Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 18

message: My appeal request was removed on the grounds that, at 5-2, it was mathematically impossible to get approval to accept it. I will accept the math on faith, but it seems that, if there is at least significant minority support for reconsidering the penalties, the ArbCom should be willing to tell me a time when it would be willing to listen to another appeal request, assuming that the ArbCom finds none of my behavior objectionable in the meantime. Everyking 04:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was not dismissed with any prejudice, so you can always relist it if you feel circumstances have improved.  It may be better to get in touch with a few of the arbitrators before relisting to get their opinion on the matter - testing the waters, so to speak.  Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 05:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually did "test the waters" prior to the appeal request and got a favorable response, which is why I made the request. And the only way circumstances could improve is through the passage of time (by further increasing the length of my uncontroversial record), which is why I'm asking the arbitrators if they can specify a certain length of time they would like to pass before I make another request. Frankly, I don't feel your comments pertaining to my case (here and in the request discussion) are informed enough to be useful, and considering the sensitivity of the situation I find it difficult to avoid taking offense at them, rightly or wrongly. Everyking 07:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem lies in the fact that really, such a matter is entirely subjective, and does not lend itself to hard-and-fast numbers.  Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 07:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: So why did you vote to accept the appeal? Everyking 19:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Fred, if you did not feel an appeal is appropriate, then why did you put forth agreement to hear it?  I'm assuming good faith that your opinion has changed or something needs clarification ... but that seems off to me.  Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume that, although Fred voted to accept the appeal, now that the appeal has been rejected, he believes no further appeal would be "appropriate before the ban runs its course." Paul August ☎ 20:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: As said above, I don't believe that the rejection of the appeal means that you can't re-appeal at any time. However, even as one who voted to accept the appeal, I would strongly recommend you wait some time to strongly demonstrate why the current restrictions should be lifted, or why the situation has changed since we last looked at it. Thanks. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I said: I intend to wait some time, but I'm hoping the ArbCom will give me a ballpark figure about how long a period this should be. There is a key problem, though: did the ArbCom reject the case because not enough time has passed, or is the amount of time irrelevant because, as Raul argued, I have not repented? Only Raul was explicit about this; I don't know whether the other arbitrators fall into the "wait longer" or "thought crime" groups. Everyking 04:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the arbitrators refuse to give me a ballpark figure or give me any information whatsoever about what will satisfy them, they could at least say that so I don't sit here waiting for a response for days and days. What is the point of not responding? Are they just trying to annoy me? Well, it works, but I would like to think the arbitrators are above that kind of thing and can at least deal with people honestly. Everyking 10:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyking I sympathize with your obvious frustration. Can you please be more specific about exactly what response you are waiting for? Do you want every arbiter to respond to your questions? Here is mine. First, I do not know of any ongoing discussions on this matter. Second, I have made no judgments on the merits of your recent appeal or any future appeal. Third, a new appeal in the near future would be inappropriate. If you want a ballpark figure, I would recommend waiting several months. Regards Paul August ☎ 20:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I was specific; I said I was hoping to be told how long a time should pass before I make another appeal. The other issue is that I am concerned that some arbitrators (Raul specifically, but others may hold his view as well) may not be willing to accept an appeal at any time, regardless of my actions or lack thereof, because they want me to say that the ArbCom's judgments in past cases have been correct, which is something I cannot truthfully do. But according to Raul, if I do not say this it is likely that I will go back to doing whatever the ArbCom did not like before as soon as the restrictions are lifted. My reply to this is that my less controversial behavior is due to prudence and a concern with getting effective results, and there is no reason why that would change if the restrictions were lifted. If the ArbCom is going to reject any future appeal, regardless of how much time passes, simply cause I will not confess make-believe sins, then I would really like to know that now, as opposed to finding it out the hard way upon making another appeal in three or six months. Everyking 23:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that I cannot speak for the rest of the ArbCom, have I answered your question adequately? Paul August ☎ 23:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you say "several months", I guess that means you think that the passage of time without controversial behavior should lead to lifting of the sanctions? Everyking 00:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (I also hope that I've answered your questions adequately, being one who voted to accept your appeal. Thanks!) Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appeal removal 

message: Since it looks like we really want the voting scheme for accepting cases changed, I'm going to list the one's that have been put up for consideration here. If I've missed one, add it in. Keep all comments in a separate section, this one is just for listing the proposed alternative methods. --Barberio 16:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if I wasn't clear. By expeditiously, I didn't mean "instantaneously," I meant "without waiting for ten days." Newyorkbrad 19:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This has been resolved by Barbiero's addition of what is now alternative # 4.  (Thank you.)  6SJ7 16:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: True, but that may or may not last as the new arbitrators get more active. Newyorkbrad 19:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I second that. Sorting it now makes a lot more sense than waiting until it causes problems. Trebor 21:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Thirded. This needs to be looked at now, since there has already been a case that might have been accepted under other methods, and it's rejection appears controversial rejection of a majority opinion. --Barberio 01:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed; I'll bring this up on the mailing list for some more discussion. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Just an update: this is being actively discussed. Thanks!) Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like most of us favored the status quo, although several (myself included) did prefer other acceptance schemes. (I thought that option number four - the two net votes with a minimum of four accept - was the best choice.) Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: So to clarify (not being a WP:DICK, I swear!), nothing has changed, and the average readership still doesn't know why.  Correct?  :(  /Blaxthos 00:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really, it boiled down to "because we like it the way it is now", with a bit of "it works, don't fix it." --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll point out that the participation rate (in accepting/rejecting a case) seems higher now than a few months back. Are the arbitrators comfortable rejecting cases when the vote is in favor of accepting by 5-2? 6-3? 7-4? 8-7? 8-6? 8-5? How about 9-6? As long as you, as a committee, are aware of these possibilities and have decided that you are ok rejecting in those cases, I think everything is ok. But rather than have this blow up and cause community consternation on some super-contentious RfA a few months down the line, I'd sort of like to hear the ArbCom say, explicitly "We will be rejecting cases with totals such as 9 accept to 6 reject, but that fail to obtain 4 net positive votes." Jd2718 14:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I initiated the discussion on the mailing list to try and get more feedback from other Arbitrators, given that the discussion on this page had seemed to die out. I did, however, point to this conversation and we all considered the comments and opinions on it heavily. I, myself, preferred the two net accept votes with four total accept votes that was first proposed in the thread, because of the very concerns brought up here - close cases where a majority favoring acceptance being rejected, as Jd2718 points out. The other arbitrators, though, seemed to prefer the status quo, arguing that the current system was working and that any changes would lower the threshold, allowing some cases that arguably should not have been accepted to be accepted and heard. I will not, though, pretend to speak for my fellow arbitrators, so I'll let them explain their opinions here. :-) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed new voting schemes 

message: Removed "expeditiously."  The clerks will always observe a 24 hour waiting period.  Additional arbitrators may wish to vote (affect the net total) or there may be private discussion that would result in changed votes. Thatcher131 16:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if I wasn't clear. By expeditiously, I didn't mean "instantaneously," I meant "without waiting for ten days." Newyorkbrad 19:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This has been resolved by Barbiero's addition of what is now alternative # 4.  (Thank you.)  6SJ7 16:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of wording of alternatives

message: There are 15 arbitrators on ArbCom, but you will rarely see more than 8 voting... -- Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 16:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but that may or may not last as the new arbitrators get more active. Newyorkbrad 19:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on alternatives

message: This discussion has petered out again, which remains understandable, since there are far more interesting things to be discussed, both on the arbitration pages and in the actual encyclopedia. Still, I would urge that the Arbitration Committee revisit the issue of the required majority to accept a case and resolve it. As of now, the "four net accept votes" rule remains in effect, even though I suspect that of the alternatives above it would enjoy the least support.
If the matter isn't addressed, the issue will blow up when some hugely controversial case gets a vote of something like 8-5 to accept it, and an arbitrator removes the case from the page with the comment that the case was rejected/declined because it didn't have 4 net support votes, and at that point someone will say he or she didn't know that was the rule, and there will be a long discussion about the matter, except then everyone's comments will be suspect because there will be a feeling that they are driven by views of the underlying case rather than the abstract vote-counting issue.  And if the rule is changed then, there will be protests about "changing the rules in the middle of the game," which always become heated and emotional. I know the committee has a more than full plate to deal with, but I still urge that this be addressed now. Newyorkbrad 20:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that. Sorting it now makes a lot more sense than waiting until it causes problems. Trebor 21:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Thirded. This needs to be looked at now, since there has already been a case that might have been accepted under other methods, and it's rejection appears controversial rejection of a majority opinion. --Barberio 01:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed; I'll bring this up on the mailing list for some more discussion. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Just an update: this is being actively discussed. Thanks!) Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like most of us favored the status quo, although several (myself included) did prefer other acceptance schemes. (I thought that option number four - the two net votes with a minimum of four accept - was the best choice.) Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: So to clarify (not being a WP:DICK, I swear!), nothing has changed, and the average readership still doesn't know why.  Correct?  :(  /Blaxthos 00:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really, it boiled down to "because we like it the way it is now", with a bit of "it works, don't fix it." --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll point out that the participation rate (in accepting/rejecting a case) seems higher now than a few months back. Are the arbitrators comfortable rejecting cases when the vote is in favor of accepting by 5-2? 6-3? 7-4? 8-7? 8-6? 8-5? How about 9-6? As long as you, as a committee, are aware of these possibilities and have decided that you are ok rejecting in those cases, I think everything is ok. But rather than have this blow up and cause community consternation on some super-contentious RfA a few months down the line, I'd sort of like to hear the ArbCom say, explicitly "We will be rejecting cases with totals such as 9 accept to 6 reject, but that fail to obtain 4 net positive votes." Jd2718 14:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I initiated the discussion on the mailing list to try and get more feedback from other Arbitrators, given that the discussion on this page had seemed to die out. I did, however, point to this conversation and we all considered the comments and opinions on it heavily. I, myself, preferred the two net accept votes with four total accept votes that was first proposed in the thread, because of the very concerns brought up here - close cases where a majority favoring acceptance being rejected, as Jd2718 points out. The other arbitrators, though, seemed to prefer the status quo, arguing that the current system was working and that any changes would lower the threshold, allowing some cases that arguably should not have been accepted to be accepted and heard. I will not, though, pretend to speak for my fellow arbitrators, so I'll let them explain their opinions here. :-) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This issue still needs to be resolved

message: The ArbCom has banned me from the AN pages, but there is now a distinct but somewhat similar Wikipedia:Community noticeboard. I would like to have the option of posting there, and although a literal interpretation of my ruling would leave me free to post there, past instances when I have assumed a literal intepretation have left me in a world of hurt. So I would like clarification from the ArbCom if it would be acceptable for me to post there, except about admin actions, obviously. I figured this point was minor enough to resolve here and not on the main page, but if I must make a formal request, say so. Everyking 08:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to argue about the merits of such a ban, but I interpret the spirit of the remedy as including the new noticeboard as somewhere where you are prohibited from posting or commenting, even on non-administrative actions. Thanks for asking for clarification. Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what about the Village pump? Is the new noticeboard more similar to AN or the Village pump? I don't think the arbitrators would object to my posting on the Village pump (although I've been wrong before). Everyking 20:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You know, how many people are there on the ArbCom now? Surely more than one read this talk page? If not, I recommend they post their phone numbers or something. I already know they don't respond to e-mail. Seriously, getting a response is harder than pulling teeth. I've now spent eight days waiting for clarification on this one minor issue. It's just ridiculously frustrating. Everyking 13:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will point some of the other Arbitrators here on the mailing list so that they're aware of your question. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small point of clarification 

message: At present, arbitration requests that the ArbCom votes not to accept are simply removed from WP:RfAr with no archiving. When it is desired to obtain information about such a case (for example, when the same or a related dispute continues or recurs, or if the arbitrators have made useful comments in voting on the case), an editor often has to search through the page history of RfAr to locate a version from just before the case was removed from the page. A page listing some rejected cases is contained at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests, but it is correctly described as "very sparse, incomplete, and unofficial." It often falls behind, despite efforts to keep it up-to-date, and the pages are displayed in the form of the diff in which the case was removed from the page, making the case difficult to read.
I can understand the rationale for not archiving these cases, as they represent disputes that will hopefully be resolved through other means. On the other hand, we archive a lot of pages that are less significant than the arbitration requests page. In addition to the administrators' noticeboards, I noticed yesterday that even routine complaints to the WP:3RR noticeboard are archived and presumably preserved indefinitely. It's hard to believe that archives of RfAr requests wouldn't be more useful than that.
Perhaps when an arbitrator or clerk removes a case that has not been accepted, instead of just deleting it, the thread could be copied to a /Rejected cases page. The three or four most recent declined cases would be kept on that page, and when it gets too bulky, the older cases could be copied to an /Archive page. This would probably have to be done manually (an RfAr has too many subheadings for Essjaybot or Werdnabot to parse it whole and not in pieces), but I don't think it would be time-consuming and I'd be willing to undertake it. Limited editorial discretion could be used to exclude blatantly harassing or frivolous filings (the ones that are removed without even waiting for a formal reject vote), if desired.
I'd welcome arbitrators' and others' comments on this suggestion. Newyorkbrad 16:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's merit in archiving. Perhaps only with a pointer to the right place in the history of the RfAr page, rather than with a formal copied over text sort of conventional archive... but finding past rejected cases is hard. Not as hard as finding past things on AN/I, but hard. Whether it's really a thing that gets done enough to make the merit outweigh the cost/effort would be another question, I don't have stats on how often people go looking for this sort of thing. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 16:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wouldn't be hard to do. Maybe we should use transclusions to make it downright simple? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in favor of archiving declined requests.  For instance, I would have liked to refer to the first Ghirlandajo request that was declined.  --Ideogram 18:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There is considerable merit in doing this, and I strongly support it. Paul August ☎ 19:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the potential problems is frivolous or even trolling requests and giving them a permanent home that Google can find. Rejected cases should only be archived in diff form, as they are listed currently at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests. Dmcdevit·t 19:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is it determined which pages are visible to Google?  I thought that talk pages, for instance, are not visible to Google.  --Ideogram 21:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Most pages are visible to Google unless they're explicitly set not to.  I don't know about talk pages, but I know that if it was preferred, a line could be added to robots.txt to hide it from Google.  Ral315 (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think talk pages are included; see the robots.txt file - there is no "talk" in the disallow section for en. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Point being, if RFAR's were transcluded on separate pages, like RFA, they would be preserved and searchable via google. (For example).  It would certainly be within reason to make the diff links at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests "official", and if there is a missing case you want added, you can add it yourself if you can find the diff, or ask a clerk. Thatcher131 15:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving rejected/declined requests 

message: :Comments by uninvolved editors have been moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Notability guidelines Thatcher131 18:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? That was never done before. What suddenly made other people's opinions less worthy of being here on the case? pschemp | talk 20:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: UninvitedCompany moved them to the main talk page here with a note to the effect that this page should only be for statements by parties, and uninvolved parties should comment on the talk page.     Since the case is 3-0 now, there is a good chance it will open, so I moved them to the talk page of the eventual case, which is where uninvolved statements usually go once a case is opened.  You'll need to see Uninvited about the original move. Thatcher131 20:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I saw that, but that's never been the way cases are run before. What benefit is the change? Personally, I'm a bit offended that my comments were just chucked off to a talk page nobody will read. pschemp | talk 20:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been common to move such comments to the talk page of an open case for some time now—although, frankly, I'm not convinced that it's beneficial—but I have no idea why this is being done before the case is actually opened. Kirill Lokshin 21:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also would recommend that comments on pending requests not be moved to talk. When I make such a comment, it is either input for the arbitrators on whether or not I believe the case should be accepted and why, and/or suggestions for the parties on how to proceed (as in my comment on the French orthography case). I don't see how communication with either the parties or the arbitrators will be promoted by shunting the more impartial portion of the input to a talkpage that no one may think to check. Therefore, with the possible exception of when the comments become truly exceptional in length, I would recommend reverting to the former practice of leaving the comments on the main RfAr page while the case is pending as an application. (I would not, however, recommend that anyone be offended by what was obviously intended just as a shortening of the page.) Newyorkbrad 21:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with you, but "this isn't a vote." Or at least, we aren't the voters. :) Newyorkbrad 21:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, careless use of terms.  :-)  --Ideogram 21:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there should be a 25-cent (U.S.) fine every time someone says "this isn't a vote," but I  guess that is another issue.  (Well maybe not, see below.)  :)   6SJ7 21:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a general issue, not specific to the notability case.  Uninvited moved comments in 3 cases. Thatcher131 21:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I did not notice that... but then again, my comment really is about the notability case itself, and not so much about the moving of comments to the talk page.  If I had put it on the main page, presumably it would have been moved to somewhere on this page anyway, so I saved someone some work.   :)  6SJ7 22:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I see no reason to be overly strict here.  Outside statements are often quite helpful at this stage (if only because the statements made by the involved parties are sometimes incoherent); while there's no reason to have extensive commentary or threaded discussion there, I don't see any harm in permitting brief remarks by uninvolved (or semi-involved) users. Kirill Lokshin 23:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict, to UC) I understand your point, and ultimately it's for you and the other arbitrators to decide whether uninvolved users' comments are helpful in deciding which cases to accept, so as to justify their being left on the main RfAr page. I can accept that RfAr isn't an open forum for amici curiae submissions at the acceptance stage. On the other hand, within the past week or two, third-party comments have provided information such as: that the parties to a pending request were now engaged in mediation; that there were ongoing threads about a case pending on the noticeboard that would give the arbitrators a flavor of the dispute; that there were prior ArbCom decisions directly on point that could help the parties resolve their dispute if the case weren't accepted; or that a number of administrators believed a situation required ArbCom attention because several different experienced admins had been unable to resolve it. I think the case selection process (and the user-friendliness of the process to the parties) is enhanced by keeping input of this nature where the arbitrators and the parties are sure to see it. Newyorkbrad 23:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly so. NYBrad has given lots of different examples of why uninvolved party comments have direct benefit to ArbCom in some cases, and above, there are several quite experienced editors saying they think that moving the comments is a bad thing, or even that they were somewhat offended that their comments were shunted to the side. So it would seem that there are good reasons for leaving them, and no real good reasons (other than "we've always done it that way, or at least said we did, although as it turns out we actually didn't always") for removing them. So I'd strongly suggest that the movement be reverted and precedent reexamined. ++Lar: t/c 03:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think we have to assume that the arbitrators read the entire contents of a case before voting.  That is the declared intent of at least some, and hopefully the intent of all.  Regarding your specific question about Philwelch, some findings of fact have already been proposed on the workshop page.  You may wish to comment there. Thatcher131 03:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the same question, I think my statement here:  has some useful evidence in it for the case, but there isn't anything more to say on it beyond what I said, in my view, unless I'm asked to comment more or something changes drastically. What should be done with it? It seems silly to re-enter it in the evidence section, but it is evidence. ++Lar: t/c 03:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've wondered the same thing and would welcome the arbitrators' comment on it, but in the meantime I suppose you could put in a sentence saying that your opening statement contained your evidence and giving a link. Newyorkbrad 03:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Great. Can someone move the ones on the pending cases back then? pschemp | talk 06:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except for the French naming case (with NYbrad's lone comment) the other two cases are 4-0 and will open tomorrow (unless there is an objection), at which point the outside comments will end up right where there are now.  Not much point in moving them back for 12 hours, don't you think? Thatcher131 06:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll chime in and say that I also don't think the comments should have been moved off the front page. Quadzilla99 17:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should comments by uninvolved editors be moved off the main page? 

message: The Derek Smart case has been on "Motion to close" for almost a month, with no activity except for Charles Matthews voting last week.  I don't think leaving is open is hurting anything, although I am curious to see the outcome (and I'm sure others are too) :) Adam 20:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While we're on the topic, I left this message for Uninvited Company on Monday. Despite him being online, I have yet to receive a reply. I'd be grateful if another arbitrator could answer. – Steel 20:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what's going on in that case either (note that I won't be participating in that case since I'm automatically recused, because the case was accepted prior to our elections, and I haven't looked at it in-depth); from my brief run-through of the case, though, it would seem appropriate to include disruptive IP edits along with single-purpose accounts. I'll give a heads-up on the mailing list, prodding people to action on this case. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Derek Smart case 

message: ::09:23, 19 February 2007 Osli73 (Talk | contribs) 
::21:38, 18 February 2007 Osli73 (Talk | contribs)  
Ilir pz, Hipi Zhdripi, Vezaso, Dardanv, Ferick, Laughing Man, Osli73, and Tonycdp are placed on standard revert parole for one year. Each is limited to one revert per article per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, each is required to discuss any content reversions on the article's talk page. For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, 03:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  parole violation, Osli73 currently edit warring 

message: Is there a difference between "decline" and "reject" when adding up the votes to decide on whether a case is accepted or not? Just curious. ElinorD (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No; the two are used interchangably. "Reject" was primarily used until more recently, when "decline" has become more common, but there is no difference between the two. Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. "Reject" seems stronger, and I though it might carry more weight. ElinorD (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) "Reject" was used almost universally until the new arbitrators came in at the beginning of the year. I believe "decline" came naturally to a couple of them who had experience at Requests for Checkuser, where "decline" is the term ordinarily used in turning down a request. (On that board, Mackensen introduced the use of "rejected", with a wastebasket icon that Thatcher131 found, for completely frivolous requests; the original proposed wording was "thrown out"). "Declined" is a bit more cordial to good-faith users who made a decent presentation of their case, even though the committee decided not to hear it. But from the clerks' point of view as well, the terms are completely interchangeable. Newyorkbrad 01:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I personally prefer "reject" and have to stop and think to say "decline" instead; I tend to think of it more as "This request is rejected" rather than "We decline to get involved." I think it may stem from my work on the Mediation Committee, where we use "reject." Essjay (Talk) 01:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decline and reject 

message: Wikipedia shouldn't be censored because someone has a political agenda. Unfortunately, some participants have been trying to censor it irrationally, well, as far as anything about Falun Dafa goes.
On an unrelated note, Falun Dafa's use of swastikas as a symbol is kinda spooky. But that's just my POV, and I'll stay out of that issue.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 02:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Swastikas have a different connotation in Hindu-Buddhist cultures than in Europe. The word "swastika" means blessing in Sanskrit, if I am right. And we invented it first. Borisblue 13:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the voluminous Talk:Falun Gong archives, there is quite a bit of discussion that the symbol (which usually stands for the number 10,000 in China, hence 10,000 blessings, etc.) has been used by millions of people for hundreds of years (at least) who have never heard of the Nazis or Falun Gong. --Fire Star 火星 17:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Falun Gong]] 

message: For the record, with regard to the arbitration request "Move of Józef Łukaszewicz",  while adding my own opinion, declining to hear the matter, I inadvertently removed the opinion of arbiter UninvitedCompany, also declining to hear the matter . The request was subsequently removed as "declined 5-0", before my mistake could be fixed. Paul August ☎ 21:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake with regard to "Move of Józef Łukaszewicz" request 

message: I understand that archiving of denied arbitration requests is a partial and spotty thing.  For the next few months it would help the community if requests that relate to community bans were archived for easy reference.  Denied requests have a good likelihood of getting cited in community discussions of WP:BAN and WP:DE.  Community bans are a developing area and some aspects probably would benefit from refinement. DurovaCharge! 20:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They can certainly be archived if someone wishes to do so; I believe that was one of the arguments for why all rejected requests should be archived and not be available just in the page history. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving of community ban-related requests 

message: At (0/7/0/0), and 12 active arbitrators, there was no way this was going to be accepted, so I removed the section. I would've waited for a clerk, but the fact that there's no benefit to keeping it, and the fact that it's time to move forward, lead me to just be bold and do it. I do hope there aren't any objections. Picaroon 04:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OMG A NON-CLERK REMOVED A REQUEST! We must revert... oh wait, if we can't remove requests, we can't readd them either. I know, let's go find an arbitrator to reinstate it so they can remove it. -Amarkov moo! 05:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essjay RFAR 

message: According to :
:Note. User:JzG has just forged that evidence. See the logs for that page. It was deleted by User:Jeffery O. Gustafson (improperly I might add since he was that subject of that RFC and he's known to abuse his powers), then JzG restored the page to turn around and accuse User:Echo16 of blanking and then banned him. I recommed User:JzG's sysop powers immediately be revoked and he be banned for this obvious smear. -- DailyIllini 16:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bambenek 

message: Just a note to say that despite the discussion Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Archive_17#Number_of_votes_required_for_case_acceptance here, where the consensus was that the 'four votes net' system was fundamentally flawed and should be replaced, the 'four votes net' system is still in place and there appears to have been no consideration given to changing it. --Barberio 15:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most recent discussion is here. Thatcher131 15:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree that the system is still fundamentally flawed, I will say that there was subsequent discussion.  If memory serves correctly, no change was made and it was decided (decreed? *grin*) that the ArbCom themselves get to decide what acceptance mechanism is used.  While I don't agree, I accepted their deicision as final (and is now the law).  :-(  I'm glad they at least did some discussion on it, though.  /Blaxthos 15:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may well be something to be brought up later this year during the nomination process for new/returning arbcom members. --Barberio 15:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The same was said last time elections were on the horizon.  ;-)  To be fair, newyorkbrad did follow through on that comment, IIRC.  /Blaxthos 16:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I commented there, I myself did not prefer the current system, but most other Arbitrators seemed to disagree. I'm always open to changing it (indeed, considering I do not prefer the current way), but hopefully we can get some more opinions from other Arbitrators here. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting to accept 

message: Arbitration Committee Members,
A case has recently come across our desk that I rejected, since it's not a situation that I believe could be properly solved through mediation. I am not referring this case formally to ArbCom, but I do recommend you look into it and see if it has merit of something that is worth being looked into. Thanks, and good evening.
:On behalf of the Mediation Committee ^demon[omg plz] 23:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes, I remember V. Z. quite well from the RFCU move-war. Daniel Bryant 05:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rejected RfM 

message: Should we talk about WP:AMA arbcom Team? --CyclePat 02:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why?  (There is relevant discussion here and here. Thatcher131 02:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I confess that I haven't felt the need–convince me. Mackensen (talk) 02:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding of the above comments is that you have an interest to learn more about the Arbcom AMAT (AMA Team). What are the benefits? What are the services provided? Your above questions concerning AMA arbcom team are dully noted. I will forward your request to the team and ask them to prepare a proposal. An exemple question may be: "Should the project page to Request for arbitration include a small reference to guide wikipedians towards AMA Arbcom team?" Furthermore, our answer could talk about the 101's of publicity and market segmentation. In the mean time you may wish to learn more about the AMA Arbcom team by clicking going to the Arbcom AMA team project page. --CyclePat 13:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm here to defend the team. I'd personally like to see a minor cooperation between you and our team; who are we to know who is longing for an advocate or not? Put the link and let people decide... but give'em the chance! If users don't like us, we're useless; if people like our team, it would be common sense to leave a link. --Neigel von Teighen 13:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the bottom line here is that AMA members are free, as is any member of the community, to offer evidence or comment on the workshop page, but there is no contemplation of official recognition at this time. Thatcher131 23:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:AMA]] 

message: Community enforceable mediation has entered a 90 day experimental phase.  This can provide a simpler alternative to arbitration for some disputes.  Suitable cases would have:
*Two disputants.
*No allegations of sockpuppetry.
*Aspects of user conduct/policy violations overlapping the content dispute.
*Basically mature and reasonable participants.
Regards, DurovaCharge! 03:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:CEM|Community enforceable mediation]] experimental rollout 

message: For several months I've had a standing offer to any editor who gets sanctioned at arbitration (short of sitebanning) that I'll award The Resilient Barnstar if they start a new article that gets highlighted at Template:Did you know.  I've recently created a new set of personal user awards called Wikipedia's triple crown for editors who create a DYK entry plus become major contributors to a  good article and to a piece of featured content.  A special edition triple crown called the valiant return triple crown is available to editors who satisfy all three requirements after an arbitration sanction or a lifted siteban: if people are willing to come back from the edge, I'm willing to thank them. DurovaCharge! 02:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards available post-arbitration 

message: This case can be archived, the dispute was resolved via third party opinion, the parties in conflict have come to an agreement. Russeasby 01:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that's good news. Just for our follow-up here, could you provide us a link to where this happened or have the initiating party withdraw the request? Thanks, Newyorkbrad 01:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can see consensus in the Edit Summerys in the last two edits in edit history  not friendly, but seems a comprimise was accepted.  The discussion on Talk:The_Black_Swan_%28film%29 under "Opinion from a third party" ( cant seem to link directly to it without a TOC on the page).  Turns out the disputed content was WP:COPYVIO anyways  which ended up making much of the dispute moot and I think effectively saw the end of it. Russeasby 02:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure what sort of notes you add to these when you archive them, but it may be worth noting that I filed a checkuser on User:NathanielPoe and User:FrankWilliams here .  Since it was rejected by ArbCom (where the checkuser would normally be initiated) I filed it there myself, not sure if it needs inclusion in the notes here at all. Russeasby 02:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rejected cases don't have any force at all, since they were never acted on.  We keep a list, because sometimes the same disputes recur, but there are no negative consequences to having been  listed in a case that was never accepted.  You should pursue your checkuser request separately.  Please keep talking about the article, and remember that solving disputes outside of arbitration is always preferred. Thatcher131 03:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the response Thatcher, it verifies what I thought was the right course of action.  I was nothing more then a third party here, stumbling upon it while following something else listed here. As is unavoidable some things can be unclear and I mentioned the checkuser mainly because it came across as a grey area in my understanding of policy, better to be safe then appear sneaky. Thank you for the clarification.  Russeasby 04:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Case NathanielPoe and Clarityfiend 

message: Since ArbCom is the last step of dispute resolution on Wikipedia, someone new to the dispute resolution process would expect that if a contetn dispute fails to be resolved through mediation or RFC, it should go to ArbCom. They will get a rude shock when the ArbCom rejects the case as a content dispute.
Consider a content dispute on a political controversy, involving many editors - some new, some experienced. If all other avenues fail, even if there are few conduct issues, if the participants want the ArbCom to decide the content dispute, the ArbCom should do so. Otherwise, the dispute will go unresolved, leading to more drama and stress for the participants - some experienced editors may leave other the dispute. 
Given the issue and the number of editors involved, the dispute is likely to escalate to the point where participants edit war, make personal attacks, etc. and an arbitration case is neccesary to sort out the mess. If the ArbCom only rules on conduct, by imposing penalties on the major participants, but refuses to rule on the content, the dispute will continue with another list of participants.
Focusing on conduct encourages participants in an arbitration case to comment on the contributor, rather than the content. This has led to some disputes between two users making it to ArbCom, despite little content being involved. Consider an edit war between two users, A and B. A's version is better, but A consistently makes personal attacks and resorts to sockpuppetry, while B does not. If the ArbCom ruled on this case, and focused on conduct, A would probably be banned from Wikipedia, or at least the article. With A gone, B would have won the content dispute, and B's inferior version would prevail.
ArbCom decisions should be made in the best interests of the encyclopedia.
--Kaypoh 07:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The way I've always understood it at least is that ArbCom will not rule on content because in doing so, they would be seen by many editors as endorsing "the right version" of an article. Then you'd get into the issue of reversion wars with people saying "That's not the version ArbCom said was ok." And once users see that ArbCom would rule on content, you'd probably see an increase in requests, just to try and lock down "their version" of an article as "the right version." That's just my 0.02USD. ^demon[omg plz] 14:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really, it's not our choice. If the community wants us to arbitrate content disputes, they need to establish that as policy (or, of course, powers on high could ordain that we are to do so). But the demon is right about what would happen if we did take on such a role: it would be a mess of lockdown demands, and ArbCom would end up usurping what is properly the role of the community as a whole. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No sane arbitration committee would accept community policy that demanded routine intervention of the committee in deciding matters of content.  The inevitable result would be a propensity for digging in heels, and escalating to arbitration level, by all parties who believed that they could count on the committee to provide an equitable solution. --Tony Sidaway 16:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does the ArbCom refuse to rule on content? 

message: I am repeating the following request appearing on the project page: "Dangerous-Boy is requested to delete the references to violation of the First Amendment (which does not apply to Wikipedia, a private entity) and notification to the Maryland State Attorney pursuant to WP:LEGAL. Newyorkbrad 23:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe he did delete the First Amendment reference and added a disclaimer at the end of the relevant paragraph, so that part of my concern at least was addressed. Newyorkbrad 15:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted a request to him . I feel happy that he addressed the issue to your satisfaction. Regards. --Bhadani (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A request 

message: I'm surprised everyone is so full of contempt towards Thomas Basboll.  Has no one heard of Wikipedia:Assume good faith?  The editor is obviously distressed. Making statements like "This has to be one of the silliest RFAs I've seen", "More seriously, a block for WP:POINT may be in order" and "Frankly, I see nothing in this but unnecessary disruption, attempting to game the system and contempt for the ArbCom's already tight schedule" are neither helpful nor collegiate.  --Iamunknown 01:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:AGF does not require one to continue assuming good faith when there is evidence to the contrary.  Community reaction to Basboll's RFC against MONGO has been decidedly negative, with most responses somewhere between "let it go" and "give MONGO a medal!" So now he's turning to Arbcom. Being "distressed" is understandable but it is no excuse for pursuing what looks more and more like a vendetta; indulging such behavior on grounds of being "helpful and collegiate" ultimately is destructive to the project. Raymond Arritt 01:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then please provide evidence to the contrary; I have yet to see any statements supported by diffs, only jests including, "If anything, User:Thomas_Basboll should be given forty lashes with a wet noodle for wasting ArbCom's time in such a frivolous manner."  --Iamunknown 01:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope it's okay, but since a clerk renamed the case to from "MONGO's unretracted physical threat" to "MONGO–Thomas Basboll", I've taken the liberty of doing the same for this section heading. I think it's far from being generally agreed that there was a "physical threat", and even if there had been, it's better to stick to the general, neutral form of Arbitration case names. I hope this won't cause offence, and maybe indeed I should have left it to a clerk. If I'm reverted, I won't revert back. ElinorD (talk) 07:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nah, no offense taken.  Your too kind, Elinor.    --Iamunknown 07:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with the clerks decision and with Elinor's, including her reasoning.--Thomas Basboll 07:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On ''MONGO–Thomas Basboll'' 

message: I was under the impression that this is "not a discussion page". I notice that a number of editors have nonetheless posted comments and advice to the Committee. Am I required to answer these? Or should I simply await the decision to accept or decline the case? (Those who have suggested that I be blocked for frivolity can rest assured that all ArbCom needs to do is to decline this request. As I have stated, if ArbCom accepts the RfC as the community's view of my work, then I don't belong here.)--Thomas Basboll 06:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quick comment: this is my first edit to the ArbCom are of Wikipedia; if my commentary was in error or was inappropriate, a clerk or someone else may feel free to remove it.  --Iamunknown 07:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: All of the edits regarding this case were acceptable. The case has now be de-listed as withdrawn by the initiating party. Newyorkbrad 16:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Procedural question 

message: ...was dismissed because six arbitrators endorsed the desysopping and felt that no arbitration was needed. However, in the list of desysoppings, they usually link to the arbitration case as evidence that the Arbitration Committee endorses the desysopping. In Robdurbar's case, there is no arbitration case to link to. --Kaypoh 13:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a clerk will create one? If not, how about a permalink (index.php/revision URL) to the attached page? --kingboyk 13:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking myself that perhaps a case page should be created. It would just be the one page. As a clerk, I normally would create the page (too much time shouldn't be spent on a formality but this wouldn't take more me than 5 minutes), but I hesitate because I was the party who filed the case, albeit as a "pro forma" case, and we don't clerk our own cases! However, if no one objects within the next 24 hours, I will go ahead and do it anyway. Newyorkbrad 13:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the point of creating a case page?  Anywhere that you would put a link to the closed case you can just put a link to the removal diff.  All you really need to do is put the link on Rob's talk page with a detailed edit summary so that if he returns, any diligent check by a bureaucrat will pick it up (which I have now done). Thatcher131 02:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I was figuring that it should show up somewhere in the list of decisions. But I guess other emergency desysoppings don't either. I'll reclaim my 5 minutes and create another clerk-bio-stub instead. Newyorkbrad 02:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Robdurbar was not only de-admined, but also banned, does he really deserve a community ban for a bad action that only lasted a short period? Also his account might have been temporarily stolen. What we need to do is to email him and check. WooyiTalk, Editor review 03:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am quite sure that lots of people have e-mailed him, and if they'd received a reply that shed light on the matter, someone would have said something long before now. As for the block/ban, if and when Robdurbar wants it lifted, he can post an unblock request and it can be discussed at that time. Unless and until he asks for an unblock, or shows any interest at all in ever editing again under that name, it is not a good use of the community's time to speculate on what would happen if he did. Newyorkbrad 03:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Arbcom did not ban Robdurbar, only endorsed his desysopping.  Find the admin who blocked him and take it up with him, or find another admin to unblock.  Regardless of the current view at Votes for banning, a community ban is when someone is so obnoxious that no admin will unblock his or her account.  I expect that any admin will ask for some minimal explanation, at the very least.  As Brad said, the first step would be for Rob to request unblocking, via his talk page or the unblock e-mail list. Thatcher131 03:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. If his account was stolen, it's safer to keep it banned to keep the stealer from wikipedia. If it's himself that wants to come back, he should request unblock himself. WooyiTalk, Editor review 04:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It turns out he's still editing, as . See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Robdurbar. -- ChrisO 07:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Note that CheckUser already determined that he did not have his account stolen, as, among other things, he still edits from the same university that he claimed to have been attending in his original user page (now deleted). Dmcdevit·t 08:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's not a proof.  Presumably the checkuser returned information about a shared IP in a block of IP addresses used  by the university.  Someone else in the university might have stolen his account.  One of the edit summaries said "Let's see how long I can get away with this".  This could be interpreted as someone having fun with a stolen account.  It would be interesting to see if the e-mail address was changed in the last couple of months.  If someone really knew how to use a a stolen admin account, the first thing to do would be to change the e-mail address so that the rightful owner would not be notified of any abuse.  --Richard 15:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Enough already. It's been established beyond all reasonable doubt that Robdurbar himself was responsible (not least because of who he targetted), and the account has just been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet anyway. --kingboyk 16:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, he never got banned by the ArbCom, and his previous community ban (when he used the account User:Wonderfool) was rescinded. This is why Grandmasterka posted a community ban proposal. Jesse Viviano 17:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Robdurbar arbitration case... 

message: So, my appeal was rejected. It's definitely disappointing that, even after all this time, the ArbCom is not willing to treat me fairly. I have a couple of questions. First, has any other user ever been sanctioned for this length of time for offenses on this level? Are my past actions perceived as worse than the kind of offenses that are normally punished with one-year sanctions, or are they different in some way other than severity? Does the absence of any complaint or accusation of misbehavior in nearly a year constitute any kind of mitigating factor to the ArbCom?
Few of the arbitrators gave any reasons for their rejection of the appeal. This is unfortunate because knowing why they rejected it would give me some guidance about what I can change in order to get the arbitrators to reconsider their decision in the future. Could the reasons for rejection, or any sort of advice in this regard, be given now? Finally, the ArbCom's fondness for the restrictions, regardless of everything that has happened since they were imposed, concerns me in another way because they are due to expire in six more months: do the arbitrators actually intend to let them expire, or is it possible they will be extended yet again? Everyking 06:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appeal rejection 

message: The case has 6 arbitrators accepting, when can it be open? WooyiTalk to me? 00:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually no less than 24 hours after sufficient arbitrators accept.  I don't know if there are any real standards for when it goes longer.  GRBerry 00:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There aren't any special standards for waiting longer than 24 hours, except that we probably wouldn't open a case if there were still real uncertainty whether it was going to be accepted or not. Clerks have been assigned and PalestineRemembered and Miskin should both be opened shortly. Newyorkbrad 01:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not like it's a big deal. Arbitrations take weeks anyway to go through, and that's when they aren't backlogged. ArbCom has a lot of cases on their hands right now, it's likely to be taking a good long time anyway. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 01:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PalestineRemembered 

message: For about 24 hours yesterday and this morning, there were no new RfAr requests pending. (I didn't say anything at the time because I didn't want to tempt fate ... although even though I didn't, we are now back to business as usual.) I don't recall seeing the page with no pending requests since I started paying attention to RfAr, and just was wondering if anyone recalls when this lasdt occurred before. Newyorkbrad 23:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caseload question 

message: Just in case anyone wonders where all the statements about Miskin's case have disappeared, Phil Sandler deleted it, terming removal of statements to some obscure talk page a "new move" on his part. On my talk page, he threatened me to revert war if I dare to restore my statement. I presume that the "new move" was sanctioned by the arbitrators, but still I consider it my duty to speak out. Sorry, what's the point of listing me as a "party" if I have no right to speak here? Since I was listed as a "commenting party", I take it as an invitation to comment. What else does that mean? I consider the removal of my comments as a slap in the face, aimed to discourage me and others from following the page,  which Phil deemed "unreadable". By the way, it'd be great to know who appoints clerks for each particular case. I consider Snowspinner the last person to be neutral, given the nature of the current arbitration. --Ghirla-трёп- 17:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving comments from main page revisited 

message: If this case is accepted, I suggest that it not be named "QZ" or the arbitration pages will show up in Google searches forever. Perhaps "QZ deletion" instead? Kla'quot 20:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  QZ case naming 

message: I hope this issue can be viewed independently of the case in which it arises, in which I have no involvement.  Several months ago, someone raised the issue of whether the criteria for acceptance of a case by the ArbCom (4 "net accepts") was perhaps too rigorous.  Various alternatives were suggested, including mine of 2 "net accepts" as long as there are also 4 total "accepts."  At that time, there was a post that said the arbitrators had discussed it and decided not to make a change.  I raise this again because there is a case on the requests page, that as of yesterday, had 5 votes (please excuse the expression) to accept, 2 to decline and 1 recusal.  Counting only those "present and voting", that is 71 percent (rounded) to accept, and yet at that point the case would be rejected because it only had 3 net accepts.  That seems like a pretty steep threshhold to me: 71 percent to accept, and still the case would be rejected.  That number has now been reduced a bit because one more arbitrator has been added to each side, for a 6-3 split, but that is still 67 percent to accept a case that will (as of now) be rejected for lack of 4 net accepts.  The numbers may of course change again, because there are two active arbitrators who have not "voted."  But I was just wondering if this situation might give the arbitrators pause about keeping the "4 net accepts" rule when it means that such a strong "vote" in favor of accepting in a case will nevertheless count as a rejection.   6SJ7 19:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Independent of this specific case, I agree as stated in prior discussions that an outcome of a case such as "rejected 6-3" is a very bad and counterintuitive idea. Incidentally, in the context of arbitration, it is perfectly legitimate to use the word "vote." The arbitrators hopefully try to come to a consensus among themselves on how to handle various things, but case acceptances and proposed decisions really are votes. (A further complicating factor is that a precondition for counting "accept" votes is that the arbitrators voting "accept" should be voting to accept the same case.) Newyorkbrad 20:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heaven help us if they don't accept this case. If arbitrators will not sort out the abuses at DRV, then we are really screwed.--Docg 20:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The "four net accepts" rule is comparatively new (fall of last year).  If the arbitrators find that they're not getting enough work, or that they're accepting too many cases and then finding nothing much to do with them, they'll change their acceptance rules again. --Tony Sidaway 20:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I don't think that "finding nothing much to do with them" is going to be an issue on this case. Horologium talk - contrib 21:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My tongue was firmly in my cheek there. --Tony Sidaway 22:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I generally don't use emoticons, but it might have been appropriate here, as I had a big grin on my face. However, I still think that the issues raised here REALLY need to be addressed by the ArbCon, amusement aside. Horologium talk - contrib 22:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mathematics revisited 

message: Admins are now quite clearly stating that they will never reverse any BLP decisions unless Arbcom orders them to. Since I have no wish to be involved in an Arbcom case, I now have zero recourse against these admins. This is not good. -Amarkov moo! 01:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect I know what you are referring to, but please provide a link or diff for what you are referring to. Newyorkbrad 01:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This, and I remember another which I will go dig up. I'm sure there are others I'm unaware of. -Amarkov moo! 01:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I can't find the diff. But it said something along the lines of "DRV is not the appropriate place for appeals of BLP deletions, all BLP deletions must go through Arbcom". -Amarkov moo! 01:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I discussed this a bit on the mailing list with Fred Bauder. I think this situation is a bit difficult for everyone, but all told, I've found him to really be a pretty reasonable person. We do need a way to deal with BLP problems, and we do need a way to do it while both respecting BLP policy and respecting the rights of the community here. If you got the solution, or even a partial one, everyone would love to hear it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The rights of the community? We've got the right to leave and the right to fork, if you want to be strict about it. I would think our obligation to named living persons far outweighs any we might have to our editors, most of whom are anonymous. That's me, though. Mackensen (talk) 03:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly it does. We can deal with editors leaving a lot more easily than we can deal with people's lives being permanently damaged by our articles on them. That statement, however, is not equivalent to saying that the only way to appeal a BLP decision is Arbcom. -Amarkov moo! 04:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't intending to weigh in on that particular question one way or the other. I think there is legitimate cause for concern that we're paying closer attention to the former than the latter. Mackensen (talk) 04:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allow me to use this as a platform for ranting 

message: I believe that the ArbCom should examine whether or not repeated "speedy closings" of discussions, especially when other discussions have reached different results, constitute a wheel warreached different results, constitute a wheel war.
: Hmm... no, that's editwar :P. Wheel war is repeated undiscussed reverting of administrativeactions. Closing a discussion doesn't make use of the sysop tools. -- drini [meta:] [commons:]  17:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically no, but closing discussions (except uncontroversial ones) is an action reserved to sysops, even if it doesn't use the sysop tools per se, and any decision involving deletion or undeletion involves that particular sysop tool anyway. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Closing a discussion often does involve use of admin tools (for example, closing an XfD as "delete" or a DRV as "restore".) There are reasons non-admins are only allowed to close discussions with certain results-only an admin can perform deletion or undeletion if that's the result. It seems to me disingenuous to claim that because you were "closing a discussion" (that had only been open a few hours, and hadn't reached anything like a definitive result), you weren't wheel warring. (We're not talking about legitimate closures after appropriate lengths here, obviously if a DRV's consensus is to overturn after it runs its course you're not engaging in wheel-warring by closing it as such.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I did not wheel war, as I did not evert any other admin, whereas my actions were reverted on the act without discussion yet I didn't redid it again, as I wasn't going to revert the reversion -- drini [meta:] [commons:]  22:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Experienced non-admins close discussions.  Admin powers are not required because you can always get an admin to perform the necessary action. --Tony Sidaway 14:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it is not wheel warring, but it is very bad editing practice for an admin, or a regular editor for that matter. (H) 14:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  wheel war definition 

message: It interesting that when I didn't answer Ryan's original bait with, "An advocate is just like a lawyer," he took another more direct shot at it.  Although I spent considerable time taking the question as a good faith attempt to understand what I feel the role of an advocate is, he choose not to debate or discuss it with me, but instead to reject it outright, asking the community why "lawyers" are necessary in this process.  Why not link to that, Ryan?  Was it not the words you were hoping I would use?
Here's why PR needs a "lawyer", as Ryan insists we call me:
* I'd like to point to Ryan's first link.  When this RfArb started, you may recall that PR had just come out of an absolutely atrocious CSN discussion where those who disagreed with his personal views tried to hang him for something he didn't do.  He made it clear he believed everyone's minds were already made up, and saw little point in taking part in the process.  I explained the process to PR offline, and convinced him that the process could in fact be fair.
* PR needed some sort of "privileged editor" to be able to survive this process under the block he should never have been given.  Even administrators threw in the line, "He can only edit the RfArb.  If he needs to make any other edits, he can ask his advocate to do it for him".  I'd like to point out that I did not take on this role to pass notes between editors.
* While Ryan did propose the motion to unblock PR, nothing happened.  PR wasn't able to argue his case, and everyone else seemed content with the convenience of the status quo.  Without my concerted (and perhaps irritating) attempts to get that block lifted, he wouldn't be editing today.  I think there's a name for it when you take a stand on someone's behalf when they're unable to do so themselves.  The term seems to have slipped my mind though.  Any chance you can help me out, Ryan?
While it's no-one's business what goes on in the off-wiki emails, people need to understand that PR and I will tend to present a common face.  It's not because I'm his lackey; it's because we've already discussed and debated the issues, and reached some kind of common ground.  We could've done this anyway, but by announcing myself as his advocate is much more transparent.
I think the real issue here is that a lot of people have the shits that this RfArb wasn't a cut and dried case of "ban the evil editor, get on with our lives".  The issue here is not PR; it's the way PR has been treated, and continues to be treated.  The issue isn't "the lawyer who's sticking up for the guilty guy"; it's that hard-to-swallow facts that are becoming clear.
Ryan: You claim that my presence here is making things more bureaucratic.  Can you please explain or quantify that in some way?  Or am I behaving too much like a lawyer again?  
We could always remove all the processes here that resemble a legal system.  Let's do away with evidence completely.  We can just always settle dipsutes via CSN discussions, and have the good guy always victorious over the villians. Mark Chovain 15:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Section break

message: Thatcher131 states "the clerks will list as involved parties those editors who deleted, undeleted, or listed or closed AfD and DRV discussions". Now, I filled a RfC with a very limited focus on the continuing behaviour of one user - not on the deletion process itself, nor on a string of past acts. I recognise in filing the case, it is legitimate for any of my own acts to be scrutinised. I also recognise the right of arbcom to broaden this case out if and as they see fit - I have no right to determine the scope. Arbcom  must do as it sees fit. But it seems to me that neither the clerks nor other commentators who want to focus on other things have the right to force arbcom's hands. Perhaps arbs, if they are accepting this, should indicate their desired scope.--Docg 18:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope so too.  The arbitrators are generally not shy in telling us what to do.  However, there is a distinction to be made between the focus, to use your word, and the parties.  While you have filed a case focusing on Jeff's actions, he may very well want to cite certain other actions (such as AfD and DRV closures) in his defense.  Those admins may be "parties to the dispute" even if they are ultimately not brought into the proposed remedies.  On the other hand, editors who have an opinion on the matter but who have not been actively in conflict over the various AfD and DRV processes are free to comment, but they are certainly not "parties to the dispute." Thatcher131 18:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification. I think we agree that if arbcom accept this, it would be helpful if they set the terms of reference.--Docg 18:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This will be my only statement on this specific matter, but I'm not sure what the focus on me is for except as a furthering of the general tenor of what I've had to put up with. If disagreeing with administrators is a Wiki-crime, then I'm guilty as charged. If requesting DRVs of out of process deletions (even if they're closed early (see: Brandt wheel war decision)) is a crime, lock me up. If finding RfC to be a farce is an actionable offense, I own up to it. But (I hope) we all realize the true scope of this, and it goes beyond any individual's actions. When I brought this up over the weekend, I was very careful and cognizant in not implicating any specific person over another (although I did miss people along the way). This presentation, in comparison, gives the appearance of wanting to avoid the issues that are causing the dispute in an attempt to finally put a thorn in people's sides to rest. Doc glasgow has generally given me a fair shake, historically, and if that was his intent, I'm very discouraged, but I wouldn't be surprised if I'm misreading it - if I am misreading it, I won't be the only one to do so, and that can easily be rectified. So ArbCom can focus, name, do whatever they want with this case, obviously, but let's be realistic about it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still want to give you a fair shake. Indeed I've said that as much as many administrators (indeed most of the community) do not share your extreme views on inclusionism or process, they are legitimate views and indeed often a necessary corrective. It isn't even as if I always disagree with you in specific cases, either. However, a fair shake is one thing - shake it too much and you can break it. There comes a time where your stubborn refusal to let things lie is disruptive. There comes a point where playing games with a BLP is unacceptable. There was a debate, the community spoke, a sane admin closed the afd as delete. Even you have admitted the truth of that. The rest of this is because people wanted another go, and another go, and another go - until they got it right. Now, if this was a webcomic or a nursery school on the fringes of notability, I'd shrug, and let you play the process game and until we settled it - or until someone won the war of attrition. But this is a real person, and we're having this argument about them in a public forum. There is a time to say - STOP - BNO - ENOUGH. We don't case if process 45b3a hasn't been followed - we don't care what the arithmetic is - we don't care how many Goggle hits it has - we are an encyclopedia - we let this be. No wars of attrition. The problem is that you don't seem to realise when we have reached that point.--Docg 18:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll only say that I still think you have the timeline wrong.  People didn't want "another go, and another go, and another go" - they wanted the one go they were entitled to once the DRV overturned the original closure.  If that one AfD ran all the way through, would we even be talking about this?  Really?  This isn't the "form 45b3a" nonsense du jour, this is simple respect for your fellow editors who ultimately want the same thing - a good, comprehensive encyclopedia. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But you are still at it - demanding that process be followed here (and a selectively chosen process at that since you focus on one particular DRV instead of the valid Afd before it). BLPs are not footballs for process. And particularly not when you are insisting you'll keep coming to DRV until you get the right answer.--Docg 19:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely - I'm still at this because the process (and I'm not selectively choosing, I'm recognizing that the process issues started with the improper closing of AfD 2).  And I have not once insisted I'd come to DRV until I get the right answer.  That is a misinterpretation of what I've actually said.  I want a resolution, plain and simple. It's gotten to this point due to the consistent denials allowing such resolution, and not by me, and if it were by me, not by myself acting alone.   --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Based on the comments of Fred and Flo, made since the blocking incident, it seems that this case will be about the QZ deletion, and a separate case required for the blocking incident.  I would interpret the QZ deletion to include not only your own actions but other actions that contributed to the situation as it stands (i.e. the various AfDs and DRVs).  Pending additional clarification from the arbitrators, of course. Thatcher131 13:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well my confusion is that we have four acceptances at the moment, all wanting to focus on different things.  Ultimately, the conduct issues, the BLP issues, the article issues, and the blocking issues are all in the same sphere, and it would probably be easiest to deal with them all at once, but I obviously can't force that.  It seems rather silly, from my point of view, to open a separate case to deal with the blocking issue, but still... --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: I say this without knowing jack about established or traditional internal Arbitration procedures, but if I were in the position of Arbitrator, I'd probably want to take all the scopes at once in order to prevent having the decisions from one case contravene the decisions of the other and having to deal with having the order of implementation of remedies actually matter vis a vis the various parties' experience of Wikipedia from a chronological standpoint. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 14:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd personally prefer a separate case should be brought about the inappropriate block, to keep things simple. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not trying to be difficult, but is it simpler to separate two issues that, while surface-level are different, are in fact very intertwined?  I'll go about it as the Arbcom asks me to, but I want to make sure it's the fairest way to go about it.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer it separate too. The inappropriate block issue is not going to get into IRC-related issues again; it doesn't really matter if people make bad decisions on IRC, in their offices, on the bus, or in the loo. Nobody's going to be deadminned for it -- we don't do that for single, reversible, apologized-for lapses in judgement. So you need to think about whether it's worthwhile at all to do anything but grouse a bit. (And it is worth grousing about.) About the other stuff, I'm starting to wonder if we should have an automatic 2-week cooling off period when an arbcom case is filed...a sort of "everyone shut up now and find something else to do, and come back later when you can calmly reflect on it and then see if it's worth putting everyone through the wringer for." None of this is helping build an encyclopedia. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A fair number of cases die out in the evidence phase.  An arbitrator looking at a case and seeing not much there after a couple weeks in evidence can always move to dismiss. Thatcher131 16:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: jpg, I have sent the logs to the arbcom-l list.  I think you'll see there's a bigger problem at stake, and per the principles in the Giano case, probably shouldn't be ignored.  I'd also suggest relooking at the "meteors and heaven" comment, since I think you took a tongue-in-cheek comment literally. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, I'm tired of changing votes, and I imagine this is going to be accepted anyway. I still think everyone needs to take a cold shower. Regarding tongue in cheek comments, well, that's the sort of comment that simply adds more heat to a fire, and at least for me, such things get taken at face value, since I don't know you from Adam -- all I know is that you've said you're going to stonewall against community opinion, and I've no cause to give less weight to that statement than any other you might have made. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Jeff, why don't you give AC a chance to digest whatever off-wiki evidence they may have received and then list the blocking case separately tomorrow?  Although the one event sprung from the other, it seems to me that keeping the issue of deletion process vs BLP separate from the issue of admin misjudgement in blocking matters will give us two manageable cases instead of one unmanageable mess. Thatcher131 16:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the moment, that appears to be the plan.  Some straightforward indication of exactly where the scope lies would be helpful is all. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, then the committee could decide to open and fasttrack one case and summarily reject the other. —freak([ talk]) 17:03, May. 23, 2007 (UTC)
Nobody asked me, but I'd like some view from the ArbCom on the proper role of BLP, ethics, OTRS and summary deletion vis a vis consensus and policy. Either in this case, or via some other mechanism, because clearly there is a tension here between those that feel the encyclopedia has a duty to be ethical, and to come down on the side of privacy in marginal cases, and not participate in generalised mockery and sensationalism just because it's being done somewhere on the internet, and those that think that if something is reported in verifiable sources, it's OK to have an article, however biased, unkind or one sided the coverage might be, and regardless of the harm that it might do to the innocent. Sometimes policy has to trump consensus, and sometimes policy has to be informed by doing the right thing, not just freedom of information. (my bias shows there, doesn't it?... The community hasn't yet come to a consensus on this matter. I know how Jimbo and a large group of editors feels though, and I count myself in that group.) ++Lar: t/c 15:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Here, the arbitrators themselves seem to have different opinions on scope, as voiced above and on the main page.  Two arbitrators have stated either that the case will consider only jeff's actions, two others have stated that they would prefer to hear a separate case on the block by Zsinj, and one specifically wants to hear a case on how BLP interacts with deletion policy.  I don't think it is within the clerks' authority to forcefully define the scope (e.g. by removing "irrelevant" evidence).  I suggest that the block by Zsinj is not part of this case, and should be brought as a separate case.  It also seems logical that in order for some editors to accuse jeff of disruption regarding disputed deletions of biographies, and for jeff to defend himself against charges of disruption, it will be necessary to present evidence and arguments about the relationship between deletion policy and BLP.  Ultimately, the scope will be determined by the proposed decision offered by the arbitrators—that is, arbitrators may offer principles, findings and remedies relevant to different aspects of the case according to their view of the case, and then all will vote.  What is much more important than defining the scope at the outset is keeping the workshop page civil and on point, and here the clerks may be able to play a role.  The key is to remember that you are all here for the same reason, and for that reason to be reasonably nice and respectful to each other in disagreement. Thatcher131 20:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly, the Arbs and not the clerks should be the ones defining the scope, but, to be frank, I'm not going to waste my time presenting a case that arbitrators are not planning to hear.  If the block issue is absolutely not a part of this, I want to know ahead of time.  If the BLP/DRV issues are not a part of this, I want to know ahead of time.  If it's only going to be about me, then give me the opportunity to focus my defense properly (not that it's going to be difficult).  This isn't one clear issue, and it's imperetive that we know what we're dealing with as opposed to just tossing a pile of evidence against the wall and seeing what sticks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to add my two cents on as agreeing with Lar.  Georgewilliamherbert 21:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Badlydrawnjeff - scope 

message: With the issues from last night put into play, the ArbCom case with my name on it is already suffering from focus issues on the arbitration side.  It ranges from "everything" to "just me."  i'm okay with wherever, but at what point will this scope be defined, and should the blocking case be held completely separately from everything else? --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on the comments of Fred and Flo, made since the blocking incident, it seems that this case will be about the QZ deletion, and a separate case required for the blocking incident.  I would interpret the QZ deletion to include not only your own actions but other actions that contributed to the situation as it stands (i.e. the various AfDs and DRVs).  Pending additional clarification from the arbitrators, of course. Thatcher131 13:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well my confusion is that we have four acceptances at the moment, all wanting to focus on different things.  Ultimately, the conduct issues, the BLP issues, the article issues, and the blocking issues are all in the same sphere, and it would probably be easiest to deal with them all at once, but I obviously can't force that.  It seems rather silly, from my point of view, to open a separate case to deal with the blocking issue, but still... --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: I say this without knowing jack about established or traditional internal Arbitration procedures, but if I were in the position of Arbitrator, I'd probably want to take all the scopes at once in order to prevent having the decisions from one case contravene the decisions of the other and having to deal with having the order of implementation of remedies actually matter vis a vis the various parties' experience of Wikipedia from a chronological standpoint. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 14:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd personally prefer a separate case should be brought about the inappropriate block, to keep things simple. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not trying to be difficult, but is it simpler to separate two issues that, while surface-level are different, are in fact very intertwined?  I'll go about it as the Arbcom asks me to, but I want to make sure it's the fairest way to go about it.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer it separate too. The inappropriate block issue is not going to get into IRC-related issues again; it doesn't really matter if people make bad decisions on IRC, in their offices, on the bus, or in the loo. Nobody's going to be deadminned for it -- we don't do that for single, reversible, apologized-for lapses in judgement. So you need to think about whether it's worthwhile at all to do anything but grouse a bit. (And it is worth grousing about.) About the other stuff, I'm starting to wonder if we should have an automatic 2-week cooling off period when an arbcom case is filed...a sort of "everyone shut up now and find something else to do, and come back later when you can calmly reflect on it and then see if it's worth putting everyone through the wringer for." None of this is helping build an encyclopedia. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A fair number of cases die out in the evidence phase.  An arbitrator looking at a case and seeing not much there after a couple weeks in evidence can always move to dismiss. Thatcher131 16:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: jpg, I have sent the logs to the arbcom-l list.  I think you'll see there's a bigger problem at stake, and per the principles in the Giano case, probably shouldn't be ignored.  I'd also suggest relooking at the "meteors and heaven" comment, since I think you took a tongue-in-cheek comment literally. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, I'm tired of changing votes, and I imagine this is going to be accepted anyway. I still think everyone needs to take a cold shower. Regarding tongue in cheek comments, well, that's the sort of comment that simply adds more heat to a fire, and at least for me, such things get taken at face value, since I don't know you from Adam -- all I know is that you've said you're going to stonewall against community opinion, and I've no cause to give less weight to that statement than any other you might have made. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Jeff, why don't you give AC a chance to digest whatever off-wiki evidence they may have received and then list the blocking case separately tomorrow?  Although the one event sprung from the other, it seems to me that keeping the issue of deletion process vs BLP separate from the issue of admin misjudgement in blocking matters will give us two manageable cases instead of one unmanageable mess. Thatcher131 16:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the moment, that appears to be the plan.  Some straightforward indication of exactly where the scope lies would be helpful is all. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, then the committee could decide to open and fasttrack one case and summarily reject the other. —freak([ talk]) 17:03, May. 23, 2007 (UTC)
Nobody asked me, but I'd like some view from the ArbCom on the proper role of BLP, ethics, OTRS and summary deletion vis a vis consensus and policy. Either in this case, or via some other mechanism, because clearly there is a tension here between those that feel the encyclopedia has a duty to be ethical, and to come down on the side of privacy in marginal cases, and not participate in generalised mockery and sensationalism just because it's being done somewhere on the internet, and those that think that if something is reported in verifiable sources, it's OK to have an article, however biased, unkind or one sided the coverage might be, and regardless of the harm that it might do to the innocent. Sometimes policy has to trump consensus, and sometimes policy has to be informed by doing the right thing, not just freedom of information. (my bias shows there, doesn't it?... The community hasn't yet come to a consensus on this matter. I know how Jimbo and a large group of editors feels though, and I count myself in that group.) ++Lar: t/c 15:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Here, the arbitrators themselves seem to have different opinions on scope, as voiced above and on the main page.  Two arbitrators have stated either that the case will consider only jeff's actions, two others have stated that they would prefer to hear a separate case on the block by Zsinj, and one specifically wants to hear a case on how BLP interacts with deletion policy.  I don't think it is within the clerks' authority to forcefully define the scope (e.g. by removing "irrelevant" evidence).  I suggest that the block by Zsinj is not part of this case, and should be brought as a separate case.  It also seems logical that in order for some editors to accuse jeff of disruption regarding disputed deletions of biographies, and for jeff to defend himself against charges of disruption, it will be necessary to present evidence and arguments about the relationship between deletion policy and BLP.  Ultimately, the scope will be determined by the proposed decision offered by the arbitrators—that is, arbitrators may offer principles, findings and remedies relevant to different aspects of the case according to their view of the case, and then all will vote.  What is much more important than defining the scope at the outset is keeping the workshop page civil and on point, and here the clerks may be able to play a role.  The key is to remember that you are all here for the same reason, and for that reason to be reasonably nice and respectful to each other in disagreement. Thatcher131 20:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly, the Arbs and not the clerks should be the ones defining the scope, but, to be frank, I'm not going to waste my time presenting a case that arbitrators are not planning to hear.  If the block issue is absolutely not a part of this, I want to know ahead of time.  If the BLP/DRV issues are not a part of this, I want to know ahead of time.  If it's only going to be about me, then give me the opportunity to focus my defense properly (not that it's going to be difficult).  This isn't one clear issue, and it's imperetive that we know what we're dealing with as opposed to just tossing a pile of evidence against the wall and seeing what sticks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to add my two cents on as agreeing with Lar.  Georgewilliamherbert 21:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New issues

message: I join with those pleading guilty to some confusion about the nature and scope of the case as of now. I am also concerned that no single aspect of the case has the required 4 net votes for acceptance, because some arbitrators have voted not to consider what other arbitrators define as the primary issue presented. In other words, the case is only being accepted because its contours are vague and unclear. I have seen this scenario in real-world courts and I am afraid it tends to lead to fragmented, messy opinions, which I hope will not be the case here. Newyorkbrad 03:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another query about case scope and a procedural concern