Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Archive 21

message: Is there any way I can get some assistance? Maybe I'm just a "nice guy", but I'm not keen on presenting offensive evidence of "this person has done this" etc. Should I be doing this, and possibly escalating the dispute further? Is behavior like , at least if repeated, something that can be presented and acted upon? Thank you. --NE2 09:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The folks at WP:EAR will be happy to listen to your concerns in detail and send you to the right place.  This is probably the wrong venue. Jehochman  Talk 22:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highways 

message: No doubt there was a meltdown there over the last day but you just can't lock down the talk page of a proposed Arbcom decision like that. I understand a quick freeze to shoo everyone away for a bit but not a lock until after the decision is final. I understand there was a condition under which it could be unprotected but I think making people promise to be nice is just allowing them to hold it hostage against those of us that do have something to say in a civil manner. RxS (talk) 06:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Committee can do whatever it likes, in theory, especially with regard to arbitration-associated pages. I have no idea whether FloNight was acting on behalf of the Arbitration Committee or merely as an arbitrator, but regardless I'd strongly caution any non-arbitrator administrator not to undo this without assent from an arbitrator. Daniel (talk) 06:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I thought it was clear I was asking a member of Arbcom to do it, this is their talk page. But if it wasn't clear, my mistake. And I would agree that it should come from that group. RxS (talk) 06:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, never mind. If you guys (arbcom) want to review the conversation I was having with Phil go ahead, I didn't get to respond to his last comment but you get the drift. Apparently that page is just a courtesy provided by the Arbitration commitee anyway. RxS (talk) 06:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's sometimes useful. More than once, ArbCom decisions have been influenced by behavior on the proposed decision talk page. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that the page should be unprotected? You and Mackensen were happy to contribute to that page. Carcharoth (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need yet another venue for the nastiness that caused this case in the first place. There appear to be plenty of places for the principles and their friends to snipe at each other. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Not the only people given to sniping it seems JP. Giano (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Sometimes it does not hurt to state a truism. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Sure. And FloNight should have said that on the talk pages of the people concerned, and on the page itself. What she in fact did was to write this (with typos) in the edit summary after the page protection. She protected but made no attempt to communicate what had happened or to resolve the dispute. Which is what I've been trying to do. Editors on-wiki are not aware that FloNight may have sent e-mails to other arbitrators, so she has communicated the situation to them, and left only a badly written edit summary on-wiki for everyone else to puzzle over. Carcharoth (talk) 00:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could someone please unprotect [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision]]? 

message: Obviously it is a bit arbitrary which declined requests should be noted for posterity, but I thought this one here should be:
*Rollback consensus
I did this in the past with the Kmweber request for arbitration. The criteria tends to be when a request attracts a lot of community input. The idea is that the request becomes part of the record of attempts at dispute resolution, along with some often important points that should not be merely lost to the page history. Any ideas on how to better handle things like this? Carcharoth (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rejected requests? Daniel (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Goodness me. How did I miss that? Thanks! Carcharoth (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving extensive requests 

message: Is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Workshop#"Decommissioned highway" is a neologism a content decision, or does it have a chance of passing? If the former, is there a way I can reword it to make it acceptable? --NE2 09:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about whether a proposed finding of fact has a chance 

message: Friendliest arbitrator EVAR! MilesAgain (talk) 10:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comment. :) I actually think it's very important to provide these kinds of explanations sometimes. The arbitration process and pages are complicated, especially for newer editors, and when someone is making a mistake or is seeking dispute resolution in the wrong place, we really ought to be steering them to the right place rather than just say "go away." I'm not the only one to do that, by the way; FloNight, for one, was doing much the same thing months before I was elected. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newyorkbrad 

message: I suggest somebody should come up with a list of which articles are under the ruleing of this arbcom case, so as to not confuse anyone in the future. There are some articles that are borderline as to whether or not they are considered part of this topic. Yahel Guhan 04:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering the breadth of the topic area, I can't see it being practical to compile a list of individual articles covered by the arbitration. As far as I'm aware we've not done anything like that for other topic area arbitrations such as Kosovo, Macedonia, Armenia-Azerbaijan etc. The arbitrators have made it clear that they consider the scope to be a broad one in this case. Given that, I think editors will need to assume that any article with a conceivable link to the Arab-Israeli conflict is covered by the arbitration, and behave accordingly. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification for [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles]] 

message: With all due respect, I am wondering why the Arbitration Committee has been mostly silent about this case. This case has been here for nearly three weeks, and only one Arbitrator has commented on this case (except for the temporary injunction). --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Anybody? --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't speak for the arbitration committee, but they seem to be busy dealing with the IRC case at the moment. I would advise patience. And don't spend too much time making proposals. Clearly-laid out evidence is the most important thing. The arbitrators should be able to come up with a final decision from the evidence, and the workshop proposals will help guide them in that. Carcharoth (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As a non-American I've taken a supportive role in the highways case but I can tell you that we are currently dealing with the vexed IRC case and also sifting nominees for the working group on nationalist editwars. Highways has not escaped notice, though. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. Thanks :) --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highways 

message: Isn't this a poster child for the imposition of Wikipedia:Article probation? MilesAgain (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not consider this as an official statement by the committee. If it is so obvious that the article should be on article probation then there is no need for an arbitration hearing. The Arbitration Committee is here for the difficult decisions, and the decisions that need confidentiality. All uninvolved administrators are empowered to use their tools to prevent disruption, and if there is obvious disruption then they should go ahead and use their discretion to decide what to do. You were chosen for your judgment. If it is obvious that this particular article is the site of disruption, and there's a consensus that it should be on article probation, then put it on article probation, dear Liza. Wikipedia is not bound by bureaucratic procedure. If you need a procedure for putting articles on article probation, then agree one. If you don't want anything on article probation except if the Arbitrators say so, then agree that. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good idea.  Would somebody like to propose this remedy at WP:AN? Jehochman  Talk 00:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homeopathy 

message: I have noticed that people are still adding comments to the page above, despite the fact that the case is closed. Would it be appropriate to add some sort of comment there to indicate that the case is closed? John Carter (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Workshop]] 

message: I have proposed a means by which arbitrators may impose article probation without necessarily taking a case, at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration policy#Arbitrators may impose article probation without taking a case?. I invite discussion there. MilesAgain (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrators may impose article probation without taking a case? 

message: Could we get some more votes so this case is either accepted, or properly shot down? Jehochman  Talk 16:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Jehochman, we've already talked about this off-wiki, but I guess I need to repeat it on-wiki.  I am extremely uncomfortable that you're involved with this case at all, and wish that you would withdraw from participation.  I do not feel that you are an uninvolved administrator here. You repeatedly threatened to start a case, and I repeatedly told you that I did not want you getting involved (for or against) in any way.  And though I specifically told you on multiple occasions that I did not want you to start the case, you went ahead anyway.  I then told you (again) to stay out of it, but I see that you are still poking around.  In some circumstances I might see this just as a "difference of opinion," or good-faith efforts that I disagree with, but I am seeing now in other cases that other editors too are raising concerns that you seem to be having a tendency to jump into everyone else's disputes. I can't speak for the details of the other disputes, but it is my opinion that in terms of the Franco-Mongol alliance issue, that your behavior over the last few months has escalated this dispute, not de-escalated it, and I would again ask you to please stay out. --Elonka 18:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how Jehochman's comment warranted that kind of response. Anyone -- involved or uninvolved -- could have made the rather decent request to expedite the acceptance or rejection of this case. -- tariqabjotu 16:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Franco-Mongol alliance 

message: Several people have commented here or here (depending on whichever page the thread ends up on when they stop reverting each other) that the new workshop template is rather unweildy and difficult to work with. Per Daniel's comment here, I have come here to request that, because of this, the Arbitrators take the comments under advisement and consider changing it back. Perhaps ask what people on the other two cases with this format what they think? A thought. seresin | wasn't he just...? 01:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Workshop pages 

message: I've started a discussion on the ArbCom mailing list about adding a new arbitration committee mailing list only for current arbitrators. On the new list, we would discuss issues that only the arbitrators want to discuss among ourselves. And on the new list we would have our discussions and receive evidence in cases where one member of the current list is involved. Thoughts? FloNight♥♥♥ 01:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fully support.  This should have been done long ago. Cla68 (talk) 03:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems all upside from the peanut gallery, only you folks can decide if it has a downside. Thatcher 03:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: It sounds like a good idea. Would this become the official mailing list to which people would send evidence, the privacy concerns Arbcom has said it will accept, and general queries; or will the current extended mailing list (including former arbs) continue to exist and to and receive that information? As well, I am curious as to how the new list will manage to separate out what information an arbitrator involved in a current case needs to be excluded from, without excluding them entirely from the list and the rest of the cases being discussed.  Thanks for bringing this up, FloNight. Risker (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Risker, those are the issues that we are discussing. I'm suggesting that we use it for cases that a member of the main mailing list is truly an involved party. FloNight♥♥♥ 04:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Flo, I really think this is an issue that arbs need to decide for themselves. The rest of the community simply don't have the information to weigh up the pros and cons. FWIW I'm always suspicious that compartmentalising communications is detrimental to proper communication, but if this is being done to address real (and not theoretical or perceptual) problems with the status quo, then go to it. But there really is no point in inviting community input here, all it will do is foster drama and uninformed opinion. And at that, since I have admitted I don't know what I'm talking about, I will leave it.--Docg 15:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm with Doc that this is largely an internal matter, but I see no reason why the default list, whatever it is called, shouldn't include the former arbitrators and others.  Except when considering conduct within that group, I can easily see that input from other high level trusted users is a good thing--avoid narrow groupthink and all that. Thatcher 15:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Private ArbCom mailing list? 

message: I have filled out a request for arbitration, but I can't figure out where to put it. The steps say to paste it "below the line." What line?
Angela Harms (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your request is posted correctly, so you don't need to worry about the formatting. Could one of the Clerks please check the request for arbitration template to make sure the instructions are clear. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggest a change to "...below the "Current requests" line..." (or even "header" instead of "line", but "header" might not be clear either). Carcharoth (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed it already, using the exceedingly literal description, "immediately below ==Current requests==".  Jehochman  Talk 22:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You missed Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How-to... :-) Carcharoth (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Below what line? 

message: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FMatthew_Hoffman. —Random832 21:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my response there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice 

message: I noticed that the IRC case has not been listed at completed requests. Assming this was accidental, would a clerk be able to correct this please? :-) 59.167.51.178 (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt any case would be intentionally omitted. You could easily, you know, fix this yourself. It's a wiki (tm). :-) — CharlotteWebb 05:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, but the Arbitration Committee Clerks can probably do it faster as they are familiar with the formats, etc. If one of them doesn't get to this in a day or two I'll leave a note on their noticeboard. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid the clerk in the case was rather out of practice, and has since been busy with other trivial matters like Archtransit.  I shall administer a stern reprimand, and maybe send him to bed without dessert tonight. Thatcher 11:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  IRC case not listed at Completed Requests 

message: "Mantanmoreland" case:
This case was presented to the community as a high profile RFC, around 24 hours ago. A number of experienced administrators scrutinized the same evidence presented at arbitration, and gave opinions. I noted that I felt there was a very strong basis of evidence of a connection. I also noted that "Open to an explanation, as always. But this does not preclude forming of a working conclusion given the evidence".
Before the last 24 hours, I have no prior involvement, interest in, or awareness of the actions of Mantanmoreland or Samiharris, and no prior conception of any standing or roles of these parties. My involvement in the last 24 hours was:
# 24 hours preview of what is now the RFAR evidence, and comment
# Explanation of an administrative nature covering communal norms, following the start of a thread on WP:AN  etc.
# Addressing a statement that the evidence might be incomplete in one area, by reviewing and creating a more valid summary table for that area.  (But no advocacy .)
Besides these actions, I am not aware of any involvement in, or knowledge of, the case, and if different evidence shows different interpretations, I feel my ability to be neutral and consider all sides is unchanged from when I wrote "open to an explanation, as always". 
I disclose this, in the view that it is appropriate to do so, and that all cases should be transparent. But after due consideration, I do not feel my neutrality or ability to reach a balanced fair conclusion has been affected by essentially a 24 hour preview of Cool Hand Luke's presenting evidence, and explaining from an administrative viewpoint why the venue was best treated as acceptable. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * I agree with FT2's reasoning and thank you for the full disclosure.  I do not see any reason for recusal by FT2 from arbitrating this (should it be accepted).  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Similarly, I am of the opinion that there are insufficient grounds for recusal, in accordance with the spirit of the Arbitration policy, on FT2's part. Of course, recusal of arbitrators is historically a grey area in the Committee's operations, and there really is no choice but to follow the spirit of the policy, on the basis that there is nothing but spirit and vague boundaries :) AGK (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disclosure 

message: Just out of curiosity, what is the record for longest-open ArbCom case to date? —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 05:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably Matthew Hoffman, although Highways 2 is taking pretty darn long... --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I recall that one on topic of scientology went for a full two months in the spring summer of 07.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 06:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The longest in the last year was probably around 2½ months (11 weeks): Allegations of apartheid. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idle question 

message: === Statement by {Party 1} ===
Whilst we understand that Wikipedia is not a place for promoting businesses or advertising organisations, we fail to see how the page fell into either of these categories. The Westminster Committee is the only international organisation of its kind. The page described the background, guiding principles, activities and coverage of the  group which has been in existence for over 2 years and has received press coverage in the Economist, LA Times, Times, Guardian, Independent and has been recognised by the UN’s InterParliamentary Union. Members of the group have been interviewed on BBC, PressTV, Irna and Saha television. I would therefore suggest that the group is deserving of a mention within the terms of the encylopedic function the Wikipedia proports to provide. I would request that you look again at the page. If there are elements that you feel are “blatant promotion or advertising” please delete them, but perhaps you could leave the main body of the text there. I recognise that you are an experienced and qualified editor but I would request that this matter also be referred to the ajudicators for further assessment.
=== Statement by {Party 2} ===
The page for the Westminster Committee on Iran was deleted on 15th February by an editor called Lara Love. The Committee is an organisation that attempts to increase dialogue between parliamentarians in Tehran and the rest of the world with a view to avoiding conflict. It has been around since 2006 and receives substantial coverage in the mainstream media. The page that was up seemed to conform to the Wikipedia rules and we are uncertain why Ms Love deleted the entire page.
We have tried to contact editors and Ms Love but since we are no longer to 'log in', it is quite difficult to contact people. If anyone can help retrieve our page or get to the bottom of the mystery of why it was deleted, it would be much appreciated. If the content could be sent to the Committee it could at least be salvaged.
Kind regards
Convener, Westminster Committee on Iran (London
===Other notes===
I have left a message for this user explaining about usernames/pages and arb com. etc at []  Slp1 (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Westminster Committee on Iran 

message: I have left a message for this user explaining about usernames/pages and arb com. etc at []  Slp1 (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Other notes

message: Another week goes by, and the Arbitration case relating to Highways falls through the cracks. Does the Arbitration plan to do anything about the case soon? --Rschen7754 (T C) 22:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably it means the Arbs are failing to come to a clear consensus on their email list and private wiki.  It also probably means you haven't had administrators getting blocked due to edit warring on the case pages, which at least one other case has had recently.  Take solace in the latter.  GRBerry 23:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been tied up in our internal discussions on the Mantanmoreland case, in which I will be posting a proposed decision tonight or tomorrow, but I will push (again) for Highways 2 to receive priority attention. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another week goes by... 

message: Being an arbitrator is a tough and thankless job, that does not often do much to endear one to others. They have a heavy load both on and off wiki, and commit significant amounts of their volunteer time to this duty. They deserve a thanks every now and then. I looked in on RFAR today and saw it to be nearly empty, with only two pending requests, both speedily on their way towards being declined, (as opposed to hanging around in perpetuity until enough votes get in). I look at the cases, and apart from the incredibly complex ones, which are getting the attention they deserve, the standard cases are proceeding through arbitration rather quickly.  Some of the new arbitrators ran on a platform of "speeding things up" and it's good to get the feeling that this has taken place. Anyway, I just wanted to drop off a word of thanks.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 23:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you to the committee 

message: Admins are allowed to make (a small number of) mistakes.  One of the four issues you raise is a page deletion which Mikkalai subsequently undeleted after it was brought up at AN/I.  Resolved;  no need to bring this up at arbitration.  For the other three, you give no indication that they were mentioned either on Mikkalai's talk page or at AN/I.  It seems inappropriate to me to bring them up here without discussing them at one of those places first.  For all four of these problems, I think Mikkalai's current system would work to allow such actions, if inappropriate, to be reverted. --Coppertwig (talk) 13:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed my vote on the main RfAr page to declining the case for now because it seems that some progress is being made, and in light of the factors mentioned by a number of users. If the problems recur or continue, then a new request for arbitration can be filed, but I truly hope this will not become necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That was why I elaborated what I felt the issues were.  Since the arbs were saying they were basing accepting on the allegations of admin abuse, and someone had pointed out that the blocking feature already provides a form of notification, I figured I should list what I believed were the improper actions, so no one would claim I exaggerated to get the case accepted. MBisanz talk 21:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to statement by [[User:MBisanz|MBisanz]]

message: Seeing as the Arbitration Committee has decided to abandon the Highways case (a shame, really) would they be open to suspending the case for 30 days so that a formal mediation can take place? If the mediation fails, then the case can be resumed. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not hold up Matthew Hoffman as a case worthy of emulation.  It was a mess from start to finish. Jehochman  Talk 01:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Some editors disagree. I think that case was handled very well under the circumstances. —Whig (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was messier than it should have needed to be.  I think Vanished User missed several chances to keep it relatively neat.  Heck, we didn't even need a case, IMO, but Vanished User also managed to make it sound as though there was still a dispute between admins before the case was even filed.  Had he not done that, there would never have been a case.  GRBerry 02:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the case, in my opinion. Vanished User set the pace of the proceeding and the result. —Whig (talk) 02:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Well I'm only suggesting a case suspension and a formal mediation. Not anything else from that case. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Could the committee please respond? --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

text: It also shows that failure to work with the Arbitration Committee, and failure to accept the best of a bad situation, doesn't really help. There is a danger here that a myth will be started that Arbcom were completely in the wrong in the MatthewHoffman case, when in fact they did several things to try and fix or improve the situation, and several reasonable solutions were offered, but for various reasons things spiralled out of control. That arbitration case going out of control was due to many factors, not all of which were under the control of the Arbcom or the community. That's my reading of what happened there. Carcharoth (talk) 10:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Out of respect for Newyorkbrad, I'm not going to comment further on the MH case here.  EdChem (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I'd prefer for the Arbitration Committee to review the case instead. However, as the motion for dismissal is gaining support, I figured that the mediation would be a better alternative to the case being dismissed. Thank you for your willingness to continually update us as to the progress of the case. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A proposal - Matthew Hoffman solution 

message: :By my reckoning six out of the 15 arbitrators are British, and two of the remainder are not Americans, so only a minority are from the US. However, please be aware that the Arbitration committee does a very specific job and it does not include decisions about content. They are handled by the whole community collectively, under the 'five pillars' fundamental policies. As an observation, not everyone seems to have accepted that your interpretation about British usage of the word 'hacker' is a fair representation of the actual usage and interpretation. Guidance on the form of English to be used in articles is given in Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. Some disputes over British vs. American spellings have ended up in the list of lamest edit wars. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Response by [[User:Sam Blacketer|Sam]] and [[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]]

message: ::Thanks for your responses. I must stress that when I asked these questions I wasn't asking about whether there is a "British contingent" on the committee or not; they were general questions aimed at establishing how Wikipedia can justify maintaining its highly respected international reputation for neutrality and self-governance. My observations are as follows:
::# "There is no guarantee. Anyone who wishes to try to enforce our policies and guidelines, or change them, is allowed to try."Given that there is no guarantee that the policies within the system are actually enforced by anybody, it is down to the editors themselves to adhere to the policy out of their own sense of obligation. Therefore, whether you can work well with others or not, should the majority of editors on a single article all not share that obligation, then consensus may be used to enforce any kind of content, regardless of what is actually going on in the world. Furthermore, there are no safeguards (over and above more editors from opposing viewpoints joining the system) for making sure that this situation doesn't happen.
::# "The English language Wikipedia aims to have useful claims backed by reliable sources on as many topics as we can manage.".It appears to me that Wikipedia is now unable to manage the neutrality of its English language content any more, and so should maybe change its name from "English" Wikipedia to something else. I can say this because no system that can manage its content would force a person to give up four months of their life (longer, actually, as ArbCom said that editors should return to lower-level mediation) to argue about something which, in their own country, is widely accepted. Requiring people to go through that kind of upheaval for the sake of documenting something which they don't have to argue about in their own country is a serious failing of the system.
::# "it is useful to gain consensus, find allies, give convincing arguments, and contribute to Wikipedia in other ways if you intend to be successful in doing this.". The most important part of that response for me is that consensus, and allies, should be found from among the majority of people currently outside of the system. The more people from outside the system who know how the system works, the more there will be who can potentially join, and the more editors there will be to ensure the neutrality of the system.
::# "They can't know, anymore than they can know that is true of the New York Times or Britannica."The New York Times is a US publication so people from all over the world know it is is a US-only publication so they know to caution all content within as being US-biased. This is of course correct, but question (3) wasn't about whether a publication with a specific national audience has to be neutral with respect to other countries. The question was about how Wikipedia, a service which specifically reaches out to an international audience, makes sure it actually is a neutral repository of information from the entire English-speaking world. Whether the predominantly IT-based people within Wikipedia think an interpretation is "fair" or not is not really the issue; the issue is about the fact that when it comes to documenting information, everything is what it is. It's that simple. Question (3) was about whether Wikipedia's administrators have the ability to apply the "everything is what it is" mentality over and above their own beliefs regardless of which country or industrial sector they are from. For example, Oxford University Press in the UK, Mirriam-Webster in the US, make it their business to make sure that their publications document what is and what isn't from the view of everybody (not an IT-based minority) within whichever region is being documented, which is why they are the most solidly verifiable sources in existence. It appears in some casees that documentation of "it is what it is" has all but been forgotten.
::Wikipedia's biggest intended (and actual) audience is non-IT people who make up the majority of the English speaking world and teachers and local governments around the world are clammering to use it. As Wikpedia editors, though, all these people are effectively eunuchs as they don't know how to login to a computer system, mark-up a page, use a version control system, and effectively argue against professionals who spend their entire waking lives doing just that in chatrooms, bulletin boards and on academic networks. Ordinary people may not have the time to contribute, or employment/other local restrictions may prevent it. However, every single one of those people is a contributor to their communities and their culture, and so guarantees must exist to ensure that everybody can be documented neutrally within the system should Wikipedia actually be aspiring to be such a service in the first place. I (and indeed, everyone in the world) assumes that Wikipedia is aspiring to be such a service, and that these guarantees already exist, but your statements say that they do not and this misunderstanding ought to be corrected within the community at large outside of the system.
::Any kind of system that relies on consensus is a democracy. Consensus and Democracy go hand in hand; you can't have one without the other. If Wikipedia is not a democracy then it should be possible for a single editor to still (with appropriate sources) override the majority simply because that editor is documenting "it is what it is". Being able to "convince" has virtually nothing to do with a single person's reasoning skills and virtually everything to do with whether the people listening want to accept what is being said. People can ignore anything they like, even if it's right, is actually happening, and is documented and believed as such by hundreds of millions of people. Therefore, being able to "convince" is a fairly ineffective and difficult tool to use given the ease with which a big stick like "consensus" can be wielded. This leads me to conclude that, given the deliberate omission of overall control in the system, Wikipedia's core policies are contradicting each other and it is affecting actual content correctness. I don't have enough time on this earth to be checking (and possibly arguing about) the 2,000,000 or so articles currently in English Wikipedia and devoting up to four months of my life fixing each article. That would take up to 700,000 years. But then one person shouldn't have to do the work that a system expects an entire nation to be doing. A system that claims to be aimed at everybody should not be prohibitively difficult to edit (and therefore inaccessible) to the majority of its own audience. However, if that is the reality, then such a system should have enforceable controls in place to make sure that the entire system can be fixed at least within the lifetime of most human beings.
::This concludes my observations, and my questions with regard to this thread. I thank you all for your time.
::Andrew81446 (talk) 12:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Andrew81446|Andrew81446]] responds

message: Wikipedia is not dominated by IT people. I'm not sure what caused you to come to this conclusion, but as far as I am aware there is no data or anecdotal evidence to suggest that most contributors come from an IT background. Wikipedia is not difficult to edit. It requires a basic familiarity with web browsing, and not too much more beyond that. That would be why many millions of contributors have edited - far more, I suspect, than you will find in the IT community of the English speaking world. 
There are no guarantees on content, nor could there be while still maintaining the principle of an "encyclopedia anyone can edit."
If you find that there is a problem with an article, then engage in fixing it. You may run into opposition. Since your opinions do not dominate, it is incumbent upon you to convince others to adopt your point of view. If you fail to do so, it does not point up an inherent problem in the concept of "convincing" (though there may be many). It simply means that there are those who disagree with your view of "what is is." If you can't see that content is more complex than "it is what it is" then you are missing more than anyone here can explain to you. No one required you to spend four months fruitlessly arguing that "Hacker" should be used in a particular manner, or based on a particular definition with which you are familiar. You complain that you should not have to convince others of a fact which is simply accepted in your country, and yet this mindset is ironically exactly what you seem to rail against. 
Finally, while we appreciate your contributions you must know that while Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone is free to edit, it is also the encyclopedia anyone is free to not edit. It is not uncommon for editors to take issues of WIkipedia content far more seriously than is perhaps advisable. This seems to be the case here, and perhaps you should take some time away and return to Wikipedia with a new perspective. We recognize that there is an issue of system bias, and that the prevalence of editors from a small number of cultures can introduce problems of perspective in our content. You are welcome to join us in combating this problem, but its existence is human nature and a product of reality and not our great failure. Avruch  T   00:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Response by [[User:Avruch|Avruch]]

message: #"Wikipedia is not dominated by IT people"According to the Systemic Bias project within Wikipedia, which was based on actual research, "The average Wikipedian on English Wikipedia is (1) a man, (2) technically inclined...". Seeing as this is a computer system, and not (1) a mechanical based system involving gears, pulleys, or any kind of automotive component, or (2) a biochemical system containing elements such as gasses or liquids or any geneticly-derived material, the phrase "technically inclined" can be reasonably asserted to mean "those with technical knowledge about, or connected with, computers", or more simply put, IT-familiar or IT-industry related people.
#While Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone is free to edit, it is also the encyclopedia anyone is free to not editThat is perfectly true, providing that the equal and opposite message is actively promoted amongst its readers. That is, that readers are free to accept or not to accept information that appears due to the fact that editors may all come from one region and so can bias or influence any and all information that appears on it. Readers cannot make a proper choice to ignore content on Wikipedia if they are not made aware of the choice in the first place. And seeing as I see no such cautionary note on the front page of Wikipedia it can be reasonably argued that the desperate situation that exists with a lack of editors is not being transmitted to the readers. As Wikipedia actively promotes itself into schools and local government, children around the world are allowed (or are actively promoted) to use Wikipedia instead of consulting local works. If you already have children, or choose to have children in the future, I am sure one of your primary concerns is making sure that what they learn at school is in line with what you, as a parent, think is best for your child. Teachers who implicitly trust Wikipedia are using it to teach our children something that really could have no bearing on what goes on in the area of the world where we live simply because of the bias created by editors of the system, and the system itself supporting such bias. While you as a parent have a choice then you can always correct anything your child learns once you have an opportunity. However, should usage of information on Wikipedia become government educational policy (e.g. exam moderators being allowed to consult Wikipedia to check "university entrance" exam responses), your right to teach your child whatever you like will effectively disappear as they will have to answer questions on exam papers in a way that corresponds to what appears on Wikipedia. And you will then have to implicitly trust that Wikipedia delivers the neutrality and balanced information that its policies were designed to deliver, regardless of what you actually want to teach your children about the environment in which they are raised and grow up in. Within this context, do you think that anybody is free "not to edit"?
:You may think that the information on Wikipedia may reflect your particular environment, and reflects the culture that you wish to instil into your children, but are you really sure? The only way to be sure is to check all 2,200,000 articles which would take up to 700,000 years (as I said). Of course, you don't have to check them all, but then you only have yourself (and human nature) to blame if United States educational policy (for example) advocates use of Wikipedia and your child is being force-fed (for example) United Kingdom culture because the bias in certain articles wasn't able to be fixed.
:This is why I said that Wikipedia has potentially already become a system that cannot control itself. However, it isn't necessary to control the system if readers are armed with choice, and are made aware of having that choice in the first place. If my efforts within the system to simply document what goes on in my country are meeting with such opposition from other editors within the system, then perhaps I should take a break and devote my time to making readers in my country aware of how content is constructed, thus empowering them with the choice of whether to accept information regarding things that they generally turned to Wikipedia in the first place to find out about. Seeing as such people would be coming from my community, I wouldn't have nearly as much trouble relating my thoughts due to the "lack of skill" in being able to "convince" people that has been remarked upon in my dealings with other editors within the system.
:Andrew81446 (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Andrew81446|Andrew81446]] responds

message: ::I don't know any teachers, and haven't heard of any, who "implicitly trust Wikipedia." Quite the opposite, in fact. I think we are far, far away from the point where entrance exams are based on or checked against Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't gospel - its words are not revelatory, and anyone is free to ignore anything on any article. You are making the argument that because some people won't think to take something written on the encyclopedia anyone can edit with a grain of salt, we should post giant disclaimers on every page saying "CAREFUL, AMERICANS MAY HAVE WRITTEN THIS!" Sorry, no - this is a free to edit website. Parsing it further, it is (a) free, (b) editable by anyone and (c) a website. Any one of these three things by themselves typically clue folks in regarding reliability. That you or others lack this clue perhaps points out a problem with your pre-Wikipedia education system, not Wikipedia. Coming from my biased, American and IT-related background perhaps I have an advantage in this area - but nothing on or related to Wikipedia has anything to do with the "culture I want instilled in my children" - except, perhaps, the principle of freedom that you are implicitly arguing against.
::Regarding technically inclined and my dispute of your assertion that Wikipedians are generally or universally members of the IT-community - the research you refer to is a single survey from 3 years ago on the German Wikipedia. Attempting to apply broad conclusions from this research to English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project, 3 years later, is doomed to fail. Arguments for controls and sweeping changes to inculcate some sort of objective truth should be based on an accurate reading of the research you cite.
::You don't address my point specific to your complaint (the Hacker article). You say that you shouldn't have to spend 4 months arguing to have an article reflect what is commonly accepted in your country, and I am telling you that this point of view is exactly why you have lost that crusade. Further, you appear to be criticizing that position and taking it at the same time. 
::Take a look at WP:DEADLINE. The policies here aren't "designed to deliver" Wikipedia as if it were a finished product on an assembly line. They are ad-hoc (but well thought out) attempts to add to and improve upon our content over time, a task that will not result in a perfect product anytime soon if ever. Feel free to read Britannica or some other reference in the mean time, only Wikipedia is subject to the biases we've identified here. Avruch  T   15:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Response by [[User:Avruch|Avruch]]

message: :Not a member of the arbcom, but I would like to comment on this question:  "In terms of content, is English Wikipedia considered to be a vehicle for documenting the United States, or for documenting the entire English-speaking world?"  My answer: No.  English Wikipedia is for documenting everything that is notable.  It is not restricted to topics in the English-speaking world nor to topics supported by English-language sources, and certainly not restricted to topics in the United States. The English language is merely the medium in which the documentation is expressed, not an indication of what topics will be covered. --Coppertwig (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Response by Coppertwig

message: :Response to Avruch: I have some things here that will help you understand the world of teaching that you openly confess - rather shockingly, given the weight which you give your subsequence points - not to know anything about: see this history teacher in a UK school. You'll notice he asks a very pertinent question in fact:
I don't know how they deal with differing interpretations though - it will be interesting to find out.
:Well, I personally shall be emailing him to tell him exactly how Wikipedia deals with differing interpretations: by being shouted down, intimidated, and generally being worn out to the point (in most cases) of being forced to give up by a very vociferous predomimantly US-based community who exercise consensus to get what they want. You think my analsys of my experience is unfair? Have you read the entire archived history on the Hacker (computing) article? By the way, he also makes a reference to the article Hutton Inquiry. Such UK-only institutions of course are not going to invite a lot of outside contributions. However, even given that, the (I assume) predominantly United Kingdom contributors made sure that the article was disambiguated from the start, to prevent all readers from outside of the United Kingdom, English-speaking and non-English-speaking, from thinking that there is a Hutton Inquiry in every English-speaking country. It begs the question why is it that United States contributors cannot do the same thing with regards to their articles.
:Incidentally, if you think that my appraisal of "glossy" and "wholesome" is incorrect then maybe you should read this (BBC, 7th December, 2007) from Mr. Wikipedia himself, Jimmy Wales. Of course, not everybody agrees with him and Wikipedia's Co-Founder Larry Sanger actually criticised the United Kingdom Education Minister (United Kingdom: The Times, April 11th, 2007) for encouraging national education policy to accept Wikipedia given the bias that is known to exist within it. People outside of the UK (e.g. the United States) may not know about these events that happened just mid- to late last year but then, as I have been advocating on the "Hacker" article talk pages, people rarely talk about, or care about, things that don't concern them. However, that itself does not mean such things do not exist or are wrong. Read the two articles as they are very important.
:Wikipedia's Founder openly derides teachers, in a country which he doesn't live in or contribute to, who actually teach your "take it with a grain of salt" principle to the students. If there was ever an attitude of arrogance and disrespect for another country's culture then that was it. And coming from the very top of the Wikipedia instution. It seems that even though he has officially delegated respsonibilities to ArbCOM, his arrogance appears to be living on within the system through its editors. So yes, the effects of protagonists like Jimmy Wales require exceptional solutions and your idea that a warning that "CAREFUL, AMERICANS MAY HAVE WRITTEN THIS!" is actually a very good, if not a little extreme, as that would be documenting the current situation with regards to the ratio's of editors. However, that is not actually necessary as simple disambiguations in well positioned places within the articles (like that in the article Hutton Inquiry) would make all the difference. You can see for yourself what I am talking about by comparing the opening paragraphs of this (disambiguations inserted) with this (no disambiguations).
:From my experience, the only thing that all Wikipedia editors have in common is that they are afraid to actually document "as it is". You, as an editor, may have the right approach, but I can dig up thousands of teachers like the one quoted above who implicitly just trust that it correctly governs itself. Unfortunately, it takes an exremist to bring light to a problem which, as I found out, can often damage credibility. However, readers of Wikipedia are not currently aware of the real situation, nor of the real "grain of salt" thinking some (yes, some, not all) of Wikipedia's editors, and that is a fact that needs to be addressed. People inside Wikipedia may not like to believe it, but the situation I talk of is already happening and is much closer than you think and people have a right to know.
:As I said before, this situation could, and probably will apply to other countries as well. In the future, for example, should any United States student refer to soccer instead of Football they could be marked down in an exam. I can't speculate about how normal, everyday United States citizens, who don't use computers and don't know much about editing Wikipedia, may feel about having their traditional game renamed because of a Wikipedia article, but it is an example of the kind of anger and sentiment that such a progression will inevitably lead to should English Wikipedia not fix its deep-rooted problems now.
:Andrew81446 (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The above is a long comment that doesn't actually address what I've written, so I wouldn't really call it a response. I have no intention at this point of engaging further in this rather fruitless debate. Avruch  T   15:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Response by Andrew81446

message: :I guess I see this as addressing a few issues. First of all, the question of regional bias. I'm an active Australian editor and spend a large amount of my time on Wikipedia writing or editing articles on Australian topics using Australian sources. Our "bit" of Wikipedia, with about 44,000 articles and about 2% of Wikipedia's total content (see WP:AUS), functions almost like its own entity at times, with some even going to the extent of criticising us as being a cabal. Most of our problems (where they exist) come from local editors and local differences of opinion, rather than any sort of systemic anti-Australian bias. More recently, we've been working with smaller nearby nations with little or no representation on Wikipedia (and often with relatively poor access to the Internet and technology) to enhance their coverage. (Most of these things apply equally to most regional projects - Canada, New Zealand and India all come to mind.) While on general topics, due simply to the weight of American editors, one may find some level of undue weighting (not so much bias, as in general the articles in question are fairly neutral but lack scope), this should be addressed by more people editing them. As for ArbCom, the current mix has one North African, several Americans, several Brits and I believe two Australians at the present. 
:Secondly, to the IT/technical bias. While I plead guilty as charged as an IT-literate person, graduate and former IT worker, many of my fellow editors are subject editors and relatively non-technical, including people with several Featured Articles, the "pinnacle" of Wikipedia achievement. Obviously through use, one acquires a level of comprehension and familiarity, but anyone who can master APA or some other citation system for academic work can master our citation system, and it's pretty much the only complex issue one will ever come across. Wikipedia is packed full of people eager to teach others, run workshops, and of course there's all the links from the typical (and ever more colourful) welcome messages for new editors. Once one knows the basic policies (WP:5), that [[ is an internal link, [ is an external link, the heading levels, bold/italic, that {{ means the page is in the template namespace, how to plant an image, interwiki links and the citation templates, one could write a featured article with those alone and it may not even be necessary to learn more.
:And finally, as an educator myself, to the reliability of Wikipedia - I think most educators acknowledge that Wikipedia is a tertiary source and can be unreliable. It is useful as a general guide and pointer, but many topics are not covered, some are inadequately, others have what we might call issues of various characters, while others are excellent, are written by subject experts from good sources and could be regarded as reasonably reliable. On many major and especially historical and scientific topics I generally find the latter case predominates - the only problem can sometimes be that the level of the article is pitched way above the processing level of my students! I am studying Politics at university and our unit guide has a clear warning about using Wikipedia as a source. Orderinchaos 15:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Response by [[User:Orderinchaos]]

message: Around the last election, Jimbo encouraged the community (IIRC) to develop a method for removing inactive Arbitrators between elections. I don't know if this has been discussed and resolved already, if it has can someone point me to where? If it is still unresolved, it seems like now is the perfect time to bring this problem to a close. All Arbitrators are currently active, and any decision on future inactive Arbitrators will not be seen as directed at a particular member of the Committee. Additionally, of course, any decision that requires the assent of the Committee on its own constitution will have the benefit of a majority of the entire panel rather than a subset of those who are active. Thanks, Avruch  T   00:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This was being discussed internally by the committee, and I had circulated a draft proposal, but no conclusion has been reached. I agree that the matter should be discussed now when it is hypothetical, rather than later on in the context of a specific arbitrator who encounters availability problems. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you be willing to publicize this proposal? And for clarification on how to proceed, would you say that this issue will be decided by a consensus of the Committee or a consensus of the community, including the Committee members as individuals? I'm not too bothered by it as no action has been taken, but I'm not sure a private discussion about a community policy is necessarily the best choice. Avruch  T   00:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was part of Jimbo's instruction when appointing the new arbitrators that we formulate such a policy. If I remember correctly it was the arbitrators who were instructed to come up with something workable; remember that the Arbitration Policy is not under the control of the community. The new arbitrators needed to settle in and there were some very intense and difficult discussions which have taken a great deal of time. I personally feel that a simple process is the best. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, thank you for the clarification. I've been peripherally involved in both intensely difficult cases, so I can understand the delay. I agree, too, that the process should be as simple and straightforward as possible. Avruch  T   01:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing inherently confidential about the inactivity policy (though there could conceivably be a private reason for temporary inactivity of a particular arbitrator), so I'd have no problem posting a proposal here, subject to what my colleages have to say about the matter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inactive Arb removal process 

message: I see the phrase bandied about (now in the Betacommand RfArb) but I can't find any reference to what it means, except for a failed proposal WP:Trusted Users that doesn't seem to have meant how the term is used anyhow. Is there a reference to who these people are? Jd2718 (talk) 13:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The phrase has no special meaning here beyond its ordinary English meaning. --bainer (talk) 13:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

text: In proper context, a "Trusted user" is someone that I am will to trust enough to give my bot code to. βcommand 15:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see why standards of trust are being set for this Bot; granted, it can be misued—but surely anybody with intentions malicious enough to facilitate their disruption of Wikipedia with bot code would have enough determination to go out and author code themselves? AGK (contact) 15:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont like handing code that can edit at 700 edits a minute to very vandal who wants it. βcommand 16:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

text: *BC, you know as well as I do that speed of editing is simply a number entered in the code. Your code isn't top-secret for that reason, it's top-secret because you want it to be for some reason. And that's fine, apparently, as no one with the authority to do so is forcing you to open it up to community improvement. Bellwether BC 23:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

text: The connection between BC's "trusted users" and any other policy or convention is irrelevant, its simply the personal standard under which he'll release his code. I don't believe he can be forced to do that,  so debating his standards seems to be not worth the time. Avruch  T   16:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So maybe the better phrase than "trusted users" would be "users I trust"? Franamax (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trusted Users 

message: The rather-inexplicable Episodes 2 case has had a majority on all its passing items for some time. Yet the case lingers open like a festering wound. For some reason, even the most recent two arbitrators to vote have neglected to vote thence to close. Since the injunction is already out of the jurisdiction of the committee (you are not invited, imo, to inject yourselves sweepingly into consensual processes), has been hanging around for ages and continues to bite unsuspecting editors who probably aren't aware of the speakings of the committee, please would someone get this thing tidied up? Splash - tk 22:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I should point out that there might be further findings or remedies presently being discussed amongst the arbitrators, and that is why even the voters may not have yet chosen to vote to close.  Currently, there are three net votes to close (the opposition comes from an arbitrator that specifically asked to be given more time to consider further possible evidence).  The case should close fairly soon, you'll probably just need a bit more patience.  — Coren (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A couple of us have been discussing whether any more proposals should be made. Editors on the case have expressed the view that the committee has not done enough to address the issues, and we want to make sure that we have done all we can, without crossing the line into making content rulings (please see the comments I left last week on the talkpage of proposed decision). I will withdraw my opposition to closing and put the case into closing immediately unless an arbitrator offers some substantial new proposals in a day or so. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you do decide that further items are going to be considered, please simultaneously consider fixing the injunction which is causing actual problems on AfD and DRV, where it is questionable if the committee may even speak (they are consensual content venues). Poor decisions cannot be reversed, and good ones cannot be made; housekeeping cannot proceed and debates around the questions are stifled. Most of us have never misbehaved wrt to 'episodes and characters' and to summarily injunct every editor is rather extraordinary. This has been raised a number of times on the proposed decision's talk page by several different editors and admins, but not so far dealt with. I fear the injunction is approaching, or already past, its sell-by date, and is likely to find itself disposed of by being ignored by most of us before very much longer. Allow the case to linger if you must, but please either dispense with the injunction, or scope it to the parties to the case. Splash - tk 23:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a fair point. If the case isn't closed tomorrow, I'll make an appropriate motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's been closed now. Daniel (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrators, please tidy up 

message: :Threaded discussion removed to talk page from here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: His actions are a direct violation of WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY. Special:Contributions becomes unusable when you have an editor partaking in identical discussions from multiple accounts. See also User:Betacommand2, where he suggests ("this is my Test & VandalProof account") this doppelgänger account is only for test purposes (but a quick perusal of the contributions indicates otherwise). —Locke Cole • t • c 23:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Wikipedia:SOCK#SCRUTINY states clearly that "Using alternative puppet accounts to split your contributions history means that other editors cannot detect patterns in your contributions." I've been confused more than once by this, and though I now know to look out for whether he is editing using Betacommand or Betacommand2, it is probable that others have been confused by this as well. Carcharoth (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are both overlooking Wikipedia:SOCK#Segregation_and_security, account security is a good reason for using an alternate account. That's the reason why many admins have an alternate account (javascript issues, as I think is the case here, would be an other valid explanation). Perhaps you should ask Betacommand to update his user page instead of assuming he is doing so in order to escape scrutinity. -- lucasbfr talk 00:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He hasn't stated that the account is being used for segregation and security; as per the user page, it is for "testing and vandalproof". Again, this is a clear cut violation of WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY; his contributions are being split between two accounts without even an attempt at a valid reason for doing so. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've asked Betacommand here. This threaded conversation really should stop here and now, as such threaded conversation is frowned upon. If neither of you two objects, I will move this to the RFARB talk page (and link to it from here). Carcharoth (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

text: End quote. Further discussion should be added below. Carcharoth (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Come on Locke will your trolling never end? how am I deceive anyone I redirected the talkpage to my main account. that is anything from deceptive. I have never denied that I use the alt account. WP:SOCK#LEGIT covers it fairly well there are tech reasons that I dont use my main account at times, and a little bit of the security also. βcommand 00:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Three points. (1) Locke is not trolling. (2) People are being confused by this - they are looking for edits they remember you making, but are looking under the wrong account. (3) You should update User:Betacommand2 to state that there are technical and security reasons that you sometimes contribute to discussions using this account (ie. it is more than just a test and VandalProof account). There is no way to avoid (2) if you have security or technical reasons for using the alternate account, but it would be good if you could minimise the use of the alternate account and thus minimise any confusion it causes (eg. someone trying to find some diff where you stated something about some phase 4 stuff, but forgetting to look under the Betacommand2 account). Carcharoth (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Further incivility (referring to my concerns as "trolling") noted at my RFArb comments. At any rate, posting from a sockpuppet account in the manner you have been (alternating back and forth) makes using Special:Contributions nearly worthless when trying to find when you said something. I also wonder if there really are legitimate reasons for using a 2nd account in this manner, as it really only leads to confusion by other editors/the community. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Comments by Locke Cole (BetacommandBot RfArb) 

message: Reading through Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles, the remedies appear unnecessarily complicated. Reckon we'd be better off with jolly old discretionary sanctions a la ARBMAC? The conflicts here don't seem to have slowed down so much as to make discretionary sanctions redundant. This is a disinterested suggestion: being English, I make it a personal policy to avoid the Irish-British dogfights as much as possible. Moreschi (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Troubles 

message: :Copied to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2, including sub-headings "Further evidence of ongoing problems", "Yet more evidence of ongoing civility issues", and "Betacommand vs Abu badali comment". Daniel (talk) 02:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Betacommand RFAR: Extremely Disappointing 

message: :Copied to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2. Daniel (talk) 02:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions for ArbCom re: BetaCommand RfAR 

message: I think each appeal and proposed case should be on a sub page - that way I can follow an individual case w/o paying attention to everything else. Much like how RFAs or AFDs are held in sub pages.
Any rejected case can be either archived or deleted.
-- Cat chi? 14:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  For the sake of sanity, subpages please 

message: To expand on my discussions with a few folks on IRC of late (and, I have just noticed, White Cat's similar note), I'd like to put the idea out there, regarding subpages for WP:RFAR. The current page is extremely cluttered, and is quite tricky to keep managed.
My experience with case management at WP:RFM and WP:RFCU has shown that subpages really do work: they help give a very brief "overview" in the editing window, whilst simultaneously allowing for a more sensible approach to the bytes of data in these oft' busy processes.
Subpages would be relatively easy to set up, and the "recycling" of the subpages would be very easy to set up: rejected requests are simply removed from WP:RFAR (and perhaps into a subpage, similar to WP:RFCU, or a subsection, similar to WP:RFM), and deleted after a reasonable period (all the Clerks, Arbitrators, and most of the folks that hang around RfAr are administrators); accepted requests are effectively "converted" by the opening Clerk into the full-case format, per WP:AC/C/P.
The downsides are very limited: one could argue the workload will increase, although I believe the organisational benefits will cancel this out; additionally, many arbitrators tend to "run through" all the present requests, voting on each at once. However, I am sure that a little adapting would not be a huge step?
I invite thoughts on the logictics, and the advantages/disadvantages of this process. I am not calling for an immediate implementation—rather, as I stipulated in my opening sentence, I'm simply "putting the idea out there", for general consideration and, hopefully, consensus-building. Regards, Anthøny 23:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been suggested before. A major problem is that arbitration requests or comments contained in them are frequently stigmatizing, or just plain frivolous, and keeping such requests rejected by arbitrators around indefinitely is not really a great idea. Dmcdevit·t 23:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Frivolous subpages could be deleted, or an approach like that at WP:DRV could be adopted. Don't ask me how the DRV approach works, but it could be another option. But I do like the idea of a set of permanent subpages (1-8 maybe) that are recycled as needed.  You file the case at the subpage and activate it on the main page. Carcharoth (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A user RFC will get deleted if it doesn't get accepted within 48 hours. An rfar case if rejected by arbcom can be deleted in a similar manner. There actually are license issues in copy pasting accepted requests. Page histories are not carried for example. RFAR and RFAR appeals should be on seperate pages. -- Cat chi? 13:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't see how the comments in a rejected RFAR could be any more "stigmatizing" or "frivolous" than those in a rejected AFD, or a rejected RFA, or anything else that is rejected, marked as such, but very rarely deleted or blanked. — CharlotteWebb 17:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Reply to Dmcdevit: I am thinking along the lines of the system used in WP:RFM—old RfMs are marked as rejected, and delisted from the main requests page. They are then "subst:"-ed onto a rejected cases archive, which allows a permanent log of the requests to be kept, yet simultaneously allowing the (now defunct) request page to be deleted. With regards to disruptive comments, I reiterate Charlotte's comments: if the need arises, a  can always be employed for that particular section (or, as it's a section-only action, and thus courtesy-blanked is probably ill-suited, a related template that could very easily be drawn up). Thoughts? Anthøny 19:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

text: The major problem I see with all this is that it will make it considerably more time-consuming for us to keep track of comments, since we won't have the subpages watchlisted. Kirill 23:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we could use Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration? Anthøny 23:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, that (a) doesn't include translusions, only links, and (b) will catch all links—including articles, user sigs, and so forth.  What we'd need is something like  but listing the open requests (and someone to maintain it!). Kirill 23:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reason why cases in the "currently voting whether to open it" phase can't or shouldn't be added to the ArbComOpenTasks template, regardless of whether said cases are being discussed on the same page or on separate sub-pages (usually only need to change a "#" to a "/" or vice versa). — CharlotteWebb 18:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

text: If you have, say, four permanent subpages, it isn't that onerous to watchlist them all. Arbitration cases already have the option to watchlist all four of the associated pages, and no-one seems to complain about that. Carcharoth (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How many open arbitration case requests are there at any given time? Never seen more than 5 or 6... The number of cases did not increase a whole lot, the number of involved people however has. I think arbitrators following every post can watchlist new cases. Any new case would still be announced on the main rfar page. -- Cat chi? 12:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:RFAR|RfAr]] subpages? 

message: #Clarifications and other requests section should be moved to a seperate page. Perhaps a Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration clarifications.
Clarifications occupy half of the page now.
-- Cat chi? 14:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I always wondered why "clarification" discussions for a particular case take place on the main RFAR page rather than on the talk page the closed case. A brief boilerplate note here pointing to "Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lizzie Borden#Clarification" or whatever would be more appropriate. — CharlotteWebb 17:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be hard to follow though. -- Cat chi? 12:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I think it would be easier as the discussion is all in one place. Ideally the "final decision" section of the case would be modified (i.e. clarified) to reflect the result of the discussion, as opposed to holding the discussion in Grand Central Station (a.k.a. the main RFAR page) and hoping everybody who cares will bookmark the final diff before everything gets blanked. — CharlotteWebb 18:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposal is to create a sub page that can b transcluded anywhere which can include the talk page of the case in question. -- Cat chi? 10:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requests for arbitration clarifications 

message: re Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Please_help_request_for_arbitration. This should be a decision for the Committee if they wish to process this out of process request. If there is not traction for this request then I believe an Arb or Clerk should decide to have the request removed from ANI. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've copied the request (sans the expansive evidence) to RFA.  I make no call as to the merits of the request— that's a job for the arbs themselves.  — Coren (talk) 14:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While I applaud Coren's good faith in submitting the case in the proper venue, in my view the case has no merit. I see the suspicion I had that Harry59b is an Archtransit sock turned out to be warranted. Orderinchaos 03:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I had voted to decline the case before it was removed from the page. The committee has a mailing list post concerning the matter. In the event any arbitrator wishes to take any further action concerning the case, it can be restored, but it appears to be trollish in nature. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  re a request for Arbitration posted at WP:ANI 

message: User:PHG has been disrupting the arbitration page by posting in other peoples' sections.  Please put and end to this, with a block if need be. Jehochman  Talk 17:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why couldn't I, when other users routinely respond in other people's section? PHG (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Tu quoque (Two wrongs make a right version). Get real. -- Fyslee / talk 17:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then, correct the others as well, instead of just correcting me. Rules have to be applied fairly. PHG (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Give it up, we're "wrong".  He did this throughout the entire Arb case and argued with the clerks (and they were "wrong" too) when they moved his statements to his section. Shell   babelfish 17:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just checked his user page to see what type of character would use such flimsy and disruptive arguments. I must say that this all makes his impressive contribution history a sham. Too bad that a user with so much experience still acts like a classic newbie disrupter who doesn't understand anything and refuses to meekly accept good advice. -- Fyslee / talk 17:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Whistles'' - Clerks needed 

message: Does the committee use the separate motions page anymore?  It seems to have been used for two cases in January, and not used since.  Over the last few months, I believe a few motions have actually been handled on WP:RFAR itself.  If there's no use for this page anymore, perhaps it should be redirected to WP:RFAR in order to avoid confusion.  Ral315 (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: At the moment, most motions in closed cases have arisen after someone outside the committee raised a question of clarification or asked for an expansion of the remedies. The motions then come in below the appropriate section of the request. It's not inconceivable that an issue will come up when an arbitrator discovers them, or the committee is alerted privately; in this case the transcluded page for motions would be used. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't it make more sense to move clarifications and motions completely off the RfArb page to the seperate motions page? The main WP:RFArb page can get rather long and confusing at times - having a seperate page would probably help. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Would make sense to me. Easy enough to add another page to the watchlist. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been bold and moved it to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Clarifications and motions - it might get reverted, but we'll see. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I support the move, as I agree that the main RfAr page was getting much too long. The only disadvantage that I can see is that it might make more of the amendments easier to "backburner".  As it is the motions tend to get very slow responses from the already overloaded Arbs, and having the motions on an entirely different page might exacerbate this problem.  But that's really up to the Committee, as to how they want to organize their workflow. --Elonka 23:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motions page? 

message: It is acceptable to list at the BDJ arbitration pages the cases where the arbitration case has been directly cited? Is it also acceptable to draw the attention of the arbitrators to cases where the working of an arbitration case remedy "on the ground" is leading to disputes? In other words, point this out without filing a new request, clarification or a post at arbitration enforcement? I would like in particular to point out the following:
*Wikipedia:AN#Sigh... (AN thread about the incident that involved a redirect and protection)
*Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 12#Mark Foley scandal (DRV thread - consensus seems overwhelming that something went wrong here)
*Deletion request that cites the arbitration case (specifically principle 4 - summary deletion of BLPs)
*Edit made with summary "office action" (this seems strange and worrying if done intentionally, if it was a mistake, no problem)
*Protection that cites the arbitration case (again, should such actions be listed at the arbitration case pages?)
*An admin said he was thinking of reverting the actions: "I'm half tempted to revert this ASAP because I see no BLP violation here which is implied."
*The user who made the inital request brings desysopping to the table: "Don't. You can get desysopped for doing so."
*At the DRV the following comment was made: "On the upside, summary BLP deletions (or protected redirections, I suppose) of this sort, citing the Bdj RfAr and suggesting that DRV is the proper venue to seek to overturn those deletions, are increasingly seen as inappropriate except in extreme cases, and it may be that the community will soon, as I advocated it do in the wake of the Bdj RfAr, make explicit in BLP that certain principles of that RfAr should not be understood as mandated by or consistent with policy, in order that we address a bit of well-intentioned ArbCom overreach."
I think my question is whether a clarification or other request filed now would save time and effort in the future? Essentially I am looking for brief preliminary guidance from one or more arbitrators, especially in light of the current debate about John254 and people being too quick to file at arbitration. Carcharoth (talk) 11:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If anyone want to add something to the BDJ case pages, the following seems to have been the upshot of all this: okay, you win, sheesh, sheesh, and Overturned by only person who suggested endorsing deletion (but begrudgingly). The admin actions have been overturned but there has been no response from the admin yet, though one editor has warned the admin in question. This is still a sensitive area, though, so guidance from the arbitration committee might be helpful (or maybe not). Carcharoth (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Follow up to BDJ arbitration 

message: This edit  by  is troubling in a couple of respects.  First, it includes an edit summary which assumes that his assertion in making the case was valid, based on musing by one arbitrator, yet it entirely ignores another arbitrator's unequivocal comment that I find the request to be distinctly tendentious; there is a minor content dispute and an issue over whether a source is reliable, but there's certainly not the egregious BLP violations claimed. Few if any of those commenting on the case appear to agree with John254's assertion that this is an egregious BLP violation, and most appear to believe that it was another in a series of vexatious cases brought by this user.  Second, it's removing a case on which arbitrators were actively deciding.  Yes, it was not going to be accepted, but there was at least some chance of a resolution in respect of John's repeated vexatious use of process.  Third, one is not, unless one is an ArbCom clerk, supposed to interfere with the statements of others in requested cases - I am as rouge as they come and I would not remove a case or anyone else's comments, I'd simply comment that I withdraw the request.  Fourth, by removing the case in this way, no archive or record is made of the case's rejection.  I don't know if we even keep records of rejected cases, I'm not much of an arbitration watcher, but it seems to me that the clerks are there for a reason and if you want something quietly nuked because you've made an ass of yourself then you should ask the clerks, who are nice people.  In this case, John seems to be asserting the opposite: that everyone but him is the ass.  Guy (Help!) 20:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of case in tendentious terms 

message: Just in case this becomes an issue I'll be proactive here.  Matt Sanchez, who edited as Bluemarine and is sitebanned from Wikipedia, is an editor in good standing at Wikimedia Commons.  After the en:Wikipedia arbitration case closed he accepted my standing offer of mentorship and has been making productive contributions there.  He has also made requests about the Matt Sanchez article.  At first I advised him about policies and procedures and directed him to OTRS.  Due to a lack of response from OTRS and several bright line policy issues at the article I chose to involve myself directly.  The article had problems with contributory copyright infringements, negative material sourced to non-notable blogs, etc.
I don't want to cross the line regarding proxy editing so I'm proceeding quite cautiously.  At WP:AE I have already disclosed my interaction with Mr. Sanchez.  When he requests a change I ask him for reliable sources, explain policies, and evaluate the request.  Then I propose reasonable changes to the talk page.  If no one objects I implement the change.  If someone does object we discuss it, and if no agreement is reached then I seek independent evaluation at a noticeboard.  I am not Matt Sanchez's partisan; several months ago I blocked him and I endorsed his siteban.  If there is any problem with the approach I'm taking now, please advise. DurovaCharge! 19:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds perfectly reasonable to me; with the (generally applicable) caveat that by accepting to proxy the edits you take personal responsibility for their contents— in this particular case you seem to be applying careful editorial precautions accordingly.  — Coren (talk) 15:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: <shrug> makes sense to me as well.  I keep one eye on that page and think that Durova's doing a reasonable job dealing with it.  As long as she's willing to take personal responsibility, I'm okay with it.  - Philippe 15:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Well that is unexpectedly pleasant. I certainly don't object as one of the people that was involved in the RFAR fracas and hostility from him. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

text: But one aside, he should probably avoid articles like Matt Sanchez for this, or anything directly related to his notability. It will just inflame people. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It'll be on other topics.  He's fluent in four languages and when he gets off a couple of hot button issues he's all right.  His uploads to Commons, besides .ogg files, have been photography of France and Iraq. DurovaCharge! 17:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Bluemarine]] follow-up 

message: Hi folks - has there been progress on the process for removing and replacing inactive Arbitrators? I know Brad mentioned that there were some proposals floating on the mailing list, but I haven't heard if there has been a resolution of the debate yet. As I mentioned last time I brought this up, I strongly believe that it is better to complete this decision while there are no inactive Arbitrators (as I think is still the case at the moment, correct me if I'm wrong please). 14:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, no substantial progress since last time.  We have a certain tendency to be too busy with short-term flare-ups to be able to devote sufficient time to discussing long-term matters, unfortunately. Kirill 02:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inactive arbitrator removal process - any progress? 

message: I was going through this RfC by Cla68 and he mentioned a previous RfA. Is he talking about a request for admin or request for arb? Given that I couldn't find him on the request for admin, I figured he was talking about requests for arb. Is there an easy way to search these things? I've done a find on all these pages for Cla68 and I can't find it. I think we should make some sort of distinction between the two acronyms; they should not be used interchangeably. Maybe request for admin could be RfAd or requests for arb could be RfAr. Also, where would I go to make this a formal request or whatever? OptimistBen (talk) 05:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: RFA typically means Requests for Adminship, while RFAr is usually used for Requests for Arbitration. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Optimist, there isn't really a need for a change here. Rf is requests for adminship; Rf, or Rf, is Requests for arbitration. Does this eliminate the confusion for you, or do you still feel the two overlap? Anthøny 14:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there is any harm in changing it though - Optimist's view seems more logical. But it's not worth losing sleep over. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfA - request for arbitration or request for admin? 

message: I've noticed that MONGO has been listed as a party to the ArbCom filed by Bishzilla. By the rules, all parties to ArbComs have to be notified that the discussion is taking place. I contacted MONGO by e-mail shortly after he retired, and he responded in a way indicating that he was aware the ArbCom was taking place. I have sent him another follow e-mail just recently, indicating, among other things, that he has been listed as a party to the request. I don't know if that's sufficient under the circumstances, but just wanted it to be known that there is evidence that he knows the ArbCom has been filed, and that he has received a form of notice that he is now listed as a party. John Carter (talk) 19:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Shrug. Zilla list Tango only, request de-sysopping. Wizardman add MONGO as party and omit notifying him. bishzilla ROARR!! 20:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just curious... You don't think that if you are going to be filing Arbs, communicating with blocked folks, participating in policy discussions, etc. that using normal English instead of zillaspeak might be a good idea? Avruch  T   21:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Its been pointed out to me that this is being discussed at length elsewhere, you needn't respond here if you've made your position clear on some other page. Avruch  T   21:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  MONGO 

message: The ArbCom has still failed to answer the question I posed concerning the Iantresman case. Some admins are willing to unblock, others oppose this. Iantresman cannot be considered community banned any longer, as the definition of a community ban is that no admin is willing to unblock. How are we to resolve this? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As the committee declined to take the case, there is no formal answer. My individual opinion goes like this: in this case, contacting the blocking admin is not practical since the indefinite block was a result of a Community Sanction Noticeboard discussion, and also the admin who performed the block appears to be away. If an administrator unblocks Iantresman, they should be aware that such a move may be controversial and everything reasonable should be done to avoid wheel-warring. Likewise, an administrator opposed to an unblock should not reblock except as provided under blocking policy to prevent disruption. In all the circumstances it would be best if the matter proceeded with discussion; this could take place on the administrators' noticeboard, or via a request for comment. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unanswered question 

message: I'd appreciate it, as I'm sure others would as well, if the other active Arbitrators (seemingly all of them, at the moment) would consider weighing in with a reject or accept on the CAMERA arbitration request. It would be unfortunate to have it die at the time limit based on a 5/2 split, resulting in no case and no definitive resolution despite the opinion of 5 arbitrators to the contrary. Avruch  T   17:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, the CAMERA case has been accepted, and is now live. Check out here for the case page.Regards, Anthøny 22:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  CAMERA & Arbitrator participation 

message: May I ask why does my Request for clarification have been deleted before any official expression of the arbcom? The explanation given in the summary seems a bit weak: I have asked four quaestions and the alleged "result" has nothing to do with *any* of my questions and is desumed from the expression of two arbitrators speaking for themselves.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 13:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ArbCom agree with the statements of Sam Blacketer and Thebainer and no further replies will be made - as far as I can tell, they give an answer to all of your questions too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's disputable whether they actually answered all my questions. However thank you very much for your informations.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 08:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you specify the questions you feel weren't answered, someone else may be able to help. Alternatively, you can mail the ArbCom. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the deletion of my RFC 

message: Would some arbitrator/clerk/etc. be willing to make a scrubbed version of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence?  Given the significance of some proposed decisions, it seems a little odd to have so much of the case carried out in secret.  Thanks, Gnixon (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homeopathy /Evidence 

message: Has this happened before? Carcharoth (talk) 09:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A couple of times earlier in the year. Dunno before that. The fact that there are five open clarifications spoils it a tad :) Daniel (talk) 09:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No current requests? 

message: I'd appreicate some comments in the above thread, regards - Ryan Postlethwaite 13:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#New_arbitrator]] 

message: At the request of retiring Lawrence Cohen I have moved this page from his user space to Wikipedia namespace and brought it live.  I have notified Jimbo Wales of this at his user talk page and invited him to make a statement.  Likewise, I encourage the members of the Committee (past and present) who have not yet commented publicly to make a statement.  Although it is probably impossible to arrange a comprehensive statement on short notice, a short provisional declaration signed by as many people are available tonight may provide a welcome stabilizing force.  The community would like input from the people who know the background on today's developments.  A baseline statement would help settle the present confusion.  With respect, DurovaCharge! 01:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee]] 

message: Can I ask why this request was archived before any decision was taken by the arbitrators?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 13:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I archived the case because it was stale - there had been no comments from arbitrators for 3 weeks, and it didn't look like there was going to be a real attempt to create an unban motion. Two arbitrators said no to an unbanning, two were vice versa - but given the lack of further comments, it was archived. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your reply, but I would like to understand better how these things work. Who had the right to create an "unban motion"?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the arbitrators that do that. Given that the request was open for a long time, with no comments for three weeks, I presume it's because no-one felt strongly enough that an unban was warrented, or perhaps they were just too busy to look at it. You could always request a new clarification and request an unban - maybe more arbitrators would comment on the side of unbanning and choose to take it to voting. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure I can? In the past I have been accused of forum shopping when I tried to re-ask a request which was archived before any formal conclusion was reached (actually there were admins who suggested I could have been punished for that).--Pokipsy76 (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Repeating the exact same request for the third time in what, a month, is pointless. It's clear the Arbs are not ready to unblock him at the current time. If they feel like they want to unblock him before some reasonable amount of time has passed (I suggest three months w/o socking, then unblock with restrictions), I'm sure they will let us know. - Merzbow (talk) 01:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the arbs are not ready to unblock why didn't they reject the request?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 06:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The new case was rejected. The motion was rejected in the sense that the Arbs chose to take no action on it. This is what happens to many motions. You seem to think they are not aware of SoD's situation. They are, and have said they are discussing it. Badgering them for the nth time about the issue will do no good. Bring it up again in a couple months when the passage of time will have made a material difference, or let them come to a decision internally. - Merzbow (talk) 14:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not supposed to think anything about their awareness or interest about the case, even if a third person say he know what is happening behind the scene. The decision of the arbs are the result of their vote. If there is no vote there is no decision. Why didn't the arbs voted to reject if there was cosnensus on rejecting?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We generally don't do that -- there's no such thing as a vote to reject -- there's just the absence of, or the impossibility of, a vote to accept. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok but I still do not think it is appropriate to speak about "rejection" when a request recieved few comments without a clear consensus: rejection means "I disagree", not "I'm not going to express on this".--Pokipsy76 (talk) 08:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

text: It's not clear what do you do then: Don't you vote? Can the vote result be "reject"? So the question is still open: why didn't you vote to see if the result was reject or accept? Isn't there e difference between the case when a request is ignored and the case when there is a vote and the result is "reject"?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived request 

message: You know, a lot of nonsense is talked about the Arbitration Committee.  Supposedly it's failing and the place is all falling to bits because it's too heavy-handed, too lenient, too impotent, legislating from the bench, or name your own pet hate.  But looking at the cases it's been running lately I'm seeing some pretty good stuff.  Article probations handed out, lots of power devolved to administrators, incoming case loads diminishing by the week.  At this rate the arbitration committee will have remedied itself out of a job in a couple of years!
I would have advised arbcom not to touch this latest case, except maybe for some aabitrators to clarify wheel warring in some pretty stiffly worded "this is the last chance saloon"-style case rejections, and perhaps some behind-the-scenes work to give everybody that patented Wikipedia "I'm a fluffy bunny and I will make the internet not suck" glow.
But nyah, what do I know?  I think it's time for the Committee to revisit wheel warring.
Widely criticised for some reason that isn't clear to me, as "making policy", the BLP special provision (BLPBAN) of the "Footnoted quotes" arbitration case is actually a lovely hybrid of two quite different remedies, the red pill and the blue pill, to be taken both together.
* The red pill component of BLPBAN is a very broad topic probation.  Articles containing statements the fall under the BLP are subject to an enhanced focus, and admins are to counsel and warn users not complying, and may take extensive further action, at their discretion, if that fails.
* The blue pill component of BLPBAN cuts in if the red pill starts to kill the patient.  Its purpose is to kill incipent wheel wars.  Actions under the red pill may be appealed directly to arbcom.  Failing that, they can be overturned by community consensus after an appeal on WP:AE.  Admins reversing or modifying such an action without a successful appeal face dire consequences.
This is a lovely combination.  It gives admins their head to resolve a problem, but makes sure they don't go mad and shag the goldfish.
Perhaps a similar blue pill could be tacked on to Giano's civility restriction in the IRC arbitration.  If Wikipedians know they can appeal a bad block under that remedy directly to arbcom I suspect they're far less likely to get itchy trigger fingers and want to reverse or modify the block without consensus.  If they really feel that the ban is wrong, an appeal should be all that is needed.
And if they're feeling especially bold, retrospectively add a blue pill to  all extant editing restrictions, probations, etc.  --Jenny 04:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red pill, blue pill 

message: This request is moved from above talkpage to this one, because I was not able to edit into the mainspace. T.à.v.: D.A. Borgdorff PEng FRIEN = 86.83.155.44 (talk) 18:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: → Request for arbitration
Case submitted by email 20080711 20:03 GMT+2
The RfA has been appropiately removed into the mainspace for further treatment by the kind response of the Hon. Privatemusings (talk). With thanks: dAb +> 86.83.155.44 (talk) 09:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: AN/I: Complicated legal threat situation: blocking
Dear and very learned: Future Perfect at Sunrise , I'd herewith kindly request the  unblocking of my well refined colleague dr.user:Guido den Broeder MS, who here apparently at present is innocent blocked up by you, though already by the same mistake in the Netherlands too. His tiny protest against this unfortunate execution is by some of your colleagues alas expressed with rather exaggeration. Hoping to revision of your verdict still being possible, I'll remain sincerely Yrs: D.A.Borgdorff  - PEng E.E. = 86.83.155.44 (talk) 12:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfA copied from [[user talk:Guido den Broeder]] 

message: :::AN/I: Complicated legal threat situation: blocking
Dear and very learned: Future Perfect at Sunrise , I'd herewith kindly request the  unblocking of my well refined colleague dr.user:Guido den Broeder MS, who here apparently at present is innocent blocked up by you, though already by the same mistake in the Netherlands too. His tiny protest against this unfortunate execution is by some of your colleagues alas expressed with rather exaggeration. Hoping to revision of your verdict still being possible, I'll remain sincerely Yrs: D.A.Borgdorff  - PEng E.E. = 86.83.155.44 (talk) 12:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy from Request to [[user talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise#Complicated legal threat situation: blocking|Future Perfect at Sunrise]] 

message: I declined a request to remove the semiprotection on the RFAR page a couple of days ago on the grounds that IPs and new users probably have little or no reason to edit this heavy-traffic page. The IP who requested it as well as User:Tanthalas39 have asked me to review the decision. I'm not sure either way, so I'm bringing it here. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't recall this situation. What IP? Diffs? Tan    39 16:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

text: See my talk. Stifle (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yes. I was confused because on your talk page, I was agreeing with you, so I suppose I wasn't asking you to review the decision. Tan    39 18:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

text: That IP wasn't me, but I'd also prefer unprotection unless the page is being heavily vandalized, just like any other page.  I'm not a new user but I don't use an account and I do stop by pages like this from time to time. 76.197.56.242 (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: [watches tumbleweed] Unprotect now? 86.44.17.5 (talk) 07:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page semi-protection 

message: There is a is now a Summary of statements from the RfC which had significantly more support than opposition, which clearly identifies suggested changes to the Arbitration Policy. And where further discussion is needed over the choice between some contradictory suggested changes. --Barberio (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ArbCom RfC 

message: Since when does arbcom not decide the direction of its own cases? "Start us off with something we can't touch and we probably won't touch it"? Uh, why can't you just "accept the case to look at the behavior of all parties" - it's not a binary choice between "accept to look at the recall" and reject. I see this as yet another example of arbcom shirking its responsibilities to the community. --Random832 (contribs) 12:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What Thatcher said. --bainer (talk) 04:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Question: is there a way to salvage the RfAr and refocus the issues as per above, or are we better off just deleting this one and starting a new one from scratch (salvaging the case, if possible, may save time, as I suspect a new case regarding Elonka's behaviour will get filed should this one (currently considered from what I can see as strictly related to her AOR promise) get turned down.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on what the arbitrators have said, it seems to me that the answer is no, there is no way to "salvage" the case -- or more accurately, to turn the case that has been filed into a different case that hasn't been filed.  (See for example, Jpgordon's comments on his ""vote".)  The arbitrators responded to the request that was made, and for all practical purposes (though not yet officially) have rejected it.  I also doubt that attaching other claims onto this case would save time, because there are a number of procedural issues involved with that hypothetical "other case."  These issues may include who the correct parties would be, whether there has been sufficient "dispute resolution" prior to an arb request, and who else's (besides Elonka's) conduct is going to be scrutinized.  Due to the nature of the issues involved, it is important that whoever wants the ArbCom to consider the "other case" be required to go through all the steps and not just piggyback it onto what is, in effect, an already-rejected case.  6SJ7 (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And now it has been officially rejected and removed, so the question is moot.  As for the possibility that a new case will be filed, I can only remind everyone of that great old saying:  Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.  6SJ7 (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

text: New to the argument here. I have never had any interaction with Elonka, but I did take the time to review the AfCs, AfAs, diffs, etc. yesterday. (Someone suggested I start participating in AfCs - I got sucked in).  I believe the issue was people were looking for examples of an abuse of admin tools. I don't think I ever saw an example of that. What I came across was an abuse of admin authority. When an admin tells a user something, it carries more weight then a user telling a user. When an admin lies to the community (which very clearly has done), they loose credibility with that community. I also saw repeated bad judgement calls made by Elonka. Not in articles themselves, but with how she dealt with people and situations. All of this, as a user, concerns me. Turlo Lomon (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ok, what's up? 

message: Regarding the MZMcBride request for arbitration currently pending: I strongly disagree with the calls made to fast track this matter to the decision stage. There is no emergency aspect here (if one had arose: an emergency request from the committee could be made at m:RFP), and so rushing things is likely to have us breeze over important matters.
Take things slowly, eh? Anthøny ✉ 20:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A "now, now," from [[user:AGK|AGK]] 

message: Just posting this here so that they're more likely to see it in case they weren't looking at the workshop yet. rootology (C)(T) 16:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sarah Palin RFAR injunction request - could the arbs look? 

message: Hi, I want to request for appeal, but I don't know where and how to do it. Could someone help me here? I have sent an email to arbcom-lATlists.wikimedia.org some days ago but I received no answer. Thanks beforehand. --Vacio (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I dropped a short note on your talkpage, Vacio :-) Privatemusings (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an unfortunate characteristic of ArbCom-l that emails often go without any response or indeed a simple acknowledgement of receipt. I suspect a number of emails are simply lost amongst the huge volumes of emails that are sent to the mailing list per day. With no effective system of marking threads as being closed, resolved, responded-to, and so on, I fear this will be a recurring bee in any future Committee's bonnet for a good while to come yet. AGK 22:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help 

message: This section of Requests for arbitration page should probably be split and placed to sections made by individual users? Thank you.Biophys (talk) 19:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the comments. If Kuban wishes to re-comment, he is welcome to do so in his own section. Thanks for drawing attention to this. AGK 22:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting 

message: I simply ask the arbcom to accept that mistakes were made in this case, many of them severe, and promise to make every attempt not to do them again. That's all I really ask. If we could have done this in private, that would have been fine. The Arbcom did not respond to my requests to communicate in private. As it has had to be done in public, the statements need to be public. If the Arbcom wanted, we could review all the findings of fact for accuracy and the like, but is there really any point a year later? I do thonk the arbcom should accept that they made a severe error in Finding of Fact #4, as that comes very near to the heart of the poor care that the arbcom used in their handling of this case. However, I'm not after blood here. I just want the Arbcom to, finally, admit that errors were made and promise not to do them again. That having been done, everyone involved can move on with their lives. 
Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Forced apologies are not valuable.  It will be better if they just erase the case, and you make a binding agreement to contact them if you wish to be an administrator again.  There is no reason to discuss private matters in a public forum. I do not think RFA is likely to succeed. Reinstatement via the Committee is your best chance if that's what you eventually want. Jehochman Talk 17:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, fine, cut the apologies, but keep the promises not to make the same mistakes again. Because, seriously, if you go to voting before the party provides evidence, you've just removed any feeling on that party's part that you care what they have to say. This case illustrates another problem with that - the Arbcom, having begun to vote on the decisions, refused to remove provable falsehoods from FoF #4, which shows a lack of due care and actual failure to read the commentary on the case. This case was highly controversial, and caused a lot of discussion, but as far as I can tell, the arbcom ignored all of this. Both these behaviours must change. Furthermore, someone, possibly the Arbcom, has already refused to include the points of action suggested by the RfC as referendums in the elections, thus rejecting accountability to the community (see the 2tTo do" list at the top of the talk page for the elections - if a hugely-participated RfC is not a sign that the community wants change for the arbcom, then what will be accepted as consensus. If community oversight is  not going to be allowed, then they MUST show themselves capable of monitoring themselves. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with the general sentiment that the committee is not a court of law, and that its ultimate responsibility is not the maintenance of society or preservation of government or any other aims of a court system. On the other hand, fair and just administration of the project is essential to the maintenance of a vibrant and peaceful community, which itself is essential to the future of the project. Avruch  T   20:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because it's not a court of law, doesn't mean people shouldn't behave as decent human beings and avoid excessive obnoxiousness and not make erroneous statements about other people, and if made, correct them, as most of us are meant to in life- but due to the authority of arbcom, they sometimes behave as if they can talk about people who are already facing the stress of an arbcom case, in any manner they like. Sticky Parkin 17:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Charles Matthews has asked my forgiveness, and I forgive him. I don't think anything more needs said about him. I apologise if I got too heated before we made up. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: More needs to be said about CM due to his RfC towards Slrubenstein which seems a similar case- attempts at having a go at another user a month or so after the event etc, but this time round they're being met with the reaction they deserve.  The place to discuss that is probably not here due to the reaction it will face, but no doubt plenty will be said about both these cases and probably more, in the forthcoming arbcom elections. Sticky Parkin 17:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, head over to my Candidate questions, if you have a question. It will be in good company. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible compromise? 

message: This disclosure is related to the SlimVirgin case.
Cases dealing with serious misuse of admin tools, especially at arbitration, may well be met by a very quick response, up to and including summary desysopping in egregious cases. Even at RFAR these have historically tended to be treated with above average urgency.
In such cases, arbitrators may have to balance two roles - as members of the community who may well have commented, discussed and the like, and as arbitrators deciding whether a line has been crossed and if so what remedy is appropriate.
In this case any prior interaction with SlimVirgin is tenuous. We have spoken amicably, not enough to be close, and she has reversed a block of mine enacted to enforce a prior arbitration ruling. That is roughly, the sum total of all involvement. It's truly trivial.
The view that "there is a case needed" is not due to bias, involvement, or past history. Indeed there were a number of complaints of the action, there is history of poor judgement, and at least one other user had drafted a Request for Arbitration beforehand that I was unaware of. Arbitrators are not expected to be free of all history - that would be impractical. They are expected to be free of history that would affect their neutrality. The question I am considering is, would I be able to hear SlimVirgin's statement and that of others, and decide fairly. 
I am fairly sure I would, if the evidence is there. I have considered my neutrality in multiple cases - indeed more than any other arbitrator I have been mindful of disclosure even when not strictly needed. This included the original IRC case, and Mantanmoreland. In the latter I was the only arbitrator to express a view in the prior RFC, and yet at RFAR I discounted that and took note only of the evidence presented. I am therefore considering whether I would be neutral here, and my initial view is I would be. 
However it is also extremely important to consider other users' perceptions. That also goes without saying. Hence my comment that I would like to consider this, and will do so. FT2 (Talk | email) 20:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The motion isn't at all strange. SlimVirgin is very familiar with Arbitration Enforcement, and knows what exactly the criteria are. Ultimately ArbCom enforces its own rulings. Arbitration Enforcement is a venue where that happens, and as its header says, it is not part of dispute resolution. It is there to answer just one question in a matter. The block isn't personal. Every admin and arbitrator has probably had blocks overturned when others disagree with the block. This block enforces arbitration ruling. The requirements to overturn in such a case are stricter, and very clearly stated. Several times it says the same point. Most administrators involved in this incident probably know it already or read it at the time. Nothing strange about it at all. Oddly enough my initial view was to recuse. The reason for hesitation is to avoid assuming without a moments thought - I have proposed or considered recusing in other cases "for safety", in which the community stated it was not necessary. You may have assumed differently. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  See above edit conflict - you may have misassumed a bit, here, though understandably. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I cannot follow you at all. This is an absolutely clear-cut case. You are a party, period. It makes absolutely no difference whether your action was Arbcom enforcement or a "normal" block. (That may well make a difference for how to judge SV's action, but it changes not one iota of your role as a party.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've argued in more than one previous case, that recusal was needed, and been told I was probably taking it too strictly (communal consensus agreed with those views at the times). This was a brief "I'm considering and will come back on this" post (exact wording: "On principle, I will be considering the level to which I am involved or otherwise... and whether recusal is appropriate"). As with many issues, when I make a definite stance, then I'm fine if anyone criticizes it, and I will explain or discuss. You've seen that, I'm sure. I'm not averse to speaking my mind. I'm probably one of the most "open" users out there, in terms of willingness to give explanations and discuss if asked. Today I decided to wait briefly, check others' views (as I usually do if there may be a question of what's best) and come back to it as I've done. That's carefulness; credit it as such. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not something on which consideration was needed. The right course was completely obvious. I'm sorry, but if you don't see this, it casts serious doubt on your suitability as an arbiter. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

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

message: Clerks, the lengthy motion and discussion have pushed the associated project page over 500k.  This tends to disenfranchise reduce access by, discourage commenting by, and decrease transparency for members of the community on slower connections.  Can a subpage be created? Jehochman Talk 13:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good idea, but better speaking of a "denial of access" rather than disenfranchisement? Not a vote, and all that.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just nudged the arbs to see if we can get more voting on this so we can close it. Three motions are passing and one is close.  — Rlevse • Talk •  14:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I subpaged the SlimVirgin motion. Whatever rationale you use, it's a good idea.--chaser - t 17:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't a clerk have done this, if at all? --Conti|✉ 17:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was adding a statement at the very moment the page was being subpaged, and got an edit conflict. I have now added my statement to the subpage instead. ElinorD (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue of a clerk doing it asisde, you also should have left a note at RFAR that is was subpaged, with a link. But it's rather moot as I've received a note from the arbs to close it. Since 3A passes, whether 2/2A pass is rather moot.  — Rlevse • Talk •  17:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we revert the subpaging before archiving, then? Having a subpage without any edit history doesn't seem to be useful to me. Not to mention the confusion with an actual arbitration case. --Conti|✉ 18:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the main page is for active requests. Whether it's a permalink or a subpage doesn't make much difference, as long as people can link to it when and if they have to. A subpage is pretty useful for that purpose.--chaser - t 19:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how a subpage with no edit history is more useful than a permalink, but I suppose this is all moot now, anyhow. --Conti|✉ 21:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

text: A note, Rlevse? Like this one?--chaser - t 19:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, missed it. Sorry, chaser. — Rlevse • Talk •  19:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subpage 

message: :There are twelve active arbitrators (excluding one who is recused), so seven votes are a majority.
I do disagree with three of the four proposals in question and do not want to help them pass more easily than they should, but I couldn't help noticing this: Twelve minus one is eleven, and six of eleven are a clear majority as no more than five could oppose. Could somebody (clerks perhaps) please clarify this now rather than after it becomes obvious which proposals would be affected? Thanks. — CharlotteWebb 14:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like the recused arbitrator in this case is inactive in general, so there are twelve non-recused active arbitrators on the motion, not eleven. FlyingPenguin1 (talk) 14:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Flyingpenguin1 is right. There are 12 arbitrators currently active, excluding FT2 who is recused on these motions (and has put himself on the "inactive" list for a few weeks to focus on some other stuff, although I see little evidence of actual inactivity :) ). For anyone ever wishing to verify numbers, a list of the currently active arbitrators can be found at WP:AC. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I remember looking at the sentence and thinking "huh?" at first; then realised what had happened after checking that very list. Was confused for a moment myself. :) The edit summary in the history  was also helpful. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

text: "There are currently [X] arbitrators, of which [Y] is/are inactive and/or recused, leaving [X minus Y]. Thus [(X - Y) / 2, rounded down, + 1] votes are a majority.
Would this be less confusing or more so? You could set up a template for it if that helps . — CharlotteWebb 17:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That was more-or-less the standard wording until about a year ago, when it was changed to be less confusing. The view at the time was "if they are recused or inactive, why are we talking about them?", plus it sounded silly to have to write "of whom none are recused." You can't win.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but I can lose with the best of them (see the main RFAR page if you doubt). A template could of course omit the number of inactive/recused arbcommies if they are zero. Of course if there is a reluctance to mention them at all we could say something like "There are twelve arbitrators participating in this case, so seven votes are a majority.", but this could become confusing for who are inactive and/or recused as arbitrator but still participating in some other capacity. As a last resort we say "There are twelve arbitrators arbitrating this case" but that is tautological, sounds like part of a christmas carol, and still doesn't address those unrecused and listed as "active" but still unexpected to participate. — CharlotteWebb 19:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

text: How about "There are X eligible arbitrators (excluding Y that are inactive and X that are recused), so ceiling(X/2) votes are a majority."? (Yes, there is still an issue when a supposedly inactive arb recuses, but it's not a serious problem - just pick a category and put them in it, hopefully it won't be too confusing.) --Tango (talk) 19:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You want floor-plus-one otherwise it's a stalemate with an even number. Plus "recused" supersedes "inactive" in theory because (for better or worse) one must actively say "I recuse" to be considered so. — CharlotteWebb 19:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True, floor+1 is a better definition of majority. It depends on your definition of "inactive". If "inactive" means "not active" then you are absolutely right. If "inactive" means "on the inactive list" then it's a little more confusing. --Tango (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Rounded upwards to the nearest whole number" may be an alternative path to pursue in the pursuit of perfect wording. In practice we do, however, seem to have very little problem with calculating the majority by the arithmetic guideline's current incarnation. AGK 22:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbcom math 

message: Has been blocked almost immediately for editing mainspace in contravention of the agreement with Thatcher.
I'd like to make a request to Arbcom to lift Peter Damian's restriction on mainspace - some may have issues with his behaviour, but his content contributions are of benefit to the community. Is this a sufficiently public forum, or should I make a formal request on the project page? Many thanks. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably cleanest on WP:RFAR so the arb-comments don't mix in with the non-arb-comments and get confused. MBisanz talk 21:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: File it in WP:RFAR under requests and other clarifications, list me as a party.--Tznkai (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, done. --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[user:Peter Damian II]] 

message: In the RFAR, a couple of people have commented outside of their respective segments in reply to others.  This isn't "allowed" and their replies should be moved to their respective parts, shouldn't it? :/ I wasn't comfortable with moving others' comments. Sticky Parkin 00:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Threaded discussion in RFAR#Moreschi 

message: :Section header added for navigation purposes. AGK 13:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The outgoing Arbitrators also have the right to cast a vote on RfArs until 1 January 2009, however. If the incoming Committee members were given a vote, we would have over twenty Arbitrators voting on each RfAr; I suspect that would just be difficult to manage. Additionally, there is one point of principle to be respected: the incoming Arbitrators are elected for 3 years (or so); giving them a vote now would be allowing them to Arbitrate past the term for which they were appointed. It's not that big a deal, but Committees are bodies of tradition; for good form, we're just keeping things as they always have. They'll have plenty of time to Arbitrate come the 1st of January. ;-) AGK 13:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree, if one is holding case actions until the "not-quite-arbs" are fully enrobed, then it makes no difference anyway.  Their opinions should be counted in the totals.  Dragons flight (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Jimbo has said in his appointment notice that the incoming Arbitrators could elect to start immediately; they chose to hold off actions until Jan 1st. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 02:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not give new Arbitrators a vote? 

message: Is there a specific reason not to have a semi-protection lock ? Cenarium (Talk) 16:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added one. Cenarium (Talk) 02:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Why not unprotect the page?  It was protected because of some problems happening at the time, but they're not happening now. 208.120.235.110 (talk) 11:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that majority of the IP edits to the main project page are requests that are either 1) absurd (identified as vandalism) or 2) sockpuppets of blocked/banned users, in which there's a normal  as well as the unblock-en-l mailing list. That being said, I see your point. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 11:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection lock 

message: According to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes several editors are placed under supervision of mentors. Can anybody clarify, then those mentors will be selected to them. And how (that process) mentors are select in such cases. Thanks, M.K. (talk) 12:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding mentoring 

message: Can anyone present any reason that community members should not be allowed to directly present motions for the committee to vote on, as in a clarification request? This would prevent the committee from distorting a request into something that no-one actually asked for in order to delude themselves into letting a matter drop when no-one is actually satisfied. --Random832 (contribs) 17:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you read case workshop pages? That would match closely, if not exactly, what you are proposing, except turn that into the proposed decision page. —kurykh 20:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I've seen plenty of people propose motions directly (I've even done it myself).  It is typically done in one's own "Comment by" section, rather than directly where the Arbitrator's vote on motions.  There is, of course, no guarantee that they'll vote on any particular motion, but I've seen people propose them all the time.  --InkSplotch (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, this is simply impractical. If you look at many workshops, you'll see that there can be dozens and dozens of motions (some of which are downright tendentious, or at least pointy). Were the committee required to vote on them, they'd be bogged down for months. As it stands, anyone can propose a motion on the workshop page, and if any one of the arbs likes it, then that arb can move it to the proposed decision page. If no one of the 15 arbs chooses to do that, then it is unlikely that the motion would fly anyway. Arbitration may not be prefect, but it's the best we've got, and increasing the paperwork isn't going to help. Do we really want proposed decision pages to resemble the workshop pages?--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

text: That isn't going to happen. Motions - and cases for that matter - often have provisions that some or most arbiters ignore or don't have the time to get to, or choose to remain silent on. Furthermore, time outside users end up spending on process wonkery in the delicate phrasing of motions is better spent making statements. ArbCom needs (and this is my "(un)professional opinion) facts, educated guesses, measured analysis, suggestions for action, and personal gut feeling opinions - roughly in that order. Nothing on Wikipedia works by "forcing" anyone to do anything - it isn't within our power.--Tznkai (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

text: The committee's purpose is to resolve disputes, not to present itself as a tool to be used in exacerbating them. --TS 06:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Too many motions to consider, as others have said. I take workshop pages seriously, but there's too much chaff to make mandatory voting on proposals worthwhile. If you feel strongly about a proposed motion and have a good reason to want a vote on it, one of the arbitrators may be willing to propose it for you. Cool Hand Luke 20:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for process reform 

message: This is not meant to initiate a case, but only to see if this is a valid forum to take it to.  There is a current impasse regarding the use of non-free images across part of the project, and the current opinion is equally split, and because this is NFC (thus imposed by the Foundation and our mission), there's no real good middle ground to compromise at. (it's all or nothing).  
I know RARB doesn't handle content cases specifically, but I think we're at a point that we're going to be arguing to the end of the time about this unless we get some type of "official" decision.  There is little "behavioral" issue here, so we're looking for more a findings of fact from the ArbCom to resolve this.  Can this be brought to ArbCom (pending a write up and further acceptance of the committee) or is this inappropriate? --MASEM 04:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Arbcom has, IMO, already ruled on your question at Closing_of_a_consensus_decision_making_procedure.  I suspect the issue isn't as clear as "all or nothing", since it seems this is an interpretation of a policy, even Mike Godwin, the Foundation's lawyer, differs with various interpretations of image policy , so there is quite a broad range of ground, akin to what is described in The_relationship_between_policy_and_consensus.  Basically, it seems like you need to find an uninvolved administrator to close the discussion and decide how the community is interpreting whatever section of NFC is related to whatever content is under discussion at the RFC. But, I'm not an arb or a clerk, so this advice should be taken with a grain of salt. MBisanz talk 14:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Well if Wikipedia content is licensed under the GFDL and Wikia content is also licensed under the GFDL, I don't see why Wikipedia can't have "non-free" images while images on Wikia are considered fair use. --Pixelface (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Wikipedia policy and Wikia policy aren't aimed at the same goals.  Wikia is less concerned with enabling repurposing of content than Wikipedia is. 67.122.210.149 (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trying to judge if a case is valid for RARB 

message: Please note that the Arbitration Committee have announced that they have established a new central noticeboard, which will serve as a forum for arbitration-related announcements, notices, and other discussion. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard for more details.
For the Arbitration Committee, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard]] 

message: Can somebody in the know rewrite the guide and the various subpages to reflect the current process. I was most confused by the section How requests are processed and the decision to accept, which states that "Cases are usually opened at least 24 hours after four net accept votes are cast; that is, four more accept than reject votes." and the subsequent description of how the hearing would proceed once it had been accepted: Evidence and Workshop pages and the like. The Bishzilla case seems to have jumped straight to voting on the motions when there is a net vote of 8 to decline hearing the case. I know more speedy handling of cases was stressed as desirable during the election, but the new Arbcom must be congratulated on trying to get the cases are closed before they are opened. Nobody can complain about heel-dragging now.  Yomanganitalk 02:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears at first glance, that the arbitration guide is out of date, especially vis-a-vis the way motions work. I'll try to take a crack at updating it over this weekend and the next - or maybe haze the newbies with the ordeal.--Tznkai (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Updating the guide is, incidentally, on our agenda. :-) Kirill 02:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If the Bishzilla case truly reflects the way motions work now, I'd suggest revising the process rather than the guide. Judgment, Sentencing, Decision on hearing the case, Presentation of evidence, Proposed sentencing (assuming the Evidence and Workshop phases aren't now skipped completely) doesn't sound the most logical order to me, especially if the decision on hearing the case results in it being declined. Yomanganitalk 02:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if the Arbs vote to accept a case, it still follows the guide (afaik, there may have been some minor changes). The fairly recent innovation of "Motions" is for use where the evidence is all out in the open already, the Arbs see a simple fix, and decide to spare everyone the drama of a full case. IMO they work pretty well much of the time. the wub "?!" 11:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And if they vote to decline, they can circumvent the procedure and skip straight to throwing rotten fruit at the guilty parties? Judicial procedure at its finest. Let's have all cases declined, it will speed things up no end. Yomanganitalk 13:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

text: (after edit conflict) Newyorkbrad has commented in the past on summary judgments like this where a full case would be unlikely to change things (the presumption being that the pertinent evidence is available from the request) and a motion is used instead of opening a case (I'll ask him if he can remember where he commented on this). See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Closed motions for examples of motions without a case. The motion that admonished Moreschi was an example of a motion-instead-of-a-case (though that arose from a clarification request, I think). A better example is the admonishment of Prodego mentioned by Brad at the RFAR."It is apparent that Prodego blocked Misza13 to force further discussion or action on the issue of unauthorized adminbots and that he feels strongly that a matter of principle is involved. [...] We are not aware of any prior sanctions against Prodego for any prior misuse of administrator tools. Nonetheless, under all the circumstances, this block was a highly inappropriate administrator action warranting a sanction by this committee." Bishonen can, of course, appeal, and that could lead to a full case, but that would be a decision for her to take when looking at the bigger picture. One thing I do note is that Bishonen only posted to protest at FT2's statement, rather than making a statement herself. If Bishonen wants to make a statement, she should do so soon. I will post a note from the RFAR to this thread. Carcharoth (talk) 11:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a lovely evolution of the process. Can we have a motion to tar and feather Bish based on the presumption that we know all there is to know despite the parties to the dispute not having given evidence-FT2 said he will supply diffs if the case is accepted then withdrew his statement until such time as he could add diffs, Bish was presumably waiting for the case to be accepted before giving her evidence (though I do not presume to know the facts without asking). Once she is tarred and feathered she can appeal to be carried to the river to have it washed off and should her appeal be successful we can all wipe the incident from our memories and pretend not to notice the residual globs of black liquid and goose down that drip from her as she moves around. Yomanganitalk 13:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comment below. I've only just become aware that discussion was taking place on this page. I have raised the matter of summary motions in declined requests on the ArbCom mailing list, and asked for clarification on this. Without dwelling on this particular request, can you suggest a place onwiki to discuss the matter of summary motions? Somewhere where substantial input can be sought from the community as to whether this is a useful tool for ArbCom to have, and under what circumstances it should be used? I don't want to pre-empt anything, but please put Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard on your watchlist, both to get an idea of what else is happening, and for future announcements. Carcharoth (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not being familiar enough with RFAR myself, I can't suggest an appropriate venue, but I would like to know when and where such a discussion takes place (I have watchlisted the Noticeboard). To issue summary judgments in declined cases on motions that were seemingly created on a whim (who asked for the summary judgment? one of the involved parties?) and with the assumption that the Arbs' opinions are the facts would strike me as laughable if it wasn't damaging to the parties involved. Yomanganitalk 16:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. It is definitely on the radar, and I've pointed people at this discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I bet that'll mean nobody notices the new statement I just posted, I guess I'm doomed to be forever on the wrong page. Well, doesn't matter. Bishonen | talk 18:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Replied on main RFAR page. Carcharoth (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

text: And here I thought your question was about the arbitration guide, instead of a thinly veiled attack based on irrelevant political principles. But here is a relevant one that answers you - the case was closed early as a matter of discretion - based on the lack of outstanding business (such as motions and arbitrator questions to parties).--Tznkai (talk) 01:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm sorry the irony was lost on you, I did try to make it quite clear, there was nothing really veiled about it. I also thought there was nothing of an attack (may we not question the workings of Arbcom?) or any irrelevant political principles unless you feel that challenging the committee's right to award itself new powers and radically alter Arbitration procedures without consulting the community is somehow irrelevant. I'd love to know what you consider the irrelevant political(?) principles to be. To be clear, since irony seems to have failed to get the point across, I was rather hoping that at least one of the Arbs might say "Hold on, altering the Arbitration procedure to allow voting on motions on declined cases based on our gut feelings might be not be the best idea we've ever had, let's remove that section until we get a chance to get some community input". However, maybe I'm alone in considering it a terrible idea, and what the Arbcom have taken as tacit acceptance is heartfelt community support. Perhaps they did consult the community and it's just that nobody has pointed to the discussion to enlighten me. Yomanganitalk 02:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've drafted a few different responses - and they're all overly long, but if you're really interested in what I think we can continue on either my or your talk page. I'll settle for making two smaller points. First, real world government is a terrible model for encyclopedia governance, the underlying assumptions are different. Second - for this situation, case or no, its the same people making the decisions, and the facts I would hope, are pretty uncontroversial. All that is left, is opinion and discretion, and I think the Arbiters have made their opinions known. There does seem to be a significant dropping of the ball in notifying Bishonen of the motions however. Perhaps the clerks office will begin notifying all relevant parties after motions are proposed as a matter of routine procedure. (If that was in fact, extant procedure, I apologize for dropping the ball).--Tznkai (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We obviously fundamentally disagree on most points, but we can save that argument for the anticipated public discussion. I do agree, however, that real world government is a terrible model for encyclopedia governance. Yomanganitalk 10:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guide to Arbitration 

message: Per a discussion on Newyorkbrad's talk page located here, he asked me to post this suggestion and said he thought it was a good idea. To ensure that all the RFAR related pages are excluded from search engines with the  function requires us to constantly keep adding the tags all over the place. 
A simpler solution would be to simply add the NOINDEX tag to :Template:ArbComOpenTasks and then make that a mandatory addition on every single RFAR page--Evidence, Statement, top-level, bottom level, Workshop, Proposed Decision, talk, etc.
It gives two benefits: 1. Massively increased functionality and visibility in general for RFAR business by using the navigation toolbar (maybe an alternate, co, and 2. Naturally scrubs everything RFAR-related from the search engines in a few weeks, which is a decision the Arbitration Committee can make without any approval required.
An even simpler solution would be to just include :Template:ArbComNav which I just made on all the pages and talk pages, that features all three needed templates. :)
Any objections to someone tearing through this with a very basic AWB sweep? rootology (C)(T) 19:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The "NOINDEX" could also be added to the template pages for the evidence page, workshop, and proposed decision pages (although that wouldn't pick up their talkpages). Or we could implement the overdue NOINDEX'ing of most of Wikipedia space, where RfAr pages of course are included. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

text: This is good for now. If we NOINDEX all of Wikipedia space, we should instead use the norobots.txt. Wikipedia space should be amenable to that kind of sweeping exclusion. Cool Hand Luke 20:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

text: According to MediaWiki:Robots.txt (and the live version), this should already be effectively done -- any page that starts Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ should be excluded.  Is this not the case?  Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Mbisanz found that some RFAR pages were still showing up on indexes (since robots.txt be ignored by accident or on purpose by search engines), but to my knowledge no pages tagged with the NOINDEX function oddly had fallen through the technical cracks. My idea was to simply double-cover these especially sensitive pages for NOINDEXing, but also to get the extra navigation and benefit of handy RFAR links on each page and sub page. rootology (C)(T) 20:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Any search engine that uses metatags will obey robots.txt. The problems were 1) a bug in the software allowed variant forms to be indexed, noted on WR and now fixed, and 2) that many ArbCom pages have been redirected from locations not covered by the robots exclusions. Putting the tag into all of the pages will ensure that it's noindexed no matter how someone makes a redirect. Cool Hand Luke 20:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That was part of why I suggested it this way. That way, even if we somehow miss a mainspace redirect, it doesn't matter. Nothing would slip by if we rammed a NOINDEX command via templated across every last page. rootology (C)(T) 20:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I agree. Best solution here. Cool Hand Luke 21:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The regular templates or my unified one that I added NOINDEX to, and that calls the others? I'd offer to AWB it myself as well but I don't think I'd have time to sit down and do it till probably the weekend after this one. But anyone could do it... they're super trivial AWB or bot edits. rootology (C)(T) 21:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Give me five minutes to fill out a BRFA and grab another BAGer and I'll do it.  I just want clearance from a arb/clerk as to what they want where. MBisanz talk 21:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Once there is AC guidance on it, the only thing beyond which template(s) to use would be to add calls for the same ones to the templates the clerks use to build the pages (trivial/one-time edit) and then anyone can just plop the given one onto every new talk/archive page as they're made later. rootology (C)(T) 21:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't see the value of including the big pink templates on all cases, especially old ones...why not just manually transclude  to the top, as it will be an identical amount of effort and that way we don't have to modify the substantive content of closed cases? Daniel (talk) 12:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My suggestion for the templates was just to add a common navigation template to each case, and adding that or a NOINDEX template is all the same for the amount of work involved. Generate list of pages, AWB or bot it, done. It wouldn't really alter the content per se of anything in any way, it's just adding a neutral template. And it would allow for convenient top-level views on any RFAR case pages of what's going on overall, giving all the active stuff more visibility in general (with the added bonus of the NOINDEXing). It's not a content change, just a technical one. rootology (C)(T) 18:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Actually, let me try something better. Is there a way to make a shorter, wider, and less intrusive navigation template for all cases?--Tznkai (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

text: As stated above, this will allow us to add functionality quickly in the future, that simultaneously solves a pressing problem now. The options from here are out are creating and maintaining a separate navigation template, or reworking the main templates.--Tznkai (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed solution to the perpetual NOINDEXing problem of RFAR 

message: I ask FloNight and Vassyana (especially Vassyana) to reconsider their request for Elonka to step down from enforcement issues.  This comment especially irks me, This involves far more than this single recent incident and the complaints of warned/sanctioned users.  If you have concerns about Elonka's judgement as an administrator, then open a full case, during which time you can ask her to stand down from whatever admin actions you are concerned about.  You should not make vague comments about how someone is "not helpful" or that there are "far more" issues unless you are going to act on it.  If this dispute is archived off the page without a formal finding of fact against Elonka, you will have undermined her ability to act at WP:AE (and as an admin generally) on the basis of your vague unspecified concerns.  And I hope it would be obvious why a motion without a full case would be utterly inadequate to consider the situation.  An editor can say, "I don't like how Smith handles his administrative duties" but an Arbitrator can not, unless he/she backs it up with action. Thatcher 21:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My statements have been redacted in response to your request. Vassyana (talk) 10:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elonka and Arbitration Enforcement 

message: Hello Team Wikipedia;Forgive my congenital laziness, but I see that Bishzilla has been notified of a "motion" passed on a case that was declined.  Can I be pointed to any discussions by the community on motions in closed cases? (Other than the above and Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Closed motions, of course.  Even I am not that slothfull.)
brenneman 22:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of motions as summary judgment in cases that were declined seems to have grown up over the past year or so. As I said before, Brad is probably the best person to ask about this. This issue has been recognised by the committee, and is on the agenda for discussion. See here. Specifically, item 22: "Decide on using summary motions in rejected cases. Draft proposal due March 14. Decision due March 21". Yes, item 22. It's a big agenda. If any items need pushing up the agenda, I'm sure that could be considered, within reason. Probably best to ask Kirill about that. If anyone wants to start a community discussion earlier, they can of course do so (I'd personally encourage it, and it is likely that discussions like this will be on-wiki anyway, at some point), or pose a general request for clarification on this (could be messier). See also Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration#Guide to Arbitration (will be archived at some point). There may be earlier general discussions about the use of motions without opening a full case, but I haven't looked further yet. For specific discussion of the Bishzilla motion, see here and here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And here. Bishonen | talk 01:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seeking direction to location of previous discussions RE: Motions on rejected cases* 

message: Can someone help me file a request for arbitration? Various editors over the years have removed our links to our famous author interviews. These interviews are unique and many of the authors have won the Pulitzer Prize or the Nobel Prize in literature. I thought this issue had been settled last year, but just in the last few days more have been erased.
Wired for Books is an educational, noncommercial project of the WOUB Center for Public Media at Ohio University. Please refer to our web site, http://wiredforbooks.org .
Thank you for your assistance.
David Kurz
kurz@ohio.edu
Scribe711 (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You may wish to contact one of the clerks for assistance; but please note that, as a matter of policy, we do not normally make rulings on article contents.  — Coren (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wired for Books arbitration 

message: In light of the concerns expressed by numerous members of the community regarding the voting method selected for the CheckUser and Oversight elections, the Committee has amended the election policy to allow votes both for and against a candidate, and to specify appointments based on percentage of support rather than raw support.
The measure authorizing this amendment was passed 10/0:
* Supporting: Carcharoth, Casliber, Cool Hand Luke, Coren, FloNight, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, Roger Davies, Sam Blacketer, Wizardman
* Opposing: None
* Abstaining: None
* Not voting: FayssalF, Jayvdb, Newyorkbrad, Rlevse, Stephen Bain, Vassyana
It should additionally be noted that this matter was dealt with on a quite urgent basis, and a number of arbitrators have not yet had the opportunity to enter formal votes on the measure; we expect that the tally above will be updated once this has occurred.
For the Committee, Kirill [pf] 04:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  CheckUser and Oversight election policy amended 

message: Yo clerks, perhaps rootology's RfC on the recent elections ought to go in the Requests for clarification etc. template at the foot of WP:RFARB; several arbitrators have yet to reply. Sincerely, Skomorokh 08:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  CU/OS RfC 

message: Hi, I want to notice you to Černová tragedy article, where one editor (User:Hobartimus) frequently erased (from 30kB to 6kB for example) article updates by other editor's, when he hasn't like a content of their posts. So I ask, what am I supposed to do? --Empiko (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I'm not an arbitrator, I can tell you that ArbCom is the very last step in resolving problems. You should read through WP:Dispute resolution and follow the steps listed there. Franamax (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Černová Tragedy problem 

message: Would a few of you watchlist my talk page please, and block anybody who badgers me about WP:AE activities.  I now understand why admins don't want to do that job: every decision results in half a dozen nastygrams from tendentious editors.  If you want your decisions to have any meaning, they need to be enforced.  Without enforcers, you have no enforcement. Jehochman Talk 05:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Warned, and I'll keep an eye on it.  Not AC, just an admin R. Baley (talk) 05:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Well I'm not an Arb and I'm recused from Date delinking, so I can't help there, but I've watchlist your page for the pseudoscience/fringe stuff I can help out with. MBisanz talk 05:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ps, and I'll take a dim view of anything that interrupts my watching of Malcom in the Middle.  R. Baley (talk) 05:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

text: It might help if you didn't make bad blocks  Struck - this doesn't help, though I would like to call attention to the the block of Dabomb87. --NE2 05:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

text: May I also suggest that one reason why admins refrain from AE enforcing is that ArbCom has made a couple of very bad decisions over the last few months and has lost a lot of credit? Of course this goes hand in hand - if ArbCom does not reflect community consensus, then more people will tend to criticize actions taken on their behalf, and fewer people will defend admins that are being attacked. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just about every arbitration decision makes some people, and often a group of people, unhappy. The "you've lost credit and support in the community over this, you've made a terrible decision reflective of the old ArbCom" refrain is a typical line of criticism. I don't think it has much basis in evidence, but it may eventually. If you accumulate the disgruntled from each case into an RfC a few years down the road you'll likely end up with one that looks a lot like the 2008 ArbCom RfC. Hopefully the newly elected arbitrators had an inkling that they weren't going to sweep in and radically change elements of human nature. Avruch  T   12:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Not necessarily Stephan... I believe that the problem with AE is that pro-x or anti-y users find it easy to try to put enforcing admins into a cage especially that there is a shortage of admins there. That said, I'll be glad to listen to criticism concerning ArbCom decisions especially if criticism is not vague. I'd also be glad to hear about positive alternatives. But, please bear in mind that you'd always have polarized views. And whatever ArbCom decides you'll have a side criticizing and that is very natural. Some people may find some users very problematic while others may find them very productive —that depends from which angle you see it. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®  13:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a bit of criticism: the date delinking injunction is too ill-defined. --NE2 03:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Should it be more selective? Less selective? Could you please elaborate on that? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®  06:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be easier to interpret. --NE2 12:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks NE2. You are right... a simple interpretation would be like 'mass linking or delinking —be them made by bots or humans—  is not allowed, until further notice. Do not do it!' Talked to Newyorkbrad, Wizardman or any other arbitrator? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®  23:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I've also made a criticism on the RFArb page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please elaborate on that, Ncmvocalist? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up®  23:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello arbs, problem needs your help 

message: The Arbitration Committee receives a substantial amount of e-mail each day on its mailing list, arbcom-l.  To streamline the process of handling arbcom-l traffic and improve response times, the Committee has adopted a new procedure for handling incoming mail, which supersedes the current mailing list coordinator position.
The procedure was adopted by a 13/0 vote, with no abstentions:
* Support: Carcharoth, Casliber, Coren, FayssalF, FloNight, John Vandenberg, Kirill Lokshin, Newyorkbrad, Risker, Rlevse, Roger Davies, Sam Blacketer, Vassyana
* Oppose: None
* Abstain: None
* Not voting: Cool Hand Luke, Stephen Bain, Wizardman
The Committee wishes to thank Deskana for his diligence as mailing list coordinator over the past three months.  Deskana went above and beyond the call of duty in continuing to assist the Committee despite having no obligation to do so following his retirement; if not for his efforts, the Committee would be in a significantly worse position at the moment. 
For the Committee, Kirill [pf] 00:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Cross-posted by Tznkai (talk) on behalf of the Arbitration Committee 13:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New mail handling procedure 

message: On the behalf of all the participants in the date delinking arbitration, I would like to request that the ArbCom spend a little time on our case. I am well aware that there are several open cases at present, and that the arbitrators have a lot on their plates; however, we have now been locked in this arbitration for weeks with virtually no arbitrator presence beside a very few comments added some time ago by Cool Hand Luke. We are starting to get cabin fever.
Thank you. — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is some work going on in the background with regards to this case. I'm recused, so I can't get too involved, but I will bring your comment to the attention of the other arbitrators, and suggest some involvement at the workshop page. Carcharoth (talk) 04:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks. — Hex (❝?!❞) 11:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As an update, Newyorkbrad said to me that the arbs would reach a decision in a few days. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A proposed decision is on the way; voting can be quick or slow depending on how obvious the arbitrators find the case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have an estimate of when the proposed decision would be posted on the corresponding page? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I will check on this and make someone gets back to you. --Vassyana (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Hi, sorry about the delay.  I have been working on the PD, and it is moving forward, slowly.  There have been a few twists like the RFC and the bug fixes, and a few loose ends to understand. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, John, I'm just happy to hear that it is getting some attention. — Hex (❝?!❞) 14:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather the Arbs got it right than they hurry something forward; all the same, I am glad progress is being made. Is it possible to know roughly when the PD will be put forth? I've heard from one week to a month. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for involvement 

message: I've completed collecting and tabulating arbitration statistics for 2008. The data is posted here:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Statistics 2008
(The current year's data is here)
Some highlights follow.
The 2008 Arbitration Committee considered 255 requests, voted on 53 motions, publicly heard 38 cases, and drafted and voted on 841 case proposals.
There were 152 case requests, open on average for 4.6 days, with 67% declined, 23% accepted, 8% withdrawn, and two disposed of by motion. There were 103 clarifications and other requests, open on average for two weeks, with the longest duration being nearly three months. The motions were open on average for 12 days, with 47% passing. The cases were open on average for 39 days, with the longest being open for just over four months.
Here is a smattering of individual arb statistics. On case requests, Flo has the honor of having the highest voting percentage of 85, followed closely by Sam with 82 and Brad with 78, against an average of 41 and a low of 6. Kirill drafted almost half of the cases, Brad though missing for a quarter of the year, drafted nearly a quarter of the cases. Kirill, Sam and Flo each acted on about 95% of case proposals, compared with an average of 74 and a low of 42. Kirill, Brad and Flo were on average the quickest to act on case proposals. (On a personal note I find that on most measures I myself was solidly mediocre. There was one area however in which I did excel -- declining case requests -- which I did a remarkable 93% of the time. This might be  attributed either to judicial conservatism or laziness, take your pick.)
Having the 2008 data now allows comparison between years. For example the average case request duration is surprisingly the same for both years at 4.6 days. There are differences. For example, so far this year there have been 24 motions offered and voted on, versus only 53 for all of 2008.
Paul August ☎ 16:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitration statistics 2008 

message: Are those archived? I cannot find out where. And if no, why not? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  18:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They should be archived to the original case talk page (and the case page if a motion is made), is there an instance where this is missing? MBisanz talk 20:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving of clarification requests 

message: is still editing, after falsely claiming to be exercising a "right to vanish". I'd like to see the result of the arbcom case be upgraded to ensure that the only way he can regain adminship is via RFA. He has deliberately "disappeared" to avoid this happening which was inevitable. Majorly talk 13:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: He has made one edit thus far (and a number of vanished editors make it a point to still keep an eye on RfA). In any case, Motion 2 seems to be quite sufficient with "When User:Aitias returns to editing, he may contact the Committee and request the return of his adminship, which would trigger an additional ruling by the Committee about this current request for arbitration; or as an alternative, he may submit an RFA on his return to editing in lieu of a case." No need to restart the drama IMO, since the end result will be the same.Amalthea :  Chat   14:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I respect Amalthea's take, but additional evidence may be useful.  If anything counts as "not vanishing", it's an angry oppose vote at RFA.  I can't speak to Aitias's motives or what action ArbCom should take, but it just gives the uncomfortable impression of sniper fire from behind a rock.  He had a previous angry oppose shortly after he "vanished". - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 14:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Just to clarify this once and for all: I have not vanished. I am on wikibreak for an indefinite time (i.e. I do edit very considerably less than I used to) — and I have made that very clear off-wiki towards the Committee (a long time before those motions passed). However, this does not exclude me editing every now and then — I am perfectly entitled to that. Also, in case I want my bit back and feel like contributing to a case, I will inform the Committee about it. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 15:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you clarified. Now, with that, your ArbCom can proceed. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Aitas is under no obligation to do so; he may request that ArbCom proceed with the case (up to six months from the date of the motion) which might result in the return of his bit, or he can choose to run for RfA again at a time of his choice.  — Coren (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

text: One of your admin actions clearly said that you had vanished/were vanishing, not "going on a Wikibreak". Acalamari 15:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have already explained above, I have reconsidered shortly afterwards. But I have just explained all that above; perhaps you wish to read it. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 15:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No you didn't. You just said "I have not vanished" which is contradictory to your logs. Majorly talk 15:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I did read it: that's why I responded the way I did. Acalamari 16:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

text: The fact he is still able to seek adminship back without community approval is very worrying indeed, especially with the attitude displayed above. Majorly talk 15:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

text: It may be helpful to clarify -- as he obviously did -- that he retired under the cloud and his adminship recovery is no longer under the authority of the AC but the community, like any other clouded user. rootology (C)(T) 16:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: He didn't retire. He pretended to vanish, then ArbCom closed the case as they did, with the six month thing. He then returned and started making strong opposes on RFAs. The admin bit was taken, not given up. Majorly talk 16:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

text: If he requests adminship back within the next six months (measured from the date of the prior request), the Committee will discuss how this should be addressed. We might decide to open the case, or we might adopt a motion requiring a new RfA; at a minimum we would solicit community input which could be obtained at that time. If Aitias does not request adminship back within six months, then a new RfA would be mandatory. There is no prospect that Aitias will simply be resysopped without an opportunity for appropriate input. (Incidentally, I would prefer that the terminology "under a cloud", which has harsher overtones than are warranted by wiki-disputes, should not be used.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying, Brad. I just used the wording since it's the default one. rootology (C)(T) 16:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

text: (ec) He does not have admin tools and he will not get them back as far as I'm concerned without a case opening or a community vote at RFA. There is no need for a case now because he has not asked for the tools to be returned. If he does, then you will be quickly informed of his request, ok? Does that help reassure you that we are aware of your concerns and want you to have feedback about the matter? We truly are not trying to cut you or the Community out of the process. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I suggest go straight to case, as it was accepted at the time, and it would be a waste of time to reopen the request. I think the original request should be unarchived and included in the case pages, along with all 5 motions. My view. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

text: *The wording of the motion is to open the case. Use the original request's statements, and then notify those people per usual. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

text: *I tweaked the wording in the header to better match the proposal. Once the case opens the all motions can recorded there together. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aitias 

message: From what was said by Coren and Brad - does this mean that if an admin is put to Arb and simply decides to give his sysops (or have it taken away and not given back via a lack of requesting for it to be returned) then they can completely ignore Arbitration that was brought against them for the sum total of their actions? Being blocked, topic banned, or banned in general are options that go beyond simply desysopping. Allowing someone to lose their tools and hide doesn't seem to really prevent any harm to the encyclopedia. Shouldn't ArbCom be doing something to clarify this matter as to not set a very bad precedent? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification

message: I see the Aitias case is possibly being reopened. Are we going straight to case from here, or reopening the request, to go to case? Another possibility, is we can unarchive the original request, and append the motion.--Tznkai (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest go straight to case, as it was accepted at the time, and it would be a waste of time to reopen the request. I think the original request should be unarchived and included in the case pages, along with all 5 motions. My view. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

text: *The wording of the motion is to open the case. Use the original request's statements, and then notify those people per usual. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

text: *I tweaked the wording in the header to better match the proposal. Once the case opens the all motions can recorded there together. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Motion 5

message: In regards to the outcome of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride, I'd like the following pages restored:User:Allstarecho/bothhands, User:Allstarecho/lefthand and User:Allstarecho/righthand. All 3 were originally deleted by MZMcBride per csd t1, which only apply to template space, not userspace. Upon my restoration of all  pages, User:Ryan Postlethwaite took User:Allstarecho/lefthand to DRV, where deletion of that page was upheld, even though csd t1 policy did not apply and therefore the pages should have never been deleted in the first place and therefore, shouldn't have even been up for discussion at DRV. Additionally, the DRV thread only dealt with User:Allstarecho/lefthand and not User:Allstarecho/bothhands or User:Allstarecho/righthand but MZMcBride went on and deleted them as well anyway. Thanks. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 21:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there an encyclopedic reason to have those pages? It's hard to see how they'd help the project.   Will Beback  talk   21:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no remedy which states those pages need to be undeleted. That said, MZMcBride has said that he is willing to undelete any of those pages which people have dispute with. As such, I recommend you contact him on his talk page first, as would be the proper way to handle it in the first place. Tiptoety talk 21:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Aren't you forgetting that MZM is not capable of undeletion anymore since he resigned his adminship? -MBK004 21:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

text: @ Will - userspace doesn't have to be encyclopedic. And since MZMcBride isn't an admin currently, he can't restore the pages. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 21:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So why was this brought here as opposed to DRV or an administrator noticeboard? Are you trying to appeal the DRV community decision to ArbCom? Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the Arb pages says to bring it here, from what I read when researching the best place to post. It's associated with MZMcBride's arbcom in regards to his deletion of pages. And as I said above, it should have never went to DRV in the first place because of it being deleted under csd t1, which only applies to template space. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 21:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you really want the pages restored I'm sure any admin here will do so; though their next edit will almost certainly be to MfD the restored pages.  I don't see that as a particularly productive use of everyone's time, to be honest, especially as the DRV endorsed deletion even if it didn't endorse the deletion method. Black Kite 21:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Black Kite. Further, the case is closed - I don't believe it's ongoing, so I'm not sure that this talk page would be the venue according to those instructions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

text: To you maybe. They are totally related as the arbcom case specifically address his deletion of userpages as well as deletion of such userpages without any kind of notification. The community "consensus" is null and void since it should have never been on DRV in the first place because it never should have been deleted in the first place, at least not without MfD. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 21:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is process wonking for nothing. I've no idea what's on those pages. However, despite the fact the deletion was wrong procedurally, the community consensus at DRV was that they should NOT be restored. That's the end of it. If you think DRV got it wrong, go back and make your case for their merits again, but don't try an endrun around consensus by wonkery.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, community concensus at the DRV is void since it shouldn't have been there in the first place. MZMcBride's deletion of userspace pages was the jist of the arbcom case. How's that wonkery? Blah blah blah. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 22:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is textbook wonking.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Just nevermind, close this.. i'll recreate them myself. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 22:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if they were so bad that DRV declined to undelete, then please listen to consensus. Otherwise MfD is sure to kill them again.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Folks? I'm a little late mentioning this, I know, but wrong page.--Tznkai (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  MZMcBride 

message: To provide better monitoring and oversight, the Arbitration Committee has decided to establish an Audit Subcommittee, which will investigate complaints concerning the use of CheckUser and Oversight privileges on the English Wikipedia.  The subcommittee shall consist of three arbitrators appointed by the Committee and three editors elected by the community.  The Committee shall designate an initial slate of three editors until elections can be held.
The initial membership, the procedures for the subcommittee, and more details on the election process will be published in the near future.
For the Committee, Kirill [pf] 22:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audit Subcommittee established 

message: Since the new Macedonia case seems now unavoidable, I would like to make a very serious plea in advance: can we please, please have very tight surveillance of the case pages against disruptive debate behaviour? I am thinking of one particular user especially, , who has been all over Talk:Greece, Talk:Macedonia and related pages for weeks now, with an incessant stream of repetitive, petulant, aggressive and inane wikilawyering. If this user is allowed to swamp the Arbcom pages with the same type of material, no rational discussion among other users will be possible. When this page goes ahead I will demand some space somewhere where I can converse with reasonable people in a reasonable fashion without this person's permanent bile, or I will have no part in the process. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is exactly the type of threats and intimidation I allude to in my statement. This person is preemptively trying to discredit my opinion and the evidence I will present.--Avg (talk) 17:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll want to talk to the case clerks (Tiptoety and Knightlago) about this, who I expect will make fairly clear what conduct is acceptable and what is not.--Tznkai (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I think we shouldn't discourage anyone from participating (or allow anyone to feel that they can't participate effectively). Perhaps the clerks could look at some way of ensuring that any threaded discussions are actively managed to ensure that they don't get out of hand. I feel that the main focus should be on the presentations of evidence, proposed principles and findings of fact, without bogging down in threaded wrangling between editors. The current Samaria case evidence talk page is a perfect example of how it should not be done. Do we actually need threaded discussions in the first place? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discipline during Arbcom hearings