself and others. I think it's pretty obvious that your decision to resign falls into this category. As such, it is an honorable one. Should you decide to run again in 12/2010 or later, I think you will find your community standing much higher than if you had stayed and the situation gotten more dramatic than it already is. As a bonus, the community will now benefit from all your free time that you can now spend editing and administrating :). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• Add me to the list of people who don't think this resignation is needed or a good idea. I'm no sycophant for the committee or any individual member, not even my favourite members. Still, this situtation does not merit resignation. It merits learning on John's part and the committee's as a whole, no less than that, but not resignation by John. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• John, I join the chorus of users who don't want you to retire. As others have said, there's clearly a community consensus against it! I think you should consider the door open—at least until the new arbs are announced—and if there's ever a vacancy, I would argue that your mandate has not expired. You resigned in good standing as far as I am aware, and this arbitrator will always welcome you back. Cool Hand Luke 16:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• FWIW, John put me on the cc where he said he would be doing this. I suggested that he not, and that he should at least stick around to welcome the 2010 AC intake; and if he was that burnt out on it, there's WMAU. I suspect burnout is a fair bit of it (arbitration tends to burn people out), and rest is good in any case - David Gerard (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• John, I know how hard you've worked on the Committee this year, and how many good things you've done. Many times it's not been easy, and yet you've come through. I have a feeling that your first love, Wikisource, is eager to welcome you home with open arms if you don't reconsider, but you have a home here too. Risker (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• Resignation Trout Smacked. Which is all and everything it deserves. • Ling.Nut 00:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
• I'd echo the sentiments above. I see no need or reason for you to retire, and would consider this not to be "under a cloud", and hence able to return without requiring the below. Can understand where Risker is coming from too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• I also urged John not to resign (he did fore-warn us), but it is his decision and his alone. I would suggest giving John the space to do what he thinks best for now, and I hope he leaves the door open for a future return. Completely agree with what Risker says as well. Carcharoth (talk) 08:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with all those expressions of thanks and respect: from what I've seen they are well-deserved. Vodello and Carcharoth are right to say you should do whatever is best for you. Your resignation might be worrying, that doesn't mean it sets a "poor precedent". It might well be good for Wikipedia and it could be very good for you. Hope you enjoy your break. - Pointillist (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• You volunteered to make yourself one of the more important (in a way) and most reviled editors around, just by being on ArbCom, and you stayed in that position for over a year. Many of us wouldn't last more than a day or two; I'm not sure I'd last even that long. Thank you for your efforts, and I hope that you enjoy doing whatever you choose to do at this point, whether writing articles, returning to ArbCom, going back to Wikisource, or just enjoying the seasons without having to think about this place for a while. John Carter (talk) 00:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

By means of an Extraordinary Proposal by the Community of the English Language Wikipedia, that the present Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009 shall be extended, by reason of the support shown herewith, for the inclusion of the Candidate John Vandenberg (talk · contribs), to serve on the Committee for the duration of his original term only.

1. Proposer. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Well, as I suggested something similar above .. Support. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Support per my own comments on JV's talk page. We have had a number of arbitrators resign recently, sometimes for reasons some of us find less than sufficient. I can and to an extent do applaud the integrity of those who have resigned, but at the same time think that it does weaken the ArbCom when such individuals do resign, particularly if the reasons are questionably sufficient. I told him that I think the best way to proceed in matters like this might be, if the situation occurs close enough to an election, for the individual to stand for a confirmation election. I honestly believe that is probably the best way to proceed, but we would need to see if it could work, and it is hard for me to imagine a situation which would allow us to find out which would be better than this one. In this case, the election would be to fill the remainder of his term, I would think, and if he were to lose the individual getting the fewest votes of those getting sufficient to be seated would be the one to take his place. If all the seats are filled, of course. That would strike me at least as being the fairest way to go. John Carter (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, speaking with my coordinator hat on here, and I suspect the other coordinators would agree with me, changing the election midstream is a bad idea. If we had due process, it would be a violation per se.--Tznkai (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

We have far too much buggering about with changing what elections are for already, and should have less (or ideally none). He's resigned - most of us are not allowed to know what exactly happened, and so cannot reasonably comment on whether or not his resignation is appropriate, and resignation should mean on Wikipedia what it means in any other walk of life. Making up new rules to enable a candidate you like isn't in any way a good thing. He can stand next year if he likes, but not this. DuncanHill (talk) 21:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Also worth noting that we already have a lot of voters who have already voiced their opinion, who would in a real sense, be disenfranchised, if only temporarily if they're aware of the new candidate.--Tznkai (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, truly, for the comments from the ACE09 co-ordinators, but I understand that your role is to administer the poll in the format(s) that are decided upon. If the Community decided it is appropriate for the poll to be extended, acting through whatever medium it has, then the coordinators have the choice of complying or resigning (and you should know that I am really against resignation over principles only). As ever with my proposals, this does not appear to be gaining much of any traction so the point may be moot - but I am uncertain why someone should volunteer for a job that has inherent problems, and then complain that someone wanted to change one of the problems at a late stage... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I will say that the proof of consensus I would need to be satisfied to change an election midstream in this way is very, very, high. Like, verbal assent from 90% of these people high. If you want a democratic litmus test for inviting Jayvdb to take his arb-fez back, I think a different venue would work a lot better. I have no problem with solving problems in general, but this suggestion seems to actually threaten the legitimacy of the vote and the accuracy of the mechanism.--Tznkai (talk) 21:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Is that not happening already, there is an extra seat to fill. How many candidates and how many remaining arbitrators do we have? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Remember the public outcry around the "AUSC alternate"? Let's keep things as they were set. As far as I know, Jayvb can be re-seated if he chooses to, no? –xeno^talk 21:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as a coordinator, I am strongly against accepting candidates after the nominations have closed. Last December, John was elected to a three year seat, of which he pledged to serve two years. Per precedent, he can unresign and see out his term without needing to run as a candidate again. The issue of replacing resigned arbitrators is not one that to my knowledge the community has come to consensus on. As such, the appointments as a result of the December 2009 elections will, ultimately, be in the hands of Jimbo Wales. If you have any questions about this, please ask them at the election talkpage.  Skomorokh  21:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Per my response to Tznkai, above. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's just not bother with having any prior rules for elections, it just confuses people if they know in advance what they are voting for..DuncanHill (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I actually have no dispute with the above. The question, to my eyes, isn't so much about resignation. Clearly, anyone is free to leave at anytime, we all know that. However, if someone does resign as the result of calls for their head, as it were, and not for personal reasons, I think the better option would be to allow them to have a vote of confidence come the next election, if that election is shortly thereafter. They might even, if it is only a brief time, recuse themselves for the duration of the time till the election results. Granted, the other page might be theoretically the better place to post this, but I have a feeling this page is being watched a bit more closely right now, so hope you don't mind if I do a little soapboxing. John Carter (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I see where you're coming from. But this is not a resignation I'd characterise as "under a cloud", and looking up this page is all the verification of confidence we would need, I'd expect.  Skomorokh  21:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Tznkai and xeno. Let's take the drama out of this, please. John, why don't you quietly return to your post now ... there is too much to be done, and we need stability, especially at election time. Tony (talk) 06:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• In a purely selfish way, I will happily accept his resignation and invite him back to a place where we have forbidden drah-mah, hyperbole, and retribution; and where he is always appreciated. Come home John!!! billinghurst (talk) 11:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• I, too, hope that John will reconsider his resignation.   Will Beback  talk  20:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• Resignation unacceptable Admit it: You were wrong to resign. I didn't see anything wrong with your original announcement, and it doesn't at all seem worth a resignation. Back to the salt mine. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• You're a great arb, John. Come back to work. Please. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Announcement

Have DG and MG approved of this new statement? I'd hate for this carousel to start again. –xeno^talk 20:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes.  Roger Davies ^talk 20:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The weakness of this is that you have not "suppressed an announcement and two discussions", you have merely expunged them from Wikipedia's records. I have the text of these, as have others,, and I could (but won't) repost them at will. Reposting them would not be libellous as I'd merely be reporting what arbcom decided the other day and, in any case, have not, so far, retracted. If arbcom made a statement implying facts about David Gerard that they either regret, or miscommunicated what they wanted to say, then the correct response is not suppression (which is impossible) but retraction, clarification and, if necessary, apology. Whatever legal advice you have been given seems pretty questionable.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless this approach was the one that David Gerard wanted. In that case, it could have been perfectly sound legal advice. But this is all speculation. Steve Smith (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

S'pose. But what happens when we write the article David Gerard blog controversy?--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The announcement as previously posted by arbcom was in my strong opinion not libellous and fair comment on DG's actions. More to the point, I feel the Arbcom should be clarifying MG's involvement as a matter of urgency given the alleged emails that have come to light. Really, this is the first time I've been properly disappointed with this incarnation of Arbcom, and really hoped that they would show a bit more spine. If DG takes actions that lead others to make fair comments such as those made by Arbcom in the suppressed announcement, he and only he is responsible for the harm done to himself. Brilliantine (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

David demanded a full retraction and apology, or oversight, and he demanded it in a hurry because Cade Metz was sniffing around. Arbcom doesn't do hurry under the best of circumstances, and here there were significant disagreements about whether or not a retraction was even deserved, much less how to word it. So the comments were oversighted instead. Thatcher 20:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this information. It doesn't change my view but helps me empathise with Arbcom members slightly more. Brilliantine (talk) 21:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This statement does not address half of the issues, and actually makes it appear that ArbCom still has something to hide. Clarification about Mike's involvement is needed, as well as a clear statement about the claims that emails have been leaked from the functionaries mailing list. Tiptoety ^talk 20:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

We know that somebody who was on arbcom-l was leaking e-mails until former arbs were removed from it. That person is presumably now on functionaries-l, since that's where former arbs went. It can hardly be surprising that that list is now leaking. Steve Smith (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Emails were leaked, and? Kelly Martin apparently has a source of insider information too. Unless you can persuade Cade or Kelly to disclose their sources, I'm not sure what else can be done. Thatcher 20:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting action, just a lack of shock at the leak. Steve Smith (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone has asserted, I understand, the proposition that I forced Arbcom to remove the original motion. Not only did I not do so, but that's not how I operate with regard to community matters. For the record, I came across a process that seemed to me to have gone off the rails, at least in some respects, and at nobody's request but my own, I spoke out about it, and ultimately was asked to try to mediate a resolution, which I then did. The goal was not to erase history (I'm not as stupid as I look), but simply to remove Arbcom's seal of approval on some problematic statements while at the same time preserving Arbcom's prerogatives and authority. Keep in mind that those who want to create a master negative narrative about this already have it in for Wikipedia, Arbcom, the Foundation, and the community. MikeGodwin (talk) 06:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I may be mistaken, but I don't believe that Kelly has asserted any such thing. Steve Smith (talk) 06:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

A certain comment on Wikipedia Review, asserting that I had compelled Arbcom to censor its motion, was forwarded to me, Steve. It was a false statement of fact. MikeGodwin (talk) 14:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

<redacted> Whatever I may think of Kelly Martin, she also has an amazing knack for getting her hands on embarassing information others would like to remain hidden (and some fantastically statements by her have in the past, with considerable effort, been capable of verification). Does Kelly have "actual emails" or not? If so, then any penchant of hers is irrelevant to their content. You seek to make a fairly fine distinction here as if it were a major point. No one is, as I understand it, saying that you wrote along the lines of, "I as foundation counsel require you to remove this comment." The criticism is that your words carry the weight of your position whether you intend them to or not. You apparently suggested that the ArbCom statement could be problematic from a legal point of view and you are the foundation's legal counsel. Your actions on David Gerard's behalf (whether or not they were at his request) effective forced a retraction from the Arbitration Committee and John's resignation. In the circumstances, I think it is understandable that people feel aggrieved. WJBscribe (talk) 00:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

WJBscribe, the idea that every time I speak, I must be giving an order to someone, strikes me as cartoonish. If you had your way, perhaps, I would never speak at all, except to issue orders. I hope you understand that I expect Arbcom and everyone else to assume instead that I am a human being with relevant knowledge and experience. I don't think I'm doing anyone here a service if I shut up because you or someone else might be intimidated. The purported intimidation you attribute to Arbcom and others here is not something I can have any control over, since ultimately I expect Arbcom and all other adults to act in line with their perceptions of their duties, and not out of response to a formal authority I refuse to invoke.MikeGodwin (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Mike, when the officer of any institution sends a letter, memo, note or email to someone within that institution, the assumption is that they do so as an official action unless explicitly otherwise. ie, a Christmas card isn't an official action, but a scribbled note on the office memo pad can be assumed as one.

If you were not making the statements officially, you should have been explicit in saying you were not. It takes a second to add "Not speaking as the WMF lawyer, but...", which you didn't do, so it is a fair assumption that it could be taken as official notice. I'm surprised you don't understand that, as it is an issue that can be considered in legal cases. A court can make the determination that something was an "Official Direction" by use of the office notepaper.

This holding up hands and saying "Hey, I was just sending emails, it was nothing official." doesn't wash since there was no way for the ArbCom to determine that you were not giving them official direction. --Barberio (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Barberio, you are obviously basing this conclusion on incomplete access to the correspondence. Those who read everything I wrote already know that I said more than once that I was not acting in an official capacity. MikeGodwin (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I want to offer my strong support for arbcom. I believe they acted rightly in the initial removal of permissions, and understandably in the face of intimidating talk of defamation (if the leaked e-mails are genuine). It is time to cut them some slack, but at the same time to urge then to clarify Mike's role, because the community may have something to say about their elected arbcom being leaned on (if indeed they have been). --Scott Mac (Doc) 20:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

While I am disappointed as I mention above, this does not diminish my support for Arbcom - and I am certainly more concerned with the way they have been apparently leant on than the ease with which they fell over. Brilliantine (talk) 21:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Brilliantine, if you actually look at existing policy, you'll discover that WMF counsel (at least in theory) has the authority to order the removal of material. But that's not how I operate, because I believe that ordering a fix is less good than persuading the community in question to change its mind. (Also, simple use of authority doesn't scale, yet it gives rise to the expectation that Foundation people will intervene here and there like Greek gods, which in my view is a bad expectation indeed.) I want to gently suggest that it is a very naive person who supposes that Cade Metz didn't selectively quote some emails and just as selectively omit to quote others, such as the ones in which I emphasized that, despite the mistake of using my .sig file on one message, I was speaking only for myself. Assume good faith. MikeGodwin (talk) 06:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Y'know, I wouldn't be surprised if a steward reinstated David's rights on the English Wikipedia. The request for removal was posted linking to a (now) vanished thread by a (now) former Arbitrator. I can't see how a request by David at Meta to have his rights restored could be denied.... --MZMcBride (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I on the other hand would be very surprised. The material is still visible to someone who can read oversighted revisions. But if you think a clarification is needed over at meta to the effect that the request was actually made, I suppose one could be added. ++Lar: t/c 21:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I somehow have to concur with Brilliantine here, something about just deserts seems to come into play here. True, I don't support putting anyone in harms way, regardless of their on or related off-wiki actions, but I remember seeing the post by Jayvdb, and there was nothing really libelious on it. Damaging to a reputation, sure, but I guess that's what happens when you fuck up. I'm not really sure what to think here. Seems a little too much like a cover up for me to be entirely comfortable with the outcome. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 21:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, "damaging to a reputation" is more or less the definition of "libellous" (provided that the material so-damaging is presented as factual). Steve Smith (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The material in question clearly qualifies as fair comment, in my extremely strong opinion. Brilliantine (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I would imagine the stewards could point to this latest statement given as backup given that it states that they still took away those rights? I'm not saying how much I agree with that but I could see the argument. Jamesofur (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• I don't understand; Did not the original statement record ArbCom's belief that David Gerard had acted contrary to the expectations of privacy, sensitivity, and confidentiality in respect of his access to certain priviliges, by means of him posting upon his own publicly accessible personal opinion website such information that could only come from either use of certain tools, or access to private mailing lists by similarly privileged persons, and, acting upon those beliefs, removed those privileged accesses? Has DG argued that ArbCom did not in fact believe that it was his impression that he had, or either that by disclosing information obtained from such privileges that he was not betraying the principles of confidentiality, privacy, and sensitivity that the privileges warranted? Or, does DG content that he didn't publish the comments referred to on his blog which lead to the ArbCom Statement detailing its belief that he transgressed the expected standards of conduct? What is it? I mean, no-one said that they were dancing upon the mascaraed head of the editor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Revision deletion is reversible. I think ArbCom's decision to use it to de-escalate an escalating situation was reasonable; at worst it allows time for cooler heads to prevail. Steve Smith (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If Gerard is worried that his reputation will be harmed or diminished because of his editing in WP, then the answer is pretty simple. Quit editing WP. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Circular logic much? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• • Has anyone figured out why the usernames and edit summaries were also suppressed? It's my understanding that these things are configurable and that only the page text was disputed here. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
    • For the usernames and edit summaries, that is obviously simply that Risker has acted swiftly to remove everything, and kept the default values. A priori, I see no reason to not restore the usernames and most of the edit summaries — though I expect it would be wiser to wait for whole committee agreement first. — Coren ^(talk) 23:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The revdelete of the original announcement is understandable within Oversight policy. What interpretation of policy justified removal of the entire discussion threads? Was every post within them potentially defamatory? Isn't a basic principle of revdelete and oversight to remove no more than necessary? Durova³⁷¹ 21:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• The removed threads directly referred to the content of the suppressed announcement, and we cannot redact only part of a thread without leaving revisions containing the text at issue. — Coren ^(talk) 23:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• The story is out. Cla68 (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that one lesson here for the future is for ArbCom to decline to act on bad advice and dubious direction issued by employees of the Foundation. Cla68 (talk) 23:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The risk was to WMF. en.wikipedia isn't an entity that can be sued. There would be no mileage in suing the Arbs, as it would have to be done individually (there's no legal collective entity here either). WMF is the only legal entity, ergo the one that would carry the can. Not I think that the risk was great, but what risk there was rested with the Foundation. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The only risk to WMF results in allowing David Gerard continued access. The actions above and the chilling effect upon those who are directly protecting the private date of Wikipedians per our Privacy Policy is very dangerous. I hope that Mike Godwin issues a public apology and ensures that his actions in the future will not open up WMF to potential problems as his revealed statements surely do now. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that Mike's persuasion has prevented a chilling effect. It's pretty simple. I'm a checkuser; I'm think I'm quite scrupulous about what information I release. If I said "I think you're a jerk, and the checkuser results I have here prove it", I've not violated anyone's privacy. I am, however using checkuser as a bludgeon, and ArbCom could very well consider that it was no longer appropriate for me to have that privilege. All very well and good. After what's just happened, though, I think ArbCom will be careful enough to not to publicly imply I'd acted with actual malfeasance; there's a serious difference between breaching Wikipedia community norms and breaching moral and/or legal rules. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That may be true, but that's not the big picture here. The big picture is that Mike Godwin inappropriately became involved in the issue, giving an appearance that he was doing so at least partly in his role as the Foundation's lawyer. Because of that, David Gerard and Wikipedia have now been publicly embarrassed in a much greater amount. Cla68 (talk) 04:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

...and open the floodgates to future claims. - Mailer Diablo 04:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[[WP:<insert new snarky dispute resolution acronym redirect here>]]. MBisanz ^talk 04:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea about David, but I think it's probably an exaggeration to say that Wikipedia has been embarrassed. In this bubble, it's easy to lose sight of the fact that very few people actually care deeply about this sort of thing. When I tell people that I spend time editing Wikipedia, they usually say something like: "Oh yeah - isn't it scary that people get medical information there?" Or "Right... Stephen Colbert and African elephants." Or "Well then, you should really fix the part where it says garlic is a cheap, natural cure for cancer." No one has ever - ever - said anything like: "Wikipedia?!?! That horrible place where one of the checkusers and oversighters had his rights removed by ArbCom, and then he thought their post on AC/N was defamatory, and then it got suppressed so that people COULDN'T EVEN SEE THE DIFFS, and then the FOUNDATION LAWYER emailed a few people about it on a OMG SECRET LIST that Wikipedians can't read at will..." Look: it embarrasses Wikipedia when we allow delusional or partisan agenda accounts to insert nonsense into our articles. That's the truth, but no one really cares enough to get worked up about it, because it's a "content issue". This, on the other hand, feels so much juicier and more meaningful... MastCell ^Talk 04:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

On another note, I was browsing Google News, and two or three of the articles I read linked to the Wikipedia article about something that they were explaining. And these articles were written - gasp - after the post by The Register. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• That's because it was sent to and picked up by the Register, not Panorama. The closest Wikipedia came to public embarrassment by the mainstream media was two years ago, of which The Register was one of the first to pick up the story. We're fortunate in the sense that the mainstream media is busy covering with another Wikipedia story regarding the "exodus of editors", so they might give this a pass. At the risk of WP:BEANS, this affair might provide a very convenient explanation to their main story. - Mailer Diablo 13:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The mainstream media reports on things that are interesting to the general public. This is not interesting, except to a small handful of highly immersed Wikipedians and Wikipedia-watchers. It can't be easily explained to a layperson, and the first reaction of anyone without a deep familiarity with internal Wikipedia politics is guaranteed to be "Huh? What? So?" The apparent decline of a top-ten website is an interesting story. A guy faking credentials is an interesting story with an easily grasped, universal dimension to it, and most of its notoriety came from the fact that he misrepresented himself to the New Yorker. This is different - it's arcane and I suspect it would be hard to explain it, much less convince anyone they should care. If this story isn't picked up by the mainstream media, I would at least consider the possiblity that it's because it's just not that important or interesting to anyone outside this bubble. MastCell ^Talk 18:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait a second. Hold up... Reading this, did the WMF Lawyer actually make a legal threat against members of the Arbitration Committee that they might be personally taken to court for libel if they didn't comply? That's a pretty grave interference with an individual project! --Barberio (talk) 06:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No. Advising people that they may be exposing themselves to legal liability from somebody unrelated to the person doing the advising is not, under any definition, a legal threat. Steve Smith (talk) 06:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It does seem to have been phrased in the 'Nice Place. Shame if something might happen to it.' kind of way, implying that if they didn't do what they were told then they would risk court. Not a direct threat, no. But it was hanging the risk of being taken to court over them if they didn't immediately do what he said. --Barberio (talk) 06:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Barberio, you are obviously basing this conclusion on incomplete access to the correspondence. Those who read everything I wrote already know that I said more than once that I was not acting in an official capacity. MikeGodwin (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

As Mike Godwin was not in a position to sue members of ArbCom or representing anybody who was, he would not be capable of making legal threats against them. It is possible to interpret his comments as a warning that they could be held liable to David Gerard, but, as Mike Godwin was not representing David Gerard, that is not a threat, anymore than by telling you your exposed wires are a fire hazard I am threatening to burn down your house. Steve Smith (talk) 06:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It came as apparently official word from the WMF Lawyer directing ArbCom to retract or there would be potentially dire consequences for them they he would not be able to defend them from. I'm sorry, but if it quacks, waddles, and has oily feathers, it's a duck. --Barberio (talk) 07:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Barberio, you are obviously basing this conclusion on incomplete access to the correspondence. Those who read everything I wrote already know that I said more than once that I was not acting in an official capacity. MikeGodwin (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Antecedents and consequents, Barberio. Given an animal who quacks, waddles, and has oily feathers, yes, it's likely a duck (although it MAY be a sick platypus). In this case, however, it barks, runs, and has a shaggy coat, so it isn't a duck, as Steve explained :) -- Avi (talk) 07:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Fact? And if anyone other than Godwin, ie some normal editor had made that claim? Are you seriously telling me people wouldn't claim a legal "threat" was made? Minkythecat (talk) 08:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If a normal editor, in response to ArbCom's now revision-deleted announcement, had suggested that it was defamatory towards David Gerard and that members of ArbCom could be held liable for it, there is no way that that editor would have been blocked. Some people might claim that a legal threat was made but, as evidenced by this conversation, people need not have any reasonable basis for making such a claim. If an admin made such a claim and blocked on the basis of it, the block would quickly be undone and the admin trouted. Steve Smith (talk) 08:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess this is the point where numerous people jump up and down and yell about how terribly Arbcom, the Foundation, and sundry others have behaved, thereby melting much winter ice but not lighting the place up much. Let's not do that. A chap lost some privilege bits because the Committee, adid sundry other objections, said they didn't like the way he twittered. The Committee then rethought some of its own twitterings, these being of the on-wiki type, and took them back. Everybody's still speaking to everybody else and they're all acting like adults--which is as it should be. Now where's the problem again? --TS 07:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Godwin states that he was acting on his own, not per a request from Gerard or anyone at the WMF. So, I guess that's that for now. Cla68 (talk) 08:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• No. It's a matter of did the Arbcom request his advice? - yes or no. More woryingly is who briefed the Register with what was supposed ot be confidential information. There are only a few it could have been. I know where my money is.  Giano  08:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Which then feeds into the whole nature of Arbcom. Is it autonomous? Are decisions oversighted simply because "high profile" volunteers worry that Metz will look at the decision? If a WMF lawyer interjects himself into the situation with regards to a high profile editor, then where is the same "protection" for any "lesser" editors? DG, as I understand it has resigned as checkuser - which is far more "palatable" to himself and marketable than if said bits were removed / advocated for removal. The crux of the matter is did he misuse checkuser, break any relevant privacy laws? If so, there's only one solution. Anything else is merely a cynical attempt to cloud the issue. Minkythecat (talk) 08:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• As I see it: Gerard's pride was dented. A senior foundation employee made (however indirectly) unnerving and disconcerting posts (legal threats if you like) to the Arbs. The Arbs felt threatened and retracted. Gerard feels his pride is saved. Consequence: Gerard remains fired. The Arbcom looks stupid. We now know who is running the show and it sure as Hell aint the Arbcom  Giano  09:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That's precisely it (and I don't often agree with Giano). All ten non-recused Arbs endorsed de-bittifying, as well as the statement that was issued. One of them is also a lawyer. Leaving aside what DG said/threatened or whatever.....Mike Godwin said that the way ArbCom had acted was wrong in that it didn't show due process. The "solution" he brokered - DG voluntarily resigns the tools, no statement is made, one of the Arbs draws the pearl handled revolver (Mike may not have suggested that, but I think we can all guess who made it a condition) - leaves ArbCom basically with nothing. Yes, what (miniscule) risk there was may have been to WMF, but I think he's actually made it worse for WMF in terms of risk, by clarifying who is actually pulling the strings.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

A lawyer with the actual interests of Arbcom at heart, would however have understood that this wasn't necessarily a matter which required the full investigative weight of the audit subcom process, because it doesn't really involve checkuser tools. Rather it is about a senior member dragging en.wp into a pissing match with a 3rd party, thereby bringing the organisation into disrepute. In well run organisations, a suspension would follow, pending an investigation. The lawyer would recommended a limited maneuver basically calling DGs bluff, striking the issued statement (preferrably with some fudge about it not actually having been agreed for publication) but advising that a neutral statement will be issued only if he agrees to go quietly. If he doesn't, a full investigation will follow, and he'll have the tools took off him anyway while he is suspended. Thats what you keep a good lawyer around for. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• Just to make something extra, extra clear: nobody requested, or hinted, or suggested or even alluded to the departure of an Arb over this. In fact, John's resignation took everyone by surprise, and I deeply regret it. I do not believe it to have been warranted by the circumstances, and I wish he would reconsider. But, ultimately, the decision is his and his alone. — Coren ^(talk) 12:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid Coren, you can protest that as much as you lke, and very few people will beleive it. You all endorsed that statement. It is blatently obvious that Gerard's mates are running the show, and they have fooled a frightened and squirming Arbcom into revealing it. Gerard will soon have his rights restored by next year's Arbcom. Which will be a puppet committee because we all now know that the Arbcom is superfluous to requirements.  Giano  12:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, no. You've been perceptive, as usual, in this mess but everything in your previous assertion is exactly the opposite of reality. There is no way that the bits are coming back, and nobody "runs" ArbCom from without. There are a lot of people who push and whine to get their way, by threats, cajoling, sucking up, throwing fits and other forms of attempts at manipulation, some reasonably and some not so reasonably. And if this entire mess has a lasting result is that, in the future, such pushing will be even less likely to succeed. — Coren ^(talk) 15:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Coren, I'm afraid I have to agree with Giano here. While I know John well enough to know he would not lie and if he said it was his decision alone, it was, the burden of proof to show ArbCom was not influenced by the @wikimedia.org in Mike's email address when deciding to undo its own action is simply unmeetable. That of the 45 people listed on WP:FORMER, 14 on CheckUser, and 17 on OverSight, a WMF employee has never before informally and unofficially mediated between the Committee and the user in question. I highly suspect that in the future, users facing sanction by ArbCom will cite the lack of a "Mike Godwin due process review," as a reason why the decision is flawed/non-final and that they do not have to obey it since Mike could decide to review the decision and ask ArbCom to change it. And no, I don't know how to fix it either, since it would necessitate ArbCom overruling Mike on something and him not objecting in order to re-establish the concept of ArbCom finality and until yesterday, I had never even considered the possibility of unofficial employee interventions. MBisanz ^talk 13:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You can't be serious. You believe that future users subject to sanction will demand a "Mike Godwin appeal"? That seems pretty unlikely to me... I think this entire thread, and all threads elsewhere, make a mountain range out of a teensy pimple. It was worth asking for more information way back at the beginning of all the drama, but at this point it's time for people to let go. Nathan ^T 14:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Floodgates, floodgates. Tons of users email Jimbo Wales to appeal, I don't see why they won't decide to now divert them to Mike Godwin instead if they think they would stand a better chance of getting heard and intervention. - Mailer Diablo 00:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Who said Mike Godwin did not influence the current events? I think that has been acknowledged several times already. Should that have happened? The answer to this is evident from the current thread. Will it happen again? Definitely not on my watch. — Coren ^(talk) 15:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

John himself was never discussed in any thread, nor ever raised by anyone as being personally at fault, and Mike's involvement in the discussion was (as best I recall) purely related to the statement and any action needed to prevent possible defamation. In the context of the entire discussion, the arbs are fairly independent, and also the functionaries list contains some 40 non-arbitrators who act as a rather independent double-check for Arbcom. There was a lot of discussion, and it wasn't initially clear which role Mike was speaking from (official, unofficial, community member, or colleague) which caused some confusion. I think this is fairly obviously worth getting clear in any future matter, and suspect that's a lesson learned by all. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• You seem remarkably well nformed FT2, which lists are you on to have this information?  Giano  16:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:ACE2009#Boycott, you can't go back and unmuddy the water. MBisanz ^talk 15:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Some basics:

1. Self-correction is desirable - The original statement was in good faith, but contained a possible issue. It is better to review than ignore. Things like that are going to happen from time to time and are not a "firing offence".
2. Oversight is applied first, discussed after - The norm for the oversight tool is to remove potential defamatory material first (to reduce risk of harm), then discuss at leisure, and (if needed) reinstate. Oversight was appropriate and was also discussed with the full functionaries team prior to Arbcom consensus.
3. Consensus takes time - Followup requires consensus on wording, especially if any initial wording had issues. A day or 3 to get almost a dozen users to review, discuss, and reach consensus on any revised wording is completely reasonable.
4. The community played a part - As Thatcher says, pressure of circumstance played a role. But the matter should never have been blown up on-wiki as it was. To that extent it's a number of users at WT:AUSC at fault for ignoring any time needed for review, consensus seeking, and amendment, and lack of good faith. Instead, some assumed bad faith and called for a nice (if unfounded) drama fest, despite the occasional wiser voice saying to stop and think.
5. If you call for heads, you may get them - This is the result of it. Conspiracy theorists aside most arbs are fairly principled. John's one of them. Next time maybe maybe some will think twice about assuming heads must roll, and wait quietly, and extreme voices will avoid bad faith.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• FT2, you are incorrect in you sumary of fault. "it's a number of users at WT:AUSC at fault for ignoring any..." Are you aware that it was the Arbcom who posted a unanimous statemnt concerning Gerard. I know that shooting the messenger is a happy pass-time on Wikipedia, but your attribution of blame does rather cap all other such messenger-shootings. Your second statement "If you call for heads, you may get them" is staggering in its deflection from the truth. The resignation (head fell) becasue of uninvited and unwarrented interannce from M Goodwin acting on Gerard's behalf (for that is what he was doing). I think FT2, you need to read up a little more, before coming here and telling us that we are entirely to blame because we had the audacity and stupidity to comment. We are not serfs to be downtrodden by the employees of the founfation, their employers and friends.  Giano  13:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Omission of "To that extent it's a number of users" does rather change the meaning doesn't it? Do you make that kind of mistake in article citations? If not, please don't do it here. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I love everyone. I suggest you all go write something. Assume better faith too. Be excellent to one another - David Gerard (talk) 13:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

What a [...] person you are.  Giano  14:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I love even you too, Giano. And I remain a big fan of your contributions to Wikipedia. Assume good faith! - David Gerard (talk) 14:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Didn't someone once say "assuming makes an ass of U and me"? So no thanks, I'll stick with my powers of observation.  Giano  14:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This won't affect my sincere admiration of your knowledge, research and writing - David Gerard (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite right, too. Continuing to insist that heads roll for this will only further damage the project. We need to pardon Nixon, so to speak, and move on. The Wordsmith^Communicate 14:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment David, I hope you don't find your first response to it to be representative of the community's feelings. Your work is appreciated here, and I think your advice in this matter is good advice. ^Chillum 14:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you send a legal threat to Foundation staff? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

What a strange question. No. I would ask "why do you ask?" but that would only distract both of us from writing stuff - David Gerard (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I am confused. Is creating redirects now the essential component of "article writing" on Wikipedia as of now? Gerard has told people twice to write stuff, but I cannot find anything of actual merit within his contribs. Is there someone who could please help? Because I know that many, many of the people above are well known for their content writing but not once have I ever heard David Gerard's name among top content contributors. Yet, he is telling us to go write content while he himself has not. However, in looking through his contribs I see a lot of sarcastic and incivil edit summaries at many pages. Do these comments concern anyone else? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not a competition Ottava, we appreciate all of our contributions not just the ones made by our "top" contributors. ^Chillum 15:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but telling people to go work when those same people are already doing far more work is extremely rude and condescending. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I think he was more making the point, very politely, that it doesn't matter really what he sent to the Foundation, and it's not really any of your business. He is suggesting that editing and contributing to material is far more important than this particular issue. I don't think he ever said or implied that you don't contribute. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Your observations are quite apposite. What I mean is that I shall be working harder on substantive content (as well as redirects, which are good because finding things is good) and I shall also be working on being much nicer to work with in this massively collaborative environment. I apologise if it came across as rude, I was not attempting to be self-righteous about my admittedly meagre contributions in recent months; I was attempting to gently contrast encyclopedia-building with the unfortunately querulous and bad-faith-ridden discussion on these pages; I expect the latter is unavoidable, but I hope that by emphasising encyclopedia writing we can get back to what brought us here and got us hopelessly addicted to encyclopedia-writing in the first place - David Gerard (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

David, if you keep your promise, then that would be for the best. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I shall sincerely be endeavouring to act much less of a raging arsehole, I assure you. Preferably not at all - David Gerard (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't care about that. I was referring just to article writing. Unlike what Wikipedia Review claims, there are hundreds of thousands of pages to create and it would be nice if more people put an honest effort to start working on improving the encyclopedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep! - David Gerard (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Bzzt. Wrong Answer. Please try again. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I thank you for your counsel, 117.121.243.232, and shall give it due consideration - David Gerard (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll phrase John's question above in a slightly different way. "Did you ask, implicitly or explicitly, for the help of foundation staff in this matter?" --Joopercoopers (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

And if the answer were "yes", would you have a problem with that? Anybody in the world can ask Foundation staff for help in communicating with Wikimedia projects. I can do it, you can do it. David says he didn't do it (in case you missed that). But what if he had? What's the problem? --TS 22:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I want to see Mr. Gerard's answer to the question. Cla68 (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

He already gave it. Several times. One could assume good faith, of course, but where would that get us? All those fondly nursed conspiracy theories that keep the fires of hatred so hot would have to be dispensed with. --TS 23:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, I think it's easier to move forward from a situation the less aphotic that it is. Mike Godwin answered all the questions put to him about this very clearly and emphatically. Cla68 (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, [1]. Definitely a victory for transparency - I can see why you were satisified with his response... WJBscribe (talk) 23:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ha, it looks like being told that Kelly Martin was defending him was the last straw! the wub "?!" 21:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You know David, it strikes me that if there has been a distraction here from people writing content, it has been largely of your making. WJBscribe (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The Parable Of The Feathers: "In a small village, a young woman spreads an unkind rumor. Her victim goes to the village rabbi to get justice for her ruined reputation. The gossipmonger offers to make amends by taking back her words, demonstrating that she does not truly understand the harm she has caused. ... [The rabbi] tells her: 'Take my feather pillow to the market square. Cut it open and let the feathers fly through the air. When this task is done, bring back the feathers, every one.' ... Of course, she cannot possibly retrieve all the feathers, and thus learns the intended lesson: 'I suppose,' she sighed as she lowered her head, 'they are like the words I can't take back from the rumor I spread.'" If you were to attempt to gather up at least some of the "feathers" - more like poisoned darts - you have repeatedly spread, then you'd have a case for assume good faith. But if not, it looks like "cheap grace", or worse. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't that presume that David regrets his original statements, or tried to suppress them? On the contrary I believe they're still on his blog and as far as I'm aware there is no dispute that they constitute fair comment on some rather disreputable characters whose attempt to abuse Wikipedia were thwarted in no small measure by David. --TS 03:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a diff to support that? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't dream of dragging it down to that level, but do feel free to produce evidence that the pestilential nuisance in question and his associates have been vindicated. --TS 04:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Enough of that, Tony. It is unacceptable to refer to anyone in that way, regardless of who they are: in this case, the subject of a vandalised BLP. Risker (talk) 04:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Can we get an answer to John Vandenberg's question please. In the email set quoted by Cade Metz - which no-one has claimed is a forgery, so I'm taking it as the real deal - Mike Godwin says "If David chose to challenge this impression in court, would the relevant ArbCom members be able successfully to defend it ." Now, either Mike came up with that legal threat or DG did. Anyone want to leak the email that shows which one it was?Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Again David, if you're truly here to write an encyclopedia, I'm sure you won't have any problem answering this question, "Did you ask, implicitly or explicitly, for the help of foundation staff in this matter?" Cla68 (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I've notified Mr. Gerard on his talk page of this question to ensure that he is aware of it. Cla68 (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I've given a non-answer there, noting that feeding the drama is bad. I will answer in three months. If this is unsatisfactory, please feel free to detail on my talk page what difference it will make knowing earlier - David Gerard (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how this helps with generating encyclopedia content. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Really, the question as to whether David made a legal threat or not is something that Arbcom need to deal with as they assess the situation and try to move forward. Mike Godwin's first email appeared over his signature as WMF legal counsel, later emails came from his personal account and were signed just "Mike", and he explained that his first email was a mistake and that he was not acting as counsel. Arbcom may want to know whether David made an actual threat, so they can evaluate their original statement, Mike's role (or roles), and their response to that intervention. That conversation needs to involve Mike, David, Arbcom, and possibly Cary or even the Board; it does not need to be held publicly, and very little can come of publicly browbeating David into giving an public answer. Thatcher 21:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure I'll handle it okay. Today's new articles: euphonicon (printed references ahoy!), Einar Andersson. Yesterday's: fluellite, pitch wheel. I heartily recommend missing articles to all - David Gerard (talk) 22:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

In the sincere desire that something good come out of bad, I hereby dedicate every mainspace contribution I make this month to this controversy. Further, I pledge to concentrate on mainspace, rather than projectspace editing between now and December 31st.

1. As nominator --Dweller (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Well, the second sentence. Though I expect to work on video issues and suchlike - David Gerard (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Declined. I feel there is a false dichotomy between 'Projectspace' and 'Mainspace' work. Someone can do good work in both, we have very very few editors who only get involved in one. And there's substantial blurring between the two, is fixing up an article to prevent it's deletion, and debating against it's deletion 'Projectspace' or 'Mainspace'? I also feel it is rather insulting to tell people to stop "wasting time on Projectspace stuff and get back to making Mainspace edits". The 'Projectspace' stuff has a pretty big impact on our ability to do that 'Mainspace' stuff a lot of the time, and it's insulting to try and push editors out of 'Projectspace' when ever some embarrassing foul-up happens. --Barberio (talk) 18:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is disagreeing. However, I think the sentiment is that when people get too involved in the in-house drama, then sticking their nose back in mainspace and content production can be both therapeutic and a good reminder of what we are all about. Almost without fail, our best project space contributors are also veterans of article-writing and content production.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Is the Arbitration Committee Noticeboard really the most on-topic place for this poll? It seems just a bit off topic here. ^Chillum 20:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

At the moment this board is functioning as a place where clue goes to die unloved and neglected, so it can't really hurt and might help. Last night I wrote two new stubs and added a pile of useful redirects - I've written far too much in project space already, so I'll have to do a coupla hours tonight too - David Gerard (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You are so right. Mind, I still have a problem with people who feed Cade Metz (mis/dis)information and then try to use his parroting of it as some kind of proof that they are right. Metz is simply an axe-grinder and as Mike says it would be naive indeed to assume that his material is anything other than selective and agenda-driven. We all have an agenda, of course, but hopefully most of us here have an agenda which is in favour of Wikipedia not simply bashing it. Guy (Help!) 11:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't shoot the messenger. Completely apart from Cade Metz's article, it's clear from just the unimpeachable on-wiki earlier material and subsequent deletions that something, well, let's say, extraordinarily irregular, happened in this incident. After all, consider how widely "selective and agenda-driven" can be applied - and regarding "favour", the road to hell can be paved with good faith. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Moral support - As someone who's going about taagging articles for the Christmas work group and at the same time looking for things to add to the Christmas portal, and as someone who rarely really writes anyway, I can't in good faith say I'm going to do article work, but support the idea. John Carter (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Original announcement

Original announcement

Original announcement

Original announcement

The above motion is utter bollocks, just for the record. I haven't been involved with Mattisse save for about a few weeks a couple months ago, but during that time, at least, I've seen nothing that would come close to meriting such an absurd motion. It seems that any challenge of Mattisse could be viewed as "antagonizing" or "baiting", which is just patent nonsense. The problem is one-fold, in this case, meaning that if Mattisse changes her behavior, there would be no further problems, period. UA 01:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• As if to show that such mollification does not work, there is this response from her at her talk, to a perfectly well-reasoned suggestion from one of her mentors. I wonder, was RP "baiting" her into this self-pity? UA 01:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Motion 8 is intended to avoid the situation such as that where someone makes flippant or offhand references to Mattisse in unrelated discussions, or tries to engage Mattisse in discussions in a provocative manner, rather than a calm manner. It is clear that Matttisse is on her last chance, but for that to be a proper chance, space is needed to give things a chance to work. Having a group of people waiting for someone to fail, or following contributions to find something to object to, would be examples of not giving someone in this situation enough space. That is my reading of why motion 8 was passed. Carcharoth (talk) 03:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Having followed that case as an uninvolved lurker, I will venture to say that I'm fairly stunned at the incredible efforts made to retain this one single individual user. I've no personal knowledge of Mattisse, having never interacted with her, but based on the evidence I'm really wondering if this is the exception meant to prove the rule that "no one is indispensible"--because the degree of effort expended on her behalf is astonishing. This isn't "bending over backwards"--this is a gymnastic permutation for which there is, as of yet, no name, and possibly no physical equivalent that doesn't defy the conventions of space and human biology. Further, if we were to posit a case using exactly the history and the background of this dispute, but replacing "Mattisse" with the name of nearly any of our other proficient content contributors, I question whether the outcome would be the same. I suspect that this case will be cited frequently in future cases where disruptive conduct is combined with outstanding contributions; whether this will be seen as happening for good or for ill, I suppose, will depend largely on who's in the mercy seat. I fear, however, that in time the community may find itself looking back at this case with longing, as a missed opportunity to solidify its norms and to outline the limits of its collective patience re: vested contributors. GJC 05:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The above comments are indeed interesting in view of similar concerns regarding the long-term borderline behavior of Giano (e.g. today's RFAR). The so-called vested contributor issue seems to be a lingering one. —Beneficence 06:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Responding to GJC: indeed, no-one is indispensable. The reason the outcome was different here to other cases is because those cases (and the reaction by parties in those cases) were different. Having said that, a long discussion here of what those differences are would distract from the topic here (that should be done elsewhere, on a page where comparison of arbitration cases is done systematically). Instead, I would suggest reading the comments made by arbs at the voting on the motions, recognise that this is a last chance, and in future register a calm objection. Excessive rhetoric [possibly no physical equivalent that doesn't defy the conventions of space and human biology] is unhelpful. Looking at your final sentence (and the comment by Beneficence), I agree that the issue of vested contributors is a difficult one. More community discussion on that topic would be helpful, maybe at the talk page of that essay? Carcharoth (talk) 03:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Mastering my overwhelming urge to snark, I will instead say only that the bit you quoted was intended as hyperbole, playing on the notion of "bending over backwards" and noting that I felt the amount of time and keystrokes involved in debating and crafting the amendment to this case amounted to a great deal more than "bending over backwards". I phrased it thus so that the intended nature of the hyperbole would be (though it apparently was not) obvious in its over-the-top-ness. Too much Douglas Adams over the years will do that to a girl. GJC 19:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

As a community of people devoted to writing, we should praise the people with obvious writing talent. Gladys' comment is well made, and her "rhetorical excess" is a nice break from the dry bureaucratic debate this page normally sees. I think that's quite helpful. And it's never been more clear that the community and its arbitrators are unable to deal effectively and consistently with vested contributors; I suspect we'll iterate the committee multiple times before that changes, and even discussing it now is likely to put you on the wrong side of a whole lot of people. This is what happens when the folks elected to arbitrate otherwise intractable disputes utterly fail to do so; at least it ought to keep them humble. Nathan ^T 06:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You may want to look at what has happened in other cases before you conclude that vested contributers are immune. One of the things that annoys me about commentary on arbitration cases is that people frequently focus only on the case they are interested in, and fail to see the bigger picture, which becomes apparent when you look at all active arbitration cases. Carcharoth (talk) 14:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm familiar with a good chunk of the cases. This committee has made more effort in this area than the others I'm familiar with - it has dealt with several functionaries and administrators more harshly than previous committees might have, demonstrating a lower tolerance for some types of behavior from vested contributors. But of three recent major cases in this area, where the issue was solely one of disruptive personal interaction (murky ground in any case), the committee avoided significant action in two. In the third, it's arguable whether the "vested contributor" label even applied, evidenced by the relatively minimal blowback. So I'm not sure that this represents real progress on the core problem, that long-term productive editors are effectively immune from sanction on the range of "lesser offences" represented by our policies on interaction. Nathan ^T 16:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Three? I can only think of two (this one and the one below). If you don't want to name the third case in question, feel free to e-mail me, or start a page somewhere where the relative sanctions in different arbitration cases and motions are compared. I've been hoping for a long time that someone would do that. There are inconsistencies (hopefully not too egregious) in the way we apply sanctions (it would be more surprising if there were not), but ultimately that is a matter of judgment (on which people will disagree), and there are sometimes valid reasons as well for the differences. Explaining such differences, without dragging up old cases, might be useful. Carcharoth (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Per some discussion I found at arb-related pages, I have proposed a modest new policy with regards to how arbitrators should conduct administrators actions. UA 21:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Original announcement

The name of "socionics" appeared again on the fringe theories noticeboard, and I decided to take a look at the state of the thing. I was rather surprised to discover an Arbcom case in which my name had been invoked several times. Although I don't dispute the outcome of the case, I would have preferred to have been notified, as there are a few inaccuracies I would have liked to have cleared up.

Second, in looking back at information metabolism, I see it hasn't gotten any better since I nominated it for deletion in the summer. Indeed, it has gotten worse and fringier, and I'm still not convinced that there is anything there but one person's crank theory. As the previous AFD ended with no consensus, I would like to raise the issue again. I am concerned, however, that this would be considered to be disruptive so shortly after this case has closed. Could I get some Arbcom feedback? Mangoe (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I would consider it in no way disruptive for normal discussions, including deletion nominations, to take place. The problem was not mere disagreement over the topic, but a host of insulting and disruptive behavior. Attempts to reconsider the content issues on a community level now that the two principal disruptive editors have been removed from the area is anything but disruptive. On the contrary, it's part of what should happen in such circumstances as the editing environment normalizes. Vassyana (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Vassyana. Community discussion about these articles was explicitly encouraged in the final decision (though the connection between socionics and information metabolism was not clear - from what I remember, there are several meanings for the term 'information metabolism'). I do have a list of diffs that I found while looking at this dispute, and I will post those to the talk page of the socionics article at some point. Mangoe, as the drafting arbitrator for that case, I apologise for not notifying you that you were mentioned in the proposed decision. At the time I thought it best to press on with the case, but notification is better. If you think anyone else should have known about the case, Mangoe, please feel free to contact them. Finally, I would be happy to discuss anything you feel was inaccurate about the case - either here on on my talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The one correction which I would like to pursue is that I am not and have never been an administrator: Rmcnew's account of how I got involved in the affair is essentially correct, but I didn't do anything which would have required administrator powers. Other than that there was an episode on my talk page involving Tcaudilllg which I probably would have brought before the committee; given the outcome it pretty much would be gilding the lily, to use a particularly inapt expression, to revisit that. Mangoe (talk) 03:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything official in the case that said you are an administrator, is there? If you mean what Rmcnew said, we don't correct every inaccuracy that might be stated by a party to a case. Anyway, thanks for commenting, apologies again for not notifying you, and please do help encourage wider community discussion of the articles. Carcharoth (talk) 03:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

That's quite OK. As I said, I don't have an issue with the outcome of the case, given my experience with the editors in question. Mangoe (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Original announcement

As unpopular as my opinion may be, i'm going to come out and say that I think the Committee's decision was too heavy-handed. Here, we have the classic case of the prolific content creator who has serious civility issues. Rather than banning him entirely, there were options available that would have allowed him to contribute while minimizing the disruption he causes. Mentorship was one. Restricting him to Article-space was one. Banning him from discussing other editors is one. Escalating Arbitration Enforcement blocks were another choice. These are all options that the Committee could have (and did, for some of them) considered, that would have been a more fine-tuned approach to the vested contributor problem. A screwdriver and a hammer will both remove a screw, but the screwdriver can do it without obliterating much of the surrounding wall. The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I need to come out and echo the comments of The Wordsmith. I think that a year ban is much too heavy handed. Ottava may have issues with civility, but there are ways to deal with that and still be able to benefit from his incredible editing and article writing skills. Is there any way the Committee can revisit this? Basket of Puppies 07:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Mentorship had been tried and had failed, restricting him to article space would have stopped the collaboration necessary on the talk page and allowing use of the talk page would have left us with the same problems as were demonstrated in the case. Banning him from discussing other editors wouldn't have dealt with the bloody minded "Ottava is always right" problems that occurred over content, and nor would it have dealt with his novel interpretations of policy. Escalating blocks would still have left us with a a wikilawyer with a steadfast refusal to admit/believe he might in any way might be wrong. That said, had Ottava shown even a hint of "getting it" he wouldn't be banned, but instead he was argumentative right up to the very end, displaying the exact same traits that got him the ban and showing absolutely no self awareness at all. Viridae^Talk 07:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

To the very end: [2] Viridae^Talk 08:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course he was being belligerent there. He has enough problems with civility as it is, and now he had the added feeling of betrayal (and probably paranoia as well). Note that that's not an excuse, but i'm not at all surprised to see that. Frankly: Ottava can be an ass, and he is one quite frequently. He knows it. We know it. Now, Arbcom had the chance to try several different options that may have been able to eliminate the asshattery while keeping his contributions. Mentorship might have worked, especially if the mentors were able to impose discretionary sanctions as needed. It might have succeeded and it might have failed (if it failed, the mentors would have been able to ban him at that point). However, on the offchance that it would have succeeded, it seems irresponsible not to try some alternative and flexible solutions first. The Wordsmith^Communicate 08:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is he doesn't know it. Sure, when he's blowing off at Moreschi he is intending every word, no doubt of that. But when Ottava's evidence includes that he works very well with a specific editor, and that editor comes over to the RFAR and says very quietly that no, actually, he was a nightmare, then you know there's a problem. There was just so much evidence in that case that one came away with the impression that Ottava would argue with the Angel Gabriel if he(she? it? how do you address an angel?) wrote an article on The Last Trump and, if he did, he would certainly accuse the heavenly messenger of being disruptive, and file a report at ANI. I don't know if the ban or the length will make any difference, but Wikipedia is kind of short of tools for generating self awareness. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I realize that Ottava's civility issues surely caused his ban, but it's the length I am concerned about. I am a fan of starting small and working up, and that includes the ban in this case. I just think three months to begin with would have been a good starting point. More ban time could always be added. Basket of Puppies 08:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I thank the Arbitration Committee for this sensible decision, which I find encouraging in view of the problems posed by other longterm disruptive vested contributors.  Sandstein  07:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

+1 Protonk (talk) 08:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. And I second what Viridae says above. Ottava Rima was mentored, but obviously that failed to make a long term difference. Dougweller (talk) 09:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• When Socrates spoke at his trial he
  did not so much woo nor beguile thee,
  than make people mad
  and glad that they had
  a chance to vote "death" (more than "guilty").
  -- Proofreader77 (talk) 10:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
• 1 year? I look forward to the 9 FAs, 40 GAs and 200 DYKs the AC is going to write to justify this ban and make up for the loss of this contributor. This is a net loss for the encyclopedia. Aditya Ex Machina 13:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I third both Viridae's post and Sandstein's. Ottava Rima's one-year ban is entirely appropriate. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Other options were considered, but they required Ottava's cooperation. They would not work without him at least recognizing the problem. While 1 year is a long time, he is allowed to come back after 6 months if he agrees to conditions. Content contributions in no way allow for continued long term disruption, we are a collaborative project. I suspect some of those criticizing the ruling and suggesting alternatives have not looked into the details of the case and saw that those alternatives were considered and that they were simply not feasible. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

This was a sad vote for me to cast. I'm one of the last people to seek to ban virtually anyone, but after very careful deliberation and multiple attempts to talk through the issues, I saw little alternative in this instance. Those interested may wish to see my, and other arbitrators' comments on the proposed decision page and the workshop. Whether or not you agree with this decision, please be assured that it was not taken lightly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• A block here was the only option; if anyone can think of one that would a) not involve him with the people he has disputes with (anyone who disagrees with him on content) and b) still let him edit, come out with it. No? Thought not. Ottava has demonstrated a stubbornness, an inability to listen to other peoples opinions and an inability to admit he's in the wrong. If the intention is, as has been suggested, to give Ottava a mandatory "time out" in which he can reflect on his behaviour and learn to better deal with the community, a three month ban is not going to do this, given that he's had far longer than that to reflect while editing and has failed to change his behaviour. I note that the terms of the ban allow him to petition the Committee after six months, so if he has changed and the Committee can see this in his request, the year-long ban isn't going to be a year. Ironholds (talk) 19:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Ottava Rima and Haiduc disagreed on content, but collaborated together to get an article to FA with compromises on both sides. He's capable of it. Am unsure why it works out in some interactions but not others. Durova³⁸⁶ 02:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

NYB asked him something along the lines of what needed to be done so that he could collaborate with others, but he declined to answer. Several editors urged him to think about this and answer the question, but he refused. I think if he could have shown some reflection here, things may have gone better for him.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Is Seddon's name supposed to be in the final decision on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava Rima restrictions? --NE2 20:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've fixed it. Dougweller (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the length, one other item I take issue with is the notion that he can't appeal for six months. Its possible that i'm wrong, but I don't recall any precedent for preventing an appeal. Has it been done before? What is the purpose of putting this into the decision? The worst that could happen without it is that Ottava appeals in a month and arbcom says "no, sorry, not yet." Or, its possible that he could redeem himself in that time, such as with contributions to other wikis, and then arbcom could allow him back. By denying him the ability to appeal, we're very much assuming bad faith. I know that AGF isn't a suicide pact, but in this case it would cause zero harm to overturn that particular part of the restriction. The Wordsmith^Communicate 21:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• Have you read the evidence page or the workshop? This isn't a case of "assume good faith or don't" (and with respect to BoP, referring to this as "civility issues" cloaks the point in passive language). I suspect the six month threshold was established to limit the kind of block hysteresis which is common among blocks of long term vested contributors. Perhaps it was also added in so that we can discover in 6 months that the wiki will/will not implode without such a prolific content editor. Perhaps it was added in because the committee did not foresee that they would assent to an unblock request within six months and didn't want to waste OR's time. And what's to say you wouldn't chafe at a month's prohibition? Perhaps OR should appeal today? Twice today? Three times tomorrow? Etc. Protonk (talk) 21:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Its similar in my mind to an unblock request. If their request is insincere or they are not likely to be reformed, then we can just deny the request. In the worst case, they abuse the {{unblock}}> template, and they can be prevented from filing more of them. Very seldom do we not allow them an initial opportunity to appeal. It may be that this sort of thing is done routinely in arbcom decisions, and i've never noticed it. Also, that month that I said was just an arbitrary example, not saying that he should or should not have been prohibited for a month, or that a month would/would not have been reasonable. The Wordsmith^Communicate 21:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem with all ArbCom cases, and in my opinion, internet communications on the whole, is the tendency to speak in hyperbole. Wikipedia will not collapse without Ottava Rima, or Protonk, or me for that matter. I think efforts should be made to allow Ottava Rima to return when he can handle disagreements without his trademark borderline tenacity and needless escalation of conflict. However that will be ascertained is another matter. I think there is value in discussing when an appeal might be made should Ottava Rima decide to participate in some self-discovery about why he reacts the way he does. --Moni3 (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Well the analogy to {{Unblock}} isn't a great one, because an unblock request would look more like these (or the equivalent discussion at BASC). Protonk (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

In my head, the process goes: User feels he has reformed → User requests to be unblocked/appeals his ban → An admin decides if he has truly reformed/Arbcom discusses whether he has truly reformed → User is either unblocked/unbanned or not. If Ottava were to appeal tomorrow and the Committee feels that the disruption would continue, then they can deny the appeal. If he abuses appeals, he can be prevented from making more at that time. I think the limit on when he may appeal is assuming that he will abuse it, or assuming that he truly can't be rehabilitated quickly. If he can come up with a viable solution before six months, or truly show the community that he has changed, then I don't see the harm. We would stand to gain much, and lose virtually nothing, by at least considering a (sincere) appeal earlier. The Wordsmith^Communicate 02:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this ban is a proper decision. I do not take joy in seeing the decision made, but that does not mean that ArbCom, and ultimately the community's, hand was not forced here by Ottava Rima himself. We lost a good content contributor here, for an extended period and possibly for ever. We lost that content contributor, however, because of his own actions. It is not good for the community that Ottava Rima is not able to add content. It however was worse for the community to deal with the sort of problems his antisocial behavior generated. If this were an easy decision to make, he would have been indeffed by the community without any objection. It is NOT an easy decision to make, which is why ArbCom had to make it. I do not celebrate this outcome, but I commend ArbCom for making it; it was the only outcome that, given the circumstances, could be expected. Being a bitter pill to take does not mean that it isn't necessary. --Jayron32 03:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

All the editors who are bemoaning the loss of Ottava Rima's "content contributions" will more usefully employ their time by actually examining OR's more recent content contributions, for example, the DYKs and GAs submitted during the last few days of WikiCup 2009. I suggest that these editors find the references used and then compare what the authors have said with what OR has reported. Accuracy of synopsis (or paraphrasing), in my view, is a major issue in OR's contributions. I have seen enough examples of these issues in FAC review, where OR was subject to public scrutiny and where he had already prepped the articles, that I have no doubt that numerous errors await anyone willing to try. I believe, one reason why OR has not got into more "content" trouble is that many of his content contributions are relatively obscure, and, consequently, go unexamined. If OR were to attempt an article, say, on Barack Obama, these errors would become more manifest. I suspect too that OR's "successful" collaborations usually do not involve arguments about interpretation of sources. In other words, they are more likely to be ones in which there is no overlap of expertise: for example, OR adds the "content," and the other collaborator copyedits, etc. In fact, one reason why OR gets into bitter disputes at FAC review and other more public forums, is that the smaller, more manageable, disputes have not always occurred in the development stages of his collaborations, or if they have, the collaborators have allowed OR to ride roughshod over them. Many "successful" collaborators have admitted this later. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Fowler, I don't find your commentary in this context acceptable. This is in essence a bunch of unsubstantiated personal attacks against another user. He's banned, so please now lay off. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

What F&f writes is not unsubstantiated - it is described in detail in his submission on the evidence page. It seems fairly pointless for people who did not make comments in the evidence and workshop to object now. (I myself only intervened there once to appeal to Ottava to reconsider an emotionally charged motion.) Ottava Rima was very good at collecting sources and raw material. Other editors like User:Mrathel would help produce more polished prose and have understandably expressed their appreciation of and support for Ottava's work. Mathsci (talk) 06:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The decision having been made , it does seem both pointless and uncharitable to repeat the charges here. DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not pointless at all. Match and F&F were attempting to shut the meme down that we are punishing a flawless content contributor for some minor indecorousness. Protonk (talk) 02:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No meme asserts him to be flawless; everyone acknowledges that problems exist. The dilemma is what to do with editors who are strong on content work but weak in other areas. That's a serious discussion with broader implications than just Ottava Rima. Ideally we can find a way to retain the positives while curtailing the negatives. It's an impediment to finding real solutions when individuals become too heated in their opinion of one specific instance of it. This website has other editors who fit a similar description. I hope we can find a way to minimize the disruption without long term bans upon them all. Durova³⁸⁶ 19:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Do we apply WP:TURNIP to this situation? Jehochman ^{Make my day} 19:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what turnips or that essay has to do with Ottava Rima, but again with the hyperbole: I have not seen anyone in this discussion refer to Ottava Rima as a "flawless content contributor". I hold out hope that he might be able one day to absorb his communication style to realize that it is not productive. For the moment, he has chosen not to do that and he has had to make a choice to readjust his demeanor or give up Wikipedia. I remain hopeful that he can one day welcome a spiritual visitation of the kind he seems to tout. It was poignantly sad to watch some of Wikipedia's most respected editors try to advise or intervene on his behalf, only to have him refuse and ignore such attempts. Truly, the student needs to be ready to receive the lesson. Should that happen before a year passes, I think Ottava Rima should be able to appeal the decision and return, ready to work cooperatively in this project. --Moni3 (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

@ Jehochman, that depends on there being a standard solution to a situation. Would you want to make this the standard for other strong content/weak elsewhere editors? Durova³⁸⁶ 20:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I stopped following this case midway through, purposefully, because I had finished answering for my actions, and I did not want to inflame matters. Why has the Committee gotten so upset about Ottava's behavior? I'm not sure, but if they have come to the conclusion that he's not able to work collegially, for whatever reason, then yes, this is the standard solution. Being a good content contributor is a reason to go to great lengths to recover an editor, but there are limits and the editor in question needs to grasp the lifelines thrown. Jehochman ^{Make my day} 20:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The only successful solution to this type of problem has been with ScienceApologist: a three month siteban with a specific exemption for a proxied improvement drive to the optics article. He did magnificent work for an important page and it seemed to bring out the best in him afterward. Other people who are less easily provoked are handling the fringe science problems now and he hasn't been blocked in months. If it's possible to replicate that, I'd far prefer it before resorting to long bans. Durova³⁸⁶ 20:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Durova has it right. We have not found a suitable general approach, I am not sure there is one, for much will depend on the individual personality. I am not at all sure an adequate effort was made here, though it does seem that the editor involved made it exceptionally difficult. But it is not a good result when someone comes here to get the conditions of a restriction lightened, and ends up being banned. To the extent that it was affected by actions during the case, the Committee and its clerks need a more active role in keeping things under control. To the extent it was caused by exasperation, I can understand the feeling, but the expression of it is inappropriate for a committee of last resort. To the extent it was caused by earlier frustrations and resentments, it might even seem vindictive. Not that I (or I think Durova) argue for infinite tolerance: there are going to be instances where we will have to choose between tolerating a very difficult editor and doing without important work. I think when it comes down to that, it may be more important to maintain a good editing environment, so as not to discourage other people capable of doing good work from staying or joining. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

"No meme asserts him to be flawless; everyone acknowledges that problems exist. The dilemma is what to do with editors who are strong on content work but weak in other areas. " Arguably the use of the word "flawless" was wrong, but you are still using the passive voice where it isn't appropriate. The view (I'm sure well solidified in some quarters) of blocks or decisions like this one is that some content contributor par excellence is punished because various lesser mortals didn't have thick enough skins. Part of FnF's point is that OR's problems were rooted in content--when he didn't get his way he made life miserable for other editors. Those accusations aren't his alone, read (or re-read, more likely) the evidence page. Protonk (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) No meme asserts him to be flawless; everyone acknowledges that problems exist. I'm afraid, his supporters, including Durova, don't acknowledge enough that there might have been problems in his content work in the first place. In addition, when defects were pointed out in his work, by collaborators and reviewers alike, as the evidence showed time and time again, he lashed out. That is the proper context to work with. I simply don't buy the argument that Ottava Rima's one-year ban is going to dissuade other editors from contributing. It might equally persuade others to contribute. It all depends on their mental make up. The Arbitration Committee does not practice the Wiki-justice version of pharmacogenomics. There is only so much pliability it can show in the face of complete inflexibility in a defendant. It is time to end this second-guessing of the verdict, especially by people who were no-shows at the actual trial. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Fowler, "time to end this second-guessing of the verdict" makes it sound as if you do not believe editors with just as much cause and whatever right you have do not themselves have the same cause or right to voice their opinions of this matter. Everyone's interactions with Ottava Rima are different, obviously, as individual as the people who make up each relationship with him. I have my own ambiguous opinions of Ottava Rima that are compounded by seeing that he conflicted often with others who were just as stubborn as he. Everywhere people seem desperate to need simple answers. Unfathomably, on this site that proves by the minute that there are rarely clear simple answers, if there appear to be none, editors try to force a situation to appearing that way. If people who are asking questions, or "second-guessing" as you say, would just shut up, it would be much easier to say that Ottava Rima was a plagiarizing (or whatever content problems you are alluding to) ass who fought frequently and made everyone's lives miserable. Well, he is not that simple, and neither are his interactions. He may be to you, but that does not make it so for everyone. Neither was the case decision simple. --Moni3 (talk) 19:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Which is why this is a wiki, where instead of asking contributors to publish perfect content, we collaborate to improve articles we feel require attention. As evidenced by this FAC, Ottava is willing and able to work with others towards improving the quality of his work, while your statements were pointed out by many others to be inappropriate. Your claims above are rather misleading. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

A good decision, and long overdue. For too long, there's been an attitude in some areas that having a record of good content contributions allows someone to ignore the civility policy, or excuses them from violating it. I'm glad to see that ArbCom does not hold this view. Ottava Rima was a disruptive user, who serially violated our policies, and it is entirely right that he has been banned. Robofish (talk) 18:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Announcement

I'm not seeing a reason to grant this. Interestingly, Untalented sibling was the name of one of the accounts. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The announcement looks flawed: neither of the two redlinked sock accounts show any edits. Large sockfarm. Bottom line: has this user stopped socking for six months, does s/he promise to stop the previous problems, and if the answers to those two questions are yes then is there any exceptional objection? See Wikipedia:Standard offer. To answer Ncmvocalist, there should be an incentive for potential reformers to reform. Durova³⁸⁶ 19:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed link. User:HaasSoul and User:Soul Haas. The latter has deleted contributions.  Roger Davies ^talk 19:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought there was no certainty over the answers to at least one of those questions, hence the omission of those details in the announcement. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

If the socking has stopped for over half a year and he's promised not to start that again, then the remaining question is whether anything more serious happened. For example, if someone emailed physical threats then it's very unlikely they'd ever be welcome back. But it would be reasonable to offer another chance if the problems were the type that increasing maturity could resolve. Durova³⁸⁶ 20:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I would further ask if a new CU has been performed, and whether it has been determined (if possible) whether the ip or physical location has changed - or indeed if some claim that the previous circumstances have been changed. As well as the Standard Offer terms noted by Durova, what indications have there been given that the "friendly sibling" no longer has access to the computer? If there is nothing to indicate a change in circumstances I would suggest that extra scrutiny of possible puppetry is performed before contemplating allowing a return to editing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The sheer number of socks here (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Wroth of Groth) is a matter of concern. I find it hard to believe that an editor who used so many accounts, most of which have offensive names, is ever going to be genuinely interested in productive and drama-free editing. If they're unblocked it should be made conditional on regular CUs and subject to very strict probation requirements, and even then I think that it would end badly. Nick-D (talk) 01:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Rms125a@hotmail.com, Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Rms125a@hotmail.com, current userpage, block log:[3] it's possible. That editor had about six times as many sockpuppets than the editor currently under consideration, yet has returned successfully. Durova³⁸⁶ 22:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

One of the reasons I requested whether their personal circumstances has changed is because it is possible that they have moved from an environment which supported (or even promoted) inappropriate activity to somewhere else which may not - like from an education faculty to a private address - or may denote a change in status - student and prankishness with friends to wage earning. If there is no real change in their circumstances then it may be more difficult to accept that disruption is a thing of the past (but not impossible, of course). LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless he hasn't created any recent socks (within the past 6 months sounds reasonable) and agrees to a broad and indefinite topic ban from Gary Groth, The Comics Journal, and Fantagraphics Books, this should not be entertained. –MuZemike 03:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Original announcement

The heading "Arbitration motion regarding GiacomoReturned" is misleading in the extreme, and should be altered to something relevant. The issue was Coren's egregious indef block of Giano and the undoing of it by John Vandenberg, and the broader issue was an AUSC report following an inappropriate oversighting of a comment from Giano following claims of outing by Rlevse. The motion passed is not about Giano at all. EdChem (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The case was originally filed with this name, and since no arbitrator objected to it and the case was eventually rejected it is just left as that. I understand the possible sensitivity of matters, and so the archive remains a diff rather than filing them under a separate page. - Mailer Diablo 03:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

We'll be back there in a month or so. You guys are fooling yourself if you think that the latest admin to block giano was the real long term problem. Protonk (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'd be interested in a policy citation from you that allows for indefinitely blocking someone for insulting arbitrators. UA 20:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
  • And why would that be necessary? Protonk (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

    Because you were tacitly defending Coren's ludicrous block with your last post. UA 21:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

    • Well full marks for missing the point entirely. Here's the deal. Giano has a block log which includes blocks both proper and improper (some flagrantly so). He's also got (arguably) a much shorter block log that he would have if there weren't instant unblocks and general hand wringing about everything related to Giano. My point was, it's not as though it is the same admin. And it isn't as though they are some conspiracy to 'get' him. When do we step away from just shaking our heads at what is merely the most recent block of Giano and look at the only constant in each issue? Protonk (talk) 04:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

  I've read the motion, and the audit subcommitte report which it endorses. Where does either of them endorse any such action? --TS 21:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

  Who is the question addressed to? Carcharoth (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

  It was addressed to User:Unitanode above (the one with the cryptic signature). --TS 21:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

  Your calling my sig "cryptic" is a bit ironic. UA 22:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

  A prize for the best anagram of the expanded versions of UA and TS combined! Bonus points for something that sounds like the name of a Culture ship. (And then maybe the thread should come back on topic?). Carcharoth (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

  "A wit? No. An uneasy oddity." --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Now Look What You've Made Me Do. --TS 22:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• It's like rain on your wedding day. It's a free ride, when you've already paid. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Am I right in thinking "Unitanode" isn't your first account? If so, are the previous account(s) publicly disclosed? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

First question, yes, you are; second question, what's it your business, MZMcBride? (Note: I've gathered that much, but I don't know what his/her previous account was.) Please don't pester people about their previous or alternative accounts, as long as there is no abuse of any account. [With something of an effort, /me eschews signing "Bishzilla" to annoy.] Bishonen | talk 22:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC).

Well, there are rumors flying around, so clarification would certainly help clear those up. Regardless of whether there's overlap between two accounts, I don't really see how it's possible to say that a returning user isn't harmfully avoiding scrutiny by starting a new account and not disclosing their previous account, especially if the account belonged to a longtime user (maybe even a former admin). I won't say it's my business to know, but I don't think there's too much harm in asking the question. Unitanode is free to not answer, but we'll wait to see if he or she does. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes (I'm a returned user), and yes (I've made it known to those who need to know). Everyone on the Committee knows my situation, and I'm not in any way avoiding scrutiny from any previous bad actions. I was in good standing then, and I still am. As Bishonen pointed out, what does this matter as to the situation at hand? UA 22:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. It might be nice to note something like this somewhere (a user subpage or something). *shrugs* --MZMcBride (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I've never edited like a new user. I don't mind if people speculate about who I was. But -- for reasons the committee knows -- I'll never confirm my previous identity to anyone other than the Committee. UA 22:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) One more point, that I think is important enough to warrant repeating here. People like Erik9/John254 and other similar situations have all discovered (and re-discovered) the exact same lessons. Starting a new account and quietly contributing to the encyclopedia isn't an issue. But where these accounts almost always run into trouble is when they get involved in wikipolitics and wikidrama. Nobody is saying you can't create a new account every day and edit different articles (and people do, for whatever reasons). But to show up in the same forums and post under new identities (without so much as a hint that on the person's user page that this isn't their first time on the horse track)? Something about that causes people to just start digging because it's pretty agreed upon that it's just not right. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I was never a wikipolitician before, and I'm not now. I wasn't a regular on the arb pages then, and I'm not now. UA 22:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Some of the surrounding facts behind this have become clearer to me, pushing me to make a clarification here: I really don't have any dog in this fight—I don't know you from Adam and quite simply I can't be bothered to care about most of this wikidrama. However, looking at the surrounding history, the statement that you were "never a wikipolitician" is complete bullshit and I would appreciate it if you struck it. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• MZMcBride should know better than to use this page to start rumours against another wikipedian. I would like an arb or a clerk to blank his speculations. DuncanHill (talk) 23:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
  • What speculation? --MZMcBride (talk) 02:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This page is ridiculous. Only here can people create drama about a motion that says there has been too much drama. Is there anyone fluent in reverse psychology? If the motion said there wasn't enough drama, would that stop the drama?! Wknight94 ^talk 22:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

How about a motion that says that normal drama is interrupted to announce that an alien spacecraft has just landed in Central Park. Wikipedians are to remain in their userpages and make no edits to Wikipedia space.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope that spaceship didn't land on the Great Lawn in Central Park, because they spent hella time fixing that thing up back in the 90s, and I would not want those damn alien rocket thrusters (you know the things I mean) scorching the earth and ruining the lawn for tanning and frisbee tossing and the like come the spring thaw. Everyone should look into this issue immediately! --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Announcement

Any diffs demonstrating a possible compromise? bibliomaniac15 05:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

well the only edit or action today from Secret was to delete the userpage. In the last week there were a very few edits to a few talk pages, and prior to that nothing since Dec 19. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 05:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and it was unambiguous but it has since been oversighted and the content was not really appropriate for public discussion. I'm sorry to be so oblique but sometimes privacy heavily outweighs complete transparency.  Roger Davies ^talk 05:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Understood. bibliomaniac15 05:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Original announcement

I'd put my name down as "interested", if it were not for the fact some people hate me because I try to protect the project. Maybe next time? Sceptre ^(talk) 20:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm bollocksed if I am going to answer an advert depicting Uncle Sam recruiting - in a straight forward copy of the original Lord Kitchener poster - for clerks for the Arbitration Committee on the English Language Encyclopedia. I should have thought that the ArbCom would be a bastion against - or at least recognise (yes, with an S!) - Wikipedia:Systemic bias. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

What, would you prefer File:John Bull - World War I recruiting poster.jpeg instead? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 23:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

No, nor the original Kitchener one... the point (or WP:POINT if you must) is that the recruitment is open to English speaking/writing editors of every nationality (and gender). That poster speaks to and thus reinforces the stereotypical example of the WP editor; white, male, and from North America. Ah, nevermind... LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Hey! I resemble that edit summary! --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• No special invitation going out to us extinct fishapods either, even though I have already started to edit the noticeboard helpfully! Interested user! Disappointing speciesism! :-( bishapod splash! 01:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC).

• You forgot the "e" in corpse. HTH. MastCell ^Talk 01:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• bishapod slaps forehead dramatically [Really? Whereabouts is forehead?], runs to improve spelling some more.] Noticeboard very handsome before interested users done with it! bishapod splash! 02:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC).

Sigh...for the record, I created the notice. I added the picture, and it in no way reflected some form of "consensus version" amongst the clerks. I was trying to create something with a little humor in it, and had no intention of making it look as if we only wanted Americans. But honestly, do we not have better things to do with out time than nitpick over an image? Tiptoety ^talk 05:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Why do you hate Wikipedia non-Americans? --MZMcBride (talk) 05:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Nitpick? <redacted> Since unrecognised bias in others is one of the things that ArbCom needs to recognise and combat in its attempt to resolve disputes to create a neutral encyclopedia, it beholds them and their functionaries not to be careless in the appearance of a assumption of cultural bias. That is the <redacted>unrecognised problem, in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm really disappointed in you, LessHeard, your edit is much more offensive than the picture, which I've now removed. Would you please do something about it? Dougweller (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I am perpetually amazed at the triviality of the things we choose to argue over. AGK 12:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Countering cultural bias is not trivial, especially in a project that seeks a world view of the body of knowledge, as far as I am concerned. YMMV - I cannot deny you your own worldview, now, can I? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously the correct solution is for some aspiring graphic artist with an iota of talent (i.e. not me) to create a similar poster with the image of (a)Wikitan, or (b)Bishzilla instead of Lord K, John Bull, Uncle Sam, Chairman Mao, etc. Both for this recruiting drive and all similar drives, I'd opt for (b), mostly because Wikitan kind of creeps me out a little, but we'd probably have to talk to Bishzilla (or her designated agent) about Personality rights first. Of course, we'd first need a poster to help recruit the artist, but we could use the Uncle Sam poster for that. Or, instead, we could try to search for an aspiring graphic artist with an iota of talent.......(etc). --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Does the artist selected get a toy surprise? :-) Proofreader77 ^(interact) 22:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Or, you could always use the official Wikipedia mascot. No, really - look for yourself. Some of the alternatives were even worse. – iridescent 22:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

(PS) Arbcom artist application collage: Requisite adversarialicity -- Proofreader77 ^(interact) 22:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• I am happy to give my gracious permission for my own image to be used as the "Face of Wikipedia" what could be more fitting than a high born British person such as myself? American faces are all very well, in their place, but one only has to survey those characterful visages beneath those darling little baseball hats queuing for Europe's tourist attractions to see that advertising Wikipedia calls for an altogether more august countenance, such as my own. Lady Catherine de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 15:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• I should think that Bishzilla is a far more appropriate representation of a dinosaur, for the purposes of recruitment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, Lady C. may be the more appealing dinosaur, LessIsMore. Since my loyal monster eats little users sometimes (which I don't think Lady C does), a "Bishzilla wants you" (or, properly, "Bishzilla want you") poster could be experienced as threatening and hungry. Regards, Bishonen | talk 21:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC).

• In the future I will attempt to put up an image that represents all nations, as well as someone of every ethnicity... Tiptoety ^talk 19:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hermaphrodite as well? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Actual serious question: What does "the inner workings of the Arbitration Committee" mean? Does this entail the personal political struggles and/or clumsy attempts at flirtation between ArbCom members? Is this technical for something? Reading 100 emails a day? Keeping track of something I can't envision? --Moni3 (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It's mostly involvement with how cases are accepted, declined, and handled; the email level for the clerks list is maybe 10 or so per day (right now, most of the traffic is about these applications and doesn't have much to do with actual work). The main purpose of the clerks is to keep the arbitration pages on Wikipedia in relatively neat order so that the arbitrators can get what they need to do done while maintaining some semblance of sanity. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Another Question: Would it still be possible to submit an application? Or has the deadline already passed? -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

While the "deadline" has evidently passed, the clerk community evidently maintain a list of potential future clerks, which you may wish to make certain you are on (assuming that is your inclination). — James Kalmar 06:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

This is true. You can email us and ask to have your name added to a list of people to contact come the next "hiring period." Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 07:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Fastily: There would be no harm in submitting a deadline. We haven't set a deadline by which all applications must be received, so please do e-mail your submission in if you are interested. The worst that could happen would be that you'd be put on the list of folks to bear in mind next time. Hope this helps. AGK 13:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed Tiptoety's update, so I would now say that yes, I guess you're probably too late. AGK 14:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Announcement

• Congratulations to the returning and incoming arbs, and my personal thanks to the arbs that are retiring at the end of their terms (FloNight and Stephen Bain - though bainer hasn't escaped just yet). Many thanks also to all the other arbitrators, clerks and functionaries that helped keep things running in and around the arbitration committee this year (including FT2, Sam Blacketer, Kirill Lokshin, Casliber and John Vandenberg). Hopefully the new committee can carry on where the old one left off, and look to build on the productive aspects of last year. Carcharoth (talk) 05:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Original announcement

Please see [4]. As far as the future conduct of Biophys and the proposed decision, the announcement is still apparently incomplete. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You can expect a response after the holidays. As I expected, these proceedings have been a touchstone by which to judge Wikipedia and its participants. My heartfelt thanks to those who, during these proceedings now completed, have privately wished me well and confirmed my assessment of the state of Wikipedia and the nature and purpose of the contributions of my detractors even while (wisely) taking care not to embroil themselves in the conflict. To those to whom I may have pointed out that private communication offers only moral support, I appreciate that support and regret that their remaining off the proverbial radar screen was, indeed, the appropriate choice.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  18:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused by the wording. The announcement says "Digwuren is banned for one year" then it says "He is directed to edit Wikipedia from only a single user account". I'm assuming that the latter is supposed to apply after the one year ban, since he shouldn't be editing at all while banned? --Deskana (talk) 14:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously. --62.25.109.195 (talk) 14:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Or, if they are found to have evaded their ban with the use of more than one account at any one time then they are in really serious trouble... LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I request clarification on the following: "directed to keep discussion of editing and dispute resolution strictly on wiki and in public"

Is this meant to say that I cannot comment publicly off-wiki on any on-wiki edits or disputes (aka "controversies") regarding Eastern Europe?  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  21:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like some clarifications over the holidays, per some prior threads here and at the case:

1. Per a response to Igny, I may not respond to Igny on any EE topic, certainly with regard to the area of contention (representation of Soviet acts and legacy in Eastern Europe) widely construed, indeed, that might be seen as baiting (on the part of Igny). Does that also include responses to general inquiries outside that subject area (say, biographical information)? Banned or not?
2. Dougweller implied I can notify violations of conduct. Banned or not?
3. Russia related topics outside Eastern Europe and the area of contention (let's say prior to the 20th century, not related to Eastern Europe if history; could also be literature or art) with regard to my mention of sources. Banned or not?
4. Off-wiki public comments regarding the area of contention on English language Wikipedia. Current wording is problematic in that it implies even that is under sanction. Banned or not?

Thanks in advance. If there is a more appropriate location for followups, please let me know.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  01:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

As you are familiar with my own topic ban, you should be familiar with the terms of your own topic ban.

1. Broadly construed means exactly that. Hence, anything related to Eastern Europe, whether that be geographical, political, biographical, etc is covered by the topic ban. For example, this recent edit by yourself after the conclusion of the case is in violation of the topic ban.

2. You are unable to notify of violations of conduct on any Eastern Europe related articles, or in relation to Eastern Europe.

3. Russia-related topics are completely out. Regardless of time frame, whether it be 15th century Russia or 21st century Russia. The entire subject is off limits.

4. I'll leave that up to arbs to clarify. I believe I know what is meant by it though.

That is how I interpret it all, and it is also how it has been interpreted by others in the past, and has also been clarified a few times already in relation to the case. The best way to think of it is that Eastern Europe, for the next 12 months for yourself, does not exist. It is a black hole on the map. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 16:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for keeping up on my activities regarding pig jello, I was unaware ArbCom has assigned you to be my personal keeper. It's a question to ArbCom—are you presuming to answer for them?  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  23:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The way this works, Vecrumba, is that comments in arbitration enforcement threads, arbitration clarification requests, and arbitration amendment requests directly about you (and, obviously, new cases) are fine, but such threads about other editors are not an invitation for you to join in. Arbitration enforcement is intended to allow enforcement, not a continuation of the battles. If you feel you must comment, my advice would be to start comments at such arbitration locations by asking if you are allowed to comment, and then wait for permission before doing so. In terms of general article editing and lower levels of dispute resolution, no, you are not allowed to participate there in this topic area, or leave notifications of edits that you think need correction. The whole point of the topic bans is that those topic-banned stay away from the area and from dispute resolution or discussion in that area, and the theory is that others (who are not topic banned) will correct any poor edits made in the absence of you and others. If you wish to make notes of edits that you see that are not getting corrected, and wish to then present this as evidence that the topic bans have imbalanced editing in this area (i.e. removing those with expert or specialist knowledge of the topic area), then I would suggest doing that separately, and e-mailing that evidence to ArbCom. Russavia, I would suggest not getting involved in this. Off-wiki comments we have no jurisdiction over, but if our attention is drawn to off-wiki comments that are followed by on-wiki edits, that would be something we would look at. Ultimately, though, the question of how the topic bans will work will become clearer at arbitration enforcement. If it turns out that things are not clear enough, only then would parties or admins come to ArbCom asking for clarification (and there is a clarifications page for that purpose). Carcharoth (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I resumed editing and installed my old email address. If anyone wants to tell something privately, please do. I made a couple of edits under a different account, but soon realized that hiding is not an option. Regardless to the events, I want to remain anonymous in this project. As about editing restrictions, one should actually read them. The restriction for Russavia prohibits him from editing anything related to Russia or Soviet union. This is a draconian restriction because everything can be related to everything. Others are prohibited from editing anything about Eastern Europe. Can they edit a biography of an artist, even if he visited one of EE countries? I think they can because that would be an article about a person and not an article about Eastern Europe... Biophys (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Carcharoth, thank you for the clarifications. Quite frankly for a while I felt I was being left to be baited as ArbCom was not responding but those who presented evidence against myself were all eager to chime in. I would appreciate confirmation to what degree the topic ban includes Russia outside the EE, outside Soviet era conflicts, going back to my mention of sources and other Russian-related interests (music, for example). Thanks, no rush, I stumbled upon a spot to putter a bit although I regret it's already cost me good money to buy articles off of JSTOR.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  16:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Regardless of the source of the query, does pig jello fall under my topic ban? That contention seems a bit far-fetched.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  22:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully request that if we are to move forward in good faith that combatants in the EE arena refrain from using the proceedings in what can be perceived as thinly veiled threats as here. I request that any and all such "warnings" be issued only by members of ArbCom. Thank you.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  21:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I am considering appealing my topic ban. I have asked Coren for background per reason cited here.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  17:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

As I cannot comment in my defense owing to my topic ban, edits such as this constitute a form of harassment.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  21:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Vecrumba, you state here that it is all too common a practice on Wikipedia to label expressions of concerns from editors one holds in contempt as harassment. How can we be sure that this is not what you are doing by accusing him of harassment? Triplestop x3 17:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I consider it crying "witch" as that editor's evidence "against" me at EEML pointed only to their own disruptive activities. I'll be glad for editors to bring up EEML on article talk and related pages when I can respond. Until then it's just an attack on editors who are banned from defending themselves or from contributing sourced material. It also propagates the meme (in this particular case, and in confidence that opposing viewpoints are banned for now) that prior opposition to deletion was based simply on intentionally stacking consensus and not based on additional sources being available—some of which I easily found, in Polish—which I rather don't expect anyone will explore further. That exploration would be the act of good faith here. Of course at the point of the last AFD, EEML was in full progress and I had no bandwidth to add sources—unfortunately all the time I spent on the case was a monumental waste of effort. Regretfully, all I see here in Offliner's EEML comment is "Let's go ahead and delete now that disruptive EEML is silenced."  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  19:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I should mention that my comment quoted specifically relates to the case where editor A expresses concerns regarding the edits of editor B on editor B's talk page and instead of that initiating a dialog, editor B deletes editor A's comments on their talk page as "harassment." I have never done that but I can point to a number, generally my editorial opposition, who have.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  00:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I can point to many instances where you and your editorial allies have done the same. My point is, do you think you are right and your opponents are wrong? Triplestop x3 04:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Fine. Show me one diff where I characterized someone's criticizing an edit of mine at my talk page as harassment or vandalism and simply deleted their feedback as such in my edit summary. It's not about being right or wrong but being willing to discuss. I only know about reputable sources and verified facts, not about truth.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  04:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. As for "allies," that is your choice of words. That there are other editors that utilize reputable sources and stick to verified facts does not mean we are meat puppets, a cabal, allies, or whatever it is you wish to use as a label. Only on WP have I been denounced for being utterly and boringly predictable in my treatment of historical topics. I would think consistency based on reputable sources fairly and accurately represented would be a positive thing, but no, I've been told otherwise.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  04:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh look, forgot about this one.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  05:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

In fairness, my subsequent exchange with Triplestop was a bit more constructive—and could have been addressed immediately with a modicum of good faith instead of further escalation based on I'm a piece of crap and don't merit a response (how I took it).  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  20:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Announcement

Would it be possible to have a link to the original decision to remove admin privileges? DuncanHill (talk) 14:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

This was it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• Good call—well done to GlassCobra for convincing ArbCom of good intentions! ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 14:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

This was purely punitive. (Though, in ArbCom's defense, I suppose "Desysops are not punitive" isn't a meme around here.) I would applaud the decision, but it's undeserved—you're cleaning up the mess you made. Better late than never, I suppose. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with MZMcBride. Stupid, stupid idea to desysop, utterly pointless punishment. So hardly "congrats Arbcom", but I'm glad a good admin got his tools back that were undeservedly stolen from him. Majorly talk 19:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• I feel that a re-sysop without reference to the community so soon after the dishonest behaviour is rather poor form. DuncanHill (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• This is essentially Arbcom reversing its own decision. If they were reversing a long-standing desysopping or overturning a community ban, sure, but it seems to me like they recognize that they may have made a mistake and are fixing it. RFA is a nightmare, especially for previously desysopped users, and its perfectly understandable that if Arbcom feels the desysopping was not justified then it shouldn't force GlassCobra to further be humiliated. The Wordsmith^Communicate 23:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Or, more simply, we feel that the desysop was justified, but that the user understands why it happened and made credible assurances that it will not happen again. — Coren ^(talk) 07:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Indeed.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Glad to hear all that, very refreshing. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with both actions. I think both the deadmin, and reinstatement by the committe were the appropriate actions in this case. I would generally encourage the committee to re-admin folks, when they feel like the time/issues are past. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• I want to note that my opposition to this motion is due to my belief that the re-sysoping of correctly desysopped admins is a matter best left to the community (except where there is material information known only to ArbCom, which isn't the case here), and should not be taken as a reflection of my view of GlassCobra. Steve Smith (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• No offense taken, Steve, I know you're a good guy. :P GlassCobra 20:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Don't go overboard. :P Jehochman ^Brrr 20:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• No comment on the merits of the decision itself, but this is a sad start to the year for those of us who hope for a more open ArbCom. Given Steve's comment above, do I take it that no non-public information is relevant to this decision? In which case could discussion relating to it not have taken place on the wiki? As it is, we are left guessing as to reasons why Arbs supported (or indeed opposed) this motion. WJBscribe (talk) 02:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • My reasons for supporting were because this re-sysop was adjusted to take effect exactly three months after the initial desysop. My initial vote had been abstain, as I felt it was too early to be resysopping just yet. My view is that desysopping and resysopping by ArbCom should be done more readily, with less associated drama, reinforcing the point that adminship is not a big deal. Every time people (and I'm not referring to you here, WJBScribe, but rather some of the earlier responses to this thread) make a big deal out of things, the drama levels increase proportionally (using words like "stupid", "undeservedly stolen from him", "cleaning up the mess" and "utterly pointless" - those sort of comments border on being disruptive, when the point of this page is for constructive discussion). The one thing I would do for ArbCom resysoppings in general in future is include a "retain jurisdiction" clause, which makes it simpler for us to desysop within a probationary one year period if there are problems (i.e. without a full case). But that doesn't really apply here. Another thing I want to make clear is that this not "reversing [the] decision". Rather, as Coren and Roger say, the the original decision was not discussed or contested (presumed justified) and "credible assurances [have been made] that it will not happen again". In general, to address your point about openness (WJBScribe), one option would have been to have this proposed as a motion on the motions page, but then we would have been voting with a background of the above aggressive comments that I highlighted - can you see the conundrum there? We (ArbCom) want to take decisions without aggressive commentary stridently telling us what we must do, so one way to encourage openness would be for you (WJBScribe) and others to take to task the people that sour the atmosphere at such discussions. Carcharoth (talk) 05:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
    • We didn't want to have a public motion because people may have commented, see? Right.... It's not disruptive to express an opinion contrary to that of a majority of Arbitrators, Carc. There's no conundrum here, just a lot of stupidity. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Have you ever tried to hold a committee discussion on-wiki with other (non-arbitrator) editors commenting and trying to influence the decision? It's a case of having the internal discussion, soliciting feedback, and then taking a final decision. That is not exactly what happened here, but that is the best model to follow, I think. Carcharoth (talk) 09:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Sounds pretty reasonable to me. Though, the rhetoric often gets turned up after feedback is solicited because it becomes too easy to ignore otherwise. At least from what I've seen.

          My original point is that this is largely punitive. I don't see much disagreement with that point. Perhaps that's the way it ought to be—that is, perhaps all de-adminnings are inherently punitive. I'm not sure I agree, but I imagine a lot of people do. If you follow that line of thought, this is the prisoner being released. You put him in the box and now you're taking him out. I (still) don't see anything that's praiseworthy here, but maybe I'm just the odd man out. Ah well. --MZMcBride (talk) 09:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

          • Basically, what ArbCom are saying is that they do not want the community to comment on whether or not an admin who undermines community processes can be trusted by the community as an admin again. DuncanHill (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
            • Indeed, and anyone who dares to comment opposite are disruptive and "mak[ing] a big deal out of things". Ah well. It's to be expected from arbcom. Majorly talk 15:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
              • Well, you've clearly made your mind up, Majorly. No point trying to convince you otherwise. I'll concentrate my replies to other people instead. Carcharoth (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
                • Go on then Carcharoth, why do you think the community should not be consulted about whether or not they can now trust an admin who undermined comunity processes? DuncanHill (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
                  • There are suitable community venues where you can raise any concerns you have about the admin in question (and I suggested this be done at the time the desysopping occurred). I would suggest your first approach would be to talk to the admin in question and see if they are willing to talk to you about your concerns. As far as ArbCom are concerned (as voted on by motion), the issues are resolved by the assurances given. If the community want to deliver a different verdict, that can be done. If there are concerns in the future, those can be brought back to ArbCom, but RFA is an exceedingly poor venue to have a community referendum on someone's conduct. Carcharoth (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
                    • I thought that this was the place to discuss Arbcom announcements. As you are well aware, there are no community venues for de-syssopping. RfA is the place to discuss whether someone should be given admin tools. Not an off-wiki mailing list. DuncanHill (talk) 01:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
                      • Let's try and get to the core of this. Are there any cases where you think ArbCom can resysop, or do you think all resysops should be by the community only? Carcharoth (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
                        • I would prefer that admin tools were only ever granted by a community process. That said, to make the best of the poor system we currently have, Arbcom should at the very least invite community comment when they are considering doing this, and should certainly not tell editors commenting here to go away if they disagree. DuncanHill (talk) 01:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
                          • OK, thanks. It does help to know that. I don't think I ever told anyone to actually go away (I wanted a productive discussion starting from a base of respect, not where people arrive to take pot shots at decisions they disagree with), but may I leave now and get some sleep? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
                            • Yes, you may now go to sleep :) DuncanHill (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I am sorry Carcharoth, but I think that's a feeble excuse to take things off-wiki. That logic could be applied to most discussions that could get heated. Should bureaucrats abolish their practice of having open discussions on the wiki where the outcome of a RfA/RfB is unclear - no doubt we could concentrate more if we took the discussion to some private list where most users are prevented from contributing. But we would lose (a) transparency and (b) the opportunity for outside comments to actually inform the discussion. The fact that some comments will be overheated does not mean that outside comment is of no value.
      So, no I don't really see a "conundrum" here, other than ArbCom prefering a quiet life to having discussions in the open. People in positions of power (for which lest any of you have forgotten, you volunteered) should expect scrutiny and criticism - sometime in trenchant terms. I do not accept that the examples of comments you give are at all on the border line of disruption. That you believe ther are worries me a bit to be honest. "We (ArbCom) want to take decisions without aggressive commentary stridently telling us what we must do", understandable, but I'm not sure it's something you are justified in requiring. ArbCom's continuing propensity to make decisions fro within a bunker is why I suspect it would be better if ArbCom were obliged to have discussions in the open unless a justification to do otherwise can be given. WJBscribe (talk) 12:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Actually, I agree with you there about the need to be more open - you might have noticed I try, when time permits, to be as open as I can about why I vote or comment the way I do. A fruitful discussion would be on where to draw the line on when to discuss things in the open and when not to. Presumably the bureaucrats have some internal standards they follow in those respects, and have less of such issues to discuss? Carcharoth (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
        • The bureaucrats, to the best of my knowledge, have never had a 'crat chat offwiki. Wikipedia:Bureaucrat discussion seems to confirm this. In fact, the only reason why the bureaucrat mailing list was even created was for privacy-related renames. Nothing more. NW (Talk) 01:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think the result is fair, but the process has created needless drama. Is there any reason ArbCom couldn't have mooted (the proper definition of moot: to discuss) a proposal to resysop, and then seen what the community response was? Take this as advice for the future. Jehochman ^Brrr 16:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Maybe you could list the times when something was mooted with the community first, and times when it wasn't, and compare the results. Personally, I think drama levels are independent of how ArbCom handle it, and more dependent on: (a) the issue involved (which may cause a lot of people to comment); and (b) the people that chose to comment and the attitude they have. Carcharoth (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you are too new an editor to remember Arbcom's spectacular fuck up in the OM affair, where an entirely off-wiki discussion by arbs resulted in the committee not having a clue what they had decided (or whether in fact they had decided anything at all). Much entirely avoidable drama ensued. Ask anyone who was around at the time. DuncanHill (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Huh? I was around at the time, as you well know, and began editing before you did. Carcharoth (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
        • I was trying to be kind. DuncanHill (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Selection bias; I won't go down that path. Let's look at the current situation. "Hi, we ArbCommers are thinking about revising a desysop remedy we placed on GlassCobra.[link] Owing to GC's history of solid contributions, and good judgment, and their response to the situation,[diff1][diff2] we feel that our remedy was overly harsh. If anybody would like to comment, please do so here, and then we will take a vote." You're always free to modify an action you have previously taken. Nevertheless, I think it is best practice to be open whenever possible to outside comments. Who knows, somebody in the community might have something clueful to add to the discussion. Jehochman ^Brrr 04:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I think such an invitation would have been an improvement, and urge Arbcom to consider inviting comment in such a way in similar cases in future. (I'd prefer it was worded "... we believe that it may be time to end the sanction..." instead of "... we feel our remedy was overly harsh...", but there you go.) whoops! Signing late DuncanHill (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Personally, I think it's a good sign that the new arbcom's first action is forgiveness of past wrongs. The latter part of 2009 saw the Committee lose quite a bit of the respect people had for it, so I hope we can start 2010 off on a positive note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Wordsmith (talk • contribs)
  • Note: that perception may not necessarily be universally held. ++Lar: t/c 20:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Of course it may not be universally held. If you'll notice, I started my statement off with "Personally, I think..." which implies that it is only my opinion, and I do not pretend to speak for the entire community. The Wordsmith^Communicate 09:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• It's possible that I missed the rationale, in which case I simply plead ignorance - but what was the intent in lifting the desysop of Glasscobra on 11 January, as opposed to immediately? If the reasoning for this decision is that Glasscobra has provided the committee with meaningful assurances that the actions causing the desysop will not be repeated, and understands what they did wrong and why they were desysopped, then what does a week's time do to alter those facts? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• I believe it's just so that it falls three months exactly since the motion to desysop passed. GlassCobra 19:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Speaking of arbcom, and not GlassCobra specificaly, saying "Due to non-public info user-x can not be re-sysoped" could be considered justifiable use of arbcom power. To re-sysop without any community input shows disregard for community opinion on things that are of concern to that community. And to announce that "we did this without community input because we were afraid the community would object" falls into that category of things you just have to laugh at to keep from crying.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not entirely sure that "We didn't put this before the community because we were sure that a tiny majority of the community would stonewall any reasonable discussion by the community, and monopolize it in such a way as to make consensus building impossible" is the same as "the community would object". Its far more likely that arbcom made this decision with the wisdom that, when decisions like this are placed before the community, they rarely result in a useful discussion which produces any net benefit for the encyclopedia or its community cohesion in general. I think that if we AGF here, it isn't that arbcom is seeking to overrule community consensus, just that it recognizes that community consensus would be difficult to judge given the tendency of some people to find situations like this, blow them WAY out of proportion, and totally prevent any dispassionate discussion of the issue. --Jayron32 20:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
    • This same dispute has been raised in other appeals. The basic problem is that the ArbCom is hearing a case privately and only getting input from one party. It would not cause any drama to post a notice here saying that, "User X has appealed his sanctions. If anyone has new evidence that's relevant to this appeal please send it to the ArbCom mailing list." I don't know of any problem with the user in this case, and I'm glad that his or her tools have been restored. But as a procedural matter, hearing cases without getting all of the evidence first is not a good practice.   Will Beback  talk  20:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Which only goes to show the danger of generalizing cases, and attempting to sandbag ArbCom's ability to react appropriately to individual situations rather than being tied up in bureaucratic procedures. In this case, GC was not desysopped as part of a bilateral conflict between himself and other individual users. He was not desysopped following a community request to do so. He was desysopped as part of an ArbCom investigation into his actions, and it was solely an arbcom action. Why open this up to people who were not involved in the initial case, except to find those people who like to stonewall arbcom decisions merely for their own sick entertainment, or who are contrary or dramamongering for its own sake. Yes, there will arise cases where community input is important, because of the community's initial involvement. There will be cases where there are two sides to a dispute, and the "opponents" in said dispute will need to give their input in a situation like this. In this case, there was no dispute, no overt abuse of admin tools, and no pre-ArbCom community requets to desysop this user. He was desysopped by unilateral ArbCom action, and so it is entirely up to ArbCom to set those terms. GC apparently met their terms... --Jayron32 21:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
        • I find those comments disingenuous at best. There were concerns and requests for de-adminiing from parts of the community. You seem to be suggesting that Arbcom has the ability to remove entirely from community discussion both the behaviour of admins, and Arbcom's actions. Neither is acceptable. DuncanHill (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

To Jayron: General procedures can be changed when needed. As for the specifics of this case, it was not initiated by the ArbCom. It came as a result of an RFAR.[5] Rather than accept a full case the ArbCom settled it through motions based on the evidence presented there (and whatever investigation they conducted privately). The issue involved a lack of disclosure of relevant information by someone in a position of trust. Speaking hypothetically, there may have been other breaches which were not reported at the time or which have been discovered after the case was closed. Continuing to speak hypothetically, the sanctioned user may have told the ArbCom somethng like "I regret my action and have made no similar mistakes since I was de-sysopped." But what if a member of the community knew of another recent failure of the same type? The ArbCom would have no way of knowing that the appellant was not telling the whole truth. Alternatively, the ArbCom could be leaning towards rejecting an appeal and someone writing to say how the user showed tact and diplomacy in settling a dispute might sway them favorably. For the ArbCom to communicate with only one party in an appeal seems like a failure to get all the relevant information before making a decision. Again, I have no complaint about the outcome of this case, and no reason to think that GC will not act appropriately in the future. I'm just saying that the ArbCom should make it a routine practice to announce appeals that it's seriously considering so that anyone who has relevant information can communicate it to them.   Will Beback  talk  21:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Presumably fixing the resysop date at 11 January, and notifying the community *before* that resysop takes place, doesn't count as asking the community to raise objections. (I'm being sarcastic there). Clearly, if there were problems with this resysop, we would want to be told, but from what I can see here, and in my inbox (empty on this matter), no-one has raised valid concerns. Carcharoth (talk) 06:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a roundabout way of getting community input, but I guess it accomplishes the same end. Thanks for pointing that out.   Will Beback  talk  10:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Carcharoth raises a very good point here. So far, all of the objections are "meta-objections" No one has actually given any concrete reason why GC should not be resysoped, merely that they object to not being given the opportunity to present those reasons. This forum seems like a perfectly good place to raise those objections. Presumably, if there was hard evidence that GC did not deserve the tools back, someone would be posting it now or contacting arbcom with it. The utter lack of said evidence is telling, we're debating over the manner of his resysop, not on the end result. No one has anything to say about whether or not GC has done anything since his desysop which would indicate he does not deserve his tools back... --Jayron32 07:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

To be blunt, I would like to see a lengthy topic-ban from RfAd. I was trying to keep to procedural comments in the spirit of NPA and giving a chap a fair shake, but if GlassCobra is to have the status that being an Admin brings (and I do not for one moment accept that admin comments at RfAd carry less weight than non-admin comments, nor do I believe that anyone else does), his previous dishonesty is worrying in the extreme. I don't think that GlassCobra would be so monumentally stupid as to try it again (or that Arbcom would be so generous in a repeat match), but that's a long way from saying that he's earnt the level of trust admins should. DuncanHill (talk) 10:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That, I think, speaks to Carcharoth's earlier point. That posting stuff here frequently leads to generic criticism of ArbCom and that the issue in hand is sometimes hijacked to steer the thread back into generic criticism of ArbCom. There is, after all, not much incentive in ArbCom asking for input if half the discussion is going to be dominated by generic sniping.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Generic sniping comes with the job. ;)   Will Beback  talk  10:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you do something less than ideal and people point it out - generic sniping to some, a genuine wish for better process to others. DuncanHill (talk) 10:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, especially when ideal is more of a solipsism than a universality.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• When reversing a sanction resulting from an arbitration request that drew a huge number of comments, a lengthy discussion such as this one is inevitable. Why not have the discussion first and then act. I realize ArbCom left a 7 day window to allow for any revelations, but it would have been better, much better, to present this as a proposal, and then to vote, rather than doing things backwards. My perception is that GlassCobra would have received a lot of support and the process would have reached the same conclusion. Instead of that support and goodwill, the fear-motivated process (we fear criticism, so let's act in secret) has generated suspicions. That's too bad because it wasn't necessary. Arbs, have you learned something here? Jehochman ^Brrr 15:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This thread is pretty good evidence that not everything needs to be discussed with the community beforehand; there are no substantive comments about the specific decision in this thread. There's lots of "but you didn't ask me!" comments. The take-away lesson, Jehochman, is that even when the community has no concern about the decision that is actually made, there are some people who feel their opinions should be sought on every matter. We already knew that. Risker (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

For me the take-away lesson is that ArbCom will slap admins on the wrist and then quietly give back the bit once things have blown over. Frankly, I do have concerns both about the decision and about the way it was made, but throwing a hissy fit isn't going to do a damn thing, so why bother? Just one more piece of ammo for the "all admins are corrupt" crowd to lob at those of us trying hard to do a good job.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

At least ArbCom as a body have decided to be honest and openly admit the contempt and scorn they have for us little folk.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hm. I don't think I am being contemptuous here, I am being realistic and carrying out the responsibilities for which the community selected me. There is no discussion about the substance of this decision in this thread; the decision itself is not controversial. The community elected arbitrators to make this kind of straightforward decision. I don't believe anyone objected to the lack of community consultation when the User:Law account was blocked, or when the User:Pastor Theo account was desysopped and blocked. Of course, I speak from my own perspective, and not for the Arbitration Committee as a whole. Risker (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Those are decisions in the opposite direction and both turned upon checkuser results or other private data whereas resysopping GlassCobra was more of a judgment call. I don't see why the community could not have been pinged for opinions prior to making this decision. The discussion may have been even shorter than the foregoing... –xeno^talk 16:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Risker, we did not elect you all to decide for us. We elected you al to decide when we cannot come to a consensus ourselves, either because of persistent disagreements or because the evidence needs to be kept confidential. Neither situation appears to be the case here. I and others are generally suspicious that ArbCom should not gather more power to itself via secret cases or secret appeals. I see no reason why this appeal was not handled in public. Look, if you folks can't see this, then maybe we'll start another RFC on ArbCom to give you feedback. It's unfair to GlassCobra to make an example of their appeal. Jehochman ^Brrr 17:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This is an appeal of the Arbitration Committee's decision, a decision that was well discussed at the time it was taken, and the community's feedback from that discussion was certainly a factor in considering the appeal. This isn't a de novo matter; the community has already been involved. Risker (talk) 17:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

.

Hipocrite (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This makes it seem like the original de-sysop was only to please the angry community, then wait until people go on with other things before granting the rights back. If ArbCom wanted give GlassCobra a small punishment then it should have been a temporary desysop in the first place. A permanent desysop should mean that the user has to request renewed confidence from the community. The exception would be if ArbCom decides that the original motion was in error, but that does not seem to be the case here. The habit of ArbCom to restore sysop right to those who have had it removed strengthens the problematic idea that adminship is for life. If not being an administrator is a punishment that can one can be forgiven from, then should I feel that I have been under punishment ever since I joined Wikipedia? --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Reading the committee members disagreeing and arguing with each other lessen the worries that some have, and eventually will cause less drama. While announcing a decision that was discussed privately give the false impression that the ArbCom members are one block which trigger the "we against them" feeling that some in the community have (as we see here some members in the ArbCom also have the "we against them" mentality). Sole Soul (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• One will find Wikipedia - and one's personal experience with it - runs smoother if one avoids taking offense at things. Whether someone is trampling over your or "the communities'" toes gets the blood pumping, but its rarely worth the effort separated, as it is from substantive, practical consequences or desires. What may seem to be important, may in fact be rather trivial, and the amount of angry offense may actually be an indicator of triviality. What I'm trying to say is - this isn't worth the bad blood.--Tznkai (talk) 14:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This sort of apathy is the problem.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not apathetic (though on occasion demoralized like many), I'm just trying to put things in the proper perspective. Correct action stems from two sources: sufficient motivation to act, and proper perspective to know how to act. Emotion - in this case offense - fuels motivation but destroys perspective. The offended is inspired to act, but knows not how. Unfortunately, being offended provides an emotional high that serves as its own reward, and Wikipedia lowers the costs of offering up communications to a trivial amount. What appears to you as apathy is merely me deliberately not amping myself up in an effort to think clearly.

Furthermore, its important to think at the margins. I'm sure everyone by now has heard of diminishing returns, but allow me to repeat it to illustrate my point. As you add more resources to a task - at some point, you get less oomph per quanta of resource devoted. I would go as far as to say that you start getting into negatives, but my economist friends tell me I'm wrong, and then there is factoring in externalities, but the basic idea is sound: each additional comment to an issue can be less helpful then any previous one.

So - while it is nearly costless to each of us individually to speak up - we may in fact be adding nothing of value. We may be adding the opposite of value - we can be adding sound and fury and drama and anger and emotion and offense where rationality and clear thought will help more. It is the universal conceit of men that they are useful where others are not (pardon my hyperbole), but one might allay that tendency by thinking at the margins - which forces the question "is it really worth it, now, in this situation?"

Being emotional and offended compromises that inquiry.--Tznkai (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Those in power do what they do because they can. When people just shut up and take it they enable that behavior.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

As I suggested above, if you think ArbCom should handle appeals more openly, start a WP:RFC. This discussion is turning circular. Jehochman ^Brrr 15:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Pithy, but demonstrative of my point more than yours. Not all exercises of power are equal, and neither are all protests to that power. Consider for a moment that there are ways to not "just shut up and take it" that in fact enable the power more than they disable it. Consider further that disabling power is on occasion, and my contention is, on this occasion, less important than the costs incurred disabling it. In this instance: time wasted, bad blood engendered, outside observers infuriated, and otherwise "drama" encouraged. Kindly consider finally, that we've managed to have a complete conversation without once mentioning the issue on point, which might be an indicator as to how important it really is.--Tznkai (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Having seen similar discussions follow many of the Committee's more notable administrator conduct actions, I am convinced that only the adoption of a viable community de-sysop method will suffice to address the community's concerns. As long as the community has no outlet to directly request removal of the administrator bit, some members thereof will continue to find fault with the Committee's decisions in this regard. The Committee's handling of ban appeals is spot on. However, it would appear that some editors feel that the standards for transparency and community input must be higher for regranting administrative tools. — James Kalmar 20:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• I echo what James Kalmar said. AGK 13:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Announcement

• And thanks here to Fritzpoll, Shell Kinney and SirFozzie for stepping in so promptly for what is largely a thankless task. Hope I haven't put them off by saying that! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 06:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Shouldn't you guys have put at least one old timer in the barrel instead of dumping this on three n00bs? I thought hazing was out of fashion? :) ++Lar: t/c 07:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• I thought we were trying to ensure enough open seats for WP:ACE2010 by right-sizing the committee as soon as possible. MBisanz ^talk 07:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Why is that link red?? Carcharoth (talk) 09:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• If it was already a blue link by this time of year I was intending on blocking whomever created it :P MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Never heard of it. Awesome job getting this out there. Hiberniantears (talk) 07:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• An important function (symbolically). Good appointments. -- Proofreader77 ^(interact) 08:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Announcement

The announcement ought probably clarify the statement that "The current composition of AUSC (and the end-dates of their respective terms) is therefore: Risker (28 February 2010), Rlevse (30 April 2010) and Kirill Lokshin (30 June 2010)" to add the qualifier "arbitrator members" or make note of the other three members of the AUSC.

On another point, if it's not a sensitive matter, can we assume that Newyorkbrad's resignation is due to unavailability? Cheers,  Skomorokh  13:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Yes, it probably should. I'll tweak it accordingly and then we have it as a boilerplate.
2. Yes (and it's not a sensitive matter).  Roger Davies ^talk 13:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response Roger, much appreciated.  Skomorokh  15:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

To augment: I stepped off the subcommittee because I've been on a business trip with very limited wiki access for the past week, and have another couple of trips coming up in the next few weeks, so it turned out that this was not a sensible time for me to retain this assignment. (One person being inactive for a week on an 18-member Arbitration Committee is not a problem; one person being inactive out of three arbitrator members on a subcommittee can grind the subcommittee to a halt.) I will volunteer for a full rotation on the subcommittee later this year when my schedule is better. Thanks for the inquiry. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Announcement

• As checkuser involved, I'm good with this. So long as DollyD abides by the conditions, I can't see any problems - Alison ^❤ 22:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Announcement

Temporarily desysopped? So, we'll be seeing him again soon I hope. Anyway, congratulations again arbcom on deleting yet another useful editor. Majorly talk 23:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean a) the checkusers are wrong b) ArbCom shouldn't desysop ban-evading sockpuppets or c) the announcement is untruthful?  Skomorokh  23:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll go for b with a hint of c (because I very much doubt Cool3 will be resysopped). Majorly talk 23:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the clarification. Cheers,  Skomorokh  23:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

All emergency desysops are temporary until they are either reversed or become permanent. It's a fast track procedure to use when accounts with high level permissions are or appear to be compromised.  Roger Davies ^talk 23:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how this meets Level I procedures "emergency" desysop. Please explain. Majorly talk 00:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You honestly think Kohs was using the Cool3 account since 2005? Nathan ^T 00:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Majorly talk 00:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There's an account. Obviously compromised (Multiple checkusers have signed off on it being used by a banned user, before we even thought about asking for the de-sysop). Per the part of L1 Proceedures that states Level I procedures may be used if (a) an account appears to be obviously compromised. Not sure what you're missing here.. SirFozzie (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Clearly you're discussing everything important out of sight for some bizarre reason. I know arbcom likes to act in secret, but it needs to stop. Majorly talk 00:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Not so bizzare. Has a lot to do with Checks being run and revealing IP addresses, which is not fit for public consumption per se.--Tznkai (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Nobody bothered mentioning a compromise in the announcement; clearly you expect people to be able to mindread such things. Regardless, it was in no way an emergency because the account clearly wasn't doing any damage to Wikipedia. Majorly talk 00:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking to me? I'm just responding to the secrecy issue you brought up. It seems I can't keep track of what your problem with the issue is exactly.--Tznkai (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea any more, I am just so sick and tired of arbcom fouling up time after time. Majorly talk 00:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(Unindent) Majorly, here's why. As we ran through a routine Checkuser, a couple of confirmed sockpuppets popped up along with this admin account. We blocked the sockpuppet accounts right away, as they were editing actively. As the the puppeteer would then have realized that his socks have been compromised, he probably would have nothing to lose with the remaining admin account if he knew that it's going to be desysopped anyway. Imagine the amount of potential damage if we decided to wait and see. This is why the Committee agreed that an emergency temporary desysop was necessary. - Mailer Diablo 01:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Has legal been contacted RE this issue? Hipocrite (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Why would they be? Majorly talk 00:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

18 U.S.C. § 1030. Hipocrite (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

For those who don't have the Unites States Code memorized (unlike myself, of course), we have an article at the inobvious name of Protected computer that explains what Hipocrite means. Given the history between Kohs and Jimbo, bringing this to Mike Godwin's attention is pretty reasonable. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

We wouldn't have standing, regardless. We have no way to know how the account exchanged hands; for all we know the transfer of control was entirely willing in which case no laws have been broken (although our policies have been), and even if not the putative victim is an editor and not the foundation or one of its agents. — Coren ^(talk) 01:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If the law governs unauthorized access to a computer, and we suppose that the unauthorized access in question is that of Cool3 to WMF servers, then it would appear to be the owner of the computers that has standing. Not that any of this is particularly relevant to real circumstances, but... Nathan ^T 01:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Its been tried.--Tznkai (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think the circumstances in US v. Lori Drew are sufficiently different (wrt to "unauthorized access") that it doesn't really apply, but there again is that actual relevance problem :-P Nathan ^T 01:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hypothetical question Would an account sold by one person to another be labelled a "compromised account"? On a second note, where is the evidence this account was going any damage to Wikipedia? GTD 01:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not material, because both would have led to — essentially — the same result (though the procedure might have been slightly different if we had a way of distinguishing between the two). In this case, the person currently in control of the account is not the person who passed RfA; either it was compromised in which case it needs to be desysopped very swiftly, or it was given willingly in which case it also needs to be desysopped but "only" swiftly (because it's a banned user, and would not be the user who passed RfA anyways). We prefer to assume in good faith that the original owner has not given their consent. — Coren ^(talk) 01:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Since we're drumming up legal terminology, ban evasion is damage to Wikipedia per se, approximately the same way that willfully invading another's home and "not causing any damage" is still trespass, and operating on someone without their consent is still battery even if you "did no harm."--Tznkai (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Though if the person invading the house were to redecorate a couple of rooms exactly as the owners wanted, all at their own (the invader's) cost...sure, they'd still be trespassing, but...? GTD 01:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

And they'd still be trespassing. Follow the paralell argument for say, plastic surgery and see where it leads you. Wikipedia, as a whole (as much as we can act as a whole) have chosen to say "no" and to exclude a certain editor, and that is approximately where the conversation ends. You can have a different discussion on whether that decision was wise, or metaphysically correct, but that is a different conversation that has nothing to do with the sense of the follow up action, unless somehow the original decision is so lacking in merit it is infact out right evil to support it. Issues that have fallen into this category include 1. genocide 2. slavery. 3. murder. They do not include banning people from websites.--Tznkai (talk) 01:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Banned users cannot force a review of their bans by acquiring admin accounts. That would be absurd. Durova⁴⁰¹ 16:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Could a checkuser comment on how far into the past there is evidence of a compromised account? It would be worth looking over the edits. Dragons flight (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Clearly the only reasonable action, the desysoping of the account, has been done. Short of some impressive explanation and some good evidence to back it up I don't think it will be "temporary" either. More information is always nice and I look forward to it, but I do understand privacy and "beans" reasons not to disclose some information and methods. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Clearly, the ArbCom decided to run a checkuser on Thekohser after MZMcBride handed him a list of BLPs articles to do little "experiment" on. For context see [6]. Sole Soul (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope.--Tznkai (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

More likely it related to the alleged "sock-master" sharing information with a checkuser in a restricted-access Wikipedia Review forum, if we're really keeping score GTD 03:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, by the looks of this edit, Thekohser appears to have acquired the account in early December. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Assuming that's the case, why wouldn't Cool3 come forward via a different account or IP and announce the account had been compromised, unless the account was handed over willingly? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It could simply be that cool3 does not used Wikipedia anymore and that is why he did not notice. Either way the result is the same. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• General Comment I think Arbcom could spare everyone a portion of the confusion and argument when there things like this come up with some slight changes to the standard announcement. First if the word "emergency" were replaced with "expedited" it would avoid the confusion along the lines of "What emergency? They haven't even edited in the past 48 hours". Secondly if the standard announcement ended with something along the lines of "This account will remain temporarily desysoped until the full ArbCom votes to either reinstate or permanently desysop the account." With a link to some page where the permanent motion will take live. That way anyone concerned about final resolution of the matter can watchlist that page and there will less confusion over what is meant by "temporary".--BirgitteSB 01:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with the above suggestions. They sound like generally positive clarifications. The change from emergency to expedited is especially appropriate. In addition, it should be noted that this will not entail a change to the Committee procedure, just the announcement, since the official term is neither emergency nor expedited but Level I — James Kalmar 06:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, Birgitte. The first change is easy to implement and probably desirable; the second is much less straightforward as under the current procedure the desysop stays in place until it is appealed by the desysopped editor (either in public or by email) and a determination is made.  Roger Davies ^talk 07:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was mistaken about the procedure there. I would recommend removing the word "temporary" in the announcement given that actual procedure. It doesn't really add anything except confusion. If you wanted to be precise you could say: "This motion will stand until Arbcom receives an an appeal from User:Foo explaining what has happened." But I don't see an issue with just dropping it entirely. --BirgitteSB 01:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)